What's for breakfast?

16. March 2008 William Davis (106)
Breakfast, for some reason, seems to be the toughest meal of the day for many people.

I think it's because the quest for sweet has dominated the American breakfast for so long, with its half-century legacy of cartoon character-festooned breakfast cereals; baked flour products like pancakes, waffles, and English muffins; more recently, "healthy" alternatives like bran muffins and oat waffles.

This breakfast lifestyle has also contributed to the obesity and diabetes ("diabesity") epidemic. Breakfasts of wheat- or corn-based cereals, even those labeled "heart healthy," fruit, and whole grain breads are guaranteed paths to low HDL cholesterol, high triglycerides, flagrant small LDL, increased inflammatory responses, high blood pressure, and higher blood sugar. Such foods also make you tired, make your abdominal fat grow (wheat belly), and increase appetite so that you want more.

So what can you eat for breakfast that doesn't provoke these patterns?

I will never pretend to be terribly clever in creating meal menus, but I can tell you what has worked for me and many of my patients. Be warned: It may require you to suspend your previous notions of what "should" be included in a list of breakfast foods.

Here are some examples that you may find helpful:

--Raw nuts--one or several handfuls of raw almonds, walnuts, pecans, pistachios
--Cheeses--the real, traditional sorts like gouda, goat, Swiss, edam, etc. (not Velveeta, Cheez Whiz, etc.)
--Eggs, Egg Beaters--and "spice" them up with sun-dried tomatoes, salsa, olives, tapenades, olive oil, onions, green peppers, etc.
--Yogurt (real, of course), cottage cheese
--Ground flaxseed, oat bran--as hot cereals or added to yogurt, cottage, or other foods. Esp. helpful for reducing both total LDL and the proportion of small LDL.
--Oatmeal--slow-cooked, not the instant nonsense.
--Soups--great for winter.
--Dinner foods--chicken, beef, fish, green beans, asparagus, tomatoes, etc., most easily added by saving left-overs from dinner. You'll be surprised how filling dinner foods eaten at breakfast can be.

It's really not that tough. It just means selecting from an entirely different list of foods than you might be accustomed to.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

The first lawsuit?

16. March 2008 William Davis (1)

The closing arguments in actor John Ritter's wrongful death lawsuit are over and the two doctors charged with negligence cleared, five years after his death from a dissection (tear of the inner lining) of the thoracic aorta. The family sought $67 million in damages, claiming that the aortic dissection was misdiagnosed as a heart attack and that the enlarged aorta should have been reported to Mr. Ritter two years earlier during a full body scan.

The AP story can be viewed at http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmv6HnJJPBee2gWgEYResT5m6YkAD8VDF9CO0


Well, perhaps this is the start of a trend. Up until now, it has been commonplace for doctors to ignore many of the important findings on heart scans, full body scans, and similar direct-to-the-public imaging services. For instance, similar to John Ritter's case, enlarged thoracic aortas are commonly ignored. I'd even say that as a rule they are ignored. I have seen many patients in consultation who have had large aortas identified on heart scans, yet nothing--not a thing--was done about it. While the doctors escaped a lawsuit this time, it might not happen a second time.

I truly hope that Mr. Ritter's unfortunate experience and the consequent lawsuit do not trigger the usual defensive medicine response of resorting to major procedural "solutions."

A better response would be to 1) identify the problem--enlarged aorta in this case, 2) identify the causes, then 3) correct the causes. It does not necessarily mean that a major procedure like replacing the aorta (a horrendous surgery, by the way) needs to be pursued each and every time.

It is possible that Mr. Ritter's lawsuit is just the first. Over the next several years, it could trigger an avalanche of lawsuits for all the neglected findings on tests like heart scans, body scans, and other imaging methods that are gaining expanded direct-to-consumer access.


Images courtesy Wikipedia.

The origins of heart catheterization: Part II

13. March 2008 William Davis (0)
On the afternoon of October 30th, 1958, nearly 30 years after Werner Forssmann’s fumbling attempts, Dr. Mason Sones, a 5 foot 5 inch, plain-talking, cuss-every-few-words, cigarette-wielding radiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, was performing a routine angiogram of a patient’s aorta (the large vessel emerging from the heart) in a dark basement laboratory. (In Sones’ day, imaging methods remained primitive, disease diagnosis relying more than anything else on the physician’s powers of observation and crude diagnostic procedures. Abdominal pain was assessed with exploratory laparotomy, headaches with air injected into the brain and nervous system (“pneumoencephalography”), an excruciatingly painful ordeal. Being able to track the course of x-ray dye injected into specific internal organs, whether liver, biliary tree, aorta, lungs, or coronary arteries, represented a huge advance in diagnostic tools for human disease.)

In 1958, no one had yet injected dye directly into the coronary artery of a living human.


Just as the dye injector was triggered, Dr. Sones’ eyes widened in horror when the black and white monitor showed that the catheter had inadvertently jumped into the right coronary artery. The injection pump, already triggered to release its load, proceeded to pump 30 cc of X-ray dye straight into the artery. (Modern techniques usually require only 5–10 cc of dye.) Dr. Sones recounts the incident:

“It was late in the day and we were tired. I hit the switch to rev up the x-ray generator so I could see. As the picture came on, I could see that the damn catheter was in the guy’s right coronary artery. And there I was, down in the hole [a recess to shield him from radiation]. I yelled, “Pull it out! Pull it out!”*? By that time, about 30 cc of the dye had gone into the coronary artery. I climbed out of the hole and I grabbed a knife. I thought that his heart would fibrillate and I would have to open his chest and shock his heart. [In Sones’ day, modern CPR hadn’t yet been developed as a method of resuscitation.] But he didn’t fibrillate—his heart stopped. I demanded he cough. He coughed three times and his heart began to beat again. I knew at once that if the heart could tolerate 30 cc of dye, we would be able to safely inject small amounts directly into the coronary artery. I knew that night that we would have a tool to define the anatomic nature of coronary disease.”


*An observer, Dr. Julio Sosa, reported that Dr. Sones, in his shock, also blurted, “We’ve killed him!” After all, conventional wisdom of that era, based on observations from dye injections into the coronary arteries of dogs, was that injecting x-ray dye into human coronary arteries would result in immediate death from the electrical imbalance provoked in heart muscle momentarily deprived of oxygen-carrying blood.

Thus it was established that it was indeed possible to directly inject x-ray dye into human coronary arteries and reveal its internal contours. That’s not to say that the x-ray dyes of 1958 were innocuous. Far from it. In addition to briefly interrupting heart rhythm, as happened with Sones’ first accidental attempt, the dyes used then typically caused dizziness and the sudden urge to vomit. During the first 30 years of direct coronary catheterizations, it was common for hospital staff to run to the patient’s side, bucket in hand to catch the inevitable vomit, once the heart was jump-started by coughing.

Not surprisingly, Dr. Sones’ discovery set off both an avalanche of criticism and bold predictions of how the new technique might change the course of diagnosis in heart disease.

Over the subsequent weeks and months, Dr. Sones proceeded to purposefully insert catheters into coronary arteries and create angiograms that revealed the extent of coronary atherosclerosis. He learned how to fashion new catheter shapes to facilitate access to the arteries. Sones developed an impressive experience in the new technique. For the first time, clear images of the coronary arteries were routinely obtainable for the confident diagnosis of coronary atherosclerosis before death. Dr. Sones became an unlikely celebrity in Cleveland, entertaining physicians from around the world eager to learn about his methods, politicians and celebrities, even Middle Eastern nobility complete with bodyguards and food testers.

Dr. Sones continued to work in Cleveland, furthering the techniques of heart catheterization after his fortuitous error. He died of lung cancer in 1985, 17 years after his discovery.

Thus was born the modern age of heart catheterization.

Today, over 10,000 heart procedures are performed in the U.S. every day, 365 days a year, the vast majority of which involve heart catheterization or begin with a heart catheterization. Dr. Sones' fortuitous blunder was followed by 30 years of productive refinement and development before the blatant excesses of this technique really began to be exploited.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

The origins of heart catheterization: Part I

12. March 2008 William Davis (2)
The modern era of heart disease care was born from an accident, quirky personalities, and even a little daring.

The notion of heart catheterization to visualize the human heart began rather ignominiously in 1929 at the Auguste-Viktoria Hospital in Eberswalde, Germany, a technological backwater of the day. Inspired by descriptions of a French physician who inserted a tube into the jugular vein of a horse and felt transmitted heart impulses outside the body, Dr. Werner Forssmann, an eager 25-year old physician-in-training, was intent on proving that access to the human heart could be safely gained through a surface blood vessel. No one knew if passing a catheter into the human heart would be safe, or whether it would become tangled in the heart’s chambers and cause it to stop beating. On voicing his intentions, Forssmann was ordered by superiors not to proceed. But he was determined to settle the question, especially since his ambitions captured the interest of nurse Gerda Ditzen, who willingly even offered to become the first human subject of his little experiment.

Secretly gathering the necessary supplies, he made his first attempt in private. After applying a local anesthetic, he used a scalpel to make an incision in his left elbow. He then inserted a hollow tube, a catheter intended for the bladder, into the vein exposed under the skin. After passing the catheter 14 inches into his arm, however, he experienced cold feet and pulled it out.

One week later, Forssman regained his resolve and repeated the process. Nurse Ditzen begged to be the subject, but Forssmann, in order to allow himself to be the first subject, tricked her into being strapped down and proceeded to work on himself while she helplessly watched. After stanching the oozing blood from the wound, he threaded the catheter slowly and painfully into the cephalic vein, up through the bicep, past the shoulder and subclavian vein, then down towards the heart. He knew that simply nudging the rubber catheter forward would be sufficient to direct it to the heart, since all veins of the body lead there. With the catheter buried 25 inches into his body, Forssmann untied the fuming Ditzen. Both then ran to the hospital’s basement x-ray department and injected x-ray dye into the catheter, yielding an image of the right side of his heart, the first made in a living human.



Thus, the very first catheterization of the heart was performed.



An x-ray image was made to document the accomplishment. Upon hearing of the experiment, Forssmann was promptly fired by superiors for his brazen act of self-experimentation. Deflated, Forssmann abandoned his experimentation and went on to practice urology. He became a member of the Nazi party in World War II Germany and served in the German army. Though condemned as crazy by some, physicians in Europe and the U.S., after hearing of his experience, furthered the effort and continued to explore the potential of the technique. Forssmann himself was never invited to speak of his experiences outside of Germany, as he had been labeled a Nazi.

Many years after his furtive experiments, the once intrepid Dr. Forssmann was living a quiet life practicing small town medicine. He received an unexpected phone call informing him that he was one of three physicians chosen to receive the 1956 Nobel Prize for Medicine for his pioneering work performing the world’s first heart catheterization, along with Drs. André Cournand and Dickinson W. Richards, both of whom had furthered Forssmann’s early work. Forssmann remarked to a reporter that he felt like a village pastor who was made a cardinal.

Strange, but true.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Conventional therapy vs. alternative therapy

11. March 2008 William Davis (5)
Rose is a 75-year old woman, mother of four, grandmother of many more.

Rose's story started after a heart attack 18 months ago that resulted in two stents. She was advised to follow an American Heart Association diet and take Lipitor. However, some months later, after her fourth stent, she became disilluioned in the conventional approach to heart disease and sought alternative therapies to help reduce or reverse her heart disease.

She found an alternative health practitioner who advised chelation, antioxidant vitamins for "excessive oxidation," and several homeopathic preparations.

Nothing was said about diet or exercise. Nothing was said about the baked flour products and pastries that occupied at least two meals every day. Nothing was said about the candies she indulged in several times per day, nor the soft drinks. Nothing was said about the wildly fluctuating blood sugars, poorly controlled by an oral diabetes agent. Thirty pounds of weight gain over the past 5 years with no exercise or physical activity? No comment here, too.

In short, Rose was the "graduate" of the conventional approach, as typically offered nationwide thousands of times a week. She was also the recipient of the insight of at least one alternative health practitioner, eager to reject conventional notions of how to achieve heart health.

So I then met her. She was experiencing chest pains every day, several times per day. Blood pressure over 200. At 5 ft, 3 inches, weight: 186 lbs.

Initial laboratory results:

HDL cholesterol 42 mg/dl
LDL 132 mg/dl
Triglycerides 263 mg/dl
Blood sugar 173 mg/dl


You can fill in the rest. In short, Rose was a disaster. Despite the attentions of several professionals from both the conventional as well as alternative camps, she was careening rapidly towards failure. She'd been given various crutches, Band-Aids, and salves, none of which resulted in any possibility of long-term relief from her aggressive disease.

My point: As I've said previously, all we want is truth. We want effective, rational approaches that yield real benefit. A stent? All that provides is temporary restoration of blood flow. Statin agents? They do indeed reduce LDL cholesterol. But what if Rose has 8, 9, or 10 other causes of heart disease unaffected by the statin drug? It will do little or nothing.

Nobody had addressed many of the root causes of Rose's disease: insulin resistance, high triglycerides, inactivity, obesity, hypertension (and identifying the reasons why her blood pressure was so high), vitamin D deficiency (virtually guarantted to be severe), junk foods including the ones known as "whole grains."

My message: Success in heart disease, as well as all aspects of health for that matter, doesn't necessarily have to come from an "alternative" approach, nor a "conventional" approach. It comes from applying what is truly effective, regardless of what label someone applied to it.

I would no sooner trust my health and life to an alternative health practitioner hawking unusual herbs and remedies than I would submit to a heart catheterization, three stents, followed by a statin drug. There's small benefit in both approaches, but none are the best. You've got to look elsewhere for that.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

The JELIS Trial

9. March 2008 William Davis (5)
The Japan eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS) is a clinical trial that all Track Your Plaquers should know about.

This enormous trial followed a simple design:

Japanese men, between 40-75 years, and Japanese postmenopausal women aged <75 years with total cholesterol 250 mg/dl or greater were enrolled. A total of 18,645 subjects (mean age, 61 years; 31% male) participated: 36% had hypertension, 15% had diabetes, and 20% had coronary disease (history of heart attack or heart procedure). Average starting total cholesterol 275 mg/dl; LDL 180 mg/dl. All participants were treated with pravastatin 10 mg/day or simvastatin 5 mg/day; approximately half also received the omega-3, EPA, 1800 mg/day, in addition to one of the statin drugs.

Treatment resulted in an average LDL reduction of 26% in all participants; the group taking EPA experienced an additional 10% reduction in triglycerides. All major cardiovascular events were tracked and tabulated, including sudden cardiac death, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina pectoris, coronary artery bypass surgery, and coronary angioplasty.

After nearly five years, 3.5% of statin-only participants experienced an event; 2.8% of statin + EPA experienced an event. The (often misleading and frequently abused value) "relative reduction" was therefore 19%.

There are several features that make the JELIS trial interesting:

--There were an unusually low number of cardiovascular events in the entire group, lower than nearly all American and European trials of similar design. This likely points to the greater burden of atherosclerotic heart disease in the U.S. compared to Japan. Rates in comparable U.S.-based trials usually range from 6-14%, sometimes more.

--Both the participants without identified heart disease at enrollment and those with heart disease at enrollment obtained a similar magnitude of beneficial reduction in cardiovascular events.

--There was an unusual preponderance of women--69%--unlike most other trials of cardiovascular events. We might therefore argue that JELIS most conclusively showed that benefits of EPA are most confidently demonstrated for females.

--A fish oil preparation containing only EPA was used, rather than the usual EPA + DHA. There are discussions from some corners that argue that DHA is more important than EPA, e.g., algae sources. However, JELIS would argue that EPA does play a role. Is EPA with DHA better, worse, or no different? Unfortunately, there are insufficient data--large, randomized data like JELIS--to help us. Recall that GISSI Prevenzione used a combination of EPA and DHA, as have virtually all other trials examining the effects of fish oil. Also, keep in mind that the epidemiologic observations of the cardiovascular benefits of eating fish suggest that the naturally-sourced omega-3s--a combination of EPA and DHA--are associated with benefit.

--It's surprising that any difference at all was demonstrated, given the high intake of fish in the Japanese. In fact, blood levels of EPA in participants before taking EPA was five-fold higher than in western populations.


One potential difficulty: The study was funded by the manufacturer of the EPA preparation used, Mochida Pharmaceutical Company. We all know what that can do to results.

Nonetheless, the JELIS trial is a study that adds to the emerging wisdom in fish oil.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Omega-3 MUST be from fish oil

7. March 2008 William Davis (14)
Despite my rants in this blog and elsewhere, at least once a day I'll have a patient say, "I cut back (or eliminated) my fish oil because I get my omega-3s from _______ (insert your choice of flaxseed oil, walnuts, yogurt, mayonnaise, bread, etc.)."

(See prior Heart Scan Blog post: Everything has omega-3.)

When I point out to them that the "omega-3s" in these products are not the same as the EPA and DHA from fish oil, they invariably declare, "But it says so here on the label: 'Contains 200 mg of omega-3 fatty acids'!"

Apparently, some of my colleagues have even endorsed this concept of replacing the omega-3s from fish oil with these "alternatives."

It's simply not true. The linolenic acid that is being labeled as omega-3, while it may indeed provide health benefits of its own, cannot replace the EPA and DHA that fish oil provides.

The most graphic example of the differences between the two classes of oils is in people with a condition called familial hypertriglyceridemia. People with this condition have triglyceride levels of 400, 600, even thousands of mg/dl--very high. Fish oil, usually providing EPA and DHA doses of 1800 mg per day and higher, reduce triglycerides dramatically. A person with a starting triglyceride level of, say, 900 mg/dl, may take 2400 mg of EPA and DHA from fish oil and triglycerides plummet to 150 mg/dl. This person then decides to replace fish oil with a linolenic acid source like flaxseed oil. Triglycerides? 900 mg/dl--no effect whatsoever.

Familial hypertriglyceridemia represents an exagerrated example of the differences between the two oils. Even if you don't have this genetic condition, the differences between the oils still apply.

EPA and DHA are activators of the enzyme, lipoprotein lipase, that accelerates clearance of triglycerides from the blood. Linolenic acid from flaxseed oil, walnuts, and other food sources does not. EPA and DHA block after-eating (post-prandial) accumulation of food by-products that can contribute to coronary and carotid plaque. Linolenic acid does not. EPA and DHA block platelets, reduce fibrinogen, and exert other healthy blood clot-inhibiting effects. Linolenic does not.

The 11,000-participant GISSI-Prevenzione Trial that showed 28% reduction in heart attack, 45% reduction in cardiovascular death with omega-3s used . . . fish oil.

The 18,000 participant JELIS trial that showed 19% reduction in cardiovascular events when omega-3s were added to statin therapy used . . . fish oil. (Actually, in JELIS, they used only EPA wtihout DHA.)

Linolenic acid is not a waste, however. It may exert anti-inflammatory benefits of its own, for instance. But it exerts none of the triglyceride-modifying effects of EPA or DHA.

EPA and DHA from fish oil and linolenic acid from foods each provide benefits in their own way. Ideally, you include both forms of oils--fish oil and linolenic acid sources--in your daily diet and obtain full benefit from each separate class. But they are not interchangeable.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Osteoporosis and coronary calcium

4. March 2008 William Davis (9)
Several studies over the years have demonstrated a curious paradox:

People with more osteoporosis (thin bones) tend to be more likely to have coronary disease (heart attacks). They also tend to have higher heart scan scores (more coronary calcification as an index of atherosclerotic plaque).

People with more coronary disease and higher heart scan scores tend to have more osteoporosis.


In other words, regardless of which way you tackle the question--osteoporosis first or heart disease first--it leads to the same conclusion: Both conditions are somehow related.

I realize I harp an awful lot on this whole vitamin D issue. But, even after correcting the vitamin D blood levels of many hundreds of people, I remain enthusiastic as ever about the untapped potential of this fascinating factor.

So I couldn't resist showing this amazing comparison of how the long-term effect can be quite graphic.

The first scan is from a 46-year old man and shows normal coronary arteries without calcium and normal density of the vertebra (a common and reliable place to measure bone density).

























The second image is from a 79-year old man with both severe coronary calcification (and therefore severe coronary disease) and severe osteoporosis.
























It makes you wonder if the disordered metabolism of calcium through vitamin D deficiency allows transport of calcium away from bone and into coronaries. This has, however, been shown to not be the case. Instead, they are separate processes, each under local control, but sharing a common pathophysiology (causative factors).

An intriguing question: Would the 79-year old still look like the 46-year old had he begun increasing his vitamin D intake at, say, age 30?

About comment responses and moderation

2. March 2008 William Davis (10)
Just a brief word about my responses to reader comments:

I appreciate the many often insightful and interesting reader comments I receive to the Heart Scan Blog. However, managing them and responding to them has simply become impossible, due to time demands.

I'm afraid that I am unable to answer questions seeking medical advice; this is for your doctor, who knows you and can diagnose and prescribe. I cannot.

I'm also unable to engage in lengthy debates; I've had commenters become very angry when I was unable to engage in lengthy conversations on some topic. Nor am I able to do Google or literature searches for commenters, or review studies, papers, or other materials.

I would urge any readers who wish to engage in in-depth discussions about these issues, talk about lipoproteins, heart disease reversal, etc. to do so on the Track Your Plaque Forums. Yes, it is a fee-for-membership website, a model that has become necessary to pay for the services we provide (not pay me).

I wish that I could answer all the concerns and questions that come my way, but it's simply physically impossible doing so while maintaining a full-time very busy cardiology practice, developing the Track Your Plaque website (which is becoming an enormous responsibility), publishing scientific data, maintaining hospital responsibilities, and spending time with my wife and family. We're all busy and I'm no different. I'm afraid that it's my responses to blog comments that I will have to sacrifice.

I invite commenters to continue to comment on these posts, as I've learned many new things by reading them and find them helpful feedback. And I do read them. Should an especially helpful comment be made, I will feature it in a new blog post, rather than respond directly.

"Flying in the fog"

2. March 2008 William Davis (3)
I received this wonderful response to The Heart Scan Blog post Hammers and Nails:

I am 65 years old. I had a stent inserted in the "widow-maker" artery (80% blockage) a year ago. I had passed out a couple of times (heart rate dangerously low - 30s). I rode to the hospital in an ambulance. Tests revealed short LBBB episodes; mild mitral regurgitation, mild tricuspid regurgitation. Catherization showed 3 vessel CAD. I was told that a medicated stent was absolutely necessary given the situation; regardless, I have to accept that. A pacemaker was installed to prevent bradycardia and keeps heart rate from dropping below 60. I have 20% L distal main blockage and 90% lesion of the high first obtuse marginal at the takeoff. The right coronary had 60% posterior lateral branch stenosis.

Since then I have reduced TG from 360 to 60, LDL from 89 to 82 (although a few months ago it was in the mid-70s), and increased HDL from 30 to 46. I went from 265lbs to 190lbs and hope to eventually get to 180lb this Spring. I did it by progressing from walking to trotting (slow run) and dietstyle changes (low-GI veggies, fruits, etc.) .













On a recent visit the cardiologist said the the LDL needs to be 70 or below to "freeze" the 90% blockage and gave me a prescription for Lipitor. I asked if there were alternatives, like diet, supplements, etc. He admitted that he did not know about those alternative but did know Lipitor. When the only tool you have is a hammer then everything is a nail. I understand that the 90% blockage is important but will not take the Lipitor to achieve the 12 points reduction. Seems like an overkill.

I asked him if there was a way to evaluate my current condition. I was told there was no way. Basically, if I have no symptoms, good. If I have symptoms then it will have to be evaluated. Death could be the only symptom. I swear he was about to say bypass surgery ($$$$$$!) was inevitable. Something is wrong with this "fly-in-the-fog-and-hope-you-don't- hit-a-mountain" approach. Hope is not a strategy!

I am confident that I can reduce LDL to below 70 based on eliminating wheat-products in my diet plus increasing oat bran in my diet. I also take fish oil daily (EPA/DHA-2g). I am looking for a new cardiologist. I just recently purchased your book and find it very instructive. In the meantime I have an appointment with my primary care physician to discuss implementing the Track Your Plaque program. I realize that the one stent will skew the scan numbers but can be used as a baseline number.


Phenomenal weight loss! That alone has likely cut this man's risk in half. But is that it? Is the cardiologist correct--take Lipitor and hope for the best?

Of course not. There are many additional strategies to employ. Eliminating wheat from the diet is an excellent idea: HDL will skyrocket, triglycerides drop even further, small LDL will drop like a stone, blood sugar and blood pressure will drop. He will have more energy, get rid of afternoon energy slumps, sleep better.

He has already added fish oil. If his cardiologist did not mention this, I would say he was guilty of malpractice. The data supporting the addition of fish oil to the treatment program of anyone with heart disease is overhwelming. GISSI Prevenzione: 11,000 participants--28% reduction in heart attack, 45% reduction in death from heart attack. The Japanese JELIS trial of 18,645 participants--19% reduction in dangerous heart events. It's also clear that omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil also compound the benefits of statin agents, should this man choose to begin Lipitor.

Vitamin D brought to normal blood levels is his next "secret weapon" that will further boost his lipids and lipoproteins further into not just "normal" territory, but beyond belief. Even though we aim for 60-60-60 for LDL-HDL-triglycerides in the Track Your Plaque program, adding vitamin D can yield numbers you've never seen before. It's not uncommon, for instance, to see a 10 or 20 mg/dl jump in HDL.

Identify all other hidden causes of coronary plaque. If all the causes have not been fully identified, how can anyone hope to gain full control over coronary plaque growth?

Re: LDL cholesterol of 89 mg/dl at the start. Of course, this is a calculated value, not measured. Because HDL was low and triglycerides high at the start of his program, this means that true LDL--if actually measured--was probably more like 180 to 250 mg/dl, and it was probably nearly all small. So his cardiologist might have advised a helpful treatment, though for the wrong reasons.

Our reader has gone a long way on his own in creating his own prevention program. But there's yet more to do, particularly if the goal is reversal. It is shocking to me that a man like our reader, clearly articulate and motivated, gets virtually no advice beyond "take Lipitor" after all the procedural benefits have been reaped.

Even though one artery can no longer be "scored" due to the presence of the metallic stent, a heart scan would still be invaluable for long-term tracking purposes, just as we advocate in the Track Your Plaque program.



Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Condition Afflicts Millions: Do you have “YBS”?

12. May 2014 Lisa G Nutrition (0)
After one of the harshest winters, spring has finally arrived.  The welcomed warmer temperatures and longer daylight hours infuse us with a sense of renewal and new beginnings.   Low and behold we begin to come out of hibernation and start the mad dash to engage in positive lifestyle changes such as eating better, exercising, proper sleep and taking appropriate nutritional supplements.  But invariably, life happens.  

Yep, just when you were about to get started, it happens.  YBS sets in.   I see this “condition” all too often with clients attempting to enter or re-enter into any number of behavior changes.  I will go so far as to say we all have been afflicted at one point or another in our lives.  I call this condition Yeah But Syndrome, or “YBS”.    It is often paralyzing and prevents those afflicted from moving into action, instead remaining in a state of inertia.  

There are many symptoms of YBS but the following are some of the most common.  

• Yeah I planned to go to the gym today BUT, the kids needed a ride to practice.  
• Yeah I really want to eat better BUT I don’t have the time.   
• Yeah I didn’t plan to eat the cake BUT my husband wanted too, so I did also.   
• Yeah I really meant to go to the grocery shopping BUT I was too tired, so I hit the drive- thru.  
• Or this is a good one. Yeah I meant to start today BUT, I’ll start tomorrow.  

But tomorrow never comes.  You get the drift.  We can all come up with a million yeah buts, in other words, excuses.    The good news is the treatment for YBS is simple--just do it!  Take action.  The reality of today’s 24-7 planet is there will always be something.  The kids, work commitments, family obligations and various projects that need your attention will perpetually be present in some shape or form.  The difference to make the difference is to learn to dance in the rain, not wait for the rain to pass.  When will all the stars align so that your world will be “just right” to start?  If not NOW, WHEN will you begin?  

The key word here is begin.   Far too frequently, I coach clients that shoot themselves in the foot before they start.   Instead of consuming yourself with all the barriers to entry, select reasonable, low-hanging fruit that is “doable.”    The art of lifestyle change is to avoid all-or-nothing thinking and begin to appreciate what you CAN do, versus focusing energy on what you can’t do.  What is one action you can do TODAY to move toward your wellness goal(s)?  Start to focus on what you can do in the mist of your existing life demands. This mantra is a friendly reminder: BE-DO-HAVE.  Be committed.  Do what it takes.  And you will have results.  

Lastly, if you think removing cereal from your morning routine it is too difficult and you can’t do it. Guess what-- you’re likely right.   What you think is what you get!   But what if you think instead, “I can do this.  There are many truly healthy options for breakfast to replace cereal such as eggs and veggies that will help me look and feel my best.”  Then guess what--you will!  This simple change in mind-set can start a tidal wave of change and prevent you from abandoning ship when life tosses you into rough waters.  Ongoing support is hugely important to sustain lifestyle changes.  Join the conversations in the Cureality Forum to engage the support of health coaches and Cureality Members to stay on track. 

We Need More.....Kettlebell

8. May 2014 Amber B Exercise (0)
You either love them or you hate them.

When you are in love with kettlebells, like I am, you enjoy the multi-muscle group movements.  Kettlebell workouts are fluid, like a dance, putting together a chain of movements that leave your heart pounding and sweat pouring.  Yes, there’s some sneaky cardio component to a kettlebell workout.   A great blend of aerobic and anaerobic conditioning.

If you hate kettlebells it’s because kettlebell exercises keep you honest with proper exercise execution.  Form is imperative to moves like the kettlebell swing or the kettlebell snatch.  Do it incorrectly and you’ll be either sore or have bruised wrists the next day.  But this is no reason to shy away from the kettlebell.  You have way too much to gain from this odd looking piece of exercise equipment.  

You will get a mega -caloric burn.  The American council on Exercise states that the average kettlebell workout burns 20 calories per minute.  That’s 1200 calories in just one hour.   Kettlebell workouts utilize many muscle groups to give you an efficient, total body conditioning workout.  

If you’re looking for a toned back side get a kettlebell.  The classic kettlebell swing works all the posterior muscles like your glutes, hamstrings, and lower back.  But only if you use correct form.  Otherwise you'll find yourself with nagging back pain, instead of a better butt.  

Kettlebell exercises are functional movements that will allow you to play hard without getting injured.  If you are an athlete, a nature enthusiast, or just want to keep up with the kids then you need to give kettlebells a try.  During a workout, the exercises will target movements that will make getting up and down off the floor easier, as well as bending over to pick something up.

If you are interested in doing kettlebell workouts start with a coach or take class.  You can’t fake form with kettlebell exercises or you could end up hurt.  I’m not trying to scare anyone away because good form is easy to learn.   Your body will memorize the correct movement pattern and you’ll be on your way to a successful kettlebell workout.  

Thyroid and the gut: Hidden health partners

8. May 2014 Chris K Thyroid (0)
Though I have personally dealt with both auto-immune thyroiditis (Hashomoto’s) and several gut issues (wheat sensitivity, gastritis, etc.), it was not until recently that I discovered how close the thyroid and gut work together to keep you healthy – and how problems with one can affect the other along with your overall health.
 
Most of us understand that the primary function of the gut, that 25 to 30 feet of “tubing” that includes everything from your stomach to your large intestines, is to process the food we eat and allow the “good stuff” (essential nutrients) to pass into our blood stream while keeping the “bad stuff” (harmful proteins) out. However, it may surprise some that the gut also holds as much as 70% of all the immune tissue in the body.
 
Now, imagine all the health havoc that could ensue if, suddenly, the gut stopped doing its job – particularly if it failed to stop toxic proteins from entering the blood stream and then mounted an overzealous immune response against them.  Sometimes, those overzealous immune responses reach beyond their intended targets to attack otherwise healthy tissues and organs – like the thyroid gland.
 
Recent studies indicate that thyroid hormones play a significant role in maintaining gut integrity, preventing leaky gut that can, in some cases, lead to auto-immune attacks against the thyroid.  A properly functioning gut also aids the production of thyroid hormones by converting some of the inactive “T4” thyroid hormone into the functional “T3” hormone.  Failure to simultaneously maintain both a healthy gut and a healthy thyroid can create a vicious cycle leading to chronic health problems and declining vitality.
 
What it all means is that to enjoy optimal health, you must promote good thyroid health to promote good gut health and vice versa.  Unfortunately, traditional medicine tends to focus on one issue to the exclusion of others.  A typical endocrinologist may treat your under active thyroid without spending a moment to address underlying gut issues.  A gastroenterologist will work alleviate a gut problem but will rarely address a potential thyroid problem.
 
This illustrates, once again, how our bodies work as a system and why it is necessary to bridge the “healthcare gaps” in traditional medicine by becoming personally responsible for your health.  I encourage everyone to consult the Cureality Program Guide and online Cureality Diet and Thyroid Health Tracks to learn more about how to optimize both your gut and thyroid health on your journey to realizing complete, whole-body health.

Omega-3 fatty acids likely NOT associated with prostate cancer

18. July 2013 William Davis Omega-3 fatty acids (6)
A weakly constructed study was reported recently that purportedly associated higher levels of omega-3 fatty acid blood levels and prostate cancer. See this CBS News report, for instance.

Lipid and omega-3 fat expert, Dr. William Harris, posted this concise critique of the study, exposing some fundamental problems:

First, the reported EPA+DHA level in the plasma phospholipids in this study was 3.62% in the no-cancer control group, 3.66% in the total cancer group, 3.67% in the low grade cancer group, and 3.74% in the high-grade group. These differences between cases and controls are very small and would have no meaning clinically as they are within the normal variation. Based on experiments in our lab, the lowest quartile would correspond to an HS-Omega-3 Index of <3.16% and the highest to an Index of >4.77%). These values are obviously low, and virtually none of the subjects was in “danger” of having an HS-Omega-3 Index of >8%. So to conclude that regular consumption of 2 oily fish meals a week or taking fish oil supplements (both of which would result in an Index above the observed range) would increase risk for prostate cancer is extrapolating beyond the data.

This study did not test the question of whether giving fish oil supplements (or eating more oily fish) increased PC risk; it looked only a blood levels of omega-3 which are determined by intake, other dietary factors, metabolism and genetics.

The authors also failed to present the fuller story taught by the literature. The same team reported in 2010 that the use of fish oil supplements was not associated with any increased risk for prostate cancer. A 2010 meta-analysis of fish consumption and prostate cancer reported a reduction in late stage or fatal cancer among cohort studies, but no overall relationship between prostate cancer and fish intake. Terry et al. in 2001 reported higher fish intake was associated with lower risk for prostate cancer incidence and death, and Leitzmann et al. in 2004 reported similar findings. Higher intakes of canned, preserved fish were reported to be associated with reduced risk for prostate cancer. Epstein et al found that a higher omega-3 fatty acid intake predicted better survival for men who already had prostate cancer, and increased fish intake was associated with a 63% reduction in risk for aggressive prostate cancer in a case-control study by Fradet et al). So there is considerable evidence actually FAVORING an increase in fish intake for prostate cancer risk reduction.

Another piece of the picture is to compare prostate cancer rates in Japan vs the US. Here is a quote from the World Foundation of Urology:

"[Prostate cancer] incidence is really high in North America and Northern Europe (e.g., 63 X 100,000 white men and 102 X 100,000 Afro-Americans in the United States), but very low in Asia (e.g., 10 X 100,000 men in Japan).”

Since the Japanese typically eat about 8x more omega-3 fatty acids than Americans do and their
blood levels are twice as high, you’d think their prostate cancer risk would be much higher...
but the opposite is the case.

Omega-3 fatty acids are physiologically necessary, normalizing multiple metabolic phenomena including augmentation of parasympathetic tone, reductions of postprandial (after-meal) lipoprotein excursions, and endothelial function. It would indeed make no sense that nutrients that are necessary for life and health exert an adverse effect such as prostate cancer at such low blood levels. (Recall that an omega-3 RBC index of 6.0% or greater is associated with reduced potential for sudden cardiac death.)

I personally take 3600 mg per day of EPA + DHA in highly-purified, non-oxidized triglyceride form (Ascenta Nutrasea liquid) that yields an RBC omega-3 index of just over 10%, the level that I believe the overwhelming bulk of data suggest is the ideal level for humans.

Are statins and omega-3s incompatible?

18. June 2013 William Davis (4)
French researcher, Dr. Michel de Lorgeril, has been in the forefront of thinking and research into nutritional issues, including the Mediterranean Diet, the French Paradox, and the role of fat intake in cardiovascular health. In a recent review entitled Recent findings on the health effects of omega-3 fatty acids and statins, and their interactions: do statins inhibit omega-3?, he explores the question of whether statin drugs are, in effect, incompatible with omega-3 fatty acids.

Dr. Lorgeril makes several arguments:

1) Earlier studies, such as GISSI-Prevenzione, demonstrated reduction in cardiovascular events with omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, consistent with the biological and physiological benefits observed in animals, experimental preparations, and epidemiologic observations in free-living populations.

2) More recent studies (and meta-analyses) examining the effects of omega-3 fatty acids have failed to demonstrate cardiovascular benefit showing, at most, non-significant trends towards benefit.

He points out that the more recent studies were conducted post-GISSI and after agencies like the American Heart Association's advised people to consume more fish, which prompted broad increases in omega-3 intake. The populations studied therefore had increased intake of omega-3 fatty acids at the start of the studies, verified by higher levels of omega-3 RBC levels in participants.

In addition, he raises the provocative idea that the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids appear to be confined to those not taking statin agents, as suggested, for instance, in the Alpha Omega Trial. He speculates that the potential for statins to ablate the benefits of omega-3s (and vice versa) might be based on several phenomena:

--Statins increase arachidonic acid content of cell membranes, a potentially inflammatory omega-6 fatty acid that competes with omega-3 fatty acids. (Insulin provocation and greater linoleic acid/omega-6 oils do likewise.)
--Statins induce impaired mitochondrial function, while omega-3s improve mitochondrial function. (Impaired mitochondrial function is evidenced, for instance, by reduced coenzyme Q10 levels, with partial relief from muscle weakness and discomfort by supplementing coenzyme Q10.)
--Statins commonly provoke muscle weakness and discomfort which can, in turn, lead to reduced levels of physical activity and increased resistance to insulin. (Thus the recently reported increases in diabetes with statin drug use.)

Are the physiologic effects of omega-3 fatty acids, present and necessary for health, at odds with the non-physiologic effects of statin drugs?

I fear we don't have sufficient data to come to firm conclusions yet, but my perception is that the case against statins is building. Yes, they have benefits in specific subsets of people (none in others), but the notion that everybody needs a statin drug is, I believe, not only dead wrong, but may have effects that are distinctly negative. And I believe that the arguments in favor of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, EPA and DHA (and perhaps DPA), make better sense.



DHA: the crucial omega-3

22. May 2013 William Davis (5)
Of the two omega-3 fatty acids that are best explored, EPA and DHA, it is likely DHA that exerts the most blood pressure- and heart rate-reducing effects. Here are the data of Mori et al in which 4000 mg of olive oil, purified EPA only, or purified DHA only were administered over 6 weeks:



□ indicates baseline SBP; ▪, postintervention SBP; ○, baseline DBP; •, postintervention DBP; ⋄, baseline HR; and ♦, postintervention HR.

In this group of 56 overweight men with normal starting blood pressures, only DHA reduced systolic BP by 5.8 mmHg, diastolic by 3.3 mmHg.

While each omega-3 fatty acid has important effects, it may be DHA that has an outsized benefit. So how can you get more DHA? Well, this observation from Schuchardt et al is important:

DHA in the triglyceride and phospholipid forms are 3-fold better absorbed, as compared to the ethyl ester form (compared by area-under-the-curve). In other words, fish oil that has been reconstituted to the naturally-occurring triglyceride form (i.e., the form found in fresh fish) provides 3-fold greater blood levels of DHA than the more common ethyl ester form found in most capsules. (The phospholipid form of DHA found in krill is also well-absorbed, but occurs in such small quantities that it is not a practical means of obtaining omega-3 fatty acids, putting aside the astaxanthin issue.)

So if the superior health effects of DHA are desired in a form that is absorbed, the ideal way to do this is either to eat fish or to supplement fish oil in the triglyceride, not ethyl ester, form. The most common and popular forms of fish oil sold are ethyl esters, including Sam's Club Triple-Strength, Costco, Nature Made, Nature's Bounty, as well as prescription Lovaza. (That's right: prescription fish oil, from this and several other perspectives, is an inferior product.)

What sources of triglyceride fish oil with greater DHA content/absorption are available to us? My favorites are, in this order:

Ascenta NutraSea
CEO and founder, Marc St. Onge, is a friend. Having visited his production facility in Nova Scotia, I was impressed with the meticulous methods of preparation. At every step of the way, every effort was made to limit any potential oxidation, including packaging in a vacuum environment. The Ascenta line of triglyceride fish oils are also richer in DHA content. Their NutraSea High DHA liquid, for instance, contains 500 mg EPA and 1000 mg DHA per teaspoon, a 1:2 EPA:DHA ratio, rather than the more typical 3:2 EPA:DHA ratio of ethyl ester forms.

Pharmax (now Seroyal) also has a fine product with a 1.4:1 EPA:DHA ratio.

Nordic Naturals has a fine liquid triglyceride product, though it is 2:1 EPA:DHA.





Krill oil: Do the math

21. May 2013 William Davis (0)
The manufacturers of krill oil claim that the phospholipid form of omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA, enhance their absorption. There are indeed some data to that effect:


Here are some representative krill oil preparations available on the market:


MegaRed Krill Oil:
EPA 50 mg
DHA 24 mg
Total omega-3s (EPA + DHA + other forms) 90 mg
Price: $28.99 for 60 softgels

Source Naturals (a fine company otherwise, by the way):

EPA 150 mg
DHA 90 mg
Total omega-3 fatty acids 300 mg
Price: $24.99 for 60 softgels

Alright, let's do some simple math:

Average volume of blood in the human body (all components): 5000 cc
Percentage of red blood cells (RBCs) by volume: 45%
Total volume RBCs: 2250 cc
Percentage of total volume RBCs occupied by fatty acids:

What tests are MORE important than cholesterol?

12. May 2013 William Davis (8)
In the conventional practice of early heart disease prevention, cholesterol testing takes center stage. Rarely does it go any further, aside from questions about family history and obvious sources of modifiable risk such as smoking and sedentary lifestyle.

So standard practice is to usually look at your LDL cholesterol, the value that is calculated, not measured, then--almost without fail--prescribe a statin drug. While there are indeed useful values in the standard cholesterol panel--HDL cholesterol and triglycerides--they are typically ignored or prompt no specific action.

But a genuine effort at heart disease prevention should go farther than an assessment of calculated LDL cholesterol, as there are many ways that humans develop coronary atherosclerosis. Among the tests to consider in order to craft a truly effect heart disease prevention program are:

--Lipoprotein testing--Rather than using the amount of cholesterol in the various fractions of blood as a crude surrogate for lipoproteins in the bloodstream, why not measure lipoproteins themselves? These techniques have been around for over 20 years, but are simply not part of standard practice.

Lipoprotein testing especially allows you to understand what proportion of LDL particles are the truly unhealthy small LDL particles (that are oxidation- and glycation-prone). It also identifies whether or not you have lipoprotein(a), the heritable factor that confers superior survival capacity in a wild environment ("The Perfect Carnivore"), but makes the holder of this genetic pattern the least tolerant to the modern diet dominated by grains and sugars, devoid of fat and organ meats.

--25-hydroxy vitamin D--The data documenting the health power of vitamin D restoration continue to grow, with benefits on blood sugar and insulin, blood pressure, bone density, protection from winter "blues" (seasonal affective disorder), decrease in falls and fractures, decrease in cancer, decrease in cardiovascular events. I aim to keep 25-hydroxy vitamin D at a level of 60 to 70 ng/ml. This generally requires 4000-8000 units per day in gelcap form, at least for the first 3 or so years, after which there is a decrease in need. Daily supplementation is better than weekly, monthly, or other less-frequent regimens. The D3 (cholecalciferol) form is superior to the non-human D2 (ergocalciferol) form.

--Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)--HbA1c represents glycated hemoglobin, i.e., hemoglobin molecules within red blood cells that are irreversibly modified by glucose, or blood sugar. It therefore provides an index of endogenous glycation of all proteins of the body: proteins in the lenses of the eyes that lead to cataracts; proteins in the cartilage of the knees and hips that lead to brittle cartilage and arthritis; proteins in kidney tissue leading to kidney dysfunction.

HbA1c provides an incredibly clear snapshot of health: It reflects the amount of glycation you have been exposed to over the past 90 or so days. We therefore aim for an ideal level: 5.0% or less, the amount of "ambient" glycation that occurs just with living life. We reject the notion that a HbA1c level of 6.0% is acceptable just because you don't "need" diabetes medication, the thinking that drives conventional medical practice.

--RBC Omega-3 Index--The average American consumes very little omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA, such that a typical omega-3 RBC Index, i.e., the proportion of fatty acids in the red blood cell occupied by omega-3 fatty acids, is around 2-3%, a level associated with increased potential for sudden cardiac death (death!). Levels of 6% or greater are associated with reduced potential for sudden cardiac death; 10% or greater are associated with reduced other cardiovascular events.

Evidence therefore suggests that an RBC Omega-3 Index of 10% or greater is desirable, a level generally achieved by obtaining 3000-3600 mg EPA + DHA per day (more or less, depending on the form consumed, an issue for future discussion).

--Thyroid testing (TSH, free T3, free T4)--Even subtle degrees of thyroid dysfunction can double, triple, even quadruple cardiovascular risk. TSH values, for instance, within the previously presumed "normal" range, pose increased risk for cardiovascular death; a TSH level of 4.0 mIU, for instance, is associated with more than double the relative risk of a level of 1.0.

Sad fact: the endocrinology community, not keeping abreast of the concerning issues coming from the toxicological community regarding perchlorates, polyfluorooctanoic acid and other fluorinated hydrocarbons, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PDBEs), and other thyroid-toxic compounds, tend to ignore these issues, while the public is increasingly exposed to the increased cardiovascular risk of even modest degrees of thyroid dysfunction. Don't commit the same crime of ignorance: Thyroid dysfunction in this age of endocrine disruption can be crucial to cardiovascular and overall health.


All in all, there are a number of common blood tests that are relevant--no, crucial--for achieving heart health. Last on the list: standard cholesterol testing.

Cranberry Sauce

21. November 2012 William Davis (3)
Happy Thanksgiving 2012, everyone, from all the staff at Track Your Plaque!

Here’s a zesty version of traditional cranberry sauce, minus the sugar. The orange, cinnamon, and other spices, along with the crunch of walnuts, make this one of my favorite holiday side dishes.

There are 31.5 grams total “net” carbohydrates in this entire recipe, or 5.25 grams per serving (serves 6). To further reduce carbs, you can leave out the orange juice and, optionally, use more zest.

1 cup water
12 ounces fresh whole cranberries
Sweetener equivalent to 1 cup sugar (I used 6 tablespoons Truvía)
1 tablespoon orange zest + juice of half an orange
½ cup chopped walnuts
1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
½ teaspoon ground nutmeg
¼ teaspoon ground cloves

In small to medium saucepan, bring water to boil. Turn heat down and add cranberries. Cover and cook at low-heat for 10 minutes or until all cranberries have popped. Stir in sweetener. Remove from heat.

Stir in orange zest and juice, walnuts, cinnamon, nutmeg, and cloves.

Transfer mixture to bowl, cool, and serve.


Apple Cranberry Crumble

18. November 2012 William Davis (0)
Apple, cranberry, and cinnamon: the perfect combination of tastes and scents for winter holidays!

I took a bit of carbohydrate liberties with this recipe. The entire recipe yields a delicious cheesecake-like crumble with 59 “net” grams carbohydrates (total carbs – fiber); divided among 10 slices, that’s 5.9 grams net carbs per serving, a quantity most tolerate just fine. (To reduce carbohydrates, the molasses in the crumble is optional, reducing total carbohydrate by 11 grams.)

Other good choices for sweeteners include liquid stevia, stevia glycerite, powdered stevia (pure or inulin-based, not maltodextrin-based), Truvía, Swerve, and erythritol. And always taste your batter to test sweetness, since sweeteners vary in sweetness from brand to brand and your individual sensitivity to sweetness depends on how long you’ve been wheat-free. (The longer you’ve been wheat-free, the less sweetness you desire.)


Crust and crumble topping
3 cups almond meal
1 stick (8 tablespoons) butter, softened
1 cup xylitol (or other sweetener equivalent to 1 cup sugar)
1½ teaspoons ground cinnamon
1 tablespoon molasses
1½ teaspoons vanilla extract
Dash sea salt

Filling
16 ounces cream cheese, softened
2 large eggs
½ cup xylitol (or other sweetener equivalent to ½ cup sugar)
1 Granny Smith apple (or other variety)
1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
1 cup fresh cranberries

Preheat oven to 350° F.

In large bowl, combine almond meal, butter, sweetener, cinnamon, molasses, vanilla, and salt and mix.

Grease a 9½-inch tart or pie pan. Using approximately 1 cup of the almond meal mixture, form a thin bottom crust with your hands or spoon.

In another bowl, combine cream cheese, eggs, and sweetener and mix with spoon or mixer at low-speed. Pour into tart or pie pan.

Core apple and slice into very thin sections. Arrange in circles around the edge of the cream cheese mixture, working inwards. Distribute cranberries over top, then sprinkle cinnamon over entire mixture.

Gently layer remaining almond meal crumble evenly over top. Bake for 30 minutes or until topping lightly browned.
All posts by william-davis

Does high cholesterol cause heart disease?

3. October 2008 William Davis (15)
How often does someone develop coronary heart disease from high cholesterol alone?

Believe drug industry propaganda and you'd think that everyone does. Physicians have bought into this concept also, driving the $27 billion annual sales in statin cholesterol drugs.

In my experience, I can count the number of people who develop coronary disease from high cholesterol alone on one hand. It happens--but rarely.

That's not to say that cholesterol is not an issue. That rant populates many of the kook websites and conversations on the internet that argue that high cholesterol is a surrogate for some other health issue, or that it is part of a medical conspiracy.

The problem with conventional measurement of cholesterol is that it ignores the particle size issue: whether particles are large or small. Small LDL are flagrant causes of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Large LDL is a rather meager cause. Simple cholesterol measurement also ignores the presence of other factors that lead to heart disease, like lipoprotein(a) and vitamin D deficiency.

Conventional total and LDL cholesterol do not distinguish between large and small particles, nor reveal the presence of other hidden patterns. An LDL cholesterol of 150 mg/dl, for instance, may contain 100% large LDL--a relatively good situation that by itself is unlikely to cause heart disease, or it might contain 100% small LDL--a very bad situation that is likely to cause heart disease. Just knowing that LDL is 150 mg/dl tells you almost nothing. In 2008, most people have some mixture of the two, particularly with the proliferation of "healthy whole grains" in the American diet, foods that trigger formation of small LDL.

The imprecision and uncertainty of conventional total and LDL cholesterol has provided ammunition for some to discount the entire cholesterol concept. And they are right to a degree: cholesterol by itself is indeed a lousy predictor of heart disease. But small LDL is a very reliable predictor of potential for heart disease. Dismissing the entire concept because the standard measurement stinks is not right, either.

It is therefore an unfortunate oversimplification to say that high cholesterol causes heart disease or that it doesn't. It can--but not always, depending on size and other factors. In my view, it is therefore irreponsible to treat total or LDL cholesterol without knowledge of particle size. I've seen this play out many times: Someone with an LDL cholesterol of 150 mg/dl but all large still gets prescribed a statin drug by his/her doctor. Or someone with an LDL of 100 mg/dl--generally "favorable" by most standards--is not treated but it is all small and the person is truly at high risk. (Also, knowledge that all LDL particles are small does not mean that statins are the preferred agent. In my view, they are not.)

Are humans meant to be omnivores?

28. September 2008 William Davis (24)
Are humans meant to be omnivores?

Does the ideal human diet include animal products like meat, fish, cheese, eggs, and dairy products?

Or should the ideal diet be devoid of all animal products?a vegetarian diet?

Though the argument is distorted by modern food processing methods (e.g., factory farming, long-term administration of antibiotics), convenience foods, and pseudo-foods crafted by food manufacturers, there are, obviously, proponents of both extremes.

The Atkins’ diet, for instance, advocates unrestricted intake of animal products, regardless of production methods or curing (sausage and bacon). At the opposite extreme are diets like Ornish (Dr. Dean Ornish’s Program for Reversal of Heart Disease) and the experiences of Dr. Colin Campbell, articulated in his studies and book, The China Study, in which he lambasts animal products, including dairy, as triggers for cancer and heart disease.

So which end of the spectrum is correct? Or ideal?

For the sake of argument, let's put aside philosophical questions (like not wanting eat animal products because of aversion to killing any living being) or ethical concerns (inhumane treatment of farm animals, cruel slaughtering practices, etc.). Does the inclusion of animal products provide advantage? Disadvantage?

The traditional argument against animal products has been saturated fat. If we accept that we’ve demoted the saturated fat question to a place far down the list of importance (though this is yet another argument to discuss another time), several questions emerge:

• If humans were meant to be vegetarian, why do omega-3 fatty acids (mostly from wild game and fish) yield such substantial health benefits, including dramatic reduction in sudden death from heart disease?

• Why would vitamin K2 (from meats and milk, as well as fermented foods like natto and cheese), obtainable in only the tiniest amounts on a vegetarian diet, provide such significant benefits on bone and cardiovascular health?

• Why would vitamin B12 (from meats) be necessary to maintain a normal blood count, prevent anemia, keep homocysteine at bay, and lead to profound neurologic dysfunction when deficient?


Omega-3 fatty acids and vitamins K2 and B12 cannot be obtained in satisfactory quantities from a pure vegetarian diet. The consequences of deficiency are not measured in decades, but in a few years. The conclusion is unavoidable: Evolutionarily, humans are meant to consume at least some foods from animal sources.

That's not to say that we should gorge ourselves on animal products. Gout (excessive uric acid) and kidney stones are among the unhealthy consequences of excessive quantities of meats in our diets.

It pains me to say this, since I’ve always favored a vegetarian lifestyle, mostly because of philosophical concerns, as well as worries about the safety of our factory farm-raised livestock and rampant inhumane practices.

But, stepping back and objectively examining what nutritional approach appears to stack the odds in favor of optimal health, I believe that only one conclusion is possible: Humans are meant to be omnivorous, meant to consume some quantity of animal products in addition to vegetables, fruits, nuts, and other non-animal products.

The question is how much?

Are you wheat-free?

24. September 2008 William Davis (25)
According to the recent Heart Scan Blog poll, Are you wheat-free?, the 173 respondents said:

Yes, I am free of wheat products.
87 (50%)

No, I include wheat products in my diet.
73 (42%)

I'm not sure.
1 (0%)

I think you're nuts.
12 (6%)


That's kind of what I expected.

There are people who have eliminated wheat and experienced nothing except a feeling of deprivation. These people are in the minority. Though the poll was not set up to reflect this (i.e., asked who tried it and experienced no perceptible benefit), in my experience, this applies to about 20% of people. Little happens with elimination of wheat beyond modest weight loss. Those are the people who generally think I'm nuts.

Or, these people may have been brainwashed by "official" agencies like the USDA, the American Diabetes Association, and American Heart Association and the constant marketing of (high markup) grain products like Cheerios and Shredded Wheat . Some people are really uncomfortable going against the "grain" of popular public opinion.

Then there are the people who try to eliminate wheat and fail. They can't deal with the overwhelming fatigue, mental fog, and moodiness that comes with withdrawal from wheat, the phenomenon of converting from a sugar-burning metabolism to a fat-burning metabolism. Although wheat withdrawal usually runs its course in 2-5 days, some people find it intolerable. (That would be another fun poll to run: Have you experienced wheat-withdrawal?) Occasionally, the withdrawal is replaced by endless cravings, a phenomenon that applies to only about 10% of people. These are the true "wheat addicts." These are the people who eliminate wheat, lose 40 lbs, then regain it when they have one cracker and the floodgates of impulse control crumble.

Then there are the majority, 50% in the poll, though more like 70% in my face-to-face experience. Why is my experience skewed? Well, the people I deal with every day come because of coronary disease in some form (abnormal heart scan score, for instance) or because of lipid or lipoprotein abnormalities. So my experienced is skewed towards people who are likely to have something abnormal, such as high triglycerides or small LDL particles, both of which are created by including wheat in the diet.

This last group also shows unexpected effects of wheat elimination: substantial weight loss, dramatic reductions in blood sugar and triglycerides, increase in HDL, reductions in small LDL, reduction in c-reactive protein and other inflammatory measures. Appetite shrinks considerably. Not uncommonly, improved well-being, reduction in bowel complaints like cramping or "irritable bowel syndrome" is experienced, some rashes clear, occasionally arthritis will improve. See below for some of the testimonials to this experience.

When I first set out to advise people to eliminate wheat, I did it because I reasoned that it would be a quick and simple way to get people to reduce blood sugars and help correct the ubiquitous metabolic syndrome that afflicts nearly 50 million Americans now. And it did indeed accomplish that simple goal. But I did not expect all the other benefits to develop, the dramatic weight loss, improved well-being, reduction in hunger, etc.

I view wheat elimination as an easy-to-remember, digestible way to obtain enormous health benefits in a coronary plaque-control program, one that works for most--but not all--people. And I relate this experience not to sell you something, but to simply relate what I see as the truth, a way that is contrary to conventional advice yet works enormously well.



Unsolicited testimonials of people who have successfully been wheat-free:

Barbara W said:

It's true! We've done it. My husband and I stopped eating all grains and sugar in February. At this point, we really don't miss them any more. It was a huge change, but it's worth the effort. I've lost over 20 pounds (10 to go)and my husband has lost 45 pounds (20 to go). On top of it, our body shapes have changed drastically. It is really amazing. I've got my waist back (and a whole wardrobe of clothes) - I'm thrilled.

I'm also very happy to be eating foods that I always loved like eggs, avocados, and meats - without feeling guilty that they're not good for me.

With the extremely hot weather this week in our area, we thought we'd "treat" ourselves to small ice cream cones. To our surprise, it wasn't that much of a treat. Didn't even taste as good as we'd anticipated. I know I would have been much more satisfied with a snack of smoked salmon with fresh dill, capers, chopped onion and drizzled with lemon juice.

Aside from weight changes, we both feel so much better in general - feel much more alert and move around with much greater flexibility, sleep well, never have any indigestion. We're really enjoying this. It's like feeling younger.

It's not a diet for us. This will be the way we eat from now on. Actually, we think our food has become more interesting and varied since giving up all the "white stuff". I guess we felt compelled to get a little more creative.

Eating out (or at other peoples' places) has probably been the hardest part of this adjustment. But now we're getting pretty comfortable saying what we won't eat. I'm starting to enjoy the reactions it produces.


Weight loss, increased energy, less abdominal bloating, better sleep--I've seen it many times, as well.


Dotslady said:

I was a victim of the '80s lowfat diet craze - doc told me I was obese, gave me the Standard American Diet and said to watch my fat (I'm not a big meat eater, didn't like mayo ... couldn't figure out where my fat was coming from! maybe the fries - I will admit I liked fries). I looked to the USDA food pyramid and to increase my fiber for the constipation I was experiencing. Bread with 3 grams of fiber wasn't good enough; I turned to Kashi cereals for 11 years. My constipation turned to steattorrhea and a celiac disease diagnosis! *No gut pains!* My PCP sent me to the gastroenterologist for a colonscopy because my ferritin was a 5 (20 is low range). Good thing I googled around and asked him to do an endoscopy or I'd be a zombie by now.

My symptoms were depression & anxiety, eczema, GERD, hypothyroidism, mild dizziness, tripping, Alzheimer's-like memory problems, insomnia, heart palpitations, fibromyalgia, worsening eyesight, mild cardiomyopathy, to name a few.

After six months gluten-free, I asked my gastroenterologist about feeling full early ... he said he didn't know what I was talking about! *shrug*

But *I* knew -- it was the gluten/starches! My satiety level has totally changed, and for the first time in my life I feel NORMAL!


Feeling satisfied with less is a prominent effect in my experience, too. You need to eat less, you're driven to snack less, less likely to give in to those evil little bedtime or middle-of-the-night impulses that make you feel ashamed and guilty.



An anonymous (female) commenter said:

My life changed when I cut not only all wheat, but all grains from my diet.

For the first time in my life, I was no longer hungry -no hunger pangs between meals; no overwhelming desire to snack. Now I eat at mealtimes without even thinking about food in between.

I've dropped 70 pounds, effortlessly, come off high blood pressure meds and control my blood sugar without medication.

I don't know whether it was just the elimination of grain, especially wheat, or whether it was a combination of grain elimnation along with a number of other changes, but I do know that mere reduction of grain consumption still left me hungry. It wasn't until I elimnated it that the overwhelming redution in appetite kicked in.

As a former wheat-addicted vegetarian, who thought she was eating healthily according to all the expert advice out there at the time, I can only shake my head at how mistaken I was.



Stan said:

It's worth it and you won't look back!

Many things will improve, not just weight reduction: you will think clearer, your reflexes will improve, your breathing rate will go down, your blood pressure will normalize. You will never or rarely have a fever or viral infections like cold or flu. You will become more resistant to cold temperature and you will rarely feel tired, ever!


Ortcloud said:

Whenever I go out to breakfast I look around and I am in shock at what people eat for breakfast. Big stack of pancakes, fruit, fruit juice syrup, just like you said. This is not breakfast, this is dessert ! It has the same sugar and nutrition as a birthday cake, would anyone think cake is ok for breakfast ? No, but that is exactly the equivalent of what they are eating. Somehow we have been duped to think this is ok. For me, I typically eat an omelette when I go out, low carb and no sugar. I dont eat wheat but invariably it comes with the meal and I try to tell the waitress no thanks, they are stunned. They try to push some other type of wheat or sugar product on me instead, finally I have to tell them I dont eat wheat and they are doubly stunned. They cant comprehend it. We have a long way to go in terms of re-education.

Yes. Don't be surprised at the incomprehension, the rolled eyes, even the anger that can sometimes result. Imagine that told you that the food you've come to rely on and love is killing you!


Anne said:

I was overweight by only about 15lbs and I was having pitting edema in my legs and shortness of breath. My cardiologist and I were discussing the possible need of an angiogram. I was three years out from heart bypass surgery.

Before we could schedule the procedure, I tested positive for gluten sensitivity through www.enterolab.com. I eliminated not only wheat but also barley and rye and oats(very contaminated with wheat) from my diet. Within a few weeks my edema was gone, my energy was up and I was no longer short of breath. I lost about 10 lbs. The main reason I gave up gluten was to see if I could stop the progression of my peripheral neuropathy. Getting off wheat and other gluten grains has given me back my life. I have been gluten free for 4 years and feel younger than I have in many years.

There are many gluten free processed foods, but I have found I feel my best when I stick with whole foods.


Ann has a different reason (gluten enteropathy, or celiac disease) for wanting to be wheat-free. But I've seen similar improvements that go beyond just relief of the symptoms attributable to the inflammatory intestinal effects of gluten elimination.



Wccaguy said:

I have relatively successfully cut carbs and grains from my diet thus far.

Because I've got some weight to lose, I have tried to keep the carb count low and I've lost 15 pounds since then.

I have also been very surprised at the significant reduction in my appetite. I've read about the experience of others with regard to appetite reduction and couldn't really imagine that it could happen for me too. But it has.

A few weeks ago, I attended a party catered by one of my favorite italian restaurants and got myself offtrack for two days. Then it took me a couple of days to get back on track because my appetite returned.

Check out Jimmy Moore's website for lots of ideas about variations of foods to try. The latest thing I picked up from Jimmy is the good old-fashioned hard boiled egg. Two or three eggs with some spicy hot sauce for breakfast and a handful of almonds mid-morning plus a couple glasses of water and I'm good for the morning no problem.

I find myself thinking about lunch not because I'm really hungry but out of habit.

The cool thing too now is that the more I do this, the more I'm just not tempted much to do anything but this diet.

No more canned foods

21. September 2008 William Davis (12)
If you haven't already caught the news, it's time to eliminate canned foods and exposure to plastics that contain the chemical, bisphenol A (BPA). A worrisome and unexpected association with heart disease and diabetes has been found.

This issue has been debated for some years ever since scientists at the NIH detected BPA in the blood samples of 93-95% of Americans, with consumer protection advocates calling for more research or even the outright banning of BPA , while industry representatives have argued that the data fail to conclusively prove adverse health effects.

Well, the argument has been tilted heavily in favor of increased consumer protection with the publication of a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dr. Iain Lang and associates at the University of Exeter, UK, and the University of Iowa. Their study, released Sept. 17, 2008, Association of urinary bisphenol A concentration with medical disorders and laboratory abnormalities in adults, persuasively demonstrated a 40% increased incidence of coronary heart disease, heart attack, and diabetes with increasing exposure to BPA (as judged by urine levels) among the nearly 1500 adults aged 18-74 years. People with coronary heart disease had double the blood level of BPA compared to those without.

In addition, higher urine levels of BPA were associated with abnormalities of two liver tests, GGT and alkaline phosphatase.

Interestingly, although much of the debate over adverse health effects of BPA have centered around concern over cancer and reproductive risks, an association with cancer did not hold. (No analysis for reproductive issues was conducted in these adults, since most of the concern is for children exposed through polycarbonate baby bottle use. Some BPA critics have raised questions like low birth weight developing from exposure.) No relationship to thyroid disease was identified, also.

The editorial accompanying the study added some sharp commentary:

"Subsequent to an unexpected observation in 1997, numerous laboratory animal studies have identified low-dose drug-like effects of BPA at levels less than the dose used by the US Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to estimate the current human acceptable daily intake dose (ADI) deemed safe for humans. These studies have shown adverse effects of BPA on the brain, reproductive system, and--most relevant to the findings of Lang et al--metabolic processes, including alterations in insulin homeostasis and liver enzymes. . . For example, when adults rats were fed a 0.2 microgram/kg per day dose of BPA for 1 month (a dose 250 times lower than the current ADI), BPA significantly decreased the activities of antioxidant enzymes and increased lipid peroxidation, thereby increasing oxidative stress. When adult mice were administered a 10 microgram/kg dose of BPA once a day for 2 days ( a dose 5 times lower than the ADI), BPA stimulated pancreatic beta cells to release insulin."

This study, piled on top of the worrisome literature that precede it, are enough for me: No more tin cans (which are lined with BPA), no more hard plastics labeled with recycling code #7 or #3, no more polycarbonate water bottles (the hard ones, often brightly colored). Microwaveable-safe may also mean human-unsafe, as highlighted by this damning assurance from the Tupperware people that BPA is not a health hazard.

The National Toxicology Program also issued these advice in response to the Lang study to reduce BPA exposure (reported by the Washington Post) :

· Don't microwave polycarbonate plastic food containers. Polycarbonate may break down from overuse at high temperatures and release BPA. (Manufacturers are not required to disclose whether an item contains BPA, but polycarbonate containers that do usually have a No. 7 on the bottom.)

· Reduce use of canned foods, especially acidic foods such as tomatoes that can accelerate leaching of BPA from plastic can linings. Opt for soups, vegetables and other items packaged in cardboard "brick" cartons, made of safer layers of aluminum and polyethylene plastic (labeled No. 2).

· Switch to glass, porcelain or stainless-steel containers, particularly for hot food or liquids.

· Use baby bottles that are BPA-free; in the past year, most major manufacturers have developed bottles made without BPA.

Add Boston Globe to the list of heart scan blunders

17. September 2008 William Davis (15)
Yet another piece of mass media misinformation hit the airwaves today. This time it's not from the New York Times or the LA Times, both of which have previously mangled the issues surrounding heart scans. This time it's from the Boston Globe.

In an article titled What is a calcium scan for heart disease, and who should undergo the test?, the report states:

". . . calcium scans may not be a good idea, or prove terribly useful, for most people. For one thing, the scans expose a patient to significant radiation - equivalent to roughly 50 chest X-rays" said Dr. Warren Manning, chief of noninvasive cardiac imaging at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center."

As many before him, Dr. Manning is confusing two tests: CT coronary angiography and CT heart scanning. Perhaps we can't blame him: This technology has had its weakest following in the northeast, for reasons not entirely clear to me. (In fact, Track Your Plaque followers have had the greatest struggle obtaining heart scans in that part of the country.) Nonetheless, you'd think he'd have his simple facts straight before talking to the press. Unfortunately, hospital public relations departments will usually just grab whoever they can willing to talk to the press--regardless of their expertise or lack of.


The story goes on to say:

. . ." it's not clear what to do with the results from a calcium scan. If you have diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or a family history of heart disease, you already know - or should know - that you are at increased risk of heart problems and should lower these risk factors. So, a calcium scan provides little additional information," Manning said.

"Moreover, even a high score doesn't necessarily mean that the calcified plaque in your arteries is obstructing blood flow, said Dr. Adolph Hutter, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital."

"The vast majority of people with high calcium tests don't have obstructions and they do fine long-term. So you'd have to test lots and lots of people to prevent one heart attack or sudden death," said Manning.

And if you get a low calcium score, a sign of little or no calcification of plaques, that's not very useful, either, because it could be wrong, or it could be right but lull you into believing you do not have to exercise and watch your diet, cholesterol, and blood pressure levels. "You can still be at risk even if your calcium test is negative," Hutter said.


It is truly shocking how little many (not all, thank goodness) of my colleagues really know about 1) heart scans, 2) coronary disease prevention, and 3) prevention in general. These same "experts" likely advocate high-dose statin drugs and low-fat diets for people at risk. They likely refer patients to the American Heart Association for diet advice and themselves obtain a lot of information from the pharmaceutical industry. The notion of identification, tracking, and purposeful reversal of coronary plaque is entirely foreign to this bunch.

"The vast majority of people with high calcium tests don't have obstructions and they do fine long-term. So you'd have to test lots and lots of people to prevent one heart attack or sudden death." Well, take a look at a graph from a database of 25,000 people undergoing heart scans then observed for several years afterwards:




You can see quite clearly from the curves that heart scan scores very clearly predict your future (if no preventive action is taken). The higher the score, the greater the likelihood of heart attack and death. How much clearer can it get?

The most recent addition to this literature is the PREDICT study which concluded:

Hazard ratios relative to CACS [coronary artery calcium scores] in the range 0-10 Agatston units (AU) were: CACS 11-100 AU, 5.4 (P = 0.02); 101-400 AU 10.5 (P = 0.001); 401-1000 AU, 11.9 (P = 0.001), and >1000 AU, 19.8 (P < 0.001).

In other words, a heart scan score of >1000 is associated with a 20-fold increased risk of cardiovascular events (without preventive efforts). That kind of predictive power and quantitative confidence simply cannot be squeezed out of blood pressure and cholesterol values.

How about the 2008 University of California-Irvine study from the New England Journal of Medicine (do the northeast docs even pay attention to something that is published in their own neighborhood?) that reported:

There were 162 coronary events, of which 89 were major events (myocardial infarction or death from coronary heart disease). In comparison with participants with no coronary calcium, the adjusted risk of a coronary event was increased by a factor of 7.73 among participants with coronary calcium scores between 101 and 300 and by a factor of 9.67 among participants with scores above 300 (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Among the four racial and ethnic groups, a doubling of the calcium score increased the risk of a major coronary event by 15 to 35% and the risk of any coronary event by 18 to 39%.

How about the Prospective Army Coronary Calcium (PACC) project (men average age 43 years):

"In these men, coronary calcium was associated with an 11.8-fold increased risk for incident coronary heart disease (CHD) (p = 0.002) in a Cox model controlling for the Framingham risk score. Among those with coronary artery calcification, the risk of coronary events increased incrementally across tertiles of coronary calcium severity (hazard ratio 4.3 per tertile)."

Calcium score provided additional information even after factoring in the Framingham risk score.

That's just a sample of the studies. There are a number more.

Add to these conversations the fact that, unlike reducing blood pressure or LDL cholesterol, the heart scan score is a quantification of the disease itself. It can also be tracked over time to gauge the success or failure of prevention efforts. To believe that blood pressure reduction or LDL cholesterol reduction is sufficient to eliminate risk is something only a fool would believe.



Contary to the above statements, the data are clear:

--The higher the heart scan score, the greater the risk. This has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt in at least a dozen published studies. In fact, heart scan scores outshine lipid/cholesterol values several-fold.

--A person with a zero score has a nearly zero risk for cardiovascular events over a 5-year timeline.

--Heart scans are the only quantitative test available of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. This means that they can be repeated to gauge progression or regression. Cholesterol does not do that. Stress tests do not do that.

--Heart scans are not the same as CT coronary angiography.

--The lack of "need" for a procedure does not equate to the absence of disease.

The power of heart scans is that they can uncover evidence for coronary atherosclerotic plaque 10 years before a cardiac disaster strikes. Witness Tim Russert's heart scan score of 210 in 1998 at age 48. 10 years later, you know what happened.

Beware the camipaign of misinformation and ignorance that continues that is hell-bent on maintaining the procedural status quo or locking us into a "drugs for all" mentality.

What's worse than sugar?

16. September 2008 William Davis (11)
There are a number of ways to view the blood sugar-raising or insulin-provoking effect of foods.

One way is glycemic index (GI), simply a measure of how high blood sugar is raised by a standard quantity of a food compared to table sugar. Another is glycemic load (GL), a combination (multiplied) of glycemic index and carbohydrate content per serving.

Table sugar has a GI of 65, a GL of 65.

Obviously, table sugar is not good for you. The content of white table sugar in the American diet has exploded over the last 100 years, totaling over 150 lb per year for the average person. (Humans are not meant to consume any.)

What is the GI of Rice Krispies cereal, organic or not? GI = 82-- higher than table sugar. GL is 72, also higher than table sugar.

How about Corn Flakes? GI 81, GL 70--also both higher than sugar.

How about those rice cakes that many dieters will use to quell hunger? GI 78, GL 64.

How about Shredded Wheat cereal? GI 75, GL 62.

All of the above foods with GI's and GL's that match or exceed that of table sugar are made of wheat and cornstarch. Some, like Shredded Wheat cereal and rice cakes, don't even have any added sugar.

Stay clear of these foods if you have low HDL, high triglycerides, high blood sugar, or small LDL. Or, for that matter, if you are human.

Keep the eloquent words of New York University nutritionist, Marion Nestle, author of the book, Food Politics, in mind:

“Food companies—just like companies that sell cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, or any other commodity—routinely place the needs of stock holders over considerations of public health. Food companies will make and market any product that sells, regardless of its nutritional value or its effect on health. In this regard, food companies hardly differ from cigarette companies. They lobby Congress to eliminate regulations perceived as unfavorable; they press federal regulatory agencies not to enforce such regulations; and when they don’t like regulatory decisions, they file lawsuits. Like cigarette companies, food companies co-opt food and nutrition experts by supporting professional organizations and research, and they expand sales by marketing directly to children, members of minority groups, and people in develop countries—whether or not the products are likely to improve people’s diets.” ??

Are sterols the new trans fat?

13. September 2008 William Davis (16)
By now, I'm sure you're well-acquainted with the hydrogenated, trans fat issue.

Hydrogenation of polyunsaturated oils was a popular practice (and still is) since the 1960s, as food manufacturers sought a substitute for saturated fat. Bubbling high-pressure hydrogen through oils like cottonseed, soybean, and corn generates trans fatty acids. These man-made fatty acids, while safe in initial safety testing, proved to be among the biggest nutritional mistakes of the 20th century.

Trans fatty acids have been associated with increased LDL cholesterol, reduction in HDL, oxidative reactions, abnormal rigidity when incorporated into cell membranes, and cancer. Trans fats still dominate many processed foods like chips, cookies, non-dairy creamers, food mixes, and thousands of others. They're also found prominently in fast foods.

Fast forward to today, and most Americans have become aware of the dangers of trans fats and many try to avoid them.

But I worry there is yet another substance that has worked its way into the American processed food cornucopia that has some potential for repeating the trans fat debacle: sterol esters.


Sterols are naturally-occurring oils found in vegetables, nuts, and numerous other foods in small quantities. Most of us take in 200-400 milligrams per day just by eating plant-sourced foods.

Curiously, the chemical structure of sterols are very similar to human cholesterol (differing at one carbon atom). Sterols, by not fully understood means, block the intestinal absorption of cholesterol. Thus, sterol esters, as well as the similar stanol esters, have been used to reduce blood levels of total and LDL cholesterol.

So far, so good.

The initial commercial products, released in the late 1990s, were Take Control (sterol) and Benecol (stanol), both of which were marketed to reduce cholesterol when 2-3 tbsp are used daily, providing 3400 – 5100 mg of sterol or stanol esters, about 10- to 20-fold more than we normally obtain from foods. Several clinical trials have conclusively confirmed that these products reduce cholesterol levels.

They do indeed perform as advertised. Add either product to your daily diet and LDL cholesterol is reduced by about 10-15%. In fact, in the original Track Your Plaque book, these products were advocated as a supplemental means of reducing LDL when other methods fell short.

In 2008, there are now hundreds of products that have additional quantities of sterol esters in them, such as orange juice, mayonnaise, yogurt, breakfast cereals, even nutritional supplements. Most of these products proudly bear claims like "heart healthy." Stanol esters have not enjoyed the same widespread application. (I believe there may be patent issues or other considerations. However, it's the sterols that are the principal topic here, not stanols.)

Now, here's where it gets a bit tricky. There is a rare (1 per million) disease called sitosterolemia, a genetic disorder that permits the afflicted to absorb more than the usual quantity of sterols from the intestine. While you and I obtain some amount of sterols from plant-based foods, absorption is poor, and we absorb <10% of sterols ingested. However, people with sitosterolemia absorb sterols far more efficiently, resulting in high blood levels of sterols that result in coronary disease and aortic valve disease, with heart attacks occurring as young as late teens or 20s. Treatment to block sterol absorption are used to treat these people.

There are also a larger number, though still uncommon (1/500) of people who have only one of the two genes that young people with sitosterolemia have. These people may have an intermediate capacity for sterol absorption.

Okay, so what does this have to do with you? Well, if you and I now take in 10-20 times greater amounts of sterol esters, do our blood levels of sterols increase?

Several studies now suggest that, yes, sterol blood levels increase with sterol ingestion. One study from Finland, the STRIP Study, showed that children who had double usual sterol intake increased blood levels by around 50%.

Similarly, a Johns Hopkins study in adults with only one of the genes ("heterozygotes") for sitosterolemia increased sterol blood levels by between 54-116% by ingesting 2200 mg of sterols added per day, despite reduction of LDL cholesterol levels.

Even people with neither gene for sitosterol hyperabsorption can increase their blood levels of sterols. But the crucial question: Do the blood levels of sterols that occur in unaffected people or in heterozygotes increase the risk of coronary heart disease? The answer is not known.

Despite the several clinical trials performed with sterol esters, all of them have examined LDL and total cholesterol reduction as endpoints, not cardiovascular events. It is conceivable that, while sterol esters reduce cholesterol, risk for heart disease is increased due to higher blood levels of sterols.

The question is not settled. For now, it is just a suspicion. But that's enough for me to steer clear of processed foods supplemented with these uncertain sterol esters. My previous recommendations for sterol ester products will be removed with the next edition of Track Your Plaque. Until we have solid evidence that there are no adverse cardiovascular effects of sterol esters, in my view they should not be part of anyone's heart-disease prevention program.

(The same argument does not seem to apply to stanol esters, such as that contained in butter-substitute Benecol, since stanol esters are not absorbed at all and remain confined to the intestine.)

The Diabetes Gold Rush

11. September 2008 William Davis (9)
Lou came into the office. Clearly, his program had gone sour.

Lou had initially obtained wonderful control over his heart scan score of 1114, having reversed modestly in his first three years of effort through correction of his multiple causes (including low HDL, severe small LDL, Lp(a), and a diabetic tendency).

But Lou now came into the office red-faced and sporting a big bulging abdomen. Blood sugar? Now in the overtly diabetic range. Lou said that his primary care doctor had suggested that he start on three new medications (glucophage, injectable Byetta, and Actos) to control his blood sugar. His doctor also told him to increase his intake of fibers by eating more "healthy" breakfast cereals like Cheerios.

Lou had apparently done just that (added "healthy" fiber-rich foods) even before his doctor had suggested it. (Lou failed to remember the several conversations we'd had about healthy eating.) Unfortunately, Lou also failed to connect his increased intake of "healthy fiber-rich foods" and his growing abdominal girth (his "wheat belly").

Here's the dirty little secret: Much of the world wants you to be diabetic. It is the health gold rush of this century. "Go West, young man!"




To find out what I mean, you need only ask: Who profits when people become diabetic? That's easy:

The pharmaceutical industry--Diabetes is a booming growth industry, a source of tens of billions of dollars of revenue, poised for enormous growth as the population ages and gets fatter. It is common for a newly-diagnosed diabetic to be given new prescriptions for two or three drugs with a monthly cost of $300. Of course, the chronic nature of the disease make this far more profitable than, say, a two week course of antibiotics. Presently, 70 new drugs are under development.

Diabetes drug maker Novo Nordisk reported a 25% increase in revenues in 2007 from diabetic agents in the North American market, along with near $2 billion increase in profit for the year. Merck's recently-released DPP-4 inhibitor, Januvia, has already sold $668 million in 2007 and is growing rapidly.

The medical device and supply industry. Take a look at the Medtronic quarterly earnings report, detailing the breakdown of their record-setting quarterly revenue of $3.7 billion:

Diabetes revenue of $269 million grew 12 percent driven by sales
of consumables, the accessories required by insulin pump users, and
continuous glucose monitoring products. Revenue from international
sales grew 31 percent over the same quarter last year.

That's what I call a growth industry.

The processed food industry. The food industry is as big or bigger than the drug industry. ADM, Kraft, General Mills all have annual revenues in the $12-50 billion range. There are plenty of others.

When we're told, for instance, that Cheerios reduces cholesterol, we're not told that it skyrockets blood sugar or triggers small LDL. When we're sold whole wheat crackers, Cocoa Puffs (which the American Heart Asscociation says is heart-healthy), or granola bars, hunger is stimulated, impulse to eat more grows, blood sugar escalates, we get fat, we get diabetic. It's a simple formula.

So be aware that there is little incentive among corporate giants in the food, medical device, or drug industries to encourage behaviors that decrease the incidence of diabetes. In fact, there is enormous financial incentive to make sure that diabetes continues to grow at the startling rate it has over the last decade.

To be sure, the drug and medical device industry will also develop better tools to deal with diabetes and its complications. But the very best way to deal with diabetes is to not develop it in the first place.

What else is there?

7. September 2008 William Davis (11)
This question comes up frequently:

Aren't there any alternatives to heart scans performed on a CT or EBT device?

Yes, there are.

First of all, heart scans are performed best on an electron-beam CT device (EBT) or a 64-slice multi-detector CT (MDCT) device. (While they are also obtainable through less-than-64 slice CT devices (e.g., 16 slices and less), I would advise against it because of the excessive radiation exposure and poor accuracy.) CT heart scans are not to be confused with now more popular CT coronary angiograms, which are performed on the same devices but require intravenous x-ray dye and many times more radiation.(See CT scans and radiation exposure and Heart scan frustration.) Heart scans currently form the basis for the Track Your Plaque program, a program of tracking plaque in the hopes of stopping or reversing the otherwise inevitable 30% per year increase.

Let's confine our discussion to people without symptoms, meaning people like you and me sitting at home, not in an emergency room having chest pain or other similar acute symptomatic presentation.

Among the other ways to uncover hidden coronary plaque:

--Heart catheterization--to yield a coronary angiogram. Yes, this does tell us whether coronary plaque is present. However, it is invasive, expensive, and crude. (I've performed 5000 over my career; they are crude, though useful, tools in acute settings like unstable symptoms or heart attack, a different situation.) Coronary angiography is also non-quantitative. While they provide a value like "40% blockage mid-way in right coronary" or "90% blockage in left anterior descending" they do not provide a trackable lengthwise index of total plaque volume. Identifying severe blockages in people with symptoms leads to stents, bypass surgery and the like, but it is not practical nor of long-term usefulness in apparently, healthy people without symptoms.

--Carotid ultrasound--Here's is where a lot of confusion comes from. Standard carotid ultrasound (U/S) performed in virtually every hospital and many clinics will yield crude qualitative results, e.g., "16-49% stenosis (blockage) in right internal carotid artery". The crude value range is because much of carotid U/S is based on flow velocities, not just direct visualization of the plaque itself ("2-D imaging). However, if carotid stenosis of any degree is identified, the likelihood of silent coronary plaque is much greater.

Limitations: The qualitative, non-quantitative nature of carotid U/S make it difficult to follow long-term in a precise way. Also, this is carotid plaque, not coronary plaque. It makes it very difficult to follow carotid plaque as an indirect means of tracking coronary plaque. The two arterial territories, carotid and coronary, do not track together: there are divergences in many people, with carotid plaque absent in some people with advanced coronary plaque, carotid plaque more susceptible to different risk factors than coronary. So carotid U/S is helpful for its own purposes, but not terribly helpful for coronary tracking.

How about carotid intimal-medial thickness (CIMT) obtained also with carotid U/S? CIMT is a useful index of bodywide atherosclerosis. CIMT is simply a measure not of plaque (and is measured in regions of the carotid artery away from plaque), but of the thickness of the lining of the carotid arteries. Everybody has a measurable CIMT, but it thickens as atherosclerosis grows. CIMT is a radiation-free test that takes several minutes.

Limitations: Hardly anybody does it outside of research protocols. I know of no hospital or clinic in my area that performs CIMT, though it is slowly being adopted in some centers. It is also difficult to rely on repeated tests, because there is substantial variation when one technologist or another performs it. CIMT is also a flawed index of coronary plaque. When CIMT is compared to heart scan scores, CT coronary angiography, or conventional coronary angiography, CIMT correlates about 60-70% with the degree of coronary atherosclerosis.

CIMT is therefore a useful test for research, but a distant 2nd choice--if you can obtain it.

--Ankle-brachial index (ABI)--ABI is a crude measure, simply a comparison of the blood pressure (obtained with a blood pressure cuff) in the legs divided by blood pressure in the arms. The ratio is called ABI. Any ABI <1.0, meaning less pressure in the legs compared to the arms, is indirectly indicative of advanced coronary disease. ABI is, in fact, a very powerful predictor of cardiovascular events. If ABI is <1.0, your future risk for heart attack is very high, even in the absence of symptoms.

Limitations: The vast majority of people with heart disease, even those having undergone stents or bypass surgery, have normal ABI's. Virtually all people with high heart scan scores have normal ABI's. In other words, ABI is a measure of very advanced atherosclerosis only.

--Stress tests--I lump all stress tests together in their various forms, e.g., stress thallium, stress Cardiolite, stress Myoview, persantine/adenosine Cardiolite, dobutamine echocardiography, etc. Stress tests are tests of coronary blood flow, not of plaque. Stress tests are useful in people with symptoms, like chest pain or breathlessness, since stress tests are provocative tests that can help determine whether reduced coronary blood flow is the cause behind a symptom, or whether hiatal hernia, esophagitis, gallstones, pleurisy, musculoskeletal causes, or some other process is behind symptoms.

Limitations: Stress test are virtually useless in people without symptoms. This is why people like Tim Russert and Bill Clinton, both without symptoms, underwent several (Russert 3, Clinton 5) nuclear stress tests---all normal. You know what happened to them. Stress tests do not reliably uncover hidden coronary plaque in people without symptoms. Stress tests are, like coronary angiograms, non-quantitative. They are normal or abnormal.


Outside of experimental settings, that's it.

You can probably see why I advocate CT heart scans for tracking plaque. I do not advocate heart scans because I sell them (I don't), because scan centers pay me to say these things (they don't, and in fact my relationship with my usual heart scan centers has become deeply contentious, though I still endorse the technology). I say that heart scans are superior because they are, in 2008, the only way to 1) identify and 2) track coronary plaque that is easy, safe, low-radiation, and reasonably priced (<$200 in Milwaukee at 5 centers).

The need for a technology that allows tracking of plaque, not just initial identification, is also an important distinction. People who've had some measure of atherosclerosis all catch on to this eventually. "Can I reverse it?" is an inevitable question once the disease is identified in some way. So a tool for tracking over time to gauge the success or failure of a program of prevention can be assessed.

Perhaps in 10 years, another technology will emerge as the preferred means to do the same, but better. If that proves true, we will convert to that technology. But today heart scans performed on CT heart scans are the only rational way to both detect, then track, coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Let's gamble with your health

5. September 2008 William Davis (4)
Let's play a game.

I'm going to list some lipid patterns and you tell me whether or not the person with these values has heart disease.

Patient 1

Total cholesterol 150 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 75 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
Triglycerides 125 mg/dl


Patient 2

Total cholesterol 300 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 200 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 35 mg/dl
Triglycerides 325


Patient 3

Total cholesterol 300 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 100 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 25 mg/dl
Triglycerides 875 mg/dl



Let's say that any one of these profiles is yours. Should you be getting your affairs in order, preparing for your cardiac catastrophe? Should you demand a stress test from your doctor, hoping that it will shed some light on your dilemma? Should you go ahead and go to the all-you-can-eat rib restaurant, content that you will be attending your granddaughger's wedding in 2020 in full health?

If you can tell, you're a lot better at this than I am.

I provide consultation to other physicians and patients on complex hyperlipidemias in my area. In other words, if someone has a difficulty to manage lipid disorder, the doctor sends the patient to me.

Managing these wildly variable values is the easy part. Deciding whether or not heart disease is concealed within the patient . . . well, that's the hard part.

Let's take it a step further: Suppose all three profiles also have 50% of all LDL particles as the abnormal small particles. And they all have a lipoprotein(a) level of 50 mg/dl, an abnormally high level.

How about now: Can you tell whether any or all of these people have hidden heart disease?

What if they are 20 years old? Does that make a difference?

What if they are all females over 65 years--how about now?

If the only tool you have to divine the presence of hidden heart disease is a lipid panel, or even a lipoprotein panel, then the best you can manage is to hazard a guess based on statistical probability. You also assume that this "snapshot" represents the sorts of values someone has had for their entire lives. You cannot factor in the fact that the first person gained 60 lbs in the last three years since completing menopause. You can't factor in that patient 2 smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 25 years, but quit 10 years ago.

It's also foolhardy to believe that every known cause of heart disease is currently identifiable and revealed by modern-day blood testing.

A heart scan is simply a means to quantify the sum-total of risk factors--causes--that have exerted an effect up until the moment of your scan. It will reveal the quantity of coronary atherosclerotic plaque present, regardless of whether you stopped smoking 20 years ago or lost 30 lbs last year.

For these reasons, nothing can replace the value of quantifying plaque: not cholesterol, not the Framingham risk calculation, not measures of small LDL or lipoprotein(a), not the presence or absence of symptoms. In 2008, the method of choice for measuring plaque remains a CT heart scan. Perhaps in 10 years it will be some other method.

As always, let me remind Heart Scan Blog viewers that I make this point NOT to sell heart scans, which I have no reason whatsoever to do. I say this because we require a tool to track this potentially fatal disease. We require a yardstick for tracking progression or regression. The only tool that suits these purposes in 2008 is a CT heart scan.

Synthroid, Armour Thyroid, and the battle for T3

6. July 2008 William Davis (2)
In the last Heart Scan Blog post on thyroid issues, Is normal TSH too high?, the provocative findings of the the HUNT Study were discussed. The text of the study can be found at:

The association between TSH within the reference range and serum lipid concentrations in a population-based study. The HUNT Study

Hypothyroidism, or low thyroid that is signaled by high thyroid-stimulating hormone, TSH, is proving far more prevalent an issue than previously thought. While previous estimates put hypothyroidism as affecting only about 3% of younger populations, 10-20% of older populations (women more so), data like the HUNT Study suggest that, if lower and lower TSH levels (higher thyroid) are necessary for perfect heart health, then many more people stand to benefit than we used to think.

But another crucial issue in the world of hypothyroidism: Is T4 (thyroxine) enough? Or should we be supplementing T3 (triiodothyronine) along with T4?

Your friendly neighborhood primary care doctor or endocrinologist would likely argue vehemently that T4 (as Synthroid, Levoxyl, levothyroxine, and others) is adequate and not subject to the impurities and contaminants of natural thyroid extracts. They would also argue that T4 is effectively converted to T3 at the tissue level, and exogenous supplementation is unnecessary.

Others--most of all thyroid patients themselves, along with thyroid advocates like Mary Shomon and Janie Bowthorpe, along with some physicians--argue that supplementing T3 along with T4 can be very important. They argue that people feel better, have more physical energy, lose weight more effectively, and more completely resolve many of the phenomena of hypothryoidism with T3 added. There are also some data that argue the same.

Adding T3 to the mix may address the presumed poor conversion of T4 to T3 that is peculiar to some people. It may overcome the "reverse T3" phenomenon, the production of a useless look-alike T3 that occurs in some people. It may also (anecdotally) exert greater effects on some lipid/lipoprotein parameters, such as Lp(a).

My experiences adding T3 to T4 have been mixed: Some feel better, others do not. Some show objective improvements, others do not.

Nonetheless, hypothyroidism, or incompletely corrected hypothryoidism by way of inadequate T3, is an issue to consider in your plaque-control program.

More on this somewhat complex issue, along with practical solutions to consider, can be found on the Special Report to be released this week on the Track Your Plaque website.

Letter to New York Times

3. July 2008 William Davis (9)
All right. I sent a Letter to the Editor to the New York Times. No word from them; it's no longer news.

So here is what I tried to convey.

While the authors overall did a credible job of talking to my colleagues and laying out the issues, they made the crucial and boneheaded mistake of confusing CT heart scans with CT coronary angiograms. Sadly, many people who may have been considering having a simple screening heart scan may be scared away by the confused authors, Alexn Berenson and Reed Abelson.

They do correctly point out that, while CT coronary angiograms are fascinating examples of technology and a way of visualizing coronary arteries, this test all too often is being subverted into the "let's make money from high-tech testing" medical model. It's also a test that frequently leads to the "real" test, heart catheterization, since the "time bomb" you have in your arteries might "need" a stent.

CT coronary angiograms are also virtually useless for purposes of tracking disease, since they are not longitudinally (along the length of the artery) quantitative, nor should anyone be exposed to this much radiation repeatedly.

A simple heart scan, on the hand, provides a longitudinal summation of coronary plaque volume. Radiation exposure is sufficiently low that repeated scanning can be performed for purposes of tracking . . .yes, track your plaque.

Poorly-informed reporters can do a lot of damage. As always, you and I must dig a little deeper for the truth.




Dear Editor,

Re: Weighing the Costs of a CT Scan’s Look Inside the Heart

The Times featured an article on June 29th that discussed rapidly expanding use of CT scans for the heart:
Weighing the Costs of a CT Scan’s Look Inside the Heart.

The authors, Alex Berenson and Reed Abelson, stated that CT heart scans “expose patients to large doses of radiation, equivalent to at least several hundred X-rays, creating a small but real cancer risk.”

I’d like to offer a clarification.

Though the authors discuss both CT heart scans and CT coronary angiograms, they confuse the two and use the terms interchangeably.

A heart scan is a simple screening test for coronary atherosclerotic plaque. It detects the presence of calcium in the heart’s arteries, provided as a “score.” (Because calcium occupies 20% of total plaque volume, knowing the amount of calcium tells you how much total coronary plaque is present by applying this simple proportion.) Just having a high score should not prompt heart procedures, since people undergoing simple screening heart scans are without symptoms. However, a stress test may yield some useful information.

On present-day CT devices, heart scans expose a patient to 0.4 mSv of radiation on an electron-beam, or EBT, device, and on up to 1.2 mSv on a 64-slice multi-detector, or MDCT, device, compared to 0.1 mSv during a standard chest x-ray. CT heart scans are therefore performed with about the same quantity of radiation as a mammogram done to screen women for breast cancer, or about the equivalent of four chest x-rays on an EBT scanner, up to 12 chest-xrays on a MDCT scanner.

CT coronary angiograms, while performed on the same devices as heart scans, require x-ray dye to fill the contours of the coronary arteries. It also requires up to several hundred times more radiation. While new engineering innovations are being introduced that promise to reduce this exposure, the current devices being used today do indeed require a radiation dose equivalent to 100 to 400 chest x-rays (usually in the range of 10-15 mSv), a value that equals or exceeds that obtained during a conventional heart catheterization.

While heart scans are most useful to detect and quantify plaque that can help determine the intensity of a heart disease prevention program, CT coronary angiograms are generally used as prelude to hospital procedures like catheterizations, stents and bypass surgery. That’s because they are performed to look for (or rule out) “severe” blockages.
CT heart scans and CT coronary angiography are therefore two different tests that yield two different kinds of information, and yield two entirely different levels of radiation exposure.

This confusion from a major and respected media outlet like the New York Times is unfortunate, because it could persuade millions of people who otherwise could benefit from simple heart scans to avoid them because of misleading information on radiation exposure of a different test.

Thank you.

William Davis, MD

Red yeast rice alert

2. July 2008 William Davis (9)
While there have been some positive reports in the media lately about the cholesterol-reducing effects of red yeast rice, Consumer Lab has issued a very concerning report.

Because Consumer Lab is a subscription website (incidentally, the $20 per year membership fee is money well spent for insightful tests on many supplements, though new reports only come out a handful of times per year), I won't discuss the results of their red yeast rice in its entirety.

However, Consumer Lab testing uncovered several disturbing findings:

--The lovastatin content varied by a factor of 100, from 0.1 mg per tablet/capsule in one brand up to 10.6 mg in another brand. By FDA regulations, lovastatin is a drug and NO red yeast rice preparation is supposed to contain ANY lovastatin. Nonetheless, despite the marketing of supplement manufacturers, it is probably the lovastatin that is largely responsible for the LDL-reducing effect. The monacolins or mevinolins in red yeast rice add little, if any, further LDL-reducing effect.

--Several preparations contain a potential kidney toxin called citrinin. The Walgreen's product, specifically, contained substantial quantities of this toxin.



Interestingly, the FDA has taken repeated action against red yeast rice manufacturers and distributors because they continue to contain lovastatin. In the FDA's most recent action in August, 2007, for instance, Swanson's product and Sunburst Biorganics' Cholestrix, were both sent letters to stop selling their product because it contained lovastatin.

The Consumer Lab findings would explain the enormous variation in LDL-reducing effect of various red yeast rice products. In my experience, some work and reduce LDL 40 mg/dl or so, some fail to reduce LDL at all, others generate a modest effect, e.g., 5-10 mg/dl LDL reduction.

In effect, red yeast rice IS a statin drug, albeit a highly variable and weak one. Although readers of The Heart Scan Blog know that I am a big fan of nutritional supplements and self-empowerment in health, I am a bigger fan of truth. I despise B--- S---- of the sort that emits from some nutritional supplement manufacturers and drug companies.

I am puzzled by much of the public's readiness to embrace a statin drug if it comes from a supplement company while avoiding it if it comes from a drug manufacturer. Personally, I do not like the drug industry, their questionable (at best) ethics, their aggressive marketing tactics, their sleazy sales people.

But, in this instance, if a statin effect is desired, I'd reach for generic lovastatin before I purchased red yeast rice. The Consumer Lab report tells us that red yeast rice IS essentially a statin drug, an inconsistent one that often contains a potential toxin.

"Average amount of heart disease for age"

2. July 2008 William Davis (4)
A 72-year old woman came to my office after a complicated hospital stay (unrelated to heart disease). She'd undergone a CT coronary angiogram and heart scan as part of a pre-operative evaluation prior to a surgery for a non-heart related condition.

The heart scan portion of the test (I was impressed they even did this) yielded a heart scan score of 212. The CT coronary angiogram portion of the test revealed a 50% blockage in one artery, a lesser blockage in one other artery.

The cardiologist consulting on the case advised her that the amount of coronary disease detected was insufficient to pose risk during her surgical procedure. He also advised her that she had "an average amount of disease for age." He thought that nothing further was necessary since she was "average."

Say what?  

What if I told you that you have an average amount of cancer for your age? After all, cancers become more common the older we get. Who would find that acceptable?

Then why should ANY amount of coronary atherosclerotic plaque be "acceptable for age"? Coronary plaque is a degenerative disease that poses risk for rupture. While it is indeed common, by no means should it be acceptable.

I would bet that this same cardiologist would be from the same school of thought that would be eager to advise heart catheterization, stent, and other procedures--revenue-generating procedures--should she have a heart attack appropriate for age.

I wish that I could tell you that this silly comment was provided by some peculiar, "everyone-knows-he's-crazy" doctor. But it was not. It was a solidly mainstream physician. He pooh-poohs nutrition, laughs when asked about nutritional supplements, thinks anyone complaining about symptoms less than a full-blown heart attack is a baby. He is respected by the primary care physicians, lectures on the advantages of prescription medications. In short, he is your typical conventional cardiologist.

This is the way they think. I know, because I was one of them. Thankfully, something banged me upside my head one day (my Mother's sudden cardiac death) and tipped me off to the painful irony of the conventional approach to heart disease.

There is NO amount of coronary disease appropriate for age. This notion is a remnant of the paternalistic, "I-know-better-than-you" attitude of the last century of medicine.

The 21st century promises a new age.

Quantum leaps

29. June 2008 William Davis (6)
A reader of The Heart Scan Blog and member of the Track Your Plaque program posted this comment on The Heart.org:

*The facts speak for themselves.*

Dr. William Davis and Dr. William Blanchet, your patients thank you for the low cost PREVENTIVE care you prescribe. The published facts speak for themselves. It is indeed a sad state of affairs, that the larger cardiology community does not take the time to research the data and results you have been reporting. Unfortunately it is the patients who are the victims of the mainstream, inappropriate, treatment protocols, as evidenced with the ongoing high rate of CV death rate.

I am dumbfounded by the lack of open-minded inquisitive curiosity to thoroughly research your claims by many/most cardiologists. Understood, we are all busy, but that is no excuse to stick with practices that do not result in major breakthrough improvements in patient outcomes.

Then again, we are all humans, and when "we" are convinced that "our" approach is correct, "we" tend to conveniently ignore any evidence to the contrary. "We" like to believe "we" have been right all along.

A very insightful book, recently published, says it all in its title: "Mistakes were made (but not by me)."

From the intensity of the comments on this topic, it is clear that we are in the middle of a battlefield. It is to be hoped that the facts will become visible before too much smoke obscures the field, and before the patients are all dead.

George Orwell said it correctly, back in 1946:

“We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, imprudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality usually on a battlefield.”

And, after several posts that preventive care with EBT would be too costly.....

*Heroic*

Prevention is what matters, but it is not very heroic. A hospital that advertises the highest volumes in heart bypasses and other heart "repair" procedures, sounds to many like a go-to place when one gets into trouble with one's heart.

Cardiologists who perform impressive surgical procedures are heroes. Not unlike fire-fighters. We celebrate them (deservedly!) for rescues and life saving heroic actions.

We tend to not pay much attention to the folks that work hard to minimize risk of calamities in the first place.

Similarly, we recently learned that it is too costly to build schools that are earthquake resistant in China. Parents had to look at their children's bodies, crushed.

Is it too graphic to imagine 20,000 American bodies, who died of heart disease, piled up on a field?

What will it take before we make prevention our first priority?

AL, Ann Arbor, Michigan


The reader also tells me that, prompted by his father's death from heart attack while following conventional advice after heart catheterization, he has lost 50 lbs and corrected his lipid patterns on the Track Your Plaque program. The reader is currently struggling with full correction of his severe small LDL pattern and is following some of the advice we discussed on our webinar recently.

Another Heart Scan Blog reader, Stan the Heretic, posted this quote from scientist, Max Planck, in his comment:


"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - M. Planck

(Max Planck was a German physicist who developed quantum theory, a disruptive set of ideas that supplanted other explanations of energy mechanics of the day.)


I fear that may prove to be the case for heart disease. The revenue-generating formula for heart disease management that dominates practice in cardiovascular medicine today is so deeply ingrained into the thinking and revenue expectations of practicing cardiologists that a preventive or reversal approach just won't cut it--even if it is vastly superior.

That's why it is important for you to take control yourself. You will be the one who obtains and applies the information that saves your life or the lives of those around you. It is, in all likelihood, NOT your doctor who will save your life, but YOU.

Body count

28. June 2008 William Davis (7)
Imagine the following headline:

War in Iraq a growing success: 20,000 Americans now dead!


If a newspaper ran that headline, we would all be outraged, and rightly so. Deaths in war are a tragedy. They are not something we celebrate.

Then why do we hear hospitals boasting about the number of bypass operations performed every year, number of heart catheterizations performed, number of heart attacks treated?


"_______ Hospital breaks 1000-heart bypass per year milestone"

"We treat more heart attacks than other other hospital in the state!"

"More people come to ________ Hospital than any other in the region!"



I hear this stuff on the radio, on TV, see it in newspapers and magazines, even on highway billboards every single day in Milwaukee.

Heart procedures, like deaths in war, are casualties of health.

They are not successes (though, of course, you can have a "successful" bypass). I see most procedures as a failure of prevention.

Death from heart attack is a failure of prevention. Tim Russert's death was a (unnecessary) failure of prevention. But so are bypass surgery, stents, and the like.

Such is the perverse state of affairs in hospitals and health: They celebrate illness. They glamorize it with ads displaying high-tech equipment, efficient staff in scrubs, "caring and friendly staff." But it is illness they are celebrating. Why? Because it has become a business necessity, a necessary strategy to remain competitive and profitable in the business called "healthcare" that makes money from treating people. The biggest return is from major procedures like bypass operations.

Every success in prevention denies the hospital an $80,000+ opportunity. You'll never hear that advertised.

Dr. Bill Blanchet: A ray of sunshine

26. June 2008 William Davis (4)
Another heated discussion is ongoing at The Heart.org, this one about Tim Russert's untimely death: Media mulls Russert's death as cardiologists weigh in

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

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

Here, a sample of his wonderfully persuasive comments:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Wow! I couldn't have said it better.

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

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

The Russert Protocol at work

25. June 2008 William Davis (6)
Without a concerted effort at prevention, heart scan scores (coronary calcium scores) grow like weeds. The average rate of growth is 30% per year.

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

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

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

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

Further investigation in Keith uncovered:

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

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

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

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

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

Petition to the National Institutes of Health

24. June 2008 William Davis (2)
A petition to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is being circulated in response to the mis-statement made in an NIH-sponsored study, ACCORD.

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

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

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


The petition reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.



I added my comment:

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

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

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



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

Wheat withdrawal

24. June 2008 William Davis (16)
It happens in the hospital every so often: A clean-cut, law-abiding person is hospitalized for, say, pneumonia, kidney stones, knee surgery, etc.

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

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

How about wheat?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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