All posts by william-davis

Another heated discussion is ongoing at The Heart.org, this one about Tim Russert's untimely death: Media mulls Russert's death as cardiologists weigh in

Although I posted a couple of brief comments there, I quickly lost patience with the tone of many of the other respondents. Should you choose to read the comments, you will see that many still cling to old notions like heart attack is inevitable, defibrillators should be more widely available, "vulnerable" plaques cannot be identified before heart attacks, etc.

I quickly lose patience with this sort of outdated rhetoric. However, our good friend, Dr. Bill Blanchet of Boulder, Colorado, has a far stronger stomach for this than I do.

Here, a sample of his wonderfully persuasive comments:

Heart disease cannot be stopped but we can certainly do better!

Goals we must achieve if we hope to solve the Rube Goldberg of coronary disease:

1. Find something more reliable than Framingham risk factors to determine who is at risk. Framingham risk factors are wrong more often than they are right. If you are comfortable treating 40% of the patients destined to have heart attacks, continue to rely on “traditional” risk factors only.

2. Treat to new standards beyond NCEP/ATP-III. These accepted standards prevent at best 40% of heart attacks in patients treated. This is unacceptable, and arguably why Tim is dead today! Why prevention protocols emphasize LDL and more or less ignore HDL, triglycerides and underemphasize blood pressure eludes me.

3. Motivate patients to participate in coronary prevention. Saying “you need to get exercise and lose weight” is not adequate motivation, it hasn't worked to date and probably won't work tomorrow. If you are satisfied saying it is "the patient's fault for not listening to me" so be it, that excuse doesn't work for me!

Currently “good results” consist of being able to convince 50% of patients at risk by traditional risk factors to participate in prevention and hopefully 30% will be treated to goal. Of those treated to goal, 60% of the heart attacks will still happen anyway. Mathematically we can hope to prevent <10% of heart attacks with this approach!

I have personally found a solution to this dilemma. It goes like this:

1. EBT-CAC [electron-beam tomography coronary artery calcium] is the most reliable predictor of coronary events period, the end! Anyone who disagrees has not objectively read the literature. The only test more predictive than the initial calcium score is the follow up score 12 to 36 months later. EBT predicted Tim Russert’s event 10 years before it happened; passing his stress test gave him inappropriate reassurance 2 months before he died. If only Tim had the benefit of a second EBT sometime over the last 10 years he and his doctor would have known that what they were doing was insufficient and improvements could have been made.

2. I treat to the standard of stable calcified plaque by EBT (<15% annualized progression, preferably <1% annualized progression). This correlates with a very low incidence of coronary events. Even the ACC/AHA 2007 position paper agrees with this. This is accomplished with aspirin, omega-3 fatty acids, diet, exercise, weight control, smoking cessation, treatment of sleep apnea, stress reduction, control of HDL, triglycerides and LDL cholesterol and excellent control of BP and insulin resistance plus the recent addition of vit D-3. Meeting an LDL goal of 70 is easy but prevents only a minority of events, treating to the goal of stable CAC by EBT is a challenge but when achieved, the reward is near elimination of heart attacks and ischemic strokes. This has indeed been my personal experience!

3. A picture of plaque in the coronary artery is a monumental motivator for patients to get on board to make things better. The demonstration of progression of that plaque despite our initial therapies gets all but a few suicidal patients interested in doing a better job. I think that similar motivational results can be had with carotid imaging; the difference is that CAC by EBT is clinically validated as being a much stronger predictor of events with progression and non-events with stability than any ultrasound test including IVUS.

Wow! I couldn't have said it better.

Sadly, I doubt even Dr. Blanchet's persuasive words will do much to convince my colleagues on this forum. And the cardiologists on this forum are likely among the more inquisitive and open-minded. The ones stuck in the cath lab day and night, or implanting defibrillators, are even less inclined to entertain such conversations.

While I admire Dr. Blanchet's energy for continuing to argue with my colleagues, the lesson I take is: Take charge of health yourself. If you wait for your doctor to do it for you, you could be in the same situation as poor Tim Russert. This is an age when your physician should facilitate your success, not prevent it or leave you wallowing in ignorance.

Without a concerted effort at prevention, heart scan scores (coronary calcium scores) grow like weeds. The average rate of growth is 30% per year.

Keith is an illustrative case. At age 39, Keith's heart scan score was 29, in the 99th percentile due to his young age. (In other words, young people before age 40 have no business having plaque. If they do, it's bad.)

True to conventional practice, Keith's doctor prescribed a cholesterol drug (Zocor), asked him to take a baby aspirin, and prescribed a blood pressure medicine. He asked Keith to cut the fat in his diet. His doctor even exceeded conventional (ATP-III) LDL cholesterol treatment targets.

Keith, an intelligent and motivated businessman, happily complied with his doctor's instructions. Eighteen months later, a 2nd heart scan showed a score of 68, representing an increase of 135%, or 76% per year.

This is the very same approach that the late Mr. Tim Russert's doctors employed: treat (calculated) LDL cholesterol with a statin drug, treat high blood pressure, reduce saturated fat, take aspirin. It was a miserable failure in Keith, whose plaque continued to grow at a frightening rate of 76% per year. It was also an obvious failure in poor Tim Russert.

Further investigation in Keith uncovered:

--Severe small LDL--80% of all LDL was small (despite a favorable HDL of 58 mg/dl)
--Measured LDL particle number (NMR) showed that "true" LDL was actually about 60 mg/dl higher than suggested by the crude calculated LDL
--An after-eating (postprandial) disorder (IDL)
--A pre-diabetic blood sugar and insulin
--Severe vitamin D deficiency
--Very low testosterone

All these patterns were present despite the steps Keith and his doctor had instituted. It's no wonder his plaque was undergoing explosive growth.

The conventional approach to coronary disease prevention is inadequate, more often than not a mindless adherence to one-size-fits-all template crafted to a great degree by drug industry interests and "experts" who often stand at arm's length from real live patients.

Keith's "residual" abnormalities are all readily correctable. He has since made dramatic improvements in all parameters. Among the strategies used is a wheat- and cornstarch-free diet that resulted in 12 lbs lost within the first few weeks of effort.

If you are on the "Russert Protocol," have a serious conversation with your doctor about the continued advisability of remaining on this half-assed approach to heart disease. Or, consider finding another doctor.

A petition to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is being circulated in response to the mis-statement made in an NIH-sponsored study, ACCORD.

The ACCORD Trial included over 10,000 type II diabetics and compared an intensive, multiple-medication group to achieve a target HbA1c of <6.0%, with a less intensively treated group with a target HbA1c of 7-7.9%. (HBA1c is a long-term measure of glucose, averaging approximately the last 3 months glucose levels.) To the lead investigators' surprise, the intensively treated group experienced more death and heart attack than the less intensive group. The conclusion suggested that intensive management of diabetes may not be a desirable endpoint and may result in greater risk for adverse events.

The petitioners argue that the problem was not with intensive glucose control per se, but the use of multiple side-effect-generating medications. Unfortunately, the ACCORD conclusions give the impression that loose control over blood sugar may be desirable.

The petition originates from the Nutrition and Metabolism Society, a non-profit organization seeking to promote carbohydrate restriction.

The petition reads:

National Institute of Health re: the ACCORD Diabetes Study: "Intensively targeting blood sugar to near-normal levels ... increases risk of death. "

This statement is untrue. This study lowered blood glucose levels only by aggressive drug treatment.

Preventative measures and proven non-drug treatments are being ignored by the NIH, ADA and many other governing agencies.

There is abundant scientific evidence proving a carbohydrate restricted diet can be as effective as drugs in lowering blood glucose levels safely. Many times diet is more effective than medication in controlling diabetes - all without side effects or increased risk of death.

I ask that the NIH publicly retract the above statement. It is misleading the public.

I also request that the NIH acknowledge the existing science and fund more research by the experts who have experience with carbohydrate restriction as a means of treatment for diabetes.

For more info, or to help people with diabetes, please e-mail info@nmsociety.org .

Thank you.

I added my comment:

In my preventive cardiology practice, I have been employing strict carbohydrate restriction in both diabetics and non-diabetics. This results in dramatic improvement in lipids and lipoprotein abnormalities, substantial weight loss, and improved insulin sensitivity. This experience has been entirely different from the heart disease-causing and diabetes-causing low-fat diets that I used for years.

I have a substantial number of diabetics who have been to reduce their reliance on prescription medication for diabetes or even eliminate them. In my experience, the power of carbohydrate-restricted diets is profound.

However, better clinical data to further validate this approach is needed, particularly as diabetes and pre-diabetes is surging in prevalence. I ask that more funding to further explore and validate this research be made available if we are to have greater success on a broader basis.

If you are interested in adding your voice, you can also electronically sign the petition. It is optional, but you can also add your own comments regarding your own views or experiences.

It happens in the hospital every so often: A clean-cut, law-abiding person is hospitalized for, say, pneumonia, kidney stones, knee surgery, etc.

Everything's fine until . . . they're running down the hospital hallway stark naked, screaming about snakes on the wall, accusing nurses of trying to kill him, all while yanking out IV's and monitor patches.

It's called alcohol withdrawal. Alcohol withdrawal can range from tremulousness and sweatiness, all the way to delirium tremens, the full-blown form that leads to disorientation, seizures, fever, even death. Withdrawal can also be associated with a number of chronically used agents, such as sedatives/sleeping pills, pain medication/opiates, among others.

How about wheat?

I wouldn't have believed it, but after witnessing this effect countless times, I am convinced there is such a phenomenon: Wheat withdrawal.

You'll recognize it in someone who previously ate bread and other wheat flour-containing products freely, then eliminates them. This is followed by extreme cravings, usually for bread, cookies, or cake; profound fatigue; shakiness; mental fogginess; blue moods. The syndrome can last for up to one week.

Then, bam! Sufferers of wheat withdrawal report mental clarity superior to their wheat-crazed days, improved energy, decreased appetite and cravings, heightened mood, and, of course, fantastic drops in weight.

Why would removal of wheat from the diet trigger a withdrawal phenomenon? I can only speculate, but I believe that at least part of this response is due to a physical conversion from a glycogen (sugar)-burning metabolism to that of a fatty acid (fat mobilizing) metabolism. People who lived in the up-and-down cycle of craving and eating wheat constantly fed the sugar furnace for years and are enzymatically impaired in fat burning; they've been growing fat stores. Eliminating wheat deprives the body of this easy source of glycogen, forcing it to mobilize fatty acids in the fatty tissues. Sluggish at first, people feel fatigue, mental fogginess, etc. Once the enzymatic capacity for fat mobilization revs up, then these feelings dissipate.

Could it also relate to the opioid sequences apparently present in wheat? I wasn't even aware of this fact until a reader of The Heart Scan Blog, Anne, left this comment:

Wheat protein contains a number of opiod peptides which can be released during digestion. Some of these are thought to affect the central and peripheral nervous systems.

When I gave up gluten, I felt much worse for a few days. This is a very common reaction in those who stop eating gluten cold turkey.

Dr. BG provides a fascinating commentary on the addictive/opioid aspect of wheat addictions in her Animal Pharm Blog.

Whatever the mechanism, I believe it is a real phenomenon. It can, at times, be so overwhelming that about 20% of people who try to eliminate wheat find they are simply unable to do it without being incapacitated. Of course, that might be a lesson in itself: If withdrawal is so profound, it hints that there must be something very peculiar going on in the first place.

Some colleagues of mine brought this scary phenomenon to my attention last evening.

As insurance and Medicare reimbursement to doctors and hospitals fall (Medicare is enacting a series of substantial cuts, which will be followed by the private health insurers), you would expect the use of hospital procedures to drop. Makes sense, right? Less money paid per procedure, less incentive to do them.

Unfortunately, that's not how it's playing out in the real world. Your neighborhood interventional cardiologist or cardiothoracic surgeon is accustomed to a level of income and lifestyle. That lifestyle is now threatened by shrinking reimbursement. True to the Law of Unintended Consequences, rather than reducing use of procedures, diminishing procedural fees are prompting a good number of practitioners to do more.

In other words, if each heart catheterization pays less, why not do more of them, along with more stents, pacemakers, defibrillators, and the like? If four heart catheterizations per day pays less, why not do five to make up the difference?

Voila! Income protected. Of course, it comes at the cost of more work. But I will give one thing to my colleageus: They are a generally hard-working bunch who rarely balk at 12-16 hours days in the hospital.

How do you do more procedures? Easy. Just lower the bar on who to do a procedure on. Use more aggressive criteria for pacemaker implantation. Interpret the always-fuzzy nuclear stress tests weighed more towards abnormal. Use scare tactics: "You never know--that chest pain could be the last warning you're going to have!" Because the criteria for performing procedures is "soft" in the real world, it is easy to bend the criteria any way you want.

It's too early to measure the full impact of this unintended consequence of reduced reimbursement. But don't allow yourself to become a casualty in the reimbursement war. Remain vigilant. Recognize that, despite the fuzziness at the edges, there are still rational reasons for performing heart procedures. Always be armed with information and the right questions. Never submit unquestioningly or without satisfactory answers to your questions.

Despite the media blathering over how Mr. Russert's tragic death from heart attack could not have been predicted, it turns out that he had undergone a heart scan several years ago.

A New York Times article, A Search for Answers in Russert’s Death, reported:

Given the great strides that have been made in preventing and treating heart disease, what explains Tim Russert’s sudden death last week at 58 from a heart attack?

The answer, at least in part, is that although doctors knew that Mr. Russert, the longtime moderator of “Meet the Press” on NBC, had coronary artery disease and were treating him for it, they did not realize how severe the disease was because he did not have chest pain or other telltale symptoms that would have justified the kind of invasive tests needed to make a definitive diagnosis. In that sense, his case was sadly typical: more than 50 percent of all men who die of coronary heart disease have no previous symptoms, the American Heart Association says.

It is not clear whether Mr. Russert’s death could have been prevented. He was doing nearly all he could to lower his risk. He took blood pressure pills and a statin drug to control his cholesterol, he worked out every day on an exercise bike, and he was trying to lose weight, his doctors said on Monday. And still it was not enough.

“What is surprising,” Dr. Newman said, “is that the severity of the anatomical findings would not be predicted from his clinical situation, the absence of symptoms and his performing at a very high level of exercise.”

Buried deeper in this article, the fact that Mr. Russert had a heart scan score of 210 in 1998 is revealed.

That bit of information is damning. Readers of The Heart Scan Blog know that heart scan scores are expected to grow at a rate of 30% per year. This would put Mr. Russert's heart scan score at 2895 in 2008. But the two doctors providing care for Mr. Russert were advising the conventional treatments: prescribing cholesterol drugs, blood pressure medication, managing blood sugar, and doing periodic stress tests.

Conventional efforts usually slow the progression of heart scan scores to 14-24% per year. Let's assume the rate of increase was only 14% per year. That would put Mr. Russert's 2008 score at 779.

A simple calculation from known information in 1998 clearly, obviously, and inarguably predicted his death. Recall that heart scan scores of 1000 or greater are associated with annual--ANNUAL--risk for heart attack and death of 20-25% if no preventive action is taken. The meager prevention efforts taken by Mr. Russert's doctors did indeed reduce risk modestly, but it did not eliminate risk.

We know that growing plaque is active plaque. Active plaque means rupture-prone plaque. Rupture prone plaque means continuing risk for heart attack and death. Heart attack and death means the approach used in Mr. Russert was a miserable failure.

While the press blathers on about how heart disease is a tragedy, as Mr. Russert's doctors squirm under the fear of criticism, the answers have been right here all alone. It sometimes takes a reminder like Mr. Russert's tragic passing to remind us that tracking plaque is a enormously useful, potentially lifesaving approach to coronary heart disease.

Who needs to go next? Matt Lauer, Oprah, Jay Leno, some other media personality? Someone close to you? Can this all happen right beneath the nose of your doctor, even your cardiologist?

I don't need to remind readers of The Heart Scan Blog that heart disease is 1) measurable, 2) trackable, 3) predictable. Mr. Russert's future was clear as long ago as 1998. Every year that passed, his future became clearer and clearer, yet his doctors fumbled miserably.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Though Tim Russert was widely known and respected for his political commentary, he will likely be better remembered as an example of the gross shortcomings of the conventional approach to heart disease.

Let's face it:

Standard heart disease prevention efforts are a miserable failure.

A Track Your Plaque member brought this interview of Mr. Russert's doctor to my attention.

It appears that his doctor did all the correct conventional things. You know what became of it. In the eyes of the public and of any attorney, or even of my colleagues, no wrong was committed. The blame does not lie with Mr. Russert's hapless doctor. The blame lies on the system that endorses procedures, prescription medications, the blind adherence to dogma dictated by the pharmaceutical industry and FDA, along with a prevailing philosophy of preferring the management of catastrophes to preventing them. Dr. Newman's idea of a solution: Making an automatic defibrillator (AED) more widely available (!!!).

How long does this sort of idiocy have to go on? How many people have to die before the system uses the tools that are already available, tools that could have prevented this tragedy and many more like it?

If you and your doctor subscribe to the program that the unfortunate Mr. Russert was prescribed and the brainwashing, unthinking nonsense that his doctor follows, you are a fool. Shame on you. You therefore likely subscribe to the same variety of marketing BS that issues from food manufacturers about Cheerios, whole grains, and low-fat diets.

Get with the program. Sadly, Mr. Russert is not the first, he's not the last. The tragedies of conventional advice that line the pockets of drug and food manufacturers number in the millions. We're not talking about some obscure, rare disease. We're talking about the number one cause of death in both males and females nationwide.

I deeply wish this message could have reached Mr. Russert before his untimely death. We could all look forward to another Sunday morning with his usual incisive, unforgiving probing of the day's political figures.

The sudden passing of news giant, Tim Russert, yesterday of sudden cardiac death struck a blow to American consciousness.

Perhaps his hard-hitting interviewing style, while making guests squirm, made him seem invincible. But, of course, none of us is invincible. We are all vulnerable to this disease.

We should not allow Mr. Russert's tragic death to occur without taking some lessons. The media have already resorted to interviewing prominent doctors for their opinion.

Douglas Zipes, M.D., former President of the American College of Cardiology,was quoted in the media:

"An automated external defibrillator (AED) could have been a life-saver. AEDs should be as common as fire extinguishers."

This is typical sleight-of-hand, medicine-is-too-complex-for-the-public-to-understand sort of rhetoric that is surely to issue from the conventionally-thinking medical people and the press. Instead, let's cut the BS and learn the real lessons from Mr. Russert's needless death.

It is virtually certain that:

--Mr. Russert ruptured an existing coronary atherosclerotic plaque, prompting rhythm instability, or ventricular fibrillation.

--Making automatic external defibrillators (AED) available might have Band-Aided the ventricular fibrillation, but it would not have stopped the heart attack that triggered it.

--Though full details of Mr. Russert's health program have not been made available, it is quite likely that he was prescribed the usual half-witted and barely effective panoply of "prevention": aspirin, statin drug, anti-hypertensive medication. Readers of The Heart Scan Blog and members of Track Your Plaque know that this conventional approach is as effective as aspirin for a fractured hip.

--It is highly unlikely that all causes of Mr. Russert's heart disease had been identified--did he have small LDL (it's certain he did, given his body habitus of generous tummy), Lp(a), low HDL, pre-diabetic patterns, inflammatory abnormalities, vitamin D deficiency, etc.? You can be sure little or none of this had been addressed. Was he even taking simple fish oil that reduces the likelihood of sudden cardiac death by 45%?

--Far more could have been done to have prevented Mr. Russert's needless death. And I don't mean the idiocy of making AED's available in office buildings. I'm talking about preventing the rupture of atherosclerotic plaque in the first place.

Far more can be done to prevent future similar deaths among all of us.

Our jobs are to use the tragic death of Mr. Russert to help those around us learn that heart disease is identifiable and preventable. Though Mr. Russert did not stand for BS in his political commentary, he sadly probably received it in his health advice. Don't let this happen to you or those around you.

There's no doubt about it: The majority of people with heart disease are overweight. They may not be grotesquely overweight, just a few pounds over. But weight plays a crucial role in activating numerous factors that heighten risk for heart disease.

Excess weight reduces HDL cholesterol, raises triglycerides, increases small LDL (enormously), fans the fires of inflammatory responses (CRP, IL-6, TNF-alpha, etc.) raises blood pressure, increases resistance to insulin and raises blood sugar. Overweight people tend to be less physically active, may develop diseases of obesity like sleep apnea, and on and on. You've heard this all before.

But why do slender people develop heart disease? If we can't blame weight, what is to blame? By slender, I mean body mass index (BMI) of <25. (Yes, I know there are other ways, better ways, to gauge healthy weight. But, for simplicity, I'll use BMI.) Let's put aside the two obvious causes of heart disease, cigarette smoking and Type I diabetes. (I'd be shocked if any cigarette smokers read this blog.)

Slender people develop heart disease because:

1) They have lipoprotein(a)--The big, big neglected risk factor. In fact, the Lp(a) genotype is, in my casual observation, associated with a slender phenotype (genotypic expression). The prototypical example that makes headlines is the marathon runner--slender and superbly fit, but develops heart disease anyway. People wax on about the uncertainties of exercise and fitness when they hear about Jim Fixx and Alberto Salazar. But one factor would explain it all: Lp(a).

2) The murky category of the normal weight obesity. These people are generally recognizable by their flaccid tummies despite falling into a favorable BMI <25. Small LDL is the standout red flag in these people.

3) They were previously overweight but lost it.

4) They were former smokers.

5) Vitamin D deficiency--Deficiency of vitamin D is important for everyone's health. But there appears to be some people for whom it is the dominant risk. I believe that one of our great Track Your Plaque success stories, Neal, falls into this group. Some people who are vitamin D deficient develop colon cancer, others develop diabetes, others develop osteoporosis or multiple sclerosis, while others develop coronary heart disease and plaque. The likely reason for the varied expression is variation in vitamin D receptor genotypes (VDR genotypes).

6) The murkiest of all: Hypertension genotypic variants. This is a poorly sorted-out category, and one principally based on my observations along with scattered observations in such things as variations in the angiotensin converting enzyme genotypes. But I am convinced that there is a small percentage of slender people who show variation in some genetic type that predisposes to hypertension and heart disease. They also show a propensity towards enlargement of the thoracic aorta. This group is also among the most difficult to control in the Track Your Plaque approach, i.e., they have difficulty slowing or stopping the growth of heart scan scores. While blood pressure control in this group is important, it does not seem to remove the excess source of risk.

So, yes, being slender does put you into a lower risk for heart disease category. But it does not mean you are immune.

You can also be an overweight person who still harbors some of the features of the slender--you're an overweight slender person. The above list can still therefore apply.

Okay, so it's a shameless knockoff of chef Anthony Bourdain's titillating Kitchen Confidential.

But the confidences that I've heard whispered in the corridors of health involve something more provocative than how your food was prepared. Any service for humans performed by other humans is subject to the idiosyncrasies and weaknesses of human behavior. That's just life.

In healthcare for your heart, the consequences can be more profound than eating three day old fish on Monday's dinner menu.

Over my 15 years practicing cardiology in a variety of settings in three different cities, I've witnessed just about everything from shocking to sublime. Some of it speaks to the extraordinary commitment of people in healthcare, the unexpected courage people show in the midst of illness, the devotion of family in difficult times. It can also speak of mewling, sobbing carryings-on over the most minor conditions, the meanness that emerges when people are frightened, the vultures circling just waiting for Grandpa to kick the bucket and leave his will declaring the spoils.

For the most part, my cardiology colleagues are a hard-working bunch committed to . . . Uh oh. I was going to say "Saving lives, preserving health." But that's not true. Once upon a time, it was true for many of my colleagues, often revealed over $2-a-pitcher beer-softened, "we're going to save people" conversations in medical school. Ahhh, medical school. I remember walking along the street alongside my medical school in St. Louis, bursting with pride and a sense of purpose.

But, for many of us, something sours our purpose through the years. Maybe it's the smell of money, maybe it's the series of distasteful experiences that show that healthcare providers are, in the midst of health crises, the innocent recipients of anger, frustration, disappointment.

Whatever the genesis, the stage is set for an imperfect scenario that pits healthcare provider against patient in a less-than-perfect system.

This would read as a mindless rant if it wasn't based on such pervasive and pravalent truths, tales of the flawed deliverers of healthcare driven by motives less lofty than "saving people."

Take Dr. S, a doctor who performs a large number of procedures on patients. I'm told he is very capable. He manages an extraordinary amount of heart work--in between jail time for wife beating and Medicare fraud.

Or Dr. C, well-known in the region for his procedural talents, also. Usually acerbic and freely-swearing, he opens up engagingly when drinking--which is most of the time. Paradoxically, as is true for some serious drinkers, he works more effectively while intoxicated.

Or Dr. ST, who proudly admitted to me one evening over dinner that he has accepted 6-figure payments from medical device companies on a number of occasions to use their products.

Or the manic ups and downs of Dr. J, who refers just about every patient he sees for emergency bypass surgery when in his down phase, mangles coronary arteries in daring angioplasties during his up phase.

How about 310-lb Dr. P, who hounds her patients about indulgent lifestyles? That would be excusable as innocent lack of self-insight if it weren't for her propensity to use heart procedures on patients as punishment. "I have no choice but to take you to the hospital."

Dr. M. manages to maintain the appearance of straight-and-narrow during the day, all the way to attending church twice a week with his children. His daytime persona effectively covers up his frequent visits to prostitutes.

We are ALL flawed. My colleagues are no different. But some circumstances cultivate the flaws, fertilize corruptibility, reward it. Such has become the state of affairs in healthcare for heart disease. Why? Is it the excessive potential for money-making that existed until recently? Is there something about the save-the-day mentality of heart disease that attracts imperfect personalities looking for the adrenaline-charged thrill but morphs over time into near-psychopathic lives?

It's not the end of the world. The fact that my colleagues' behavior has reached such extravagant lows signals a bottom: things are about to change.

In the meantime, let me tell you a few more secrets . . .

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Melatonin is fascinating stuff.

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

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

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

Melatonin reduces night blood pressure in patients with nocturnal hypertension.

Prolonged melatonin administration decreases nocturnal blood pressure in women.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) The drug industry

2) The health insurance industry

3) Hospitals

4) Fear of litigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

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

Nonetheless, the response is telling. Of 82 respondents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Better education of physicians and the public, and

2) More effective treatment options.

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

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

Just a muse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Vitamin D Newsletter

May, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does vitamin D treat cancer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eliminate wheat flour products

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

You're going to hate this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Dr. Bill Blanchet: A ray of sunshine

The Russert Protocol at work

Petition to the National Institutes of Health

Wheat withdrawal

The Big Squeeze

Tim Russert's heart scan score 210. . .in 1998

Another failure of conventional cardiac care

Tribute to Tim Russert

Why do skinny people get heart disease?

Cardiology Confidential

A tan does not equal vitamin D

Confessions of a former drug company patsy

Planned obsolence

Melatonin for high blood pressure?

The forces that shape heatlh care

Lipoprotein(a): Surprising Poll Results

Are endogenous nutritional supplements better?

Vitamin D Newsletter reprinted

Biggest bang for your nutritional buck

Can skinny be fat?