Where do you find fructose?

14. July 2009 William Davis (25)
Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g




Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons



Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient
Ingredients: High Fructose Corn Syrup, Vinegar, Concentrated Tomato Juice (Water, Tomato Paste), Water, Modified Food Starch, Salt, Honey, Contains Less Than 2% of Molasses, Natural Flavor, Paprika, Spice, Mustard Flour, Guar Gum, Red 40.



A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient
Ingredients: Tomato puree (water, tomato paste), high fructose corn syrup, vinegar, salt, water dried onions, contains less than 2% of black pepper, modified food starch, citric acid, dried parsley, dried garlic, xanthan gum, caramel color, potassium sorbate and calcium disodium EDTA as preservatives, molasses, corn syrup, sugar, spices, tamarind, natural flavor

Do heart scans cause cancer?

14. July 2009 William Davis (3)
Another in a series of data extrapolations that attempt to predict long-term cancer risk from medical radiation exposure was published in the July 13, 2009 Archives of Internal Medicine, viewable here.

Over the years, I've fussed about the radiation dose used by some centers for CT heart scans. (Note: I'm talking about CT heart scans, not CT coronary angiograms, an entirely different test with different radiation exposure.) In the "old" days, when electron-beam devices (EBT) were the best on the block, the old single-slice CT scanners (the predecessor of the current 64-slice MDCT scanners) exposed patients to ungodly quantities of radiation, while the EBT devices required very small quantities (0.5 mSv or about the equivalent of 4 standard chest x-rays or one mammogram).

But CT technology has advanced considerably. While EBT has been phased out (although it was an exceptional technology, GE acquired the small California manufacturer, then promptly scrapped the operation; you can guess why), multi-detector CT (MDCT) technology has improved in speed, image quality, and radiation exposure.

While it has improved, radiation exposure still remains an issue. The authors of the study applied the scanning protocols used at three hospitals and those in several CT heart scan studies, then calculated radiation exposure. They found a more than ten-fold range of exposure, from 0.8 mSv to 10.5 mSv. (All scanners were MDCT, none EBT.)

That's precisely what I've been worrying about: In the rapid rush to develop new devices, radiation exposure has often been a neglected issue. While some scan centers do an excellent job and take steps to minimize exposure, others barely lift a finger and consequently expose their patients to unnecessary radiation.

However, it's not as bad as it sounds. For one, the study included 16-slice MDCT scanners, a scanner type that I warned people to not use because of radiation. On the current most popular 64-slice devices, much lower radiation exposure is possible, on the order of 0.8-1.2 mSv routinely--if the center takes the effort.

This study, while eye-opening, will achieve some good: CT heart scans are here to stay. But the day-to-day practice of heart scanning should be:

1) standardized
2) conducted with radiation exposure as low as possible, preferably <0.8 mSv


To read more about this issue, below I've reprinted a 2007 full Track Your Plaque Special Report, CT Heart Scans and Radiation: The Real Story.




CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

“My personal opinion is that many patients today who are receiving multiple CT scans may well be getting at least comparable doses to subjects that have now developed malignancies from x-ray radiation received in the 1930s and '40s. And, similar to those days when the doses were unknown, the dose that patients receive today over a course of years of multiple CT scans is also completely unknown . . .

“I recommend that all healthcare providers become familiar with the concept that 1 in 1000 CT studies of the chest, abdomen, or pelvis may result in cancer.”

Richard C. Semelka, MD
Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology
University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill



Is this just hype to generate headlines? Or is the truth buried in the enormous marketing clout of the medical device industry, among which the imaging device manufacturers reign supreme?

It’s been over 110 years since radiation was first used for medical imaging. Over those years, it has had its share of misadventures.

In the 1930s and 1940s, before the dangers of radiation were recognized, shoe shoppers had shoes fitted using an x-ray device of the foot to assess fit. High doses of radiation were used to shrink enlarged tonsils and extinguish overactive thyroid glands. Attitudes towards radiation were so lax that doctors commonly permitted themselves to be exposed without protection day after day, year after year, until an unexpected rise in blood cancers like leukemia was observed. As recently as the 1970s and 1980s, cancers like Hodgkins’ disease were treated with high doses of radiation, also leading to radiation-induced diseases decades later.

Not all radiation is bad. Radiation can also be used as a therapeutic tool and even today remains a useful and reasonably effective method to reduce the size, sometimes eliminate, certain types of cancer. Forty percent of people with cancer now receive some form of radiation as part of their treatment (Ron E 2003).


Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

Estimates vary, but most experts estimate that medical imaging provides approximately 15% of total lifetime exposure. In other words, radiation exposure from medical imaging is simply a small portion of total exposure that develops over the years of life. Exposure can be much higher, however, in a specific individual who undergoes repeated radiation imaging or treatment of one sort or another.

For all of us, exposure to medical radiation is part of lifetime exposure from multiple sources, added to the radiation we receive from the world around us. Just by living on earth, we are exposed to radiation from space and naturally-occurring radioactive compounds, and receive somewhere around 3.0 mSv per year (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). (Doses for radiation exposure are commonly expressed in milliSieverts, mSv, a measure that reflects whole-body radiation exposure.) People living in high-altitude locales like Colorado get exposed to an additional 30–50% ambient radiation (1.0–1.5 mSv more per year).

Much of the information on radiation exposure comes from studies like the Life Span Study that, since 1961, has tracked 120,000 Japanese exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs dropped in 1945 (Preston DL et al 2003). Although regarded as a high-dose exposure study for obvious reasons, there are actually thousands of people in this study who were exposed to lesser quantities of radiation (because of distance from the bomb sites) who still display a “dose-response” increased risk for cancer many years later in life. Radiation exposures of as little as 5–20 mSv showed a slight increase in lifetime risk.

Occupational and excessive medical exposure to radiation also provides a “laboratory” to examine radiation risk. Miners exposed to radon gas; patients exposed to the imaging agent, Thorotrast, containing radioactive isotope thorium dioxide and used as an x-ray contrast agent in the 1930s and 1940s and possesses the curious property of lingering in the body for over 30 years after administration; radium injections administered between 1945 and 1955 to treat diseases like ankylosing spondylitis and tuberculosis, all provide researchers an opportunity to study the long-term effects of various types of radiation exposure over many years (Harrison JD et al 2003).

The excess exposure of workers and several hundred thousand nearby residents to the Mayak nuclear plant in Russia has also revealed a “dose-response” relationship, with increasing exposure leading to more cancers, including leukemia and solid cancers of the bone, liver, and lung (Shilnikova NS et al 2003). Nuclear waste released into the Techa river between 1948 and 1956 contaminated drinking water used by over 100,000 Russians. A plant explosion in 1957 also released an excess of radiation into the atmosphere, yielding exposure via inhalation. Some sources estimate that at least 272,000 people have been affected by radiation from the Mayak plant. This unfortunate situation has, however, yielded plenty of data on radiation exposure and its long-term effects.

It’s also been known for several decades that people who receive therapeutic radiation for treatment of cancer, even with the reduced doses now employed, are subject to increased risk of a second cancer consequent to the radiation treatment.

From experiences like this, radiation experts estimate that an exposure of 10 mSv increases a population’s risk for cancer by 1 in 1000 (Semelka RC et al 2007).

This question was recently thrust into the spotlight with publication of a study from Columbia University in New York suggesting that a 20-year old woman would be exposed to a lifetime risk of cancer as high as 1 in 143 consequent to the radiation received during a CT coronary angiogram. (Important note: This was estimated risk from a CT coronary angiogram, not a simple heart scan that we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program.) The risk at the low end of the spectrum would be in an 80-year old man (because of the shorter period of time to develop cancer), with a risk of 1 in 5017. If “gating” to the EKG is added (which many scan centers do indeed perform nowadays), risk for a 60-year old woman is estimated at 1 in 715; risk for a 60-year old male, 1 in 1911 (Einstein AJ et al 2007). This study generated some criticism, since it did not directly involve human subjects, but used “phantoms” or x-ray dummies to simulate x-ray exposure. Nonetheless, the point was made: CT coronary angiograms in current practice do indeed expose the patient to substantial quantities of radiation, sufficient to pose a lifetime risk of cancer.


The media frenzy

The NY Times ran an article called With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests in which they stated:

"According to a new study, the per-capita dose of ionizing radiation from clinical imaging exams in the United States increased almost 600 percent from 1980 to 2006. In the past, natural background radiation was the leading source of human exposure; that has been displaced by diagnostic imaging procedures, the authors said."

“This is an absolutely sentinel event, a wake-up call,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., principal investigator for the study, by the National Council on Radiation Protection. “Medical exposure now dwarfs that of all other sources.”

Radiation is a widely used imaging tool in medicine. Although CT scans of the brain, bones, chest, abdomen, and pelvis account for only 5% of all medical radiation procedures, they are responsible for nearly 50% of medical radiation used. It’s been known for years that increasing radiation exposure increases cancer risk over many years, but the boom of newer, faster devices that provide more detailed images has opened the floodgates to expanded use of CT scanners.

But before we join in the hysteria, let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:


Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

Head CT 1 – 2 mSv
Pelvis CT 3 – 4 mSv
Chest CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen/pelvis CT 8 – 11 mSv
Coronary CT angiography 5 – 12 mSv


Non-CT

Hand radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Chest radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Mammogram 0.3 – 0.6 mSv
Barium enema exam 3 – 6 mSv
Coronary angiogram 5 – 10 mSv
Sestamibi myocardial perfusion (per injection) 6 – 9 mSv
Thallium myocardial perfusion (per injection) 26 – 35 mSv

Source: Cynthia H. McCullough, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN


A plain, everyday chest x-ray, providing less than 0.1 mSv exposure, provides about the same quantity of radiation exposure as flying in an airplane for four hours, or the same amount of radiation from exposure to our surroundings for 11–12 days. Similar exposure arises from dental x-rays.

If you have a heart scan on an EBT device, then your exposure is 0.5-0.6 mSv, roughly the same as a mammogram or several standard chest x-rays.

With a heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, exposure is ideally around 1.0-2.0 mSv, about the same as 2-3 mammograms, though dose can vary with this technology depending on how it is performed (gated to the EKG, device settings, etc.)

CT coronary angiography presents a different story. This is where radiation really escalates and puts the radiation exposure issue in the spotlight. As Dr. Cynthia McCullough's chart shows above, the radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms is 5-12 mSv, the equivalent of 100 or more chest x-rays or 20 mammograms. Now, that's a problem.

The exposure is about the same for a pelvic or abdominal CT. The problem is that some centers are using CT coronary angiograms as screening procedures and even advocating their use annually. This is where the alarm needs to be sounded. These tests, as wonderful as the information and image quality can be, are not screening tests. Just like a pelvic CT, they are diagnostic tests done for legitimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

It’s also worth giving second thought to any full body scan you might be considering. These screening studies include scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. These scans, performed for screening, expose the recipient to approximately 10 mSv of radiation (Radiological Society of North American, 2007). Debate continues on whether the radiation exposure is justified, given the generally asymptomatic people who generally undergo these tests.

Always be mindful of your radiation exposure, as the NY Times article rightly advises. However, don't be so frightened that you are kept from obtaining truly useful information from, for instance, a CT heart scan (not angiography) at a modest radiation cost.


Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

Unfortunately, practicing physicians and those involved in providing CT scans are generally unconcerned with radiation exposure. The majority, in fact, are entirely unaware of the dose of radiation required for most CT scan studies and unaware of the cancer risk involved. It is therefore up to the individual to insist on a discussion of the type of scanner being used, the radiation dose delivered (at least in general terms), the necessity of the test, alternative methods to obtain the same diagnostic information, all in the context of lifetime radiation exposure.

Our concerns about radiation exposure all boil down to concern over lifetime risk for cancer, a disease that strikes approximately 20% of all Americans. Many factors contribute to cancer risk, including obesity, excessive saturated fat intake, low fiber intake, lack of vitamin D, repeated sunburns, excessive alcohol use, smoking, exposure to pesticides and other organochemicals, asbestos and other industrial exposures, electromagnetic wave exposure, and genetics. Radiation is just one source of risk, though to some degree a controllable one.

Some people, on hearing this somewhat disturbing discussion, refuse to ever have another medical test requiring radiation. That’s the wrong attitude. It makes no more sense than wearing lead shielding on your body 24 hours a day to reduce exposure from the atmosphere. Taken in the larger context of life, radiation exposure is just one item on a list of potentially harmful factors.

It is, however, worth some effort to minimize radiation exposure over your lifetime, particularly before age 60, and by submitting to high-dose testing only when truly necessary, or when the potential benefits outweigh the risks. Thus, with heart scans and CT coronary angiography, some thought to the potential benefits of knowing your score or the information gained from the CT angiogram need to be considered before undergoing the test. Often the practical difficulty, of course, is that your risk for heart disease simply cannot be known until after the test.

In our view, in the vast majority of instances a simple CT heart scan can serve the simple but crucial role of quantifying risk for heart attack and atherosclerotic plaque. CT heart scans yield this information with less than a tenth of the radiation exposure of a CT coronary angiogram. In people without symptoms and a normal stress test, there is rarely a need for CT coronary angiography with present day levels of radiation exposure. Perhaps as technology advances and the radiation required to generate images is reduced, then we should reconsider.

Early experiences are suggesting that the newest 256-slice scanners, now being developed but not yet available, will cut the dose exposure of 64-slice CT angiograms in half (from 27.8 mSv to 14.1 mSv in a recent Japanese study). The 256-slice scanners will allow scanning that is faster over a larger area in a given period of time.

Thankfully, the scanner manufacturers are increasingly sensitive to the radiation issue and have been working on methods to reduce radiation exposure. However, it still remains substantial.


References:
Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007 Jul 18;298(3):317–323.

Harrison JD, Muirhead CR. Quantitative comparisons of cancer induction in humans by internally deposited radionuclides and external radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 2003 Jan;79(1):1–13.

Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzyky M et al. Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. Circulation 2006;113:1305–1310.

Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard J, Saini S. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619–628.

Mayo JR, Aldrich J, Müller NL. Radiation exposure at chest CT: A statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2003; 228:15–21.

Mori S, Nishizawa K, Kondo C, Ohno M, Akahane K, Endo M. Effective doses in subjects undergoing computed tomography cardiac imaging with the 256-multislice CT scanner. Eur J Radiol 2007 Jul 10; [Epub ahead of print].

Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Ron E, Mabuchi K. Dose response and temporal patterns of radiation-associated solid cancer risks. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):43–46.

Ron E. Cancer risks from medical radiation. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):47–59.

Shilnikova NS, Preston DL, Ron E et al. Cancer mortality risk among workers at the Mayak nuclear complex. Radiation Res 2003 Jun;159(6):787–798.

Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, Huda W. Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007 May;25(5):900–9090.


Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

Goodbye, fructose

12. July 2009 William Davis (35)
A carefully-conducted study by a collaborative research group at University of California-Berkeley has finally closed the lid on the fuss over fructose vs. glucose and its purported adverse effects.

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation--3% increased intra-abdominal fat with glucose; 14.4% with fructose. (Intraabdominal fat is the variety that blocks insulin responses and causes diabetes and inflammation.)

2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol but double the increase for Apoprotein B (an index of the number of LDL particles, similar to NMR LDL particle number).

3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, compared to 13.3% with glucose.

4) While glucose (curiously) reduced the net postprandial (after-eating) triglyceride response (area under the curve, AUC), fructose increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.


The authors propose that fructose specifically increases liver VLDL production, the lipoprotein particle that yields abnormal after-eating particles, increased LDL, and provides building blocks to manufacture small LDL particles. The authors also persuasively propose that fructose metabolism, unlike glucose, is not inhibited (via feedback loop) by energy intake, i.e., it's as if you are always starving.

Add to this the data that show that fructose increases uric acid (that causes gout and may act as a coronary risk factor), induces leptin resistance, causes metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes), and increases appetite, and it is clear that fructose is yet another common food additive that, along with wheat, is likely a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic.

Fructose is concentrated, of course, in high-fructose corn syrup, comprising anywhere from 42-90% of total weight. Fructose also composes 50% of sucrose (table sugar). Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose).

Also, beware of low-fat or non-fat salad dressings (rich with high-fructose corn syrup), ketchup, beer, fruit drinks, fruit juices, all of which are rich sources of this exceptionally fattening, metabolism-bypassing, LDL cholesterol/small LDL/ApoB increasing compound. Ironically, this means that many low-fat foods meant to reduce cholesterol actually increase it when they contain fructose in any form.

When you hear or say "fructose," run the other way, regardless of what the Corn Refiners Association says.

The statin-free life

8. July 2009 William Davis (20)
Matt came to me because his doctor couldn't reduce his LDL cholesterol.

His doctor had prescribed Zocor (simvastatin), Lipitor, Crestor, even pravastatin, all of which resulted in incapacitating muscle aches and weakness within a week of starting. No surprise, Matt had a jaundiced view of statin drugs.

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

--72% of LDL was small LDL, a moderately severe pattern. (This means that small LDL comprised 112 mg/dl of the total 155 mg/dl LDL; large LDL comprised 43 mg/dl--small LDL was the problem.)

--HDL 42 mg/dl --Triglycerides 133 mg/dl

--No lipoprotein(a)

Beyond lipoproteins, Matt proved severely deficient in vitamin D with a starting level of 18 ng/ml.

Matt's doctor had advised that he avoid salt, as his blood pressure had been borderline high. His thyroid assessment disclosed a TSH of 3.89 mIU/ml with thyroid hormones free T3 and free T4 in the lower half of the normal range.

I therefore asked Matt to:

--Eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars to reduce small LDL
--Add iodine
--Supplement 6000 units of an oil-based vitamin D preparation
--Take fish oil to provide at least 1800 mg EPA + DHA per day
--Take Armour Thyroid 1 grain per day


Several months later on this program, Matt had a repeat basic lipid panel:

--LDL 82 mg/dl--a 47% reduction

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

--Triglycerides 60 mg/dl--a 55% decrease

In addition, vitamin D was 66 ng/ml, TSH was <1.0 mIU/ml with free T3 and free T4 in the upper half of the "reference range." Matt also felt great.

While the numbers could be slightly better, Matt had made tremendous progress towards achieving perfect values.

There you have it: Marked correction of cholesterol values, no statin drugs involved.

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

5. July 2009 William Davis (29)
Even if you’re not interested in building big muscles like a bodybuilder, there are health benefits to increasing muscle mass: increased bone density, better balance, and fewer injuries. Greater muscle mass means higher metabolic rate, improved insulin responsiveness, lower blood sugar. The inevitable loss of muscle mass of aging can lead to frailty, an increasingly common situation for the elderly. Muscle loss be reversed, health improved as a result.

Since its introduction in 1994, creatine has exploded in popularity, particularly among bodybuilders and athletes interested in gaining muscle mass and strength. But creatine is not just for young weight lifters. If you are just interested in increasing muscle mass for its health benefits, then creatine is something to consider.

A study of creatine supplementation in men, average age 70 years, demonstrated that, when creatine was combined with strength training, it increased muscle mass 250% better than placebo (7.26 lb muscle vs 2.86 lb muscle), along with improved leg strength and endurance. The same group also demonstrated 3.2% increased bone density (measured using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) after 12 weeks in participants taking creatine with strength training, while the control (no strength training, no creatine) group decreased by 1.0%.

Benefits are not confined to men. Similar results were observed in another study that included women (age 65 and older), with outcomes in females comparable to males. This is especially important for females, given the common development of osteopenia and osteoporosis in postmenopausal females.

Other studies have shown that benefits are maintained after stopping creatine supplementation.

The most popular form of creatine is the monohydrate, generally taken as a “loading” phase of 15-20 grams per day (generally split into 3-4 doses of 5 grams) for 5-7 days, followed by weeks to months of 2-5 grams per day.

An alternative form, polyethylene glycosylated creatine (PEG-creatine) provides similar effects at one-fourth to one-half the dose of creatine, i.e., 1.25-2.5 grams per day.

Despite previous concerns about kidney toxicity with prolonged use, another study showed that athletes taking creatine for up to 21 months have shown no adverse effects on kidney function, lipid (cholesterol) values, or other basic health measures.

Having healthy muscle mass doesn't make you bulge like a bodybuilder. With modest

Is it mainstream or alternative?

24. May 2006 William Davis (0)
A question I get about once a week: "Is your program a kind of alternative medicine?"

Our program for control and reversal of coronary plaque using CT heart scans applies an eclectic panel of tools to achieve its goals. We use high-tech methods like lipoprotein analysis and CT heart scans; nutritional supplements like fish oil, vitamin D, and l-arginine; diet strategies and "functional foods" (using foods as a therapeutic tool); and conventional medication.

I don't consider this approach "alternative" in the sense that it uses unmeasurable or spiritual strategies. But I don't consider it mainstream, either, since current mainstream practice of heart disease prevention is far less rigorous with far less satisfactory results.

I think I can sum up the Track Your Plaque approach by saying that we use tools that work. Our measure of success is whether or not your heart scan score is stopped or reduced--that's hard to fudge. You can call it what you will, but I call it the best program for heart disease prevention I know of, alternative or mainstream.

Want to see someone turn diabetic?

24. May 2006 William Davis (0)
If you want to witness the transformation of someone into a pre-diabetic or diabetic, put them on a low fat diet.

Dr. Dean Ornish's program, detailed in his books, Dr. Dean Ornish's Program for Reversal of Heart Disease and Eat More, Weigh Less , are woefully outdated in 2006. Yet the low fat notion continues to show up in the consciousness of people I talk to about heart disease reversal.

"I'm already on a low fat diet. Do you think my heart scan score has reversed?"

Highly unlikely. What Dr. Ornish (as a non-cardiologist, by the way) failed to recognize is that what he did manage to reverse in a small number of people is something called "endothelial dysfunction", but he did not reverse or shrink coronary plaque.

Given the limitations of technology when the Ornish concept got its start, it appeared as if reversal was obtained. In reality, all his approach accomplished was a relaxation in tone of abnormally constricted arteries, thus giving the appearance of reversal. Increased artery tone, or endothelial dysfunction, is extremely common when atherosclerotic plaque is present.

Any cardiologist will tell you that there are many ways to reverse endothelial dysfunction: exercise, weight loss, cholesterol drugs, drugs for high blood pressure, fish oil, hormonal therapy, vitamin C, l-arginine, etc. There is nothing special about a low fat diet.

In fact, Track Your Plaque followers will recognize that a low fat diet is, in fact, potentially harmful, particularly when low HDL or small LDL is part of your pattern.

Let's bury the outdated ideas of the Ornish low fat diet once and for all. It doesn't work. All it may do is confuse you and set you back from your real coronary plaque reversal program.

Inulin: A fiber for weight loss

23. May 2006 William Davis (10)
Here's an interesting product that seems to be gaining some popularity for weight loss: Inulin.

Not to be confused with "insulin", with which it is completely unrelated, inulin is a naturally-occurring plant fiber. It's found in broccoli, asparagus, celery, etc. Like beta-glucan from oats or pectin, inulin is a so-called soluble fiber, a fiber that assumes a gel-like consistency when exposed to water.

Inulin has the effect of increasing satiety, or the sensation of fullness. This cuts your craving for foods. I've tried it recently and I prefer it over glucomannan, another soluble fiber for satiety.

The people at Stonyfield Farms have been adding inulin to their yogurts from some time. The nutritionist at the company tells me that there's 2-3 grams of inulin per 6 ounce container of their yogurt.

You can also find inulin as a supplement that you can add to foods, available from some health food stores and online supplement companies. I came across a neat product called Fiber Choice that's now being distributed widely throughout the U.S. I tried their Weight Management version. It was a delicous strawberry taste. The label says take two chewable tablets twice a day, but I found that two tablets three times a day somewhat better. It's best taken around 30-60 minutes prior to each meal and it causes you to be fuller with less food. One caution: It'll cause loads of gas, especially in the beginning. For that reason, you might try starting with a smaller dose, or start on the weekends when you have the option of some privacy!

More info on the Fiber Choice product can be found at their website, http://www.fiberchoice.com.

Disclaimer: I have no relationship with the manufacturer of this product. I'm simply passing on some thoughts on my experience with this interesting possibility for weight loss.

Will you recognize the truth when you see it?

23. May 2006 William Davis (0)
Do you ever wonder that, if the truth were given to you, that you'd recognize it as such? Or would you dismiss it as just another bunch of nonsense?

After all, you and I live in the Information Age. It means that we have access to mountains of information like never before in human history. But it also means that the truth is often drowned out by an avalanche of mis-truths, sales pitches and marketing, and just plain nonsense.

This struck me the other day when I was talking to a patient.

64 years old with a high heart scan score placing her at significant risk, she looked confused. I'd just described the multitude of causes of coronary plaque that we'd uncovered. The heart scan alone had been a shocker.

"I don't understand. My doctor told me that I had nothing to worry about. I've known him for years and he knows me really well. He did a stress test. That was fine. I don't get all this other stuff you're telling me--lipoprotein whatever..."

Despite my efforts to help her gain an understanding of our intensive approach, she just became increasingly more frustrated. "I just don't think I can do this."

That's the last I've heard from her. As far as I know, she's returned to the comfort of her family doctor who has reassured her over the years. And perhaps there's some good in that. But I do fear for the day when, unexpectedly, she suffers some catastrophe that we told her was coming sooner or later unless real preventive efforts were started.

You could say that she failed to recognize the truth when it was given to her-- boldly, unadorned, and with far greater scientific certainty than the casual reassurances she was accustomed to. But, unfortunately, that's all that some people want.

Don't neglect the basics in your heart disease reversal program

23. May 2006 William Davis (0)
Carl loved new ideas and novel approaches. You could tell by the sheer number of nutritional supplements he took. His list had grown to 18 different supplements over the past two years.

Carl came to me for coronary plaque regression. Lipoprotein analysis did uncover several previously unsuspected abnormalties, most notably small LDL particles and lipoprotein(a). In addition, Carl's LDL cholesterol ranged between 111 mg-156 mg and he was clearly hypertensive, with systolic blood pressures consistently around 150-160. (Recall that people with Lp(a) are more prone to hypertension.)

Carl was more than willing to have his lipoprotein(a) reduced. We did so with niacin and testosterone and the level dropped to near zero. Likewise, we corrected his small LDL pattern with niacin, fish oil, and a reduction in processed carbohydrates.

But Carl really resisted doing much about his LDL cholesterol and high blood pressure. I got the sense that these "boring" issues simply didn't interest him. After all, LDL cholesterol and blood pressure were the stuff of TV commercials and the popular conversation propagated by drug companies.

Carl's follow-up heart scan, however, finally persuaded him: a 24% increase in one year, likely due to the neglect of the basic issues.

I liken Carl's case to being like the teenager with a new car who polishes the paint to a bright finish, puts new wheels and tires on it, spruces up the interior with various doodads--but then fails to change the oil. Sometimes it's the most basic issues that can diminish your success.

Issues like LDL cholesterol and high blood pressure aren't the most glamorous, but they do count in your coronary plaque control program.

Is your doctor a hospital employee?

21. May 2006 William Davis (0)
There's a disturbing trend that's growing--silently but rapidly.

In Milwaukee, three hospital systems compete for the local health care dollar. To gain more control over revenues and the routing of patients, the hospitals are aggressively hiring physicians to work for them. I've witnessed many of my cardiology colleagues, primary care doctors, and a substantial number of procedural specialists enticed by the offers made by hospital employers.

This phenomenon is not unique to Milwaukee but is being used in many, perhaps most, major cities in the U.S.

This means that physicians are employees of the hospital. That way, employee-physicians are obliged to use only the hospital system that employs them. In the old days, your doctor could use any hospital he/she desired, depending on the quality, location, facilities, etc. Now, many physician-employees are given no choice but to use the hospital that pays their salary.

That by itself is not necessarily bad. But combine salary with incentives for bringing in patients for hospitalization and procedures--that the rub. In other words, physician-employees are incentivized to generate more revenue for the system, just as employees in many other industries.

If you're a salesman for an insurance company, your job is to bring in more business. If you're a worker on an auto production line, you're expected to meet certain quotas. These same principles are now being applied to many physicians.

How does this affect you? Well, if your physician--especially procedure-driven specialists like cardiologists, general surgeons, orthopedists, etc.--is a hospital employee, BEWARE! Do you really need that procedure, or is your doctor suggesting you have a procedure because it will add to his track record?

Prevention? In this model of health care, why bother? It certainly doesn't pay for a hospital to keep you well. Then why should your physician-employee?

Be careful who you're dealing with. If your physician is a hospital-employee, don't bet on getting preventive care. It's more likely you're that just a future source of revenue when it's time for your bypass operation, hip replacement, carotid endarterectomy, etc.

What more powerful argument is there for increased self-empowerment and information for health care consumers?

Take a walking vacation

20. May 2006 William Davis (1)
If you're planning a vacation, why not consider a walking vacation?

The concept is really taking off. All you need is a pair of comfortable shoes and an interesting locale. More and more services are popping up to help you plan fun and interesting destinations and itineraries. One such catalog can be found at http://walking.about.com/od/tours/a/walkingvacation_3.htm

Lengthier walks may require some advance planning and toting some supplies. Don't forget the water!

From a health viewpoint, a walking vacation sure beats the heck out of a cruise that packs on 12 pounds of extra weight from the 24-hour a day buffet. If you're in the midst of a weight loss effort, several hours of walking through interesting locales and scenery can make it effortless.

There's loads of neat places to visit from a walker's perspective. One interesting website is www.waterfallwalks.com that lists trails that provide spectacular views of waterfalls.

Another variation on this theme is biking vacations. My wife and I are trying to set the time aside for a biking tour of wineries in the French countryside. That's our kind of multi-tasking!

"Expanded indications for implantable defibrillators"

19. May 2006 William Davis (0)
So reads the headline on a magazine I received recently (along with thousands of my colleagues) from a major hospital system.

It goes on to say: "In January 2005, indications for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) were substantially broadened [emphasis ours] to include most patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. This change translates into a 2- to 3-fold increase in the number of Medicare beneficiariries eligible for ICDs."

Ka-ching!!! Hear the money piling up in the bank?

The device manufacturers are constantly churning data and lobbying for reimbursement to expand the use of their devices to more and more people. Defibrillators in particularly are generally a $25,000 to $50,000 opportunity for the device manufacturer alone, not counting the costs incurred at the hospital for implantation.

Beware. As reimbursement for stents and other procedures diminishes, expect a sudden "demand" for more and more people to get implantable defibrillators. Better yet, stay away from the whole issue by preventing your heart attack.

Get a heart scan--but then don't delay taking action!

19. May 2006 William Davis (2)
I just came from one of the local hospitals after having performed a heart catheterization on a patient I met earlier this week.

Jack had gotten a heart scan a year ago with a score of 246, placing him in the 76th percentile. The "event" rate with this percentile rank is around 3% per year--not very high but enough to pose risk over a long period.

Jack chose to ignore his score. After all, the pressures of work at the University, maintaining his home and yard, etc. consumed all his energies. He came to my office--now one year after his scan--and told me about the chest pressure he was getting. Initially, his chest pains occurred with extended walking. In the past week, however, Jack was experiencing chest pressure with just walking 30 feet.

This pattern of increasing symptoms is called "accelerated angina", meaning that Jack was rapidly heading towards a heart attack. So I advised a heart catheterization in near future.

Jack's catheterization showed extensive plaque including a 50% blockage in the mainstem artery and 90% in the artery to the front of the heart (left anterior descending artery). Jack is going to have a bypass operation tomorrow.

What if Jack hadn't ignored his heart scan from a year ago? Well, I'd be very confident in saying that he would not be undergoing bypass surgery tomorrow.

The lesson: Don't dilly-dally on taking action to keep your plaque from growing. While it's not an emergency, it can easily become one if you choose to ignore your scan.

Feel that nudge in your back?

17. May 2006 William Davis (0)
You feel that nudge in your back? That's your local hospitals competing for your bypass surgery business.

Just this morning while watching a morning news show, I saw three advertisements for hospital bypass surgery programs. One ad featured a man in his 50s telling his story:"The cardiologist determined immediately that I needed a triple bypass operation. My family and I are very grateful to _____ hospital!"

In what other field is failure celebrated so prominently? When I see these ads, I hear "My doctors failed to provide early detection and then prevent what became a life-threatening condition, even though heart disease is a chronic process that requires decades to develop." What if our man said instead,"I had a heart scan and my score was high. So I was shown why I had so much plaque. They then showed me how to control and even reduce the amount of plaque I had. I'm living safely and symptom-free without need for surgery or procedures."

Of course, the hospital is out $60,000-100,000 for the surgery. How else could they afford ad campaigns costing several million dollars a year? See these advertisements for what they are: Marketing generated by profit-seeking businesses competing for your dollars--lots of them.
Paleo Diet Blog, just launched in November, 2009.

Even mummies do it

20. November 2009 William Davis (16)

Lady Rai, nursemaid to Queen Nefertari of Egypt, died in 1530 BC, somewhere between the age of 30 and 40 years. Her mummy is preserved in the Egyptian National museum of Antiquities in Cairo.

A CT scan of her thoracic aorta revealed calcium, representing aortic atherosclerosis, reported by Allam et al (including my friend from The Wisconsin Heart Hospital, Dr. Sam Wann, who provided me a blow-by-blow tale of this really fascinating project). Ladi Rai and 14 other Egyptian mummies were found to have vascular calcification of a total of 22 mummies scanned. (The hearts of the mummies were too degenerated to make out any coronary calcium.)

But why would people of that age have developed atherosclerosis?

The authors of the study comment that "Our findings that atherosclerosis was not infrequent among middle-aged and older ancient Egyptians of high social status challenges the view that it is a disease of modern humans. . . Although ancient Egyptians did not smoke tobacco or eat processed food or presumably lead sedentary lives, they were not hunter-gatherers. [Emphasis mine.] Agriculture was well established in ancient Egypt and meat consumption appers to have been common among those of high social status."

Fascinating. But I don't think that I'd blame meat consumption. Egyptians were also known to have cultivated grains, including wheat, and frequently consumed such sweet delicacies as dates and figs. Egyptians were also apparently beer drinkers. Unfortunately, no beer steins were seen in any of the scans.

Life Extension article on iodine

17. November 2009 William Davis (25)
Here's a link to my recent article in Life Extension Magazine on iodine:

Halt on Salt Sparks Iodine Deficiency

Iodized salt, a concept introduced into the U.S. by the FDA in 1924, slowly eliminated goiter (enlarged thyroid glands), along with an enormous amount of thyroid disease, heart attack, mental impairment, and death. The simple addition of iodine to salt ensured that salt-using Americans obtained enough iodine sufficient to not have a goiter.

Now that the FDA, goiters long forgotten from their memories, urges Americans to reduce salt, what has happened to our iodine?

I talk at length about this issue in the Life Extension article.

The healthiest people are the most iodine deficient

16. November 2009 William Davis (19)
Here's an informal observation.

The healthiest people are the most iodine deficient.

The healthier you are, the more likely you are to:

--Avoid junk foods--30% of which have some iodine from salt
--Avoid overuse of iodized salt
--Exercise--Sweating causes large losses of iodine.

So the healthy-eating, exercising person is the one most likely to show iodine deficiency: gradually enlarged thyroid gland (in the neck), declining thyroid function. Over time, if iodine deficiency persists, excessive sensitivity to iodine develops, as well as abnormal thyroid conditions like overactive nodules.

Even subtle levels of thyroid dysfunction act as a potent coronary risk factor.

It's the score, stupid

14. November 2009 William Davis (4)
Sal has had 3 heart scans. (He was not on the Track Your Plaque program.) His scores:

March, 2006: 439

April, 2007: 573

October, 2009: 799

Presented with the 39% increase from April, 2007 to October, 2009, Sal's doctor responded, "I don't understand. Your LDL cholesterol is fine."

This is the sort of drug-driven, cholesterol-minded thinking that characterizes 90% of primary care and cardiologists' practices: "Cholesterol is fine; therefore, you must be fine, too."

No. Absolutely not.

The data are clear: Heart scan scores that continue to increase at this rate predict high risk for cardiovascular events. Unfortunately, when my colleagues hear this, they respond by scheduling a heart catheterization to prevent heart attack--a practice that has never been shown to be effective and, in my view, constitutes malpractice (i.e., performing heart procedures in people with no symptoms and with either no stress test or a normal stress test).

It's the score, stupid! It's not the LDL cholesterol. Pay attention to the increasing heart scan score and you will know that the disease is progressing at an alarming rate. Accepting this fact will set you and your doctor on the track to ask "Why?"

That's when you start to uncover all the dozens of other reasons that plaque can grow that have nothing to do with LDL cholesterol or statin drugs.

Heart Scan Blog Redux: Cheers to flavonoids

13. November 2009 William Davis (32)
Because in Track Your Plaque we've been thinking a lot about anthocyanins, here's a rerun of a previous Heart Scan Blog post about red wine. (Anthocyanins are among the interesting flavonoids in red wine, along with resveratrol and quercetin.)


The case in favor of healthful flavonoids seems to grow bit by bit.

Flavonoids such as procyanadins in wine and chocolate, catechins in tea, and those in walnuts, pomegranates, and pycnogenol (pine bark extract) are suspected to block oxidation of LDL (preventing its entry into plaque), normalize abnormal endothelial constriction, and yield platelet-blocking effects (preventing blood clots).

Dr. Roger Corder is a prolific author of many scientific papers detailing his research into the flavonoids of foods, but wine in particular. He summarizes his findings in a recent book, The Red Wine Diet. Contrary to the obvious vying-for-prime-time title, Dr. Corder's compilation is probably the best mainstream discussion of flavonoids in foods and wines that I've come across. Although it would have been more entertaining if peppered with more wit and humans interest, given the topic, its straightfoward, semi-academic telling of the story makes his points effectively.

Among the important observations Corder makes is that regions of the world with the greatest longevity also correspond to regions with the highest procyanidin flavonoids in their wines.




Regarding the variable flavonoid content of wines, he states:

Although differences in the amount of procyanidins in red wine clearly occur because of the grape variety and the vineyard environment, the winemaker holds the key to what ends up in the bottle. The most important aspect of the winemaking process for ensuring high procyanidins in red wines is the contact time between the liquid and the grape seeds during fermentation when the alcohol concentration reaches about 6 percent. Depending on the fermentation temperature, it may be two to three days or more before this extraction process starts. Grape skins float and seeds sink, so the number of times they are pushed down and stirred into the fermenting wine also increases extraction of procyanidins. Even so, extraction is a slow process and, after fermentation is complete, many red wines are left to macerate with their seeds and skins for days or even weeks in order to extract all the color, flavor, and tannins. Wines that have a contact time of less than seven days will have a relatively low level of procyanidins. Wines with a contact time of ten to fourteen days have decent levels, and those with contact times of three weeks or more have the highest.

He points out that deeply-colored reds are more likely to be richer in procyanidins; mass-produced wines that are usually "house-grade" served at bars and restaurants tend to be low. Some are close to zero.

Wines rich in procyanidins provide several-fold more, such that a single glass can provide the same purported health benefit as several glasses of a procyanidin-poor wine.

So how do various wines stack up in procyanidin content? Here's an abbreviated list from his book:

Australian--tend to be low, except for Australian Cabernet Sauvignon which is moder