To be sure, there's plenty of misinformation out there about fish oil. Take a look at the swill that passes for health information on Woman's Day: On Call with Dr. Sandy: Fish Oil and Mercury:

Reader Question: My doctor recommended that I take a fish oil supplement, but I'm concerned about mercury. Is there any way to tell which brands are lowest in mercury content?

On Call Response: When it comes to OTC supplements, the answer is no. Though most fish oil supplements sold by major brands are probably safe, there's really no way to tell what's in the bottle or how much mercury it might contain.

Perhaps Dr. Sandy should read the many independent analyses performed on nutritional supplement fish oil, including those at Consumer Lab and Consumer Report before she offers her blind criticisms.

Lovaza is the FDA-approved form of fish oil that is available only by prescription. It contains 842 mg of the omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA, per capsule.

The FDA application for Lovaza is viewable here on the FDA website. Interestingly, while there is plenty of the usual regulatory gobbledy-gook about toxicology, dose escalation, and efficacy in the extensive documentation, there is little said about the issue of contamination.

In other words, critics of nutritional supplement fish oil harp on the possibility of contamination with mercury and pesticide residues, like dioxin and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). Yet there is virtually nothing about these same issues in the FDA application for Lovaza.

Let's take a look at a sample over-the-counter fish oil product. Our friends at PharmaNutrients (a new Track Your Plaque partner for nutritional supplements) have a fish oil product called PharmaNutrients" Cardio. Here's an independent analysis of the Cardio product (per 1000 mg fish oil capsule):

EPA content: 566.1 mg
DHA content: 216.6 mg
(Total EPA + DHA 782.7 mg)

Cardio passed all tests for peroxides, PCBs, dioxin, furans, dioxin-like PCBs, and heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury) using criteria at least 60% more stringent than European Commission (EC) standards (EC standard <2 picograms/gm for dioxins and furans, PharmaNutrients <1 picograms/gm; EC standard <10 picograms/gm for dioxin-like PCBs, PharmaNutrients <3 picograms/gm). PCBs levels in particular are less than 0.009 ppm, 90% below the industry-wide purity standard of 0.09 ppm. Likewise, mercury is >90% lower than European Commission standards.

In other words, this over-the-counter "pharmaceutical grade" fish oil has virtually nothing but omega-3 fatty acids.

Interestingly, the PharmaNutrients fish oil capsule also contains the third omega-3 fatty acid, docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), a neglected form that some authorities have proposed has superior cardiovascular protective properties over eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). If DPA is included in the analysis, PharmaNutrient's Cardio contains a total of 900 mg omega-3 fatty acids per capsule.

At some point, I'd like to see a head-to-head comparison not just on purity grounds, since I am convinced that high-quality products like Cardio can match or exceed the purity of prescription fish oil, but on efficacy in raising omega-3 blood levels, the omega-3 index. (The omega-3 index is a predictor of heart attack and sudden cardiac death--the higher, the better.) My prediction: High-quality fish oil supplements will match or exceed prescription fish oil.

Take any of the following foods:

One chicken breast
Quarter-pound ground beef
6 oz salmon steak
½ cup raw almonds
3 eggs scrambled in olive oil

How much is blood sugar increased by any item in the above list?

If you said virtually zero, you’re correct. Eat any of these foods, regardless of portion size, and blood sugar won’t change substantially. If you started with a blood sugar of, say, 90 mg/dl, 1-2 hours later it would be 90 mg/dl. It might go up or even down a few milligrams, but for all practical purposes it remains substantially unchanged.

How much is blood sugar increased by the foods in this list:

2 slices multigrain bread
1 whole wheat bagel
4 oz high-fiber breakfast cereal
2 whole grain pancakes, 2 oz maple syrup

The foods in this list are a different story from the first. Depending on your body weight, exercise habits, and other factors, a typical blood sugar response in an otherwise healthy non-diabetic person would be 120 mg/dl to 160 mg/dl. In someone with diabetes, it could easily exceed 200 mg/dl.

That isn’t good. Large blood sugar excursions to 140 mg/dl have been clearly associated with greater risk for heart attack, progression to diabetes, inflammatory responses, and other adverse health effects. In fact, blood sugars as low as 100 mg/dl after eating have been associated with increased cardiovascular risk.

Then why are the USDA, American Heart Association, the American Dietetic Association, and the American Diabetes Association telling us to eat more of the foods that shoot blood sugar up to such high levels? “Eat more healthy whole grains”?

To see how much the issue of exaggerated blood sugars after eating applies to you, a simple blood sugar check 1-2 hours after eating can show you. Either your doctor can have the test drawn or you can purchase your own inexpensive glucose meter (e.g., Walmart, Wagreens).

My prediction: You will be very surprised at blood sugar responses after common foods, including “healthy whole grains.” And, by the way, keeping blood sugar excursions to a minimum will facilitate weight loss.

Here's my postprandial (after-eating) blood glucose demonstration.

I tested raw almonds vs. 100% whole wheat bread, matched for calories. (Full nutritional composition below.)

Blood sugars:

Raw almonds

Start:

One-hour after eating:

2 slices 100% whole wheat bread

Start:

One-hour after eating:

100% whole wheat bread, 2 large slices

Water (g) 24.69

Energy (kcal) 158

Protein (g) 8.29

Fat, total (g) 2.14

Carbohydrate (g) 26.43

Sugars, total (g) 3.56

Fiber, total dietary (g) 4.4

Cholesterol (mg) 0

Saturated fatty acids, total (g) 0.478

Monounsaturated fatty acids, total (g) 1.022

Polyunsaturated fatty acids, total (g) 0.384

23 almonds, raw

Energy (kcal) 159

Protein (g) 5.86

Fat, total (g) 13.64

Carbohydrate (g) 5.98

Sugars, total (g) 1.07

Fiber, total dietary (g) 3.4

Cholesterol (mg) 0

Saturated fatty acids, total (g) 1.03

Monounsaturated fatty acids, total (g) 8.525

Polyunsaturated fatty acids, total (g) 3.331

Reducing your carbohydrate exposure, particularly to wheat, cornstarch, and sucrose (table sugar), helps with weight loss; reduction of triglycerides, small LDL, and c-reactive protein; increases HDL; reduces blood pressure. There should be no remaining doubt on these effects.

However, I am going to propose that you cannot truly get your low-carb diet right without checking blood sugars. Let me explain.

Carbohydrates are the dominant driver of blood sugar (glucose) after eating. But it's clear that we also obtain some wonderfully healthy nutrients from carbohydrate sources: Think anthocyanins from blueberries and pomegranates, vitamin C from citrus, and soluble fiber from beans. There are many good things in carbohydrate foods.

How do we weigh the need to reduce carbohydrates with their benefits?

Blood sugar after eating ("postprandial") is the best index of carbohydrate metabolism we have (not fasting blood sugar). It also provides an indirect gauge of small LDL. Checking your blood sugar (glucose) has become an easy and relatively inexpensive tool that just about anybody can incorporate into health habits. More often than not, it can also provide you with some unexpected insights about your response to diet.

If you’re not a diabetic, why bother checking blood sugar? New studies have documented the increased likelihood of cardiovascular events with increased postprandial blood sugars well below the ranges regarded as diabetic. A blood sugar level of 140 mg/dl after a meal carries 30-60% increased (relative) risk for heart attack and other events. The increase in risk begins at even lower levels, perhaps 110 mg/dl or lower after-eating.

We use a one-hour after eating blood sugar to gauge the effects of a meal. If, for instance, your dinner of baked chicken, asparagus brushed with olive oil, sauteed mushrooms, mashed potatoes, and a piece of Italian bread yields a one-hour blood sugar of 155 mg/dl, you know that something is wrong. (This is far more common than most people think.)

Doing this myself, I have been shocked at the times I've had an unexpectedly high blood sugar from seemingly "safe' foods, or when a store- or restaurant-bought meal had some concealed source of sugar or carbohydrate. (I recently had a restaurant meal of a turkey burger with cheese, mixed salad with balsamic vinegar dressing, along with a few bites of my wife's veggie omelet. Blood sugar one hour later: 127 mg/dl. I believe sugar added to the salad dressing was the culprit.)

You can now purchase your own blood glucose monitor at stores like Walmart and Walgreens for $10-20. You will also need to purchase the fingerstick lancets and test strips; the test strips are the most costly part of the picture, usually running $0.50 to $1.00 per test strip. But since people without diabetes check their blood sugar only occasionally, the cost of the test strips is, over time, modest. I've had several devices over the years, but my current favorite for ease-of-use is the LifeScan OneTouch UltraMini that cost me $18.99 at Walgreens.

Checking after-meal blood sugars is, in my view, a powerful means of managing diet when reducing carbohydrate exposure is your goal. It provides immediate feedback on the carbohydrate aspect of your diet, allowing you to adjust and tweak carbohydrate intake to your individual metabolism.

For some reason, my December, 2007, Heart Scan Blog post, Food sources of vitamin K2, has been receiving a lot of traffic.

I therefore reprint the vitamin K2 post below.

Vitamin K2 is emerging as an exciting player in the control and possible regression of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Only about 10% of dietary vitamin K intake is in the K2 form, the other 90% being the more common K1.

The ideal source of K2 is natto, the unpalatable, gooey, slimy mass of fermented soybeans that Japanese eat and has been held responsible for substantial decreases in osteoporosis and bone fractures of aging. Natto has an ammonia-like bouquet, in addition to its phlegmy consistency that makes it virtually inedible to anyone but native Japanese.

I say that the conversation on vitamin K2 is emerging because of a number of uncertainties: What form of vitamin K2 is best (so-called MK-4 vs. MK7 vs. MK-9, all of which vary in structure and duration of action in human blood)? What dose is required for bone benefits vs. other benefits outside of bone health? Why would humans have developed a need for a nutrient that is created through fermentation with only small quantities in meats and other non-fermented foods?

Much of the developing research on vit K2 is coming from the laboratories of Drs. Vermeer, Geleijnse, and Schurgers at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, along with several laboratories in Japan, the champions of K2.

MK-7 and MK-8,9,10 come from bacterial fermentation, whether in natto, cheese, or in your intestinal tract; MK-4 is naturally synthesized by animals from vitamin K1. While natto is the richest source of the MK-7 form, egg yolks and fermented cheeses are the richest sources of the MK-4 form.

Chicken contains about 8 mcg MK-4 per 3 1/2 oz serving; beef contains about 1 mcg. Egg yolks contain 31 mcg MK-4 per 3 1/2 oz serving (app. 6 raw yolks). Hard cheeses contain about 5 mcg MK-4 per 3 1/2 oz serving, about 70 mcg of MK-8,9; soft cheeses contain about 30% less. Natto contains about 1000 mcg of MK-7, 84 mcg MK-8, and no MK-4 per 3 1/2 oz serving.

Feta cheese

Thanks to the research efforts of the Dutch and Japanese groups, several phenomena surrounding vitamin K2 are clear, even well-established fact:

--Vitamin K2 supplementation (via frequent natto consumption or pharmaceutical doses of K2) substantially improves bone health. While K2 by itself exerts significant bone density/strength increasing properties in dozens of studies, when combined with other bone health-promoting agents (e.g., vitamin D3, prescription drugs like Fosamax and calcitonin), an exaggerated synergy of bone health-promoting effects develop.

--The MK-4 form of vitamin K2 is short-lived, lasting only 3-4 hours in the body. The MK-7 form, in contrast, the form in natto, lasts several days. MK-7 and MK-8-10 are extremely well absorbed, virtually complete.

--Bone health benefits have been shown for both the MK-7 and MK-4 forms.

--Coumadin (warfarin) blocks all forms of vitamin K.

Interestingly, farm-raised meats and eggs do not differ from factory farm-raised foods in K2 content. (But please do not regard this as an endorsement of factory farm foods.)

Another interesting fact: Since mammals synthesize a small quantity of Vit K2 forms from vitamin K1, then eating lots of green vegetables should provide substrate for some quantity of K2 conversion. However, work by Schurgers et al have shown that K1 absorption is poor, no more than 10%, but increases significantly when vegetables are eaten in the presence of oils. (Thus arguing that oils are meant to be part of the human diet. Does your olive oil or oil-based salad dressing represent fulfillment of some subconscious biologic imperative?)

If we believe the data of the Rotterdam Heart Study, then a threshold of 32.7 micrograms of K2 from cheese yields the reduction in cardiovascular events and aortic calcification.

It's all very, very interesting. My prediction is that abnormal (pathologic) calcium deposition will prove to be a basic process that parallels atherosclerotic plaque growth, and that manipulation of phenomena that impact on calcium depostion also impact on atherosclerotic plaque growth. Vitamins D3 and K2 provide potential potent means of at least partially normalizing these processes.

As the data matures, I am going to enjoy my gouda, Emmenthaler, Gruyere, and feta cheeses, along with a few egg yolks. I'm going to be certain to include healthy oils like olive and canola with my vegetables.

All images courtesy Wikipedia.

Copyright 2007 William Davis, MD

Lou was recovering from his 3rd bypass operation. This third go-round left him weaker, slower, less quick on the rebound. In fact, he was lucky to have survived.

At 71 years old, Lou went a good 15 years since his second bypass, another 10 years prior to his first bypass at age 46.

In the days immediately following Lou's bypass, I had a chance to talk to his son, who stayed at his Dad's bedside while Lou struggled through post-op recovery.

"Did your Dad tell you about why this has happened, what caused his heart disease?" I asked.

"Sort of. He just said I should get checked," Lou's son, Aaron, replied.

"Did he mention the lipoprotein(a) pattern he has?"

"No. He never mentioned anything like that. He just said to get checked."

That's how it gets played out more often than not: Mom or Dad has a heart attack, stents, or (3rd) bypass, the children are told to get checked. Getting "checked" assumes that the doctor knows what to check for.

In Lou's case, the reason why he was in the hospital getting his 3rd (and final) bypass was lipoprotein(a), along with genetically-determined small LDL particles, low HDL, a postprandial (after-eating) disorder, hypertension, and borderline diabetes, not to mention vitamin D deficiency, omega-3 fatty acid deficiency, and marginal thyroid function. (Lou, a retired city employee, had showed only marginal interest in correcting these patterns. While he accepted medications, he proved unwilling to engage in the diet and nutritional supplement strategies required to correct his patterns.)

So Lou's 3rd bypass operation provided a moment of reflection for Aaron to ask: "Could I share the fate of my Dad?" With Lou's combination of genetic patterns, there was at least a 75% likelihood that he did. Sadly, going to his doctor would likely yield little more than a cholesterol panel, a question about smoking, and a prescription for Lipitor.

Just getting "checked" would be, more than likely, a recipe for disaster for Aaron: heart disease in his 40s or 50s. That's why you need to take control over this sad state of affairs and ask--no, insist--that an effort be made to determine whether you might share your parents' fate.

"This diet works great," Don declared. "But I think I've lost too much weight."

At 67 years old and 5 ft. 11 inches, Don began the program weighing 228 lbs (BMI 31.9). Because of high triglycerides, high blood sugar, high c-reactive protein, and excessive small LDL, I instructed Don to eliminate all wheat products from his diet, along with cornstarch and sweets. His intake of lean meats, eggs, vegetables, oils, raw nuts, etc. was unlimited.

Don now weighed 194 lbs, down 34 lbs over 6 months (BMI 27.1). Triglycerides, blood sugar, blood pressure, and well-being had improved dramatically; small LDL, however, had dropped only 30%--still room for improvement.

"My friends say I'm too skinny. They ask if I have cancer!"

I've heard this many times: Someone loses weight in a relatively short period of time and friends and family tell you you're too skinny. "It must be cancer. Nobody loses weight like that."

Unfortunately, many Americans have forgotten what normal looks like. Normal is certainly not a 190-lb, 5 ft 4 in woman, nor is it a 228 lb, 5 ft 11 inch man. But Americans have put on so much weight that the prevailing view of what constitutes "normal" weight has been revised upward. Normal is closer to what we see in old movies from the 1940s and '50s with people like Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed. That's what we are supposed to look like.

So Don actually remains mildly overweight but is judged as "too skinny," or even cancer-ridden, by friends and family.

Ignore such comments. As you lose pounds and approach a truly desirable weight, realize that you are returning to the normal state, not the vision of "normal" now held by most Americans.

Vitamin D is, without a doubt, the most incredible "vitamin"/prohormone/neurosteroid I have ever encountered. Frankly, I don't know how we got anything accomplished in health pre-D.

Unfortunately, people I meet rarely take their vitamin D in a way that accomplishes full restoration of vitamin D blood levels. It really isn't that tough.

Here's a list of common tripping points with vitamin D:

"I take vitamin D: 1000 units a day."
This is probably the most common mistake I see: Taking a dose that is unlikely to yield a desirable blood level. (We use 60-70 ng/ml of 25-hydroxy vitamin D as our target.) Most men and women require 6000 units per day to achieve this level. There is substantial individual variation, however, with an occasional person needing much more, a rare person requiring as little as 1000 units.

"I bought some vitamin D on sale. They were white tablets."
Time and again, patients in my office who initially have had successful vitamin D replacement, despite being reminded that only oil-based forms should be taken, switch to tablets. While they initially showed a 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level, for instance, of 67 ng/ml on 8000 units per day with an oil-based capsule, they switch to a tablet form and the next blood level is 25 ng/ml. In other words, tablets are very poorly or erratically absorbed.

I have had people use tablets successfully, however, by taking their vitamin D tablets with a teaspoon of oil, e.g., olive oil. Oil is necessary for full absorption.

"I'm going to Florida. I'll stop my vitamin D because I'm going to lay in the sun."
Wrong. 90% of adults over 40 years old have lost the majority of their ability to activate vitamin D in the skin. A typical response might be an increase in blood level from 25 to 35 ng/ml--a 10 ng increase with a dark brown tan.

There is an occasional person who, with sun exposure, increases blood levels substantially. This can occur in both fair-skinned and dark-skinned people, though I've never seen it happen in an African-American person. The occasional person who maintains the ability to convert vitamin D with sun exposure, or young people, should seasonally adjust their vitamin D dose, e.g., 6000 units winter, 3000 units summer, or some other regimen that maintains desirable blood levels. You can see that monitoring blood levels (we check levels every 6 months for the first 2 years) is crucial: You cannot know what your vitamin D needs are unless you assess 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels.

"I drink plenty of milk. I don't think I need to take vitamin D."
Oh, boy. This is so wrong on so many levels.

First of all, no adult should be drinking plenty of cow's milk. (A discussion for another day.) Second of all, cow's milk averages 70 units of vitamin D, often the D2 form (ergocalciferol), per 8 oz. Even if the FDA-mandated 100 units per day were present, an average adult dose of 6000 units would require 60 glasses of milk per day. Can you say "diarrhea"?

Likewise, other food sources of vitamin D, such as fish (300-400 units per serving) and egg yolks (20 units per yolk), are inadequate. This makes sense: Humans are not meant to obtain vitamin D from food, but from sun exposure over a large body surface area. And this is a phenomenon that is meant to occur only in the youthful, ensuring that nature takes its course and us older folks get old and make way for the young (i.e., unless we intervene by taking vitamin D supplements).

"My doctor said that my vitamin D blood level was fine. It was 32 ng/ml."
Let's face it: By necessity, your overworked primary care physician, who manages gout, hip arthritis, migraine headaches, stomach aches, prostate enlargement, H1N1, depression, etc., is an amateur at nearly everything, expert in nothing. Nobody can do it all and get it right. Likewise vitamin D. The uncertain primary care physician will simply follow the dictates of the laboratory form that specifies "30-100 ng/ml" as the "normal" or "reference range." Unfortunately, the laboratory often quotes population distributions of a lab measure, not an ideal or desirable level.

To illustrate the folly of population distributions of a measure, imagine you and I want to know what women weigh. We go to a local mall and weigh several thousand women. We tally up the results and find that women weigh 172 lbs +/- 25 lbs (the mean +/- 2 standard deviations). (That's true, by the way.) Is that desirable? Of course it isn't. Population average or population distribution does not necessarily mean ideal or desirable.

"My husband's doctor said he should take 4000 units per day. So I just take the same dose."
That would be fine if all adults required the same dose. However, individual needs can vary enormously. A dose that is grossly insufficient for one person may be excessive for another. Once again, vitamin D dose needs can be individualized by assessing 25-hydroxy vitamin levels in the blood.

"I don't need to take vitamin D. I already take fish oil."
I suspect this mistaken belief occurs either because people confuse fish oil with cod liver oil, which does contain some vitamin D. (Cod liver oil is not the best source of vitamin D, mostly because of the vitamin A content; also a discussion for another time), or because they've heard that eating fish provides vitamin D. However, fish oil capsules do not contain vitamin D unless it is added, in which case it should be prominently and explicitly stated on the label.

"I don't have to take vitamin D. It's summer."
For most people I know, if it's a bright, sunny July day, where are they likely to be? In an office, store, or home--NOT lying in the sun with a large body surface area exposed. Also, most people expose no more than 5-10% of surface area in public. I doubt you cut the grass in a bathing suit. Because of modern indoor lifestyles and fashion, the majority of adults need vitamin D supplementation year-round.

I advise everyone that gelcap vitamin D is preferable. Some, though not all, liquid drop forms have also worked. Take a dose that yields desirable blood levels. And blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D are ideally checked every 6 months: in summer and in winter to provide feedback on how much sun activation of D you obtain.

If your doctor is unwilling or unable to perform vitamin D testing, fingerstick vitamin D test kits can be obtained from Track Your Plaque.

My friend, Jimmy Moore of Living La Vida Low Carb, describes his thyroid experience here.

As Jimmy points out, he was looking for a way to jump-start a 50-lb weight loss. In my experience, low thyroid hormone levels ("hypothyroidism") are an exceptionally common cause for weight gain. Correcting even marginal hypothyroidism can facilitate weight loss, often resulting in 10 or more pounds of weight loss within the first month.

Unfortunately, Jimmy's thyroid hormone panel proved normal: TSH 1.3, thyroid hormones free T3 and free T4 in the mid- to upper-half of the reference range.

I say "unfortunately" because it is really an easy, inexpensive, and benign solution for losing weight. (I don't, of course, wish that Jimmy or anyone else develops a thyroid condition. But it really can provide gratifying weight loss results when thyroid function is low.) Jimmy might consider taking his oral temperature first thing in the morning as another means of assessing the adequacy of thyroid function.

Perhaps you will be luckier than Jimmy and have thyroid dysfunction that can be corrected and jump-start your weight loss program. Fingerstick thyroid test kits like the one Jimmy used are available here from Track Your Plaque.

Lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), can be a tough nut to crack.

Having struggled and wrestled with this genetic pattern for the last 12 years or so in hundreds of patients, I have gained great respect for this difficult to control pattern.

I regard lipoprotein(a) as the number one most aggressive cause for heart disease and coronary plaque known. It can account for heart attacks in men in their 40s, women in their 50s. It can cause heart disease and heart attacks in even the ultra-fit like marathon runners. It accounts for both excessive coronary risk and misleading cholesterol values in slender, healthy-appearing people.

Niacin is the number one treatment choice for Lp(a), followed by testosterone for men, estrogens (preferably human, not horse or other non-human mammal) for women. I then often resort to DHEA, along with adjunctive nutritional agents like raw almonds, ground flaxseed, and others.

Our most recent addition to the Lp(a) treatment list is high-dose fish oil, which appears to exert a significant effect in about 40% of people with Lp(a).

Even with this multi-agent approach, not everybody gains control over Lp(a).

That makes me wonder if someone has Lp(a) at a substantial level of, say, 200 nmol/L or 70 mg/dl (values can differ tremendously, depending on the method of measurement), should we throw everything but the kitchen sink at Lp(a) from the start? Right now, by adding an agent one at a time, it often takes two years to gain control over Lp(a) (if we are going to get it at all).

While many people might find this unpalatable and overwhelming from the starting gate of their program, I do believe it may be a strategy we should consider adopting for full and more immediate plaque control in the Track Your Plaque program. Something to chew on.

Clearly, we need better answers for Lp(a). A "kitchen sink," full-frontal assault might be a way to gain faster control, though not necessarily a superior approach with regards to efficacy and potency.

There are a number of unique, potentially effective therapies for Lp(a) that are worth examining. Given the difficulty of performing clinical trials with non-drug agents (largely a lack of financial support, since nobody gets a financial return with non-patent-protectable agents), I am anxious to put these potential treatments to a test in the Track Your Plaque program Virtual Clinical Trail (VCT). The VCT gives us a quick and relatively easy method to test various potential treatments, with feedback generated in months, rather than years.

Any suggestions on promising agents to test? Of course, they must be widely available nutritional agents, not drugs.

Colleen started with the usual discrepancy between conventional calculated LDL cholesterol of 121 mg/dl and the far more accurate LDL particle number (NMR) of 1927 nmol/L.

Those of you following this conversation or our many conversations on the Track Your Plaque Forum know that a useful and highly reliable rule-of-thumb for converting NMR LDL particle number to LDL is to drop the last digit: 1927 nmol/L becomes 192 mg/dl. (This is, admitttedly, arrived at empirically, not by design. However, it has held up through thousands of NMR analyses and plays out reasonably when you compare distributions of Friedewald LDL and LDL particle number on a population basis.)

In other words, by this simple manipulation, Colleen's Friedewald calculated LDL is off by 58%. This is very common, a phenomenon I witness several times every day.

By LDL particle size, 75% of all Colleen's LDL particle were abnormally small (small LDL particle number 1440 nmol/L). This is a moderately severe small LDL tendency.

So we took all the steps for reduction of small LDL/LDL, including elimination of wheat and cornstarch, exercise, weight loss (which happens inevitably when wheat and cornstarch are eliminated), fish oil, vitamin D, etc.

Another NMR lipoprotein panel showed an LDL particle number of 882 nmol/L and a Friedewald calculated LDL of 87 mg/dl. Using our rule-of-thumb, LDL by particle number is virtually the same as the calculated LDL. This time, small LDL numbered only 237 nmol/L, or 26.8% of the total, a marked reduction.

Isn't that interesting? As small LDL is corrected, the crude Friedwald calculated LDL approximates the more accurate LDL particle number.

It assumes that accuracy of the Friedewald calculation may be more likely to occur as LDL size approaches normal. However, when LDL size is abnormally small--a condition shared by at least 70% of people with coronary heart disease--then the Friedewald LDL becomes increasingly inaccurate.

The opposite can also happen: When all or nearly all LDL particles are large, Friedewald calculated LDL can markedly overestimate LDL particle number. Yesterday, for instance, a patient had a Friedewald calculated LDL of 183 mg/dl, but an NMR particle number of 1110 nmol/L--drop the zero . . . LDL 110 mg/dl. This woman was advised to take a statin drug by her primary care physician, based on the Friedewald LDL. Instead, she proved to have a far lower LDL. She would not have benefitted from taking a statin drug.

As I've warned many times before: Beware the Friedewald calculated LDL.

The last post on vitamin D raised a number of basic questions among readers. So let me discuss some of these questions one by one. All of them raise important issues surrounding the practical aspects of managing vitamin D in your health.

Anne said:

I think it is important to stress that vitamin D supplementation needs to be continued long term.

I have met too many people who have been prescribed 50,000 IU of D2 for 8-12 weeks and then told to stop because their 23(OH)D went over 30ng/ml. I know one person who's doctor stopped and started the D2 3 times.

Thanks for pointing that out, Anne. Excellent point. I also see doctors do this with statin drugs: start it, check a LDL level which is lower, then think that you're done and stop the drug. What the heck are they thinking?

If vitamin D is not being produced by sun exposure and not obtainable through diet, continued supplementation is necessary, essentially for life.

Twinb asked:

How often you think Vit. D levels should be tested after the initial test is done, especially if the levels are drastically low?

We have used every 6 months in the office. Ideally, levels are in mid-summer and mid- to-late winter in order to gauge the extremes of your seasonal fluctuations. While most adults over 40 fail to fluctuate more than 10 ng/ml in the Wisconsin climate (and this summer, after an initial rainy season early, has been flawlessly bright and sunny, in the high-70s and 80s every single day for months), an occasional person fluctuates more widely. The only way to judge is to check a blood level.

Rich said:

Vitamin D dosage effects appear to be quite idiosyncratic.

Yes, indeed it is. Despite using crude rules-of-thumb, like taking 1000 units of vitamin D per 10 ng/ml desired (a rule I learned from Dr. John Cannell, which he offered fully aware of its inaccuracy), many people will surprise you and have levels that make no sense. Testing is crucial to know your vitamin D level.

Richard asked: Where do we get enough vitamin D wihout worring about laboratory tests?

Well, the entire point of the post was that you absolutely, positively cannot just take vitamin D blindly at any dose and hope that your level is ideal, no more than you can blindly take a dose of thyroid and know you have achieved normal thyroid levels. In my view, vitamin D blood levels are an absolute.

Another simple issue: Don't be afraid of vitamin D. It is, in all practicality, no more dangerous than getting a dark tan. (But, as many of you realize, getting a tan is no assurance of raising vitamin D if you are over 40 years old.)

Wouldn't it be great if someone developed a do-it-yourself-at-home skin test for vitamin D? I know of no effort to develop this, but it would be a huge advantage for all of us.

It’s probably the number one most common question I get today:

“How much vitamin D should I take?”

Like asking for investing advice, there are no shortage of people willing to provide answers, most of them plain wrong.

The media are quick to offer advice like “Take the recommended daily allowance of 400 units per day,” or “Some experts say that intake of vitamin D should be higher, as high as 2000 units per day.” Or “Be sure to get your 15 minutes of midday sun.”

Utter nonsense.

The Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine has been struggling with this question, also. They have an impossible job: Draft broad pronouncements on requirements for various nutrients by recommending Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) for all Americans. The Food and Nutrition Board has tried to factor in individual variation by breaking vitamin D requirements down by age and sex, but what amounts to a one-size-fits-nearly-all approach.

Much of the uncertainty over dosing stems from the fact that vitamin D should not be called a “vitamin.” Vitamins are nutrients obtained from foods. But, outside of oily fish, you'll find very little naturally-occurring vitamin D in food. (Even in fish, there is generally no more than 400 units per 4 oz. serving.) Sure, there’s 20 units in an egg yolk and you can activate the vitamin D in a shiitake mushroom by exposing it to ultraviolet radiation. Dairy products like milk (usually) contain vitamin D because the USDA mandates it. But food sources hardly help at all unless you’re an infant or small child.

It all makes sense when vitamin D is viewed as a hormone, a steroid hormone, not a vitamin. Vitamin-no, steroid hormone-D exerts potent effects in tiny quantities with hormone-like action in cells, including activation of nuclear receptors.

It is the only hormone that is meant to be activated by sun exposure of the skin, not obtained through diet. But the ability to activate D is lost by the majority of us by age 40 and even a dark tan is no assurance that sufficient skin prohormone D activation has taken place.

As with any other hormone, such as thyroid, parathyroid, or growth hormones, dose needs to be individualized.

Imagine you developed a severely low thyroid condition that resulted in 30 lbs of weight gain, lose your hair, legs swell, and heart disease explodes. Would you accept that you should take the same dose of thyroid hormone as every other man or woman your age, regardless of your body size, proportion of body fat, metabolism, genetics, race, dietary habits, and other factors that influence thyroid hormone levels? Of course you wouldn’t.

Then why would anyone insist that vitamin D be applied in a one-size-fits-all fashion? (There’s another world in which a one-size-fits-all approach to hormone replacement has been widely applied, that of female estrogen replacement. In conventional practice, there’s no effort to identify need, estrogen-progesterone interactions, nor assess the adequacy of dose, not to mention the perverse non-human preparation used.)

With thyroid hormone, ideal replacement dose of hormone ranges widely from one person to another. Some people require 25 mcg per day of T4; others require 800% greater doses. Many require T3, but not everybody.

Likewise, vitamin D requirements can range widely. I have used anywhere from 1000 units per day, all the way up to 16,000 units per day before desirable blood levels were achieved.

Vitamin D dose needs to be individualized. Factors that influence vitamin D need include body size and percent body fat (both of which increase need substantially); sex (males require, on average, 1000 units per day more than females); age (older need more); skin color (darker-skinned races require more, fairer-skinned races less); and other factors that remain ill-defined.

But these are “rules” often broken. My office experience with vitamin D now numbers nearly 1000 patients. The average female dose is 4000-5000 units per day, average male dose 6000 units per day to achieve a blood level of 60-70 ng/ml, though there are frequent exceptions. I’ve had 98 lb women who require 12,000 units, 300 lb men who require 1000 units, 21-year olds who require 10,000 units. (Of course, this is a Wisconsin experience. However, regional differences in dosing needs diminish as we age, since less and less vitamin D activation occurs.)

Let me reiterate: Steroid hormone-vitamin D dose needs to be individualized.

There’s only one way to individualize your need for vitamin D and thereby determine your dose: Measure a blood level.

Nobody can gauge your vitamin D need by looking at you, by your skin color, size, or other simple measurement like weight or body fat. A vitamin D blood level needs to be measured specifically-period.

Unfortunately, many people balk at this, claiming either that it’s too much bother or that their doctor refused to measure it.

I would rank normalizing steroid hormone-vitamin D as among the most important things you can do for your health. It should never be too much bother. And if your doctor refuses to at least discuss why he/she won’t measure it, then it’s time for a new doctor.

If you’re worried about adding to rising healthcare costs by adding yet another blood test, think of the money saved by sparing you from a future of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, diabetes, etc. The cost of a vitamin D blood test is relatively trivial (around $40-50, a fraction of the cost of a one month supply of a drug for diabetes.)

So how much vitamin D should you take? Enough to raise your blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D to normal. (We aim for a normal level of 60-70 ng/ml.)

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is there something fishy about fish oil?

Lovaza vs fish oil supplements?

More on blood sugar

Postprandial blood sugar: Almonds vs. whole wheat bread

To get low-carb right, you need to check blood sugars

Food sources of vitamin K2: Reprint

Family lessons

Look like Jimmy Stewart

Getting vitamin D right

Jimmy Moore's thyroid adventure

Kitchen sink approach for Lp(a)

Making Dr. Friedewald an honest man

Some basic vitamin D issues

“How much vitamin D should I take?”

You probably don't take enough fish oil

Goodbye, fructose

The statin-free life

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone