To track small LDL, track blood sugar

24. December 2009 William Davis (28)
Here's a trick I learned after years of fussing over people's small LDL.

To gain better control over small LDL, follow blood sugars (blood glucose).

When you think about it, all the foods that trigger increases in blood sugar also trigger small LDL. Carbohydrates, in general, are the most potent triggers of small LDL. The most offensive among the carbohydrates: foods made with wheat. After wheat, there's foods made with cornstarch, sucrose (table sugar), and the broad categories of "other" carbohydrates, such as oats, barley, quinoa, sorghum, bulghur, etc.

Assessing small LDL requires a full lipoprotein assessment in which small LDL particles are measured (NMR, VAP, GGE). Not the easiest thing to do in the comfort of your kitchen.

However, you can easily and now cheaply check your blood sugar. Because blood sugar parallels small LDL, checking blood sugar can provide insight into how you respond to various foods and know whether glucose/small LDL have been triggered.

Here's how I suggest patients to do it:

1) Purchase an inexpensive blood glucose monitor at a discounter like Walmart or Walgreen's. You can buy them now for about $10. They're even sometimes free with promotional offers. You will also need to purchase lancets and test strips.

2) With a meal in question, check a blood sugar just prior to the meal, then again 60 minutes after finishing the meal. Say, for example, your pre-meal blood sugar is 102 mg/dl. You eat your meal, check it 60 minutes after finishing. Ideally, the postprandial (after-meal) blood sugar is no more than 102 mg/dl, i.e., no higher than pre-meal.

Perhaps you're skeptical that oatmeal in skim milk with walnuts and raisins will do any damage. So you perform this routine with your breakfast. Blood sugar beforehand: 100 mg/dl. Blood sugar 1 hour post: 163 mg/dl--Uh oh, not good for you. And small LDL will be triggered.

This approach is not perfect. It will not, for example, identify "stealth" triggers of blood sugar and small LDL like pasta, for the same reasons that pasta has a misleadingly low glycemic index: sugars are released slowly and not fully evident with the one-hour blood sugar.

Nonetheless, for most foods and meals, tracking your one-hour postprandial blood sugar can provide important insight into your individual susceptibility to sugar and small LDL-triggering effects.

C-reactive protein: Fiction from the drug industry?

21. December 2009 William Davis (0)
C-reactive protein (CRP) is the liver product of inflammatory responses anywhere in the body. If there's an inflamed left knee, CRP will be increased. If viral bronchitis is making you cough, then CRP will be increased.

The argument put forward by the drug industry is that, because CRP indicates underlying inflammation, very low-grade levels that can be measured in the absence of overt inflammation like the sore knee or bronchitis is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular events. There are now many studies that conclusively demonstrate that, the higher the CRP, the greater the cardiovascular risk.

Naturally, any marker of risk is followed by the inevitable study: Do statin drugs reduce the excess cardiovascular risk of excessive CRP?

And, yes, indeed they do. My statin-crazed colleagues rave about the so-called "pleiotropic," or non-lipid, effects of statins. CRP reduction and the reduction of risk associated with CRP result with statin treatment.

But is life really statin vs. placebo, as most statin trials are constructed? Are there strategies that can outdo statins like Crestor for reduction of CRP?

Watch your fish oil labels

17. December 2009 William Davis (36)
A quick quiz:

How much omega-3 fatty acids, EPA + DHA, are in each capsule of fish oil with the composition shown on the label below:





If you said 1340 mg (894 mg + 446 mg), sorry, but you're wrong. There are 670 mg EPA + DHA per capsule.

Did you notice that the composition, or "Supplement Facts," lists the contents of two capsules? Rather than the usual one capsule contents, this product label lists two capsules.

I don't know why some manufacturers or distributors do this. However, I have seen many people tripped up by this kind of labeling, taking half the omega-3 fatty acids they thought they were taking. This can be important when you are trying to obtain a specific dose of EPA + DHA to reduce triglycerides, reduce Lp(a), control abnormal heart rhythms, reduce bipolar mood swings, or other important effects.

I liken this to pulling up to a gas station where the sign says gasoline for $1.25. Wow! Can't beat that! You then find out that it's really $1.25 for a half-gallon, or $2.50 a gallon.

In truth, the labeling is accurate; it's just very easy to not notice the two capsule composition.

Why do I need a prescription for Olava?

16. December 2009 William Davis (0)
Imagine this:





What is OLAVA?

Olava is prescription olive oil. It is the purest, highest concentration of olive oil available.




Why Do I Need a Prescription for OLAVA?

Studies show that olive oil contains essential fatty acids, "good" fats that:



--Contain natural compounds your body needs for good health but can't produce on its own.

--Has antioxidants that may provide protection from heart disease.



So, it is common for people to ask why they need a prescription for OLAVA if it is made from a natural ingredient--olive oil. It's time to get the facts about OLAVA. Learn why OLAVA is different from olive oil you can buy at a store.



OLAVA Is an FDA-Approved Medication

OLAVA is the only FDA-approved medicine made from olive oil that's proven, along with diet, to reduce risk for heart disease


The FDA enforces standards to make sure that prescription medications like OLAVA are safe, effective, and quality controlled.


The way OLAVA is manufactured is reviewed and approved by the FDA.


OLAVA uses a 10-step purification process that helps remove lead and other environmental toxins that can be present in olive oil.


Each 1-gram capsule of OLAVA contains 1000 mg of pure olive oil.


The FDA-approved dose of OLAVA is 4 capsules per day. It could take up to 2 tablespoons per day of regular olive oil to provide the same amount of active ingredients proven to lower heart disease risk.




What Else You Should Know About Olive Oil

Regular olive oil has not been approved by the FDA to treat any specific disease like heart disease.



Olive oil doesn't have specific dosing information; it has a food label.



Olive oil does not go through an FDA-approved manufacturing process.





Talk to Your Doctor About OLAVA

If you have very heart disease, you may need a prescription medicine, along with diet, to treat your condition. Talk to your doctor about OLAVA. Print a trial offer to use on your first prescription of OLAVA.

Overweight, hungry, diabetic, and fat-free

15. December 2009 William Davis (52)
Let me tell you about my low-fat experience from 20 years ago.

At the time, I was living in Cleveland, Ohio, and served on the faculty at a large metropolitan university-affiliated hospital, supervising fellows-in-training and developing high-tech cath lab procedures like directional athererectomy and excimer laser coronary angioplasty. (Yes, another life.)

I was concerned about personal heart disease risk, though I knew next to nothing about lipids and coronary risk prediction outside of the little I learned in training and what the drug industry promoted.

I heard Dr. Dean Ornish talk while attending the American College of Cardiology meetings in Atlanta. Dr. Ornish spoke persuasively about the dangers of fat in the diet and how he "reversed" coronary disease using a low-fat, no added oils, no meat, vegetarian diet that included plenty of whole grains. So I thought I'd give it a try.

I eliminated all oils; I removed all meat, eggs, and fish from my diet. I shunned all nuts. I ate only low-fat products like low-fat yogurt and cottage cheese; and focused on vegetables, fruit, and whole grains. Beans and brown or wild rice were a frequent staple. I loved oatmeal cookies--low-fat, of course!

After one year of this low-fat program, I had gained a total of 31 lbs, going from 155 lbs to 186 lbs. I reassessed some basic labs:

HDL 28 mg/dl
Triglycerides 336 mg/dl
Blood sugar 151 mg/dl (fasting)


I became a diabetic. All through this time, I was also jogging. I ran on the beautiful paths along the Chagrin River in suburban Cleveland for miles north and south. I ran 5 miles per day most days of the week.

It was diabetes that hit me alongside the head: I was eating low-fat meticulously, exercising more than 90% of the population, yet I got fat and diabetic!

I have since changed course in diet. Last time I checked, my lipid values on NO statin agent:

HDL 67 mg/dl
Triglycerides 57 mg/dl
Blood sugar 91 mg/dl

That was my lesson that fat restriction is a destructive, misguided notion. The data since then have confirmed that restricting total fat is unnecessary, even undesirable, when fat calories are replaced by carbohydrate calories.

This is your brain on wheat

10. December 2009 William Davis (32)
Here's just a smattering of the studies performed over the past 30 years on the psychological effects of wheat consumption.

Oddly, this never makes the popular press. But wheat underlies schizophrenia, bipolar illness, behavioral outbursts in autism, Huntington's disease, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

The relationship is especially compelling with schizophrenia:

Opioid peptides derived from food proteins: The exorphins.
Zioudrou C et al 1979
"Wheat gluten has been implicated by Dohan and his colleagues in the etiology of schizophrenia and supporting evidence has been provided by others. Our experiments provide a plausible biochemical mechanism for such a role, in the demonstration of the conversion of gluten into peptides with potential central nerovus system actions."


Wheat gluten as a pathogenic factor in schizophrenia
Singh MM et al 1976
"Schizophrenics maintained on a cereal grain-free and milk-free diet and receiving optimal treatment with neuropleptics showed an interruption or reversal of their therapeutic progress during a period of "blind" wheat gluten challenge. The exacerbation of the disease process was not due to variations in neuroleptic doses. After termination of the gluten challenge, the course of improvement was reinstated. The observed effects seemed to be due to a primary schizophrenia-promoting effect of wheat gluten."


Demonstration of high opioid-like activity in isolated peptides from wheat gluten hydrolysates
Huebner FR et al 1984


Is schizophrenia rare if grain is rare?
Dohan FC et al 1984
"Epidemiologic studies demonstrated a strong, dose-dependent relationship between grain intake and the occurrence of schizophrenia."

Small LDL: Perfect index of carbohydrate intake

8. December 2009 William Davis (15)
Measuring the number of small LDL particles is the best index of carbohydrate intake I know of, better than even blood sugar and triglycerides.

In other words, increase carbohydrate intake and small LDL particles increase. Decrease carbohydrates and small LDL particles decrease.

Why?

Carbohydrates increase small LDL via a multistep process:

First step: Increased fatty acid and apoprotein B production in the liver, which leads to increased VLDL production. (Apoprotein B is the principal protein of VLDL and LDL)

Second step: Greater VLDL availability causes triglyceride-rich VLDL to interact with other particles, namely LDL and HDL, enriching them in triglycerides (via the action of cholesteryl-ester transfer protein, or CETP). Much VLDL is converted to LDL.

Third step: Triglyceride-rich LDL is "remodeled" by enzymes like hepatic lipase, which create small LDL.


Carbohydrates, especially if they contain fructose, also prolong the period of time that triglyceride-rich VLDL particles persist in the blood, allowing more time for VLDL to interact with LDL.

Many people are confused by this. "You mean to tell me that reducing carbohydrates reduces LDL cholesterol?" Yes, absolutely. While the world talks about cutting saturated fats and taking statin drugs, cutting carbohydrates, especially wheat (the most offensive of all), cornstarch, and sugars, is the real key to dropping LDL.

However, the effect will not be fully evident if you just look at the crude conventional calculated (Friedewald) LDL cholesterol. This is because restricting carbohydrates not only reduces small LDL, it also increases LDL particle size. This make the calculated Friedewald go up, or it blunts its decrease. Conventional calculated LDL will therefore either underestimate or even conceal the real LDL-reducing effect.

The reduction in LDL is readily apparent if you look at the superior measures, LDL particle number (by NMR) or apoprotein B. Dramatic reductions will be apparent with a reduction in carbohydrates.

Small LDL therefore serves as a sensitive index of carbohydrate intake, one that responds literally within hours of a change in food choices. Anyone following the crude Friedewald calculated LDL will likely not see this. This includes the thousands of clinical studies that rely on this unreliable measure and come to the conclusion that a low-fat diet reduces LDL cholesterol.

Fat "conditioning"

4. December 2009 William Davis (0)
Here's a great study from the prolific laboratory of Dr. Jeff Volek from the University of Connecticut. (Full text here.)


http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/134/4/880

Video Teleconference with Dr. William Davis

2. December 2009 William Davis (0)

Dr. Davis is available for personal
one-on-one video teleconferencing

to discuss your heart health issues.


You can obtain Dr. Davis' expertise on issues important to your health, including:

Lipoprotein assessment

Heart scans and coronary calcium scores

Diet and nutrition

Weight loss

Vitamin D supplementation for optimal health

Proper use of omega-3 fatty acids/fish oil


Each personalized session is 30 minutes long and by appointment only. To arrange for a Video Teleconference, go to our Contact Page and specify Video Teleconference in your e-mail. We will contact you as soon as possible on how to arrange the teleconference.


The cost for each 30-minute session is $375, payable in advance. 30-minute follow-up sessions are $275.

(Track Your Plaque Members: Our Member cost is $300 for a 30-minute session; 30-minute follow-up sessions are $200.)

After the completion of your Video Teleconference session, a summary of the important issues discussed will be sent to you.

The Video Teleconference is not meant to replace the opinion of your doctor, nor diagnose or treat any condition. It is simply meant to provide additional discussion about your health issues that should be discussed further with your healthcare provider. Prescriptions cannot be provided.

Note: For an optimal experience, you will need a computer equipped with a microphone and video camera. (Video camera is optional; you will be able to see Dr. Davis, but he will not be able to see you if you lack a camera.)

We use Skype for video teleconferencing. If you do not have Skype or are unfamiliar with this service, our staff will walk you through the few steps required.

Track Your Plaque challenges

1. December 2009 William Davis (31)
Of all the various factors we correct in the Track Your Plaque program in the name of achieving reversal of coronary plaque, there are two factors that are proving to be our greatest challenges:

1) Genetic small LDL

2) Lipoprotein(a)

More and more people are enjoying at least marked slowing, if not zero change or reduction, in heart scan scores following the Track Your Plaque program. We achieve this by correcting a number of factors. Some factors, like vitamin D deficiency, are easily corrected to perfection--supplement sufficient vitamin D to achieve a blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D of 60-70 ng/ml. Correcting standard lipid values--LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides--child's play, even to our strict targets of 60-60-60.

However, what I call "genetic small LDL" and a subset of lipoprotein(a) are proving to be the most resistant of all.

Let's first consider genetic small LDL. Small LDL is generally the pattern of the carbohydrate-ingesting, overweight person. It has exploded in severity over the past decade due to overconsumption of carbohydrates due to the ridiculous low-fat notion. Reduce or eliminate carbohydrates, especially wheat, which permits weight loss, and small LDL drops like a stone. But there is a unique subset of people who express the small LDL pattern who start at or near ideal weight. Take Chad, for instance. At 6' 2" and 152 lbs and BMI of 19.6, there's no way excess weight could be triggering his small LDL. Yet he starts with 100% small LDL particles. All efforts to reduce small LDL, such as wheat, cornstarch, and sugar elimination; niacin; vitamin D normalization; thyroid normalization; and several supplements that yield variable effects, such as phosphatidylcholine, all leave Chad with more than 90% small LDL.

Lipoprotein(a) is a bit different. Over the past 5 years, our choices in ways to reduce Lp(a) expression have improved dramatically. Beyond niacin, we now have high-dose EPA + DHA, thyroid normalization that includes use of T3, and hormonal manipulation. In the Track Your Plaque experience, approximately 70% of people with Lp(a) respond with a reduction in Lp(a). (In fact, the 4 out of the 5 record holders for reduction of heart scan scores have Lp(a) that was successfully treated.) But about 30% of people with Lp(a) prove resistant to all these treatments--they begin with a Lp(a) of, say, 260 nmol/L and, despite niacin, high-dose EPA + DHA, and various hormones, stay at 260 nmol/L. It can be frustrating and frightening.

So these are the two true problem areas for the Track Your Plaque program, genetic small LDL and a subset of Lp(a).

We are actively searching for better options for these two problem areas. Given the collective exploration and wisdom that develops from such collaborative efforts as the Track Your Plaque Forum, I am optimistic that we will have better answers for these two stumbling blocks to plaque reversal in the future.
The best artificial sweeteners

The best artificial sweeteners

13. August 2011 William Davis (23)
Our new recipes, such as New York Style Cheesecake and Chocolate Coconut Bread, are wheat-free and low- or no-carbohydrate. They fit perfectly into the New Track Your Plaque Diet for gaining control over coronary atherosclerotic plaque, not to mention diabetes, pre-diabetes, hypertension, small LDL particles, high triglycerides, high inflammation (c-reactive protein) and other distortions of metabolism.

However, there's one compromise: We include use of non-nutritive sweeteners. It's therefore important to know that artificial sweeteners are not all created equal.

One common tripping point: maltodextrin.

Maltodextrin is composed of polymers (repeating subunits) of glucose, as few as 3 or as many as 20 or more glucose subunits. So maltodextrin is glucose sugar. While it lacks the especially destructive pentose sugar, fructose, maltodextrin is metabolized to glucose and thereby increases blood sugar substantially.

Many artificial sweeteners are bulked up with maltodextrin. For instance, granulated Splenda and Stevia in the Raw, two sweeteners billed as low-calorie and sugar-free that is used on a cup-for-cup basis like sugar, are primarily maltodextrin--with only a teensy bit of Splenda or stevia.

The best artificial sweeteners, i.e., the most benign without a load of maltodextrin, are:

Liquid stevia--Just the extract from stevia leaves and water. It can be a bit pricey, e.g., $10 for a 2 oz bottle, but a little goes a long way.

Truvia--While I'm not too fond of the manufacturer (Cargill), I believe that Truvia is among the better sweeteners around. It is a mixture of the natural sugar, erythritol, that generates little to no blood sugar effects and rebiana (rebaudioside), an isolate of stevia. Some people aren't too fond of the mild menthol-like cooling effect of the erythritol nor the slight aftertaste. I find it works pretty well in most recipes.

Be aware that, no matter which artificial sweetener you use, it has the potential to stimulate appetite. I therefore like to not eat foods sweetened with liquid stevia or Truvia in isolation but as part of a meal. That way, any appetite stimulation that results is substantially quelled by the proteins and fats ingested.
Tags :

Comments (23) -

  • Princess Dieter

    8/12/2011 11:53:20 PM |

    Thank you for the link. I was just talking with hubby last night about finding a recipe for cheesecake that had no wheat/gluten and would be good for us for special treats/occasions (like an upcoming family birthday). Yay.

  • pjnoir

    8/13/2011 2:52:19 AM |

    I never use Truvia. The best stavia hands down is SweetLeaf, either the liquid or the powder. BUT Stevia acts like insulin, in fact, Asia has been using it as an insulin substitute and comes with a warning to diabetics about using it with one’s daily  insulin shots.   I stopped using it as I don’t need to rev up by insulin production.  I’m diabetic. I still go with local honey and get the benefits of having local pollen in my body.

  • Shreela

    8/13/2011 3:27:35 AM |

    Both DH and I noticed the aftertaste. I figured out how to use half stevia/half sugar for a few days, then 1/4 each, then all stevia, which solved the aftertaste problem for me. I then tried one teaspoon of sugar to a quart of stevia-sweetened tea with DH - he didn't notice any weird taste. So hopefully just adding a tiny bit of sugar for 1-2 weeks will get your taste buds used to stevia.

  • Gabriella Kadar

    8/13/2011 3:29:15 AM |

    Why do people feel the need to eat desserts?  Doesn't adherence to a consistent low carb diet eventually curb most of the craving for sweets?  One teaspoon of fruit jam should be able to quell any overweening desire.  Or is the socio-cultural programming for eating confections so deeply ingrained that people just can't live without?

  • Michia

    8/13/2011 9:06:53 AM |

    I agree.  In our house (LC for years), the same logic applies to low carb "treats" that applies to low carb Frankenfoods.  Don't eat foods that are trying to be foods that you know you can no longer have.  

    There is a real danger in continuing to eat really sweet foods, even artificially sweetened.  "Low carb" needs to be "low sweet".  If you hang in there, you do eventually lose your taste for it.  

    As for Splenda, you can find the liquid if  you try.  And the mini tablets are minimally carby.

  • cancerclasses

    8/13/2011 6:13:31 PM |

    Both cancer & systemic fungi make energy by means of glycolysis and create demands for large amounts of sugars.  People with continuing carb cravings that won't resolve may have one or the other condition.  Otherwise I'm with you, people hanging onto sweets are still living to eat rather than eating to live.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    8/13/2011 7:27:21 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,
    Server blocked me elsewhere, so writing this here.
    Amazake data when made from white rice (brown, short & long may each differ) =
    30 - 70 % complex carbohydrate saccharides
    20 - 45 % maltose (not amylose)
    3 - 5 % glucose
    5 - 9 % protein
    3 - 5% fat
    1 - 7 % fiber
    0.3 - 0.4 % mineral ash
    iron, niacin & thiamine

    Sample 1 liter (1 quart) sauce pan Amazake home kitchen batch:
    200 ml ( 7 ounce volume, +/- 200 grams) short grain brown rice rinsed and drained
    bring to boil  in 2.5 times the volume water
    reduce heat to low and, covered,  cook 50 - 60 minutes (until not wet)
    transfer cooked rice to an incubation vessel & let cool
    when cooled to  60* Celcius (140 * F) mix with 400 ml (14 ounce volume) of Koji innoculant
    cover with aluminum foil (or somehow) and put where can keep warm
    incubation ideal temperature is 57 - 60 * C  (with leeway)
    ferment for  desired time , 12 hours sweeter and I use 22 hours
    when time up pan boil the Amazake (stir) 3- 5 minutes to inactivate Koji fungi
    refrigerated covered keeps weeks

    Dosages mentioned previously (for 165 pound adult, and Amazake was eaten with protein and fat):
    (a) " low" dose with 2 hour blood glucose ending up being same as pre-prandial blood glucose was 1/8th (by volume) of the above Amazake (rough calculation would thus be ingesting 1/8th  of  +/- 600 grams  total of original dry rice and Koji rice)
    (b) "high" dose with 2 hour blood glucose rebound (suggested for athletes carbs) was 1/4 (by volume) of the above Amazake recipe (rough calculation  would in this case be ingesting 1/4 of +/- 600 grams total of original dry rice and Koji rice)

    Koji innoculant ( steamed white glutinous rice infused with Aspergillus oryzae and then dessicated) used was wholesale direct from L.A. producer Miyako Oriental Foods 626-962-9633; call for your local retailer of their Koji under the "Cold Mountain" brand. They recommend double their Koji for any volume of rice substrate. Other makers of Koji proportions may be less if the Koji is less dehydrated; family business G.E.M. Cultures in Wash. mail orders their Koji and it may (?) be suitable for using less (GEM also sells spores with instructions to make your own Koji).

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    8/13/2011 7:43:26 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
    Orientation for those athletes interested in experimenting with Amazake:
    Innoculant of rice is Aspergillus oryzae fungal infused rice grains, called Koji; Koji has alpha-amylase, glyco-amylase, acid protease, lipase, amylo-glucosidase , acid carboxy-peptidase , chitosinase and citric acid.
    Incubation lets fungal penetrate new rice substrate and fungal hyphal tip performs hydrolytic enzyme secretion.

    Cooking the rice first gelatinizes the starch held in granules inside of organelles with lipoprotein membranes (amyloplasts) into 16 - 30% amylose and 65 - 85 % amylopectin which are ammenable to hyphal hydrolytic action. Koji's amylo-glucosidase enzyme digests the gel &  Koji's alpha amylase enzyme reduces molecular size of amylose, which makes it less viscous and more fluidly mobile. It is glyco-amylase enzyme that turns amylose and some of the amylo-pectin chains  into glucose.
    Incubation lets the fungi grow and their mycellial cell wall builds up with the amino mono-saccharide glucosamine (a.k.a. chitosan); fungi generally have 67 - 126 mg mycelial glucosamine per 1 gram dry weight mycellium. Amazake is well tolerated by most since glucosamine is useful in colitis. Glucosamine (chitosan) is a poly-cationic bio-polymer formed when chitosanase I enzyme de-acetylates chitin (in fiber); with optimal enzymatic pH being 5.5 - 6.5. Chitosan is more acid pH soluble than chitin and under chitosanase II enzyme (working from pH 3.8 -8.5) some chitin is de-acetylated to form more oligo-saccharides.

    Amazake may have biologically active high molecular weight immunological poly-anionic polysaccharide
    derivatives like the poly-acetyl carboxylic acid  COAM (chlorite oxidase oxy-amylose). COAM comes about when a saccharide chain is oxidatively cleaved between 2 carbon atoms resulting in oxy-amylose, a polymer of 2 aldehyde functions;  when these aldehydes gets further oxidized they produce functional carboxyls.  Rice has aldehydes like the volatile aldehyde hexanal we smell as stored rice &/or from rice bran.

    Rice, like most bean & grain carbohydrate polysaccharides, include the following in both the soluble and insoluble form: arabinoxylan, beta-glucan, cellulose, mannose, galactose, xylose and uronic acid. For us these non-starch  polysaccharides are not digestible;  as neither is fiber (made up of cellulose, hemicellulose, pectin and lignan ) since 90% of our dietary fiber is linked together by beta-glycosides that our digestive enzymes can't cleave. Arabinoxylan, mannan, galacto-mannan and xylan are considered anti-nutritional since can lower intestinal uptake of nutrients; while mannose reacts with amino groups in dietary protein to reduce the amount of certain aminos properly digested.

    Koji's fungal hyphal hydrolytic enzymes include mannosidase enzymes; beta mannanase catalyses the mannosidic links in insoluble mannan polysacharides where there are galactosyl residual features.  The  so-called endo-mannanase (a manno -hydrolase) cleaves mannan and galactomannan to free up molecules like manno-triose, manno-biose and manno-tetraose that human gut Bifidobacteria can then feed on. This may be part of why a substantial dose of Amazake seems to yield more delivery of  sustained energy beyond what one would get from the usual amount of short chain fatty acids put out by gut bacteria.

    Amazake incubation is a solid state fermentation, since want the minimal free fluid when culturing;  too much water and the substrate porosity is diminished and resultant depressed oxygen transport in substrate  causes fungal cell numbers to decline. A  submerged fungal ferment, when cooked rice with koji substrate is set out  too soupy can result in 3.5 times less enzymatic activity. Using  too much rice substrate mixed with too sparse koji innoculant and the fermentation won't proceed promptly due to low oxygen. Also do not stir the blend while incubating to avoid damaging mature fungal hyphae or breaking new growth.

    Mannanase enzyme development in 1st day is less than 50 units/gram and this goes to a maximum of 100 units/gram after 2 days; a peak mannanase content seems to be +/- 250 units/gram on days 3-5. I incubate short grain brown rice Amazake for 22 hours; while most commercial Amazake products and home producers probably do not incubate more than 12 hours. The longer incubation is allowed to go on for the more llikely bitter flavors develop from oxidation of the bran's oil content;  yet the bran is desired for it affords better beta- mannanase and beta-mannosidase enzymatic formation.

    Amazake has exceptional anti-oxidant properties; with longer incubation time this activity increases. Amazake also raises the bodies ability to inhibit lipid peroxidation; so concern over any of rice bran's oil oxidation is probably moot.
    END

  • Elenor

    8/14/2011 5:13:52 PM |

    You don't mention liquid surcralose (Splenda)  -- which has all the 'benefits' of sucralose without the maltodextrin.  I use it and nothing else.

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/15/2011 12:51:28 PM |

    Wow, Might. You are a walking Wikipedia!

    Thanks for the incredible insights.

  • Marlene

    8/15/2011 5:44:10 PM |

    I have never been able to find liquid Splenda in stores in the U.S.  If it's there, what brand name is it sold under?

  • ibh

    8/15/2011 8:36:23 PM |

    I use Sweet Leaf as well. It is in the powder from. the box states no chemicals,no alcohols, no erythritol, no ethanol or menthol,, no aspartame, no sucralose, no maltodextrin, no dextrose or additivees. Seems clean to me. Any thoughts as to problems with this product.

  • Anonymous

    8/15/2011 8:36:54 PM |

    Doc, also notice the removal of all of Might's comments from Guyenet's site. This speaks for itself, as to where the truth lies. Might is truly a wonder and knows what he's talking about.

  • Jack Kronk

    8/15/2011 9:57:54 PM |

    What does that mean, that the comments from Guyenet's site are removed? Stephan removed them, or Might removed them? I've traded comments with Might over there dozens of times.

  • Jack Kronk

    8/15/2011 10:00:22 PM |

    I just use pure Stevia powder, which is gauranteed to be at least 95% pure stevia crystals (like the liquid stevia, on in teh form of powder. The brand I use is Stevita. A tiny little 0.7 ounce conainer lasts FOREVER! You only need a tiny pinhc of it for coffee. It doesn't exchange well versus sugar as a substitute, but adding a little to whatever you might be baking or making can help with using less of whatever other sweetener you may need to use.

  • Janmar Delicana

    8/16/2011 12:13:10 AM |

    Dear Dr. Davis,
    It’s a great pleasure to read your blog. I find your post very informative. Thank you for sharing.
    As a reader, I consider your writing to be a great example of a quality and globally competitive output.
    As a moderator for Physician Nexus (a community for physicians) I would like to share your genuine ideas and knowledge. With this you can gain 1000 physician readers on Nexus.
    We would love for you to visit our community. It's free, takes seconds, and is designed for physicians only - completely free of industry bias and commercial interests.
    Best,
    Janmar Delicana
    On behalf of the Physician Nexus Team
    www.PhysicianNexus.com

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    8/17/2011 12:33:07 AM |

    Stephan who hosts the WholeHealth blog is smarter than me &  the removal of my comments there came from someone using my computer. These days I do not have the time to follow Stephan's blog, which has nothing to do with validity of his approach.

  • Stefan

    8/31/2011 1:46:14 AM |

    Marlene,
    I buy it at SuperSupplements or at Whole Foods. Any nutritional supplements &vitamins stores should carry it. If you live in a place whch doesn't havenay -> use Amazon. It's simple Smile.

  • Stefan

    8/31/2011 1:50:21 AM |

    Whoops - I thought you meant Stevia. Liquid Splenda is at amazon as well

  • Serge

    9/2/2011 11:27:16 PM |

    Dr. Davis--

    I'd like to recommend ZSweet.  It's a stevia/erythritol blend but isn't a Big Ag product like Cargill/Coca-Cola's Truvia or Pepsico/Monsanto-er-Merisant's PureVia.

    It's funny how Stevia was banned by the FDA in the 80s, only to be given the GRAS label in 2008, which just happened to be the same year that Truvia was launched.  Coincidence?

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/2/2011 11:40:52 PM |

    Hi, Serge-

    I have no doubt that the clout of Cargill pushed Truvia through. I wasn't aware of ZSweet--thanks!

  • Susan

    12/18/2011 6:10:37 AM |

    I am absolutely thrilled to have found this blog.  I've been extremely cautious of sugar and sweets since my mother was diagnosed with diabetes when I was a child.  Unfortunately I did fall into the "healthy whole grains" trap for a while, but have kept my daily carbs between 50-100 for many years now.  I like Stevia products, but unfortunately they leave me with a slight headache.  I've been (sparingly) using Volcanic Agave Nectar for years, mostly in tea and for the occasional baked good.  I understand that due to the rich soil in which it's grown, and minimal processing, volcanic blue agave has a lower glycemic index-load than other traditional agave nectars, at 27.  

    Am I doing myself harm by using it?  I'd like to try the liquid Splenda, that contains no maltodextrin.  Thank you Elenor and Stefan for mentioning it, but should I be concerned about its processing?

  • jpatti

    5/27/2012 6:58:29 PM |

    I'm not big on Truvia.  

    From what I've heard from other diabetics erthyritol doesn't have the GI side effects of most sugar alcohols and has a lesser effect on bg, but even so... I prefer a plain stevia powder.

    I don't think erthyritol has been around long enough to know what it's side effects may be, that it doesn't raise bg much and doesn't cause GI distress isn't good enough. There's any number of other bad side effects that exist in the world besides those two.

    Stevia is food.  Granted, the plain white stuff is relatively refined, but I still feel better about it than erthryitol.  

    Susan, agave nectar has almost no GI effect because it is fructose, not glucose.  It has MUCH more fructose than HFCS.  Search this blog for a long list of the bad stuff that fructose causes.  I'm a diabetic, and I'd seriously rather eat sugar than agave.

Add comment

Loading

Super size me in little bits and pieces

17. October 2006 William Davis (1)


Alvin came into the office for consultation on his cholesterol values: LDL 198 mg/dl, HDL, 43 mg/dl, triglycerides 143 mg/dl. He says that he doesn't really try to choose healthy foods but he restricts his overall calorie intake by following the Weight Watcher's exchange approach.

Every morning, 7 days a week, Alvin eats a Sausage McMuffin for breakfast. He justified this by skipping lunch to make up for the 450 calories in the Sausage McMuffin, and not eating anything until dinner.

Can this work? Can you eat foods with unhealthy ingredients but make up the excessive calories by cutting back elsewhere?

The nutritional composition of McDonald's Sausage McMuffin includes 27 grams of total fat (10 gm saturated); 255 mg cholesterol; 950 mg sodium; 31 gm carbohydrate; 2 grams fiber. In other words, it's essentially the same as butter with sugar on it--pure fat, processed wheat, with little fiber or nutritive value.

For Alvin, this is an extremely unhealthy way to eat. His lipid patterns are just the tip of the iceberg: multiple hidden factors are also at work to create heart disease, atherosclerosis in other territories outside the heart, diabetes, high blood pressure, and cancer.

I think the effects are not much different than what Morgan Spurlock achieved in his Super Size Me documentary, but in little bits and pieces. Eating at McDonald's "restaurants" three times a day yielded frightening changes in his lipids, liver function, kidney function, not to mention his appearance and the way he felt. Alvin is doing the same thing, though in less dramatic fashion.

I see this very frequently: people mimicking the experience of Spurlock, just a little at a time, with overindulgence in processed fats and starches.

When you seen a set of Mcdonald's golden arches (or any fast food restaurant, for that matter), run as fast as you can in the other direction. Such indulgences, even in small bits and pieces, still creates a mess of your health.

View from the precipice

15. October 2006 William Davis (0)

Many people, upon first learning of their CT heart scan score, feel like they're on the edge of a sharp drop. It can feel like you're facing a vast, unknown abyss. At the bottom, all those dreaded things that can happen to you: heart attack, heart failure, hospitals, even dying.

I've encountered this "deer in the headlights" look many times. It truly can be frightening to hear that your heart scan score is 300, or 500, or whatever.

What I find truly frightening, however, is when your score prompts the usual array of misinformation commonly dispensed by physicians: "That's so bad you need a heart catheterization", "Nobody knows why people get calcified plaque", or "Reversal is impossible". All absolute bunk.

Let your fear motivate you to do something about your risk for heart disease. Aim for reversal of your coronary plaque and seek out the tools to achieve this. It is possible and, in fact, we do it all the time. I can't claim 100% success, but the majority of people who engage in an effort like the Track Your Plaque program to reverse coronary plaque succeed. Even a substantial slowing of plaque growth from the expected 30% per year is better than submitting to the conventional approach.

At the very least, get both LDL and HDL cholesterol around 60 mg/dl. This alone is a major plus in reducing the risks associated with your heart scan score. It doesn't guaranteee reversal, but it sure tips the odds in your favor.

Organic Rice Krispies?

13. October 2006 William Davis (0)


Breakfast cereal manufacturing giant, Kelloggs, is launching a line of three cereals that will carry the "organic" designation: Organic Rice Krispies, Organic Raisin Bran, and Organic Frosted Mini-Wheats.

This reminds me of the advertisements I've seen for "fresh fried chicken", or "fresh from the can", or "contains only pure cane sugar". How about organic tobacco? Would that make cigarettes healthier?

The TV ad ends with the slogan "Childood is calling!" Oh, those marketers are a shrewd, clever bunch. I worry that they're so clever that most people will fall for these ludicrous tricks.

Don't fall for these thinly-shrouded marketing shenanigans. Organic? Who cares. These foods remain unhealthy whether or not they contain pesticide residues. Take a look at the nutritional composition: Rice Krispies, organic or not, is sugar to your body. It is the sort of food that creates pre-diabetes, diabetes, makes us fat, and fans the flames of lipoprotein patterns like small LDL, VLDL, and postprandial particles, all of which is like throwing cow manure on the weed patch of your coronary plaque.

Nuts as functional foods

13. October 2006 William Davis (0)
Food manufacturers gave nuts a bad name when they started adding evil ingredients to them. "Party mix", "honey-roasted", mixed nuts, etc., are made with added hydrogenated oils, salt, sugar, excessive quantities of raisins, or other added ingredients that turned a healthy food--nuts--into something that made us fat and hypertensive, raised LDL, dropped HDL, and raised blood pressure.

But nuts themselves are, for the most part, very healthy foods. The very best are nuts with a brown fiber coating like almonds, walnuts, and pecans. Nearly all nuts also come rich in monounsaturated oils similar to that in olive oil. Although calorie-dense, nuts tend to be very filling and slash your appetite for other foods. I have never seen anyone gain weight by adding raw nuts to their diet. In fact, I find adding raw nuts cuts craving for sweets.

Nuts are also among the most concentrated sources of magnesium, containing around 150 mg per 1/2 cup serving. As most Americans are at least marginally if not severely deficient in magnesium, this really helps. Magnesium deficiency is a prominent aspect of "metabolic syndrome" and resistance to insulin.




Some nuts have added benefits like the l-arginine content of almonds or the linolenic acid content of walnuts. However, I think the real health "punch" comes from the fiber and monounsaturate content.

Add 1/4-1/2 cup of raw almonds, walnuts, or pecans per day to your diet and what can you expect? The effects that I see every day that are relevant to plaque control/heart scan score-reducing efforts include:

--Reduction in LDL--usually a 20 mg/dl drop, sometimes more.

--Reduction in triglycerides, especially if nuts replace processed carbohydrate calories. This may be because the fiber and monounsaturate content of nuts reduces blood sugar and the effective glycemic index of any accompanying foods.

--Modest blood pressure reduction.

--Though somewhat inconsistent, partial suppression of the dreaded small LDL particle pattern. We struggle with turning off the small LDL pattern in some people, and raw nuts can provide a real advantage.

If that isn't enough, the fiber content also makes your bowels regular.

Unless there's some reason to avoid nuts (e.g., allergy), nuts should be a part of your heart scan score reducing program. Shop around, as prices can vary wildly. I've been paying $12.99 for a 3 lb bag of raw almonds from Sam's Club, though I've seen almonds elsewhere for up to $12.99 per pound.

For additional commentary, go to one of my favorite Blogs, http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com. The Fanatic Cook's recent post, The Season for Walnuts , provides additional discussion on walnuts and the recent study showing how they improve "endothelial function". The nutritionist behind this Blog has fabulous insights into food, including the concept of "functional foods", i.e., using foods as a treatment tool. She is also unfailingly entertaining.

Can you tell the difference?

12. October 2006 William Davis (0)
Stan is 55 years old. He feels fine, is in moderately good physical condition. His LDL cholesterol is 135 mg/dl, HDL 43 mg/dl, triglycerides 167 mg/dl, total cholesterol 211 mg/dl.

Can you tell me whether Stan has heart disease or not?

How about Charles? Charles has an LDL cholesterol of 127 mg/dl, HDL of 44 mg/dl, triglycerides of 98 mg/dl, and total cholesterol of 191 mg/dl. He is also reasonably fit and feels fine. Can you tell whether Charles has heart disease?

If you can't, don't feel bad. Neither can your doctor. But this is the folly of using cholesterol for risk prediction.

Stan's heart scan score: 0

Charles' heart scan score: 978

Look even more closely at Stan's and Charles' cholesterol numbers. Is there some fine distinction we overlooked? What if we calculated total cholesterol to HDL ratio? Or LDL/HDL ratio?

No matter how you squeeze it, shake it, beat it with a stick, you simply cannot use cholesterol numbers to predict heart disease in specific individuals. Yes, the higher your LDL cholesterol and lower your HDL, the higehr your total cholesterol to HDL ratio, the greater the likelihood of heart disease. But you can simply cannot tell in a specific individual at a specific point in time. If you've seen your doctor puzzle over the numbers, understand that he/she is trying to make sense out of something that doesn't make sense, no matter how hard he/she tries.

You simply need to measure the disease itself: get a CT heart scan, the only measure of atherosclerotic coronary plaque that you have access to.

By the way, if you haven't seen it yet, go to the Track Your Plaque website (www.cureality.com) to see the news piece reporting the American Heart Association's much overdue position statement on CT heart scanning. The AHA has finally released a statement which, in effect, provides their "official" endorsement. Blocked by political shenanigans behind the scenes for several years, the guidelines finally made it to press. The only real difference it makes to me is that my patients may finally get their heart scans paid for by insurance, once the insurance companies realize that it's getting tougher and tougher to dodge their responsibility.

Statin agents and muscle aches

11. October 2006 William Davis (2)
How common are muscle aches with the statin drugs?

It depends on who you ask. If you ask the drug manufacturers, they will tell you no more than 2% of people who take them. They back this up with the experience in tens of thousands of people in published clinical trials.

What if we ask people who take them outside of clinical trials. How many then? I estimate, from my large experience, over 80%! In other words, muscle aches are inevitable in nearly everyone who takes them. The longer you take them, the higher your dose, the more likely muscle aches are going to be.

Why the disconnect between published data and real-world experience? I really don't know. In some instances, the differences are dramatic. The ASTEROID trial, for instance, in which Crestor, 40 mg, was given for two years, only resulted in 8% of people dropping out because of side-effects. My experience: everybody--nobody can tolerate this dose for any length of time.

Let me qualify what "muscle aches" mean. It means achiness and/or weakness, usually mild, occasionally moderate to severe, worse upon awakening and less with use. It can affect many muscles or it can involve only one. Rarely is it incapacitating but it is commonly annoying and frightening. It commonly shows up as gradually diminishing strength with exercise. Strength usually returns promptly upon stopping the offending drug.

"Rhabdomyolysis", or true muscle destruction is, fortunately, very unusual in otherwise well people. People with abnormal kidney function, diabetes, and other concurrent illnesses are somewhat more prone. But in reality, rhabdomyolysis is unusual. I've personally seen it twice, both in people sick for other reasons.

Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) supplementation has been a godsend for us. At least 4 out of 5 people who require statins and develop muscle aches respond favorably, but it requires 100 mg per day. The preparation must be oil-based to work, not powder in a capsule which exerts no effect. Some people get by with less; some require as much as 300 mg per day. I've had favorable experiences with the CoQ10 from Sam's Club, GNC, Vitamin Shoppe, and Life Extension (www.LEF.org).

The Track Your Plaque target for LDL cholesterol is 60 mg/dl. Many people do indeed use statins to achieve this level, the level of LDL that amplifies your chances of heart disease reversal, i.e., reduction of heart scan score. The only drawback that I'm aware of with CoQ10 replacement is cost. Beyond this, it's a benign supplement that even supplies higher energy for some people who take it.

More catheterizations would make me happy!

11. October 2006 William Davis (0)
I received this fax today from a cardiologist seeking a position:

"I would prefer to perform as many interventions [stents, angioplasties, etc.] as possible..."

That about sums it up, doesn't it? The goal of this young man, trained in major universities including Columbia University, Harvard, and Emory, is not to pursue an avenue of investigation or healthcare that yields real answers. His goal is to perform as many procedures as possible.

This attitude is deeply ingrained in cardiologists. It's also shared by all procedural medical specialties: the drive to do more and more procedures. It's not because it does more good for the public, but it fulfills a primitive impulse to spread your influence, enlarge your territory, and--of course--make more money.

Personally, I find this impulse repulsive. The fact that this young cardiologist looking for a position is willing to make this statement out in the open demonstrates how widely accepted this attitude is. Imagine your cancer surgeon, looking for a new job, said, "I'm looking to remove as many tumors as I can."

My colleagues have lost sight of the fact that we're trying to reduce or eliminate disease, not enrich our pockets or service some primitive impulse to beat others at our game.

"I hate fish oil!"

9. October 2006 William Davis (1)
I get this comment occasionally, usually from the fishy belching that can occur, rarely because of other crazy effects like rash, fishy body odor, etc.

In the vast majority, fish oil is a benign but wonderfully effective agent. Track Your Plaque followers know that fish oil, starting at 4000 mg per day of a standard 1000 mg capsule preparation, dramatically reduces triglycerides and thereby raises HDL, partially suppresses small LDL, and is the best agent available for reducing postprandial (after eating) abnormalities like IDL and certain VLDL fractions.

However, an occasional person (about 1 in 20) just doesn't like the effects. Are there alternatives? Fish oil packs such a wallop of beneficial effects that can not be replaced by any other single agent or lifestyle practice. For this reason, we have a number of easy strategies to enhance your tolerance for fish oil. (Of course, if your and/or you doctor determine that you're allergic to fish oil, then you should indeed avoid it; thankfully, this is rare.)

Helpful strategies include:

--Refrigerate fish oil capsules--this cuts back on fish belching.
--Take only with meals. This also may increase fish oil's benefits on suppressing after-eating lipoprotein abnormalities.
--Take an enteric-coated preparation--this delays breakdown of the tablet/capsule, making fishy belching less of an issue. Sam's Club has an inexpensive preparation.
--Take liquid fish oil. Usually orange or lemon flavored, liquid fish oil may be a faint fishy taste and odor, but usually not as prominent as the capsules. There's also less stomach upset.
--Coromega--a paste form of fish oil available at health food stores or through http://www.coromega.com. Coromega tastes fruity and comes in little squeeze envelopes.
--Frutol--Pharmax, a British company, makes another fruity fish oil that is non-oily and tastes like apricot. It's actually fairly reasonably priced, too. However, it is hard to find. The only way I know to get is to go online at www.pharmaxllc.com. You may have to actually order through a health care provider.

When using any preparation of fish oil, the best way to determine your dose is to add up the EPA and DHA content. For instance, if you use a fish oil liquid that contains 320 mg EPA and 240 mg DHA per teaspoon, you will need two teaspoons a day to achieve the equivalent of our starting dose of 1200 mg of EPA+DHA, usually provided by 4000 mg total in 4 capsules. Note that some lipid and lipoprotein disorders will require higher doses, e.g., 1800 mg EPA+DHA for high triglycerides (>200 mg/dl) or high IDL.

Sudden death in athletes

6. October 2006 William Davis (0)
A recent report in the Journal of the American Medical Association details how a group in the Veneto region of Italy cut back on the incidence of sudden cardiac death in athletes by a simple screening program.



You can read the abstract of the article at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/296/13/1593.

Although sudden death in athletes is still a rare event, it is especially tragic when it happens. In this population, the incidence was 3.6 deaths per 100,000 athletes aged 12 to 35 years. By implementing a simple screening program that involved only a physical examination and an EKG, an astounding 89% reduction in sudden death was documented.

What lessons does this hold for those of us interested in coronary plaque reversal? Beyond the obvious lesson of pointing out the great benefit of simple screening of athletes, I believe that it tells us the value of simple screening tools for heart disease in general. It is my strong belief that, if we were to implement CT heart scans among the broad population of men 40 years and over, women 50 years and over--without regard to cholesterol or other relatively lame risk identifiers--we could slash the risk for heart attack and death 90% or more. Putting CT heart scans into the hands of the public makes your coronary risk obvious. It takes the guesswork out of risk predictors like cholesterol and high blood pressure.

But heart scans are already available, you say! Yes, of course they are. But the lack of insurance reimbursement continues to be a restricting factor for many people, despite the number of lives that could be potentially saved and the money that would be saved in the long run by reducing need for major heart procedures. The continuing resistance to prevention by my cardiology colleagues and the persistent ignorance of primary care physicians also remain major impediments.

But it's getting better. You don't have to be chained by ignorance. Put your CT heart scan to good use.

My heart scan was wrong!

6. October 2006 William Davis (0)


Tom came into the office ready for a confrontation.

Tom's wife insisted that he see me to discuss the implications of his CT heart scan score of 459. At age 50, this was clearly bad news that placed Tom in the 99th percentile (worst 1% of men in his age group).

But Tom had already undergone a stress test. There had apparently been a small abnormality, and a heart catheterization had been performed by another cardiologist. "They told me they didn't need to do anything. No stent, no ballon, no bypass, nothing!"

I asked, "Did they tell you that there was any plaque or blockages seen?"

"Yeah, but he said it was nothing. So the heart scan was wrong!"

I've been here many times before. I explained to Tom that, no, his heart scan was not wrong. All the tests he'd undergone siimply provided a different perspective on the same disease. You could say:

--The stress test, being a test of blood flow, may have been abnormal because of the abnormal constrictive behavior of arteries containing plaque, known as "endothelial dysfunction", because the inner lining of arteries (the endothelium) control the tone of the artery. Abnormal constriction in arteries with plaque is quite common.

--The catheterization simply showed that no plaque had collected in a configuration to block flow, thus no stent, etc., since flow was normal. But there was indeed plaque.

All three tests were right; none were wrong. They all provided a little different perspective on the same process. Of course, I favor the heart scan as the means to identify, precisely measure, and track the atherosclerotic plaque in your arteries. The stress test is too crude and only measures flow, the catheterization is not something you'd want to undergo year after year. Catheterization also is too crude a measure to precisely track plaque growth or reversal.

So I explained to Tom that, even though a stent or similar procedure was unnecessary, he remained at substantial risk for heart attack due to plaque "rupture". In fact, Tom's heart attack risk was 5% per year, or approximately 50% over the next decade. That is, indeed, substantial. In fact, you might say that, of the three tests Tom underwent, only the heart scan revealed his true risk.