What do Salmonella, E coli, and bread have in common?

28. January 2011 William Davis (22)

Say you happen to eat some chicken fingers contaminated with bacteria because the 19-year old kid behind the counter failed to wash his hands after using the toilet, or because the kitchen is poorly managed with unwashed counters and cutting boards, or because the food is undercooked. You get a bout of diarrhea and cramps, along with a desire to banish chicken from your life.

Here's yet another odd wheat phenomenon: About 30% of people who eliminate wheat from their lives experience an acute food poisoning-like effect on re-exposure. You've been wheat-free for, say, 6 months. You've lost 25 lbs from your wheat belly, you've regained energy, joints feel better. You go to an office party where they're serving some really yummy looking bruschetta. Surely a couple won't hurt! Within a hour, you're getting that awful rumbling and unease that precede the explosion.

The majority of people who experience a wheat re-exposure syndrome will have diarrhea and cramps that can last from hours to days, similar to food poisoning. (Why? Why would a common food trigger a food poisoning-like effect? It happens too fast to attribute to inflammation.) Others experience asthma attacks, joint pains that last 48 hours to a week, mental fogginess, emotional distress, even rage (in males).

Wheat re-exposure in the susceptible provides a tidy demonstration of the effects of this peculiar product of genetic research. So if you are wheat-free but entertain an occasional indulgence, don't be surprised if you have to make a beeline to the toilet.

The world of intermediate carbohydrates

28. January 2011 William Davis (0)

There are clear-cut bad carbohydrates: wheat, oats, cornstarch, and sucrose. (Fructose, too, but in a class of bad all its own.)

Wheat: The worst. Not only does wheat flour increase blood sugar higher than nearly all other carbohydrates, it invites celiac disease, neurologic impairment, mental and emotional effects, addictive (i.e., exorphin) effects, asthma, irritable bowel syndrome, acid reflux, sleepiness, sleep disruption, arthritis . . . just to name a few.

Oats: Yeah, yeah, I know: "Lowers cholesterol." But nobody told you that oats, including slow-cooked oatmeal, causes blood sugar to skyrocket.

Cornstarch: Like wheat, cornstarch flagrantly increases blood sugar.It also stimulates appetite. That's why food manufacturers put it in everything from soups to frozen dinners.

Sucrose: Not only does sucrose create a desire for more food, it is also 50% fructose, the peculiar sugar that makes us fat, increases small LDL particles, increases triglycerides, slows the metabolism of other foods, encourages diabetes, and causes more glycation than any other sugar.

But there are a large world of "other" natural carbohydrates that don't fall into the really bad category. This includes starchy beans like black, kidney, and pinto; rices such as white, brown, and wild; potatoes, including white, red, sweet, and yams; and fruits. It includes "alternative" grains like quinoa, spelt, triticale, amaranth, and barley.

For lack of a better term, I call these "intermediate" carbohydrates. They are not as bad as wheat, etc., but nor are they good. They will still increase blood glucose, small LDL, triglycerides, etc., just not as much as the worst carbohydrates.

The difference is relative. Say we compare the one-hour blood glucose effects of 1 cup of wheat flour product vs. one cup of quinoa. Typical blood sugar after wheat product: 180 mg/dl. Typical blood sugar after quinoa: 160 mg/dl--better but still pretty bad.

Some people are so carb-sensitive that they should avoid even these so-called intermediate carbohydrates. Others can have small indulgences, e.g., 1/2 cup, and not generate high blood sugars.

Heroin, Oxycontin, and a whole wheat bagel

25. January 2011 William Davis (27)

For a substantial proportion of people who remove wheat from their diet, there is a distinct and unpleasant withdrawal syndrome. Here are the comments of Heart Scan Blog reader, Scott, from Texas:

Hello Dr. Davis,

I've been experimenting with diet, converging upon a Paleo type diet, but I keep running into problems. I have isolated the problem to cutting out wheat.

Sugar, rice, fruit, corn, potatoes, etc. are relatively ok to add or remove from the diet, but cutting out wheat in particular brings on a moderate headache with heavy fatigue all day long. This resembles the wheat withdrawal symptoms I found on your blog. As I write this, I'm on day 8 of wheat-free. I consume a fair variety of meat and veggies each day with a moderate amount of white rice for carbs. Perhaps a bowl of corn flakes with milk and half a bar of dark chocolate a day. I've learned from experience over the past 5 months or so that none of these foods affect the withdrawal. It's purely wheat.

My question is, what is the range of times for withdrawal symptoms that you've heard from different people? Has there been anyone who never recovered from the wheat withdrawal symptoms even after many months?

It's very tough to get work done like this, and even though my body and head feel much healthier in general, my sinuses have cleared, don't have to take a big nap after I eat, etc., I don't want to go down a path where this is the way things are going to be forever.

People who have never experienced wheat withdrawal pooh-pooh the effect. But, for about 30% of people, wheat withdrawal is a real, palpable, and sometimes incapacitating experience.

Beyond removing an exceptionally digestible carbohydrate that yields blood sugar rises higher than nearly any other known food (due to the unique amylopectin structure of wheat-derived carbohydrate), wheat withdrawal is a form of opiate withdrawal, somewhat like stopping heroin, Oxycontin, and other opiates. Stop eating whole wheat toast for breakfast, whole grain sandwiches for lunch, or whole grain pasta for dinner, and the flow of exorphins, i.e., exogenous morphine-like compounds, stops. You experience dysphoria (sadness, unhappiness), mental "fog," inability to concentrate, fatigue, and decreased capacity to exercise. It is milder than withdrawal from prescription opiates. Unlike withdrawal from more powerful opiates like heroine, there are, thankfully, no seizures or hallucinations. There are also no deaths.

In my experience, most people get through with wheat withdrawal in about 5 days. An occasional person will struggle for as long as 4 weeks. Thankfully for Scott, I've never seen it last longer than 4 weeks. (Interestingly, people who survive the withdrawal syndrome are often prone to a peculiar re-exposure phenomenon that I will discuss in future, i.e., they get sick upon re-exposure.)

The modern dwarf mutant variant of Triticum aestivum (that our USDA urges us to eat more of) contains greater proportions of gluten proteins compared to wheat pre-1970; glutens are the source of wheat-derived exorphins.

Incidentally, a drug company should be releasing a drug in the next year that will contain naltrexone, an oral opiate blocking drug, for a weight loss indication. They claim it is a blocker of the "mesolimbic reward system." I say it's a blocker of wheat exorphins.

The five most powerful heart disease prevention strategies

24. January 2011 William Davis (39)

You've seen such lists before: 5 steps to prevent heart disease or some such thing. These lists usually say things like "cut your saturated fat," eat a "balanced diet" (whatever the heck that means), exercise, and don't smoke.

I would offer a different list. You already know that smoking is a supremely idiotic habit, so I won't repeat that. Here are the 5 most important strategies I know of that help you prevent heart disease and heart attack:

1) Eliminate wheat from the diet--Provided you don't do something stupid, like allow M&M's, Coca Cola, and corn chips to dominate your diet, elimination of wheat is an enormously effective means to reduce small LDL particles, reduce triglycerides, increase HDL, reduce inflammatory measures like c-reactive protein, lose weight (inflammation-driving visceral fat), reduce blood sugar, and reduce blood pressure. I know of no other single dietary strategy that packs as much punch. This has become even more true over the past 20 years, ever since the dwarf variant of modern wheat has come to dominate.

2) Achieve a desirable 25-hydroxy vitamin D level--Contrary to the inane comments of the Institute of Medicine, vitamin D supplementation increases HDL, reduces small LDL, normalizes insulin and reduces blood sugar, reduces blood pressure, and exerts potent anti-inflammatory effects on c-reactive protein, matrix metalloproteinase, and other inflammmatory mediators. While we also have drugs that mimic some of these effects, vitamin D does so without side-effects.

3) Supplement omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil--Omega-3 fatty acids reduce triglycerides, accelerate postprandial (after-meal) clearance of lipoprotein byproducts like chylomicron remnants, and have a physical stabilizing effect on atherosclerotic plaque.

4) Normalize thyroid function--Start with obtaining sufficient iodine. Iodine is not optional; it is an essential trace mineral to maintain normal thyroid function, protect the thyroid from the hundreds of thyroid disrupters in our environment (e.g., perchlorates from fertilizer residues in produce), as well as other functions such as anti-bacterial effects. Thyroid dysfunction is epidemic; correction of subtle degrees of hypothyroidism reduces LDL, reduces triglycerides, reduces small LDL, facilitates weight loss, reduces blood pressure, normalizes endothelial responses, and reduces oxidized LDL particles.

5) Make exercise fun--Not just exercise for the sake of exercise, but physical activity or exercise for the sake of having a good time. It's the difference between resigning yourself to 30 minutes of torture and boredom on the treadmill versus engaging in an activity you enjoy and look forward to: go dancing, walk with a friend, organize a paintball tournament outdoors, Zumba class, plant a new garden, etc. It's a distinction that spells the difference between finding every excuse not to do it, compared to making time for it because you enjoy it.

Note what is not on the list: cut your fat, eat more "healthy whole grains," take a cholesterol drug, take aspirin. That's the list you'd follow if you feel your hospital needs your $100,000 contribution, otherwise known as coronary bypass surgery.

Topping up your vitamin D tank

22. January 2011 William Davis (17)

Now that my vitamin D replacement experience dates back nearly 5 years, I've been witnessing an unusual phenomenon:

The longer you take vitamin D, the less you need.

Let me explain. You take 10,000 units D3 in gelcap form. 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels, checked every 6 months, have remained consistently between 60 and 70 ng/ml. Three years into your vitamin D experience and 25-hydroxy vitamin D level rises to 98 ng/ml--an apparent need for less vitamin D.

So we cut your intake from 10,000 units per day to 8000 units per day. Another 25-hydroxy vitamin D level 6 months later: 94 ng/ml. We cut dose again to 6000 units, followed by another 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 66 ng/ml.

This has now happened in approximately 20% of the people who have been taking vitamin D for 3 or more years. I know of no formal analysis of this effect, what I call the "topping up" phenomenon. Reasoned simply, it seems to me that, once your vitamin D "tank" is topped up (i.e., tissue stores have been replenished), it requires less to keep it full.

No one has experienced any adverse consequence of this topping up effect though it has potential for some people to develop toxic levels if 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels are not monitored long-term. In my office, I measure 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels every 6 months.

It means that long-term monitoring of 25-hydroxy vitamin D is crucial to maintain favorable and safe levels.

Thirteen catheterizations later

21. January 2011 William Davis (16)

When I first met her, Janet couldn't stop sobbing. She'd just been through her 10th heart catheterization in two years.

It started with chest pains at age 56, prompting her first heart catheterization that uncovered severe atherosclerotic blockages in all three coronary arteries. Her cardiologist advised a bypass operation.

Six months after the bypass operation, Janet was back with more chest pains, just as bad as before. Another heart catherization showed that two of the three bypass grafts had failed. The third bypass graft contained a severe blockage that required a stent, along with multiple stents in the two now unbypassed arteries.

In the ensuing 18 months, Janet returned for 8 additional catheterizations, each time leaving the hospital with one or more stents.

Janet's doctor was puzzled as to why her disease was progressing so aggressively despite Lipitor and the low-fat diet provided by the hospital dietitian. So he had Janet undergo lipoprotein testing (NMR):

LDL particle number: 3363 nmol/L
Small LDL particle number: 2865 nmol/L
HDL cholesterol: 32 mg/dl
Triglycerides: 344 mg/dl
Fasting blood glucose 118 mg/dl
HbA1c 5.8%

Unfortunately, Janet's doctor didn't understand what these values meant. He pretty much threw his arms up in frustration. That's when I met Janet.

From her lipoprotein panel and other values, it was clear to me that Janet was miserably carbohydrate-sensitive and carbohydrate-indulgent, as demonstrated by the extravagant quantity (2865 nmol/L) and proportion (2865/3363, or 85%) of small LDL, the form of LDL particles created by carbohydrate exposure. Janet struggled with depression over the years and had been using carbohydrate foods as "comfort" foods, often resorting to cookies, pies, cakes, breads, and other wheat-containing foods for emotional solace.

It took a bit of persuasion to convince Janet that it was low-fat, "healthy whole grains," as well as comfort foods, that had led her down this path. I also helped Janet correct her severe vitamin D deficiency, mild thyroid dysfunction, and lack of omega-3 fatty acids.

Since meeting Janet and instituting her new prevention program, she has undergone three additional catheterizations (performed by another cardiologist), all performed for chest pain symptoms that struck during periods of emotional stress. All showed . . . no significant blockage. (Apparently, the repeated "need" for stents triggered a Pavlovian response: chest pain = "need" for yet more stents.)

In short, correction of the causes of coronary atherosclerotic plaque--small LDL, vitamin D deficiency, omega-3 fatty acid deficiency, and thyroid dysfunction--and Janet's disease essentially ground to a halt.

Imagine, instead, that Janet had undergone 1) a heart scan to identify hidden coronary plaque 5-10 years before her first heart procedure, then 2) corrected the causes before they triggered symptoms and posed danger. She might have been spared an extraordinary amount of life crises, hospital procedures, expense (nearly $1 million), and emotional suffering.

High blood pressure vanquished

19. January 2011 William Davis (28)

Heart Scan Blog reader, Eric, related his blood pressure success story to me:

I'm 34 and have been battling chronic hypertension (systolic 150-200, depending on my anxiety levels) even with multiple prescriptions for over a decade now. I've seen four different cardiologists, all stumped as to what is causing my hypertension. First, they suspected coarctation of my aorta [a constriction in the aorta], but an angiogram determined blood pressure readings were the same on both sides of the narrowing.

The second angiogram performed last year to determine if my coarct had worsened determined that it had not, but that my aorta had calcium build up. The cardiologist was stumped because he told me he hasn't seen calcium in a patient so young. Needless to say, this scared me to death, with my wife being pregnant with our first child. I asked if it could be reversed and he didn't know so he sent me to get a Berkeley lab.

The Berkeley came back with LDL 91, HDL 41, Triglycerides 73, CRP 4.1, vit D 26. The doctors weren't very knowledgeable about explaining to me what these meant and how I could correct the low vit D and high CRP. They told me to follow the low-fat diet recommended by Berkeley. Well I've already tried the DASH diet and didn't like how I felt or my energy levels, so I didn't transition.

I was at a loss until I encountered your blog and it was truly a gift. It was a refreshing feeling to meet a knowledgeable Dr. who knew what I was going through and seems to truly care about reversing calcium in the heart (something I never got from my any of my cardiologists). With your blog I have an appointment to get a heart scan here in CO and take that number along with my Berkeley results and join Track Your Plaque.

For the past 2 weeks I've been following your advice by taking a D3+K2 supplement with Omega3 Fish oil and avoiding all grain, wheat, sugar and I'm already down 4lbs to 223.5lbs at 6'5" tall and my blood pressure readings have been 128/54 and 129/60 the past 2 days! With your help I may not have the dark future my father had: dead at 48 with a massive heart attack.

Stay on the look out because I look forward to telling you how I'm one of your top calcium losers!

Eric, Colorado

Conventional medical care fails at so many levels for so many people. While Eric's doctors were busy contemplating the next angiogram, they were neglecting several crucial aspects of his health.

It's really not that tough. But it can mean doing the opposite of what conventional "wisdom" tell us.

DHEA and Lp(a)

16. January 2011 William Davis (25)

DHEA supplementation is among my favorite ways to deal with the often-difficult lipoprotein(a), Lp(a).

DHEA is a testosterone-like adrenal hormone that declines with age, such that a typical 70-year old has blood levels around 10% that of a youthful person. DHEA is responsible for physical vigor, strength, libido, and stamina. It also keeps a lid on Lp(a).

While the effect is modest, DHEA is among the most consistent for obtaining reductions in Lp(a). A typical response would be a drop in Lp(a) from 200 nmol/L to 180 nmol/L, or 50 mg/dl to 42 mg/dl--not big responses, but very consistent responses. While there are plenty of non-responders to, say, testosterone (males), DHEA somehow escapes this inconsistency.

Rarely will DHEA be sufficient as a sole treatment for increased Lp(a), however. It is more helpful as an adjunct, e.g., to high-dose fish oil (now our number one strategy for Lp(a) control in the Track Your Plaque program), or niacin.

Because the "usual" 50 mg dose makes a lot of people bossy and aggressive, I now advise people to start with 10 mg. We then increase gradually over time to higher doses, provided the edginess and bossiness don't creep out.

The data documenting the Lp(a)-reducing effect of DHEA are limited, such as this University of Pennsylvania study, but in my real life experience in over 300 people with Lp(a), I can tell you it works.

And don't be scared by the horror stories of 10+ years ago when DHEA was thought to be a "fountain of youth," prompting some to take megadose DHEA of 1000-3000 mg per day. Like any hormone taken in supraphysiologic doses, weird stuff happens. In the case of DHEA, people become hyperaggressive, women grow mustaches and develop deep voices. DHEA doses used for Lp(a) are physiologic doses within the range ordinarily experienced by youthful humans.

No more cookies

15. January 2011 William Davis (13)

Jeanne enjoyed her Christmas holidays. She especially liked sharing the cookies she made for her grandchildren, sneaking 2 or 3 every day over a couple of weeks. On top of this, she enjoyed the Christmas candy, egg nog, leftover stuffing and cranberry sauce, topped off with a night of nutritional debauchery on New Year's Eve.

Lipid panel in October:

Total cholesterol 146 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 72 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 64 mg/dl
Triglycerides 49 mg/dl

Lipid panel in early January:

Total cholesterol 229 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 141 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 59 mg/dl
Triglycerides 147 mg/dl

I call the holidays The Annual Wheat and Sugar Frenzy. It's the carbohydrates, especially those from products made of wheat and sucrose, that caused the marked shifts in Jeanne's lipid patterns. Let's take each parameter apart:

--Triglycerides go up due to de novo lipogenesis, liver conversion of carbohydrates into triglycerides. Triglycerides enter the bloodstream as VLDL particles which, in turn, interact with LDL and HDL.

--LDL goes up because carbohydrate exposure increases VLDL, followed by conversion to LDL. The triglyceride-rich LDL created is converted to small LDL particles. Had we measured small LDL changes in Jeanne, we likely would have measured something like an increase (by NMR) from 800 nmol/L to 1600 nmol/L, a carbohydrate effect.

--The increased VLDL also makes HDL triglyceride-rich, cause more rapid degradation of HDL particles. (It also makes them smaller, like LDL.) Given sufficient time (a few more months), HDL would drop into the 40's.

--Total cholesterol changes reflect the composite of the above numbers. (Total cholesterol = LDL cholesterol + HDL cholesterol + Trig/5) (Note that, as HDL drops, so will total cholesterol; that's why this value is worthless and should be ignored.)

So don't be surprised by the above distortions after a period of carbohydrate indulgence. Although your unwitting primary care doc will see such changes as opportunity for Lipitor, it is nothing more than the cascade of effects from a carbohydrate-driven distortion of lipoproteins.

How to become diabetic in 5 easy steps

14. January 2011 William Davis (35)

If you would like to become diabetic in as short a time as possible, or if you have someone you don't like--ex-spouse, nasty neighbor, cranky mother-in-law--whose health you'd like to booby trap, then here's an easy-to-follow 5-step plan to make you or your target diabetic.

1) Cut your fat and eat healthy, whole grains--Yes, reduce satiety-inducing foods and replace the calories with appetite-increasing foods, such as whole grain bread, that skyrocket blood sugar higher than a candy bar.

2) Consume one or more servings of juice or soda per day--The fructose from the sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup will grow visceral fat and cultivate resistance to insulin.

3) Follow the Institute of Medicine's advice on vitamin D--Take no more than 600 units vitamin D per day. This will allow abnormal levels of insulin resistance to persist, driving up blood sugar, grow visceral fat, and allow abnormal inflammatory phenomena to persist.

4) Have a bowl of oatmeal or oat cereal every morning--Because oat products skyrocket blood sugar, the repeated high sugars will damage the pancreatic beta cells ("glucose toxicity"), eventually impairing pancreatic insulin production. (Entice your target even further: "Would you like a little honey with your oatmeal?") To make your diabetes-creating breakfast concoction even more effective, make the oatmeal using bottled water. Many popular bottled waters, like Coca Cola's Dasani or Pepsi's Aquafina, are filtered waters. This means they are devoid of magnesium, a mineral important for regulating insulin responses.

5) Take a diuretic (like hydrochlorothiazide, or HCTZ) or beta blocker (like metoprolol or atenolol) for blood pressure--Likelihood of diabetes increases 30% with these common blood pressure agents.

There you have it! Perhaps we should assemble a convenient do-it-yourself-at-home diabetes kit to help, complete with several servings of whole grain bread, a big bottle of cranberry juice, some 600 unit vitamin D tablets, a container of Irish oatmeal, and some nice bottled water.

All posts by william-davis

One bite or many mouthfuls

6. January 2007 William Davis (0)

A reader brought this beautiful series of food photos to my attention:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm

It's simply a graphic display of what 200 calories of various foods look like. You'll note that vegetables and fruits permit large servings to yield 200 calories. Processed foods, on the other hand, require very little to tally up the same calorie load. In particularly, look how little in the way of wheat products are required to match that amount.

Heart scan curiosities #4

5. January 2007 William Davis (2)

Here's an interesting example of a 63-year old man with a heart scan score of 112. However, his aortic valve was also severely calcified (loaded with calcium). In other words, the normally flexible and mobile "leaflets" of the aortic valve were coated with calcium and other tissues that interfere with its free motion. The aortic valve is the starburst white in the center of the heart.

This is what the aortic valve should look like on a CT heart scan--you shouldn't see it at all.

The first man with the calcified valve will unfortunately require a new prosthetic aortic valve sometime in his future. This is usually determined with the help of an ultrasound, or echocardiogram, a better test for assessment of the aortic valve (though useless for detection of coronary plaque).

It's my suspicion that chronic and longstanding deficiency of vitamin D is among the factors that contribute to the abnormal deposition of calcium on the aortic valve. We desperately need more data on this. Nonetheless, perhaps this adds yet another reason to 1)get a CT heart scan, and 2) bring your vitamin D blood level to normal. (We aim for 50 ng/ml year round.)

Fish oil and the perverse logic of hospitals

4. January 2007 William Davis (6)

Hospitals are now starting to carry prescription fish oil, known as Omacor, on their formularies. It's used by some thoracic surgeons after bypass surgery, since fish oil has been shown to reduce the likelihood of atrial fibrillation (a common rhythm after heart surgery).

Why now? The data confirming the benefits of fish oil on atrial fibrillation has been available for several years.

It's now available in hospitals because it's FDA-approved. In other words, when fish oil was just a supplement, it was not available in most hospitals. Whenever I've tried to get fish oil for my patients while in hospital, you'd think I was trying to smuggle Osama Bin Laden into the place. The resistance was incredible.

Now that FDA-approved Omacor is available, costing $130 dollars per month for two capsules, $195 for the three capsule per day dose for after surgery, all of a sudden it becomes available. Why would this irrational state of affairs occur in hospitals?

Several reasons, most of which revolve around the great suspicion my colleagues have towards nutritional supplements. In addition, there's the litigation risk: If something has been approved by the FDA, their stamp of endorsement provides some layer of legal protection.

However, I regard those as pretty weak reasons. I am, indeed, grateful that fish oil is gaining a wider audience. But I think it's absurd that it requires a prescription to get it in many hospitals. Imagine, as the drug companies would love, vitamin C became a prescription agent. Instead of $3, it would cost far more. Does that make it better, safer, more effective?

Of course, no drug sales representative is promoting the nutritional supplement fish oil to physicians nor to hospitals. I now see people adding the extraordinary expense of prescription fish oil to their presription bills.

In my view, it's unnecessary, irrational, and driven more by politics and greed than actual need. Take a look at the website for Omacor (www.omacorrx.com). Among the claims:

"OMACOR is the only omega-3 that, along with diet, has been proven and approved to dramatically reduce very high triglycerides..."

This is a bald lie. Dozens of studies have used nutritional supplement fish oil and shown spectacular triglyceride-reducing effects.

Their argument against fish oil supplements:

"Dietary supplements are not FDA-approved for the treatment of any specific disease or medical condition. Get the Facts: nonprescription, dietary supplement omega-3 is not a substitute for prescription OMACOR."

Does that make any sense to you? Should you buy a GM car because only GM makes genuine GM cars? This is the silly logic being offered by these people to justify their ridiculous pricing.

How about: "The unique manufacturing process for OMACOR helps to eliminate worries about mercury and other pollution from the environment."

Funny...mercury in fish tends to be sequestered in the meat, not the oil. Independent reports by both Consumer Reports and Consumer Lab found no mercury, nor PCB's, in nutritional supplement fish oil. But just suggesting a difference without proving it may be enough to scare some people.

Just because something is used by a hospital does not make it better. The adoption of fish oil is hospitals is a good thing. Too bad it has to add to already bloated health care costs to enrich some drug manufacturer.

Repent for past sins

2. January 2007 William Davis (0)

If the food temptations of the holidays got the best of you, and you're now 5, 10, 15 lbs or more over your pre-holiday weight (our record is 18lbs!), then it's time for serious action.

One easy method to regain the control you may have lost is to pick some period, say, 3 days. During those three days, eat nothing but vegetables--no breads, meats, dairy products, certainly no cookies, cakes, pasta, etc., not even fruit. Follow this routine and weight drops rapidly. Vegetables are wonderful but sometimes boring, so use healthy condiments to spice them up: mustards (hot, brown, yellow, horseradish); healthy salad dressings, which are olive or canola oil-based; salsas, a fabulous garnish with no nutritional downside whatsoever; pesto; tapenades; horseradish added to other condiments or even by itself (wasabi).

Of course, fasting in one of its several variations is another rapid method to regain control. My favorite is to use soy milk in a modified fast, usually 4-6 glasses of a low-fat, low-sugar soy milk per day, along with plenty of water. (Please refer to the precautions detailed in the recent Track Your Plaque Special Report, Fasting: Fast Track to Control Plaque , particularly if you fast 5 days or longer or take blood pressure or diabetic medication.)

Of course, yo-yoing your weight--up during the holidays, down after their conclusion--is not good for you. It does raise the likelihood of diabetes, not to mention cultivate the patterns that contribute to coronary plaque growth, especially small LDL. But if temptation got out of control and you need to regain lost ground, these two strategies work fabulously well for most people.

If you've gained, say, 10 lbs during the holidays, but simply resume your usual habits, chances are you won't lose the weight. Year after year, this can add up to an enormous weight gain. The time to act is now. It's easier to lose the 10 lbs of weight you gained recently, rather than the 50 lbs you've stacked up over the past 5 years.

Wheat-free 2007

1. January 2007 William Davis (4)

Long ago, most of us made the change of reducing saturated fat in our diet. Few people now rely on butter (despite the idiotic butter vs. margarine controversy), full-fat dairy products, fried foods, and greasy meats. That's a healthy change, since saturated fat has conclusively been tied to various cancers, high blood pressure, rise in LDL, and is calorie-dense.

But if there were just one change you were to make beyond a reduction in saturated fat, a change that would translate into dramatic health benefits, it would be a drastic reduction, even elimination, of wheat products.

People do indeed eat enormous quantities of wheat flour-containing products. U.S. per capita consumption of wheat flour was 110 pounds in the early 1970s, and rose to 141 pounds in 1991. It's even higher now. 20% or more of most people's caloric intake every day is provided by wheat flour products.

Wheat containing foods are tasty and convenient. Witness the popularity of bagel shops, the goodie counter at Starbuck's, the proliferation of crackers, breads, and breakfast cereals at the grocery store. Patients are horrified when I suggest that they find a substitute for the sandwiches they eat every day. Even Mom said they were okay!

You're unlikely to hear much about this from the popular press. The wheat industry is enormous and exerts extraordinary clout, just like the drug industry. Texas alone farms 6 million acres of wheat, yielding over $2 billion for the state's economy. The "wheat chain" is complex and far-reaching: growers, processors, food manufacturers, the transportation industry, retailers, chemical producers, and on and on. Wheat futures are traded on the Chicago Board of Trade. Wheat is a major export industry for the U.S.

Of course, these are not evil people, intent on corrupting your health. In fact, most of them are probably working under the perception that they are raising a healthy product. The point is that the notion that wheat is healthy is deeply entrenched in the minds and economy of the U.S. Don't expect to hear unbiased commentary on the health effects of wheat products from most media sources.

What can you expect if you sharply reduce or eliminate wheat? The majority of people:

--Feel like a cloud has been lifted from their thinking.
--Don't experience the afternoon blah or tired feeling after lunch.
--Lose weight, sometimes substantial quantities.
--Raise HDL.
--Reduce small LDL.
--Reduce triglycerides, particularly if they start >100 mg/dl.
--Reduce blood sugar.

The reduction in small LDL can be especially impressive.

For most people, reducing or eliminating wheat is a sacrifice, a major change in food choices and even a loss of convenience. But the health benefits for most people can be dramatic.

Is vitamin D a "vitamin"?

29. December 2006 William Davis (5)

Vitamins are crucial participants in the body's reactions and are obtainable from food. Vitamin C, for example, comes from citrus fruits and vegetables. Vitamin K comes from green vegetables. The B vitamins are found in meats, soy, dairy products, and grains. Vitamin A comes from carrots, squash, and other orange and green colored vegetables.

How about vitamin D? What foods contain vitamin D? The list includes:

Food International Units(IU) vitamin D per serving

Cod liver oil, 1 Tablespoon 1,360
Salmon, cooked, 3½ ounces 360
Mackerel, cooked, 3½ ounces 345
Tuna fish, canned in oil, 3 ounces 200
Sardines, canned in oil, drained, 1¾ ounces 250

Milk, nonfat, reduced fat, and whole, vitamin D fortified, 1 cup 98
Margarine, fortified, 1 Tablespoon 60
Pudding, prepared from mix and made with vitamin D fortified milk, ½ cup 50
Cheese, Swiss, 1 ounce 12

Ready-to-eat cereals fortified with 10% of the DV for vitamin D, ¾ cup to 1 cup servings (servings vary according to the brand) 40

Egg, 1 whole (vitamin D is found in egg yolk) 20
Liver, beef, cooked, 3½ ounces 15

(Modified from the Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health)

You'll note that the only naturally-occurring food sources of vitamin D are the modest quantities in fish, egg yolks, and liver. All the other vitamin D-containing foods like cereal, milk, and other dairy products have vitamin D only because humans add it.

It takes me (personally) 6000 units of vitamin D per day to bring my blood level to an acceptable 50 ng/ml. To obtain this from eating salmon, I would have to eat 58 ounces, or 3 1/2 pounds of salmon--every day. Or, I could eat 30 cans of tuna fish.

If I didn't want to eat loads of fish every day, I could drink 60 glasses of milk every day. After I recovered from the diarrhea, my vitamin D might be adequate, provided the milk indeed contained the amount stated on the label (which it often does not when scrutinized by the USDA).

If vitamin D is a vitamin, how are humans supposed to get sufficient quantities? I don't know anybody who can eat 3 1/2 lbs of salmon per day, nor drink 60 glasses of milk per day. But aren't vitamins supposed to come from food?

The problem is that vitamin D is not really a vitamin, it's a hormone. If your thyroid hormone level was low, you'd gain 20, 30, or more pounds in weight, your blood pressure would skyrocket, you'd lose your hair, become constipated, develop blood clots, be terribly fatigued. In other words, you'd suffer profound changes. Likewise, if thyroid hormone levels are corrected by giving you thyroid hormone, you'd experience profound correction of these phenomena.

That's what I'm seeing with vitamin D: restoration of this hormone to normal blood levels (25-OH-vitamin D3 50 ng/ml) yields profound changes in the body.

If there's one thing that I've come across lately that packs extraordinary potential to help us in reducing heart scan scores, it's the vitamin--sorry, the hormone--cholecalciferol, or D3.

Heart scan curiosities 3

28. December 2006 William Davis (0)

Note the shape of the chest in this 64-year old man. The front of his chest (upper portion of scan) is concave. In other words, if you were looking at this man (shirtless, of course) face to face, his chest would bow inward, rather than the usual outward configuration. The official name for this is "pectus excavatum".

Compare this to the normal chest in the second image, in which the chest is convex. Face to face, the chest would bow slightly outward.

What does it matter? The pectus excavatum in and of itself has no importance, just a curiousity. (I personally find this surprising, given the fact that the heart actually appears squashed by the sternum, or chest wall.) However, it is commonly associated with a "floppy" mitral valve (also called mitral valve prolapse), a common congenital disorder of the mitral valve often accompanied by a slender build, loose joints, and even a nervous disposition. Occasionally, in its more severe forms, the aorta is also enlarged. (This man's aorta is not enlarged.)

So, while we can't actually visualize the mitral valve by a CT heart scan, we can surmise that he likely has a floppy mitral valve, is slender, is probably a nervous sort, and has long limbs with loose joints. He probably required braces as a child, since many people have a phenemenon of "crowded teeth". The roof of his mouth, or hard palate, probably unusually high up in the mouth. He probably has a "weak chin", meaning a less prominent protuberance of his chin. His fingers and toes are likely unusually long and slender.

It could mean that some attention and exploration of how floppy his mitral valve might be could be useful, e.g., an ultrasound or echocardiogram. He might even require oral antibiotics at the time of any oral or some gastrointestinal procedures, since floppy valve are more susceptible to blood infections when potentially "dirty" orifices are instrumented.

All that from a heart scan!

Gratitude

24. December 2006 William Davis (2)

The holidays and the end of the year may be a good time to reflect on how grateful we should be for having the freedom to discuss the ideas we share on this Blog, the Track Your Plaque website, online and offline.

Although I rant and rave against the status quo in heart disease, the shameful profiteering of my colleagues and hospitals, the cut-throat marketing practices of drug and device manufacturers, I am truly grateful that, in the U.S., I have the extraordinary freedom to say these things. You have the freedom to agree or disagree and none of us pays a price for truth.

I've been reflecting myself a great deal on this idea of happiness and gratitude being a critical component of coronary plaque regression and dropping your heart scan score. (See The Heart Scan Blog from earlier this week.) The more I think about this, the more I think that it is indeed true: Harboring anger and resentment, regrets, irritability, all those petty emotions that most of us know are not good for us, erode our chances for success in dropping your heart scan score.

We could rationalize it this way: Anger and other negative emotions are adrenaline-driven states, also characterized by activation of the "sympathetic" nervous system. (Despite its name, the sympathetic system is not sympathetic, as in compassionate; its the "fight-or-flight" activator that accelerates heart rate and blood pressure.)

Happiness, contentment, and gratitude are "parasympathetic" states characterized by slower heart rates, deeper respiration, greater variation in beat-to-beat heart rates (a powerful predictor for health and the basis for the HeartMath program of Lew Childre), lower blood pressure, and even a subtle change in brain waves. In other words, happiness is not just a mental and emotional state, it is a constellation of physical phenomena.

Even though I pick on Dr. Dean Ornish for his stubborn adherence to the outdated low-fat mantra, I do agree with him on the value of happiness. His book, Love and Survival, articulates this concept. Ornish has even said on several occasions that it wasn't the diet that was most important but the connection and warmth that was created by the comraderie created by participation in the Ornish Program group sessions.

I am personally grateful that the concepts I promote are gaining a following and that I can say so without fear of prosecution. I am grateful that Track Your Plaque followers are not just sharing our concepts, but obtaining genuine and powerful health advice that will help keep them home and healthy, away from hospitals, procedures, and the dangers of heart disease.

I hope you share in my gratitude and are thankful for all the truly wonderful things that surround us. I wish you all a wonderful holiday and long, healthy life filled with gratitude.

A Track Your Plaque failure

23. December 2006 William Davis (0)

We recently had a man suffer a heart attack after beginning the program. Let me tell you the details.

Jerry's heart scan score 781, age 53. Multiple lipoprotein abnormalities: HDL 32 mg/dl, triglycerides 279 mg/dl, nearly all of his LDL was in small particles with an "effective" LDL (LDL particle number), and very high IDL. So Jerry added fish oil 6000 mg per day, niacin, and vitamin D to the statin drug prescribed by his primary physician. Jerry added oat bran, ground flaxseed, and tried to eat fish at least once per week.

However, Jerry continued to smoke. He'd smoked for 40 years (!), up to 2 packs per day, and just reasoned that it was too late to quit. He also continued to indulge in the packaged, processed foods that were part of his convenience story business.

Jerry's stress test was normal--no chest pain, normal EKG, normal images of blood flow, though he was somewhat breathless, likely from his lung disease from smoking.

Two months into his program, he abruptly experienced severe crushing pain in his chest. Because he was traveling, he ended up in a small local hospital. A failed angioplasty led to urgent coronary bypass surgery.

Jerry's alive. Now he's a non-smoker. He's got the pursed lips and peculiar breathing pattern that smokers get, but he's breathing.

Lesson: In the face of the most powerful program for heart disease known, it can still be overpowered by Twinkies, Hoho's, pretzels, chips--and cigarettes.

The new year is approaching. Be grateful for another year of healthy life and commit to a new year of even greater health. If you're a smoker, there's no choice: you've got to quit.

Are you more like a dog or a rabbit?

20. December 2006 William Davis (11)

Dr. William Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology and cardiovascular pathologist, is a perennial source of clever ideas on heart disease.
In a recent editorial, Dr. Roberts comments:

"Because humans get atherosclerosis, and atherosclerosis is a disease only of herbivorers, humans also must be herbivores. Most humans, of course, eat flesh, but that act does not make us carnivores. Carnivores and herbivores have different characteristics. (1) The teeth of carnivores are sharp; those of herbivores, flat (humans have some sharp teeth but most are flat for grinding the fruits, vegetables, and grains we are built to eat). (2) The intestinal tract of carnivores is short (about 3 times body length); that of herbivores, long (about 12 times body length). (Since I am 6 feet tall my intestinal tract should be about 60 feet long. As a consequence, if I eat bovine muscle [steak], it could take 5 days to course through those 20 yards.) (3) Body cooling for carnivores is done by panting because they have no ability to seat; although herbivores also can pant, they cool their bodies mainly by sweating. (4) Drinking fluids is by lapping them for the carnivore; it is by sipping them for the herbivore. (5) Vitamin C is made by the carnivore's own body; herbivores obtain their ascorbic acid only from their diet. Thus, although most human beings think we are carnivores or at least conduct their lives as if we were, basically humans are herbivores. If we could decrease our flesh intake to as few as 5 to 7 meals a week our health would improve substantially."

You can always count on Dr. Bill Roberts to come up with some clever observations.

I think he's right. Some of the most unhealthy people I've known have been serious meat eaters. Most of the vegetarians have been among the healthiest. (I say most because if a vegetarian still indulges in plenty of junk foods like chips, crackers, breakfast cereals, breads, etc., then they can be every bit as unhealthy as a meat eater.)

Should you become a vegetarian to gain control over coronary plaque and other aspects of health? I don't believe you have to. However, modern livestock raising practices have substantially modified the composition of meats. A steak in 2006, for instance, is not the same thing as a steak in 1896. The saturated and monounsaturated fat content are different, the pattern of fat "marbling" is different, the lean protein content is different. Meat is less healthy today than 100 years ago.

Take a lesson from Dr. Roberts' tongue-in-cheek but nonetheless provocative thoughts. Pardon me while I chew on some carrots.

NY Times Jane Brody misses the mark

9. October 2007 William Davis (6)

NY Times' health columnist, Jane Brody, recently wrote a bit of fluff for her paper:

"CT Scans of the Heart Come With Trade-Offs

In her report, she says:

Coronary CT scans are being sold directly to the public, and they have found a market in health-conscious people who can afford them. But screening exams can have downsides. They can cause needless worry, and they sometimes reveal other potential conditions that require invasive procedures like biopsies to diagnose.

I soon learned that among the strongest proponents of CT scans of coronary arteries were physicians with financial ties to drug companies that make statins and others connected to imaging centers that would profit directly from widespread CT screenings.

She then goes on to discuss how the Framingham scoring calculation can tell you whether or not you are at low-, intermediate-, or high-risk for heart disease. She therefore concludes that heart scans are therefore irrelevant for the majority of people. She then proceeds to take a statin agent.

This sort of nonsense continues to get published, despite the clear lack of real "digging" for the truth. She clearly fell for the conventional arguments that continue to mis-guide the majority of people, myths like:

--the Framingham scoring system is reliable--Reliable it is NOT; it is susceptible to substantial "misclassification" bias, meaning people who appear low risk can actually be high risk, and people at high risk can actually be low risk. Among the latest studies that question the scoring system is Family history of premature coronary heart disease and coronary artery calcification: Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). This study pointed out how the Framingham scoring system, which leaves out family history, can cause people classified as low risk to actually have substantial heart scan scores. This is crucial. A heart scan gets beyond the uncertainties and shows with >95% certainty whether or not hidden coronary atherosclerotic plaque is present.

--"Coronary risk" is a dynammic phenomenon, subject to changes in a person's life. What if, for instance, a person smoked for 20 years, quit 10 years ago, lost 30 lbs, dropped their blood pressure as a result of the weight loss, then relied on the Framingham Risk Calculator to determine risk. They would likely be classified as low- risk, since risk factors now appear favorable. This person could easily have a heart scan score of 500, or 700, or 1000, levels that carry a cardiovascular event risk of 5-25% per year, hardly low-risk, because much of their risk accumulated earlier in life and is no longer revealed by an assessment of risk factors.

--There are sources of risk that have nothing to do with Framingham, such as lipoprotein(a), which is often revealed by family history; the presence of small LDL, which co-varies with HDL and triglycerides, but can behave independently also; and, my favorite, deficiency of vitamin D. This would explain part of the 60-70% of people who are typically mis-classified by Framingham.

Where did Ms. Brody get the idea that proponents of heart scans had ties to drug companies? I think she's barking up the wrong tree on that one. Of course, she ends up on a statin drug. For my part, I am a critic of statin drugs. Yes, they play a role, but they are miserably misused and abused by practicing physicians, based on the endless onslaught of drug company-sponsored trials that have served to distort their usefulness.

If I were Ms. Brody, I would be quaking in my shoes, not knowing what my true risk for heart disease was, relying on the--at best--30% reduction in heart attack risk of Lipitor or other statin drug. Ms. Brody: You are not cured, you're simply wearing a superficial Band-Aid. If you want to know your true risk for heart attack, and you want a precise value that you can track over time, the answer is simple: Reject the conventional notion and get a heart scan.

"There must be a mistake"

9. October 2007 William Davis (2)

Neal is our current male record holder for greatest reduction in heart scan score. (Yes, the ladies have the lead!)

You may remember that this 40-year old man reduced his heart scan score from 339 to 161--a 51% drop. If you haven't yet read his story, go to

http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_07-001nealt51.asp

Neal reminded me of the experience he had when he underwent his second heart scan. Both scans had been performed at the same scanning center. At this center, the radiologists provide the added service of sitting down with people and actually going over the images and results.

After the scan, the radiologist pulled up the result from Neal's first scan for comparison. "There must be a mistake! This score is lower. Scores never drop."

The radiologist was apparently stumped, unable to provide an explanation. However, Neal then proceeded to tell the radiologist that we had warned Neal that this could happen and that he might even be told that it was due to error of some sort. This yielded a puzzled look on the radiologist but no further comment.

Of course it's not a mistake. It's something we achieve on purpose. Curiously, I still get comments that this is impossible, heart scan scores never drop, etc. Of course, those of you following this conversation know this is completely untrue. Heart scan scores DO drop, and sometimes drop enormous amounts, as it did for Neal.

I would have liked the radiologist to have had the lightbulb of understanding go off in his head when he realized that a reduction in heart scan score is a cause for celebration. Unfortunately, this radiologist's reaction is all too common: disbelief, confusion, dismissal.

Heart disease reversal is simply not in the realm of understanding of most doctors, radiologists and cardiologists alike. By conventional thought, if you have it, it just gets worse. "Maybe some high-dose Lipitor might help."

Ironically, when they see it right in front of their eyes, plain as day on the computer screen, they don't understand what has happened. It's Greek to them.

Should this happen to you, don't be surprised. Just bite your tongue, because you know better.

Jimmy Moore Interview: Is saturated fat the villain we thought?

7. October 2007 William Davis (45)

Enter "weight loss" or "low carb" in your web search and you can't help but stumble across the prolific and widely-connected Jimmy Moore.

On his Blog, Livin' la Vida Lo Carb , Jimmy conducts a wide-ranging and informative discussion of the benefits of a low carbohydrate diet, a la Atkins. Though his initial claim to fame was the 180 lbs he lost in his first year of dieting on this approach, Jimmy has extended the conversation and built a considerable community of like-minded individuals, all of whom are participating in this grand "experiment."

Anybody who looks at lipoproteins and associated factors in health will quickly come to the conclusion that processed carbohydrates are the culprits in much of heart disease, diabetes, and heart disease. But I have had a hard time dismissing the ill-effects of saturated fat. After all, we've all been taught--drilled--with the idea that saturated fats cause LDL cholesterol to go higher, cause arterial constriction, growth of atherosclerotic plaque, inflammation, even cancer.

But there does indeed seem to be a growing sentinment that this long-held dogma may not be true. So I went to the ever-entertaining and informative Jimmy Moore, an able spokesman for these concepts.

TYP: It's certainly impossible to argue with the success you had in weight loss and the health you've regained on your program.

I think that the approach we use in diet in the Track Your Plaque program and the nutrition approach you advocate overlap to a great extent. We both emphasize plenty of vegetables, fruits, healthy oils, nuts, etc. The major point of difference seems to lie in saturated fat: We say restrict it, you say don't restrict it. Could you elaborate?

JM: Thank you for inviting me to your blog today, Dr. Davis. I have nothing but deep respect and admiration for the work you are doing to help educate others about how to keep their heart health in tip-top shape. Keep fighting the good fight, my friend.

While we do agree on probably 99% of the basic tenets of what I describe as
"livin' la vida low-carb," the issue of saturated fat to me is one where we
indeed do not. It's not a deal breaker regarding my support for what you do
just as I'm sure you would say the same regarding your backing of what I do. If
we all agreed on everything, then what a boring world this would be!

My thinking on saturated fat has evolved since I started eating this way nearly
four years ago. Like most people, I was terrified to eat ANY fat at all because
of the abject fear that people like Dr. Dean Ornish and other so-called health
"experts" instilled in me about how dangerously unhealthy it is to consume it.
This fat phobia is arguably the single biggest contributor to the ongoing
obesity crisis our world faces today.

With that said, you and I both know fat consumption is a part of a healthy
lifestyle. There are just too many benefits to the body that come from the
consumption of fats and even saturated fats such as coconut oil, butter, lard,
nuts, seeds, and animal fat when it is combined with a restricted carbohydrate
intake.

An intriguing study was presented at a scientific conference in November 2006 by two highly-respected researchers--Dr. Stephen Phinney from the University of California at Davis and Dr. Jeff Volek from the University of Connecticut--who conducted a side-by-side comparison of the amount of saturated fat in the blood of people on a low-carb diet with those following those highly-touted low-fat diets. What they found was the low-carb study participants had "significantly less" saturated fat in their blood than the low-fatties did.

Here are the actual numbers from the study:

- LOW-FAT/HIGH-CARB DIETERS: lowered saturated fat by 24%
- LOW-CARB/HIGH-FAT DIETERS: lowered saturated fat by 57%
- Eating 3X the saturated fat cut the amount in the blood in half

In an interview I conducted at my blog with Dr. Volek last year (here's the
link: http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2006/09/volek-high-carb-low-fat-diet-useless-to.html),
he said the conventional wisdom regarding fat, especially saturate fat, is dead
wrong while the significance of carbs is all but ignored by those who claim to
understand the metabolic response mechanism.

Here's what Dr. Volek said in my interview:

"Eating fat does not make you fat, storing fat makes you fat. And carbohydrates play a major role in storing fat. So the level of dietary carbohydrate is really the most important factor to control because it dictates what happens to fat. Carbs are dominant and fat is passive. When carbohydrates are low, fat tends to be burned, and when carbohydrates are high dietary fat tends to be stored. The same holds true for the atherogenic effects of saturated fat. The body handles saturated fat better when carbohydrates are low."

Long-time low-carb practitioner and current President of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians (ASBP) Dr. Mary C. Vernon from Lawrence, Kansas confirms the findings of Dr. Volek and Dr. Phinney in a succinct recap of what their research showed.

Here's what she said:

"Eating fat (whatever kind) does not make you fat. It does not increase blood
stream saturated fat. Eating carbs does make you fat. Eating carbs does put
saturated fat in your blood stream."

To me, as a simple layperson with no medical background, it's all a matter of who you believe. Do we continue to buy into the low-fat propaganda machine and assume that what they are telling us about saturated fat is true? Or do we instead start paying closer attention to the latest research that is coming out about saturated fat that doesn't exactly line up with the edicts of the last three decades? The choice for me is a simple one.

And if you haven't read the brand new Gary Taubes book entitled GOOD CALORIES, BAD CALORIES yet, then it is REQUIRED reading to arm yourself with the research studies about fat. After you read that book, it will be almost impossible for ANYONE to believe fat, including saturated fat, is unhealthy.

TYP: In our program, we advocate a wheat-free approach for many people, because of the addictive potential of wheat products, as well as the flagrant creation of the small LDL pattern that wheat products create, thereby adding to atherosclerotic plaque growth. However, many people express a concern over a lack of fiber in their diets if they eliminate whole wheat bread, pasta, Fiber One, Raisin Bran cereal, etc.

Have you encountered any phenomena of low-fiber on your approach?

JM: What an excellent question and I even wrote a humorous blog post about the importance of fiber intake called "Allow Your Bowel To Shake, Rattle, And Roll" (http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2006/06/allow-your-bowel-to-shake-rattle-and.html).

Fiber consumption is another one of those issues that not everyone who advocates
a controlled-carb approach agrees is necessary. I'm on the side that it IS a healthy part of your diet and should be consumed in high enough quantities to keep you regular...something many people think is impossible on a low-carb diet.
Not true! I take a fiber supplement like FiberCon, eat plenty of high-fiber vegetables, drink lots of water, and even consume high-fiber, low-carb products that help me maintain high levels of fiber in my diet (see my favorite ones in this post: http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2007/04/there-are-plenty-of-low-carb-fiber.html).

As for consuming the highly-touted "healthy whole grain" cereals that you
mentioned, what a travesty that would be for people trying to manage their
weight and health. While the cereal manufacturers have had a heyday in their
marketing efforts promoting their whole grain content, it's all just a big fat
ruse on the public trying to convince them that these cereals are somehow healthy for their bodies. Sure, they're better than the sugary cereals, but all those grains are metabolized as sugar inside the body, so you might as well be eating Lucky Charms and Fruit Loops!

Many of these "healthy" cereals contain as many carbohydrates in a single bowl
without the milk as I would eat in an entire day. Raisin Bran, for example, which used to be my favorite cereal before my low-carb lifestye, has a whopping 47 grams of carbohydrates. Needless to say, I don't touch that with a ten-foot pole nowadays because I would surely gain weight and get back on the blood sugar rollercoaster ride that I was on prior to beginning the Atkins diet on January 1, 2004. Plus, all those carbs just make you hungrier sooner, so it's better just to eat some delicious eggs cooked in butter, a couple of slices of sausage, and tomato slices to start your day off right. You'll get enough fiber in your body the rest of your day.

TYP: 180 lbs of weight loss in your first year is absolutely astounding.

I take it that you've continued this trend and have lost more weight since your early success. What role did exercise play during your first year and subsequently?
How are your food choices today different from that first year?

JM: Yes, that weight loss was indeed one of the greatest accomplishments I have ever experienced in my life. It was a hard-fought battle that even included a 10-week period where I was stalled with no weight loss. But I knew my chosen diet was the right one for me because I felt better than I ever had on a diet, was never hungry because I ate every 2-3 hours, and could see myself doing this for the rest of my life. So far, so good!

It has been close to four years since I began this journey and I am indeed continuing this pathway to better health. My low weight in 2004 was 230 pounds and I currently weigh 225 pounds. As long as I keep my carbs reduced, I am able to maintain my weight right where it is. I've had minor fluctuations in both directions where I got down to as low as 215 pounds at one point (but didn't feel good at that weight) and as high as 252 pounds (when I was allowing myself one too many high-carb foods here and there).

There's a balance that people need to find for themselves and it's different for
all of us. I am one of the unlucky people who has to keep his carbohydrate
intake below 50g daily or I gain. It's just a fact of life that I've come to
grips with and realize is a necessity in order to manage my weight for the rest
of my life. But I wouldn't have it any other way!

Exercise was indeed a part of my low-carb weight loss success in 2004 as I
forced myself to do cardio every single day as a commitment to this journey. In
hindsight, that was probably not the best thing for me to do since the body has
a rather peculiar way of telling you it needs to wiggle and move spontaneously
on its own rather than forcing the issue. But I consider the exercise I did to
be such an integral part of my success that I dedicated an entire chapter of my
book to the subject.

Today, my daily cardio routine is out the window and I choose instead to engage
in activities outside the gym that let me burn calories and have some fun in the
process. I regularly play volleyball, basketball, and referee flag football at
my church which all give me quite a workout. I'm very physically active and fit
on my 6'3" body and just enjoy burning off all this excess energy that I have
been given since losing nearly have my weight! I do want to get into a little
more organized resistance training routine soon to try to shape and tone some
areas of my body that still show signs of that 410-pound man I used to be
(although the loose, hanging skin in my abdomen and inner thighs isn't going to
get any better with exercise since the elasticity has been ruined from being
stretched out so far). Here is a link to some posts and pictures I have written
about this subject:
http://lowcarblinks.blogspot.com/2007/04/theme-based-low-carb-links-loose-skin.html

As for my food choices today compared to my weight loss year in 2004, they
haven't really changed a whole lot. This was a lifestyle change in every sense
of the phrase and I've learned to implement this way of eating into a permanent
and healthy diet that I can and will gladly live with forever and ever amen. I
probably eat more berries, melons, and nuts today than I did then, but otherwise
it's the identical diet.

TYP: I'm sure that you are as impressed as I am that much of the wisdom in healthy eating doesn't always come from doctors or clinical studies, but from the collective wisdom that emerges from this national experiment (inadvertent, for the most part) in eating. Your Livin' La Vida Low-Carb is, in my view, a perfect example of the sort of wisdom that is helping all of us understand what happened to our health over the last 20 years.

Does the approach you advocate today differ in any substantial way from the diet as originally articulated by Dr. Atkins?

JM: Actually, my personal diet is precisely based on the teaching of the late great Dr. Robert C. Atkins in his classic bestseller DR. ATKINS' NEW DIET REVOLUTION (DANDR) book. But most people are surprised when they learn I do not necessarily advocate the Atkins diet as the nutritional approach for everyone.

Nope, I sure don't!

Instead, my philosophy is simple: Find the diet plan that will work for YOU, read and research everything you can about that chosen plan, follow that plan exactly as prescribed by the author of that book, and then KEEP doing that plan for the rest of your life. If you do that, then there's no reason why you can't succeed just like I did.

Anyone interested in doing the low-carb lifestyle and needs help finding which
plan is right for them, let me HIGHLY encourage you to pick up a copy of Dr. Jonny Bowden's LIVING THE LOW-CARB LIFE (read my review: http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2005/05/must-have-book-for-everybody-doing-low.html).
It's the perfect overview of low-carb living with a comparison and recap of the
major plans.

THANK YOU again for allowing me to share my story with you and your readers, Dr.
Davis!

TYP: And thanks to you, Jimmy!

For more on Jimmy Moore's lively and informative discussion of these issues, go to

Livin' la Vida Lo Carb

Also, watch "Livin' La Vida Low-Carb on YouTube"

Join the conversation at Jimmy's new low-carb forum called "Livin' La Vida
Low-Carb Discussion" at LowCarbDiscussion.com

Also, Jimmy's 2005 book on his weight loss experience:
"Livin' La Vida Low-Carb: My Journey From Flabby Fat To
Sensationally Skinny In One Year"

Mammogram of the heart

6. October 2007 William Davis (3)

Some people have called CT heart scans the "mammogram of the heart." The analogy contains a lot of wisdom.

First of all, both--mammograms and CT heart scans--are screening tests, one for cancer, of course, the other for coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Both are performed in specific age groups, mammograms in women 40 years and over (generally), heart scans in women 50 years and over (generally).

Mammograms: Left, normal; right, a small mass. (Courtesy Nat'l Institutes of Health and Wikipedia.)

Both are also meant to be repeated periodically when normal as a surveillance process.

Both use low quantities of radiation of about 0.3-0.4 mSv (the most real-life measure of total body exposure), a modest quantity of radiation.

Both are good for their purposes, though not perfect. Can a mammogram performed properly miss a small cancerous mass? Sure it can, but it's still unusual. Can a CT heart scan miss the non-calcified plaque prone to rupture? Sure it can, but this is also unlikely (<5% probability).

Given the exorbitant costs of medical tests, both are quite inexpensive. On the flip side, they are both also quite unprofitable for the centers providing the tests. Unfortunately, this means that mammography centers and heart scan centers come and go because of the difficulties of the profit-side of these services.

Both tests initially struggled to gain acceptance among the medical community. In 1960, for instance, mammograms were performed on standard x-ray devices, the same as that used to perform chest x-rays--low precision, high radiation back then. In 1969, dedicated mammography devices made the scene. However, it took over 10 years for even these new dedicated devices to become widely used. Use of mammograms has gradually increased over the ensuing 20 years. In other words, 47 years have passed since the introduction of mammography.

CT heart scans, of course, have had a shorter history of approximately 20 years, since engineer, Dr. Douglas Boyd, first invented the "ultra-fast" EBT devices, the first devices with sufficient scanning speed to scan the heart and coronary arteries.

One interesting difference between the two: In a woman between the age of 50 and 60, the likelihood of detecting cancer is 1 in 237. The likelihood of detecting coronary atherosclerotic plaque? About 1 in 4. Coronary disease eventually kills 1 in 3 females, hugely overshadowing breast cancer in frequency.

Progress on both fronts, one in cancer detection, the other in atherosclerotic coronary plaque detection. But still lots more progress to go.

Dr. Susie Rockway on conjugated linoleic acid (CLA)

5. October 2007 William Davis (7)

I’m fascinated by the perspectives that nutritionists (free-thinking ones, at least), food scientists, and biochemists bring on nutrition and nutritional supplements.

A few months ago, I met a fascinating nutritionist/biochemist named Susie Rockway, PhD. Dr. Rockway brings a world of experience in the world of nutritional supplements, clinical trials with supplements, and their development. She has special expertise in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), having been among the scientists who initially developed CLA as a supplement. We are also exploring CLA as a possible addition to the Track Your Plaque program and wanted to get Dr. Rockway’s perspectives.

So I asked Dr. Rockway if she’d answer a few questions for us.

TYP: Dr. Rockway, we understand that you are particularly excited about the prospects of CLA for FAT loss and perhaps for regression of atherosclerosis. Can you tell us about the origins of your interest in CLA and why you're so enthusiastic?

Dr. Rockway: I have been fascinated with this unique fatty acid since the early 1990’s when CLA was first being discussed as nature’s most potent anti-carcinogen. I was then working in the granting/funding section of the National Dairy Council and saw this molecule as truly one of the future functional fats that would likely benefit people (next to omega-3’s!)

I think the benefits of CLA have just begun to be investigated—animal studies are extraordinary for showing fat reduction, lean mass (muscle) increases, immune enhancements, blood glucose normalization, anti-inflammatory properties and plaque reduction!

Human data to date is very encouraging for fat reduction. As a nutritionist seeing the massive increase in abdominal fat (stomach fat) in the world population and the direct relationship to cardiovascular disease, I see CLA as a great supplement to take to help this. Of course eating lots of vegetables, fruit, lean protein and whole grain products is also a must for maximizing good health.

I am studying the impact of CLA in reducing muscle loss in aging women—a condition known as sarcopenia. As we lose muscle with age, we lose strength, falls increase, we become frailer, and eventually many of us lose our independence. Along with the muscle atrophy, most people gain fat—never a good thing! So, if CLA can reduce fat and increase muscle, our bodies are more likely to withstand the hurdles that life throws at us much more efficiently.

So, how can you not be excited about this very bioactive molecule?

TYP: What are your specific areas of interest in nutrition and health?

Dr. Rockway: I strive to understand the role of bioactive molecules that can be taken to improve the aging process and enhance health.

As a trained nutritional biochemist, we tend to look at cell metabolism in a very ideal sense: what we learned in our biochemistry texts years ago where all substrates, proteins, enzymes, etc. are made exactly when we need them, where all cells behave as they should.

Unfortunately, little research has been devoted to understanding the changes in metabolism as we age. Do we still produce everything as efficiently as when we were 20? I suspect not. So, I think we need a little help, and supplements are a key to getting there.

Two nutrients that I think are emerging as “super nutrients” are the fatty acids found in fish oil (EPA and DHA) and vitamin D. Where we know these two nutrients are essential for life, we are seeing that they play a huge role in the QUALITY of life. Mood, depression, PMS, wound healing, bone growth, atherosclerosis, and arthritis are clinical areas where we see a direct benefit with doses of omega-3 and Vitamin D that are probably much greater than the RDA. Our current requirements for nutrients are really based on fixing deficiencies and not maximizing health, and maximizing health is where I’m at.

Thus, I am very interested molecules like CLA as mentioned above, and other bioactive ingredients such as plant derived ingredients (phytochemicals) called flavonoids that may well help explain why people who have diets high in fruits and vegetables are less likely to have certain cancers and heart disease. Reducing oxidative stress through foods that provide these active molecules (think colored fruits and veggies) is a new and exciting area of research.

TYP:The big "diet experiment" in America has clearly steered people in the wrong direction, usually by 50 or more pounds. As a scientist in nutrition, what are your thoughts?

Dr. Rockway: The American Heart Association was keen 20 years ago to promote the low-fat diet for all Americans as the key way to reduce cholesterol levels and decrease chance of heart disease, the number one killer of men and women. However, I must admit the nutritional community bought into this one, too. Unfortunately, the general public took this message to reduce percent fat in their diet (and they did a bit), but increased overall calories instead—and a large portion of the increased calories was from simple carbohydrates. I’m convinced that this in itself has been part of the huge rise in obesity…we simply eat more food and it’s not the healthy kind of food either.

When you increase sugar intake beyond what you burn off, you will store some of it as glycogen in the liver and muscles, but you will convert most of the excess into fat—and that we can store very efficiently! The fat that is made in the liver is sent to the blood as VLDL’s which are the precursor to the class of lipids called low density lipoproteins (LDL) that are the “lethal” type of cholesterol circulating in our blood.

So, Americans now have to listen to a new message that they need to eat more fruits and vegetables in hopes they will cut down on fast foods—tending to be high in fat (saturated particularly), low in fiber and low in nutrients and other high calorie dense foods. We nutritionists have our work cut out for us, that’s for sure.

TYP: We are especially excited that nutritionists are assuming a leading role in shining light on the confusion in diet and nutrition that has characterized the last 40 years. Do you have a sense for the emerging important issues for the next 10 years?

Dr. Rockway: Certainly, the scientists in the nutritional field are well aware of the problems facing this nation—it’s in fixing them that we fall short!

We aren’t very well coordinated to get a single message out, nor do we all agree on what that message should be. I feel that people need to eat healthy MOST OF THE TIME, exercise all of the time, and take supplements that have clear evidence of benefit. Lots of my colleagues would not concur with supplement use. Our bodies were designed to move a lot and eat a lot…we just do the latter now and are paying the price!

One emerging and very exciting area that we have to teach Americans is that all fat is not bad. The different types of fat—omega-6 vs. omega-3, are where we need to focus our education.

Decreasing the corn oil we pour on everything needs to go out the window! Consume olive oil and eat fish or take fish oil supplements—we simply have tons and tons of research showing the benefits of reducing the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3. Did you know that cattle that are grass fed actually have less omega-6 in their tissues and more CLA? But most cattle are fed corn-based diets, so we have perturbed their natural selection of food and their fat composition.

See, it all comes back to CLA!

TYP: Thanks, Susie!

Susie Rockway, Ph.D., C.N.S.

Dr. Susie Rockway is an experienced scientist with accomplishments in both the academic and food and supplement industry business directing science/technology research. Her background includes faculty appointments at the graduate level in teaching and research at Rush University Medical Center and industrial experience managing basic and applied research studies.

Dr. Rockway received her Ph.D. in Nutritional Sciences, Biochemistry from the University of Arizona. Dr. Rockway has authored several publications in journals such as the Physiological Genomics, Journal of Nutrition, the Journal of Food Science, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health and has published chapters on nutrition on inflammatory bowel diseases. She is a member of the American Society for Nutrition, American Oil Chemists Society, the Institute of Food Technology, American College of Nutrition and is a Certified Nutrition Specialist.

We're also proud to add Dr. Rockway to our panel of Track Your Plaque Experts.

Which is better?

4. October 2007 William Davis (12)

If you have the common pattern of high LDL particle number (NMR) with small LDL--a pattern highly related to coronary plaque--which is better:

Lipitor or a combination of fish oil, vitamin D, and elimination of wheat?

Lipitor quite effectively reduces LDL particle number, usually on the order of 40% or so. Effect on LDL particle size: None. Side-effects: plenty, including muscle aches (inevitable in my experience, not the ridiculous 2% they claim) and occasionally mental effects such as impaired short-term memory.

Lipitor does seem to exert a modest effect on reduction of C-reactive protein, around 30%. It also reduces cardiovascular events by 30%.

A combination of fish oil, vitamin D, and elimination of wheat:

Reduces LDL particle number commonly by a similar 40% (though variable, depending on body weight). There is substantial improvement in LDL particle size, a large drop in C-reactive protein, often >50%, a 30% or more reduction in cardiovacular events.

On this combination, however, you also:

--Lose weight, often substantially.

--Improve bone health, esp. osteoporosis and arthritis.

--Reduce cancer risk from the vit D supplementation.

--Reduce risk of stroke.

--Reduce postprandial (after-eating) abnormalities like intermediate-density lipoprotein.

--Reduce winter blues.

--Experience more energy.

--Obtain increased clarity of thought (from elimination of wheat).

--Reduce blood pressure.

Oh, and there's no muscle aches.

Heart health for stupid people

4. October 2007 William Davis (3)

I'm kidding.

What I'm referring to is the incredibly lame information I come across that passes as "heart health" on the internet, magazines, and other media. Just to keep abreast of what is being said, I subscribe to multiple newsletters and magazines and I witness the sorts of advice offered to the reading public.

A recent long-winded article on a popular website listed the "exciting" strategies available for a healthy heart:

Eat healthy--by eating a "balanced" diet low in saturated fat

Don't smoke

Exercise

Don't ignore chest pain symptoms or breathlessness

Know your numbers! meaning your cholesterol numbers. "If your cholesterol is high, you may need to speak to your doctor about medication to reduce it."

Surely they must all believe we're stupid. Otherwise, why would they repeat the same obvious information over and over again? Quit smoking? Gee, you think so?

How about some real heart healthy advice:

Get a heart scan--since we have to accept that cholesterol values are a miserable failure in detecting hidden heart disease. So is waiting for symptoms to appear.

If you have any measure of coronary plaque, ask your doctor to assess lipoproteins, not lipids (cholesterol).

Take fish oil for omega-3 fatty acids--At a dose of 1000 mg or more of EPA + DHA, heart attack risk is reduced by at least 28%.

Eliminate wheat and other processed carbohydrates --Small LDL has emerged as the number one cause of coronary plaque, not high cholesterol from saturated fat.

Get vitamin D assessed--The effects are huge--HUGE. There's already a study in a kidney disease population that showed a substantial reduction in mortality with vitamin D supplementation. More data are coming, including our own.

That's a start--truly effective, practical heart healthy strategies that go way beyond the conventional bland advice.

Copyright 2007 William Davis, MD

Money, money, money, money

3. October 2007 William Davis (3)

I've been asked the question numerous times:

Why aren't heart scans more popular?

First, let me qualify by saying that heart scan have indeed grown in popularity over the past decade. I think the real question is:

Given the enormous usefulness of CT heart scanning to detect hidden, asymptomatic coronary atherosclerotic plaque, why haven't they more readily been incorporated into conventional medical practice?

That's easy: There's no money in it.

Say, for instance, your doctor orders a heart scan and somehow receives a $1000 for the test. Scan centers would be scanning 100 people a day, falling over themselves to do scans.

This would be similar to a heart catheterization. Order a catheterization, do 30 minutes of work, and get $1000. Or, order a nuclear stress test. Depending on how its done and where, $1800-4000 is paid by the insurer.

Order a CT heart scan and how much is paid to the doctor? Usually nothing. At most, a nominal fee might be paid if the doctor reads the scan.

With heart scans, there simply is no big payoff.

We learned the implications of this situation 10 years ago when I was trying to help my friend, Steve Burlingame, the owner of Milwaukee Heart Scan. (I am NOT and NEVER WAS an owner.) Steve was trying to let everybody know about this great new $2 million dollar heart scan device in the Milwaukee area.

The first few years were tough for Steve: Carrying the substantial expense of this device while doctors essentially gave the technology the cold shoulder. It simply did not fit into the financial equation. Why change the way things were, particularly when there was virtually no financial reason to do so? To counter this, Milwaukee Heart Scan followed the model many other scan centers have followed and marketed directly to the public.

I see this as yet another example of why people need to take control of health care away from doctors and hospitals, the current controllers of the system who are providing a disservice to the public they are supposed to be serving. These institutions, for the most part, serve their self-serving financial interests, not your health interests. It's the same equation that drives food manufacturers to make more and more processed carbohydrate foods that they sell for substantial markups, not green peppers and cucumbers that make little money.

I regard heart scans as among the greatest self-empowering tools in health ever conceived. It was that way in 1997; it remains that way in 2007.

The many faces of LDL

3. October 2007 William Davis (13)

Ginnie came in for an opinion about her heart scan score of 393. At age 57, this put her in the 99th percentile, a high score.

As usual, we did a lipoprotein analysis by NMR (Liposcience). Some numbers:

LDL cholesterol: 96 mg/dl
This value puts Ginnie's LDL in the most favorable 25% in the country.

LDL particle number: 2140 nmol/l
This value is in the worst 25% of the country and is the equivalent of an LDL cholesterol of 214 mg/dl (take off the zero).

In addition, over 90% of Ginnie's LDL particles fell into the small class.

Had we run some other values, how would they have turned out? These are my estimates (since we didn't actually run them in Ginnie), but having run side-by-side numbers in past, reasonable estimates would have put:

Apoprotein B somewhere in the 120 to 140 mg/dl range

Direct LDL 100-130 mg/dl range.

In other words, conventional calculated LDL is the least reliable of all the ways of examining low-density lipoprotein.

It can also go the other way: High calculated LDL, low LDL particle number or ApoB or direct LDL. And, indeed, these other measures have proven superior in their ability to predict "events" like heart attack over conventional calculated LDL.

Unfortunately, relying on conventional LDL is like a broken speedometer on your car. You really can't gauge accurately how fast you're going; sometimes you could be way off. While insurance companies and many physicians still continue to balk at this argument, the data have already been generated that show that lipoprotein analysis (my bias is NMR) is not just superior, but enormously superior for accuracy and event prediction.

In addition, lipoprotein analysis has proven a crucial tool that accounts for our extraordinary success in reducing and controlling CT heart scan scores in the Track Your Plaque program. I doubt that we could have achieved the same level of success using conventional lipids.

I'm also aware of the logistical difficulties obtaining lipoprotein testing in a world enthusiastically supportive of hospital procedures and smugly ignorant of superior prevention tools like lipoprotein analysis. I've learned just how difficult it can be in our Track Your Plaque Member Forum; I've also learned about some strategies for obtaining these tests that I hadn't been aware of, thanks to the resourcefulness of our Members.

We will be working on some solutions in the coming months.

Copyright 2007 William Davis, MD

What does "Success" mean in the Track Your Plaque program?

2. October 2007 William Davis (11)

Say you begin with a CT heart scan score of 400.

You correct your lipoprotein pattterns, take fish oil, correct 25-OH-vitamin D3 to 50 ng/ml, correct your other hidden patterns, follow a diet suited to your patterns.

One year later, you get another heart scan. What score would constitute "success"?

With all of our recent talk about record-setting reductions in heart scan scores, is it really necessary to drop your score that much to succeed?

For instance, is our latest record-setting 63% drop in score better than "only" a 10% drop in score? Both represent reversal of coronary plaque. Both signify huge reductions in risk for plaque rupture, or heart attack.

You can read about how we view the various forms of success in the program by reading our latest Track Your Plaque Special Report, Winning Your Personal War with Heart Disease: The Track Your Plaque 5 Stages of Success.

We are making the Report available to everyone. Just go to the www.cureality.com homepage.

Where do you find fructose?

14. July 2009 William Davis (25)

Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g

Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons

Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient

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

A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient

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

Do heart scans cause cancer?

14. July 2009 William Davis (3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

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

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

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

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

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

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

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

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The media frenzy

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

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

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

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

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

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

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

Non-CT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

Goodbye, fructose

12. July 2009 William Davis (35)

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

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The statin-free life

8. July 2009 William Davis (20)

Matt came to me because his doctor couldn't reduce his LDL cholesterol.

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

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

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

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

--No lipoprotein(a)

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

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

I therefore asked Matt to:

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

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

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

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

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

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

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

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

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

5. July 2009 William Davis (29)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having healthy muscle mass doesn't make you bulge like a bodybuilder. With modest efforts at strength training, augmented with creatine supplementation, you have a wonderful tool to feel better, reduce injury, increase bone density, and combat abnormal insulin resistance, not to mention accelerate weight loss, since lean muscle mass consumes energy.

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

2. July 2009 William Davis (19)

There has been a lot of debate over whether or not “bio-identical” hormones, i.e., hormones identical to the human form, are superior to non-human forms dispensed by the drug industry.

The FDA is currently taking steps to clamp down on availability of bioidentical hormones and their claims of superiority, despite a groundswell of grassroot support for them. The argument has pitted anti-aging practitioners and the public, as well as the likes of Oprah and Suzanne Somers, against Big Pharma and the FDA, the two forces trying to squash the bioidentical hormone movement.

Regardless of what heavy-handed approach the FDA takes, we already have access to hormones identical to the original human form. It requires no prescription and yields downstream hormones that the human body recognizes as human.

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

Pregnenolone is the first biochemical step in the conversion of dietary cholesterol (yes-cholesterol!) to numerous other hormones. Pregnenolone is the source of the hormones that lie at the center of the bioidentical hormone controversy: estrogens, progesterone, and testosterone. We therefore already have our own over-the-counter, non-prescription form of bioidentical hormones.

Supplemental pregnenolone increases estrogens (mildly), progesterone, and testosterone. Prenenonlone supplementation simply provide more of the basic substrate for hormone production. The increase in hormones is usually modest, not as vigorous as direct hormone replacement like, say, testosterone or progesterone topical creams. But pregnenolone can be useful when small to moderate increases are desired, such as for reduction of Lp(a). A theoretical downside is that pregnenonlone can also convert to cortisol, the adrenal gland hormone that regulates fluid and blood pressure. However, I've not seen any measurable increase in cortisol with low doses of pregnenonlone and limited data suggest that it does not. Pregnenolone also converts to the other adrenal gland hormone, DHEA; I call DHEA "the hormone of assertiveness," since some people who take too much pregnenolone (or direct DHEA) acquire excessive assertiveness.

The key to pregnenolone supplementation is to proceed gradually and begin with a small dose, e.g., 5 mg every morning. Hormonal assessment is best conducted periodically to assess the effects and to determine whether a dose adjustment is in order.

Roger's near-miss CT angiogram experience

27. June 2009 William Davis (13)

Heart Scan Blog reader, Roger, described his near-miss experience with CT coronary angiograms.

Hoping to obtain just a simple CT heart scan, he was bullied to get a CT coronary angiogram instead. Roger held strong and just asked for the test that we all should be having, a CT heart scan.

I posted yesterday that I was about to have my first CT heart scan...well, it was an interesting experience for reasons I coudn't possibly have anticipated. Dr. Davis has commented in the past on the confusion in the media about the difference between a CT calcium score scan, and a CT angiography, the latter requiring a far higher dose of radiation. I assumed this was a source of confusion only among patients and lay folks, but, lo and behold, I discovered today that doctors--or at least their helpers--can be just as confused.

Here's my story:

After checking in, I asked the receptionist to see if she had any information on whether my medical insurance was covering the scan. She called someone, and I heard her say over the phone, "He's here for a CT angiogram." At that point my ears perked up. I explained I wasn't here for a CT angiogram, only a regular CT scan. "Well, do you want to call your doctor and talk about this?" she asked. No, I said, I would like to ask one of their folks to verify exactly what test my doctor had ordered. As luck would have it, the technician was walking by at that point. "Is this a CT angiogram?" the receptionist asked. "No, it's just a CT calcium score scan" was the reply. But apparently the technician had been unclear herself, and had called my doctor just to verify. In other words, the "default" procedure they were accustomed to doing at this august Houston vascular clinic was a CT angiogram.

In fact, my appointment was even listed on their calendar as a "CT angiogram." For all I know, my insurance will be billed for the same. Later, during the procedure, the technician acted surprised I wasn't doing the "full test." I explained I had minimal risk factors (actually only one, an HDL of 34 a couple of years ago, which has since been raised to 50 partly as a result of taking advice from this site), but that my doctor was progressive (he is an MD for the Houston Astros) and thought it was a good idea since there is heart disease in my immediate family. My doctor did indeed prescribe only a CT calcium score scan, but it seems to have been an order that this clinic, at least, wasn't all that used to seeing.

So, I guess the message is: we have a lot of educating to do. Had I not been a faithful reader of these pages, I certainly wouldn't have known what kind of test I was about to get, or what questions to ask!

As for the heart scan itself, a piece of cake. If you can hold your breath, you can take this test. Just be sure it is the right one!

Why the "push" towards CT coronary angiograms and not "just" a CT heart scan? Well, I know it's shocking but it's . . . money!

CT coronary angiograms yield around $1800-$4000 per test. CT heart scans yield somewhere around $200. Though the scan center support staff might not care too much about the money themselves, their administrators likely make the cost distinctions clear to them.

Another reason: Most scan center staff, ironically, don't understand what a heart scan means, nor do they understand how it might serve to launch a program of prevention. They do understand that severe blockage by CT angiogram "needs" to be stented or bypassed. So they push patients towards things they understand.

Nobody makes money from CT heart scans, just as nobody makes money from a mammogram. Heart scans also don't lead to heroic, "lifesaving" procedures. They just lead to this sleepy, unexciting, inexpensive thing called prevention.

The Myth of Prevention: Letter to the Wall Street Journal

25. June 2009 William Davis (20)

The June 20-21, 2009 Wall Street Journal Weekend Journal featured a provocative front page article written by physician, Dr. Abraham Verghese:

The Myth of Prevention

While eloquently written, I took issue with a few crucial points. Here is the letter I sent to the Editor at Wall Street Journal:

Dear Wall Street Journal Editor,

Re: Dr. Abraham Verghese’s article, The Myth of Prevention in the June 20-21, 2009 Weekend Journal.

I believe a more suitable title for Dr. Verghese’s article would be: “The Myth of What Passes as Prevention.”

As a practicing cardiologist, I, too, have witnessed firsthand the systemic “corruption” described by Dr. Verghese, the doing things “to” people rather than “for” them. Heart care, in particular, is rife with this form of profit-driven health delivery.

There is a fundamental flaw in Dr. Verghese’s otherwise admirable analysis: He assumes that what is called “prevention” in mainstream medicine is truly preventive.

Dr. Verghese makes issue of the apparent minor differences between preventing a condition and just allowing a condition to run its course. Prostate cancer screening is one example: Men subjected to repeated screenings have little length-of-life advantage over men who just allow their prostate to suffer the expected course of disease.

What if, instead, “prevention” as practiced today is nothing more than a solution that has been adopted in mainstream practice to suit yet another doing “to” strategy than doing “for”? In the prostate cancer example, PSA and prostate exam screenings often serve as little more than a means of harvesting procedures for the local urologist.

That’s not prevention. It is a prototypical example of “prevention” being subverted into the cause of revenue-generating procedures.

I submit that Dr. Verghese has fallen victim to the very same system he criticizes. His views have unwittingly been corrupted by the corrupt profit-driven system he describes.

What if, instead, prevention were just that: prevention or elimination of the condition. What if “prevention” of prostate cancer eliminated prostate cancer? What if heart disease “prevention” prevented all heart disease? What if this all proceeded without regard for profit or revenue-generating procedures, but just on results?

Dr. Verghese specifically targets heart scans or coronary calcium scoring, a test he likens to “miracle glow-in-the-dark minnow lures,” calling them “moneymakers.” Yes, when subverted into a corrupt algorithm of stress test, heart catheterization, stent, or bypass, heart scans are indeed a test used wrongly to “prevent” heart disease.

But what if the risk insights provided by heart scans prompt the start of a benign yet effective “prevention” program that inexpensively, safely, and assuredly prevents--in the true sense of the word--or eliminates heart disease? Then I believe the differences in mortality, quality of life, and costs would be substantial. Such strategies exist, yet do not necessarily include prescription drugs and certainly do not include the aftermath of heart catheterization and bypass surgery. Yet such programs fail to seize the limelight of media attention with no new high-tech lifesaving headline nor a big marketing budget to broadcast its message.

The problem in medicine is not prevention and its failure to yield cost- and life-saving results. It is the pervasively profit-driven mindset that keeps true preventive strategies from entering mainstream conversation. It is a repeat of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis’ late 19th-century pleads for physicians to wash their hands before delivering babies to reduce puerperal sepsis, ignominious advice that earned him life and death in an asylum. We are essentially continuing to deliver children with unwashed hands because there is no revenue-generating procedure to clean them.

No, Dr. Verghese, the economic and medical failings of preventive strategies are not at fault. The failure of the medical system, in which everyone is bent on seizing a piece of the financial action for himself, has resulted in the failure to support the propagation of true preventive strategies that could genuinely save money and lives.

President Obama’s goal of cultivating preventive practices in medicine can work, but only if the profit-motive for “prevention” does not serve as the primary determinant of practice. Results-driven practices that are applied without regard to profit have the potential to yield the sorts of cost-saving and life-saving results that can reduce healthcare costs.

William Davis, MD
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Medical Director, The Track Your Plaque Program (www.cureality.com)
Blog: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com

A victory for SHAPE, CT heart scans, and doing what is RIGHT

24. June 2009 William Davis (7)

The efforts of Texas House of Representatives Rep. Rene Oliveira and the SHAPE Guidelines committee have paid off: The Texas legislature passed a bill that requires health insurers to cover CT heart scans.

(NOTE: Don't make the same mistake that the media often makes and confuse CT heart scans with CT coronary angiography: two different tests, two different results, two different levels of radiation exposure. The difference is discussed here.)

Track Your Plaque previously reported the release of the SHAPE Guidelines, an ambitious effort to open CT heart scanning to people who would benefit from a simple screening test for coronary disease. Rep. Rene Oliveira initially introduced the bill in 2006, after having a heart scan uncovered extensive coronary plaque that resulted in coronary bypass surgery.

The bill requires that health-benefit providers cover the cost of CT heart scans (and carotid ultrasound) in men between the ages of 45-76, women 55-76, as well as anyone with diabetes or at "intermediate-risk" or higher for coronary disease by Framingham risk score.

The usual panel of cardiology knuckleheads stepped to the media podium, expressing their incredulity that something as "unvalidated" as heart scans could gain the backing of legislative mandate. Heartwire carried this comment:

"Contacted by heartwire, Dr Amit Khera (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas) confirmed there are still no comprehensive, adequately powered studies showing that these screening tests lead to better outcomes. In a phone interview, Khera said he has major concerns about how physicians will use these tests, particularly primary-care physicians. "I gave a talk last week to primary-care doctors, and there were probably 250 people in the room, and when I asked how many people had ordered a calcium scan, just one person raised a hand. . . . Most people don't even know what to do with the Framingham risk score, so they're going to follow an algorithm that they don't know how to follow to order a test result that they don't know what to do with."

It's the same criticisms hurled at heart scans over the years despite literally thousands of studies validating their application.

Studies have conclusively shown that:

--Coronary calcium scores generated by a CT heart scan outperform any other risk measure for coronary disease, including LDL cholesterol, c-reactive protein, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure.
--Coronary calcium scores yield a graded, trackable index of coronary risk. Scores that increase correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular events; scores that remain unchanged correlate with much reduced risk.
--A coronary calcium score of zero--no detectable calcium--correlates with extremely low 5-year risk for cardiovascular events.
--Coronary calcium scores correlate with other measures of coronary disease. Heart scans correlate with coronary angiography, quantitative coronary angiography, carotid ultrasound (intimal-medial thickness and plaque severity), ankle-brachial index, and stress tests, including radionuclide (nuclear) perfusion imaging.

The reluctance of my colleagues to embrace heart scans stems from two issues, for the most part:

1) No study has yet been performed showing that knowing what the score is vs. not knowing what the score is changes prognosis. That's true. But it is also true of the great majority of practices in medicine. While many wrongs don't make a right, the miserable and widespread failure of other coronary risk measures, like LDL cholesterol or c-reactive protein, to readily and reliably detect hidden coronary disease creates a gaping void for improved efforts at early detection. If your LDL cholesterol is 140 mg/dl, do you or don't you have coronary disease? If your doctor's response is "Just take a statin drug anyway" you've been done a great disservice. (If and when this sort of study gets done, its huge cost--outcome studies have to be large and last many years--it will likely be a statin study. It is unlikely it will include such Track Your Plaque strategies that help reduce heart scan scores, like vitamin D and correction of small LDL particles.)

2) Fears over overuse of hospital procedures triggered by heart scans. This is a legitimate concern--if the information provided by a heart scan is misused. Heart scans should never--NEVER--lead directly to heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery. Heart scans do not change the indications for performing revascularization (angioplasty, stents, bypass). Just because 20% of my cardiology colleagues are more concerned with profit rather than patient welfare does not invalidate the value of the test. Just because the mechanic at the local garage gouged you by replacing a carburetor for $800 when all you need was a new spark plug does not mean that we should outlaw all auto mechanics. Abuse is the fault of the abuser, not of the tool used to exercise the abuse.

All in all, while I am not a fan of legislating behavior in healthcare, the blatant and extreme ignorance of this simple tool for uncovering hidden heart disease makes the Texas action a huge success for heart disease prevention. I hope that this success will raise awareness, not just in Texas, but in other states and cities in which similar systemic neglect is the rule.

Remember: CT heart scans are tools for prevention, not to uncover "need" for procedures. They serve as a starting point to decide whether or not an intensive program of prevention is in order, and I don't mean statin vs. no statin.

Though not a multi-million dollar statin drug study, I have NEVER seen a heart attack or "need" for procedure in any person who has stopped progression or reduced their heart scan score. A small cohort from my practice was reported:

Effect of a Combined Therapeutic Approach of Intensive Lipid Management, Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation, and Increased Serum 25 (OH) Vitamin D on Coronary Calcium Scores in Asymptomatic Adults.

Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M.

The impact of intensive lipid management, omega-3 fatty acid, and vitamin D3 supplementation on atherosclerotic plaque was assessed through serial computed tomography coronary calcium scoring (CCS). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with statin therapy has not been shown to reduce or slow progression of serial CCS in several recent studies, casting doubt on the usefulness of this approach for tracking atherosclerotic progression. In an open-label study, 45 male and female subjects with CCS of >/= 50 without symptoms of heart disease were treated with statin therapy, niacin, and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides /=60 mg/dL; and vitamin D3 supplementation to achieve serum levels of >/=50 ng/mL 25(OH) vitamin D, in addition to diet advice. Lipid profiles of subjects were significantly changed as follows: total cholesterol -24%, low-density lipoprotein -41%; triglycerides -42%, high-density lipoprotein +19%, and mean serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels +83%. After a mean of 18 months, 20 subjects experienced decrease in CCS with mean change of -14.5% (range 0% to -64%); 22 subjects experienced no change or slow annual rate of CCS increase of +12% (range 1%-29%). Only 3 subjects experienced annual CCS progression exceeding 29% (44%-71%). Despite wide variation in response, substantial reduction of CCS was achieved in 44% of subjects and slowed plaque growth in 49% of the subjects applying a broad treatment program.

Sleep: A to Zzzzzzzzzz

23. June 2009 William Davis (5)

Take a look at the results from the Heart Scan Blog's most recent reader poll (399 respondents):

How many hours do you sleep per night (on average)?

9 or more hours per night
15 (3.7%)

8-9 hours per night
72 (18%)

7-8 hours per night
152 (38.1%)

6-7 hours per night
111 (27.8%)

5-6 hours per night
38 (9.5%)

Less than 5 hours per night
11 (2.8%)

Like many issues in health, too much or too little of a good thing can present undesirable consequences.

Too much sleep: While psychologists and sleep researchers advise us that at least 9 hours are required to fully eliminate sleep "debt" and achieve optimal vigilance and mental performance, epidemiologic studies have shown increased mortality with this quantity of sleep.

Too little sleep: Getting less than 7 hours habituallly increases blood sugar, appetite, inflammatory measures, and encourages weight gain. Mortality is also increased, just as with sleeping too much. It is also associated with increased likelihood of a positive heart scan score.

7-8 hours per night from a health viewpoint is that Goldlilocks "just right" value: just enough to not erode mental performance substantially, but not so little that inflammatory, insulin-disrupting, and appetite-increasing effects develop.

Of our 399 respondents in the poll, 56.1% (38% + 18%) slept what appears to be an optimal amount for health. While only 3.7% slept too much (9 hours or more), the remaining 40.1% slept too little.

Our informal poll confirms what most of us observe in everyday life: The majority of people shortchange sleep in order to meet the demands of their high-pressure, squeeze-as-much-as-possible-into-every-day lives. But not paying off your sleep "debt" is like not paying the mortgage for a couple of months. You wouldn't expect your friendly neighborhood bank to say, "Oh, you forgot to pay your mortgage? Forget about it. Just pay next month's." Sure, fat chance. But if you don't pay off your sleep "debt," you will pay it back with health.