George walks into my office. I ask him his age.

"I'm 21 years old," he declares.

Yet I look at George. He's got gray thinning hair, his posture is slumped forward rather than erect, the flesh on his upper arms hangs loosely, he's got wrinkles on his hands and face, brown spots on the back of his hands and arms. He looks more like 70 years old to me. "I don't think you're 21 years old. I think you're 70."

"Prove it," he says.

Okay. What now? Minus any formal identification like a driver's license, how do I prove that George is really 70-something and not 20-something? Not an easy thing, when you think about it. If George were a tree, I'd cut him down and count his rings. Is there such a phenomenon in humans?

This is actually a fascinating area of research, looking for reliable biomarkers of aging.

Among the most quantitative markers of aging is telomere length. Telomeres were once dismissed as nonsense sequences in DNA. However, more recent thought among geneticists is that telomeres shorten with aging and provide the body's cells a timeline of aging. This way, George's cells act like they are 70, not 13, and don't start producing gobs of growth hormone and testosterone in preparation for puberty.

What can slow or stall the shortening of telomere length? There are two I'm aware of:

1) Caloric deprivation--i.e., taking in fewer calories. This was among the theories explored by Dr. Roy Walford during his Biosphere2 experience, based on his work in mice that showed that caloric deprivation nearly doubled lifespan.

2) Vitamin D--Richards et al (2007) found that, the higher the vitamin D, the longer the telomere length. The highest vitamin D levels conferred a 5-year effective difference in telomere length.

So, if I could look inside George's cells and count his telomeres, I could judge with confidence whether he was 21 or 70. Or, he could take vitamin D sufficient to increase blood levels to a healthy range and be more like 65.

Primitive cultures that were, until recently, unexposed to the modern world, reveal some important insights into blood pressure.

The Yanomamo of South American, the Xingu Indians of Brazil, rural Kenyans, and the natives of Papua, New Guinea have average blood pressures of 103/63 mmHg. Even more incredibly, while 90% of modern Americans will develop high blood pressure as they age, the members of these primitive cultures do not develop age-related hypertension.

What's the secret? Perhaps the full "secret" of their remarkably low blood pressure has not been fully unraveled, but several observations have emerged:

--They are not exposed to modern processed foods like pretzels, crackers, and breakfast cereals.
--Low-carbohydrate foods. Carbohydrates are largely the product of the food industry, convenience foods bought in stores. No such thing in the jungle.
--Living outdoors, having to forage and hunt, walk to your destination, not drive or wait in line for food.
--Outdoor lives, wearing little more than a few strands of clothing, exposes you to plentiful vitamin D activation from sunlight exposure.
--Consuming wild game, rich in omega-3 fatty acids, enhances endothelial health and reduces blood pressure.
--Wild plants, roots, and berries, as well as wild game, along the coast, are richer in iodine.

The studies examining the habits of the Yanomamo and other primitive cultures focused principally on sodium intake. Indeed, the very low sodium intake of primitive cultures was associated with lower blood pressure--up to 6 mmHg reduction. But there's clearly more to learn than "cut your salt."

What common food can:

• Cause destructive intestinal damage that, if unrecognized, can lead to disability and death?
• Increase blood sugar higher and faster than table sugar?
• Trigger an autoimmune inflammatory condition in the thyroid (Hashimoto’s thyroiditis)?
• Create intestinal bloating, cramps, and alternating diarrhea and constipation, often labeled irritable bowel syndrome?
• Trigger schizophrenia in susceptible individuals?
• Cause behavioral outbursts in children with autism?
• Cause various inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis, dermatitis herpetiformis, systemic lupus, pancreatic destruction, and increase measures of inflammation like c-reactive protein?
• Cause unexplained anemia, mood swings, fatigue, fibromyalgia, eczema, and osteoporosis?

The food is wheat. Yes, the ubiquitous grain we are urged to eat more and more of by the USDA (8-11 servings per day, according to the USDA food pyramid), American Heart Association, American Dietetic Association, and the American Diabetes Association. Wheat is among the most destructive ingredients in the modern diet, worse than sugar, worse than high-fructose corn syrup, worse than any fat.

What other common food can result in such an extensive list of diseases, even death?

Celiac disease alone, a severe intestinal inflammatory condition from wheat gluten, affects an estimated 3 million Americans (Celiac Disease Foundation). The medical literature is filled with case reports of deaths from this disease, often after many years of struggle with incapacitating intestinal dysfunction and the sufferer's last days plagued by encephalopathy (brain inflammation).

What happens when you remove wheat from the diet?

The majority of people quickly shed 20-30 lbs in the first few weeks, selectively lost from the abdomen (what I call “wheat belly”); blood sugar plummets; triglycerides drop up to several hundred milligrams, HDL increases, LDL drops (yes, wheat elimination is a means of achieving marked reduction in LDL cholesterol, especially the small, heart disease-causing variety); c-reactive protein plummets. In addition to this, intestinal complaints improve or disappear, rashes improve, inflammatory conditions like rheumatoid arthritis improve, diabetes can improve or be cured, and behavioral disorders and mood improve.

Along with the ill-fated low-fat dietary advice of the last 40 years, the advice to eat plenty of "healthy whole grains" is responsible for untold disease and suffering. Yes, if you start with a fast food and junk diet and replace some of the calories with whole grains, you will be better off. (That was the logic--the Nutritional Syllogism--of the studies that established the benefits of whole grains over processed, "white" grains.)

But eliminate wheat grains and health takes a huge leap forward. And, no, there is no such thing as wheat deficiency--B vitamins, insoluble fiber, some protein--can easily be replaced by other foods.

For as long as I've known him, echocardiography technologist, Ken Heiden, has had a deep fascination with congenital heart disease. Ken has just written a wonderful book on congenital heart disease called Heart Defects Simplified.

While this is a bit off-topic for the Heart Scan Blog, I know that there is a serious lack of helpful information for people with congenital heart disease and parents of children with congenital heart defects. So I asked Ken to tell us something about his book.

WD: I've reviewed your book and have been thoroughly impressed with the clarity and detail with which you handle a complicated topic. You somehow manage to make it easy to grasp, far more than any other resource I've used in past. Do you feel that your book serves a previously unmet need?

KH: This book serves an unmet need in that it presents the complex subject of congenital heart defects in a simplified manner. Most books on this subject are anywhere from 300-1700 pages in length and tend to be written for doctors. Further, most of these books have very few diagrams, and they rely upon their explanations to describe these defects.

Heart Defects Simplified is 104 pages in length, describes the most common defects, including surgical repairs, in a two-page format with full-color diagrams on the left and complete descriptions on the right of each chapter. The book is particularly written for sonographers, nurses and parents, but it is valuable for anyone interested in this subject. It is particularly useful in clinical situations because it is convenient to lay out at your side with a coil-bound format and durable pages. Further, there are appendixes which include "Surgical Procedures in Alphabetical Order," "Prevalence of Congenital Heart Disease," "Scanning Protocols for Echocardiographers," "Imaging Tips," a glossary and a worksheet for echocardiographers.

WD: I know that many people with loved ones who have congenital heart defects, particularly parents of children with such conditions, are often kept in the dark about the details of the condition. Is your book suitable for the non-technical reader, such as parents?

KH: This book is an excellent resource for parents. It is written in language that is understandable by parents as well as technologists and nurses. The full-color diagrams provide invaluable insight into this very complex world. Most importantly, this book attempts to make the subject of congenital heart defects accessible to anyone who wishes to comprehend this subject.

WD: I understand that people with congenital heart defects and parents are active participants in online discussion groups. Will your book serve as a resource for people who participate in these groups?

KH: This book is not only a resource for sonographers and parents, but the book is accompanied by a blog (HeartDefectsforEveryone.blogspot.com) that attempts to address many of the concerns commonly encountered with congenital heart defects. This blog is a work in progress, but I hope to provide a forum for parents, healthcare personnel, and others to share their questions and concerns about congenital heart disease.

I just got back my own results from the Gene Smart laboratory reporting my omega-3 index and omega-6:omega-3 ratio.

My results:

Omega-3 index: 8.2%

Omega-6:omega-3 index: 3.2 to 1

Not too bad, but not as good as I'd expected. Hmmm.

Although the omega-3 index of 8.2% puts me in the lower risk category for sudden cardiac death, I was hoping for a level of 10% or slightly greater, the level that I believe is more likely to be related to plaque inactivation or reversal. I obtained this level of omega-3 averaging an intake of EPA and DHA of about 2500 mg per day.

I was somewhat disappointed by the omega-6:omega-3 index. Although it's clearly better than the American average range of 20:1, it is short of the ideal of 2:1 or even 1:1. Since I purposely avoid omega-6-rich sources like corn oil, vegetable oils, sunflower or safflower oils, I wonder if I've overdone the nuts. The two ways to improve the omega-6:omega-3 ratio are to 1) decrease omega-6, or 2) increase omega-3. I'm going to do both.

So I thought I was doing pretty well. But there's clearly room for improvement.

Remember: If just reduction of cardiovascular risk is your interest, then a lackadaisical attitude towards these issues might work. But if your interest is elimination of risk and reversal of atherosclerotic plaque, then it pays to go the extra mile. In this case, knowing your omega-3 index and omega-6:omega-3 ratio might tighten up your program.

So you take a few fish oil capsules every day and eat fish once or twice a week. What is the blood and tissue level of omega-3 fatty acids generated by your habits?

A number of variables enter into the equation. For instance, if you take fish oil capsules, what is the concentration of omega-3 fatty acids? How well are they absorbed? After absorption, how effectively are omega-3 fatty acids incorporated into cell membranes?

Even if you take fish oil supplements, it is hard to know just how much you’ve increased blood levels. It is now possible to measure the amount of omega-3 fatty acids in your bloodstream, a value called the omega-3 index. Too little and you might still be at high risk for cardiovascular events.

The Omega-3 index and sudden cardiac death

Two large studies have demonstrated that higher omega-3 blood (the level in red blood cells, or RBCs) levels were associated with reduced likelihood of sudden cardiac death. The risk for sudden cardiac death was 10-fold higher for the lowest omega-3 RBC levels compared to the highest.

Harris WS 2008; adapted from Siscovick DS et al 1995 and Albert CM et al 2002
(The omega-3 Index was derived from whole blood omega-3 levels, which correlate with RBC omega-3 levels, and are thus “estimated.”)

What’s the average omega-3 RBC level for Americans? Most Americans have omega-3 RBC levels in the 2.5-4.0% range, consistent with the tallest bars at the left and associated with greatest risk for sudden cardiac death. People with heart disease can have levels less than 1%. Some authorities propose that this new measure be called the omega-3 index.

Subsequent studies have shown that the omega-3 index has greater power to discriminate who will have a heart attack or die from sudden cardiac death better than any other common laboratory measure of coronary risk, including LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, total cholesterol to HDL ratio, homocysteine, and c-reactive protein.

Just as hemoglobin A1c offers a 3-month look into blood glucose levels, the omega-3 index reflects your long-term omega-3 intake. The quantity of RBC omega-3s also closely parallels the quantity of omega-3s in heart tissues.

What is an ideal omega-3 index?

The above studies relating RBC omega-3 levels and sudden cardiac death suggest that a level of 6.3-7.3% is associated with far fewer fatal events?but events are not eliminated at this level. Is there even greater benefit with levels higher than 6.3-7.3%?

A recent analysis of females from the Harvard School of Public Health suggested that RBC omega-3 levels as high as 8.99% were still associated with non-fatal heart attack (myocardial infarction), compared to 9.36% in those without heart attacks. This suggests that even higher levels are necessary to prevent non-fatal events.

Should we target 10%? 12%? Maybe higher? Any higher and we are toeing the level achieved by the Inuits, the “Eskimoes” of Greenland, northern Canada and Alaska who have been observed to have a low rate of heart disease.

What’s your omega-3 index?

The appreciation of the importance of omega-3 fatty acids marks one of the greatest health revelations of the last 50 years. We can now measure it.

The ability to measure the proportion of omega-3 fatty acids in red blood cells may provide yet another means for all of us to further reduce risk for cardiovascular events.

If you are interested in knowing your omega-3 index, we are now making the fingerstick test kits available by going here.

A friend told me this story.

Her friend, Linda, had added vitamin D to her daily supplements. Because she'd had a vitamin D blood level of 22 ng/ml, she was taking 6000 units per day.

However, Linda also had a high cholesterol value with a total cholesterol of 231 mg/dl. After several months on the vitamin D, she had another cholesterol panel. Total cholesterol: 256 mg/dl.

"It must have been the vitamin D! So I stopped it right away."

Is this true? Does vitamin D raise the level of blood cholesterol? Yes, it does. But it's a good thing. Let me explain.

Followers of The Heart Scan Blog know that total cholesterol is really a mix of 3 other factors:

Total cholesterol = LDL cholesterol + HDL cholesterol + triglycerides/5

This is the Friedewald equation, still used today in over 95% of cholesterol panels. So, by the Friedewald equation, anything that increases LDL, HDL, or triglycerides will increase total cholesterol.

One of the spectacular changes that develops over a year of taking vitamin D is that HDL cholesterol skyrockets. While sensitivity to this effect varies (probably on a genetic basis), HDL increases of 10, 20, even 30 mg/dl are common. A starting HDL, for instance, of 45 mg/dl can jump up to 65 or 70 mg/dl, though the effect requires up to a year, sometimes longer.

Vitamin D can also reduce triglycerides, though the effect is relatively small, usually no more than 20 mg/dl or so. Likewise, the effect on LDL is minor, with a modest reduction in the small type of LDL.

So the dominant effect of vitamin D from a cholesterol standpoint is a substantial increase in HDL. Looking at the equation, you can see that an increase in HDL is accompanied by a commensurate increase in total cholesterol. If HDL goes up 25 mg/dl, total cholesterol goes up 25 mg/dl.

So Linda is absolutely correct: Vitamin D increases cholesterol--but it's a good thing that reduces risk for heart disease and is an important part of a coronary plaque-reversal program.

This is yet another reason why I advocate elimination of total cholesterol on lipid panels. There is no useful information in the total cholersterol value, only the potential for misinformation.

Heart Scan Blog reader from Australia, Michaela, also a mother of a son with a complex congenital heart defect, wrote this series of e-mails to me. (Published with Michaela's permission.)

I've been reading the article, Valve disease and Vitamin D from April '07, by Dr William Davis. I'm hoping you may have some information on the topic. I'm hoping someone will have time to help me.

I have been supplementing my 15 year old son with Vit D for 4 months but only 1000 (U) per day. I would like to increase the dosage but am not sure if I would do him more harm than good.

I have been researching vitamins and supplements on the net for a few months and have been amazed at what I have found. I only wish I had done it years ago. My son has been let down by the Australian Medical Profession and it's a race against time now to keep him well and avoid a heart transplant.

My son was born with aortic stenosis and had a valvotomy at 4 weeks of age. This damaged the aortic valve and he had a Ross Repair procedure at aged 3. This left him with a damaged heart muscle and leaking aortic & pulmonary valves. In May '08, his heart grew more enlarged, causing the mitral & tricuspid valves to also leak.

I took him to Bangkok in Feb this year where he had 70 million of his own Adult Stem Cells directly injected into his heart muscle with the hope of strengthening the muscle and eventually valve replacement.

My son has recovered from the surgery and is once again symptom-free, thanks to the wonderful advice followed by the Author & Cardiologist, Stephen T. Sinatra. I have followed his supplement regime and what a difference! Of course, this won't last while my son's valves continue to leak.

My son has also developed secondary hyperparathyroidism, bone thinning and hypothyrodism. Vit D & Calcium have something to do with this I believe.

My Australian Doctors have never made mention of any vitamins or supplements .... EVER! Transplant is all they will consider and we are not having it.

If you have any info or links to any sites which may be useful to me, could you email them to me? I would be grateful for any help I could get.

Sincerely
Michaela

I responded to Michaela's e-mail:

Hi, Michaela--

Vitamin D is extremely important. Sometimes, hyperparathyroidism and calcium derangements are caused by vitamin D deficiency. You might be able to get help with this from an endocrinologist, since they are the ones who deal with hyperparathyroidism. An endocrinologist might even be familiar with several recent studies that document this phenomenon:

Vitamin D therapy in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism and hypovitaminosis D

Vitamin D deficiency and primary hyperparathyroidism

Also, see the discussions at www.vitamindcouncil.org from Dr. John Cannell.

Because of the complexity of your son's health, it might be hazardous to stray too far away from conventional care though you and I know that there are limitations to that perspective. For that reason, I would urge you to press for answers from a knowledgeable endocrinologist.

I hope you find the answers you need.

William Davis, MD

Several months later, Michaela provided this update:

Hi Dr Davis,

I wrote to you back in July regarding my 15 year old son's need for a Heart Transplant through a failed Ross Repair and the possible Vitamin D connection. You sent me some valuable links and I thank you again for that.

I just wanted to let you know, I think you have given me the answers. I increased Lee's Vitamin D supplement to 6000U a day and, along with the recommended nutritional supplements of US Cardiologist Dr Stephen T Sinatra, there have been remarkable improvements! Lee also had 70 million of his own Adult Stem Cells injected into his heart in February. As we know, Stem Cell Therapy takes time and Lee was looking like time was quickly running out.

I have removed him from the transplant list. He is now reading normal Kidney function, the BNP (Brain Natriuretic Peptide, a measure of heart failure] has dropped by 7000 and his liver size has reduced to where it no longer causes him discomfort. The liver tests show it's still affected but it's function is improving each month. His last Echo was in early July and there had been a reduction in the size of his heart, which is so important.

To the Doc's, Lee can't get better, there is only transplant or death so you can imagine the surprise on their faces to see him looking and feeling so well with their tests to back it up. Still, even though it's staring them in the face, they don't want to know about it. They have no interest in what supplements he is on or Stem Cell therapy. God help their other patients. I view them in the waiting room and think of them as lambs to the slaughter.

We are not spoiled for choice with Doc's here in Western Australia. I have to take what I can get and there is not many who would take on Lee's case. He was number 1 on the transplant list and a most urgent case. Not many were willing to even look at him with his cardiac history and all I had to help was the arrogant Doc's at the Advanced Heart Failure Unit. They were not at all interested in his secondary hyperparathyroidism. I suppose it didn't matter what else he had compared to his heart problems.

Anyway, I'm writing to thank you. Lee would be transplanted or dead now if it wasn't for Dr's like you sharing their knowledge online. I wish I had researched things years ago, Lee might not have sunk so low if I had. I don't know if the transplant can be held off indefinitely, but like I tell Lee, "Stay well. There are amazing people out there doing amazing things, if you can just hang on. The miracle is around the corner." He's so well, you'd have to see him to believe it. But I have 7 kids and Lee is as physically active and as well as the other 6! For how long he can stay like this, I don't know but if his ejection fraction [a measure of left ventricular strength] can keep climbing and his body gets stronger, I have hope for another attempt at valve replacement.

I'm still shocked and angry that nutritional supplements have never been mentioned in the 15 years I've been dealing with cardiologists. Surely they know about them. I have read through dozens of reports online of the benefits of them--Why haven't they?! Thank God for the online Doc's such as yourself, the valuable info would never make it out of a Doctor's office in Western Australia! I've had to leave my country for Stem Cell therapy and then implore overseas Doc's for advice and information. What does that say for the Australian Medical Profession? Not a lot! They put him in the position he is in yet don't want to help get him out.

I'm so very grateful to you, thank you and God bless.

Michaela

Note: The above is not meant to be an implicit endorsement of stem cell therapy. This was just part of Michaela's story about her son.

Most people already know that cranberries are useful for preventing urinary tract infections. Cranberries can also be useful for preventing other sorts of infections, such as dental cavities and stomach ulcers because of cranberry's ability to block bacterial adhesion.

Cranberries can also be a useful component of a heart healthy program.

Several unique properties of cranberries contribute to various aspects of heart health:

• Cranberries are a rich source of pectin--Pectin is a soluble fiber, the sort that binds bile acids in the intestinal tract and naturally reduces LDL cholesterol.
• Cranberries are a rich source of polyphenols and flavonoids--Including the wonderfully fascinating anthocyanins, the flavonoids that confer the beautiful red color. Surprisingly, cranberries are richer in polyphenols and flavonoids than blueberries, strawberries, and grapes. Cranberry juice is also rich in these compounds. However, beware of cranberry juice "cocktail," which is diluted with other liquids such as high-fructose corn syrup. Like grapes, cranberries are a source of resveratrol, the polyphenol also found in red wines that some believe is responsible for reduced risk for heart disease and extending life.
• Cranberries have high antioxidant activity--Cranberries are among the highest in antioxidant capacity against superoxide radicals, hydrogen peroxide, and hydroxyl radicals, oxidizing factors believed to underlie heart disease, cancer, and aging. Cranberries also reduce the oxidation of LDL cholesterol particles.
• Cranberries block uric acid production--Cranberries have the unique ability to block the activity of an enzyme, xanthine oxidase, that converts xanthine to uric acid. Uric acid is believed to add to heart disease risk and is the factor responsible for gout.
• Cranberries increase HDL cholesterol--Cranberry juice increases HDL by 3-4 mg/dl.

Cranberries are only modest sources of sugars, with 7.19 grams “net” carbohydrates (total carbohydrates minus fiber content) per cup of whole raw cranberries.

The best way to eat cranberries is to consume the real thing: eat the whole berry, as in sugar-free cranberry sauce or added to baked dishes like chicken. Second best are dried cranberries. However, be careful of the overly-sweetened dried cranberries that contain added sugar (for a total of 78 grams sugar per cup--far too much). Unsweetened dried cranberries can be purchased, or you can dry them yourself.

Cranberry juice is another way to obtain the health benefits of cranberries; the unsweetened juice, while quite tart, is the best with 30.5 grams sugar per 8 oz--so don't drink more than 4 oz at a time. The more common cranberry juice “cocktails” are generally too sugary and/or too dilute for full health benefit.

The cranberry harvest season in Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon, Massachusetts, and New Jersey is just getting underway, so we should be seeing fresh cranberries on store shelves or farmers' markets any day now.

Kay came to the office for an opinion.

Over the past 8 months, she'd received a stent to the left anterior descending coronary artery and, during a separate procedure, a stent to the left subclavian artery.

"My cardiologist was very capable doing procedures. But when I asked, 'What do I do now?' he barely said a word and handed me a presciption for Crestor."

This kind of incredible neglect is the norm: Write a prescription for statin drug, delegate dietary advice to the hospital dietitian who advocates a heart disease-causing low-fat diet, followed by hospital discharge. You are expected to report any recurrent symptoms (which are inevitable), at which point you might "qualify" for another procedure.

It would be malpractice if it were not the prevailing standard in the community. Yes, the prevailing standard is neglect--neglect to identify, quantify, and correct all the identifiable causes of heart disease; neglect to discuss the nutritional methods that actually correct the abnormal patterns that cause heart disease; neglect to discuss nutritional supplements or medications beyond statins that further reduce heart disease risk and "need" for more procedures. In other words, the prevailing community standard is to stent, bypass, prescribe statin. It is not to understand why the disease occurred in the first place, correct the causes and minimize or eliminate any future danger or need for procedures.

I see consultation after consultation involving stories just like Kay's. People are frightened and they sense intuitively that nobody raised the question of why they have a potentially fatal disease.

Don't allow yourself to fall victim to this incredibly neglectful mode of practice, the one that has enriched hospitals, the drug industry, many cardiologists, but does little to address the actual disease.

Niacin:

--Raises HDL and shifts HDL towards the healthier large (HDL2b) subclass.
--Reduces total LDL.
--Reduces small LDL particles.
--Reduces triglycerides and triglyceride-containing particles like VLDL and IDL (intermediate-density lipoprotein).
--Reduces fibrinogen.
--Reduces inflammatory responses.

Weight loss achieved through a low-carbohydrate (read "wheat-free") diet:

--Raises HDL and shifts HDL towards the healthier large (HDL2b) subclass.
--Reduces total LDL.
--Reduces small LDL particles.
--Reduces triglycerides and triglyceride-containing particles like VLDL and IDL (intermediate-density lipoprotein).
--Reduces fibrinogen.
--Reduces inflammatory responses.

Curious, isn't it? Niacin achieves virtually the same effect as weight loss achieved through a low-carbohydrate diet, particularly if free of wheat products. The only major difference is that niacin also reduces lipoprotein(a), though even that distinction shrinks if monounsaturated fat sources like almonds are included in a low-carbohydrate program.

So which should you do first if you have any of the above patterns? Well, it's a question of 1) severity, 2) how carbohydrate-rich your starting diet is, 3) how much weight you could stand to lose, and 4) how urgent your program is (determined largely by your heart scan score).

Niacin can also be very helpful if you've taken full advantage of weight loss through a carbohydrate-restricted program, yet still retain some of the abnormal lipoprotein patterns that could continue to grow coronary plaque. For instance, if HDL cholesterol rises from 28 to 40 mg/dl by eliminating wheat and reducing carbohydrates and losing weight, niacin could raise HDL to 50 mg/dl or higher.

As much as I love and use niacin for its broad array of plaque-controlling effects, a low-carbohydrate, wheat-free diet can achieve many of the same effects. Use this strategy to full advantage.

Every once in a while, we will see someone experience more-than-expected rate of coronary plaque growth, a sudden jump in heart scan scores. I'm talking about increases in score of 50%, even 100%, sometimes despite favorable lipid and lipoprotein patterns.

It's not always easy to pin this phenomenon down, since we often detect it after a year or more on a repeat heart scan. It would be wonderfully insightful to perform heart scans more frequently and track plaque growth more precisely, but of course, radiation exposure is the most important limiting factor, as is cost.

So this list is, admittedly, speculative. It is based on observation, on presumptive associations between events and heart scan scores. But, judging from what we do confidently know about coronary atherosclerotic plaque, I think these observations make physiologic sense.

These are the sorts of increases in heart scan score that can scare the heck out of you, silent yet explosive growth of coronary atherosclerotic plaque that can grow with no warning whatsoever.

Image courtesy Wikipedia and the United States Geological Survey.

Factors which I have observed to possibly be responsible for explosive plaque growth include:

--Overwhelming tragedy such as death of a loved one, financial ruin, divorce. One of my early and catastrophic failures was a young man in his early 40s who, in the space of just a few months, suffered the loss of his mother, a brother, and his mother-in-law, while working a high-stress job. His heart scan score doubled from around 100 to 200 in one year, despite perfect lipoproteins. He had a heart attack shortly after the second score, despite a normal stress test just months earlier. (Pessimism is tragedy's weak cousin, but one that still holds power to corrupt our otherwise best efforts at plaque reversal.)

--Substantial weight gain. In the early years of the Track Your Plaque program, before it was even called "Track Your Plaque," I witnessed a man more than double his score from 1100 to 2400 in 18 months just by allowing himself to gain 40 lbs. (I don't know what became of him. His life apparently suffered other disasters, as well, and we lost track of him.)

--Poorly-controlled diabetes. High blood sugars out of control have yielded explosive growth.

--Kidney disease--However, I am uncertain of how much this overlaps with a deficiency of vitamin D's active form, 1,25-OH-vitamin D3, the form that is often deficient in people with dysfunctional kidneys.

--An inflammatory disease that is out of control, e.g., rheumatoid arthritis.

--This is very speculative, but I've witnessed explosive growth after vaccine administration that yielded strange viral-like symptoms. In this one instance, the man was getting heart scans (on his own) every three to six months and described a severe illness following a vaccine administered in preparation for travel out of the U.S.

--Unrecognized low thyroid function--i.e., hypothyroidism. This is easily corrected with thyroid hormone replacement.

These factors can also be relative and they can be overcome. Look at our current Track Your Plaque reversal record-holder: a 53-year old woman who dropped her heart scan score an amazing 63% despite the loss of a loved one during the 15 months of her program. Despite an overwhelming tragedy, she overcame the potential adverse effects and set a record, probably a record for the entire world.

In his most recent Vitamin D Council Newsletter (reprinted in its entirety below, minus clickable links, as Dr. Cannell apparently lost his webmaster and this issue of the newsletter is therefore not posted on the Vitamin D Council website; if you would like to either donate money to the Vitamin D Council or pitch in with help with his website, go to www.vitamindcouncil.com), Dr. John Cannell once again enlightens us with some new insights into vitamin D and its enormous role in health. In this issue, he discusses the role of vitamin D in people diagnosed with cancer (treatment, not prevention).

While cancer is not our focus on the Heart Scan Blog, Dr. Cannell's always insightful comments provide some helpful thoughts for our management of vitamin D doses and blood levels.

Dr. Cannell cites a recent study from vitamin D research expert, Dr. Bruce Hollis:

In the first study of its kind, Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina gave all of us something to think about. He asked and answered a simple question: How much vitamin D do you have to take to normalize the metabolism of vitamin D?

Remember, unlike other steroid hormones, vitamin D has very unusual metabolism in most modern humans, called first-order, mass action, kinetics. All this means is that the more vitamin D you take, the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, and the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, the higher the levels of activated vitamin D in your tissues. No other steroid hormone in the body behaves like this. Think about it: would you like your estrogen level to be dependent on how much cholesterol you ate? Or your cortisol level? (I'd ask the same about testosterone levels but I know men well enough not to ask.) No, the body must tightly regulate powerful steroid hormones through substrate inhibition, that is, if an enzyme turns A into B, when the body has enough B, B inhibits the enzyme and so limits its own production.

Not so with vitamin D, at least at modern human vitamin D levels. Professor Reinhold Vieth was the first to write about this and Vieth's Chapter 61 in Feldman, Pike, and Glorieux's wonderful textbook, Vitamin D (Elsevier, 2005, second edition), is a great reason to buy the textbook or have your library do so. (I'm glad to see Amazon is out of stock of the new ones (someone must be reading about vitamin D) but you can still buy used editions.)

Why would the kinetics of vitamin D be different from all other steroids? Maybe they are not, Hollis reasoned, like Vieth before him. Maybe vitamin D levels are so low in modern humans that its metabolic system is on full blast all the time in an attempt to give the body all the vitamin D metabolites it craves. So Hollis asked, Is vitamin D's metabolism different in populations in the upper end of 25(OH)D levels (a population of sun-exposed people and a group of women prescribed 7,000 IU per day)? Note, the Hollis study is free on Medline, you can download the entire paper on the right hand of the PubMed page below.

Hollis BW, et al. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-634.

If you look at the two graphs, Figures 1 and 2 of Hollis' paper, you find vitamin D's kinetics can be normalized, made just like all other steroid hormones in the body, but you have to get enough sunshine or take enough vitamin D to get your 25(OH)D level above 50 ng/ml, and 60 ng/ml would be better. Then your body starts to store cholecalciferol in the body without much further increase in 25(OH)D levels. The reaction becomes saturable. This is a remarkable discovery and it implies levels of 30 and 40 ng/ml are usually not sufficient. It also implies actual vitamin D levels (cholecalciferol levels), not just 25(OH)D levels, may be useful in diagnosing and treating deficiency. Note, that not all of the sun-exposed individuals or women prescribed 7,000 IU/day achieved such levels. That's because the sun-exposed individuals were tested after an Hawaiian winter and because prescribing and taking are two different things.

In answer to the question, "How much vitamin D should someone with cancer take?," Dr. Cannell advises:
"Take enough to get your 25(OH)D level above 60 ng/ml, summer and winter." In doing so, you will have normalized the kinetics of vitamin D and stored the parent compound, cholecalciferol, in your tissues. In the absence of sunshine, you need to take about 1,000 IU/day per 30 pounds of body weight to do this. A 150 pound cancer patient may need to take 5,000 IU per day, a 210 pound cancer patient about 7,000 IU per day, all this in the absence of sunlight.

Dr. Cannell, no stranger to the resisitance among many practicing physicians unaware of the expanding and robust literature on vitamin D, advises people with cancer that:
In the end, if you have cancer and your physician won't do a risk/benefit analysis, do it yourself. The risk side of that equation is easy. Both Quest Diagnostics and Lab-Corp, the two largest reference labs in the USA, report the upper limit of 25(OH)D normal is 100 ng/ml and toxic is above 150 ng/ml, so 60 ng/ml is well below both. The reason levels up to 100 ng/ml are published normals is because there is no credible evidence in the literature that levels of 100 ng/ml do any harm and because sun worshipers often have such levels. (If you don't believe me, go to the beach in the summer for one month, sunbath every day for 30 minutes on each side in your bathing suit, and go home and have a 25(OH)D level.) By getting your level above 60 ng/ml, all you are doing is getting your levels into the mid to upper range of laboratory reference normals. Little or no risk.

For readers wishing to read the entire text of Dr. Cannell's newsletter, it is reprinted below:

The Vitamin D Newsletter
January, 2008

The January newsletter is coming early as I will be out of touch for awhile. If you remember, the last newsletter was on preventing cancer, not treating it. Below is a sampling of the tragic emails the last newsletter generated:

"Dr. Cannell, I was just diagnosed with breast cancer, how much vitamin D should I take?"

"My mother has colon cancer, how much vitamin D should she take?"

"I've had prostate cancer for four years, is there any reason to think vitamin D would help?"

"Dr. Cannell, my son has leukemia, should I give him vitamin D?"

It's one thing to talk about evidence vitamin D may prevent cancer but something quite different to discuss evidence vitamin D might help treat cancer. I used to think the answers to all the above questions were the same. Like anyone else, people with cancer should be screened for vitamin D deficiency and be treated if deficiency is present. Simple. However, it's not that simple. The real questions are, What are reasonable 25-hydroxy-vitamin D [25(OH)D] levels for someone with a life-threatening cancer? How much vitamin D do they need to take to obtain such levels? Is there any evidence, of any kind, that vitamin D will help treat cancer? The risk/benefit analysis of taking vitamin D is quite different if you are in perfect health than if your life, or your child's life, is on the line.

Remember, unlike cancer prevention, not one human randomized controlled trial exists showing vitamin D has a treatment effect on cancer. By treatment effect, I mean prolongs the lives of cancer patients. However, as I cited in my last newsletter, Dr. Philippe Autier of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and Dr. Sara Gandini of the European Institute of Oncology, performed a meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials showing even low doses of vitamin D extend life but they looked at all-cause mortality, not just cancer (Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(16):1730-1737). However, some epidemiological studies indirectly address the treatment issue and are quite remarkable. The first are a series of discoveries by Professor Johan Moan, Department of Physics at the University of Oslo, with Dr. Alina Porojnicu as the lead author on most of the papers.

Moan J, et al. Colon cancer: Prognosis for different latitudes, age groups and seasons in Norway. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2007 Sep 19

Lagunova Z, et al. Prostate cancer survival is dependent on season of diagnosis. Prostate. 2007 Sep 1;67(12):1362-70.

Porojnicu AC, et al. Changes in risk of death from breast cancer with season and latitude: sun exposure and breast cancer survival in Norway. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007 May;102(3):323-8.

Porojnicu A, et al. Season of diagnosis is a predictor of cancer survival. Sun-induced vitamin D may be involved: a possible role of sun-induced Vitamin D. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):675-8.

Porojnicu AC, et al. Season of diagnosis is a prognostic factor in Hodgkin's lymphoma: a possible role of sun-induced vitamin D. Br J Cancer. 2005 Sep 5;93(5):571-4.

Porojnicu AC, et al. Seasonal and geographical variations in lung cancer prognosis in Norway. Does Vitamin D from the sun play a role? Lung Cancer. 2007 Mar;55(3):263-70.

What Professor Moan's group discovered, repeatedly, is quite simple, whether it be cancer of the breast, colon, prostate, lung, or a lymphoma. You live longer if your cancer is diagnosed in the summer. And it is not just Moan's group who has found this. A huge English study recently confirmed Moan's discovery.

Lim HS, et al. Cancer survival is dependent on season of diagnosis and sunlight exposure. Int J Cancer. 2006 Oct 1;119(7):1530-6.

What do these studies mean? Something about summer has a treatment effect on cancer. Whatever it is, you live longer if you are diagnosed in the summer but die sooner if you are diagnosed in the winter. What could it be about summer? Exercise? Fresh air? Melatonin? Sunlight? Pretty girls? Remember, these patients already had cancer. Whatever it is about summer, it is not a preventative effect that Professor Moan discovered, it is a treatment effect. Something about summer prolongs the life of cancer patients.

Dr. Ying Zhou, a research fellow, working with Professor David Christiani at the Harvard School of Public Health, went one step further. The stuffy Harvard researchers assumed summer worked its magic, not by pretty girls, but by summer sunlight making vitamin D. So they looked at total vitamin D input, from both sun and diet, to see if high vitamin D input improved the survival of cancer patients. Yes, indeed, remarkably. They found that early stage lung cancer patients with the highest vitamin D input (from summer season and high intake from diet) lived almost three times longer than patients with the lowest input (winter season and low intake from diet). Three times longer is a huge treatment effect, a treatment effect that most conventional cancer treatment methods would die for.

Zhou W, Vitamin D is associated with improved survival in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005 Oct;14(10):2303-9.

And that's not all, Marianne Berwick and her colleagues, at the New Mexico Cancer Institute, found malignant melanoma patients with evidence of continued sun exposure had a 60% mortality reduction compared to patients who did not. That implies a robust treatment effect from sunlight.

Berwick M, et al. Sun exposure and mortality from melanoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Feb 2;97(3):195-9.

I will not list the thousands of animal studies that indicate vitamin D has a treatment effect on cancer as almost all of them studied activated vitamin D or its analogs, drugs that bypass normal regulatory mechanisms, cannot get autocrine quantities of the hormone into the cell, and that often cause hypercalcemia. However, Michael Holick's group found that simple vitamin D deficiency made cancers grow faster in mice. That is, vitamin D has a cancer treatment effect in vitamin D deficient mice. Professor Gary Schwartz, at Wake Forest, recently reviewed the reasons to think that vitamin D may have a treatment effect in cancer.

Tangpricha V, et al. Vitamin D deficiency enhances the growth of MC-26 colon cancer xenografts in Balb/c mice. J Nutr. 2005 Oct;135(10):2350-4.

Schwartz GG, Skinner HG. Vitamin D status and cancer: new insights. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2007 Jan;10(1):6-11.

Finally, one human interventional study exists. In 2005, in an open trial, Professor Reinhold Vieth and his colleagues found just 2,000 IU of vitamin D per day had a positive effect on PSA levels in men with prostate cancer.

Woo TC, et al. Pilot study: potential role of vitamin D (Cholecalciferol) in patients with PSA relapse after definitive therapy. Nutr Cancer. 2005;51(1):32-6.

So we come back to the crucial question. If you have cancer, how much vitamin D should you take, or, more precisely, what 25(OH)D level should you maintain? We don't know. You can correctly say that definitive studies have not been done and, incorrectly, conclude physicians treating cancer patients should do nothing. I say incorrectly because standards of medical practice have always demanded that doctors make reasonable decisions based on what is currently known, doing a risk/benefit analysis along the way to decide what is best for their patients based on what is known today. If a patient has a potentially fatal cancer, the doctor cannot dismiss a relatively benign potential treatment modality just because definitive studies have not been done, and passively watch his patient die. Standards of care require doctors consider what is known now, using information currently available, perform a risk/benefit analysis, and then act in the best interest of their patient.

Luckily, such doctors recently obtained some guidance. In the first study of its kind, Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina gave all of us something to think about. He asked and answered a simple question: How much vitamin D do you have to take to normalize the metabolism of vitamin D?

Remember, unlike other steroid hormones, vitamin D has very unusual metabolism in most modern humans, called first-order, mass action, kinetics. All this means is that the more vitamin D you take, the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, and the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, the higher the levels of activated vitamin D in your tissues. No other steroid hormone in the body behaves like this. Think about it, would you like your estrogen level to be dependent on how much cholesterol you ate? Or your cortisol level? (I'd ask the same about testosterone levels but I know men well enough not to ask.) No, the body must tightly regulate powerful steroid hormones through substrate inhibition, that is, if an enzyme turns A into B, when the body has enough B, B inhibits the enzyme and so limits its own production.

Not so with vitamin D, at least at modern human vitamin D levels. Professor Reinhold Vieth was the first to write about this and Vieth's Chapter 61 in Feldman, Pike, and Glorieux's wonderful textbook, Vitamin D (Elsevier, 2005, second edition), is a great reason to buy the textbook or have your library do so. [ I'm glad to see Amazon is out of stock of the new ones (someone must be reading about vitamin D) but you can still buy used editions.)

Why would the kinetics of vitamin D be different from all other steroids? Maybe they are not, Hollis reasoned, like Vieth before him. Maybe vitamin D levels are so low in modern humans that its metabolic system is on full blast all the time in an attempt to give the body all the vitamin D metabolites it craves. So Hollis asked, Is vitamin D's metabolism different in populations in the upper end of 25(OH)D levels (a population of sun-exposed people and a group of women prescribed 7,000 IU per day)? Note, the Hollis study is free on Medline, you can download the entire paper on the right hand of the PubMed page below.

Hollis BW, et al. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-4.

If you look at the two graphs, Figures 1 and 2 of Hollis' paper, you find vitamin D's kinetics can be normalized, made just like all other steroid hormones in the body, but you have to get enough sunshine or take enough vitamin D to get your 25(OH)D level above 50 ng/ml, and 60 ng/ml would be better. Then your body starts to store cholecalciferol in the body without much further increase in 25(OH)D levels. The reaction becomes saturable. This is a remarkable discovery and it implies levels of 30 and 40 ng/ml are usually not sufficient. It also implies actual vitamin D levels (cholecalciferol levels), not just 25(OH)D levels, may be useful in diagnosing and treating deficiency. Note, that not all of the sun-exposed individuals or women prescribed 7,000 IU/day achieved such levels. That's because the sun-exposed individuals were tested after an Hawaiian winter and because prescribing and taking are two different things.

So my answer to "How much should I take if I have cancer?" is "Take enough to get your 25(OH)D level above 60 ng/ml, summer and winter." In doing so, you will have normalized the kinetics of vitamin D and stored the parent compound, cholecalciferol, in your tissues. In the absence of sunshine, you need to take about 1,000 IU/day per 30 pounds of body weight to do this. A 150 pound cancer patient may need to take 5,000 IU per day, a 210 pound cancer patient about 7,000 IU per day, all this in the absence of sunlight. And this may not be enough; cancer patients may use it up faster (increased metabolic clearance) and children may do the same due to their young and vital enzymes. Or you may need less, because you get more sun than you think, more from your diet, or because you are taking a modern medicine that interferes with the metabolism of vitamin D. An even easier way to do it is go to a sun tanning booth every day and obtain and keep a dark, full-body, tan. Then you don't have to worry about blood levels but I'd get one anyway, just to be sure it was above 60 ng/ml.

Given what Hollis discovered, given the well-known potent anti-cancer properties of activated vitamin D, given epidemiological evidence that summer extends the life of cancer patients, given a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that vitamin D prolongs life, given animal data that simple vitamin D has a treatment effect on cancer, and given a patient with a life-threatening cancer, what would a reasonable physician do? Simply let their patient die while muttering something about the lack of randomized controlled trials?

No, they would simply check a 25(OH)D level every month and advise cancer patients to take enough vitamin D or frequent sun tanning parlors enough to keep their level above 60 ng/ml. Toxicity does not start until levels reach 150 ng/ml but if you take more than 2,000 IU per day have your doctor order a blood calcium every month or two along with the 25(OH)D. Both you and he will feel better and because if you have cancer, you are probably taking lots of other drugs and little is known about how modern drugs interact with vitamin D metabolism. By getting your level above 60 ng/ml, all you are doing is getting your level to where most lifeguards' levels are at the end of summer, to levels our ancestors had when they lived in the sun, to levels regular users of sun-tan parlors levels achieve, and most importantly, to levels where vitamin D's pharmacokinetics are normalized.

In the end, if you have cancer and your physician won't do a risk/benefit analysis, do it yourself. The risk side of that equation is easy. Both Quest Diagnostics and Lab-Corp, the two largest reference labs in the USA, report the upper limit of 25(OH)D normal is 100 ng/ml and toxic is above 150 ng/ml, so 60 ng/ml is well below both. The reason levels up to 100 ng/ml are published normals is because there is no credible evidence in the literature that levels of 100 ng/ml do any harm and because sun worshipers often have such levels. (If you don't believe me, go to the beach in the summer for one month, sunbath every day for 30 minutes on each side in your bathing suit, and go home and have a 25(OH)D level.) By getting your level above 60 ng/ml, all you are doing is getting your levels into the mid to upper range of laboratory reference normals. Little or no risk.

What are the potential benefits? It probably depends on a number of things. Did your cancer cells retain the enzyme that activates vitamin D? Many do. Did your cancer cells retain the vitamin D receptor? Many do. If your cancer cells get more substrate [25(OH)D], will that substrate induce the cancer cells to make more vitamin D receptors or more of the activating enzyme? Some cancer cells do both. In practical terms, vitamin D is theoretically more likely to help your cancer the earlier you start taking it. However, no one knows. Certainly there is no reason, other than bad medicine, for cancer patients to die vitamin D deficient. Unfortunately, most do.

Tangpricha V, et al. Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in patients attending an outpatient cancer care clinic in Boston. Endocr Pract. 2004 May-Jun;10(3):292-3.

Plant AS, Tisman G. Frequency of combined deficiencies of vitamin D and holotranscobalamin in cancer patients. Nutr Cancer. 2006;56(2):143-8.

It is very important that readers understand I am not suggesting vitamin D cures cancer or that it replace standard cancer treatment. Oncologists perform miracles every day. Do what they say. The only exception is vitamin D. If your oncologist tells you not to take vitamin D, ask him three questions. 1) How do you convert ng/mls to nmol/Ls? How many IU in a nonogram? 3) How do you spell "cholecalciferol?" If he doesn't know how to measure it, weigh it, or spell it, chances are he doesn't know much about it.

All of the epidemiological and animal studies in the literature suggest cancer patients will prolong their lives if they take vitamin D. I can't find any studies that indicate otherwise. However, none of the suggestive studies are randomized controlled interventional trials; they are all epidemiological or animal studies, or, in the case of Vieth's, an open human study. However, if you have cancer, or your child does, do you want to wait the decades it will take for the American Cancer Society to fund randomized controlled trials using the proper dose of vitamin D? Chances are you, or your child, will not be around to see the results.

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council
9100 San Gregorio Road
Atascadero, CA 93422

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you don't want to get the newsletter, please hit reply and let us know. This newsletter is not copyrighted. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. Remember, we are a non-profit and rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:

The Vitamin D Council
9100 San Gregorio Road
Atascadero, CA 93422

PS: The Vitamin D Council lost our webmaster. If you want to donate your time to a good cause, know all about maintaining websites, are interesting in keeping up with the latest press about vitamin D, and are willing to do so for free, please hit reply and let me know. We currently have $405.52 in our bank account so we cannot pay you now but may be able to pay you in the future.

Let me paint a picture:

A 78-year old woman, tired and bent. She's lost an inch and a half of her original height because of collapse of several vertebra in her spine over the years, leaving her with a "dowager's hump," a stooped position that many older women assume with advanced osteoporosis. It's also left her with chronic back pain.

(Image courtesy of National Library of Medicine)

This poor woman also has arthritis in her knees, hips, and spine. All three locations add to her pain.

She also has hypertension, a high blood sugar approaching diabetes, and distortions of cholesterol values, including a low HDL and high triglycerides.

Look inside: On a simple x-ray, we see that the bones of her body are unusually transparent, with just a thin rim of bone at the outer edges, depleted of calcium. Weight-bearing bones like the spine, hips, and knees have eroded and collapsed.

On an echocardiogram of her heart (ultrasound), she has dense calcium surrounding her mitral valve ("mitral anular calcium"), a finding that rarely impairs the valve itself but is a marker for heightened potential for heart attack and other adverse events. Her aortic valve, another of the four heart valves, is also loaded with calcium. In the aortic valve, unlike the mitral valve, the collection of calcium makes the valve struggle to open, causing a murmur. The valve is rigid and can barely open to less than half of its original opening width.

If a heart scan were performed, we'd see the coronary calcification, along with calcification of the aorta, and the mitral and aortic valves.

Obviously, it's not a pretty picture. It is, however, a typical snapshot of an average 78-year old woman, or any other elderly man or woman, for that matter.

This collection of arthritis, osteoporosis, coronary and valve calcification, high blood pressure, abnormal cholesterol patterns, and pain is not unusual by any stretch. Perhaps you even recognize someone you know in this description. Perhaps it's you.

Look at this list again. Does it seem familiar? I'd say that the common factor that ties these seemingly unrelated conditions together is chronic and severe deficiency of vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency leads to arthritis, osteoporosis, coronary and valve calcification, high blood pressure, abnormal cholesterol patterns, and pain.

Should we go so far as to proclaim that aging, or at least many of the undesirable phenomena of aging, are really just manifestations of vitamin D deficiency? I would propose that much of aging is really deficiency of vitamin D, chronic and severe, in its end stages.

My colleagues might propose a 30- or 40-year long randomized trial, one designed to test whether vitamin D or placebo makes any difference.

Can you wait?

Here's a fascinating e-mail we received recently. It came from a man in Hawaii who dropped his heart scan score a modest amount, but did it in two months using fasting. He also has the advantage of access to the Holistica Hawaii scan center with our friend, Dr. Roger White. His experience is so fascinating that we asked for his permission to reprint his story which he did enthusiastically.

So here is Don's story:

I am a 61 year old male with a history of heart disease in my family. My maternal grandfather, for instance, died at age 39 of a
heart attack and my mother died of a stroke. There are other instances in my family as well.

I, personally, before going to Holistica had had three heart procedures; one radio catheter ablation for WPW Syndrome, and two radio catheter ablations for atrial fibrilations. After suffering with WPW for over 30 years and A-Fibs for about a year, those issues seem to be behind me fortunately.

Three or four months back, however, I was suffering from shortness of breath and slight chest pains when doing the uphill part of a 5 mile walk that I do almost every day. My wife had had a coronary heart scan several years back at Holistica so that's how I knew about it.

I had a scan done on October 4th this year. The scan did show fairly
advanced plaque build up; my total coronary plague burden was
312.9. The day following the scan I felt absolutely terrible; lightheaded, weak, much like feeling you were at death's door.

I had read a book a number of years back about therapeutic fasting
(water only) called "Fasting and Eating for Health" by Dr. Joel
Furhman.

According to his book, one on the areas where he consistently has dramatic and quick results with fasting is with reducing arterial plaque. Based on how badly I was feeling at the time, I decided to start an immediate fast. Within just the first 24 hours, the relief was dramatic and amazing. I continued the water only fast for 3 weeks.

Yesterday, December 1st I went in for another cardio scan instead of the coronary angiogram that I had previously been scheduled for. I could tell they were a little confused why I was doing that but went ahead and did another coronary EBT scan.

When I went in for the doctor consultation, Dr. McGriff said, "OK, exactly what is it you've done since last time." In less than two months, my coronary plaque burden had dropped to 296.2. That's a 6% reduction in less than 2 months. Had I gone back in for the second scan right after my 3 week fast then it probably would have a 6%
reduction in less than a month.

Frankly, based on how good I've been feeling (I'm even thinking of
getting back into jogging instead of walking), I was surprised it was
only 6%. Based on the common experience, however, that it sometimes
takes a year or two to just stabilize your plaque increase, much less
actually start losing it, the doctor was truly startled and
surprised. He said he had never seen such a sudden reduction as that
before!

We are still going to proceed with the coronary angiogram and I
intend to apply what I find in your book but I thought you might be interested in these results since I've never heard or read of anyone actually measuring the effectiveness of a fast with before and after EBT Scans.

I admire your direction and work focusing on prevention instead of catastrophic management like most doctors. Dr. Fuhrman is very much the same with the greatest attention on prevention so if you haven't heard of his book you might be interested. Especially interesting regarding this particular issue is Chapter 5 entitled, "The Road Back to a Healthy Heart-the Natural Way."

I can personally verify everything he has said about the fasting procedure itself from start to finish. I consider his book the Bible about fasting. As I mentioned, given your similar direction in medicine, I thought I would bring my personal experience on the matter to your attention for your consideration. Maybe in a future edition of your book, you might want to include some information on fasting.

Anyhow, I hope you will find this helpful. Any other questions,
don't hesitate to e-mail back. Please keep up your good work and
thanks for what your doing!

Yours truly,

Don P.
Honolulu, Hawaii

Isn't that great?

Now, in all honesty, a change of 6% could conceivably be within the margin of error for heart scanning. (Although several studies from a number of years ago suggested that variation in heart scan scoring was about 10%, sometimes more, in my experience, on EBT devices like the one Don used, variation is <5% at this score range.) Genuine regression would probably be better documented by yet another scan down the road. If the trend is consistent, then it is probably real.

Nonetheless, Don's story may support we've been saying for some time: Fasting is a rapid method to gain control over plaque--but I didn't know it might be that quick! Perhaps Don is a living example of what I've called "instant" heart disease reversal.

Don is potentially off to a good start. But, unless he can periodically repeat his fast, he will still have to engage in a program that allows continuing control over coronary plaque in between fasts. Also, fasting cannot address issues like vitamin D deficiency, lipoprotein(a), and any residual lipid/lipoprotein issues. But I am continually impressed with the power of fasting to "jump start" a program of heart disease reversal.

It would be a fascinating study to perform, with serial heart scans within brief periods of weeks or months to gauge rapid response. However, we need to keep in mind that as wonderful as heart scans are, they do involve modest radiation exposure.

It might be interesting in future to add a fasting "arm" to the virtual clinical trial. That might yield some great insights.

Copyright 2007 William Davis,MD

This continues a series I've begun recently that discusses studies that have emerged over the past 10 years relevant to heart scan scoring and reversal of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

The St. Francis Heart Study from St. Francis Hospital, Roslyn, New York, was released in 2005. This was yet another study that set out to determine whether Lipitor exerted a slowing effect on coronary calcium scores. This time, Lipitor (atorvastatin), 20 mg per day, was combined with vitamin C 1 g daily, and vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) 1,000 U daily, vs. placebo. A total of 1,005 asymptomatic men and women, age 50 to 70 years, with coronary calcium scores 80th percentile or higher for age and gender
participated in the study.

After four years, heart scan scores in the placebo group increased 73%, compared to 81% in the treatment group. Statistically, the cocktail of drug, vitamins C and E had no effect on heart scan scores.

Other findings included:

--Participants experiencing heart attack and other events during the study showed greater progression of scores than those not experiencing heart attack: score increase of 256 vs. increase of 120.

--While treatment did not reduce the number of heart attacks and events overall, participants with starting heart scan scores >400 did show a benefit: 8.7% with events on treatment (20 of 229) vs. 15.0% with placebo (36 of 240).

(Note what is missing from the treatment regimen: efforts to raise HDL (starting average HDL 51 mg/dl); reduce triglycerides (starting average 140 mg/dl); identify those whose LDL was false elevated by lipoprotein(a); omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil; correction of other factors like vitamin D deficiency.)

Are we pretty in agreement that just taking Lipitor and following an American Heart Association low-fat diet is an unsatisfactory answer to gain control over coronary plaque growth? No slowing of heart scan score growth seen in the St. Francis Heart Study and similar studies is consistent with the 25-30% reductions in heart attack witnessed in large clinical trials. Yes, heart attack and related events are reduced, but not eliminated--not even close.

And when you think about it, it should come as no surprise that the simple strategy studied in the St. Francis Heart Study failed to completely control plaque growth. Lipitor and statin drugs exert no effect on small LDL particles, barely raise HDL cholesterol at all, and have no effect on Lp(a), factors that increase heart scan scores substantially.

Though these discussions have frightened some people because of the suggestion that increasing heart scan scores are inevitable and unavoidable, they shouldn't. It really should not be at all shocking to learn that taking one drug all by itself should cure coronary heart disease.

Instead, findings like those of the St. Francis study should cause us to ask: What could be done better? How can we better impact on heart scan scores and how can we further reduce heart attack, particularly in people with higher heart scan scores?

My answer has been the Track Your Plaque program, a comprehensive effort to 1) address all causes of coronary plaque, and then 2) correct all the causes.

Here is Dr. John Cannell's Vitamin D Council Newsletter reprinted in its entirety. It answers some of the questions that came up on The Heart Scan Blog about the recent release of a study of vitamin D and cancer

The Vitamin D Newsletter

December, 2007

Does vitamin D prevent cancer? If it does, will doctors who ignore the research end up with blood on their hands? The press makes it easy for doctors to believe what they want to believe. Below are six stories about the same scientific study; read the six different headlines. According to your a priori beliefs, you can choose the story you want to believe and read that one. Don't feel bad, we all do it. As Walter Lippman once said, "We do not see and then believe, we believe and then we see."

Vitamin D cuts colon cancer death risk

Study Finds No Connection Between Vitamin D And Overall Cancer Deaths

Vitamin D protects against colorectal cancer

Vitamin D May Not Cut Cancer Deaths

Vitamin D protects against colorectal cancer

Scientists advise a vitamin D downgrade as there is no real proof ...

Another option is to read the study yourself.

Freedman DM, et al. Prospective Study of Serum Vitamin D and Cancer Mortality in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Oct 30; [Epub ahead of print]

What Dr. Freedman actually discovered is that when you take a very large group of people (16,818), some as young as seventeen, measure their vitamin D levels, and then wait about ten years to see who dies from cancer, you find 536 die and that a vitamin D level from ten years earlier is not a good predictor of who will die from cancer. However, even a level drawn ten years earlier predicted that those with the lowest level were four times more likely to die from colon cancer, suggesting, as Ed Giovannucci has, that colon cancer may be exquisitely sensitive to vitamin D. Furthermore, 28 women got breast cancer, 20 in the group with the lowest vitamin D level but only 8 in the highest. The breast cancer findings were not statistically significant - even during a very long breast cancer awareness month - but can you imagine what critics at the American Cancer Society would be telling women if the numbers were reversed, if the 20 women who got breast cancer were in the high vitamin D group?

Another large epidemiological study appeared about breast cancer the very next day. This time, the press passed on the story and the American Cancer Society was mum, no editorials by Dr. Lichtenfeld, their spokesman, in spite of breast cancer awareness month.

Abbas S, et al. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer - results of a large case-control study. Carcinogenesis. 2007 Oct 31; [Epub ahead of print]

In the above study, 1,394 women with breast cancer were case-controlled with a similar number of women without breast cancer. The women with breast cancer were three times more likely to have low vitamin D levels. That is a lot of women who may be dying during next year's breast cancer awareness month.

Both of the above studies were epidemiological, not randomized controlled trials. Of course a randomized controlled trial has already shown a 60% reduction in internal cancers in women taking even a modest 1,100 IU per day of vitamin D.

Lappe JM, et al. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.

What is interesting is the difference in the response of the Canadian Cancer Society and the American Cancer Society. The Canadian Cancer Society has advised all Canadians to take 1,000 IU per day - not enough but a good first step - and for immediate additional large scale clinical trials. The Canadians simply performed a risk/benefit analysis. What is the risk of treating vitamin D deficiency versus what are the potential benefits? They quote the American Food and Nutrition Board, which says 2,000 IU/day is safe for anyone over the age on one to take, on their own, without being under the care of a physician. If there is little or no risk, then the next question is what are the potential benefits of treating vitamin D deficiency? This is not quantum mechanics.

Cancer society calls for major vitamin D trial

The Canadians acted because the Canadian government knows it could save billions of dollars by treating vitamin D deficiency.

Vitamin D Deficiency Drains $9 billion From Canadian Health Care ...

If wide spread treatment of vitamin D deficiency became the rule, ask yourself, "Who would be helped and who would be hurt." First ask yourself that question about Canada and then about the USA. Remember, in Canada, the government directly pays for its citizen's health insurance; in the USA, private insurance is the norm. In Canada, the government is realizing they could save billions if vitamin D deficiencies were treated. In the USA, a large segment of the medical industry would be hurt, some anti-cancer drug manufacturers would have to close their doors, thousands of patents would become worthless, lucrative consulting contracts between industry and cancer researchers would dry up.

Both Canadians and Americans are shocked to think their doctors care about money, are in the illness business. In some ways people think of their doctors like they do their local public schools. They know medicine is a business and know doctors do things for money but they don't think their own doctors do. Likewise they think public schools are in bad shape but think their local schools are above average. They think their doctor is above average, like their "Lake Woebegone" kids.

Lake Woebegone Effect

The fact is that doctors, hospitals, regional cancer centers, and the cancer drug manufacturers are all in business to make money and all of these businesses make money off the sick, not off the well. Just a fact, but, as Aldous Huxley once observed, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

Vitamin D will save the Canadian government enormous amounts of money but will cause widespread economic disruption in the USA. Do the physicians leading the American Cancer Society have strong economic ties to the cancer industry in the form of patents, stock options, and consulting fees? If so, what do you expect them to do? What would you do? It's simple. You would believe what you have to believe, what you need to believe, that is, anything with the word "vitamin" in it is simply the latest Laetrile. Look to Canada, not the USA, to lead the way.

Vitamin D may fight cancer

What about American physicians? They are apparently waiting for the American trial lawyers to smell a tort. After all, the case is quite simple. Doctor, did you advise Mrs. Jones to avoid the sun? Doctor, did you tell her the sun is the source of 90% of circulating stores of vitamin D? Doctor, did you prescribe vitamin D to make up for what the sun would not be making? Doctor, did you measure her vitamin D levels? So you had no way of knowing if your sun-avoidance advice resulted in vitamin D deficiency? Doctor, do you know our expert tested her vitamin D level and it was less than 20? Doctor, did you tell her about any of the studies indicating vitamin D deficiency causes cancer? Doctor, did you know Mrs. Jones has terminal breast cancer and will be leaving behind a loving husband and two young children?

And what about the American Cancer Society? Dr. Lichtenfeld, their spokesman, quickly gave his opinion; from what I can tell the first time he ever commented on a vitamin D study. That is, he has ignored the hundreds of positive epidemiological studies, ignored the incredible randomized controlled trial, but he jumped on this one:

Maybe Vitamin D Isn't The Answer After All

Dr. Lichtenfeld, implied the Canadian Cancer Society has acted precipitously in recommending that all Canadians take 1,000 IU of vitamin D daily. He implied that Americans should placidly wait until more randomized controlled trials, such as Lappe JM, et al (above), accumulate before they address their vitamin D deficiency. That is, nothing should be done until more randomized controlled trials prove vitamin D prevents cancer, one randomized controlled trial is not enough; epidemiological studies are not enough, animal studies are not enough, multiple anti-cancer mechanisms of action are not enough? If that is his position, I challenge him to point to one human randomized controlled trial that proves smoking is dangerous?

If he cannot, then he must admit that the American Cancer Society's position on smoking is entirely derived from epidemiological studies, animal studies, and a demonstrable mechanism of action, not on human randomized controlled trials? Vitamin D not only has hundreds of epidemiological studies, thousand of animal studies, and at least four anti-cancer mechanisms of action, vitamin D deficiency has something smoking does not have, it has a high quality randomized controlled trial. If future randomized controlled trials fail to show vitamin D prevents cancer - and Dr. Lichtenfeld better hope they do - he can have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so." If future randomized controlled trials confirm vitamin D prevents cancer, then he needs to look at his hands, the red he sees is the blood of needless cancer deaths.

John Cannell, MD

The Vitamin D Council

9100 San Gregorio Road

Atascadero, CA 93422

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you don't want to get the newsletter, please hit reply and let us know.

Remember, we are a non-profit and rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:

The Vitamin D Council

9100 San Gregorio Road

Atascadero, CA 93422

A Heart Scan Blog reader recently posted this comment:

You wouldn't believe the trouble I'm having trying to get someone to give me a CT Heart Scan without trying to talk me into a Coronary CTA [CT angiogram]. Every facility I've talked to keeps harping on the issue that calcium scoring only shows "hard" plaque...and not soft.

I also had a nurse today tell me that 30% of the people that end up needing a coronary catheterization had calcium scores of ZERO. That doesn't sound right to me. What determines whether or not someone needs a coronary catheterization anyway?

There was a time not long ago when I saw heart scan centers as the emerging champions of heart disease detection and prevention. Heart scans, after all, provided the only rational means to directly uncover hidden coronary plaque. They also offered a method of tracking progression--or regression--of coronary plaque. No other tool can do that. Carotid ultrasound (IMT)? Indirectly and imperfectly, since it measures thickening of the carotid artery lining, partially removed from the influences that create coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Cholesterol? A miserable failure for a whole host of reasons.

Then something happened. General Electric bought the developer and manufacturer of the electron-beam tomography CT scanner, Imatron. (Initial press releases were glowing: The Future of Electron Beam Tomography Looks Better than Ever.The new eSpeed C300 electron beam tomographic scanner features the industry’s fastest temporal resolution, and is now backed by the strength of GE Medical Systems. Imatron and GE have joined forces to provide comprehensive solutions for entrepreneurs and innovative medical practitioners.)

Within short order, GE scrapped the entire company and program, despite the development of an extraordinary device, the C-300, introduced in 2001, and the eSpeed, introduced in 2003, both yanked by GE. The C-300 and eSpeed were technological marvels, providing heart scans at incredible speed with minimal radiation.

Why would GE do such a thing, buy Imatron and its patent rights, along with the fabulous new eSpeed device, then dissolve the company that developed the technology and scrap the entire package?

Well, first of all they can afford to, whether or not the device represented a technological advancement. Second (and this is my reading-between-the-lines interpretation of the events), it was in their best financial interest. Not in the interest of the public's health, nor the technology of heart scanning, but they believed that focusing on the multi-detector technology to be more financially rewarding to GE.

GE, along with Toshiba, Siemens, and Philips, saw the dollar signs of big money with the innovations in multi-detector technology (MDCT). They began to envision a broader acceptance of these devices into mainstream practice with the technological improvements in CT angiography, a device (or several) in every hospital and major clinic.

Anyway, this represents a long and winding return to the original issue: How I once believed that heart scan centers would be champions of heart disease detection and reversal. This has, unfortunately, not proven to be true.

Yes, there are heart scan centers where you can obtain a heart scan and also connect with people and physicians who believe in prevention of this disease. I believe that Milwaukee Heart Scan is that way, as is Dr. Bill Blanchet's Front Range Preventive Imaging, Dr. Roger White's Holistica Hawaii, and Dr. John Rumberger's Princeton Longevity Center.

But the truth is that most heart scan centers have evolved into places that offer heart scans, but more as grudging lip service to the concept of early detection earned with sweat and tears by the early efforts of the heart scan centers. But the more financially rewarding offering of CT coronary angiograms, while a useful service when used properly, has corrupted the prevention and reversal equation. "Entry level" CT heart scans have been subverted in the quest for profit.

CT angiograms pay better: $1800-4000, compared to $100-500 for a heart scan (usually about $250). More importantly, who can resist the detection of a "suspicious" 50% blockage that might benefit from the "real" test, a heart catheterization? Can anyone honestly allow a 50% blockage to be without a stent?

CT angiograms not only yield more revenue, they also serve as an effective prelude to "downstream" revenue. By this equation, a CT angiogram easily becomes a $40,000 hospital procedure with a stent or two, or three, or occasionally a $100,000 bypass. Keep in mind that the majority of people who are persuaded that a simple heart scans are not good enough and would be better off with the "superior" test of CT angiography are asymptomatic--without symptoms of chest pain, breathelessness, etc. Thus, the argument is that people without symptoms, usually with normal stress tests, benefit from prophylactic revascularization procedures like stents and bypass.

There are no data whatsoever to support this practice. People who have no symptoms attributable to heart disease and have normal stress tests do NOT benefit from heart procedures like heart catheterization. They do, of course, benefit from asking why they have atherosclerotic plaque in the first place, followed by a preventive program to correct the causes.

So, beware: It is the heart scan I believe in, a technique involving low radiation and low revenue potential. CT angiograms are useful tests, but often offered for the wrong reasons. If we all keep in mind that the economics of testing more often than not determine what is being told to us, then it all makes sense. If you want a simple heart scan, just say so. No--insist on it.

Take trust out of the equation. Don't trust people in health care anymore than you'd trust the used car salesman with "a great deal."

Finally, in answer to the reader's last comment about 30% of people needing heart catheterizations having zero calcium scores, this is absolute unadulterated nonsense. I'm hoping that the nurse who said this was taken out of context. Her comments are, at best, misleading. That's why I conduct this Heart Scan Blog and our website, www.cureality.com. They are your unbiased sources of information on what is true, honest, and not tainted by the smell of lots of procedural revenue.

Russ had a beer belly, a big protuberant, hanging-over-the belt-on-top-of-skinny-legs sort of beer belly. Except he didn't get it from beer (only). Yes, he did drink beer, up to 3 or 4 per day on weekends, rarely during the week.

Russ got his "beer belly" from snack foods, processed foods, and yes, wheat products.

He came to my office for consultation for unexplained breathlessness. His primary care physician was stumped and asked for an opinion.

So, part of Russ' evaluation included laboratory work. Russ proved to have a blood sugar (glucose) of 136 mg/dl, well into the diabetic range. His insulin level was 102 microunits/ml, way above the desirable range of <10. I interpreted this to mean that Russ had early diabetes but still maintained vigorous pancreatic function, since the pancreas is the abdominal organ responsible for insulin production. In pre-diabetes and early diabetes, insulin levels can be high, reflecting the revved up output of the pancreas. However, the pancreas eventually "burns out," unable to keep up with the demand to product enormous quantities of insulin. That's when blood sugar skyrockets.

Along with the blood sugar and insulin, Russ showed all the expected markers of this syndrome (the "metabolic syndrome"): low HDL of 34 mg/dl, high triglycerides of 257 mg/dl, severe small LDL (80% of total LDL), high c-reactive protein, and high blood pressure.

A heart scan showed a surprisingly small amount of coronary plaque with a score of only 4. Thus, Russ' symptoms were unlikely to represent a coronary issue ("ischemia"). Breathlessness was far more likely to be from 1) his obesity and protuberant abdomen, large enough to encroach on his chest and lung volume, and 2) high blood pressure (which can, in turn, lead to high heart pressure and breathlessness, often called "left ventricular diastolic dysfunction").

I persuaded Russ to eliminate his previously flagrant and abundant over-reliance on wheat products and snack foods. Two months later, 15 lbs lighter, and a modestly less protuberant beer belly, Russ' laboratory evealuation showed:

--Blood sugar 90 mg/dl--normal.

--Insulin 12 microunit/ml--darn near normal.

Blood pressure was down 20 points. Russ' breathlessness was now entirely gone. He has another 30-40 lbs to go, but he's off to a great start. He is now clearly, solidly, and confidently NON-diabetic.

I see experiences like this every day, as do committed diabetes fighters like Jenny at Diabetes Update.

Why isn't this common practice? If pre-diabetes and diabetes can be cured by such a simple approach, why isn't it more widely embraced? After all, what other devastating diseases can claim to have such a simple, straightforward way to achieve cure?

And why does the American Diabetes Association (ADA) actually condone the inclusion of abundant carbohydrates in diabetics? Their modified food pyramid shows the widest part of the pyramid filled with "breads, grains, and other starches."

How about this question taken from a Q&A on the ADA website:

Can I eat foods with sugar in them?

For almost every person with diabetes, the answer is yes! Eating a piece of cake made with sugar will raise your blood glucose level. So will eating corn on the cob, a tomato sandwich, or lima beans. The truth is that sugar has gotten a bad reputation. People with diabetes can and do eat sugar. In your body, it becomes glucose, but so do the other foods mentioned above. With sugary foods, the rule is moderation. Eat too much, and 1) you'll send your blood glucose level up higher than you expected; 2) you'll fill up but without the nutrients that come with vegetables and grains; and 3) you'll gain weight. So, don't pass up a slice of birthday cake. Instead, eat a little less bread or potato, and replace it with the cake. Taking a brisk walk to burn some calories is also always helpful.

The answer is simple. Just as the American Heart Association focuses on ways to deliver the message of palliation, so does the ADA. So ADA diet advice is designed to help diabetics maintain a stable blood sugar on their medication. It is definitely not intended to reverse or eliminate diabetes. My patient Russ would be deep into diabetes on the ADA diet, enjoying his rolls, whole wheat bread, breakfast cereals, and birthday cake.

Once again, another example of the growing irrelevance of the "official" arbiters of health information for those of us looking for reversal of disease.

I'd like to start an occasional series of blog posts on The Heart Scan Blog in which I review studies relevant to the whole heart scan score reversal experience.

In a previous post, Don't be satisfied with "deceleration,"I discussed the BELLES Trial (Beyond Endorsed Lipid Lowering with EBT Scanning (BELLES)), in which either atorvastatin (Lipitor), 80 mg, or pravastatin (Pravachol),40 mg, was given to 615 women. Both groups showed an average of 15% annual plaque growth, regardless of which agent was taken and regardless of the amount of LDL cholesterol reduction.

I cited another study in which 471 participants received either Lipitor, 80 mg, or Lipitor, 10 mg. The rate of annual score increase was 25-27%, regardless of drug dose or LDL lowering.

Here's yet another study, a small German experience in 66 patients, with a curious design and using the now-defunct statin drug, cerivastatin (Bayccol, pulled in 2001, nearly simultaneous with the publication of this study, due to greater risk of muscle damage, particularly when used in combination with gemfibrozil). Achenbach et al in Influence of lipid-lowering therapy on the progression of coronary artery calcification: A prospective evaluation reported on this trial in which all participants underwent heart scanning to obtain a heart scan score; no treatment was initiated based on the score. A second scan was obtained after the no treatment period, followed by treatment with cerivastatin, 0.3 mg per day. A third scan was finally obtained.

In year one without treatment, the average increase in heart scan scores was 25%. In year two with cerivastatin, the average increase in heart scan score was 8.8%. In 32 participants who achieved LDL<100 mg/dl on the drug, there was an average modest reduction in heart scan scores of 3.7% (i.e., -3.7%).

Now, that was eye-opening. Why did this small study achieve such startlingly different results from the other two studies that showed relentless progression despite even high doses of Lipitor? That remains unanswered. Was cerivastatin unique among statins? Did the unique two-phase trial design somehow change the outcome by triggering participants to change lifestyle habits after their first scan (since most exhibited an increase in score; they were not "blinded" to their scores). Those questions will remain unanswered, since the drug has been made unavailable. This smal l study had actually been intended to be larger, but was prematurely terminated because of cerivastatin's withdrawal.

This experience is unique, as you can see, compared to the two other studies. But it was also smaller. The results are also different than what I have seen in day-to-day practice when I've seen people treated with statin drugs alone (not cerivastatin, of course): rarely do heart scan scores stop increasing. While slowing does usually occur (18-24% per year rates of annual score increase are very common in people who do nothing but take a statin drug and make modest lifestyle changes), I have personally seen only two people stop their score with this strategy alone. Nobody has ever dropped their score taking a statin alone, in my experience.

You can also see the nature of clinical studies: single or limited interventions instituted in order to control for unexpected or complex effects. If three different treatments are used, then what desirable or undesirable effects, or lack of an effect, is due to which treatment agent?

My experience is that no single treatment stops or reduces heart scan scores. It requires a more rational effort that includes 1) identification of all causes of coronary plaque (e.g., low HDL, high triglycerides, Lp(a), small LDL, deficiency of vitamin D, etc, none of which are substantially affected by statin drugs), and 2) correction of all causes. That simple concept has served us well.

How old are you?

No high blood pressure

Name that food

Heart Defects Simplified

My experience with the omega-3 index

The Omega-3 Index: The higher, the better?

Vitamin D increased my cholesterol

Nutrtional ignorance is not unique to the U.S.

Eat cranberries

Procedures 'R Us

Niacin vs. low-carb weight loss

Explosive plaque growth

Dr. Cannell on "How much vitamin D?"

End-stage vitamin D deficiency

"Instant" reversal with fasting?

Study review: yet another Lipitor study

Dr. Cannell on vitamin D and cancer

"Yes, Johnnie, there really is an Easter bunny"

Diabetes: controlled or . . . cured?

Study review: cerivastatin