All posts by william-davis

Let me tell you a story, a tale of a woman who gained 30 lbs by eating one cracker.

At age 50, Claire's health was a disaster. Her initial lipoprotein patterns were a mess, including HDL 36 mg/dl, triglycerides 297 mg/dl, blood sugar 122 mg/dl (pre-diabetic range), blood pressure 155/99. Small LDL comprised over 90% of all LDL particles.

At 5 feet 3 inches, she weighed 210 lbs--90 lbs over her ideal weight. Her face was flushed and red, her eyes swollen and weighted down with bags, her eyes dull. While interested in hearing about how to improve her health, I would hardly call her enthusiastic.

We talked about how removing wheat products entirely from her diet could result in weight loss--enormous weight loss--yet with reduced appetite, increased energy, less daytime sleepiness and fogginess, improved sleep quality. Removing wheat would also allow substantial correction of her lipoprotein patterns with minimal medication.

At first, she seemed confused by this advice. After all, it ran directly opposite to what she'd been told by her family doctor, not to mention the advice from TV, food ads, and food packages.

To my surprise, Claire did it. She didn't return to the office for another 5 months. But she came in, a big beaming smile on her face.

Even at 167 lbs--still overweight--Claire looked great. She glowed. She'd already dropped nearly 2 1/2 inches from her waist. She felt lighter on her feet, discovered energy she thought she'd lost 10 years earlier. Her blood results matched, with dramatic shifts in each and every pattern.

I quizzed Claire on her diet, and she had indeed made substantial changes. In addition to eliminating all foods made of wheat flour, she also eliminated foods made with cornstarch, rice flour, snacks, and other sweets. She ate her fill of vegetables, fruits, raw nuts, lean meats, and healthy oils. She was less hungry while eating less. Even her husband, skeptical at first, joined Claire after the first two months and her initial 20 lbs of weight loss. He, too, was well on his way to dropping to ideal weight.

But a dinner party invitation came. In the few that Claire and her husband had gone to over the few months, she had religiously stuck to her program, choosing cheese, pickles, olives, vegetables that she dipped, but avoided the pretzels, breads, Doritos, potato chips, and others.

This time, a tray of whole wheat crackers was laid on the buffet table, covered with some sort of sweetened cheese. She had just one. She savored the taste that she'd missed. "Maybe one more. I'll be extra good this weekend,'" she told herself.

Now Claire was hungry. The bruschetta covered with tomatoes and mozzarella looked awfully good. "It's got some good things on it, too!" she thought. She had three.

The floodgates opened. I saw Claire three months later, weighing just shy of 200 lbs. "I almost cancelled this appointment," she whispered quietly, tears at the corner of her eyes. "I don't know what happened. I just lost control. After losing all that weight and feeling so good, I blew it!"

I've seen it before: Fabulous success eliminating the foods that created the situation--the insatiable appetite, the endless cycle of hunger, brief satiety, the rolling, rumbling hunger--followed by temptation, then disaster. The weight lost comes right back.

It's experiences like Claire's that have absolutely, positively convinced me: Wheat products are addictive. It's not true for everybody, but it's true for many people, certainly most people who have weight struggles. It triggers some sort of appetite button, a signal to eat more . . . and more, and more. Keep it up long enough, and you have drops in HDL, increases in triglycerides, upward jumps in blood sugar and blood pressure, diabetes, etc. It doesn't matter if it's whole grain, 7-grain, or 12-grain. Yes, the whole grains contain more fiber and more B vitamins. But they all share one characteristic: They trigger a desire for more.

So that's the story of how one whole wheat cracker caused one woman to gain 30 lbs.

Next week's story:

California woman claims: My children are aliens!

Just kidding.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Eliminate wheat from your diet and wonderful things happen:

--Lose 15-20 lbs, sometimes in the first 1-3 months. (More or less, depending on your prior dietary habits, weight, age, etc.)
--HDL cholesterol goes up, triglycerides go down
--Blood sugar drops
--Small LDL is reduced
--C-reactive protein is reduced
--Pre-diabetics often convert to non-diabetics
--Diabetics gain far better control over blood glucose. Some even become non-diabetic (as long as they maintain the wheat-free, low-glycemic index diet and weight control).
--You feel better: Less mental fogginess, more energy, better sleep.
--Appetite shrinks dramatically.

(Many diet programs makes lots of money promising similar results. Prescription medications like the pre-diabetes drugs, Actos and Avandia, and the fibrates, Tricor and Lopid, nearly--nearly--reproduce the effects of eliminating wheat. Of course, these medications do not lead to weight loss or make you feel better. In fact, Actos and Avandia usually trigger a weight gain of 8 lbs in the first year of use.)

All of these wonderful effects develop with elimination of wheat. . . unless you confuse wheat-free with gluten-free. There's a difference.

Remove wheat from your diet, but discover the world of gluten-free products made for people with celiac disease, or gluten enteropathy, and you can regain the weight and recreate many of the phenomena associated with wheat. I've talked about this in past, but it trips up so many people that it's worth talking about again.

The concept that I am advocating is really low-glycemic index (or low glycemic load, actually). Foods that trigger a substantial rise in blood sugar, whether immediate (like whole wheat crackers) or delayed (like whole wheat pasta) are the culprits. The same effects develop with candy, cookies, fruit drinks, pizza, chips, table sugar, and other junk foods.

However, I pick on wheat specifically because it so dominates the American diet. It has grown to fill so many processed food products. It is also a food ingredient that is falsely advertised as healthy. In reality, pretzels, whole wheat crackers, whole grain bread, high-fiber cereals, etc. exert the same effect on blood sugar as candy or white table sugar. They also generate all the "downstream" phenomena listed above.

But wheat is hardly the only food that makes us fat, diabetic, and unhealthy. This is true for foods made with cornstarch (taco shells, cornbread, tortillas, chips, breakfast cereals); rice flour, puffed rice, and polished rice; and potatoes, particularly pulverized potato starch (potato chips). There are others.

These are the gluten-free products that are marketed to the gluten enteropathy (celiac disease) market. Yes, you can make muffins with cornstarch and no wheat gluten, but is it good for you?

No. It is nearly as bad as wheat. It can still skyrocket blood sugar, drop HDL, raise triglycerides, create small LDL, heighten inflammation, etc.

Ground flaxseed, oat bran, barley, quinoa, are some of the alternatives that do not create these effects. But not the majority of gluten-free products on the market.

Ingredients: Potato starch, rice flour, modified corn starch, olive oil, yeast, vegetable protein(lupine), corn syrup, sugar, salt, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, sodium bicarbonate, ammonium bicarbonate, diacetyltataric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides of edible fats, natural flavor.

". . . only naturally gluten-free and wheat-free ingredients and adhere to the strictest quality processes, testing every batch for gluten using the ELISA assay."

NUTRITION FACTS
Serving Size 7 bread sticks (31g)
Servings per container 5

Calories 120 Calories from fat 25
Amount per serving
Total Fat 2.5g
Saturated Fat 0.5g
Trans Fat 0g
Cholesterol 0mg
Sodium 310mg
Total Carb 24g
Dietary Fiber 1g
Sugars less than 1g
Protein less than 1g

Does chelation work?

It's a question I get asked fairly frequently. Although I have never performed chelation, IV or oral, and therefore have no direct experience, my concerns for this purported therapy have included:

1) The concept of extracting calcium from atherosclerotic plaque by removing it first from the blood is absurd. Early chelationists believed that this was the means by which EDTA might reverse coronary atherosclerosis. However, removing calcium from blood would more likely lead to osteoporosis or calcium extraction from bone, since bone is a more ready repository for calcium. Blood calcium levels are also tightly and narrowly controlled; any significant reduction in calcium ("hypocalcemia") can be life-threatening. And, indeed, there have been deaths from hypocalcemia in people receiving chelation.

More recently, chelationists have argued that removal of heavy metals like lead and mercury are responsible for the purported benefits of chelation. And, indeed, blood levels of these heavy metals can be reduced by chelation. That alone may be a benefit. But to then make the leap to say that it also regresses atherosclerotic plaque by the same mechanism has no basis in science.

2) Practitioners associated with chelation tend to be shady. I have seen homeopathic therapies (among THE most ridiculous of concepts), "energy balance" therapies, desiccated organ extracts ("applied kinesiology"), and a variety of other fringe treatments offered by practitioners offering chelation. This doesn't necessarily mean, of course, that chelation is also fringe or suspect, but it tends to be offered by practitioners who engage in generally unscientific, unfounded practices.

The few people I've seen go through multiple courses of chelation (usually 30 or so infusions) have shown no impact on heart scan scores or any other measure of heart disease.

In response to the many questions I receive on chelation, I had been answering that, if we would simply wait for the publication of the NIH-sponsored trial of IV chelation therapy, perhaps we'd know once and for all.

However, in a lengthy criticism, four expert authors argue that the TACT trial to assess chelation study is doomed to failure for an entire list of reasons and should therefore be abandoned. The discussion is available on Medscape Cardiology. (Free sign-in required.)

Why the NIH Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) Should Be Abandoned
We investigated the social and the scientific histories of chelation therapy beginning in the 1950s. We examined TACT protocols and consent forms, which, in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, the NIH provided to us with curious redactions. We examined the existing RCTs and the numerous case series cited by the TACT protocols. We examined evidence for risks, including information that is not in the standard medical literature. We examined various hypotheses that advocates have offered to explain how chelation "works."

We present our findings in 4 parts. First, we provide a brief history of the use of disodium EDTA as a treatment for CAD. Next, we describe the origin and nature of the TACT. Next, we discuss the evidence for chelation as a treatment for CAD and for atherosclerosis in general, and place it in the context of other proposed treatments that have been ineffective after an initial period of enthusiasm. Finally, we discuss the risks. For each topic, we contrast our findings with relevant statements in the TACT literature, to the extent that such statements exist.

Among the highlights:

--Since the mid-1970s, court documents and newspapers have reported at least 30 deaths associated with IV disodium EDTA, most of it administered by ACAM members.

--Early chelation investigators had chosen the disodium salt of EDTA, reasoning that if it could remove calcium from atherosclerotic plaques, it might shrink them. That notion was soon demonstrated to be invalid. It has largely been replaced by a "toxic heavy metals" antioxidant hypothesis, which is based on the potential for metal ions to produce free radical damage. Chelationists now cite "removing heavy metals" as the basis for their claim that chelation is effective for approximately 70 conditions, ranging from schizophrenia and autism to cancer. This provides them with numerous reasons to ignore any trial that finds chelation ineffective for CAD.

--Biochemical literature, either not cited or misrepresented in the TACT protocols, has demonstrated that the heavy metals hypothesis is implausible. Antithetically, it also demonstrates that the chelation mixture used in the TACT has pro-oxidant effects in vitro.

--In our opinion, TACT literature -- including 2 versions of the protocol, the consent form, information posted on the NCCAM Web site, and 2 editorials co-authored by the PI -- has misrepresented chelation, its risks, and the facts of the study. It has exaggerated the value of supportive case series, not only by ignoring evidence of bias and incompetence, but by misrepresenting citations and reporting erroneous data. It has minimized the dangers, both by understatements and by omissions of specific, published complications. It has not acknowledged the deaths mentioned above. It has repeatedly conflated disodium EDTA and a different drug, calcium-sodium EDTA.

--The TACT includes nearly 100 "chelation site" co-investigators who, in our opinion, are unsuitable to care for human subjects or to report trial data. Most espouse implausible health claims while denigrating proven methods; several have been disciplined, for substandard practices, by state medical boards; several have been involved in insurance fraud; at least 3 are convicted felons. Several were members of the ACAM or GLACM IRBs mentioned above. Few appear to have real expertise, required by TACT literature, in treating patients with CAD or in conducting clinical trials. Most continue to promote chelation while the TACT is in progress, contrary to good science, to human studies ethics, and to US Federal Code.

While the criticism itself does not prove the point one way or another, as a clinical trial should, anyone contemplating chelation therapy would be well-advised to read the document first. Another reference: EDTA chelation therapy for cardiovascular disease: a systematic review.

The authors of the exhaustive discussion are:
Kimball C. Atwood IV, MD, Anesthesiologist, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Newton, Massachusetts; Assistant Clinical Professor, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts; Associate Editor, Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine
Author's email: katwood@partners.org

Elizabeth Woeckner, AB, MA, President, CIRCARE (Citizens for Responsible Care and Research), Columbia, Maryland

Robert S. Baratz, MD, DDS, PhD, Medical Director, South Shore Health Center, Inc., Braintree, Massachusetts; Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts; President, National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc.

Wallace I. Sampson, MD, Clinical Professor of Medicine (Emeritus), Stanford University, Stanford, California; Senior Attending Physician and formerly Chief of Medical Oncology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, California; Editor-in-Chief, Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine

The authors provided the following disclosures:

Disclosure: Kimball C. Atwood IV, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships in addition to his employment.

Disclosure: Elizabeth Woeckner, AB, MA, has disclosed that she has received compensation for consulting in civil litigation and professional disciplinary actions.

Disclosure: Robert S. Baratz, MD, DDS, PhD, has disclosed that he has been retained by state licensing boards, the Office of the US Attorney, and plaintiff counsel as an expert in disciplinary proceedings and litigation with regard to chelation therapy and associated matters. He is compensated only for his time and has no commercial interest in the outcome of the proceedings or litigation.

Disclosure: Wallace I. Sampson, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships in addition to his employment.

These are actual quotes from the American Diabetes Association website:

Myth #2 (from list of Diabetes Myths): People with diabetes can't eat sweets or chocolate.
If eaten as part of a healthy meal plan, or combined with exercise, sweets and desserts can be eaten by people with diabetes. They are no more “off limits” to people with diabetes, than they are to people without diabetes.

Myth #5: If you have diabetes, you should only eat small amounts of starchy foods, such as bread, potatoes and pasta.
Starchy foods are part of a healthy meal plan. What is important is the portion size. Whole grain breads, cereals, pasta, rice and starchy vegetables like potatoes, yams, peas and corn can be included in your meals and snacks. The key is portions. For most people with diabetes, having 3-4 servings of carbohydrate-containing foods is about right. Whole grain starchy foods are also a good source of fiber, which helps keep your gut healthy.

How can I have sweets and still keep my blood glucose on target?
The key to keeping your blood glucose on target is to substitute small portions of sweets for other carb-containing foods in your meals and snacks. Carb-containing foods include bread, tortillas, rice, crackers, cereal, fruit, juice, milk, yogurt, potatoes, corn, and peas. For many people, having about 45 to 60 grams at meals is about right. Serving sizes make a difference. To include sweets in your meal, you can cut back on the other carb foods at the same meal.

For example, you’d like to have cookies with your lunch. Your lunch is a turkey sandwich with two slices of bread. Your first step is to identify the carb foods in your meal. Bread is a carb. You decide to swap two slices of bread for two slices of low-calorie bread and have the cookies -- it’s an even trade. Your total amount of carbohydrate remains the same for the meal.

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

Or take a look at the recipes for breads, muffins, cakes, pies, cookies, and pizza.

My point? As I often say, while the "official" organizations like the American Diabetes Association, the American heart Association, and the USDA dominate the message provided to mainstream Americans, to those of us who know better, they have become irrelevant. You can see how obviously boneheaded their advice is. I'd go so far as to say that, if you want diabetes, follow the American Diabetes Association diet. If you have diabetes, and you'd like to accelerate complications like kidney disease, heart disease, and neuropathy, then follow the American Diabetes Association diet.

I'm going to bet that American Diabetes Association sponsors like Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Abbott ($1 million or more annual contributions) and Cadbury Schweppes (3-year, multi-million dollar support for Weight Loss Matters program) will continue to charge full-speed ahead to maintain the status quo. Cadbury Schweppes are the proud makers of Dr. Pepper, Hawaiian Punch, Snapple, Motts' Apple Juice, and Hires Root Beer--you know, the foods and drinks that you can have as long as you adjust your insulin dose or talk to your doctor about adjusting your diabetes medications. And if you gain, say, 30 or 40 lbs eating these foods. . . well, we've got a treatment for that. Merck's Januvia , for instance, can help you out for only about $200 a month!

Looking at the facts this way, and it seems like some cheap conspiracy theory: They're all out to get us. Dispense information that virtually guarantees propagation of the disease, and all your friends and cronies profit. I don't know if it is or it isn't, but it sure smells like it sometimes.

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?

You know that cynical old saying:

It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

In other words, knowing the right person provides you strategic advantage in business, social advancement, etc.

In health, it was often true. Knowing who the better doctors were, for instance, in your city might provide you with access to better care.

Enter the Information Age. You now have access to medical information equal to that of your doctor. You now have access to patient discussions about doctors, their practices, their performance records. There is now a depth and breadth of information on health that was never available before.

I’d therefore turn the old saying into the new Health 2.0 version:

It’s not who you know, it’s what you know.

In health, information now reigns supreme, not knowing somebody else who has the right connections.

Positive: Everybody now theoretically has access to an equal amount of information, since you can access information on any topic just as easily as I can.

Negative: It puts more of the burden on you. If you screw up in health, perhaps you didn’t try to get the best information hard enough.

I love this new development, this emergence of empowerment in health. I call it self-directed health, the individual capacity to exert enormous influence over the quality of your healthcare.

This is obviously a work in progress. All the answers and tools for self-directed care, self-empowerment are not yet available, some haven’t even yet been imagined.

But they are coming.

“Do you really think I need a heart scan?” asked Terry.

“My doctor said that heart scans show too many false positives. He says that many people end up getting unnecessary heart catheterizations because of them.”

At age 56, Terry was becoming increasingly frightened. His father had suffered his first heart attack at age 53, Terry’s paternal uncle had a heart attack at age 56, his paternal grandfather a heart attack at age 50.

Is this true? Do heart scans yield too many false positives, meaning abnormal results when there really is no abnormality?

No, it is not. What Terry’s doctor is referring to is the fact that, in the decades-long process that leads to heart attack, heart scans have the ability to detect early phases of developing coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Let’s take Terry’s case, for example. Given his family history, it is quite likely that he does indeed have coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Will it be detectable by performing a stress test? Probably not. In fact, Terry jogs and feels well while doing so. While a stress test abnormality that fails to reach conscious perception is possible, it’s fairly unlikely given his exercise routine.

Will Terry’s coronary atherosclerotic plaque be detectable by heart catheterization? Very likely. But why perform an invasive hospital procedure just as a screening test? Should a woman wishing to undergo a screening test for breast cancer undergo breast removal? Of course not.

Is waiting for symptoms a rational way to approach diagnosis of heart disease? Well, when symptoms appear, it means that coronary blood flow is reduced. Stents and bypass surgery may be indicated. The risk of heart attack and death skyrocket. Sudden death becomes a real possibility.

In the 30 or so years required to establish sufficient coronary plaque to permit the appearance of symptoms or the development of an abnormality detectable by stress testing, there were many years when the disease was early--too early to generate symptoms, too early to be detectable by stress testing.

That’s when heart scans uncover evidence for silent coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Should we call this a “false positive” just because it doesn’t also correlate with “need” for a catheterization, stent, bypass operation or result in heart attack within the next few weeks?

The detection of early plaque is just that: early disease detection.

Imagine, for instance, that the breast cancer that will grow into a palpable nodule or mass detectable by mammogram is detectable by a special breast scan 15 years before it becomes a full-blown tumor, metastasizing to other organs. What if effective means to halt that earliest evidence of cancer could put a stop to this devastating disease decades ahead of danger? Is this a “false positive” too?

In my view, this is the knuckleheaded thinking of the conventional practitioner: “Don’t bother me until you’re really sick.” Prevention is a practice that has become fashionable only because of the push of the drug industry. Nutrition is an afterthought, a message conceived through consensus of “experts” with suspect motivations and allegiances.

So, no, heart scans do not uncover “false positives.” They uncover early disease--true positives--years before it is detectable by standard tests or by the appearance of catastrophe. But that is the whole point: Early detection means getting a head start on prevention.

Do heart scans lead to unnecessary heart catheterizations? Yes, sadly they do. But not because heart scans are false positive. It happens because of unscrupulous or ignorant cardiologists who use the information wrongly. In my view, heart scans should NEVER lead directly to heart catheterization in an asymptomatic patient. Heart scans, as helpful as they are, do not modify the standard reasons for performing heart procedures.

If a car mechanic is dishonest and fixes a carburetor that didn't need fixing, should we condemn all car mechanics? No, of course not. We only need to develop the means to weed out the bad apples. The same applies to heart scans.

Here's a bit of lipid tedium that might nonetheless help you one day decipher the meaning of shifts in your cholesterol panel.

Recall from prior discussions that conventional LDL cholesterol is a calculated value. Contrary to popular opinion, LDL is usually not measured, but calculated from the Friedewald equation:

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

For the sake of simplicity, let's call total cholesterol TC; HDL cholesterol HDL, and triglycerides TG.

We've also talked in past how a low HDL makes calculated LDL inaccurate, sometimes wildly so. (See Low HDL makes Dr. Friedewald a liar.)

Here's yet another source of inaccuracy of the Friedewald-calculated LDL: any increase in triglycerides.

Let's say, for instance, that starting lipid panel shows:

TC 170 mg/dl
LDL 100 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
TG 100 mg/dl

You're advised to follow a standard low-fat, whole grain-rich diet advocated by "official" agencies (the diet I bash as knuckleheaded). Another panel a few months later shows:

TC 230 mg/dl
LDL 140 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
TG 200 mg/dl

(Obviously, I've oversimplified the response for the sake of argument. HDL would likely go down, LDL would change more depending on body weight, small LDL tendencies, and other factors. You'd also likely get fat.)

Now your doctor declares that your LDL has gone up and you "need" a statin agent.

Nonsense, absolute nonsense.

What has really happened is that the increased dietary intake of wheat and other "healthy whole-grain foods" has caused triglycerides to skyrocket. LDL increases, in turn, by a factor of TG/5, or 40 mg/dl. Thus, LDL has been inflated by the triglyceride-raising effect of whole grains.

This is yet another reason why the standard lipid panel, full of hazards and landmines, needs to be abandoned. But calculated LDL in particular is an exercise in frustration.

Though the example used is hypothetical, I've witnessed this effect thousands of times. I've also seen many people placed on statin drugs unnecessarily, due to the appearance of a high LDL cholesterol that really represented increased TG/5, usually induced by an excessive carbohydrate intake, including those commonly misrepresented as healthy such as whole grains.

In the Heart Scan Blog, I am often guilty of speaking out loud of my varied thoughts on this crazy thing that we've created called the cardiovascular healthcare machine. But I discuss it in the context of asking "How could this be done better--better outcomes, more patient-friendly, more accessible . . . more do-it-yourself?

The last part is the part that throws most people. Do-it-yourself? My colleagues would claim I'm nuts, suggesting that coronary heart disease is something manageable by yourself. In the conventional pathway, after all, coronary disease is that unpredictable, poorly detected by standard tests, condition that then leads to heart catheterization, stents, bypass , and the like.

Several factors distinguish the readers of The Heart Scan Blog that surprised me:

--Nearly 60% are women
--There are a disproportionate number of Asian people. (Can someone explain this to me?)
--A great number have graduate degrees

I believe this tells me that The Heart Scan Blog appeals to a somewhat more sophisticated audience. This, to some degree, warms my heart, since it means that I've captured the attention of some people who may be more discriminating and thoughtful in their Internet surfing.

However, I also lament the fact that these conversations are not achieving the mainstream. After all,

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.)

The results of the recent Heart Scan Blog survey in response to the question: MY DAILY DOSE OF EPA + DHA FROM FISH OIL IS revealed:

Zero--I don't take any
17 (7%) of respondents

Less than 1000 mg per day
24 (10%) of respondents

1000-2000 mg per day
91 (38%) of respondents

2000-3000 mg per day
44 (18%) of respondents

3000-4000 mg per day
40 (16%) of respondents

More than 4000 mg per day
20 (8%) of respondents

Based on the above results, I would say that only a minority of respondents are taking an ideal dose of omega-3 fatty acids. Nearly all of us should consider taking more.

Benefits of omega-3 fatty acids (EPA + DHA) from fish oil begin around a dose of 840 mg per day, according to the GISSI Prevenzione Trial of 1999, an 11,000-participant trial. This dose also corresponds to a quantity of omega-3s that have been shown to raise EPA + DHA blood levels and thereby reduce the notoriously high AA:EPA ratio of Americans.

But what dose is sufficient? What dose is ideal?

Well, the answer to a great degree depends on what you are taking the fish oil for. If being taken to reduce triglycerides and triglyceride-containing lipoproteins, like VLDL and the after-eating (postprandial) IDL, then a higher dose will be necessary. (Triglyceride reduction for the genetically-determined very high triglyceride level of familial hypertriglyceridemia is the FDA-approved indication for prescription Lovaza.)

If you are taking fish oil for treatment of ADHD, depression, or bipolar illness, very high doses are often necessary.

But how about maximal reduction of cardiovascular risk and for control or reversal of atherosclerotic plaque?

This conversation is still evolving. But we can learn some important lessons from three populations of the world that are vigorous consumers of fish:

--The Inuits (aka Eskimos) of Greenland and northern Canada
--The Japanese
--The Bantus of Tanzania who live along Nyasa Lake

All three indigenous populations have several-fold greater intakes of fish and omega-3 fatty acids, have higher blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids, and have enjoyed reduced cardiovascular events, reduced atherosclerotic plaque, or improvement in various surrogates of cardiovascular risk (e.g., Lp(a)).

The most recent addition to this conversation is the ERA JUMP Study, discussed in a previous Heart Scan Blog post. In ERA JUMP, despite being heavy smokers and having other markers for greater risk for heart disease, Japanese men living in Japan had markedly less carotid and coronary plaque, as compared to Caucasian men living in PIttsburgh or Hawaiian men of Japanese descent. The difference appeared to be attributable to serum levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

I believe that the trend is here is to increase the amount of omega-3 fatty acids that most of us take. In the Track Your Plaque program, we have been advocating a rock-bottom starting dose of EPA + DHA of 1200 mg per day. However, I believe that this is due for a change.

We will be increasing the minimum dose for plaque regression and control. Please attend our Webinar this evening for a full, in-depth discussion of the rationale behind this important change.

As always, let me remind you that I am not selling, nor ever have sold, fish oil supplements. If I advocate a specific dose, a higher dose, I do so based on my interpretation of the data and experience with patients, not because I am interested in selling brand X of fish oil.

Despite the paucity of scientific documentation of this phenomenon, I am continuing to witness extraordinary increases in HDL cholesterol levels with vitamin D supplementation.

I've touched on the interaction of vitamin D supplementation with HDL in The Heart Scan Blog previously:

Vitamin D: Treatment for metabolic syndrome?

HDL for Dummies

At first, I thought it was attributable to other factors. In real life, most people don't modify one factor at a time. They reduce
processed carbohydrates/eliminate wheat and cornstarch, lose weight, add or increase omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, begin niacin, increase exercise and physical activity. All these efforts also impact on HDL.

Among the many things I do, I consult on complex lipid (cholesterol) disorders (complex hyperlipidemias) in my office. A substantial number of these people carry a diagnosis of hypoalphalipoproteinemia, a mouthful that simply means these people are unable to manufacture much apoprotein A1, the principal protein of HDL cholesterol particles. As a result, people with hypoalphalipoproteinemia have HDL cholesterol levels in the neighborhood of 20-30 mg/dl--very low. They are also at high risk for heart disease and stroke.

Encourage these people to exercise, attain ideal weight, eliminate wheat and cornstarch: HDL increases 5 mg/dl or so.

Add niacin, HDL increases another 5-10 mg/dl.

Perhaps we're now sitting somewhere around an HDL of 35-40 mg/dl--better, but hardly great.

Add vitamin D to achieve our target serum level . . . HDL jumps to 50, 60, 70, even 90 mg/dl.

The first few times this occurred, I thought it was an error or fluke. But now that I've witnessed this effect many dozens of time, I am convinced that it is real. Just today, I saw a 40-year old man whose starting HDL was 25 mg/dl increase to 87 mg/dl.

Responses like this are supposed to be impossible. Before vitamin D, I had never witnessed increases of this magnitude.

Not all therapies for raising HDL raise the important large (also known as HDL2b) fraction. With lipoprotein analyses, it appears that is principally the large fraction of HDL that rises with vitamin D supplementation.

Why? How?

That I can't tell you. But for those of you struggling with low HDL cholesterols despite your best efforts, vitamin D can make a world of difference.

An interesting corollary: If super-high HDL cholesterols are associated with extreme longevity, as they are with centenarians, does raising HDL to extraordinary levels with vitamin D lead to longer, healthier life, all the way up to age 110 years?

Again, no answers, but an interesting thought. And one I'd bet on. (And I'm not selling vitamin D.)

Take a look at the list of foods on the American Heart Association's (AHA) Check Mark endorsement program (below). After I saw the list, I was convinced either that the people who designed the program are either startlingly ignorant, or the AHA simply does this for money.

Many of these foods have nothing to do with health, heart or otherwise. In fact, many of these foods are prominent culprits that contribute to the American epidemic of obesity. There are cured meats with sodium nitrite (a potent cause of colon cancer). Some of these companies have been accused of unhealthy food manufacturing practices. Tyson Foods, for instance, has been in court many times defending their brutal factory farm practices and were the focus of a federal investigation for paying bribe money to USDA Secretary, Mike Espy. (Espy was acquitted but two Tyson executives were convicted, only to be later pardoned by then President Bill Clinton.)

This is a smarmy list to be included on. Though there are some rare healthy exceptions on the list, from the Track Your Plaque viewpoint, this is a list of shame, foods that have no place in a genuinely heart healthy nutrition program.

8th Continent, LLC
8th Continent Fat Free Premium Original Soymilk
8th Continent Fat Free Premium Vanilla Soymilk
8th Continent Light Chocolate Soymilk
8th Continent Light Original Soymilk
8th Continent Light Vanilla Soymilk
8th Continent Premium Chocolate Soymilk
8th Continent Premium Original Soymilk
8th Continent Premium Vanilla Soymilk

American Italian Pasta Company
Golden Grain Mission Whole Grain Penne Rigate
Golden Grain Mission Whole Grain Rotini
Golden Grain Mission Whole Grain Spaghetti
Heartland Whole Grain Penne
Heartland Whole Grain Rotini
Heartland Whole Grain Spaghetti
Heartland Whole Wheat Angel Hair
Heartland Whole Wheat Elbow Macaroni
Heartland Whole Wheat Penne
Heartland Whole Wheat Rotini
Heartland Whole Wheat Spaghetti
Mueller's Whole Grain Penne
Mueller's Whole Grain Rotini
Mueller's Whole Grain Spaghetti

Atalanta Corporation
Celebrity 99% Fat Free Premium Imported Healthy Ham

Beefmaster Cattlemen, L.P.
Nolan Ryan's All Natural Ground Beef Round 96/4, 4% Fat

Bimbo Bakeries USA
Bimbo's 100% Integral/Bimbo 100% Whole Wheat Bread
Mrs. Baird's 100% Whole Wheat Bread
Oroweat 100% Whole Wheat Bread
Oroweat Country 100% Whole Wheat Bread
Oroweat Double Fiber Bread
Oroweat Original Health Nut Bread
Boar's Head Provisions Company, Inc.
Boar's Head Aroastica Seasoned Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast
Boar's Head Blazing Buffalo Style Boneless Skinless Roasted Chicken Breast
Boar's Head Branded Deluxe 42% Lower Sodium Ham
Boar's Head Cracked Pepper Mill Smoked Turkey Breast
Boar's Head Golden Classic Oven Roasted Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast
Boar's Head Hickory Smoked Black Forest Turkey Breast - 43% Lower Sodium
Boar's Head Hickory Smoked Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast
Boar's Head Italian Style Oven Roasted Seasoned Beef with Classic Braciole Seasoning
Boar's Head Lemon Pepper Boneless Skinless Roasted Chicken Breast
Boar's Head Londonport Top Round Seasoned Roast Beef
Boar's Head Maple Glazed Honey Coat Cured Turkey Breast
Boar's Head Mesquite Wood Smoked Skinless Roasted Breast of Turkey
Boar's Head Our Deluxe Low Sodium Low Fat Oven Roasted Choice Beef Cap Off Top Round
Boar's Head Our Premium Oven Roasted 47% Lower Sodium Turkey Breast - Skinless
Boar's Head Our Premium Oven Roasted 50% Lower Sodium Turkey Breast
Boar's Head Ovengold Roast Breast of Turkey
Boar's Head Ovengold Roast Breast of Turkey - Skinless
Boar's Head Pastrami Seasoned Turkey Breast
Boar's Head Salsalito Roasted Breast of Turkey
Bryan Foods, Inc.
Bryan 97% Fat Free Butcher Fresh Pork Tenderloin

Bumble Bee Foods LLC
Kirkland Signature Solid White Albacore Tuna in Water
Member's Mark Solid White Albacore Tuna in Water

California Giant
California Giant Strawberries
California Strawberry Commission
California Fresh Strawberries
California Frozen Strawberries

Campbell Soup Company
Calcium Enriched V8 100% Vegetable Juice
Campbell's Chunky Healthy Request Chicken Noodle
Campbell's Chunky Healthy Request Classic Chicken Noodle Microwaveable Bowl
Campbell's Chunky Healthy Request Grilled Chicken and Sausage Gumbo
Campbell's Chunky Healthy Request Grilled Chicken and Sausage Gumbo Microwaveable Bowl
Campbell's Chunky Healthy Request Hearty Beef Barley
Campbell's Chunky Healthy Request New Englad Clam Chowder
Campbell's Chunky Healthy Request Old Fashioned Vegetable Beef
Campbell's Chunky Healthy Request Vegetable
Campbell's Healthy Request Condensed Chicken Noodle Soup
Campbell's Healthy Request Condensed Chicken Noodle Soup (Food Service)
Campbell's Healthy Request Condensed Chicken Rice Soup
Campbell's Healthy Request Condensed Cream of Celery Soup
Campbell's Healthy Request Condensed Cream of Chicken Soup
Campbell's Healthy Request Condensed Cream of Mushroom Soup
Campbell's Healthy Request Condensed Homestyle Chicken Noodle
Campbell's Healthy Request Condensed Minestrone Soup
Campbell's Healthy Request Condensed Tomato Soup
Campbell's Healthy Request Condensed Vegetable Beef Soup
Campbell's Healthy Request Condensed Vegetable Soup
Campbell's Healthy Request Tomato Juice
Campbell's Low Sodium Tomato Juice
Campbell's Select Healthy Request Chicken and Egg Noodles
Campbell's Select Healthy Request Italian Style Wedding Microwaveable Bowl
Campbell's Select Healthy Request Italian-Style Wedding
Campbell's Select Healthy Request Mexican Style Chicken Tortilla
Campbell's Select Healthy Request Mexican Style Chicken Tortilla Microwaveable Bowl
Campbell's Select Healthy Request Savory Chicken and Long Grain Rice
Campbell's V8 Fusion Strawberry Banana
Campbell's V8 Fusion Tropical Orange
Campbell's V8 Regular Vegetable Juice
Campbell's V8 V.Fusion Light Peach Mango
Campbell's V8 V.Fusion Light Strawberry Banana
Campbell's V8 V.Fusion Pomegranate Blueberry
Essential Antioxidants V8 100% Vegetable Juice
Low Sodium V8 100% Vegetable Juice
Prego Heart Smart Mushroom Italian Sauce
Prego Heart Smart Traditional Italian Sauce

Cargill Meat Solutions
96/4 All Natural Extra Lean Ground Beef
Excel's Tender Choice 97% Fat Free Pork Tenderloins
Excel's Tender Choice Extra Lean Boneless Pork Loin
Our Certified 100% Pure All Natural Ground Beef 96/4
Sterling Silver Extra Lean Pork Tenderloins - 12% Marination
Sterling Silver Lean Boneless Pork Loin - 12% Marination

Chiquita Brands Company, N.A.
Chiquita Bananas

Clearwater Seafoods Limited Partnership
Clearwater Frozen Arctic Surf Clams

Cliffstar Corporation
Deerfield Farms No Sugar Added 100% Grape Juice (Purple)
Safeway 100% Grape Juice (Purple)
Sam's Choice 100% Grape Juice (Purple)
Walgreens 100% Grape Juice (Purple)

Clougherty Packing Company
Farmer John® California Natural® 4% Fat Extra Lean Ground Pork
Farmer John® California Natural® Premium Extra Lean Boneless Pork Tenderloins

Minute Maid Premium Blends - Orange Passion Calcium Juice-Frozen
Minute Maid Premium Blends - Orange Tangerine Calcium Juice - Frozen
Minute Maid Premium Country Style Orange Juice
Minute Maid Premium Country Style Orange Juice - Frozen
Minute Maid Premium Extra Vitamins C and E Plus Zinc Orange Juice - Frozen
Minute Maid Premium Home Squeezed Style Calcium + Vitamin D Orange Juice
Minute Maid Premium Low Acid Orange Juice
Minute Maid Premium Low Acid Orange Juice - Frozen
Minute Maid Premium Original Calcium + Vitamin D Orange Juice
Minute Maid Premium Original Calcium Orange Juice - Frozen
Minute Maid Premium Original Orange Juice
Minute Maid Premium Original Orange Juice - Frozen
Minute Maid Premium Pulp Free Calcium + Vitamin D Orange Juice
Minute Maid Premium Pulp Free Orange Juice
Minute Maid Premium Pulp Free Orange Juice - Frozen
Simply Orange Calcium Pulp Free 100% Orange Juice
Simply Orange Country Stand Calcium Medium Pulp 100% Orange Juice
Simply Orange Grove Made High Pulp 100% Orange Juice
Simply Orange Original Pulp Free 100% Orange Juice

Colleen Strawberries, Inc. / EKT Farms
Colleen Strawberries

ConAgra Dairy Foods
Egg Beaters 99% Real Eggs-Frozen
Egg Beaters 99% Real Eggs-Refrigerated
Egg Beaters Cheese & Chive
Egg Beaters Egg Whites
Egg Beaters Garden Vegetable
Egg Beaters Ham & Cheese
Egg Beaters Southwestern

ConAgra Food Service
Lamb Weston Sweet Things Mashed Sweet Potatoes, Frozen

ConAgra Frozen Foods
Healthy Choice Café Selections Apple Glazed Pork Medallions
Healthy Choice Café Selections Beef Merlot
Healthy Choice Café Selections Cajun Style Chicken & Shrimp
Healthy Choice Café Selections Chicken Fried Rice
Healthy Choice Café Selections Chicken Margherita
Healthy Choice Café Selections Chicken Tuscany
Healthy Choice Café Selections Creamy Dill Salmon
Healthy Choice Café Selections Four Cheese Pizza
Healthy Choice Café Selections General Tso's Spicy Chicken
Healthy Choice Café Selections Gourmet Supreme Pizza
Healthy Choice Café Selections Grilled Basil Chicken
Healthy Choice Café Selections Grilled Chicken & Roasted Red Pepper Alfredo
Healthy Choice Café Selections Grilled Chicken Baja
Healthy Choice Café Selections Grilled Chicken Caesar
Healthy Choice Café Selections Grilled Chicken Marinara
Healthy Choice Café Selections Grilled Whiskey Steak
Healthy Choice Café Selections Italian Style Pepperoni Pizza
Healthy Choice Café Selections Roasted Chicken Chardonnay
Healthy Choice Café Selections Roasted Chicken Marsala
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Asiago Chicken Portabello
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Beef Pot Roast
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Beef Stroganoff
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Beef Tips Portabello
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Beef with Classic BBQ Sauce
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Blackened Chicken
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Chicken Broccoli Alfredo
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Chicken Parmigiana
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Chicken Teriyaki
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Classic Grilled Chicken BBQ
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Country Breaded Chicken
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Country Herb Chicken
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Creamy Garlic Shrimp
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Fiesta Chicken
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Four Cheese Manicotti
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Glazed Chicken
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Grilled Chicken Monterey
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Grilled Turkey Breast
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Grilled White Meat Chicken with Smokehouse BBQ Sauce
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Honey Balsamic Chicken
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Lemon Pepper Fish
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Meatloaf
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Mushroom Roasted Beef
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Roasted Chicken
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Salisbury Steak
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Sweet Bourbon Steak
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Sweet and Sour Chicken
Healthy Choice Complete Selections Traditional Turkey Breast
Healthy Choice Low Fat Premium Sorbet & Cream Bars-Orange or Strawberry
Healthy Choice Premium Caramel Swirl Sandwich
Healthy Choice Premium Fudge Sandwich
Healthy Choice Premium Fudge Swirl Sandwich
Healthy Choice Premium Low Fat Ice Cream Bar
Healthy Choice Premium Vanilla Sandwich
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Breaded Chicken Breast Strips with Gravy
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Cheese French Bread Pizza
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Cheesy Chicken and Rice
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Chicken Enchilada
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Chicken Fettuccini Alfredo
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Chicken Rigatoni
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Four Cheese Manicotti
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Glazed Chicken
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Grilled Chicken White Meat Chicken & Pasta
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Grilled White Meat Chicken & Gravy
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Lasagna Bake
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Macaroni & Cheese
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Mandarin Chicken
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Pepperoni French Bread Pizza
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Roast Turkey Breastin Savory Sauce with Mushrooms
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Salisbury Steak
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Sesame Chicken
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Slow Roasted Turkey Breast with Gravy
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Spaghetti
Healthy Choice Simple Selections Supreme French Bread Pizza

ConAgra Grocery Foods
ACT II 94% Fat Free Butter Microwave Popcorn
ACT II 94% Fat Free Butter Mini Bags Microwave Popcorn
ACT II 94% Fat Free Kettle Corn Microwave Popcorn
Healthy Choice Bean & Ham Soup
Healthy Choice Beef Pot Roast Microwavable Bowl Soup
Healthy Choice Chicken & Dumplings Soup
Healthy Choice Chicken Tortilla Soup
Healthy Choice Chicken with Rice Microwavable Bowl Soup
Healthy Choice Chicken with Rice Soup
Healthy Choice Country Vegetable Microwavable Bowl Soup
Healthy Choice Country Vegetable Soup
Healthy Choice Fiesta Chicken Soup
Healthy Choice Garden Vegetable Soup
Healthy Choice Garlic & Herb Pasta Sauce
Healthy Choice Hearty Chicken Soup
Healthy Choice New England Clam Chowder Soup
Healthy Choice Old Fashioned Chicken Noodle Microwavable Bowl Soup
Healthy Choice Old Fashioned Chicken Noodle Soup
Healthy Choice Split Pea & Ham Soup
Healthy Choice Traditional Pasta Sauce
Healthy Choice Vegetable Beef Soup
Healthy Choice Zesty Gumbo with Chicken & Sausage Soup
Hunt's Family Favorites Seasoned Tomato Sauce for Lasagna
Hunt's Organic Crushed Tomatoes
Hunt's Organic Diced Tomatoes
Hunt's Organic Pasta Sauce Roasted Garlic
Hunt's Organic Whole Tomatoes
Hunt's Tomatoes Crushed in Thick Tomato Puree
Hunt's Tomatoes Diced
Hunt's Tomatoes Diced in Sauce
Hunt's Tomatoes Diced with Mild Green Chilies
Hunt's Tomatoes Diced-Green Pepper, Celery & Onions
Hunt's Tomatoes Petite Diced
Hunt's Tomatoes Stewed-No Salt Added
Hunt's Tomatoes Whole
Hunt's Tomatoes Whole-No Salt Added
Orville Redenbacher's Mini Bags Smart Pop Butter Microwave Popcorn
Orville Redenbacher's Mini Bags Smart Pop Butter/Kettle Corn Microwave Popcorn Variety Pack
Orville Redenbacher's Mini Bags Smart Pop Kettle Corn Microwave Popcorn
Orville Redenbacher's Organic Kernal Jar
Orville Redenbacher's Organic Smart Pop Butter Microwave Popcorn
Orville Redenbacher's Original Kernal Jar
Orville Redenbacher's Original Kernal Jug
Orville Redenbacher's Smart Pop Butter Microwave Popcorn
Orville Redenbacher's Smart Pop Kettle Corn Microwave Popcorn
Orville Redenbacher's Smart Pop Movie Theater Butter Microwave Popcorn
Orville Redenbacher's White Kernal Jar
Rosarita Diced Green Chilies
Rosarita Green Chilies Strips
Rosarita Whole Green Chilies

ConAgra Refrigerated Foods
Healthy Choice Deli Thin Baked Cooked Ham
Healthy Choice Deli Thin Honey Ham
Healthy Choice Deli Thin Honey Ham & Honey Roasted & Smoked Turkey Breast Variety Pack
Healthy Choice Deli Thin Honey Roasted & Smoked Turkey Breast
Healthy Choice Deli Thin Mesquite Turkey Breast
Healthy Choice Deli Thin Oven Roasted Chicken Breast
Healthy Choice Deli Thin Oven Roasted Turkey Breast
Healthy Choice Deli Thin Pastrami
Healthy Choice Deli Thin Smoked Ham
Healthy Choice Deli Thin Smoked Turkey Breast
Healthy Choice Deli-97% Fat Free Honey Ham
Healthy Choice Deli-97% Fat Free Honey Maple Ham
Healthy Choice Deli-97% Fat Free Medium Cooked Roast Beef-20% Marination
Healthy Choice Deli-97% Fat Free Mesquite Smoked Honey Ham
Healthy Choice Deli-97% Fat Free Roast Beef-20% Marination
Healthy Choice Deli-97% Fat Free Smoked Ham
Healthy Choice Deli-97% Fat Free Virginia Brand Ham
Healthy Choice Deli-98% Fat Free Browned Chicken Breast
Healthy Choice Deli-98% Fat Free Chicken Breast
Healthy Choice Deli-98% Fat Free Golden Oven Roasted Turkey Breast
Healthy Choice Deli-98% Fat Free Honey Roasted & Smoked Turkey Breast with Broth
Healthy Choice Deli-98% Fat Free Mesquite Smoked Chicken Breast
Healthy Choice Deli-98% Fat Free Mesquite Smoked Turkey Breast
Healthy Choice Deli-98% Fat Free Smoked Turkey Breast
Healthy Choice Deli-98% Fat Free Southwest Grill Turkey Breast
Healthy Choice Deli-Honey Cured Ham
Healthy Choice Deli-Honey Roasted & Smoked Turkey Breast
Healthy Choice Deli-Oven Roasted Chicken Breast
Healthy Choice Deli-Oven Roasted Turkey Breast
Healthy Choice Deli-Roast Beef-20% Marination
Healthy Choice Deli-Virginia Brand Cooked Ham
Healthy Choice Deluxe Thin-Sliced Baked Cooked Ham
Healthy Choice Deluxe Thin-Sliced Honey Ham
Healthy Choice Deluxe Thin-Sliced Honey Ham/Oven Roasted Turkey Breast Variety Pack
Healthy Choice Deluxe Thin-Sliced Oven Roasted Turkey Breast
Healthy Choice Honey Ham
Healthy Choice Low Fat Smoked Sausage
Healthy Choice Pre-Sliced Sandwich Solutions Roast Beef
Healthy Choice Pre-Sliced Sandwich Solutions Skinless Oven Roasted Turkey Breast
Healthy Choice Pre-Sliced Sandwich Solutions Skinless Smoked Turkey Breast
Healthy Choice Pre-Sliced Sandwich Solutions Virginia Brand Ham
Healthy Choice Virginia Brand Ham
Healthy Choice Zip Pack Cooked Ham
Healthy Choice Zip Pack Honey Ham
Healthy Choice Zip Pack Oven Roasted Chicken Breast
Healthy Choice Zip Pack Oven Roasted Turkey Breast
Hebrew National 97% Fat Free Beef Franks

ConAgra Retail Foods
Healthy Choice Hearty 100% Whole Grain Bread
Healthy Choice Hearty 7-Grain Bread

Coolham Holdings, Inc. DBA SunMilk Dairy Co.
SunMilk-Fat Free Milk with Sunflower Oil (The Taste of 1%)
SunMilk-Fat Free Milk with Sunflower Oil (The Taste of 2%)

Cooper Farms
Cooper Farms All Natural Turkey Breast Fillet

Crider, Inc.
Kirkland Signature Premium 99% Fat Free Chunk Chicken Breast

Dare Foods Incorporated
Breton Reduced Fat & Sodium Wheat Crackers

El Aguila Food Products, Inc.
El Aguila Stoneground Corn Tortillas

Eurofresh Inc.
Eurofresh Campari Tomatoes

FPL Foods, LLC
96/4 All Natural Extra Lean Ground Beef

Farmland Foods
Farmland 97% Fat Free Fresh Ground Pork
Farmland Nutrition Wise 97% Fat Free Boneless Center Cut Pork Loin Filet
Farmland Nutrition Wise Boneless Butterfly Cut Pork Loin Chops
Farmland Nutrition Wise Boneless Center Cut Pork Loin
Farmland Nutrition Wise Boneless Center Cut Pork Loin Chops
Farmland Nutrition Wise Boneless Center Cut Pork Loin Roast
Farmland Nutrition Wise Boneless Pork Chops - America's Cut
Farmland Nutrition Wise Boneless Pork Tenderloin
Farmland Nutrition Wise Boneless Pork Top Round Roast
Farmland Nutrition Wise Boneless Pork Top Round Steak
Farmland Nutrition Wise Boneless Sirloin Tip Pork Roast
Farmland Nutrition Wise Pork Cube Steak
Farmland Nutrition Wise Pork Cubes
Farmland Nutrition Wise Pork Scallopini
Farmland Nutrition Wise Pork Strips

Fieldale Farms Corporation
Jewel All Natural 99% Fat Free Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts with Rib Meat
Jewel All Natural 99% Fat Free Chicken Breast Tenders
Our Premium 98% Fat Free Boneless Skinless Breast with Rib Meat - 15% Marination
Springer Mountain Farms All Natural 98% Fat Free Boneless Skinless Breasts

Florida's Natural Growers
Florida's Natural Calcium & Vitamin D No Pulp Orange Juice
Florida's Natural Growers Style Most Pulp Orange Juice
Florida's Natural Home Squeezed Calcium & Vitamin D with Pulp Orange Juice
Florida's Natural Home Squeezed with Pulp Orange Juice
Florida's Natural Original No Pulp Orange Juice

FoodTech International
Veggie Patch California Veggie Burgers

Foster Poultry Farms
Foster Farms 98% Fat Free Honey Roasted & Smoked Breast of Turkey
Foster Farms 98% Fat Free Oven Roasted Breast of Turkey
Foster Farms 98% Fat Free Oven Roasted Chicken Breast
Foster Farms 99% Fat Free 100% Natural Boneless & Skinless Breast Fillets
Foster Farms 99% Fat Free 100% Natural Boneless & Skinless Breast Steaks
Foster Farms 99% Fat Free 100% Natural Boneless & Skinless Breast Tenders
Foster Farms 99% Fat Free Honey Roasted & Smoked Turkey Breast
Foster Farms 99% Fat Free Oven Roasted Turkey Breast
Foster Farms All Natural 99% Fat Free Boneless & Skinless Chicken Breast Tenders (8% Marination)
Foster Farms Fresh & Easy 99% Fat Free 100% Natural Boneless & Skinless Breast Fillets
Kirkland Signature/Foster Farms 99% Fat Free 100% Natural Boneless & Skinless Breasts
Kirkland Signature/Foster Farms All Natural 99% Fat Free Boneless & Skinless Chicken Breasts (8% Marination)

Fresh Express Incorporated
Chiquita Apple Bites
Fresh Express American Salad
Fresh Express Hearts of Romaine Salad
Fresh Express Italian Salad
Fresh Express Triple Hearts Salad

GFA Brands, Inc.
Smart Balance Smart 'N Healthy Deluxe Microwave Popcorn
Smart Beat Healthy Fat Free Non-Dairy Slices - American Flavor
Smart Beat Healthy Fat Free Non-Dairy Slices - Lactose Free
Smart Beat Smart Squeeze Nonfat Margarine Spread

General Mills, Inc.
Apple Cinnamon Cheerios
Berry Berry Kix
Berry Burst Cheerios-Strawberry Banana
Berry Burst Cheerios-Triple Berry
Berry Lucky Charms
Cheerios
Cheerios Crunch
Chocolate Lucky Charms
Cocoa Puffs
Cookie Crisp
Count Chocula
Dora The Explorer
Frosted Cheerios
Fruity Cheerios
Heart Smart Bisquick
Honey Nut Cheerios
Kix
Lucky Charms
Multi-Grain Cheerios
Oatmeal Crisp Crunchy Almond
Oatmeal Crisp Hearty Raisin
Oatmeal Crisp Maple Brown Sugar
Pillsbury Oven-Baked Whole Wheat Dinner Rolls
Progresso Healthy Favorites Chicken & Wild Rice Soup
Progresso Healthy Favorites Chicken Gumbo Soup
Progresso Healthy Favorites Chicken Noodle Soup
Progresso Healthy Favorites Garden Vegetable Soup
Progresso Healthy Favorites Italian-Style Wedding Soup
Progresso Healthy Favorites Minestrone Soup
Total Cranberry Crunch
Total Honey Clusters
Total Raisin Bran
Total with Strawberries
Trix
Whole Grain Total
Yogurt Burst Cheerios Strawberry
Yogurt Burst Cheerios Vanilla

Hain Celestial Group, Inc., The
DeBoles Organic Ancient Grain Penne
Health Valley Empower Cereal
Hodgson Mill, Inc.
Hodgson Mill Oat Bran All Natural Hot Cereal
Hodgson Mill Whole Wheat Angel Hair
Hodgson Mill Whole Wheat Fettuccine
Hodgson Mill Whole Wheat Lasagna
Hodgson Mill Whole Wheat Penne
Hodgson Mill Whole Wheat Spinach Spaghetti
Hodgson Mill Whole Wheat Whole Grain Elbows
Hodgson Mill Whole Wheat Whole Grain Spaghetti

Indiana Packers Corp.
Indiana Kitchen All Natural Boneless Pork Sirloin Roast
Indiana Kitchen All Natural Pork Tenderloin

Interstate Brands Corporation
Home Pride Whole Grains 100% Honey Whole Wheat Bread
Home Pride Whole Grains 100% Whole Wheat Bread
Merita Country Whole Grains 100% Whole Wheat Bread

KFP International, Ltd.
Kedem 100% Pure Concord Grape Juice-No Sugar Added

Kansas City Steak Company
Kansas City Seasoned Beef Chuck Tender Steak
Kansas City Seasoned Beef Medallions

Kashi Company
Kashi Heart to Heart Honey Oat Waffles
Kashi Heart to Heart Honey Toasted Cereal
Kashi Heart to Heart Instant Oatmeal - Apple Cinnamon
Kashi Heart to Heart Instant Oatmeal - Golden Brown Maple
Kashi Heart to Heart Instant Oatmeal - Raisin Spice
Kashi Heart to Heart Oat Flakes & Wild Blueberry Clusters

Kellogg USA, Inc.
Kellogg's All-Bran Bran Buds
Kellogg's All-Bran Extra Fiber
Kellogg's All-Bran Original
Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats - Strawberry Delight
Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats - Vanilla Creme
Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats Big Bite
Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats Bite Size
Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats Maple & Brown Sugar
Kellogg's Smart Start Antioxidants - Original
Kellogg's Smart Start Healthy Heart - Maple & Brown Sugar
Kellogg's Smart Start Healthy Heart - Original
Kellogg's Smart Start Healthy Heart Cinnamon Raisin

King Soopers
Ground Beef 96/4 Extra Lean

Kroger Company, The
Kroger Moist & Tender Silver Platter Pork Tenderloin

Laura's Lean Beef Company
Laura's Lean Beef - Beef Pot Roast Au Jus
Laura's Lean Beef - Shredded Beef with Barbecue Sauce
Laura's Lean Beef 4% Fat Ground Round
Laura's Lean Beef 4% Ground Sirloin
Laura's Lean Beef Sirloin Steak

LiDestri Foods, Inc.
Francesco Rinaldi No Salt Added Traditional Pasta Sauce

Lido Veal & Lamb Inc.
Veal USA Boneless Veal Shoulder Roast from Lido Veal
Veal USA Low Fat Ground Veal from Lido Veal
Veal USA Veal Leg Cutlets from Lido Veal
Veal USA Veal Stew from Lido Veal

M & I Seafood Manufacturing Inc.
Chesapeake Bay Gourmet Crab Cakes

MW Polar Foods
Polar All Natural Chunk Light Tuna in Water
Polar All Natural Solid White Albacore in Water
Polar Chunk Light Tuna in Water
Polar Solid White Albacore Tuna in Water

Malt-O-Meal Company
Malt-O-Meal Balance
Malt-O-Meal Crispy Rice
Malt-O-Meal Frosted Mini Spooners
Malt-O-Meal Honey & Oat Blenders
Malt-O-Meal Honey Nut Scooters
Malt-O-Meal Hot Wheat Cereal - Chocolate
Malt-O-Meal Hot Wheat Cereal - Maple & Brown Sugar
Malt-O-Meal Hot Wheat Cereal - Original
Malt-O-Meal Maple & Brown Sugar Mini Spooners
Malt-O-Meal Mom's Best 100% Natural Quick Oats
Malt-O-Meal Mom's Best Instant Oatmeal - Apples & Cinnamon
Malt-O-Meal Mom's Best Instant Oatmeal - Maple & Brown Sugar
Malt-O-Meal Mom's Best Instant Oatmeal Variety Pack - Maple & Brown Sugar/Apples & Cinnamon/Cinnamon & Spice
Malt-O-Meal Raisin Bran
Malt-O-Meal Scooters

Maple Leaf Consumer Foods
Maple Leaf Sodium Reduced 98% Fat Free Cooked Ham with Natural Juices

Maverick Ranch Association
Maverick Ranch 96/4 Extra Lean Grass Fed Organic Ground Beef
Maverick Ranch 96/4 Extra Lean Natural Ground Buffalo
Maverick Ranch 96/4 Extra Lean Natural Ground Pork Sirloin
Maverick Ranch Free-Range Chicken-All Natural Air Chilled Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast
Maverick Ranch NaturaLite 96/4 Extra Lean Ground Beef Round
Maverick Ranch NaturaLite Beef - 96/4 Extra Lean Ground Beef Chuck
Maverick Ranch NaturaLite Beef - 96/4 Extra Lean Ground Beef Sirloin
Maverick Ranch Natural Beef Cubed Steak
Maverick Ranch Natural Beef Top Sirloin Steak
Maverick Ranch Natural Buffalo Top Sirloin Steak
Maverick Ranch Natural Center Cut Pork Loin Chops
Maverick Ranch Natural Lite 96/4 Extra Lean Natural Ground Beef
Maverick Ranch Natural Pork 4% Fat Extra Lean Pork Tenderloin
Maverick Ranch Natural Skinless Chicken Drumsticks
Maverick Ranch Natural Skinless Chicken Thighs
Maverick Ranch Organic Air-Chilled Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts

Mayoli Inc.
Mayoli All Natural Reduced Fat Mayonnaise Dressing with Pure Olive Oil

McNeil Nutritionals, LLC
LACTAID® Calcium-Fortified Fat Free Milk
LACTAID® Fat Free Milk

Meijer Distribution, Inc.
Meijer Purple Grape Juice

Michael Foods, Inc.
All Whites Egg Whites - White Cheddar
Better 'n Eggs Ham & Cheese
Better 'n Eggs Plus
Better 'n Eggs Three Cheese
Kirkland Signature Egg Starts
Kroger Break-Free 100% Liquid Egg Whites
Kroger Break-Free Real Egg Product
Papetti Foods All Whites - 100% Liquid Egg Whites
Papetti Foods Better 'n Eggs

Mills Family Farms
Mills Family Farms Green Cascade Mix-Baby Romaine & Baby Green Leaf
Mills Family Farms Wholeaves Sandwich & Salad Lettuce - Green Leaf
Mills Family Farms Wholeaves Sandwich & Salad Lettuce - Red Leaf
Mills Family Farms Wholeaves Sandwich & Salad Lettuce - Romaine
Milton's Baking Company
Milton's Baking Classics Cinnamon Raisin Wheat Bread
Milton's Baking Classics Corn Bread
Milton's Baking Classics Oat Bran Bread
Milton's Baking Classics Wheat Bread
Milton's Healthy Multi-Grain Plus Bread
Milton's Healthy Whole Grain Plus Bread
Milton's Original Healthy Multi-Grain Bread
Milton's Whole Grains 100% Whole Wheat Bread

Motts LLP
Yoo-hoo Lite Chocolate Drink

Murray's Free Roaming Chicken, Inc.
Murray's Extra Lean 99% Fat Free Boneless & Skinless Chicken

New World Pasta Company
Ronzoni Healthy Harvest Multi-Grain Pasta-Fusilli
Ronzoni Healthy Harvest Multigrain Pasta - Spaghetti Style
Ronzoni Healthy Harvest Whole Wheat Blend Extra Wide Noodle - Style
Ronzoni Healthy Harvest Whole Wheat Blend Pasta - Linguine
Ronzoni Healthy Harvest Whole Wheat Blend Pasta - Penne Rigate
Ronzoni Healthy Harvest Whole Wheat Blend Pasta - Rotini
Ronzoni Healthy Harvest Whole Wheat Blend Pasta - Spaghetti Style
Ronzoni Healthy Harvest Whole Wheat Blend Pasta - Thin Spaghetti
Ronzoni Healthy Harvest Whole Wheat Blend Pasta-Lasagna
Ronzoni Healthy Harvest Whole Wheat Blend Wide Noodle - Style

Nonna's Kitchen, Inc.
Columbus Reduced Sodium Turkey Breast

North American Beverage Company
Chocolate Moose - All Natural Premium Milk Chocolate Drink
Chocolate Moose - Cookies & Cream Premium Milk Chocolate Drink
Mega Moose Energy Drink-Strawberry Blast

Nulaid Foods Inc.
Nulaid ReddiEgg Real Egg Product

Oberto Sausage Company
Kirkland Signature Premium Brisket Roast Beef

Old Orchard Brands LLC
Old Orchard 100% Grape Juice
Old Orchard 100% Grape Juice - Frozen Concentrate

POM Wonderful, LLC
POM Wonderful Fresh Pomegranate Arils
POM Wonderful Frozen Pomegranate Arils
POM Wonderful Pomegranates

Packerland Processing Co., Inc.
Meijer Extra Lean Ground Beef 96/4

Peco Foods, Inc.
Member's Mark All Natural Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts with Rib Meat
Member's Mark All Natural Boneless Skinless Chicken Tenderloins

Pepperidge Farm, Inc.
Pepperidge Farm 100% Natural 100% Whole Wheat Bread
Pepperidge Farm 100% Natural 9 Grain Bread
Pepperidge Farm 100% Natural German Dark Wheat Bread
Pepperidge Farm 100% Natural Honey Flax Bread
Pepperidge Farm 100% Whole Wheat Bagels
Pepperidge Farm 100% Whole Wheat English Muffins
Pepperidge Farm 100% Whole Wheat Hearty Texture Whole Grain Bread
Pepperidge Farm 100% Whole Wheat Mini Bagels
Pepperidge Farm 15 Grain Hearty Texture Whole Grain Bread
Pepperidge Farm Farmhouse Soft 100% Whole Wheat Bread
Pepperidge Farm Golden Harvest Grains Hearty Texture Whole Grain Bread
Pepperidge Farm Light Style 7 Grain Bread
Pepperidge Farm Light Style Soft Wheat Bread
Pepperidge Farm Oatmeal Hearty Texture Whole Grain Bread
Pepperidge Farm Soft Honey Oat Smooth Texture Whole Grain Bread
Pepperidge Farm Soft Honey Whole Wheat Smooth Texture Whole Grain Bread
Pepperidge Farm Very Thin Soft 100% Whole Wheat Bread
Pepperidge Farm Whole Grain Multi-Grain Bagels
Pepperidge Farm Whole Grain Swirl Bread - Cinnamon
Pepperidge Farm Whole Grain Swirl Bread - Cinnamon with Raisins

Perdue Farms, Inc.
Perdue Individually Frozen All Natural 99% Fat Free Chicken Tenderloins
Perdue Tender & Tasty 99% Fat Free Individually Frozen Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts
Perdue Tender & Tasty 99% Fat Free Individually Wrapped Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts
Perdue/Kirkland Signature Individually Frozen All Natural 99% Fat Free Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
Eat Well Stay Healthy Chicken Breast Salad
Eat Well Stay Healthy Fresh Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts with Rib Meat (15% Chicken Broth)
Eat Well Stay Healthy Fresh Boneless Skinless Chicken Thin Sliced Breasts with Rib Meat (15% Chicken Broth)
Eat Well Stay Healthy Fresh Chicken Breast Tenderloins (15% Chicken Broth)
Eat Well Stay Healthy Fully Cooked Rotisserie Skinless Chicken Split Breasts - Garden Herb
Gold Kist Farms 100% Natural 99% Fat Free Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast
Gold Kist Farms All Natural 99% Fat Free Boneless Skinless Breasts
Gold Kist Farms/Kirkland Signature All Natural 99% Fat Free Boneless Skinless Breasts
HyVee/Country Pride 97% Fat Free Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast Fillets with Rib Meat (15% Chicken Broth)
HyVee/Country Pride 97% Fat Free Skinless Split Chicken Breasts with Ribs (12% Chicken Broth)
HyVee/Country Pride 99% Fat Free Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast Tenderloins (15% Chicken Broth)
Meijer Fresh Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast Tenderloins (15% Marination)
Meijer Fresh Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts with Rib Meat (15% Marination)
Pilgrim's Pride Eat Well Stay Healthy Grilled Chicken Breast Fillets
Pilgrim's Pride Eat Well Stay Healthy Grilled Chicken Breast Strips
Pilgrim's Pride Eat Well Stay Healthy Italian Style Grilled Chicken Breast Fillets
Pilgrim's Pride Eat Well Stay Healthy Key Lime Flavor Chicken Breast Fillets
Pilgrim's Pride Eat Well Stay Healthy Kids Fully Cooked Breaded Chicken Nuggets
Pilgrim's Pride Eat Well Stay Healthy Kids Fully Cooked Breaded Popcorn Chicken
Pilgrim's Pride Eat Well Stay Healthy Lemon Herb Chicken Breast Fillets
Pilgrim's Pride Eat Well Stay Healthy Savory Chicken Breast Fillets
Pilgrim's Pride Eat Well Stay Healthy Szechwan Chicken Breast Tenderloins
Pilgrim's Pride Fresh Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts with Rib Meat Individually Wrapped (15% Chicken Broth)
Pilgrim's Pride Fresh Chicken 100% Natural Boneless Skinless Breasts with Rib Meat
Pilgrim's Pride Fresh Chicken 100% Natural Boneless Skinless Breasts with Rib Meat (15% Chicken Broth)
Pilgrim's Pride Fresh Chicken 100% Natural Breast Tenderloins
Pilgrim's Pride Fresh Chicken 100% Natural Breast Tenderloins (15% Chicken Broth)
Pilgrim's Pride Fresh Chicken 100% Natural Skinless Split Breasts with Ribs
Pilgrim's Pride Fresh Chicken 100% Natural Skinless Split Breasts with Ribs (12% Chicken Broth)
Pilgrim's Pride Fresh Chicken Breast Tenderloins Individually Wrapped (15% Chicken Broth)
Pilgrim's Pride Individually Frozen Fully Trimmed 99% Fat Free All Natural Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts (15% Chicken Broth)
Schnucks 99% Fat Free Chicken Breast Tenderloins
Schnucks 99% Fat Free Skinless Chicken Breast Fillets
Schnucks 99% Fat Free Thin Sliced Skinless Chicken Breast Fillets

Quaker Oats Company/Tropicana Products, Inc., The
Crystal Wedding Oats
Old-Fashioned Quaker Oats
Quaker Cinnamon Life
Quaker Essentials Oat Bran
Quaker Essentials Oatmeal Squares - Brown Sugar
Quaker Essentials Oatmeal Squares - Cinnamon
Quaker Essentials Toasted Oatmeal - Brown Sugar
Quaker Essentials Toasted Oatmeal - Honey Nut
Quaker Honey Graham Life
Quaker Instant Oatmeal - Apple Crisp
Quaker Instant Oatmeal - Apples & Cinnamon
Quaker Instant Oatmeal - Cinnamon & Spice
Quaker Instant Oatmeal - Cinnamon Roll
Quaker Instant Oatmeal - Flavor Variety
Quaker Instant Oatmeal - Maple & Brown Sugar
Quaker Instant Oatmeal - Raisins & Spice
Quaker Instant Oatmeal - Regular Flavor
Quaker Instant Oatmeal Bakery Favorites Variety Pack (Apple Crisp/Cinnamon Roll/Banana Bread)
Quaker Instant Oatmeal Crunch - Apples & Cinnamon
Quaker Instant Oatmeal Crunch - Magicolor Cinnamon
Quaker Instant Oatmeal Crunch - Maple & Brown Sugar
Quaker Instant Oatmeal Crunch - Mixed Berry
Quaker Instant Oatmeal Lower Sugar - Apples & Cinnamon
Quaker Life
Quaker Life Chocolate Oat Crunch
Quaker MultiGrain Hot Cereal
Quaker Oat Bran Hot Cereal
Quaker Take Heart Instant Oatmeal - Blueberry
Quaker Take Heart Instant Oatmeal - Golden Maple
Quick 1 Minute Quaker Oats
Tropicana Pure Premium Calcium + Vitamin D No Pulp Orange Juice
Tropicana Pure Premium Fiber Some Pulp Orange Juice
Tropicana Pure Premium Golden No Pulp Grapefruit Juice
Tropicana Pure Premium Grovestand Calcium + Vitamin D Lots of Pulp Orange Juice
Tropicana Pure Premium Grovestand Lots of Pulp Orange Juice
Tropicana Pure Premium Healthy Heart No Pulp Orange Juice with Omega 3
Tropicana Pure Premium Homestyle Some Pulp Orange Juice
Tropicana Pure Premium Light 'n Healthy Calcium No Pulp Orange Juice
Tropicana Pure Premium Light 'n Healthy Calcium No Pulp Orange Juice
Tropicana Pure Premium Low Acid No Pulp Orange Juice
Tropicana Pure Premium Original No Pulp Orange Juice
Tropicana Pure Premium Ruby Red Some Pulp Grapefruit Juice

R.A.B. Food Group LLC
Manischewitz Premium 100% Grape Juice

Rader Farms, Inc.
Rader Farms Nature's Three Berries

Red Gold, LLC
Sacramento Tomato Juice from Concentrate with Enhanced Tomato Flavor

Ruprecht Company
Sommers 100% Organic Extra Lean Beef Burgers

Sal & Judy's Products, LLC
Sal & Judy's Heart Smart Italian Sauce

Sealord North America, Inc.
Sealord Deep Sea Dory Fillets
Sealord Orange Roughy Fillets

Setton International Foods, Inc.
Setton Farms Heart Healthy Mix

Simmons Foods, Inc.
Member's Mark All Natural 99% Fat Free Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast

Smithfield Lean Generation Cuts
SLG: All Natural Pork Tenderloin
SLG: Marinated Hickory Sweet Center Cut Boneless Pork Loin
SLG: Marinated Hickory Sweet Pork Chops
SLG: Marinated Hickory Sweet Pork Loin Filet
SLG: Marinated Hickory Sweet Pork Tenderloin
SLG: Marinated Peppercorn & Garlic Pork Tenderloin
SLG: Marinated Pork Loin Fillet - Peppercorn & Garlic
SLG: Self-Basting Boneless Pork Loin Center Cut Chops
SLG: Self-Basting Boneless Whole Pork Loin
SLG: Self-Basting Pork Tenderloin

Smithfield Lean Generation Deli
SLG Deli: 98% Fat Free Canadian Brand Maple Ham
SLG Deli: 98% Fat Free Cooked Ham
SLG Deli: 98% Fat Free Honey Cured Ham
SLG Deli: 98% Fat Free Tavern Ham
SLG Deli: 98% Fat Free Virginia Brand Ham

Smithfield Premium Cuts
Smithfield: Self-Basting Pork Tenderloin

Solis Brands, Inc.
ZOIC Belgian Chocolate Nutrition Drink
ZOIC French Vanilla Nutrition Drink

Springerhill Ranch Meat Products
Springerhill Ranch Brand All Natural 98% Fat Free Beef Tenderloin Steaks
Springerhill Ranch Brand All Natural Ground Beef-98% Lean 2% Fat

StarKist Seafood Company
StarKist Chunk Light Tuna in Water
StarKist Chunk White Albacore Tuna in Water
StarKist Gourmet Choice Albacore Tuna Fillet in Water
StarKist Gourmet Choice Chunk Light Tuna in Water
StarKist Gourmet Choice Solid Light Tuna Fillet in Water
StarKist Low Sodium Chunk Light Tuna in Water
StarKist Solid White Albacore Tuna in Water
StarKist Very Low Sodium Chunk White Albacore Tuna in Water

Sunrise Growers, Inc.
Sunrise Growers California Strawberries

Swift Foods dba Swift & Company
Extra Lean Ground Pork
Swift Boneless Pork Sirloin Cutlets
Swift Natural Fresh Pork-Boneless Pork Center Cut Loin Chops
Swift Natural Fresh Pork-Boneless Pork Leg for London Broil
Swift Natural Fresh Pork-Boneless Pork Top Loin Roast
Swift Natural Fresh Pork-Pork Strips for Barbecue
Swift Pork Center Cut Loin
Swift Pork Sirloin Tip Roast
Swift Pork Tenderloin
Swift Premium Guaranteed Tender Pork-Boneless Bottom Round
Swift Premium Guaranteed Tender Pork-Boneless Center Cut Loin Chops
Swift Premium Guaranteed Tender Pork-Boneless Pork Loin Filet
Swift Premium Guaranteed Tender Pork-Boneless Pork Tenderloin
Swift Premium Guaranteed Tender Pork-Boneless Sirloin Cutlets
Swift Premium Guaranteed Tender Pork-Boneless Strips for Barbecue
Swift Premium Guaranteed Tender Pork-Pork Top Round
Swift/Kirkland Signature Pork Sirloin Tip Roast
Trader Joe's Butcher Shop - Pork Sirloin Tri Tip
Trader Joe's Butcher Shop Boneless Center Cut Pork Loin Cutlets
Trader Joe's Butcher Shop Natural Pork-Boneless Pork Loin Chops
Trader Joe's Butcher Shop Natural Pork-Pork Shoulder Boneless Strips
Trader Joe's Butcher Shop-Pork Tenderloin

T. J. Kraft, Ltd.
Hawaiian Pacific Ahi Tuna Steaks

Taylor Packing Co., Inc.
Century Farm 96/4 Extra Lean Ground Beef

The Baker
The Baker 7-Grain Sourdough Whole Wheat Bread

Thumann's Inc
Thumann's All Natural Black Forest Brand Ham
Thumann's All Natural Capless Roast Beef
Thumann's All Natural Oven Roasted Gourmet Chicken Breast
Thumann's All Natural Oven Roasted Gourmet Turkey Breast
Thumann's Buffalo Style Oven Roasted Chicken Breast
Thumann's Capless Roast Beef
Thumann's Golden Roasted Filet of Turkey - Rotisserie Flavor
Thumann's Golden Roasted Gourmet Turkey
Thumann's Our Short Cut Deluxe Cooked Ham - Lower Sodium
Thumann's Oven Roasted Premium Chicken Breast

Tony Downs Foods Company
Member's Mark 98% Fat Free Premium Chunk Chicken Breast in Water

Topco Associates, LLC
Food Club Individually Frozen Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts-15% Seasoned Chicken Broth
Food Club Individually Frozen Chicken Tenderloins-15% Seasoned Chicken Broth

Tumaro's Inc.
Tumaro's Chipotle Chili & Peppers Healthy Flour Tortillas
Tumaro's Garden Spinach & Vegetables Healthy Flour Tortillas
Tumaro's Honey Wheat Healthy Flour Tortillas
Tumaro's Jalapeno & Cilantro Healthy Flour Tortillas
Tumaro's Pesto & Garlic Healthy Flour Tortillas
Tumaro's Premium White Healthy Flour Tortillas
Tumaro's Sun-Dried Tomato & Basil Healthy Flour Tortillas

Tyson Foods, Inc.
Tastybird Individually Frozen Chicken-Boneless, Skinless Breast Portions with Rib Meat
Tastybird Individually Quick Frozen Chicken-Boneless, Skinless Tenderloins
Tyson 100% All Natural Thin 'N Fancy Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts with Rib Meat (<3% Water)
Tyson 100% All Natural Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts with Rib Meat (<1%/,2% Water)
Tyson 100% All Natural Boneless Skinless Chicken Thighs (15% Natural Chicken Broth)
Tyson 100% All Natural Chicken Breast Tenderloins (15% Natural Chicken Broth)
Tyson 100% All Natural Chicken Breast Tenderloins (<1% Water)
Tyson 100% All Natural Premium Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts with Rib Meat (15% Natural Chicken Broth)
Tyson 100% All Natural Skinless Split Chicken Breasts with Ribs (12% Natural Chicken Broth)
Tyson 100% All Natural Skinless Split Chicken Breasts with Ribs (>3% Water)
Tyson 100% All Natural Thin 'N Fancy Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts with Rib Meat (15% Natural Chicken Broth)
Tyson Ice Glazed Chicken Individually Frozen 99% Fat Free Boneless, Skinless Breast Tenderloins (8% Seasoned Chicken Broth)
Tyson Individually Fresh Frozen All Natural 99% Fat Free Boneless Skinless Chicken Tenderloins (8% Water & Kosher Salt)
Tyson Individually Fresh Frozen Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts with Rib Meat (15% Chicken Broth)
Tyson Individually Fresh Frozen Chicken Tenderloins (15% Chicken Broth)
Tyson Individually Frozen 100% All Natural Individually Wrapped Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts (15% Natural Chicken Broth)
Tyson Individually Frozen All Natural 99% Fat Free Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast Tenderloins (8% Chicken Broth)
Tyson Individually Frozen All Natural Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts with Rib Meat (8% Broth Glaze & 15% Seasoned Chicken Broth)
Tyson Individually Frozen All Natural Extra Lean Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast with Rib Meat (8% Chicken Broth)
Tyson Individually Frozen Boneless Skinless Chicken Breasts with Rib Meat (15% Chicken Broth)
Tyson/Kirkland Signature All Natural 99% Fat Free Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast (8% Water & Kosher Salt)
Tyson/Tastybird Individually Frozen Boneless Skinless Breasts with Rib Meat (10% Seasoned Chicken Broth)
Tyson/Tastybird Individually Frozen Chicken-Boneless Skinless Breasts with Rib Meat (10% Natural Chicken Broth)

Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.
100% Pure Extra Lean Ground Beef 96/4
96/4 All Natural Extra Lean Ground Beef

United Food Group, LLC
Miller's 100% Pure Ground Beef - 4% Fat
Moran's All Natural 4% Fat 100% Ground Beef Hamburger Patties
Moran's All Natural 4% Fat Ground Beef
Trader Joe's Butcher Shop 4% Fat Ground Beef

Welch Foods, Inc.
Welch's 100% Grape Juice (Purple)
Welch's 100% Grape Juice (Purple) - Frozen Concentrate
Welch's 100% Grape Juice (Purple) - Pourable Concentrate
Welch's 100% Grape Juice Calcium (Purple)
Welch's 100% Grape Juice with Fiber
Welch's Organic 100% Concord Grape Juice
Welch's Organic 100% Concord Grape Juice - Frozen Concentrate

West Liberty Foods, LLC
Honey Roasted & Smoked Breast of Turkey - 98% Fat Free
Kirkland Signature All Natural Fully Cooked Sliced Turkey Breast
Oven Roasted Breast of Turkey Browned in Soybean Oil - 98% Fat Free

I'm very troubled by the American Heart Association's (AHA) willingness to lend its logo and stamp of approval to a multitude of garbage foods like Cocoa Puffs and Berry Kix cereals.

So I contacted the AHA and spoke to the manager of the Food Certification Program, Ms. Linda Rupp. Ms. Rupp proved very helpful in helping me to understand.

I originally called her to find out just how many products were turned down. In view of 768 products on the approved list, I wondered how many had been rejected to generate this "select" group.

Unfortunately, she said that the number of products rejected was not tracked, though she did intimate that it was not a lot. Sometimes, she added, a rejected product will undergo a few "improvements" to help it achieve the criteria necessary for AHA approval.

What exactly is considered in an application for the Food Certification Program?

A food must have 1)total fat 3.0 grams or less, 2) saturated fat 1.0 gram or less, 3) 20 grams or less cholesterol, 4) 480 mg or less sodium, all per serving.

She also pointed out that, given the fact that a food as useless and lacking in health qualitites as jelly beans could meet this criteria, the AHA employs a special "Jelly Bean Rule" that stipulates that 10% of the Daily Value of 6 nutrients (e.g., fiber, vitamins A and C, etc.) must also be contained in a serving.

So those are the startlingly lax requirements to gain the privilege of affixing the AHA Heart Check Mark on your product and informing the public that your box of Cocoa Puffs, Cookie Crisp cereal, or Berry Kix is "heart healthy."

There is an epidemic of obesity in the U.S. I don't believe that the AHA endorsement helps. In fact, I believe that it has been a contributor to obesity.

Pardon me while I eat this bag of M&M's for my heart.

Stan did everything right.

He followed the Track Your Plaque "Rule of 60". He was slender, had run a marathon a few months earlier, in fact. He included fish oil at therapeutic doses. He replenished vitamin D to a blood level of 57 ng/ml 25-OH-vitamin D3. Though ambitious and hard-working, he was a generally happy, optimistic person.

Yet his CT heart scan score increased 28% in one year, from a starting score of 379 to 485.

What did he do wrong?

Well, Stan did nothing wrong. But I suggested to him that one "hole" in his program could be exercise-induced high blood pressure. I've witnessed this effect many times. Blood pressure normal or "borderline" high while seated and relaxed, sky-high with exercise.

So we put Stan on a treadmill. Starting blood pressure: 123/76. Blood pressure with exericse (13 mets): 220/78--sky high. That's why Stan's heart scan score went up. A good pressure with this level of exercise: 150/70, but certainly no higher than 170/80.

If blood pressure is high with exercise, it's probably high with emotional upset, anxiety, being in a hurry, etc., also, all the irritations and pressures of life.

We'll see in future how much of a role reducing Stan's blood pressure will play in gaining better control over his heart scan score. A practical difficulty will be in assessing the adequacy of blood pressure control in Stan, since its full potential only becomes evident with exerise. It means that future blood pressure assessments are more likely to be on a treadmill.

It would also explain why Stan's thoracic aorta was mildly enlarged and his aortic valve was mildly leaky when I met him, both potential consequences of intermittent high blood pressure.

If you've been following the Track Your Plaque conversation, you know that, contrary to prevailing opinion among many cardiologists, there is an emerging notion that coronary calcification is an active process, a true part of the disease.

Vitamin D3 is an important aspect of this question. So is vitamin K2. Not to be confused with K1 that plays a role in blood coagulation, K2 has an important role in calcium metabolism. Thus, vitmain K2 deficiency is related to osteoporosis and to coronary calcification.

Getting K2, like getting D, is difficult from food sources. The choices for K2 sources includes:

--Natto--generally, an impalatable choice. I've had it and it was intolerably gooey and weird-tasting. It is, nonetheless, the most concentrated food source of K2.

--Pate--Though liver products have the potential for containing many other unhealthy things, like pesticide residues, since the liver acts as a filter for the blood.

--Fermented cheeses--Since K2 is a product of fermentation of cheese, as it is in Natto.

For years, we've advised people to avoid or minimize cheese because of saturated fat or cholesterol content. I think that there's reason to re-think this advice based on the emerging data.

How can you tell the difference between fermented and non-fermented cheese? First, look for the holes in the cheese. The holes are the remnants of gas pockets created during fermentation. Second, look for the word "cultures" on the label, meaning organisms for fermentation were added. If "processed cheese" is anywhere on the label, this is a dairy product that has been chemically coagulated and is not fermented.

Fermented cheeses are generally "gourmet" cheeses, not eaten a pound at a time on a pizza, but meant to be eaten in small portions.

How much fermented cheese is necessary for its presumed inhibitory benefits on coronary calcification and osteoporsis? Are some fermented cheeses better than others? These issues remain unsettled. Stay tuned.

Anyone following the Track Your Plaque conversation know that we are rabid fans of normalizing blood vitamin D blood levels (25-OH-vitamin D3).

A wonderful report on vitamin D was aired this morning on the NBC Today show. The interviewed guests did a good job of describing the health effects of vitamin D, thought the focus was on some new data on the use of vitamin D for breast and prostate cancer.

I learned that shiitake mushrooms have some vitamin D--I didn't know that! (They contain 260 units per 4 mushrooms.)

Unfortunately, the closing comments from the guests, among whom was nutritionist and author, Joy Bauer,MS, was that you should get vitamin D from your multivitamin or your calcium with vit D.

That is absolutely wrong. When you check blood levels of vitamin D, as we do in everybody we see, you quickly learn what works and what doesn't.

Vitamin D in multivitamins is very poorly absorbed, if at all. Likewise, about 90% of the D in most calcium preparations is not absorbed. The vast majority of tablet or powder preparations, such as those in calcium tablets, are not absorbed to any significant extent. Take all you want and you remain vit D-deficient with osteoporosis, growing coronary plaque, low HDL, and exposed to risk for prostate and colon cancer.

If you take vitamin D in supplement form, it must--MUST--be in an oil-based capsule. The tablets are simply much too poorly and erratically absorbed to be reliable. There's nothing more frustrating to take, for instance, 4000 units of vitamin D in tablet form, only to have a blood level of 12 ng/ml--severe deficiency. Take the same 4000 unit dose in capsule form and blood level skyrockets to 58 ng/ml. And it's no more expensive.

One other thing: If you want to waste time and money, take the prescription vitamin D prescribed by many doctors. This is vitamin D2, also known as "ergocalciferol". Why use the synthetic vitamin D2 when D3 is the form your body needs? Because the D2 is patent-protectable and profitable to the drug manufacturer, similar to using Premarin (horse estrogens) when human preparations would suffice--or be superior. I saw a woman today taking 50,000 of prescription D2 once per week. Her blood level of 25-OH-vitamin D3? 17 ng/ml--severe deficiency. Don't waste your time with this garbage.

I am continually amazed at the amount of time and energy we all expend in the search for truth.

Rely on your hospital and you will be steered towards strategies that, at worst, aim to increase your use of hospital procedures. At best, they steer you towards physicians who are often under their employ.

How about your doctor? This is a source of immense frustration. Doctors remain interested in treating the catastrophic illness. They remain lukewarm towards prevention and self-empowerment. Thus, supplements are dangerous, everything requires a doctor's endorsement.

Drug companies? That's like relying on a used car salesman for truth. Exagerration, slick talk, and plain deception might be better descriptions of what you can count on from the drug manufacturers.

The internet? Perhaps, if you're selective. WebMD? An obvious voice-box for the drug industry. Just look at the proliferation of drugs ads that accompany each report. In fact, the majority (80%) of WebMD's revenues come from drug manufacturers.

The profit motive has created a mountain of good information. It has also created a sea of mis-information, all created to provide personal financial enrichment.

But I continue to be optimistic that the internet will also become a forum for truth, particularly through its capacity for networked interaction among participants. As our collective wisdom permits us to more effectively separate the wheat from the chaff in looking for the truth, I believe that we will zigzag towards a system of healthcare that is self-empowering, self-directed, and resorts to hospitals and procedures only in the most dire circumstances, saving billions of dollars every year.

The American Heart Association (AHA) has a program called the Heart-Check Mark, an "approval" process that permits a food manufacturer to affix the AHA logo and stamp of approval on various food products.

A company simply makes application to the AHA. The application and product details are reviewed and then approved or turned down.

To date, 106 companies have obtained the AHA stamp of approval on 768 products. What kinds of products are on the approved list? Here's a sample:

--Honey Bunches of Oats

--Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats

--Cocoa Puffs cereal

--Cookie Crisp cereal ("The great taste of chocolate chips in every bite!")

There are 764 others. If you doubt this, just go to the store and take a look at the product containers.

What the heck is going on here? Most of us with any judgment know that these products are pure sugar. They may contain "no more" than 15-40 grams sugar per sugar, but the principal products--corn, wheat, fructose--mean that these products are, in effect, nearly pure sugar. Yet they carry the AHA stamp of approval.

What do products like this cause? It's a long list but the major effects include:

--Obesity

--Diabetes

--Drop in HDL

--Rise in triglycerides

--Small LDL particles

--Heightened inflammation (i.e., C-reactive protein)

--Mental cloudiness

Need I go on? Why are products like these and many others deserving of the AHA heart-check approval? Because they lack high fat and saturated fat (3.0 grams, 1.0 grams respectively, by AHA criteria). In other words, just lacking these ingredients means that, to the AHA, they qualify as "heart healthy."

By that same line of reasoning, many candy bars are "heart healthy", as are many cookies and cupcakes.

What's the reason behind this extraordinary absurdity? Is the AHA stupid?

There may be many reasons, but one very suspicious fact becomes immediately obvious when you realize these endorsements product a substantial revenue source for the AHA, since companies must pay for the right to use the heart-check approval mark. Also, just look at the major contributors (millions of dollars) to the AHA: ConAgra, General Mills, Kraft, etc.) You get the picture.

Does this make the AHA evil? Not necessarily. But it seriously erodes credibility. it also should make you very leery of any advice that comes from such an agency that is reluctant to bite the food manufacturer hands that feed it.

In my view, we simply cannot rely on the AHA for genuine, unbiased heart health advice.

Charles was visibly confused.

He'd gotten his CT heart scan after hearing one of the local scan center's ads on the radio. His score 2773, obviously in the 99th percentile for any age.

"Do you think the score means anything? My primary doctor said that it was meaningless because it was all in the deep wall of the artery. He said that it has nothing to do with risk for heart attack. As long as I feel good, he says don't do anything."

What exactly did his doctor mean, in the "deep wall of the artery"?

What the doctor is referring to is the fact that some people with a long history (many years) of diabetes or kidney failure (also for many years) tend to develop calcium deposits in the media, or muscular layer of arteries. The media is the tissue thin layer just below the intima, the most inner layer of arteries that we usually associate with atherosclerotic plaque and the layer that is most prone to calcium accumulation that we score on heart scans.

Aging, generally into your late 70s, 80s, and onwards, also increases the likelihood of medial calcification. Lastly, longstanding deficiency of vitamin D encourages medial calcification.

Is there any way to distinguish intimal vs medial calcification on a heart scan? No, there is not. Having read many thousands of CT heart scans, I can tell you that there is no practical way in 2007 to tell the difference.

Then how did this doctor "know" that Charles' calcium was "deep walled" or medial? Simple: He didn't. This was yet another example of ignorance based on old thinking. Unfortunately, he did Charles a serious disservice by dismissing his heart scan score that predicted a 25% per year risk for heart attack.

Interestingly, whether calcium is intimal as in atherosclerotic plaque, or medial, both are strongly associated with risk for heart attack. In other words, if calcium is confined to the intima, heart disease risk is present. If calcium is limited to the media, risk is still present.

In all practicality, the only difference we make of the intima vs. media argument (that is, when the distinction has been made by some other means like intracoronary ultrasound, the test that is truly necessary to distinguish the two patterns) is that medial calcification may be more powerfully related to vitamin D deficiency. Thus, someone with heavy medial calcification may require closer attention to maintaining a perfect year-round blood level of 25-OH-vitamin D3. But that's the only practical difference.

"My primary care doctor said to stop the vitamin D because it's toxic. So I stopped it and I just take a multivitamin. He said that a multivitamin and two glasses of milk a day was all I needed."

So proclaimed Eleanor to me. This happens around once every week by doctors frightened of the vitamin D.

So I reminded Eleanor that, before starting vitamin D supplementation, her blood level of 25-OH-vitamin D3 had been 17 ng/ml--severe deficiency.

On 4000 units per day (oil-based gelcap), her blood level had been 37 ng/ml--still deficient, below the desirable range of 50-60 ng/ml. That's the dose Eleanor's doctor had declared "toxic."

When exactly does deficiency develop? There's not full agreement on this, but Dr. Michael Holick of Boston University, among the most experienced and insightful authorities on vitamin D, states that toxicity is more likely when blood levels exceed 150 ng/ml (Nutr Clin Pract. 2007 Jun;22(3):297-304).

In other words, Eleanor and her doctor should not be concerned with toxicity, but with the persistent levels of deficiency she is suffering.

Some authorities call the behavior of vitamin D "bi-phasic": Deficiency is toxic, excessive levels are toxic. We're really just trying to achieve a middle ground in vitamin D levels that are above deficiency but below toxicity.

In reality, deficiency is exceptionally common. In fact, it's the rule around here (northern U.S.), with >95% of everybody we check severely deficient in winter, mildly-moderately deficient in summer. Very few people approach normal levels year round without supplementation.

Toxicity, on the other hand, is exceedingly rare. I have seen it once in a woman who was taking a toxic dose of 50,000 units a day on the instructions of her (mis-guided) doctor. Thankfully, no ill-effects developed from this little "experiment."

So, it's not toxicity that is the overwhelmingly common worry, but deficiency, severe and sustained.

Take a look at your local hospital and you're likely to notice several curious things:

1) It is likely non-profit, meaning it enjoys a non-profit status with the Internal Revenue Service and enjoys the tax benefits of not paying taxes on profits. This provides an advantage to tax-protected hospitals. 70% or more of hospitals in the U.S. are "non-profit."

2) Non-profit or no, many hospitals operate under the guise of a religious affiliation, e.g., St. Mary's Hospital, Trinity Hospital, All Saints', Jewish Hospital, etc.

3) Executives in non-profit hospitals can make capitalistic salaries. One CEO of a Milwaukee hospital took home $3.7 million dollars in salary last year. That's not including the very substantial perks and business interests in the spin-off businesses the hospital owns, including pharmacies, drug and medical device disitributors, even a venture capital division. "Non-profit" does not have to mean that executives within the operation can't benefit handsomely.

That same hospital system spends over $10 million dollars in a year in local marketing for TV ads, print advertising, etc. Ads are slick and professionally produced.

Make no bones about it: These are "non-profit" for tax purposes only . They are for-profit in every other sense of the phrase, including rich rewards for the insiders.

Guess how those fat executive salaries and large marketing budgets are paid for? That's right: the 12-inch incision in your chest; the four stents, defibrillator, and repeated nuclear stress tests; the revolving door of hospitalization after hospitalization that typifies the "heart patient" experience.

See the hospital for what it is: In the 21st century, it is no longer a charitable operation worthy of your volunteer time and donations. It is a business no different than Home Depot, IBM, or--Enron. Yes, they do perform needed services, as well. But the perverse equation that often determines who needs hospitalization and who doesn't, who needs a heart procedure and who doesn't, is not always based on necessity but on financial return. Just ask the CEO.

What is C-reactive protein (CRP)?

It is a blood-borne protein that originates in the liver and serves as an index of the body's inflammatory state. It is triggered by yet another inflammatory signal molecule, interleukin-6.

What triggers this cascade of inflammatory markers? Any inflammatory stimulus, such as being overweight, lack of exercise, vitamin D deficiency, viral illness no matter how trivial, any inflammatory disease like arthritis, small LDL, high triglycerides, poor diet rich in processed foods, resistance to insulin, any injury, incipient diabetes, hidden cancer, lack of education (no kidding), etc.

In other words, many, many conditions, from trivial to serious, trigger increased inflammatory markers like CRP.

A recent analysis (Genetically elevated C-reactive protein and ischemic vascular disease of persons with genetically elevated levels of CRP) suggests that CRP does not, by itself, cause atherosclerotic disease. CRP is therefore simply a marker for conditions that heighten inflammatory responses.

The AstraZeneca people sponsored the enormous JUPITER study of the statin drug, Crestor, that has been causing a stir, mostly glowing pronouncements of how the world would be a better place if everyone took Crestor.

In JUPITER, nealry 18,000 people (men 50 years and over, women 60 years and over) took 20 mg per day Crestor for two years. Participants all had starting LDL cholesterols in the "normal" range of no higher than 130 mg/dl and elevated CRP of 2 mg/dl or greater.

Crestor treatment resulted in 44% reduction in nonfatal heart attack, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, revascularization (bypass surgery, stents) and death from cardiovascular causes. The reduction in nonfatal heart attack was most marked at 55%.

Admittedly, these are impressive results. Benefits held true for both males and females. At the very least, JUPITER should put to rest some of the fringe arguments that statins do not reduce cardiovascular events. They do. There is no sense in arguing against that. While we might argue about the value of statins in various subsets of people, there is no doubt that they do indeed exert a significant effect.

However, contrary to the hype and broad pronouncements of my colleagues, my concerns are:

1) Rather than shotgun the inflammatory response with a statin drug regardless of cause, doesn't it make more sense to ask why a specific individual has an increased CRP in the first place? For instance, if the answer is vitamin D deficiency, doesn't correction of the deficiency make more sense? (Vitamin D by itself reduces CRP around 60%--more than statin drugs.) Not to mention you obtain all the extraordinary benefits of vitamin D restoration, such as reduced cancer risk, increased bone density, relief from winter "blues," rise in HDL, etc. How about junk foods, obesity, and unrelated inflammatory conditions? Would we therefore indirectly be treating obesity with Crestor?

2) Crestor 20 mg per day, contrary to the study and to many statin studies, will not be tolerated for long by the majority. Muscles aches are not common--they are inevitable, sometimes incapacitating. While JUPITER showed 15% of both treatment and placebo groups experienced muscle effects--no different--this is wildly contrary to real life.

3) While there was a 55% reduction in the number of heart attacks, there continued to be a substantial number of heart attacks in the Crestor treatment arm. Clearly, reduction of CRP with Crestor, while helpful, is not a cure.

I view studies like JUPITER as simply an interesting piece of semi-scientific evidence, tainted to an unknown degree by commercial interests (including those of Dr. Paul Ridker, one of the principal investigators). It is not a mandate to use Crestor carte blanche in people with elevations of CRP.

My interpretation of these data in a practical sense is that Crestor 20 mg per day as sole therapy is useful in a disinterested, non-compliant patient who is unwilling to make substantial changes in lifestyle and nutrition. Helpful? Yes, but hardly an invitation for the world to take Crestor.

I believe that doesn't include any of the readers of this blog.

It is now a rare person who does not have at least some proportion of their LDL cholesterol as small particles. I estimate that, of the people who come to the office or report their data on the Track Your Plaque website, 90% have at least 40-50% small LDL particles. Some people have 100% small LDL particles. The sample NMR lipoprotein report shows the result for someone with a severe small LDL pattern (the tallest red bar labeled 1354 nmol/L, compared to the 74 nmol/L of the tiny red bar of large LDL.)

The nutritional approach for small vs. large LDL differs. Small LDL particles are most sensitive to carbohydrate intake; large LDL particles are more sensitive to saturated fats.

The conventional "heart healthy" diet that restricts saturated fat reduces large LDL but exerts no effect on small LDL. Thus, a diet that is restricted in saturated fat and weighed more heavily with "healthy whole grains" triggers small LDL particles. Followers of the conversations here recognize that small LDL particles are flagrant triggers for coronary plaque; they have, in fact, become the number one most common cause for heart disease in the U.S.

When you have lipoproteins tested, you can therefore gauge the likely result obtained when specific dietary changes are made. Follow the low saturated fat advice, large LDL will drop modestly, but small LDL skyrockets.

(Image courtesy Liposcience, Inc.)

Eliminate sugars, wheat, and cornstarch and you will see small LDL plummet (along with total LDL).

As an aside, my personal observation is that the "need" for statin cholesterol drugs can be reduced dramatically by paying attention to this important LDL size distinction.

Twenty years ago, the American farming industry experienced a dilemma: How to grow more soybeans, corn, or wheat from a limited amount of farmland, raise more cattle and hogs in a shorter period of time, fatter and ready for slaughter within months rather than years?

(Image courtesy Wikipedia)

The solution: Synthetically fertilize farmland for greater crop yield; “factory farms” for livestock in which chickens or pigs are crammed into tiny cages that leave no room to turn, cattle packed tightly into manure-filled paddocks. As author Michael Pollan put it in his candid look at American health and eating, The Omnivore’s Dilemma:

“To visit a modern Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) is to enter a world that for all its technological sophistication is still designed on seventeenth-century Cartesian principles: Animals are treated as machines—“production units”—incapable of feeling pain. Since no thinking person can possibly believe this anymore, industrial animal agriculture depends on a suspension of disbelief on the part of the people who operate it and a willingness to avert one’s eyes on the part of everyone else. . .”

Pollan goes on to argue that the cultural distance inserted between the brutal factory farm existence of livestock and your dinner table permits this to continue:

“. . .the life of the pig has moved out of view; when’s the last time you saw a pig in person? Meat comes from the grocery store, where it is cut and packaged to look as little like parts of animals as possible. The disappearance of animals from our lives has opened a space in which there’s no reality check on the sentiment or the brutality . . .”

The same disconnect has occurred in healthcare for the heart. The emotional distance thrust between the hospital-employed primary care physician, the procedure-driven cardiologist, the crammed-into-a-niche electrophysiologist (heart rhythm specialist) or cardiothoracic surgeon whose principal concerns are procedures—with an eye always towards litigation risk—mimics factory farms that now litter the landscape of the Midwest. The hospitals and doctors who deliver the process see us less as human beings and more as the next profit opportunity.

The “factory hospital” has allowed the subjugation of humans into the service of procedural volume, all in the name of fattening revenues. Never mind that people are not (usually) killed outright but subjected to a succession of life-disrupting procedures over many years. But whether livestock in a factory farm or humans in a factory hospital, the net result to the people controlling the process is identical: increased profits.

The system doesn’t grow to meet market demand, but to grow profits. The myth that allows this growth is perpetuated by the participants who stand to gain from that growth.

See hospitals for what they are: businesses. Despite most hospitals retaining "Saint" in their name, there is no longer anything saintly or charitable about these commercial operations. They are ever bit as profit-seeking as GE, Enron, or Mobil.

This post carries on the line of conversation begun in The Origins of Heart Catheterization: Part I and Part II.

While Dr. Sones labored in the relative obscurity of his catheterization laboratory, the American public was experiencing a crisis in healthcare availability, particularly among the over-65 age group. The population of elderly in the U.S. was growing rapidly. Between 1950 and 1963, their ranks grew from 12 million to 17.5 million. The cost of hospital care was also increasing 6.7% annually, several times the rate of increase in the cost of living of the time. From 1950 to the day of Dr. Sones’ discovery, the average cost for a day in the hospital jumped from $29 to $40. As a result, private health insurance carriers were forced to increase rates, driving premiums higher and farther out of reach for many. Half of all elderly were uninsured. Many feared that, while the sophistication of medical services advanced, healthcare was becoming increasingly unavailable to many, perhaps most, Americans.

The pivotal contribution that ignited wide dissemination of healthcare technology didn’t come from a physician, nor someone in healthcare. It was spurred by a nearly-forgotten bureaucrat. Without the behind-the-scenes laboring of this one man, the present healthcare system might be quite different.

It was largely the work of Nelson H. Cruikshank, an ordained Methodist minister with a Master of Divinity degree and veteran of battling for rights of the elderly and poor deprived of health care. For 10 years, Cruikshank served as director of the AFL-CIO's Social Security Department and had been instrumental in getting the Social Security Disability act passed. Working on the side of organized labor but maintaining the public demeanor of a church pastor, Cruikshank gained a reputation as a fighter for the working man, one who didn’t back down from a political brawl. In an interview regarding the question of corporate-retained earnings for capital investment, he blasted the practice, calling it "taxation by corporation without representation. Through prices paid for consumer goods, buyers are providing capital for industries over which they have no control and from which they receive no dividends” (Time Magazine, Dec. 20, 1948).

For years, Cruikshank lobbied tirelessly on behalf of American unions to bring the new national healthcare bill, known as Medicare, to a vote on the floor of Congress. Numerous efforts at a national program had languished for a decade before Medicare was drafted, and the Medicare legislation remained bottlenecked for years in committees. Cruikshank’s relentless and forceful persuasion was instrumental in finally bringing the bill to a vote. Among the most vocal opponents Cruikshank parried was the American Medical Association (AMA), terrified that the new program would lead to loss of control over healthcare delivery and reimbursement. The AMA labeled Medicare "the most deadly challenge ever faced by the medical profession."

Cruikshank proved how tough he was when he faced off with Dr Morris Fishbein, then president of the AMA, in a radio debate. Oscar R. Ewing, attorney and Democratic political organizer under the Truman administration, offered these reminiscences of the debate:

“Dr. Fishbein described the horrible confusion that existed in the [government-run] British Health Service that had recently been established in Britain. He told of the utter confusion that he found existed when he was in England a few weeks previously; that there were long queues in every doctor's office, that doctors were overburdened with paper work; that a mother who wanted an extra allowance of milk for her sick child had to get a doctor's prescription for it and then go to the Health Department for permission to buy the milk. Dr. Fishbein painted a picture of complete confusion.

“After Dr. Fishbein had described all these horrible details he found existing when in England a few weeks earlier, Mr. Cruikshank pulled out this particular diary [published in a nationally-syndicated column called “Dr. Fishbein's Diary” ] of Dr. Fishbein in which he described his last visit to London. He had arrived in London Friday morning and that afternoon had gone out to spend the weekend with Lord and Lady so-and-so at their country place; that he'd come back to London Monday morning, had stopped by the Health Department to pick up some papers, and had gone on to catch the noon plane for Paris. So the questioner then asked, "Well, is your appraisal of the British Health Service based on those few hours in London?" The question was a stinger and pretty much discredited Dr. Fishbein.”

(Interview by Mr. J.R. Fuchs, April 29, 1969; Harry S. Truman Library Archives)

Cruikshank went on to point out that Dr. Fishbein had indeed never visited the offices of British general practitioners and had spent his brief stay in the company of British aristocracy, attending the Olympics, then making the rounds of Parisian night clubs. Fishbein stumbled through the remainder of the interview, trying unsuccessfully to cover up his gaff. Dr. Fishbein was forced out of his post as AMA president by his peers shortly following the humiliating episode.

Largely due to the years of behind-the-scenes maneuvering by Mr. Cruikshank, on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Social Security Amendment that enacted the Medicare program. The legislation that survived into law included Medicare Part A, the portion of the program providing payment for hospital-based diagnostic and treatment services, and Medicare Part B, allowing payment for office-based services and outpatient diagnostic tests.

Finally, after decades of political battles, a national healthcare bill had been passed. Although benefits were restricted to only those eligible for Social Security benefits, it represented a start, a first step toward greater access to healthcare for the broader American public.

At first, the full implications of the Medicare program were not apparent. But as healthcare technology advanced, including that sparked by Sones’ innovation in coronary imaging, Medicare, much as engineered in large part by Nelson Cruikshank, proved a bonanza of payment for heart procedures. Medicare also set the pace for the payment for procedures by non-government, private health insurance.

Thus the stage was set. Thanks to Medicare, over the next 40 years cardiovascular healthcare services, yielding generous revenue for practitioners and hospitals, exploded on the scene, much to the surprise of many, including the AMA. When then president of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. Charles Fisch, was asked how the passage of Medicare affected cardiology, he replied, “It made cardiologists rich, as simple as that” (American Cardiology: The History of a Specialty and Its College, W. Bruce Fye, MD). Indeed, from its introduction in 1965 to 1980, Medicare payments for health claims ballooned 10-fold from $9.6 billion to $105.7 billion, a substantial portion of which went to pay for cardiology claims.

Little did Nelson Cruikshank, ministerial defender of the working man, anticipate that the Medicare he helped engineer would prove to be the catalyst for explosive growth of the modern cardiovascular healthcare system. Ironically, the program of healthcare-for-all that Cruikshank envisioned has, over the last 40 years, soured into a self-serving system that has been corrupted by the profit motive.

In too many instances, it’s a system that uses the working man as its victim, rather than its beneficiary.

The cycle of eating, satiety, and hunger is largely driven by insulin and blood sugar responses.

For instance, if I eat a bowl of Cheerios, my blood sugar will surge to 140 mg/dl or higher (how high depending on insulin sensitivity). The flood of sugar from this Frankenfood triggers the release of insulin; blood sugar then settles back down.

The decline in blood sugar back down to normal or below normal powerfully triggers hunger. Variable degrees of shakiness, mental fogginess, and irritability also commonly occur. Most people experience this to some extent; some experience an exagerrated version called "reactive hypoglycemmia" and can suffer peculiar personality changes, irrational and even violent behavior.

Foods made with wheat or cornstarch raise blood sugar higher and faster than table sugar. Accordingly, blood sugar and insulin swing more widely with these food: highs are higher, lows are lower. People who therefore follow the standard mantra of "eat plenty of healthy whole grains" therefore experience a 2-3 hour long cycle of eating, brief satiety, and recurrent hunger. Cravings for snacks, impulsive eating, and overeating all occur during the period when blood sugar has dropped and hunger is powerfully triggered.

Eliminating this up and down fluctuation is therefore key to regaining control over appetite, losing weight, reducing small LDL and triglycerides, reducing blood sugar, and putting out the fires of inflammatory responses.

You can accomplish this by:

1) Eliminating foods that trigger the exagerrated rises in blood sugar--Wheat, cornstarch, polished rices, white and red potatoes, and candy.

2) Adding a healthy oil to every meal--a strategy that prolongs satiety and helps suppress sugar-insulin fluctuations.

The ful nuts and bolts details of this diet will be released with the New Track Your Plaque Diet. Part I has already been released; part II is coming any day on the Track Your Plaque website.

"You're a walking time bomb."

"I can't be responsible for what happens to you."

"Your blockage is in the artery called the 'widow-maker.'"

Familiar lines? These are the well-rehearsed warnings commonly used by cardiologists to persuade a patient to undergo a procedure (heart catheterization and all that follow).

Something happens when you hear these words about your health. Most people's resolve to explore alternatives, get another opinion, think it over, promptly crumbles when they hear these words. These particular warnings have been time-tested and are surprisingly effective.

Unlike many other conditions, heart disease does indeed result in catastrophic events without warning. Unlike, say, cancer, heart disease can wreak damage suddenly. That's all true.

What bothers me is the vigor with which the opportunity for hospital procedures is pursued.

The thinking is that hospitals procedures = saving a life. In the vast majority of people, this is nonsense. Procedures like heart catheterization, stents, bypass, do save lives if someone is in the throes of a catastrophe. The problem is that most people who undergo procedures are not in the midst of catastrophe and have every hope of avoiding it altogether with some simple efforts towards prevention.

Imagine this conversation: "Yes, Mr. Smith, you do have heart disease, Even though you have no symptoms and your stress test is normal, I believe that we should 1) identify the causes of your heart disease, then 2) correct them. Of course, if you don't want to engage in this prevention process, then there may be a point at which heart procedures may be necessary. But I believe that you have great hopes of avoiding them and avoiding heart attack."

In the last Heart Scan Blog post, I listed the poll results on success vs. failure in trying to obtain requested blood work through doctors. The results of that informal poll revealed that a substantial number of people encounter resistance to one degree or another in trying to obtain blood tests.

But the world of self-directed testing is growing. In addition to your ability to circumvent your doctor by getting your own blood work done, you can now:

--Obtain many imaging tests on your own--Heart scans can be obtained without your doctor's involvement, for instance. The ultrasound screening services, like that offered by Lifeline, mobile services that provide carotid, abdominal aorta, and osteoporosis screening services; full body scans, and others.
--Identify and treat some conditions--Internet information has gotten quite powerful to assist individuals in recognizing when a condition might be present. (However, this is also a landmine for trouble if not properly used.)
--Genetic testing--While just in its infancy, direct-to-consumer genetic testing is now offered by two outfits that I'm aware of.
--Unusual laboratory tests--e.g., heavy metals, omega-3 fatty acid content, cancer markers.

One drawback to the emerging world of self-directed testing: There is no insurance coverage. However, this will become less and less of an issue as time passes, since it is clear that most Americans will need to bear a greater portion of healthcare costs in future, since some conventional services may even be rationed for cost containment; higher copays and the emergence of medical savings accounts, providing the individual with more control over how healthcare dollars are spent; competition in self-directed healthcare services, which will reduce costs. Imagine, for instance, several more direct-to-consumer services to obtain blood tests appear. They will need to compete on price and service.

While my colleagues are terrified of the potential for abuse of such tests, my reaction is the opposite: I am enormously excited by the potential for individuals to seize more and more control over their health.

Of course, with greater freedom comes greater responsibility. But the long-term net result will be, in my view, a healthier, more satisfied healthcare consumer with reduced healthcare costs.

Here are the results of the latest Heart Scan Blog poll (84 respondents):

When you ask your doctor to perform a specific blood test, does he/she:

Do it without question?
38 (44%)

Do it but express reservations?
25 (29%)

Do it very grudgingly?
13 (15%)

Refuse outright?
9 (10%)

I was encouraged that 44% of respondents are/were able to obtain the blood work they requested without resistance. Sadly, however, the majority do either encounter reluctance or outright resistance.

Why would your doctor impose barriers to your ability to obtain laboratory tests? Well, several potential reasons:

1) He/she feels that they are charged with your health safety, and you might be led down a misleading, potentially dangerous path.

2) He/she feels that the tests are truly unnecessary and that you will be wasting the money of the "system."

3) He/she doesn't understand the tests, or is unfamiliar with them.

4) He/she feels that the doctor should be in complete control, not you. How dare you try to usurp the doctor-as-dictator of your health!

In reality, number 1 is understandable but rarely occurs. I have indeed have had requests, though rare, for outrageously inappropriate tests for the issue at hand, usually due to a misinterpretation of some information by the patient.

I'm not sure how often number 2 truly is. For instance, it is not uncommon for the doctor to have an ownership stake in the laboratory. There are several large primary care groups in Milwaukee who are notorious over-users of laboratory tests, with extraordinary batteries of dozens of tests every few months on the flimsiest reasons , clearly motivated by . . . money. On the other hand, there are physicians who do consciously try and order tests rationally and cost-effectively. I suspect that this is a minority.

I feel quite confident that number 3--your doctor's ignorance--is probably the most common reason he/she is reluctant or refuses to allow you access to a test. Most respondents I suspect are referring to many of the tests that I have been advocating, such as lipoprotein testing, lipoprotein(a), and vitamin D blood levels. I am uncertain how any of these could be construed to be dangerous. But ignorance of the value of these tests is rampant and resistance is nearly always based on not having explored these issues and having no appreciation for their importance. Of course, the beleaguered primary care physician is, no surprise, inundated by so much information across such a wide range that he/she has become expert at nothing, barely able to even deliver the full scope of genuine up-to-date primary services any longer. My colleagues, the cardiologists. . . well, you know my feelings about their attitudes: If it doesn't make money, then why should I bother? Devote months or years studying something that doesn't ring the cash register?

I see this dilemma as yet more evidence of the growing disenchantment with the doctor-as-gatekeeper model, the centuries old paternalistic "I will tell you what to do and you will do it." It worked when the doctor was educated and had access to knowledge you could never realistically obtain because you couldn't read, or you were too poor to afford books and education, or because medical information was made privy only to select people.

It's not that way anymore: The information you have access to is the same information my colleagues and I have access to: a level playing field. Along with the changing rules of the game, the game itself must eventually change.

I believe that people should have access to self-testing. Indeed, there is a growing industry of direct-to-consumer laboratory testing, such as that offered by Life Extension and LabSafe . For the most part, these offer tests without potential insurance reimbursement.

But the landscape is changing: We are just beginning a new age of self-empowerment, self-directed healthcare.

Whenever I say this, some people are angered that the majority of people will be too lazy, stupid, or poor to join the movement. What I am not saying is that we should agitate to make the system a patient-only directed process and completely remove the doctor. What I am saying is that the patient should and will play an increasingly important role in determining the content and direction of his/her care, especially as the patient becomes far more knowledgeable about issues relevant to his/her health.

The new tools of health measurement

If there were a new mantra of the new science of insight into health and long life, it would be “measure, measure, and measure.”

Never before in history have we had access to the analytical, laboratory, imaging, quantifying health tools that we have today. We can locate, scan, measure, all down as far as the level of basic codons of the genetic sequence.

The health-inquiring public has so far been permitted just a tip-of-the-tongue taste of these quantitative phenomena in such things as cholesterol values (“know your numbers!”) and blood pressure. Women now discuss their bone density scores over coffee, men their PSAs (prostate specific antigen).

But a curious irony has emerged: Like early 20th century males uncomfortable with women battling for suffrage, healthcare professionals, themselves comfortable with measurements and numbers, are distinctly uncomfortable when some of the same information falls into the hands of the healthcare consumer.

These phenomena play out in especially dramatic fashion in the world of heart health. The public now has broad access (many without a doctor’s order) to an extraordinary array of health measurement tools that can potentially yield enormous benefits for prevention of the most common conditions, information that can be applied by tracking over time.

Measures like heart scan scores, vitamin D blood levels, lipoprotein(a)--measures that most doctors have little or no interest in obtaining, yet they serve crucial roles in maintaining and tracking your health.

The new paradigm is emerging: the tools are getting better and better, they are becoming more accessible.

I continue my portrayal of the fictional hospital, St. Matthews. Though fictional, it is based on real facts, figures, and situations.

Despite their success, administrators at St. Matthews’s Hospital continually fret over how to further expand their enterprise.

Market share can be increased, of course, by competing effectively with other hospitals, but that can be a tough arena. After all, St. Matthews’ competitors deliver pretty much the same services, and draw areas for patients overlap. The last thing the hospital wants is the appearance that heart care is a “cookie cutter” process, the same everywhere. In fact, this trend has hospital administrators wringing their hands. Two competing hospital systems in town recently launched multi-million dollar ad campaigns employing some of the same aggressive tactics St. Matthews’ marketers used successfully in past.

If St. Matthews is going to grow, new markets will need to be explored. What other strategies can a hospital system use to continue climbing the growth curve?

St. Matthews’ hospital administrators have drawn a number of lessons from other businesses. How about squeezing more procedures out of the population you already take care of? That’s an age-old rule of business: your easiest sales come from repeat customers. A former stent patient is going to “need” annual nuclear stress testing ($4000), more stents (about $25,000–39,000 per hospitalization), CT angiogram ($1800–2400), bypass surgery ($84,000), and so on. “Check-up” catheterizations, though clearly of little or not benefit to patients, are silently encouraged, yet another example of the bonanza of repeat procedures possible.

The lesson that “once a heart patient, always a heart patient” has been honed to an art form in business practices at St. Matthews and other hospitals like it. If you enter the system through your primary care physician or cardiologist, there’s an excellent chance you’ll end up with several procedures, diagnostic and therapeutic, over the ensuing years. Accordingly, St. Matthews provides a very attentive after-discharge follow-up program, complete with access to friendly people, phone centers, “support groups,” and even an occasional festive get-together, all in an effort to ensure future return to the system.

All in all, the St. Matthews Hospital System is a hugely successful operation. It provides jobs for thousands of area residents and provides high-tech, high-quality healthcare. Like any business—and no doubt about it, St. Matthews is a business with all the trappings of a profit-seeking enterprise—it grows to serve its own interests. The tobacco industry didn’t grow to its gargantuan proportions by doing good, but by selling a product to an unsuspecting public. So, too, hospitals.

Curiously, hospitals like St. Matthews continue to operate under the sheltered guise of not-for-profit institution with the associated tax benefits, ostensibly serving the public good. This means that all end-of-year excess revenues are re-invested and not distributed to investors. But non-profit does not mean that individuals within the system can’t benefit, and benefit handsomely. Under St. Matthews’ non-profit umbrella, many businesses thrive: 35 pharmacies, extended care facilities to provide care after hospital discharge, drug and medical device distributors, even a venture capital arm to fund new operations. The financial advantage conferred by “non-profit” status has permitted the hospital to compete with other, for-profit businesses, at a considerable advantage. For this reason, attempts have been made over the years to strip them of what some believe is an unfair advantage; all have failed.

While profits may not fall to the bottom line, money does indeed get paid out to many people along the way. Executives, for instance, pay themselves generous salaries and consulting fees, often from several of the entities in this complex business empire. Physicians are brought in as “consultants” or are awarded “directorships” for hundreds of thousands of dollars per year—Director of Research, Director of Cardiovascular Services, etc. Don’t forget the $3.7 million dollar annual salary paid to the CEO.

Hospitals and doctors have a vested interest in preserving this financial house of cards. They will fiercely battle anyone or anything that threatens the stream of cash. During a recent meeting of important doctors at St. Matthews Hospital, one cardiologist bravely voiced his concern that bypass surgery was performed too freely on too many patients in the hospital. The doctor was promptly and quietly asked to remove himself from the meeting. Several days later, he received a letter announcing his dismissal from the committee.

The silent conspiracy conducted by hospitals and cardiologists serves their own purposes better than the good of the public. Under the guise of good works, hospitals continue to promote strategies which are, for the most part, outdated, inefficient, inaccurate, and expensive. But that’s the rub. Expensive to you and your insurance company means more money for the recipient: your hospital and cardiologist, and the powers that support them. All this occurs while the real solutions that are of benefit to the public continue to be overlooked, hidden in the shadows.

Dr. Robert Connors is the hospital’s most prized cardiologist.

Practically a fixture in the cath lab, he generates more revenues for the hospital than any of his colleagues. Last year alone, he performed over 1500 procedures, bringing in $18 million dollars to the cath lab, $27 million to the hospital. Dr. Connors is very good at what he does: 55-years old, he has been involved in high-tech heart care since the “early days,” 25 years ago, when hospital procedures really took off.

During his career, he has personally performed over 25,000 heart procedures and has built a reputation as a skilled operator of complex coronary procedures. Because of his skills, he enjoys a vigorous flow of referrals for procedures from dozens of primary care physicians. His skill has also earned him referrals from cardiologist colleagues who seek his abilities for difficult cases.

On any day, Dr. Connors typically schedules up to 12 procedures. His entire day is spent in the cath lab, usually from 7 am until 6 pm. He meets many patients for the first time on the catheterization laboratory table as staff shave their groin, preparing for the procedure. Much of the procedure itself is not even performed by Dr. Connors, but by one or another cardiologists-in-training, a “fellow,” or member of the fellowship the hospital proudly maintains as a clinical teaching institution. Nor will Dr. Connors talk to most patients at the close of the procedure. He leaves that to either the fellow or a nurse. Dr. Connors views himself as a procedural specialist, not someone who has to take care of patients. He gave up seeing patients in his office over 10 years ago.

Dr. Connors’ procedural enthusiasm gained him the attention of drug and medical device manufacturers. Because Dr. Connors lectures widely and advises colleagues, his comments can dramatically alter perceptions of the value of a technology. He has, on many occasions, catapulted an unpopular device to most-asked-for among colleagues, bringing millions in revenues to the manufacturer. One particularly lucrative arrangement he made around 10 years ago involved a “closure” device, a $400 single-use plug used to close the access site made during heart catheterizations. By swaying his colleagues at St. Matthews Hospital, 50 orders per day (one per procedure) tallied $20,000 every day, $7.1 million dollars per year for the manufacturer. Although he’d used other devices on the market, the 5,000 shares of stock he was offered encouraged him to issue glowing comments to colleagues on the superiority of this specific brand of closure device. Now over 90% of all catheterizations at St. Matthews conclude with the device manufactured by the company in which Dr. Connors maintains partial ownership.

Negative comments, on the other hand, topple other products when Dr. Connors sees fit to pan them. For this reason, device and drug manufacturers run straight to Dr. Connors to gain his good graces as soon as possible after a product is released into the market. Because the competition is just as likely to do the same, it has often come down to a bidding war, the company providing the most lucrative arrangement most likely to win.

Thus, Dr. Connors proudly boasts of how many times he has flown to Hawaii, Europe, and other exotic locations at industry expense. He also boasts of how, for $100,000 paid to him for a “consulting fee,” he can overturn the choice of products lining hospital shelves. As the hospital’s annual budget for coronary devices will top $84,000,000 this year, device manufacturers regard the sum paid Connors as a profitable investment.

Despite his lofty status in the hospital, Dr. Connors has long expressed a love-hate relationship with St. Matthews. While he enjoys his work and has made a more than comfortable income, he has long felt that the hospital administration didn’t truly appreciate his contributions. Five years ago, he therefore demanded that he be made “Director of Research.” After all, he had hired a nurse to help him coordinate enrollment of patients into several device trials brought to him by medical device manufacturers. When he encountered an initial lukewarm response from hospital administrators, he threatened to take his “business” elsewhere to a competing hospital. St. Matthews’ administrators gave in. They provided him with the title he wanted, along with $100,000 annual “stipend.”

True story, though names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Is Dr. Connors just an “outlier” among colleagues who toe a more conservative line? Or does his brand of commercial enterprise in hospital heart care represent the ideal that they seek, brazenly and ambitiously seeking to expand the procedural solution to heart disease to the exclusion of patient care and real human interaction?

I recently provided another interview for Livin' La Vida Low Carb's Jimmy Moore.

You may remember Jimmy as the irrepressible host of the Livin' La Vida Low Carb Show who lost around 200 lbs, dropping from 410 to 230 lbs on a low-carbohydrate diet.

In this hour-long interview, we discussed some of the dietary strategies that we use in the Track Your Plaque program.

Jimmy's website is definitely worth exploring. It's loaded with great interviews, including with Good Calories, Bad Calories author, Gary Taubes.

"Millions of needless deaths" is the title of an editorial by Life Extension Magazine's Bill Faloon.

". . . If vitamin D’s only benefit was to reduce coronary heart attack rates by 142%, the net savings (after deducting the cost of the vitamin D) if every American supplemented properly would be around $84 billion each year. That’s enough to put a major dent in the health care cost crisis that is forecast to bankrupt Medicare and many private insurance plans."

Although I don't agree with all the over-the-top commentary that issues from Mr. Faloon or Life Extension (although I sit on their Medical Advisory Board), I agree with virtually all of the issues he raises with vitamin D.

Despite the enormously compelling observations of vitamin D potential effects in populations, the medical community's reluctance comes from the lack of treatment data. In other words, what we lack are long-term data on vitamin D supplementation vs. placebo on rate of heart attack, vitamin D vs. placebo on risk of colon cancer, etc.

The data that exists connecting vitamin D levels with cardiovascular risk originate from three population observations:

1) The NHANES data in 16,000 participants showed 20% increased risk of cardiovascular events in those with vitamin D levels <20>20 ng/ml after factoring in all standard risk factors.

Another NHANES analysis showed the high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in those with cardiovascular disease.

2) A German study of 2500 participants that showed showed the lowest quartile of vitamin D levels (<13.3>28.4 ng/ml.

3) The Health Professionals' Follow-Up Study of 18,000 males showed a 2.4-fold increase in cardiovascular events in those with vitamin D levels <15>30 ng/ml.

While we lack treatment data (vitamin D vs. placebo) in a large population, we do have data that Suzie Rockway, Mary Kwasny (both from Rush University, Chicago) and I generated on the effect of vitamin D as a part of a broader treatment program on coronary calcium scores:

Effect of a Combined Therapeutic Approach of Intensive Lipid Management, Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation, and Increased Serum 25 (OH) Vitamin D on Coronary Calcium Scores in Asymptomatic Adults.
Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M. Amer J Ther 2008 (Dec 15).

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

I also summed up the data as of early 2008 in a Life Extension article:

Vitamin D's Crucial Role in Cardiovascular Protection

I do agree with Mr. Faloon: It's time to take the vitamin D issue very seriously. Personally, I think it is foolhardy to not correct vitamin D deficiency, even in the absence of long-term treatment data.

Should we subject people living in tropical climates with vitamin D blood levels of 90 ng/ml to long-term observation? Though that has not yet been done, it has been done--in effect--through observations on the prevalence of diabetes, heart disease, and various cancers by latitude: the farther away from the equator, the greater the prevalence of these diseases.

That's more than good enough for me.

Thiazide diuretics are a popular first-line treatment for hypertension among the primary care set.

This practice became especially well-established with the 2002 publication of the ALLHAT Study (Major Outcomes in High-Risk Hypertensive Patients Randomized to Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor or Calcium Channel Blocker vs Diuretic:The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT)).

ALLHAT showed that an inexpensive diuretic like chlorthalidone (a weak diuretic in the thiazide class, similar to hydrochlorothiazide) as first-line treatment for hypertension achieved equivalent reductions in cardiovascular events (cardiovasular death and heart attack) as non-thiazide antihypertensives, lisinopril (an ACE inhibitor) and amlodipine (a calcium channel blocker, better known as Norvasc).

After 7 years of treatment, there was 14% death or heart attack among all three groups--no difference.

This was interpreted to mean that inexpensive thiazide diuretics like chlorthalidone offer as much benefit as other blood pressure medications at reduced cost.

On the surface, that's great. Anything that detracts from the ubiquitous pharmaceutical industry propaganda of bigger, better, more expensive drugs to replace old, inexpensive, generic drugs is fine by me.

But you knew there'd be more to this issue! If we accept that thiazides are equivalent to other single-drug treatments for high blood pressure, what do we do with the following issues:

--Thiazides deplete body potassium-This effect can be profound. In fact, built into the ALLHAT mortality rate is an expected death rate from potassium depletion. When potassium in the body and blood go low, the heart becomes electrically unstable and dangerous rhythms develop.

--Thiazides deplete magnesium--Similar in implication to the potassium loss, magnesium loss also creates electrical instability in the heart, not to mention exaggeration of insulin resistance, rise in triglycerides, reduction in HDL.

--Thiazides reduce HDL cholesterol

--Thiazides increase triglycerides

--Thiazides increase small LDL particles--You know, the number one cause for heart disease in the U.S.

--Thiazides increase uric acid--Uric acid is increasingly looking like a coronary risk factor: The higher the uric acid blood level, the greater the risk for heart attack. Thiazides have long been known to increase uric acid, occasionally sufficient to trigger attacks of gout (uric acid crystals that precipitate in joints, like rock candy). (Fully detailed Special Report on uric acid coming this week on the Track Your Plaque website.)

What about the advice we commonly give people to hydrate themselves generously? Yet we give them diuretics? Which is it: More hydration or less hydration? You can't have both.

Do thiazides exert an apparent cardiovascular risk reduction in a society due to its flagrant sodium obsession?

Thus, there are a number of inconsistencies in the thinking surrounding thiazides. In my experience, I have seen more harm done than good using these agents. While I cannot fully reconcile the reported benefit seen in ALLHAT with what I see in real life, all too often I see people having to take another drug to make up for a side-effect of a thiazide diuretic (e.g., high-dose prescription potassium to replace lost potassium, allopurinol to reduce uric acid, etc.). I have seen many people get hospitalized, even suffer near-fatal or fatal events from extremely low potassium or magnesium levels.

My personal view: ALLHAT or no, avoid thiazide diuretics like the plague. Sure, it might save money on a population basis, but I suspect that the ALLHAT data are deeply misleading.

What's better than a thiazide, calcium blocker, or ACE inhibitor? How about vitamin D restoration, thyroid normalization, wheat elimination?

I stumbled on one of the growing number of local media stories on the power of vitamin D.

In one story, a purported "expert" was talking about the benefits of "high-dose" vitamin D, meaning up to 1000, even 2000 units per day.

I regard this as high-dose---for an infant.

Judging by my experiences, now numbering well over 1000 patients over three years time, I'd regard this dose range not as "high dose," nor moderate dose, perhaps not even low dose. I'd regard it as barely adequate.

Though needs vary widely, the majority of men require 6000 units per day, women 5000 units per day. Only then do most men and women achieve what I'd define as desirable: 60-70 ng/ml 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level.

I base this target level by extrapolating from several simple observations:

--In epidemiologic studies, a blood level of 52 ng/ml seems to be an eerily consistent value: >52 ng/ml and cancer of the colon, breast, and prostate become far less common; <52 ng/ml and cancers are far more likely. I don't know about you, but I'd like to have a little larger margin of safety than just achieving 52.1 ng/ml.

--Young people (not older people >40 years old, who have lost most of the capacity to activate vitamin D in the skin) who obtain several days to weeks of tropical sun typically have 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood levels of 80-100 ng/ml without adverse effect.

More recently, having achieved this target blood level in many people, I can tell you confidently that achieving this blood level of vitamin D achieves:

--Virtual elimination of "winter blues" and seasonal affective disorder in the great majority
--Dramatic increases in HDL cholesterol (though full effect can require a year to develop)
--Reduction in triglycerides
--Modest reduction in blood pressure
--Dramatic reduction in c-reactive protein (far greater than achieved with Crestor, JUPITER trial or no)
--Increased bone density (improved osteoporosis/osteopenia)
--Halting or reversal of aortic valve disease

(I don't see enough cancer in my cardiology practice to gauge whether or not there has been an impact on cancer incidence.)

My colleagues who have bothered to participate in the vitamin D conversation have issued warnings about not going "overboard" with vitamin D, generally meaning a level of >30 ng/ml.

I know of no rational basis for these cautions. If hypercalcemia (increased blood calcium) is the concern, then calcium levels can be monitored. I can reassure them that calcium levels virtually never go up in people (without rare diseases like sarcoid or hyperparathyroidism). Then why any hesitation in recreating blood levels that are enjoyed by tropical inhabitants exposed to plentiful sun that achieve these extraordinary health effects?

For the present, I have applied the target level of 60-70 ng/ml without apparent ill-effect. In fact, I have witnessed nothing but hugely positive effects.

The ever-resourceful Dr. John Cannell of the Vitamin D Council has announced the availability of an at-home, self-ordered vitamin D test kit for $65. The Vitamin D Council newsletter is reprinted below.

(However, please note that, as wonderful as the advice Dr. Cannell provides, I don't agree on several small points, such as the lack of need for vitamin D if you use a tanning bed or obtain "sufficient" sun; I have seen many people with dark tans, virtually all over 40 years old, who are still severely deficient. I attribute this to the lost capacity for vitamin D activation as we age.)

I have not used this service. Should anyone choose to try it, please let us know how it goes.

The Vitamin D Newsletter
December 28, 2008

The Vitamin D Council is happy to announce that we have partnered with ZRT Laboratory to provide an inexpensive, $65.00, in-home, accurate, vitamin D [25(OH)D] test. The usual cost for this test is between $100.00 and $200.00.

If you read this newsletter, you know about our interest in accurate vitamin D testing. In the next few weeks, you may read about the Vitamin D Council's quest for accurate vitamin D blood tests in the national media. Before we partnered with ZRT, we verified, repeatedly, that ZRT provides accurate and reliable vitamin D tests and that their method corresponds very well to the gold standard of vitamin D blood tests, the DiaSorin RIA.

Our ZRT service is not just inexpensive, it means no more worrying about your doctor ordering the right test or interpreting it correctly. You buy the test kit on the internet or by phone, a few days later the kit comes in the mail, you or a nurse friend do a finger stick, collect a few drops of blood, and send the blotter paper back to ZRT in the postage paid envelope provided with the kit. A week later you get results back in the mail and know accurate 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels of you and your family.

For every test you order, ZRT will donate $10.00 to the Vitamin D Council. Please read the new page hyperlinked below on our website as it both explains the procedure and how to order the test.

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/deficiency/am-i-vitamin-d-deficient.shtml

Executive summary: keep your family's 25-hydroxy-vitamin D blood test above 50 ng/ml, year around. Most adults need at least 5,000 IU per day, especially this time of year. Most children need at least 1,000 IU per day per every 25 pounds of body weight. Bio Tech Pharmacal provides high quality and inexpensive vitamin D. Currently Bio Tech Pharmacal is providing vitamin D for numerous scientific studies. To see their prices and for ordering, click the hyperlink below.

http://www.bio-tech-pharm.com/catalog.aspx?cat_id=2

As a gift to our readers for the New Year, Thorne publications have provided a free download to a basic paper about vitamin D. I wrote it earlier this year for educated lay people as well as health care practitioners. Please read this paper carefully, your family's well-being, even lives, may depend on you understanding it.

http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/.fulltext/13/1/6.pdf

Seasons Greetings
John Cannell, MD
vitamindcouncil.org

People pay about $90 per year to become Members on the Track Your Plaque website. This provide access to our in-depth Special Reports, guides, webinars, and our proprietary software data tracking tools. Members can also participate in online discussions, such as those in the Track Your Plaque Forum and chats.

Why is there a charge for membership in the program and where does the money go?

Money raised from membership fees goes towards:

1) The costs of doing business, e.g., server fees, software purchases, legal fees. Hosting webinars, for instance, costs us about $99 per month for the GoToWebinar software service.

2) Software development--Our most recent round of software data tracking tools, for instance, cost us nearly $30,000. That may not be a lot from big business standards, but it is onerous enough that obtaining membership dues really helps.

3) Graphics development--A website without graphics would be awfully dull, regardless of the quality of the textual content. Some of the newest tools on the Track Your Plaque website require photography and graphics work, which can add up very quickly.

Where membership fees do NOT go:

1) In our pockets--In fact, except for the various contractors who are paid for their services (e.g., software developers), NOBODY on the Track Your Plaque staff are paid: not me, nor any of the behind-the-scenes staff. Some of the staff overlap with my office staff, but they are paid purely out of the office revenues, not out of Track Your Plaque membership dues.

2) Towards overhead costs beyond those listed above--For example, membership fees do not pay for office lease, utilities, phones, etc.

We rely on membership fees because we have chosen to remain as free of commercial bias as possible. We host no advertising, we have no behind-the-scenes corporate or institutional agendas, we show no favoritism to any business or commercial operation. We believe this permits editorial freedom that few other health websites can enjoy. (In fact, I know of no other that is so free of commercial bias, outside of small blogs or narrow-interest websites.)

If you want to see what damage commercial bias can create, just go to a health website like WebMD. I challenge you to find information that is not flagrantly biased by commercial influence, namely that of the drug industry. (According to the WebMD SEC filings, in fact, the great majority--approximately 80%--of their $331 million revenues (2007) were derived directly or indirectly from the drug industry.) This commercial bias reaches into all of WebMD's related businesses, including MedicineNet.com, RxList.com, Medscape.com, and several others.

Preventing heart disease is not a money maker, sad to say. It is, from the perspective of conventional heart care, a big money loser. Undergo a heart catheterization, hospitalization, stent or bypass for anywhere from $14,000 to well over $100,000---or pay $90 for in-depth health information that dramatically reduces the potential need for the hospital and its procedures, minimizes need for prescription medication (statins alone, of course, are a $27 billion annual revenue phenomenon), and achieves all this by maximizing nutrition, self-purchased nutritional supplements, and inexpensive heart scans. Nobody is going to make a bundle off of this approach.

So that is why we charge a membership fee. I often get a laugh from some of the comments of people on this blog or even in my office who believe that we are rolling in money from the website from membership dues. The opposite is true: We don't pay ourselves. Virtually every penny is reinvested back into the website to better serve the Members.

Confusion often stems from the simplest of calculations: dose of fish oil.

Actually, you and I don't take fish oil for fish oil. We take fish oil for its content of omega-3 fatty acids, the dominant ones being EPA and DHA. The contents of fish oil outside of its EPA + DHA content likely exert little or no benefit (beyond that of other dietary oils).

To determine what you are currently taking, simply examine the back of your fish oil bottle and look for the EPA + DHA composition. This should be clearly and prominently labeled. If not, don't buy that brand again. Add up the EPA + DHA content per capsule, then multiply by the number of capsules you take per day. That yields your daily EPA + DHA intake.

The only other substantial source of omega-3 fatty acids is fish. Other food sources, such as non-fish meats, eggs, etc., contribute little or none. Processed foods that bear health claims of "contains heart healthy omega-3" often contain linolenic acid or flaxseed oil, which contributes very little to total EPA + DHA, or contain relatively trivial quantities of DHA. What are you doing eating processed foods, anyway?

What should the total daily dose of EPA + DHA dose be? That depends on what your goals are.

If your goal is to modestly reduce the risk of dying from heart attack, then just eating fish a couple of times per month will begin to exert an effect, or just taking a dose of 300 mg EPA + DHA per day from a low-potency capsule will do it. However, that's an awfully unambitious goal.

Our starting omega-3 dose in the Track Your Plaque program has, over the years, increased and now stands at 1800 mg EPA + DHA per day. However, the dose for 1) full reduction of triglycerides and/or triglyceride-containing abnormal lipoproteins, 2) reduction of Lp(a), and 3) the ideal dose for coronary and carotid plaque control are substantially higher.

But once you know your desired daily target of total EPA + DHA, you can easily determine the quantity of capsules to take by doing the above arithemetic, totaling the EPA + DHA per capsule. For example, if you have been instructed to take 6000 mg per day EPA + DHA, and your capsule contains 750 mg EPA + DHA, then you will need to take 8 capsules per day (6000/750).

When I go to the hospital, I am continually amazed at some of the hospital staff: 5 ft 4 inch nurses weighing over 200 lbs, etc.

But what I find particularly bothersome are some (not all) hospital dietitans--presumably experts at the day-to-day of healthy eating--who waddle through the halls, easily 40, 50, or more pounds overweight. It is, to say the least, credibility-challenging for an obese dietitian to be providing nutritional advice to men or women recovering after bypass or stent while clearly not in command of nutritional health herself.

What's behind this perverse situation? How can a person charged to dispense "healthy" nutritional information clearly display such clear-cut evidence of poor nutrition?

How would you view a success coach dressed in rags? Or a reading coach who can barely read a sentence?

Easy: She follows her own advice.

Hospital dietitians are essentially forced to adhere to nutritional guidelines of "official" organizations, such as the American Heart Association and the USDA. There is some reason behind this. Imagine a rogue dietitian decides to advocate some crazy diet that yields dangerous effects, e.g., high-potassium diets in people with kidney disease. There is a role for oversite on the information any hospital staff member dispenses.

The problem, of course, doesn't lie with the dietitian, but with the organizations drafting the guidelines. For years, the mantra of hospital diets was "low-fat." More recently, this dated message has begun--only begun--to falter, but now replaced with the "healthy, whole grain" mantra. And that is the advice the hapless dietitian follows herself, unwittingly indulging in foods that make us fat.

Sadly, the "healthy, whole grain" message also contributes to heart disease via drop in HDL, increased triglycerides, a huge surge in small LDL, rise in blood sugar, increased resistance to insulin, tummy fat, and diabetes. Yes, the diet provided to survivors of heart attack increases risk.

The "healthy, whole grain" message also enjoys apparent "validation" through the enormous proliferation of commercial products cleverly disguised as healthy: Cheerios, Raisin Bran, whole grain bread, whole wheat pasta, etc. The "healthy, whole grain" message, while a health disaster, is undoubtedly a commercial success.

I'll bet that our fat dietitian friend enjoys a breakfast of healthy, whole grains in skim milk, followed by a lunch of low-fat chicken breast on two slices of whole grain bread, and ends her day with a healthy meal of whole wheat pasta. She then ascribes her continually climbing weight and size 16 figure to slow metabolism, lack of exercise, or the once-a-week piece of chocolate.

Wheat has no role in the Track Your Plaque program for coronary plaque control and reversal. In fact, my personal view is that wheat has no role in the human diet whatsoever.

More on this concept can be found at:

What's worse than sugar?

The Wheat-Deficiency Syndrome

Nutritional approaches: Large vs. Small LDL

Are you wheat-free?

I sense a growing revolt against the intrusion of statin drugs into our lives.

No doubt, the statin drug industry is, at least from an economic perspective, a huge success: $27 billion annual revenues at last accounting. The latest big plug for more and more statins was the JUPITER trial that showed reduced cardiovascular events on Crestor in people with "normal" LDL cholesterol levels and increased c-reactive protein.

It seems that not one day passes that doesn't include some news story about the "benefits" of statin drugs: reduction in heart attack, stroke, colon cancer, osteoporosis, heart failure, etc.

Ironically, the overwhelming economic success of the statin drug industry also seems to be encouraging a grassroots revolt.

More and more people are coming to the office, more people commenting on the web over how they want to avoid statin drugs, stop a drug they are already taking, or at least reduce the dose of an ongoing drug.

My day-to-day experience with coronary plaque control and reversal is that, while statin drugs are helpful tools, they are not necessary tools for full benefit of a prevention program. "Need" for statin drugs can differ by the patterns measured, though not the usual patterns suggested by the drug industry. For instance, using C-reactive protein, a la JUPITER, as justification for statin prescription is, in my view, totally absurd and makes no sense whatsoever, since inflammatory responses can be effective reduced with plenty of other strategies besides statin drugs. Conventional LDL, likewise, is a fictitious number that often bear little or no resemblance to the true and genuine measured value (apoprotein B or LDL particle number).

So here are a number of strategies that can help reduce or eliminate the "need" for a statin drug:

--Elimination of wheat and cornstarch--This is no namby-pamby dietary strategy, as low-fat diets were. This is a powerful, enormously effective strategy, particularly if LDL is in the small category. Small LDL drops like a stone when these foods are eliminated. This means no breads, pasta, breakfast cereals, pretzels, crackers, chips, tacos, wraps, etc.
--Non-wheat fibers--Especially raw nuts, ground flaxseed, and oat bran.
--Vitamin D restoration
--Fish oil
--Weight loss
--Niacin

There are additional strategies that focus on specific subsets of LDL cholesterol (e.g., Lp(a) masquerading as LDL). But the above list can reduce LDL cholesterol substantially, reducing the apparent "need" for a statin drug.

You will notice that there are few money makers in the above list, compared to the billions of dollars reaped by the statin drug industry. There is therefore little incentive to allow a pretty sales rep to go to your doctor and pitch the use of over-the-counter vitamin D or make changes in diet.

Statin drugs in my view need to be shoved back into their more limited role as drugs to be used on occasion when necessary (e.g., heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia with LDL cholesterol values of 250 mg/dl in a person with measurable coronary plaque). These should never have achieved the "celebrity" status they enjoy, complete with gushing endorsements by TV personalities, daily news stories, and back-to-back TV commercials.

Join the revolt!

Lovaza is GlaxoSmithKline's prescription fish oil, an ethyl ester modification to allow higher concentration of omega-3 fatty acids, EPA + DHA, per capsule. Each capsule contains 840 mg EPA + DHA.

It is FDA-approved for treatment of high triglycerides (>500 mg/dl). In their marketing, they claim "Unlike LOVAZA, dietary supplements are not FDA approved to treat any disease." They also highlight the "patented five-step" purification process that eliminates any concerns over mercury or pesticide residues.

What does Lovaza cost? In Milwaukee, it costs about $70 per capsule per month (PCPM). Most people are taking four capsules per day: $280 per month, or $3360 per year to obtain 3360 mg of EPA + DHA per day. (Funny coincidence with the numbers.)

Did you catch that? $3360 per year, just for one person to take Lovaza.

What if I instead went to Costco and bought their high-potency fish oil. This is also an ethyl ester form. It costs $14.99 for 180 capsules, or $2.50 PCPM; each capsule contains 684 mg EPA + DHA. I would therefore have to take five capsules per day to obtain the same 3360 mg EPA + DHA per day. This would cost me 5 x $2.50 = $12.50 per month, or $150 per year.

$3360 per year vs. $150 per year to obtain the same dose of omega-3 fatty acids, or a 22.4-fold difference.

Lovaza is FDA-approved for treatment of high triglycerides. But I am seeing more and more people take it for other reasons at this four-capsule-per-day dose. Regardless, this "drug" is adding $3360 per year costs to our healthcare. A school teacher, for instance, recently commented to me that she didn't care about the costs, since her insurance (in Milwaukee county, teachers have unbelievably generous healthcare coverage) covers Lovaza. I've heard this from others: insurance covers it, so they don't care how much it costs.

Guess who eventually has to pay the $3360 per year per person costs? Yup, you and me. We all bitch and moan about the costs of healthcare and health insurance, but many of us are more than willing to shift the costs to our friends and neighbors to save a few bucks. You think Lipitor makes a bundle of money for Pfizer at about $120 per month? Lovaza is making a bundle of money for GlaxoSmithKline, and all because people are cheap and willing to selfishly shift costs to other people.

Keep in mind that $3360 per year is just for fish oil. It's not for surgery, it's not for hospital care, it's just for stinking fish oil.