Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), is the combined product of a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle joined with the liver-produced protein, apoprotein(a).

Apoprotein(a)'s characteristics are genetically-determined: If your Mom gave the gene to you, you will have the same type of apoprotein(a) as she did. You will also share her risk for heart disease and stroke.

When apoprotein(a) joins with LDL, the combined Lp(a) particle is among the most aggressive known causes for coronary and carotid plaque. If apoprotein(a) joins with a small LDL, the Lp(a) particle that results is especially aggressive. This is the pattern I see, for instance, in people who have heart attacks or have high heart scan scores in their 40s or 50s.

Lp(a) is not rare. Estimates of incidence vary from population to population. In the population I see, who often come to me because they have positive heart scan scores or existing coronary disease (in other words, a "skewed" or "selected" population), approximately 30% express substantial blood levels of Lp(a).

Then why haven't you heard about Lp(a)? If it is an aggressive, perhaps the MOST aggressive known cause for heart disease and stroke, why isn't Lp(a)featured in news reports, Oprah, or The Health Channel?

Easy: Because the treatments are nutritional and inexpensive.

The expression of Lp(a), despite being a genetically-programmed characteristic, can be modified; it can be reduced. In fact, of the five people who have reduced their coronary calcium (heart scan) score the most in the Track Your Plaque program, four have Lp(a). While sometimes difficult to gain control over, people with Lp(a) represent some of the biggest success stories in the Track Your Plaque program.

Treatments for Lp(a) include (in order of my current preference):

1) High-dose fish oil--We currently use 6000 mg EPA + DHA per day
2) Niacin
3) DHEA
4) Thyroid normalization--especially T3

Hormonal strategies beyond DHEA can exert a small Lp(a)-reducing effect: testosterone for men, estrogens (human, no horse!) for women.

In other words, there is no high-ticket pharmaceutical treatment for Lp(a). All the treatments are either nutritional, like high-dose fish oil, or low-cost generic drugs, like liothyronine (T3) or Armour thyroid.

That is the sad state of affairs in healthcare today: If there is no money to be made by the pharmaceutical industry, then there are no sexy sales representatives to promote a new drug to the gullible practicing physician. Because most education for physicians is provided by the drug industry today, no drug marketing means no awareness of this aggressive cause for heart disease and stroke called Lp(a). (When a drug manufacturer finally releases a prescription agent effective for reducing Lp(a), such as eprotirome, then you'll see TV ads, magazine stories, and TV talk show discussions about the importance of Lp(a). That's how the world works.)

Now you know better.

If you would like to plan a heart attack in your future, here are some easy-to-follow steps to get you there in just a few short months or years:

1) Follow a low-fat diet.

2) Replace fat calories with "healthy whole grains" like whole wheat bread.

3) Eat "heart healthy" foods like heart healthy yogurt and breakfast cereals from the grocery store.

4) Use cholesterol-reducing plant sterols.

5) Take a multivitamin to obtain all the "necessary" nutrients.

6) Take the advice of your doctor who declares your heart "in great shape" based on your cholesterol values.

7) Take the advice of your cardiologist who declares your heart "like that of a 30-year old" based on a stress test.

8) Take a statin drug to reduce LDL and c-reactive protein while maintaining your low-fat diet.

9) Neglect sun exposure and vitamin D restoration.

10) Limit your salt intake while not supplementing iodine.

There you have it: An easy, 10-step process to do your part to help your local hospital add on its next $40 million heart care center.

If you would instead like to prevent a heart attack in your future, then you should consider not doing any of the above.

C-reactive protein, or CRP, is a protein produced by the liver in response to inflammatory signals its receives. Thus, CRP has emerged as a popular measure to gauge the underlying inflammatory status of your body. Higher CRP levels (e.g., 3.0 mg/L or greater) are associated with increased risk of heart attack and other cardiovascular events.

The drug cartel have jumped on this with the assistance of Harvard cardiologist, Dr. Paul Ridker. Most physicians now regard increased CRP as a mandate to institute statin therapy, preferably at high doses based on such studies as The JUPITER Trial, in which rosuvastatin (Crestor), 20 mg per day, reduced CRP 37%.

I see this differently. Two strategies drop CRP dramatically, nearly to zero with rare exception: Vitamin D restoration and wheat elimination. Not 37%, but something close to 100%.

Yes, I know it sounds wacky. But it works almost without fail, provided the rest of your life is conducted in reasonably healthy fashion, i.e., you don't live on Coca Cola, weigh 80 lbs over ideal weight, and smoke.

How can something so easily reduced like CRP mean you "need" medication? Easy: Increased CRP means there are fundamental deficiencies and/or inflammation provoking foods in your diet. Correct neither and there is an apparent benefit to taking a statin drug.

Why not just correct the underlying causes?

One of the most common reasons people come to my office is to correct high cholesterol values without Lipitor. (Substitute "Lipitor" with Crestor, simvastatin, Vytorin, or any of the other cholesterol drugs; it's much the same.)

In the world of conventional healthcare, in which you are instructed to follow a diet that increases risk for heart disease and not advised to correct nutrient deficiencies like vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids, then a drug like Lipitor may indeed provide benefit.

But when you are provided genuinely effective information on diet, along with correction of nutrient deficiencies, then the "need" and apparent benefits of Lipitor largely dissolve. While there are occasional genetic anomalies that can improve with use of Lipitor and other statins, many, perhaps most, people taking these drugs really would not have to if they were just provided the right information.

Anyone following the discussions on these pages knows that wheat elimination is probably one of the most powerful overall health strategies available. Wheat elimination reduces real measured LDL quite dramatically. Provided you limit other carbohydrates, such as those from fruits, as well, LDL can drop like a stone. That's not what your doctor tells you. This approach works because elimination of wheat and limiting other carbohydrates reduces small LDL. Small LDL particles are triggered by carbohydrates, especially wheat; reducing carbohydrates reduces small LDL. Conventional LDL of the sort obtained in your doctor's office will not show this, since it is a calculated value that appears to increase with reduced carbohydrates, a misleading result.

Throw vitamin D normalization and iodine + thyroid normalization into the mix (both are exceptionally common), and you have two additional potent means to reduce (measured) LDL. Not restricting fat but increasing healthy fat intake, such as the fats in lots of raw nuts, olive oil, and flaxseed oil reduce LDL.

While I still prescribe statins now and then, a growing number of people are succeeding without them.

(Note that by "measured" LDL I am referring to the "gold standard," LDL particle number by NMR provided by Liposcience. A second best is measured Apoprotein B available through most conventional labs.)

While einkorn is a 14-chromosome ancient wheat (containing the so-called "A" genome), emmer is a 28-chromosome wheat (containing the "A" and "B" genomes, the "B" likely contributed by goat grass 9000 years ago).

Both einkorn and emmer originally grew wild in the Fertile Crescent, allowing Neolithic Natufians to harvest the wild grasses with stone sickles and grind the seeds into porridge.

Having tested einkorn with only a modest rise in blood sugar but without the gastrointestinal or neurological effects I experienced with conventional whole wheat bread, I next tested bread made with emmer grain.

The emmer grain was ground just like the other two grains, cardiac dietitian Margaret Pfeiffer doing all the work of grinding and baking. Margaret added nothing but water, yeast, and a little salt. The emmer rose a little more than einkorn, but not to the degree of conventional whole wheat.

I tested my blood sugar beforehand: 89 mg/dl. I then ate 4 oz of the emmer bread. It tasted very similar to conventional whole wheat, but not as nutty as einkorn. Also not as heavy as einkorn, only slightly heavier than conventional whole wheat.

One hour later, blood sugar: 147 mg/dl. I felt slightly queasy for about 2-3 hours, but that was the end of it. No abdominal cramps, no sleep disturbance or crazy dreams, no nausea, no change in ability to concentrate.

I asked four other wheat-sensitive people to try the emmer bread. Likewise, nobody reacted negatively (though nobody tested blood sugar).

So it seems to me, based on this small, unscientific experience, that ancient einkorn (A) and emmer (AB) wheat seem to act like carbohydrates, similar to, say, rice or quinoa, but lack many of the other adverse effects induced by conventional wheat.

Modern wheat , Triticum aestivum, contains variations on the "A," "B," and "D" genomes, the "D" contributed by hybridization with Triticum tauschii at about the same time that emmer wheat hybridization occurred. It is likely that proteins coded by the "D" genome are the source of most of the problems with wheat products: immune, neurologic, gastrointestinal destruction, airway inflammation (asthma), increase in appetite, etc. This is consistent with observations made in studies that attempt to pinpoint the gliadin proteins that trigger celiac, the area in which much of this research originates.

If I ever would like an indulgence of cookies or cupcakes, I think that I will order some more einkorn grain from Eli Rogosa.

Lisa is a trained dietitian. Unlike many of her colleagues, she has "seen the light" and realized that the conventional advice that most dietitians are forced to dispense through hospitals, clinics, and other facilities is just plain wrong.

I know Lisa personally and we've had some great conversations on diet and nutritional supplements. I told Lisa about my einkorn experience and how I witnessed a dramatic difference between bread made from einkorn wheat and that made from conventional whole wheat. So she decided to give it a try herself.

Here's Lisa's experience:

This past Friday, June 18th, I conducted my "Einkorn Wheat Experiment".

7 am
FBG [fasting blood glucose] 97 mg/dl

8 am-9 am
1 hour high-intensity aerobic workout

10:05 am
BG 99

10:05 am
I embarked upon the journey of choking down, I mean enjoying, the hefty piece of Einkorn bread. Wow, was that bread dense! It was a lot of work chewing.

10:50 am
(45 minutes after consumption, wanted to see what BG did a bit before the 1 hr mark) BG 153

11:05 am
1hr PP 120

11:35 am
90 mins PP [postprandial] 113

12:05 pm
2 hours PP 114 ... at this time I ate an egg & veggie omelet for lunch.

12:50 pm
BG 100

Before dinner 5:10 pm
BG 88

I was surprised with the BG of 153. However, it was good to see my insulin response is reactive and decreased BG 33 points in 15 minutes to end up with a BG of 120 1 hr after the bread.

So, it appears my response is similar. A slight elevation of BG at the 1 hour mark, but not to the degree of conventional whole grain wheat bread.

Of note, also, was the fact that I cannot remember the last time I ate a piece of wheat bread of this magnitude that did not make me bloated... not at all: No cramps, no brain fog, no headache and, did I mention not bloated?

I believe you are on to something with tolerance of Einkorn wheat for those of us with wheat sensitivities, in addition to its apparent lower glycemic response.

Along with Lisa, I asked four other people with various acute intolerances (all gastrointestinal) to conventional wheat, i.e., people who experience undesirable effects from wheat within minutes to several hours, to eat the einkorn bread. None experienced their usual reactions.

Obviously, this does not constitute a clinical trial. Nonetheless, I find this a compelling observation: People like myself who generally experience distinct undesirable reactions to wheat did not experience these reactions with einkorn.

Note, however, that einkorn behaves like a carbohydrate. No different, say, from brown rice or quinoa. However, unlike modern whole wheat flour from Triticum aestivum, in this little experience there were no immune reactions, no neurologic phenomena, no gastrointestinal distress--just the blood sugar consequences.

While this may not be true for all people consuming einkorn, it suggests that primordial einkorn wheat is quite different from modern conventional wheat for most people.

Conventional advice tells us to supplement calcium, 1200 mg per day, to preserve bone health and reduce blood pressure.

Here's a curious observation I've now witnessed a number of times: Some people who supplement this dose of calcium while also supplementing vitamin D sufficient to increase 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood levels to 60-70 ng/ml develop abnormally high levels of blood calcium, hypercalcemia.

This makes sense when you realize that intestinal absorption of calcium doubles or quadruples when vitamin D approaches desirable levels. Full restoration of vitamin D therefore causes a large quantity of calcium to be absorbed, more than you may need. In addition, two studies from New Zealand suggest that 1200-1300 mg calcium with vitamin D per day doubles heart attack risk.

We have 20 years of clinical studies demonstrating the very small benefits of supplementing calcium to stop or slow the deterioration of bone density (osteopenia, osteoporosis). These studies were performed with no vitamin D or with trivial doses, too small to make a difference. I believe those data have been made irrelevant in the modern age in which we "normalize" vitamin D.

Should hypercalcemia develop, it is not good for you. Over long periods of time, abnormal calcium deposition can occur, leading to kidney stones, atherosclerosis, and arthritis.

Until we have clarification on this issue, I have been advising patients to take no more than 600 mg calcium supplements per day. I suspect, however, that the vast majority of us require no calcium at all, provided an overall healthy diet is followed, especially one that does not leach out bone calcium. This means no foods like those made with wheat or containing powerful acids, such as those in carbonated drinks.

Cardiologist, nutritionist, and lipidologist, Dr. Joe D. Goldstrich, is a frequent contributor to the Track Your Plaque Forum, where we discuss the full range of issues relevant to coronary health and coronary plaque reversal.

I have come to value Dr. Goldstrich's unique insights, especially in nutrition. Formerly National Director of Education and Community Programs for the American Heart Association and a physician at the Pritikin Center, his dietary philosophy has evolved away from low-fat and towards a low-carbohydrate focus, much as we use in Track Your Plaque. Like TYP, Dr. Goldstrich is always searching for better answers to gain control over coronary health. His unique blend of ideas and background has helped us craft new ideas and strategies. Dr. Goldstrich has proven especially adept at understanding how to incorporate new findings from clinical studies in our framework of coronary atherosclerotic plaque management strategies.

Dr. Goldstrich is offering to share his expertise with our online community. If you would like a one-on-one phone consultation with Dr. Goldstrich, you can arrange to speak with him at his HealthyHeartConsultant.com website.

Following my 4 oz whole wheat misadventure that yielded the sky-high blood sugar of 167 mg/dl, compared to einkorn wheat's 110 mg/dl, I suffered through a 36-hour period of misery.

After I obtained the blood sugar of 167 mg/dl, I biked hard for one hour. This yielded a blood sugar back down in the 80s. I felt spacey in the ensuing few hours, as well as a little queasy. However, about 12 hours later, I awoke with overwhelming nausea along with that hypersalivating thing that happens just prior to vomiting. It did not come to that, but persisted all through the following day.

The next morning, I could barely concentrate. Trying to read a study (admittedly on the complex topic of agricultural genetics), I had to read each paragraph 4 or 5 times. Abdominal cramps and a bloated feeling also developed, though I was able to eat.

The 2nd night was filled with incredibly vivid dreams and intermittent sleeplessless. I awoke about 5 times through the night, but periods of sleep were filled with detailed, colorful dreams. I dreamt that a large corporation was secretly trying to gain control over the world's water supply, and I snuck onto a complex underwater vessel that was exploring and mapping the coastline of the Great Lakes in preparation. Weird.

I recognized these odd feelings as various facets of wheat intolerance, since they were all reminiscent of feelings I used to experience before I removed wheat from my diet. They were amplified and compressed, likely because I had been wheat-free for so long.

The odd thing is that, despite the modest blood sugar effect of my einkorn experience, none of the gastrointestinal or neurologic effects of wheat developed. So far, two other people with acute gastrointestinal wheat sensitivities have consumed our einkorn bread, also without reproduction of their usual symptoms.

Einkorn contains gluten, though the structure of the many gluten proteins of einkorn differs from that of the wheat bread I consumed, an example of modern Triticum aestivum. 14-chromosome einkorn carries what biologists call the "A" genome, while Triticum aestivum has the combines genomes of 3 plants, the combination of the A, B, and D genomes. It is the D genome that contains the genes coding for the most obnoxious, immunogenic forms of gluten.

So einkorn may not be entirely benign, but it is a good deal less obnoxious than modern Triticum aestivum.

I am awaiting the reports from a few other people on their experiences.

There are three basic aspects of wheat's adverse health effects: immune activation (e.g., celiac disease), neurologic implications (e.g., schizophrenia and ADHD), and blood sugar effects.

Among the questions I'd like answered is whether ancient wheat, such as the einkorn grain I obtained from Eli Rogosa, triggers blood sugar like modern wheat.

So I conducted a simple experiment on myself. On an empty stomach, I ate 4 oz of einkorn bread. On another occasion I ate 4 oz of bread that dietitian, Margaret Pfeiffer, made with whole wheat flour bought at the grocery store. Both flours were finely ground and nothing was added beyond water, yeast, olive oil, and a touch of salt.

Here's what happened:

Einkorn wheat bread:

Blood sugar pre: 84 mg/dl
Blood sugar 1-hour post: 110 mg/dl

Conventional wheat bread
Blood sugar pre: 84 mg/dl
Blood sugar 1-hour post: 167 mg/dl

The difference shocked me. I expected a difference between the two, but not that much.

After the conventional wheat, I also felt weird: a little queasy, some acid in the back of my throat, a little spacey. I biked for an hour solid to reduce my blood sugar back to its starting level.

I'm awaiting the experiences of others, but I'm tantalized by the possibility that, while einkorn is still a source of carbohydrates, perhaps it is one of an entirely different variety than modern Triticum aestivum wheat. The striking difference in blood sugar effects make me wonder if einkorn eaten in small quantities can keep us below the Advanced Glycation End-Product threshold.

The sun is getting stronger and the days are getting longer, even here in Wisconsin.

Some people are coming to the office with nice tans obtained by sunning themselves for several hours. Others have come back from winter getaways to Florida, Arizona, or the tropics, also sporting nice, dark tans.

Several people, in fact, were so confident that sunning themselves provided sufficient vitamin D that they reduced their usual dose. Some even stopped their vitamin D altogether.

But, when blood levels of 25(OH) vitamin D were checked, they were virtually all low, sometimes as low as <20 ng/ml. Yet all had nice tans.

Why does this happen? Why would people with dark tans remain deficient in vitamin D?

One big factor is age: Anyone over 40 years old is fooling themselves if they think that a tan ensures raising vitamin D levels to a desirable range. Also, the more you tan, the more melanin skin pigment accumulates, and the more vitamin D activation in the skin is blocked.

Weight is another factor: Heavier people need more vitamin D, sometimes three- or four-fold more than slender people.

Why does aging result in inefficient skin activation of vitamin D? It seems that, once we are beyond our reproductively useful years, this ticking clock of aging gets triggered. The older we get, the less activation of vitamin D occurs in our skin, the less of the youth-maintaining, disease-preventing benefits of vitamin D we obtain with sun exposure.

The message: Don't rely on a tan to gauge the adequacy of vitamin D. Maybe that works when you're 16 years old, but not at age 50 or 60. There's only one way to know your vitamin D status: a blood level of 25(OH) vitamin D.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

I admit it: In years past, I spoke for the drug industry.

In retrospect, I now regret it. In fact, I'm downright embarassed by it.

In the 1960s, you’d purchase a new car. If you changed the oil, adhered to the maintenance schedule—and were lucky—you might expect to get 100,000 miles out of your automobile. Only an occasional car made it beyond that odometer hurdle. Even if the engine made it past the 100,000 mile milestone, the automobile body would inevitably start to develop rusting decay at the edges of the fenders, signaling body rot that threatened to open gaping holes of metal.

Then along came Toyota and Honda, whose cars easily reached 100,000 miles and well beyond, reliably and with bodies intact. As this realization sunk into the American consciousness, many asked, “Why can’t American automakers accomplish the same sort of trouble-free longevity?” “Buy American” emerged as a mantra to preserve American jobs and prop up an economy vulnerable to the superior automotive products from Detroit’s competitors.

Of course, American automakers have since responded to the challenge posed by the Japanese auto industry and produced automobiles that essentially matched the reliability and longevity of Japanese cars. But, the great unanswered question remains: For years before the onslaught of Japanese competition, did Detroit quietly plot to maintain a policy of planned obsolescence that ensured Americans would have to scrap the old and buy a new car every few years whenever the odometer tipped over 100,000 miles?

We will never know. At worst, it may represent the behind-closed-doors, back-slapping sort of plotting that, for many years, maximized revenues, ensured shareholder returns, and secured executive paychecks. Or, perhaps it wasn’t some evil conspiracy but just complacency, a profitable position of comfort at that. There’s little incentive for industry insiders to reveal such self-incriminating information.

But the example set by the American auto industry presents an unusual learning opportunity for us, a chance to make some useful comparisons to the heart healthcare industry.

Is the American healthcare industry also guilty of practicing a policy of “planned obsolescence,” just like Detroit? The product that helplessly crumbles is, of course, not your rust-riddled automobile, but you.

When someone sees a primary care physician year after year, yet appears one morning in the emergency room, clutching his or her chest in agony from the closed coronary artery responsible for a life-threatening heart attack—prompting the flurry of activity that results in $100,000 in hospital procedures . . .

Perhaps “planned obsolescence” is not the perfect phrase to describe the situation, but the principle still applies: A failure to inform the patient that such an outcome was possible—no, probable—makes you wonder whether such an outcome was predictable and thereby preventable in the first place.

What should we do when planned obsolescence leads us down a path engineered by someone who has something, often substantial, to gain? Even if it's just complacency, or adhering to a beaten, ineffective status quo (can you say "low-fat diet?), it all points in the same direction.

You have a choice: Refuse to buy a 1962 Impala of health care, otherwise known as conventional heart disease management.

Melatonin is fascinating stuff.

In addition to its use as a sleep aid, melatonin exerts possible effects on cardiovascular parameters, including anti-oxidative action on LDL, reduction in sympathetic (adrenaline-driven) tone, and reduction in blood pressure.

Several studies document the blood pressure-reducing effect of melatonin:

Daily nighttime melatonin reduces blood pressure in male patients with essential hypertension.

Melatonin reduces night blood pressure in patients with nocturnal hypertension.

Prolonged melatonin administration decreases nocturnal blood pressure in women.

Blood pressure-lowering effect of melatonin in type 1 diabetes.

But blood pressure may be increased when melatonin is added to nifedipine, a calcium channel blocker:

Cardiovascular effects of melatonin in hypertensive patients well controlled by nifedipine: a 24-hour study.

Effects on BP tend to be modest, on the order of 5-8 mmHg reduction in systolic, half that in diastolic.

But don't pooh-pooh such small reductions, however, as small reductions exert mani-fold larger reductions in cardiovascular events like heart attack and stroke. NIH-sponsored NHANES data (see JNC VII), for example, document a doubling of risk for each increment of BP of 20/10. The Camelot Study demonstrated a reduction in cardiovascular events from 23% in placebo subjects to 16.7% in subjects taking amlodipine (Norvasc) with a 5 mm reduction in systolic pressure, 2 mmHg drop in diastolic pressure. Small changes, big benefits.

Many people take melatonin at bedtime and are disappointed with the effects. However, a much better way is to take melatonin several hours before bedtime, e.g., take at 7 pm to fall asleep at 10 pm. Don't think of melatonin as a sleeping pill; think of it as a sleep hormone, something that simply prepares your body for sleep by slowing heart rate, reducing body temperature, and reducing blood pressure. (You may need to modify the interval between taking melatonin and sleep, since individual responsiveness varies quite a bit.)

I also favor the sustained-release preparations, e.g., 5 mg sustained-release. Immediate-release, while it exerts a more rapid onset of sleep, allows you to wake up prematurely, The sustained-release preparations last longer and allow longer sleep.

The dose varies with age, with 1 mg effective in people younger than 40 years, higher doses of 3, 5, even 10 or 12 mg in older people. Sustained-release preparations also should be taken in slightly higher doses.

The only side-effect I've seen with melatonin is vivid, colorful dreams. Perhaps that's a plus!

Thinking about the programs for health care reform proposed by the three Presidential candidates highlights a distinct peculiarity of American style health care.

American health care is shaped to an unprecedented degree by five forces:

1) The drug industry

2) The health insurance industry

3) Hospitals

4) Fear of litigation

5) The uniquely American attitude of refusing compromise in access to health care services or products, regardless of the cost (for those who can afford health insurance)

All five of these unique forces have created this thing (monster?) we call health care. Remove or modify any one of these forces, and the health care landscape would look dramatically different.

The drug industry has recently been on the receiving end of plenty of negative press. This warms my bones. Decades of heavy-handed lobbying, sleazy marketing to physicians (all too willing to be wined and dined), and behind-the-scenes manipulation of clinical data are coming back to bite them. Sadly, the drug industry is so powerful that this bit of fuss is not likely to substantially change their ways.

I am thrilled that all three Presidential candidates agree that reimportation of drugs from outside the U.S. is a good idea. While the shrug of the shoulders federal and state attitude towards importation of drugs from Canada has not resulted in cost savings sufficient to impact on overall costs, it surely will lead to savings when practiced on a broad basis by pharmacies, distributors, and other bulk buyers of pharmaceuticals.

Senator Obama, in particular, has used strong language in his criticism of the health insurance industry, tough talk that is needed in an age in which insurance executives bring home salaries in the hundreds of millions of dollars and stock prices are climbing due to substantial profit gains within the industry, going against the grain of increasingly costly premiums. However, the Clinton experiment of federalizing health care during Bill Clinton's term that caused all the big boys to band together (most notably health insurance companies and drug industry) has tempered enthusiasm for attacking the insurance industry head-on. In both Democrats' health care reform proposals, the option of private insurance is preserved, as it is in the McCain proposal.

How about hospitals? Hospitals, though on a smaller scale than the nationwide reach of the drug and insurance industries, aim to maintain health service delivery in hospitals. For instance, the high-tech bypass service in the hospital gets plenty of local media coverage, as does the newest DaVinci robotic surgery, bariatric surgery, and other revenue-rich services. Many hospitals have forgotten that their mission is delivery of health, of which revenue creation and profiting from disease should only be part.

How big is fear of litigation? Estimates vary, but several have quoted numbers in the neighborhood of 20 to 30% of overall health care costs. At the street level from what I see, I'd say at least that much. Fear of litigation is rampant, often unrestrained, and sometimes leads to the craziest, illogical sequence of testing. Chest pain, for instance, no matter how trivial, will typically trigger around $5000 worth of testing (nuclear stress test, echocardiogram, laboratory work, etc.) Emergency room visit for a minor injury? CT scan of head, chest, abdomen. A formula to minimize this aspect of fear in health care delivery would generate enormous savings.

The last issue, the uncompromising nature of Americans in health--always wanting the latest new drug, new procedure, "best" surgeon--often simply causes the health care consumer to fall victim to marketing. If a hospital advertises the newest procedure, people want it regardless of whether it represents genuine improvement over the older procedure. The newest sleeping pill, antidepressant, antihypertensive, etc. replaces the old yet equivalent product, but at considerably greater cost.

I am optimistic that, regardless of which candidate gains the White House, that some reform is on the way. I do fear, however, that progress will be small and incremental, since major change of the sort that would slash hundreds of billions of dollars in costs would rouse the powers-that-be (drug industry, health insurers, etc.) to once again combine forces and combat the disruption of their franchise.

Until you and I see real change and cost savings coming through either legislation or free market advances, we need to continue to make full use of the self-empowering health information that we gain through venues like the web.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

No doubt, our little informal poll asking readers whether they have lipoprotein(a), is skewed towards people inclined to respond because they have this genetic trait.

Nonetheless, the response is telling. Of 82 respondents:

--40 (48%) said they did have Lp(a)

--16 (19%) said that they did not have Lp(a)

--26 (31%) said that they did not know whether or not they had Lp(a)

Though admittedly an informal analysis, I'd draw several conclusions from this simple "experiment".

One, while the proportion of people responding that they have Lp(a) may not be accurate, it is a prevalent genetic risk factor that, according to formal studies, is present in 17% of people with coronary or vascular disease, 11% of the broader population. This number may be even higher if the newer particle number assays (measurements) are used (with results expressed in nmol/L), since an occasional person with a "normal" Lp(a) in mg/dl (weight-based) will prove to have increased Lp(a) by nmol/L (particle number-based). (The reason for this phenomenon is not clear. It may be consequent to variation in apo(a) size, with larger apo(a) varieties of Lp(a) occasionally escaping detection .) As our little poll shows, plenty of people have Lp(a).

Two, readers of this blog tend to be highly motivated, sophisticated, and knowledgeable about health and heart disease. Yet a substantial portion--31%--did not know whether they have this crucial risk factor. That shouldn't be. The unnecessary difficulty of getting this simple blood test performed has been driven home to me repeatedly when I identify this factor in someone and then suggest that their grown children and parents, each of whom have a 50% chance of having Lp(a), be tested. It's not uncommon for a 35-year old son, for instance, to say that his doctor refused, claiming it is an unproven risk marker, or to simply say that he/she doesn't know what it is.

No doubt, just knowing whether you have Lp(a) or not is not the end of the story. Reducing Lp(a) and its associated co-factors is no easy matter. With several hundred patients in my practice with Lp(a), it occupies much of my time and energy. Sometimes it leads to enormous successes , but it can also pose a real challenge.

There should no longer be any doubt that Lp(a) is associated with significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease. This has been demonstrated conclusively across dozens of studies. Risk from Lp(a) is over and above that posed by other risk factors; it also amplifies the risk posed by other factors, e.g., small LDL, inflammatory phenemena, homocysteine, total LDL, low HDL.

In the world of Lp(a), our two most desperate needs for the future are:

1) Better education of physicians and the public, and

2) More effective treatment options.

Thus, our reasons to form The Lipoprotein(a) Research Foundation. Steps to gain tax-exempt status are being pursued as we speak.

I can't help but wonder whether, like vitamin D, a solution is right beneath our noses. An investment in research to fund the trials to better explore both basic science as well as practical treatment options might yield an answer more readily than we think. Wouldn't that be great?

Just a muse.

Endogenous substances are those that are already contained within our bodies. They are part of basic human equipment.

Exogenous substances are those that come from outside of our bodies. This includes various substances in foods, drugs (most, though not all), and pesticides.

I often mull over all of the tools we use in the Track Your Plaque program to achieve control over this thing called coronary plaque. It struck me that just about all the supplements we use that seem to provide outsized benefits are all endogenous substances themselves:

--Omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil
--Vitamin D
--l-arginine
--Niacin (vitamin B3)

Many of the other substances, though not directly relevant to our plaque-control efforts, but are among the most effective nutritional supplements, also supplement endogenous levels: calcium pyruvate, creatine, acetylcarnitine, DHEA, testosterone, progesterone, growth hormone, pregnenolone, phenylalanine, tyrosine, melatonin, etc.

Curiously, most drugs are not meant to directly supplement endogenous levels, but are designed either to enhance or block an enzyme (e.g., acetylcholinesterase inhibitors that block breakdown of acetylcholine; HMG CoA reductase inhibitors to block cholesterol synthesis; angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors to reduce blood pressure), to exert toxic effects on an organism (antibiotics, antivirals), or to exert an entirely unique effect that does not ordinarily occur in the human body (some anti-cancer drugs, for instance). (This is an admitted, vast over-simplification.)

That's not to say that any endogenous substance is desirable or safe when supplemented. Cortisol, thyroid hormone, and estrogens are three examples of endogenous substances that have downsides when administered at slightly more than physiologic concentrations.

Nonetheless, it makes me wonder if the world of endogenous substance supplementation has not been fully explored. Are there other endogenous substances that are as potent and wonderful, for instance, as vitamin D but not yet fully appreciated? I'm sure there are.

Reprinted here is the unfailingly informative Vitamin D Newsletter from Dr. John Cannell. Although there's little here specifically about heart disease, there's so much great information about vitamin D that I thought most would still appreciate it.

The Vitamin D Newsletter

May, 2008

Yesterday's Washington Post article, Too-Good-To-Be-True Nutrient?, sums up the April 9th vitamin D symposium at UCSD in San Diego, which was nothing short of spectacular. Carole Baggerly outdid herself organizing it and explaining how she got involved. Make no mistake; Carole is both serious and energetic. She told about her efforts to introduce resolutions at upcoming meetings of various professional groups. Then she introduced the volunteers from the San Diego Black Nurses Association who made sure the conference went off without a hitch. Then Carole introduced the four speakers. The slides of each speaker are available at Grassroots Health.

Before I tell you the highlights of the conference, I'd like to tell you about another conference, this one in Germany, this May 17th and 18th. It is the Third International Symposium on Vitamin D Analogs in Cancer Prevention and Therapy. Readers know how I feel about giving analogs to vitamin D deficient patients instead of vitamin D but speakers include Michael Holick, Reinhold Veith, Bill Grant, Tai Chen, Heidi Cross, David Feldman, and Roger Bouillon, all of whom know the importance of the nutrient. Most of this conference is for scientists, not lay people. However, Michael Holick is the first speaker and if you have not heard his latest talk about vitamin D, it might be worth a trip to Germany.

The first San Diego speaker was Dr. William Grant. Since leaving NASA to begin a full-time career as a vitamin D researcher, Bill has published dozens of studies and has another dozen in the works. Using ecological studies (from Greek oikos, house + German -logie, study or studying your own house) of UVB irradiance and cancer, Bill reported that 15 cancers (colon, esophageal, gallbladder, gastric, pancreatic, rectal, small intestinal, bladder, kidney, prostate, breast, endometrial, ovarian, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) are associated with lower UVB light. He concluded that 257,000 cancer deaths in 2007 in the USA were accounted for by inadequate vitamin D levels. Of course the problem with ecological studies is that it easy to be vitamin D deficient in Miami, all you have to do is listen to your doctor's advice and stay out of the sun. Recently, a group from the Arizona Cancer Center found almost 80% of Arizonians had levels below 30 ng/ml. So much for sunny spots.

Jacobs ET, et al. Vitamin D insufficiency in southern Arizona. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):608-13.

The next speaker was Professor Cedric Garland. I found myself wondering how he did it. I became convinced that vitamin D prevents cancer five years ago. Cedric and his brother Frank and his colleague Ed Gorham knew it 30 years ago! I know what it is like to tell someone that vitamin D prevents cancer and see them think, "Here we go again, another miracle vitamin." I know what it is like to try and explain and watch people die unnecessarily. But I've only had that experience for five years. Cedric has dealt with that frustration for thirty years. Almost thirty years ago, Cedric and Frank Garland published evidence that vitamin D prevents cancer. In fact, it was Cedric's first publication. Thankfully, the paper was recently recognized as being so important that it was republished in 2006 by the International Journal of Epidemiology. You can read the entire paper for free by clicking on the second link below and then clicking on "free final text", courtesy of Oxford Journals.

Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol. 1980 Sep;9(3):227-31.

Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Apr;35(2):217-20.

Cedric began by showing the incidence of type-1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis by latitude. I had no idea that the latitudinal data was so strong for type 1 diabetes in children. This disease is almost nonexistent around the equator. Type-1 diabetes is but one of the three modern childhood epidemics caused by the sunlight-hating dermatologists, the other two, I think, are autism and asthma. Next he showed latitude and 25(OH)D levels, which reminded me to be suspicious of high levels, unless they use accurate methods of detecting 25(OH)D. Some methods used, even in this country, are over detecting vitamin D and telling patients their levels are above 50 ng/ml when they are, in reality, much lower. Cedric's data showed Thailand had mean levels of 70 ng/ml, which I doubt and suspect were due to inaccurate 25(OH)D tests. He then reviewed evidence of the 25(OH)D levels needed to prevent numerous cancers. The safest levels are somewhere above 50 ng/ml. Cedric spent most of his time presenting an entirely new theory of carcinogenesis, one dependent on vitamin D maintaining cellular junctions. I suspect this paper will also be reprinted in 20 years. The only disagreement I have is with his recommendation for cancer patients to start at fairly low doses. For reasons I recently explained, the risk benefit analysis indicates cancer patients should take 5,000 to 10,000 IU per day and they may have no time to lose. Why worry about the phantom of vitamin D toxicity if you may be dying of cancer? Just have your calcium checked along with frequent 25(OH)D levels. Get your levels up to 70-90 ng/ml if you have cancer.

Does vitamin D treat cancer?

The next speaker was Professor Bruce Hollis. He reviewed basic physiology of vitamin D and emphasized that the entire system is designed to deal with an excess not with an insufficiency of vitamin D. Numerous mechanisms are available in your body to prevent vitamin D toxicity but few are available to deal with insufficiency. Then he briefly mentioned one of the most important discoveries about vitamin D in the last few years, one where Professor Neil Binkley of the University of Wisconsin was senior author. (In the last four years, Professor Binkley has become a prolific vitamin D expert and I hope Carol Baggerly is able to get him to speak at some of the upcoming conferences she hopes to sponsor.) As I have pointed out before, Hollis and Binkley's crucial discovery was that the body doesn't start storing the parent compound, cholecalciferol, until 25(OH)D levels reach about 50 ng/ml. They showed, using basic steroid pharmacology, that 50 ng/ml should be considered the lower limit of adequate 25(OH)D levels.

Hollis BW, Wagner CL, Drezner MK, Binkley NC. 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.

Bruce kept the audience enthralled with a review of all the disease states that indicate 25(OH)D levels need to be much higher than they are now, that is, the multiple biomarkers that suggest the lower limit of 25(OH)D levels should be above 40 ng/ml and closer to 50 ng/ml. Then Professor Hollis spoke of his ongoing study in pregnant women and how he got approval to use 4,000 IU of vitamin D per day back in 2003, quite an accomplishment. He also reviewed another one of his research projects, one that answered an age old question, why is breast milk a poor source of vitamin D? How were prehistoric infants supposed to get their vitamin D, by lying out in the sun where saber tooth tigers would eat them? No, they were hidden in caves and had to have another source or the human race would have died out long ago because rickets destroys a woman's and infant's chance to live through childbirth due to rachitic deformations of the mother's pelvis. Carol Wagner and Bruce Hollis, together with their colleagues, answered that age old question, human breast milk is a poor vitamin D source because virtually all modern mothers are vitamin D deficient. That is, when pregnant women keep their levels where we think prehistoric human levels were, about 50 ng/ml, breast milk becomes a rich source of vitamin D. First Carol and Bruce gave 2,000 IU per day, then 4,000 IU per day and finally 6400 IU of D3 per day to lactating women. Only at 6400 of D3/day did the women maintain both their own 25(OH)D levels and the levels of their breast feeding babies above 50 ng/ml. On 6400 IU/day, the vitamin D activity of the breast milk went from about 80 to 800 IU/L. Quite a discovery, and another reason for all of us to keep our levels above 50 ng/ml.

Wagner CL, Hulsey TC, Fanning D, Ebeling M, Hollis BW. High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation in a cohort of breastfeeding mothers and their infants: a 6-month follow-up pilot study. Breastfeed Med. 2006 Summer;1(2):59-70.

Professor Robert Heaney went last, discussing 74 slides. So much of what we know about vitamin D today is due to Robert's unceasing dedication to vitamin D, the most recent example being his and Joanne Lappe's randomized controlled trial showing that increasing baseline levels from 29 to 38 ng/ml reduced the risk of getting cancer by around 70%. He again pointed out that the body does not begin to consistently store much vitamin D until your levels get to around 50 ng/ml. He also went through multiple biomarkers of vitamin D. That is, what level or intakes do you have to have to reduce the incidence of multiple diseases? He covered calcium absorption, osteoporosis, risk of falling, muscle function, death and disability of the aged, TB, influenza, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and gum disease. How can one vitamin be involved in so many diseases? Simple said Dr. Heaney, "vitamin D is the key that unlocks the DNA library." He then reviewed toxicity and concluded there is no evidence that it occurs at levels below 200 ng/ml or with intakes (total) below 30,000 IU per day. Of course, we have no reason to think anyone needs 30,000 IU per day or levels of 200 ng/ml, which would be irresponsible. But someone with a serious cancer should consider getting their level up to 70-90 ng/ml and that may take 10,000 IU per day or even more in some people. As a rule of thumb, 1,000 IU will raise 25(OH)D levels by about 10 ng/ml.

Then Professor Heaney addressed a public health question. How much would we have to give all Americans to get 98% of people above 32 ng/ml without causing toxicity in anybody? The answer: 2,000 IU per day. Of course 32 ng/ml is not adequate but it would be a great first step. Furthermore, of the people left out, a high percentage would be African Americans. In fact, Dr. Talwar recently reported that 40% of African American women fail to achieve a level of 30 ng/ml even after taking 2,000 IU/day for a year.

Talwar SA, Aloia JF, Pollack S, Yeh JK. Dose response to vitamin D supplementation among postmenopausal African American women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Dec;86(6):1657-62.

He also discussed his recent study giving healthy adults 100,000 IU as a single dose. If you start with a baseline level of 28 ng/ml and take 100,000 IU as a single dose, mean levels will remain above 32 ng/ml for two months. If you rely on such stoss doses, but you start with a lower level, or want your levels above 50 ng/ml, how often do you need to take 100,000 IU? We don't know the answer to the last question but we know that Grey et al gave 50,000 IU per week for four weeks then 50,000 per month for a year to 21 patients with hyperparathyroidism. Blood levels rose from a mean of 11 ng/ml at baseline to 30 ng/ml at one year and levels did not continue to rise after six months. Remember, that means half the patients had levels lower than 30 ng/ml at the end of the year. Also remember that the metabolic clearance (how quickly you use it up) might be higher in certain disease states.

Grey A, et al. Vitamin D repletion in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism and coexistent vitamin D insufficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Apr;90(4):2122-6.

That last point, metabolic clearance, is only one of a number of reasons that patients vary in their response to vitamin D. Remember, a surprising number of patients will tell their physician they are taking vitamin D when they are not, some will be taking preparations that have less in it than the label says, some will not absorb it, and some people weigh more than others. As Dr. Heaney points out, even if you know patients took 100,000 IU, great variably exists in individual response. At the end of two months some will have shown a minimal response and other much more. This is a field where little is known. Do different disease states use up vitamin D quickly? The answer is probably yes. Furthermore, variability also exists in how one metabolizes and catabolizes (breaks down) vitamin D. Also, what is the interactive effect of drugs that use the same liver enzymes for catabolism? We just don't know and that is why vitamin D blood testing is crucial. Remember, the only test to have is a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D. Do not let anyone get a 1,25-dihydroxy-vitamin D; it will not tell you if you are vitamin D deficient and is usually only indicated in evaluating high blood calcium.

As far as 25(OH)D levels go, many of you have written complaining about the high cost of a 25(OH)D levels at some labs. I've got some good news. For the next month, Life Extension Foundation is having a sale on their 25(OH)D blood tests, only $32.25, including the fee for drawing the blood. (No, we don't get funding from Life Extension, I wish we did.) Life Extension uses LabCorp, which, in turn, uses an accurate method to determine 25(OH)D levels, the DiaSorin Laiason method. The only problem is that DiaSorin, LabCorp, and Life Extension all say that 30 ng/ml is acceptable. It is not. Take enough vitamin D or get enough UVB radiation to get your levels above 50 ng/ml. To order the test, call Life Extension at 800 208-3444. Unfortunately, this offer is not available in New York, New Jersey or Rhode Island.

Also, Dr. James Dowd has written a fine book about vitamin D, The Vitamin D Cure. Get this, he is board certified in internal medicine, adult rheumatology, and pediatric rheumatology, an associate professor at Michigan State University, and runs his own Arthritis Institute and the Michigan Arthritis Research Center. He gives a formula for how much vitamin D you need but stresses the importance of testing to know for sure. He uses the formula of 2000 IU for every 100 pounds of body weight, which is as accurate an estimation as one can make without knowing baseline levels. Of course it depends on so many things, as Dr. Dowd points out, such as percentage body fat, latitude, skin type, sun exposure and age. He gives case after case examples of how vitamin D not just prevents disease, but seems to have a treatment effect. He also stresses three other things I've written about before, acid base balance, magnesium and potassium. If you can't get eat enough fruits and green leafy vegetables to obtain your potassium and magnesium and to get rid of low-grade chronic metabolic acidosis, then you should consider magnesium supplements and potassium bicarbonate supplements.

With these four experts and with this month's vitamin D news articles about breast cancer, brain function, artery blockage in the legs, soft skulls in babies, peripheral neuropathy in diabetics, childhood type-1 diabetes, colon cancer, and stress fractures and with the increasing number of scientists around the world jumping on the vitamin D express, why doesn't the government do something? What will it take? Like Carole says it will take a grassroots effort.

The first thing to do is tell your family and friends about vitamin D. Tell your doctor. Get your family's 25(OH)D tested, including your children. Once people begin to see it works, they will get their family and friends to take it. They will feel better and then the word will spread. All the government can do is make vitamin D illegal or limit the amount in each pill. The first is unlikely but not the second. With 5,000 IU capsules widely available, many people give no thought to taking one a day. But if the government limits the sale of anything over 400 IU and people had to take 12 of the 400 IU tablets, instead of one of the 5,000 IU, they might balk at so many pills. Before our officials in Washington take such a step, let's hope they read the Washington Post.

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. This newsletter is not copyrighted. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. We are a nonprofit tax-exempt educational organization and depend on your donations.

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

Judging by the conversations here, in the Track Your Plaque Forums, and elsewhere, it's clear that many people are searching for the perfect diet.

Should we reconsider the role of saturated fat? Are there fractions of fatty acids in saturated fat that are more or less harmful? How about the role of fats on cancer risk? How about the role of proteins like casein on cancer risk? Are there flavonoid sources, or combinations of flavonoids, that yield outsized health benefits? Is there a ceiling for omega-3 fatty acid supplementation? Is there a role for linolenic acid sources in cardiovascular disease prevention? And on and on.

All important issues, to be sure, ones that we've all zig-zagged through over the past 30 years.

I also see patients every day, however, who are not interested in micro-managing their diet. Their goals are less ambitious: lose 20 lbs, feel good, raise HDL, reduce triglycerides and small LDL, all while meeting all the other responsibilities in their lives, like children, spouses, maintaining a household and jobs.

So, if your interest is not to consider whether we should distinguish myristic acid sources from palmitic, or if epigallocatechin is better when combined with quercetin, then the biggest bang from your nutritional buck can come from one single strategy:

Eliminate wheat flour products

Secondarily, avoiding corn starch products and "goodies" (candy, fruit juices, fruit drinks, cookies, potato chips, etc.--you know what they are) is important, as well.

It means weighing your diet more heavily in favor of vegetables and fruits; lean meats; healthy oils; and raw nuts and seeds, all in unlimited quantities. Dairy products should be limited, however, because of sugar effects.

Of course, this advice clearly contradicts the pronouncements of the USDA Food Pyramid (6-8 servings of grains per day), the American Heart Association, and the diabetes-causing American Diabetes Association diabetic diets.

But, follow this approach, a diet strategy that appears too simple to be effective, and the majority of people lose dramatic amounts of weight, raise HDL, reduce triglycerides, reduce small LDL, reduce C-reactive protein and other inflammatory measures, reduce blood pressure, and raise self-esteem.

It's also a lot easier than it sounds (after habits are broken) because the appetite stimulating effect of wheat is removed. Many, if not most, people also experience increased energy, including elimination of the afternoon "slump," improved sleep, less mood swings, less intestinal problems.

It may not be perfect, but if your interest is to get the most with a modest amount of effort, it works like a charm for the majority of people.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

You're going to hate this.

Dr. Romero-Corral and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic presented an analysis of the National Institutes of Health-funded National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-3) at the recent American College of Cardiology meetings. (Science Daily also has some coverage on this report.)

Their analysis identified 2127 adults from the NHANES database who had normal body-mass indexes (BMI) between 18.5 and 24.9 units), average age 41 years old. When broken down by percent body fat (measured with bioimpedance, meaning a small electrical current is passed through the body, much like what the store-bought Tanita devices do), with normal-weight obesity defined as >20% body fat in males, >30% body fat in females, 55% of participants met criteria for designation as normal-weight obesity.

Compared to people with similar BMI's but who fell below these body fat percentage cut-offs, the normal-weight obese men had increased ratios of Apo B to Apo A1; were much more likely to have increased blood sugars or be diabetic; have higher C-reactive protein (CRP); were several-fold more likely to meet other criteria for diagnosis of metabolic syndrome; had lower HDL cholesterols; and had higher blood pressure. Women with normal-weight obesity were four-fold more likely to have coronary disease.

While preliminary, this suggests that a substantial number of people with apparently favorable body weights and BMIs are, in actuality, overweight when judged by metabolic parameters. This then probably leads to increased risk for heart disease. We can then fairly readily extrapolate the argument that a reduction in weight to even lower BMIs likely reduces or corrects these patterns.

This argument is similar to that proposed by several others, arguing that BMI is a flawed measure, since it does not incorporate muscle mass or skeletal factors ("big- or small-boned"). Instead, they have argued that waist circumference is preferable.

The normal-weight obesity syndrome was originally identified by Dr. Antonio de Lorenzo and colleagues at the University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy, and reported in Normal weight obese (NWO) women: an evaluation of a candidate new syndrome. Their studies of women with this "syndrome" have suggested that heightened measures of inflammation are present despite apparently normal body weight and BMIs. One such report, Normal-weight obese syndrome: early inflammation?, is available in full-text.

Is there a lesson to be learned for the Track Your Plaque program? I believe there is. I believe it means that, if you have any weight-sensitive parameter, such as low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, high CRP, high blood sugar, high blood pressure, etc., then further weight loss might be considered, even if BMI is around 25. Obviously, there is a rational limit to how far you can push this concept. (Anorexia is not good for you either.)

I find this a useful concept. It provides yet another potential strategy to pursue when the above patterns are encountered. Perhaps it's also a way to cap reliance on niacin, whose effects closely mimic that of weight loss.

Now that's a lot more preferable to more and more statin drug, isn't it?

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Why haven't you heard about lipoprotein(a)?

How to have a heart attack in 10 easy steps

Kick inflammation in the butt

Life without Lipitor

In search of wheat: Emmer

In search of wheat: Another einkorn experience

Increased blood calcium and vitamin D

Heart health consultation with Dr. Joe D. Goldstrich

Wheat aftermath

In search of wheat: Einkorn and blood sugar

A tan does not equal vitamin D

Confessions of a former drug company patsy

Planned obsolence

Melatonin for high blood pressure?

The forces that shape heatlh care

Lipoprotein(a): Surprising Poll Results

Are endogenous nutritional supplements better?

Vitamin D Newsletter reprinted

Biggest bang for your nutritional buck

Can skinny be fat?