All posts by william-davis

This has nothing to do with coronary plaque reversal, nor directly with the Track Your Plaque program, but I found Dr. John Cannell's discussion about the possible relationship between vitamin D and autism so compelling that I thought I just had to pass it on.

So, below are Dr. Cannell's latest thoughts. He takes some criticisms along with praise. I think we owe him a lot for continuing to doggedly promote the benefits of vitamin D.

Vitamin D Newsletter

August, 2007

Dear Dr. Cannell:

I saw an article from a Toronto newspaper about autism and vitamin D. I am currently searching for a vitamin D specialist in the Washington D.C. area to perform a medical work up on my daughter to look for vitamin D-related disorders. The reason I am in search of a vitamin D specialist is that I believe I have stumbled upon a complex relationship in my daughter involving her foot pain, vitamin D, and her autism.

In April 2006, a few weeks after my 3-year-old profoundly autistic daughter began refusing her daily PediaSure drink, she began having excruciating foot spasms lasting from 10-30 minutes at a time, several times a week. She would throw herself on the floor, curl her toes, slam her heels against the floor, and rub the tops of her feet against the carpet, all while screaming the entire time. These were horrible for her to endure, and horrible for my wife and myself to watch. This went on for a year.

From what I read, the symptom was perhaps like foot spasms associated with carpopedal syndrome or tetany. But her blood work did not support that at all. Calcium level was normal (10.2 mg/dL); 25-Hydroxy-vitamin D low (23.5 ng/ml); 1,25 dihydroxy-vitamin D normal (24.7). Despite some vitamin D deficiency, I was assured by medical professionals that nothing supported a vitamin D cause of these particular spasms, so vitamin D was dismissed. Because her calcium level was normal, they told me she did not have tetany, and vitamin D could not be the cause of the pain.

All medical consultants were stymied. I made another research effort and found a 2003 article on WebMD that stated vitamin D has been found to have some link to basic, unexplained muscle and bone pain. By chance, vitamin D was the next supplement we had at home to begin giving my daughter to treat her autism. So, in April 2007 we began giving my 4 year-old profoundly autistic daughter Vitamin D supplements. Her foot spasms which had plagued her for a year diminished within days and disappeared within three weeks. She has not had a spasm in over two months.

In addition, we noted clear improvements in her autistic condition which appear to be from the vitamin D supplements. Eye contact went from zero to fantastic. Her vocalizations increased markedly (still only babbling; she remains completely nonverbal). She appears even happier than previously (she has always been a somewhat happy child). (Please note that my wife and I have tried many dietary supplements over the past 1.5 years guided by a doctor and dietician who both specialize in autism. We honestly state that this is the only thing that has ever had a positive effect on my daughter. We have seen nothing else work.)

My daughter and vitamin D have a complicated relationship. By all counts, looking at her lab work and general condition, vitamin D should have played no role in those excruciating foot fits. And yet it is apparently exactly what is involved in them. And, my wife and I believe at the same time her autistic condition has improved from the vitamin D. The foot fits and her autism appear linked; it was not just a coincidence that this autistic child has those mysterious foot spasms, and the link appears to be vitamin D.

And so I wonder if this is just the tip of the iceberg, if perhaps there is more to know about my child's relationship with vitamin D and what that might mean for her autism. Does she have a specific vitamin D-related disorder? If so, might direct treatment of it also improve her autism further? These are the questions I would like to pose to a vitamin D specialist who could perform a medical work up on my daughter. Please let me know if you know of anyone in the Northern Virginia/Washington DC area. Also, where is the best place to get vitamin D? Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Paul, Washington, D.C.

Dear Paul:

I know of no such specialist in the Washington area, indeed no vitamin D/autism expert exists in the world. As far as a specific "vitamin D disorder," linking her spasms, autism, and vitamin D, the world's English language medical literature contains no description of such a disorder. From your daughter's case, it sounds as if PediaSure was her only regular source of vitamin D. If so, her spasms began two weeks after stopping the small amount of vitamin D contained in PediaSure. The spasms continued for a year, ending a few days after you started giving her vitamin D again, this time in the form of a supplement. Several weeks after restarting vitamin D, both you and your wife noticed an improvement in her autism. To my knowledge, this "case report" - your daughter's - is the first ever published.

As no medical literature has ever been published on any of this, all you can do is give her enough vitamin D to get her 25-hydroxy-vitamin D, known as 25(OH)D, into high normal ranges and then wait and hope. Vitamin D's extraordinary mass-action pharmacology implies that simply providing more substrate ([25(OH)D] will help children with low enzyme activity produce more activated vitamin D (calcitriol) in their brains. The vitamin D theory of autism is not simply that vitamin D deficiency in gestation or early childhood causes the disorder. Instead, the theory holds that a quantitative or qualitative abnormality exists in the enzyme system that activates vitamin D.

It could as simple as the normal variation in the enzyme, an enzyme whose activity would vary in a normal or Gaussian distribution, much like height. Some people are tall, some are short, most are in the middle. The same may be true of the enzyme that forms activated vitamin D (calcitriol), some children have a lot of enzyme and some only a little; most are in the middle. As the substrate [25(OH)D] the enzyme metabolizes fell over the last 20 years with sun-avoidance, more and more children on the low end of the enzyme curve are effected by marginally low 25(OH)D levels, explaining both its genetic basis and exploding incidence.

At this point, all your daughter needs is a physician willing to periodically measure her 25(OH)D. Then you can safely supplement your daughter with doses higher than the current Upper Limit for children (2,000 IU/day). You did not tell me your daughter's weight but, assuming she weighs about 30 pounds, even without 25(OH)D blood tests, you can safely give her 50 mcg/day which is 2,000 IU per day. In fact, the U.S. government says this dose is safe for children over the age of one. Life Extension Foundation sells 250 of the 1,000 IU capsules for about ten bucks with powdered vitamin D inside. The powder is tasteless and dissolves easily in juice. Bio Tech Pharmacal, of Fayetteville, Arkansas, told me they were going to be making a 1,000 IU capsule. Or you can get 1,000 IU capsules in a pharmacy or at Costco and crush them. A Canadian firm is now making vitamin D liquid, called Ddrops, with 1,000 IU per drop, but their mail order web site is not yet easily accessed. Beware of cod liver oil; do not use it because vitamin A inhibits the actions of activated vitamin D, and due to the potential for low-grade vitamin A toxicity.

Remember, more and more researchers now believe autism is a progressive, inflammatory, disorder. That is, the inflammation probably progressively destroys brain tissue as the child ages. As I said in my recent paper, I think there is a chance that vitamin D may have a treatment effect in young autistic children if given in adequate doses, due to its anti-inflammatory properties, and its ability to upregulate glutathione, the master antioxidant that also chelates (binds) and then helps excrete heavy metals like mercury. Unfortunately, I see no way, even if the vitamin D/autism theory turns out to be true, that vitamin D can regenerate brain tissue. However, if it stops the inflammation, and cell death, the brain could then begin to develop and learn. These are big ifs. However, you have nothing to lose by trying, the worst that will happen is that it will not help and vitamin D will be added to the long list of false-hope treatments.

Actually, there is a worse possibility. Say the parents of a three-year-old autistic child decide today that vitamin D is nonsense, another false hope, and that I'm a quack. They decide not to give vitamin D supplement their autistic child, who is probably - like your child - vitamin D deficient. Then, it turns out five years from now that scientific evidence shows vitamin D does indeed help. By that time, the child will be eight and will have suffered additional, irreparable, brain damage. In my mind, that is more tragic than another false hope.

Dear Dr. Cannell:

After that article appeared in the Toronto paper, I started my four-year-old son on 1,000 IU of vitamin D two weeks ago. So far the only thing I noticed is that after about ten days, he didn't seem so miserable. The thing that has always broken my heart is that look of sadness and suffering on his face. After about two weeks of vitamin D, I noticed he seemed less miserable. I wouldn't say he looks happy now but that look of misery seems to be gone. Will it come back? I'm not sure I can take it if it comes back. What else might happen? Also, last summer we noticed he seemed to get better, but then he got worse in the fall. We never thought about it until we read about vitamin D.

Susan, Toronto, Canada

Dear Susan:

I don't know. I think all parents have had their heart pierced by that look at one time or another. I would advise increasing the dose to 2,000 IU per day, making sure it is cholecalciferol and not ergocalciferol, and having your doctor order a 25(OH)D every two months to see if he needs higher doses. You want to get his blood level up to between 50 ng/ml and 80 ng/ml (In many countries outside of the USA, that would be reported as between 125 and 200 nmol/L.) and keep it there, summer and winter, and that may take more than 2,000 IU/day in the winter. If vitamin D has a treatment effect, it will take many months to see its full effect. As you noted, if the theory is correct, autistic children who spend time outdoors in the summer should show some seasonal improvements - if they don't wear sunblock and they expose enough of their skin to generate significant amounts of vitamin D.

Dear Dr. Cannell:

I resent you calling autism a tragedy. My son is not a tragedy and I'm glad he was born and is in our lives. He is our joy. Autism is not a tragedy.

Emma, London, England.

Dear Emma:

I'm glad he is your joy and I believe you. I'm new to the autism field and was not aware how much thought and speech control exists in the discussion of the disease. Nevertheless, I have a few politically incorrect questions. If autism is a joy, I assume you would like other parents to have an autistic child? If autism is such a joy, why is there a huge industry forming to prevent and treat it? At the risk of sounding insensitive - apparently one of the most serious charges leveled in the autism debate - autism is a tragedy. As I pointed out in my paper, research shows that having an autistic child, puts the family under more emotional stress than having a child with a fatal illness.

Dear Dr. Cannell:

Who are you to write an article on autism? You didn't even publish it in a medical journal. You are not with a university. You have not published very much. You have no expertise on autism. No autism experts support your theory. There is no evidence to support the theory. Shouldn't you leave this to experts before you give parents more false hopes?

Mary, Trenton, New Jersey.

Dear Mary:

You are right, I am a nobody; just ask my ex-wife. In the Toronto Globe, I explained why I have not yet submitted the paper. As far as giving false hopes, I've thought about that charge. Right now, regardless of what advocacy groups say, autism is rather hopeless. That is, no treatment, including vitamin D, has been shown to materially affect the clinical course of autism. As a psychiatrist, my observation is that people would rather live with a false hope than with no hope.

Furthermore, if autistic children began taking vitamin D, the worse that can happen is that a period of false hope will followed by dashed hopes and then parents will be back to hopelessness. In the meantime, they will have made their child vitamin D sufficient. Vitamin D deficiency is a serious problem in childhood.
Postgrad Med J. 2007 Apr;83(978):230-5.

The Telegraph, Why is Vitamin D So Vital?

As far as the theory having no support from experts, Dr. Richard Mills, research director of the National Autistic Society in England, was quoted in the Telegraph article on the autism/vitamin D theory: "There has been speculation in the past about autism being more common in high-latitude countries that get less sunlight and a tie-up with rickets has been suggested - observations which support the theory."

Finally, you said there is no evidence to support the theory. I assume you meant there is no proof. The first statement is absolutely false, the second absolutely true. As I detailed in my paper, there is a lot of evidence to support the theory. In fact, if anyone can come up with an autism fact, that the theory cannot explain, I'd like to know about it. Even the announcement of a link between television viewing and autism supports the theory. Furthermore, the TV/autism link is actually evidence of a treatment effect. That is, if autistic children who play outside in the sunshine more - watching less TV - have less severe illness, it may be due to the Sun-God, who bestows her precious gift of calcitriol into the brains of children playing outside in her sunlight but not into the brains of children watching TV inside in the darkness.
Natl Bur Econ Res Bull Aging Health. 2007 Winter;(18):2-3.

As far as proof the theory is true, there is, of course, none. In medicine, proof means randomized controlled human trials, the gold standard for proof. However, proof is the last step, not the first. First comes evidence, then comes a theory, then comes researchers disproving those theories. It works that way. Sometimes we never get to the last step, proof. For example, please point me to a single randomized controlled human trial proving cigarette smoking is dangerous? Instead, the convincing evidence of smoking's dangerousness lies in epidemiological studies, not randomized controlled trials. Proof, or disproof, of the autism vitamin D theory will take years, years during which young autistic brains will continue to suffer irreparable damage. Perhaps vitamin D' powerful anti-inflammatory actions will help prevent that damage, perhaps not.

It's something of a Pascal's wager, betting on vitamin D instead of the existence of God, risking your child's brain instead of eternal damnation. "If you believe vitamin D helps autism and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in vitamin D and turn out to be incorrect, your child will suffer irreparable brain damage."

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council
9100 San Gregorio Road
Atascadero, CA 93422

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you don't want to get the newsletter, please hit reply and let us know. This newsletter is not copyrighted. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. Remember, we are a non-profit and rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website.

I just found this great podcast of an April, 2006 National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Omnivore's Dilemma author, Michael Pollan:

Author Michael Pollan: 'The Omnivore's Dilemma'

available at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5342514

The Science Friday segment is a great encapsulation of all the fascinating spins this wonderfully insightful author has on human eating habits and the developing distortions of food choices, much magnified by the food manufacturing industry.

One of my favorite comments from Pollan: "The USDA should be called "The Department of Corn," referring to the ubiquitous dissemination of corn products into livestock and human foods that has increasingly led to the enormous health problems we're all facing in 2007.

Try a little experiment:

Side by side, try a yogurt made with fructose or high fructose corn syrup as one of the first ingredients on the label along with a yogurt made without fructose.

Yoplait and Dannon brands, for instance, fit the bill for fructose. Several brands do not use fructose products. Many of these are the unflavored or unsweetened versions. You may therefore have to add some blueberries, strawberries, or some other fruit for some flavor. ( I doubt that you would add high fructose corn syrup.) Add nuts, seeds, flaxseed, or oat bran to either.

Many people who do this will notice a peculiar effect: The fructose or high fructose corn syrup containing product is, to most, delicious. It also triggers a desire for more. You can't have just one--you've got to have another, or you've got to eat something else.

The non-fructose containing product is more likely to generate satiety, a feeling that you've had enough.

If you experience this effect, the solution is simple: avoid fructose and high fructose corn syrup. I believe that the most worrisome health effect of fructose is this hunger-increasing aspect, difficult to document, perhaps impossible to measure, but a great boon to the food industry who practice an "eat more" philosophy to increase revenues year after year.

Perhaps you will also see weight drop (since you will be more satisfied), see triglycerides drop (since fructose raises triglycerides), and maybe obtain all the downstream benefits of reduced triglycerides (higher HDL, less small LDL, less VLDL, more rapid clearance of post-prandial lipoproteins).

Most people who follow this idea gain better control over appetite, lose weight, and do better in health, including in their Track Your Plaque program.

Clinical studies can be designed in a number of ways. The ease and cost of these studies differ dramatically, as does the confidence of the findings.

The most confident way to design a clinical study is to tell neither the participants nor the investigator(s) what treatment is being offered, then to administer treatment or placebo. Neither the people doing the research nor the participants know what they are receiving. Of course, there needs to be some way to find out what was given at the end of the study in order to analyze the outcome.

This is called a “double-blind, placebo-controlled” clinical study. While not perfect since it tends to examine a treatment phenomenon in isolation (e.g., the effects of a single drug in a select group of people), it is the best sort of study design that is most likely to yield confident results, both negative and positive. This sort of design is followed, for instance, for most prescription drugs.

There are pitfalls in such studies, of course, and some have made headlines lately. For instance, beyond tending to examine single conditions in a select group of participants, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study can also fail to uncover rare effects. If a study contains 5000 participants, for instance, but a rare complication develops in 1 person out of 20,000, then it’s unlikely such an ill-effect will be observed until larger numbers of people are exposed to the agent.

Another pitfall (though not so much of study design, but of human greed) is that study outcomes that are not favorable can be suppressed by simply failing to publish the results. This has undoubtedly happened numerous times over the years. For this reason, a registry has been created for all human clinical trials as a means to enforce publication of outcomes, both favorable and unfavorable.

Despite its weaknesses, the double-blind, placebo-controlled study design remains the most confident way to show whether or not some treatment does indeed yield some effect. It is less prone to bias from either the participant or the investigator. Human nature being what it is, we tend to influence results just to suit our particular agenda or interests. An investigator who knows what you are given, drug or placebo, but owns lots of stock in the company, or is hoping for special favors from the pharmaceutical company sponsor, for instance, is likely to perceive events in a light favorable to the outcome of the study.

Now, most studies are not double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. These are notoriously difficult studies to engineer; raise lots of ethical questions (can you not treat a person with an aggressive cancer, for instance, and administer a placebo?); often require substantial numbers of participants (thousands), many of whom may insist on payment for devoting their time, bodies, and perhaps even encountering some risk; and are tremendously expensive, costing many tens of millions of dollars.

For this reason, many other study designs are often followed. They are cheaper, quicker, may not even require the active knowledge or participation of the group being studied. That’s not to say that the participants are being tricked. It may simply be something like trying to determine if there are more heart attacks in people who live in cities compared to rural areas by comparing death rates from heart attack from public records and population demographic data. Or, a nutritional study could be performed by asking people how many eggs they eat each week and then contacting them every month for 5 years to see if they’ve had a heart attack or other heart event. No treatment is introduced, no danger is added to a person’s established habits. Many epidemiologic studies are performed this way.

The problem is that these other sorts of study designs, because they generate less confident results, are not generally regarded as proof of anything. They can only suggest the possibility of an association, an hypothesis. For real proof to occur, a double-blind, placebo-controlled may need to follow. Alternatively, if an association suggested by a study of lesser design might, by reasons of a very powerful effect, be sufficient. But this is rare. Thalidomide and catastrophic birth defects are an example of an association between a drug and fetal limb malformation that was so clear-cut that no further investigation was required to establish a causative association. Of course, no one in their right mind would even suggest a blinded study.

Where am I going with this tedious rambling? Lately, the media has been making a big to-do about several studies, none of which are double-blind, placebo-controlled, but were cross-sectional sorts of observations, the sorts of studies which can only suggest an effect. This happened with Dr. Steve Nissen’s study of Avandia (rosiglitazone) for pre-diabetes and risk for heart attack and the recent study suggesting that cancer incidence is increased when LDL cholesterol is low. Both were observations that suggested such associations.

Now, those of you following the Heart Scan Blog or the www.cureality.com website know that we do not defend drug companies nor their drugs. In fact, we’ve openly and repeatedly criticized the drug industry for many of its practices. Drugs are, in my opinion, miserably overused and abused.

But, as always, I am in the pursuit of truth. Neither of these studies, in my view, justified the sort of media attention they received. They are hypothesis-generating efforts—that’s it. You might argue that the questions raised are so crucial that any incremental risk of a drug is simply not worth it.

Despite the over-reaction to these studies, good will come of the fuss. I do believe that heightened scrutiny of the drug industry will result. Many people will seek to avoid prescription drugs and opt for healthy changes in lifestyle, thus reducing exposure to costs and side-effects.

But beware of the media, acting as our Chicken Little, reporting on studies that prove nothing but only raise questions.

Some of the math-savvy will have noticed that we often report drops in CT heart scan scores on a percentage basis. Unfortunately, it this were a competition (which, of course, it is not), this would be unfair.

A score of 50, for instance, that drops "only" 25 points would represent a 50% drop in score.

But someone with a score of 1050 who drops his or her score the same quantity, or 25, will have dropped their score less than 5%.

In other words, the magnitude of your starting score determines how large a percentage drop you achieve, even when the absolute, or real, quantity of plaque reversal is the same as someone who begins with a lower score.

I qualify this discussion in this vein because of Grady's story. Grady, a soon-to-retire attorney, started with a heart scan score of 1151. On the Track Your Plaque program, he saw his score drop nearly 200 points--200 points!

But, if we gauged Grady's success just on a percentage basis, he dropped his score only a measly 17% or so. (Imagine the headlines if this program were sponsored by a drug manufacturer. The Track Your Plaque program proudly has nothing to do with the drug industry.)

Of course, the Track Your Plaque program is not a competition. It is an effort to help everyone possible, the more the better. Even if Grady failed to set a new Track Your Plaque record gauged on a percentage basis, he will have achieved an extraordinary advantage in health: the virtual elimination of the dangers of heart disease.

With this drop in score, Grady's risk for heart attack plummets from a spine-chilling 25% per year to nearly zero. (I know of NO other program that can claim such a track record.)

Grady's full story will be reported in the August, 2007 Track Your Plaque newsletter. To subscribe or to just view when it is posted, go to www.cureality.com website, click on the upper right hand corner What Does My Heart Scan Show? graphic, which then takes you to the page to view the newsletter. Or, Track Your Plaque Members can just go to the Library and click on newsletter archives.

One of the basic requirements that stack the odds in your favor of stopping or dropping your CT heart scan score is to achieve basic lipid targets of 60-60-60.

In other words, we generally see best results when LDL is reduced to 60 mg/dl, HDL raised to 60 mg/dl, triglycerides reduced to 60 mg/dl. Now, these are not absolute requirements. Someone can have a spectacular drop in heart scan score even with an HDL of 56, LDL of 71. But the "Rule of 60" provides a useful target that is easy to remember, packs real power, and is clearly beyond that achieved with conventional approaches.

People often ask, "Just how tough is it to get to these targets?"

It's really not that tough. Interestingly, whenever I tell my cardiologist or primary care colleagues that I advocate these 60-60-60 targets, they declare that it's tough, perhaps impossible, except for the most highly motivated.

I agree that it requires motivation. A cigarette-smoking, TV-addicted, 70-lb overweight, chip- and pretzel-eating couch potato is not going to achieve them.

On the other hand, you don't have to be a marathon running vegetarian to do it, either.

Most people, in fact, engaged in the Track Your Plaque program achieve the 60-60-60 targets---or exceed them. It's not uncommon, for instance, for HDL to skyrocket to 80 or 90 mg/dl with many of our strategies. (Of course, if your starting HDL is 20 or 25 mg/dl, 80 or 90 is not possible with current technology.)

But it certainly does require more than the "Take Lipitor and stick to your low-fat diet" approach that is the mantra repeated in the vast majority of medical offices across the U.S. For instance, reducing LDL to 60 mg/dl when starting at 170 mg/dl will require addition of oat bran and other soluble or viscous fibers; raw almonds and walnuts; perhaps the use of Benecol butter substitute; reduction or elimination of wheat products if small LDL comprises a substantial proportion of LDL particles. Reducing triglycerides requires the generous use of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil. Attention to vitamin D must be a part of the effort.

So, yes, it is not as simple as the conventional approach. But the results are far superior in reducing or eliminating heart attack and in dropping your heart scan score.

But it can be done. We do it every day.

It happened yet again.

Mel came to the office. CT heart scan score: 799--quite high, enough to pose a real threat very soon. Thus, no time to lose in instituting an effective prevention program.

We do the usual--identify the six causes of coronary plaque; begin fish oil, show him how to correct his plaque causes. You've heard it before.

Vitamin D blood level in March: 17 ng/ml--severe deficiency.

Vitamin D replacement needs to be a part of his coronary plaque control program. So I suggested 6000 units per day of an oil-based preparation of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol). Conveniently, there is a Vitamin Shoppe outlet across the street from my office. I just point and tell people to go across the street.

Mel did just that. However, he also informed his primary care physician about his vitamin D deficiency. His primary physician promptly told him he needed to take a prescription form of vitamin D and not to bother with just a supplement.

So Mel stopped his vitamin D capsules and started taking vitamin D prescription "medication." Mel figured, naturally, that if it requires a prescription, it must be better. Unfortunately, Mel and his doctor failed to pass the change in strategy onto us.

So, four months later, Mel got repeat vitamin D blood level: 19 ng/ml.

I've seen this too many times. The prescription form of vitamin D is nonsense. There's hardly any effect on blood levels of vitamin D3 at all. The body's conversion of this non-human form of D is extremely inefficient and therefore virtually useless. While it raises the blood level of vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) and thereby total D (D3 + D2), there is negligible effect on the real human and active form, D3.

How and why this preparation got through the FDA process to obtain approval as a drug is beyond me, though I am not a defender of FDA practices and politics.

This notion that "if it's a prescription, it must be better" is a fiction perpetuated by the drug industry. The same principle gets tossed around with fish oil, hormones like estrogens and testosterone, and others. Often, the principal difference between prescription and non-prescription is patent protection. Patent protection provides profit protection. Selling a product without patent protection can be risky business. It's certainly less profitable.

As always, getting at the truth is sometimes the most difficult job of all. Prescription vitamin D belongs in the garbage. Vitamin D capsules (gelcaps) do the job and do it well, over and over, with reliable, consistent and substantial rises in blood levels of 25-OH-vitamin D3. I take 6000 units per day (3 2000 unit capsules) that cost me $5.99 for a bottle of 120 capsules, or about $4.50 a month.

And nobody--nobody--pays me to say this. I say it because I believe it's true.

What does angioplasty have over the Track Your Plaque program?

Well, first of all, the Track Your Plaque program has a lot to boast about. What other approach can claim to have reduced heart disease 30, 40, 51, and now 63%? That's as close to a cure that's ever--EVER--been achieved. Statin drug manufacturers can talk about an occasional 1, 2, or 5% reversal. We're talking 10 times more.

The Track Your Plaque program also uses as little prescription medication as necessary. Fish oil, vitamin D, coenzyme Q10, niacin--some of the frequent tools used for plaque reversal in our program. Yes, we do use prescription medications, but only when there is truly a benefit and nutritional strategies have failed to achieve the goals we're seeking. We do not endorse shotgun prescription approaches conceived of by some marketing department at a pharmaceutical company.

So what possible advantage can coronary angioplasty have? Why don't more people embrace a program like Track Your Plaque that has already proven itself enormously effective?

Because angioplasty is easy. There's little worrying ahead of time. Just wait for the symptoms or other problem to appear, go to the hospital and get your procedure. You can live the free and easy life beforehand--no exercise, no diet efforts, no nutritional supplements. Just be sure to go to the hospital when suspicious symptoms strike. (Of course, you gamble that you survive the appearance of symptoms, a process 30-50% of people fail to survive.)

That means you can eat all you want, drink all you want, save the money you otherwise might have thrown away on supplements, pocket the monthly costs of an exercise club membership, etc. Go to the hospital when you experience the sensation of an anvil on your chest or of suffocation, let the emergency room do their thing, meet your cardiologist, go to the catheterization laboratory, get two or three stents, go home the next day!

Why bother with a prevention program, especially one that requires involvement, learning, and effort like Track Your Plaque?

Because it's your way to stack the odds enormously in your favor of 1) surviving the appearance of symptoms, 2) avoiding the prospect of heart procedures, which are not as clean and easy as they often seem, 3) have a longer lasting durability than a stent which could buy you a couple of years before your next procedure or heart catastrophe, and 4) it's the right thing to do for the sake of the huge societal cost of heart disease.

Many of you have the equivalent of a cure for heart disease at your fingertips. Unless you have a soft spot in your heart for hospitals, cardiologists, or the pharmaceutical or medical device industry, there isn't a choice.

In case anyone missed this in the June, 2007 Track Your Plaque Newsletter, I'm again posting how we calculate the annual rate of score increase, should it occur.

For instance, say your score in January, 2005, is 100. In November, 2006, you undergo another scan and the score is 140. Obviously, your score has increased an undesirable 40%. But what is the annual rate of score increase, the amount of increase per year?

In this example, the annual rate of score increase is 19%--not anywhere near as bad as the 40% that can scare the heck out of you.

Obviously, the best rate of heart scan score increase is a negative number, i.e., a drop in score from, say 100, to 60. You might even eliminate the need for this calculation altogether if you drop your score.

Nonetheless, whenever there is a score increase over an uneven period of time, a fraction of year(s), this is the method we use to annualize the calculation. The equation we use is a modified form of the annual compound interest equation using continuous compounding, since that’s how coronary atherosclerotic plaque grows--just like money. The difference is, of course, is that while you might want more money, you certainly don't want more plaque.

You will need a calculator for this calculation, one with an exponential “y to the power x” function. For ease, calculate "1/t first, then use it as the “x” exponent on your y^x function and "(score 2 / score 1)" as the "y".

Annual rate of plaque growth (APG) = ( score 2 / score 1 ) ^1/t - 1

Multiply the result by 100 to yield a percent.

“Score 1” is your 1st heart scan score, “score 2” is your 2nd (or any subsequent heart scan score); “t” is the amount of time between the two scans expressed in years in decimal form. Time between scans should be expressed in years or fractions of years. To obtain the time interval in fractions of years, simply divide the number of months between scans by 12 (e.g., 18 months / 12 = 1.5 years ; 22 months / 12 = 1.83 years).

It’s not as tricky as it looks. For example, if your first heart scan score is 300 and your next scan 16 months later (or 16/12 = 1.33 years) is 372, then:

Annual rate of plaque growth (APG) = ( 372 / 300 ) ^1/1.33 - 1 = 0.175

Multiply 0.175 x 100 = 17.5% annual rate of plaque growth

Some scan centers will do the calculation for you as part of a repeat scan. However, the equation can be used if you're left on your own, or if you go to a different scan center. If this is too much effort, perhaps it's just another reason to add to the list of reasons to drop your heart scan score!

In The Track Your Plaque program, we advocate decreasing triglycerides to 60 mg/dl or less.

That's the level of triglycerides that minimize the presence of triglyceride-containing undesirable lipoproteins causing plaque, such as small LDL, VLDL, and the after-eating persistence of IDL (intermediate-density lipoprotein, a bad player). (The enzyme, cholesteryl-ester transfer protein, or CETP, is responsible for exchanging one triglyceride molecule for one cholesterol molecule between HDL and other lipoprotein particles. Thus, an excess of triglyceride availability permits CETP to operate unrestrained, creating more undesirable lipoproteins. This was the basis for Pfizer's now defunct CETP inhibitor, torcetrapib.)

Of course, this triglyceride target is far below that of the conventional guidelines. The Adult Treatment Panel-III of the National Cholesterol Education Panel suggests a triglyceride level of 150 mg/dl is okay.

In my view, a level of 150 mg/dl is highly abnormal, permitting the persistence of multiple lipoprotein particles and virtually guarantees plaque growth. In short, triglycerides of 150 are awful.

Curious thing: Successful participants in our program, i.e., people who achieve desirable weight, reduce processed carbohydrate junk foods and saturated fat sources, and aim for the 60-60-60 targets for conventional lipids, commonly end up with triglyceride levels of 25-50 mg/dl.

We have seen many people drop their heart scan scores just by achieving a triglyceride level of 60 mg/dl or less. So achieving a lower level below 60 is not necessarily a requirement for coronary plaque regression.

But it makes me wonder if a triglycere level of 30s or 40s is the level for perfect health. These are levels ordinarily regarded as impossibly low. When colleagues see the numbers we readily and routinely achieve, they declare that the numbers are spurious, temporary, or just flukes. "No way you can do that all the time!"

This level also seems to, in virtually all cases, eliminate the triglyceride-containing undesirable lipoproteins small LDL, IDL, etc., and allow full conversion of HDL into the healthy, large fraction.

Should we move the Track Your Plaque triglyceride target to below 45 mg/dl or even lower? I don't think so, but it makes me wonder.

The Framingham risk score is a risk-assessment tool that has become the basis for heart disease prediction used by practicing physicians.

The Framingham system determines that:

· 35% of the adult population in the U.S., or 70 million, is deemed “low-risk.” Low-risk is defined as the absence of standard risk factors for heart disease; low-risk persons have no more than a 1-in-20 chance (5%) of dying from heart disease in the next 10 years. Physicians are advised by the American Heart Association (AHA) and its experts that no specific effort at risk reduction is necessary.

· 25%, or approximately 50 million, U.S. adults are deemed “high-risk,” based on the presence of 2 or more risk factors. High-risk persons experience a 20%-30% likelihood of heart attack in the next 10 years. People at high-risk are candidates for preventive efforts according to the guidelines set by the Adult Treatment Panel-III (Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults; ATP-III) for cholesterol-reducing statin drug treatment and for “lifestyle-modifying” advice.

· The remaining 40% of the adult population, or 80 million people, are judged “intermediate-risk,” with the likelihood of heart attack between 5-20% over the next 10 years. This group should receive preventive advice and might be considered for statin drug treatment.

Let’s do some arithmetic. By the above scheme, the low-risk population will experience 3,500,000 heart attacks over the next decade, or 350,000 heart attacks per year.

The intermediate-risk population (without preventive treatment) will experience 8,000,000 heart attacks over the 10-year time period, or 800,000 per year.

The high-risk population, the group most likely to receive standard advice on diet, exercise, and be prescribed statin cholesterol drugs, will have their risk reduced by 35% by preventive efforts over the 10-year period. This means that heart attacks over 10 years will be reduced from 12,500,000 to 8,125,000 by standard prevention efforts, or reduced to 812,500 heart attacks per year.

These numbers are no secret. They are well known facts that have simply come to be accepted by the medical community. In other words, the standard approach to heart attack prediction makes the fact that two million people will succumb to cardiovascular events in the next year no mystery. This exercise in prediction is coldly accurate when applied to a large population.

The problem is that this approach cannot reliably distinguish which individuals will have a heart attack from those who will not.

From 100 people chosen at random, for instance, the numbers game played above will not confidently identify who among those 100 will have a heart attack, who will not, who will develop anginal chest pains and end up with stents or bypass surgery, or who will die. We just know that some of them will. Some people at high risk will have a heart attack, some people at intermediate risk will have a heart attack, some people at low risk will have a heart attack.

For any specific individual (like you or me), it’s a crap shoot.

That's why precise individual measurement of cardiovascular risk is required for real risk assessment, not applying broad statistical observations and forcing them to conform to the unique life of a specific individual, particularly risk calculators with as few risk parameters as the Framingham risk score.

That's easy: NONE.

(Although I've addressed this previously, the question has come up again many times and I thought it'd be worth repeating.)

In other words, no heart scan score--100, 500, 1000, 5000--should lead automatically to procedures in someone who underwent a heart scan but has no symptoms.

This question is a common point of confusion.

In other words, is there a specific cut-off that automatically triggers a need for catheterization?

In my view, there is no such score. We can't say, for instance, that everybody with a score above 1000 should have a catheterization. It is true that the higher your score, the greater the likelihood of a plaque blocking flow. A score of 1000 carries an approximately 25-30% likelihood of reduced blood flow sufficient to consider a stent or bypass. This can nearly always be settled with a stress test. Recall that, despite their pitfalls for uncovering hidden heart disease in the first place, stress tests are useful as gauges of coronary blood flow.

But even a score of 1000 carries a 70-75% likelihood that a procedure will not be necessary. This is too high to justify doing heart catheterizations willy-nilly.

Unfortunately, some of my colleagues will say that any heart scan score justifies a heart cath. I believe this is absolutely, unquestionably, and inexcusably wrong. More often than not, this attitude is borne out of ignorance, laziness, or a desire for profit.

Does every lump or bump justify surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy on the chance it could represent cancer? Of course not. There is indeed a time and place for these things, but judgment is involved.

In my view, no heart scan score should automatically prompt a major heart procedure like heart catheterization in a person without symptoms. If a stress test is normal, signifying normal coronary flow (and there are no other abnormal phenomena, such as abnormal left ventricular function), then there is no defensible rationale for heart procedures. Heart procedures like stents and bypass cannot prevent heart attacks in future; they can only restore flow when flow is poor, or stop the heart attack that is about to occur.

However, EVERY heart scan score above zero is a reason to engage in a program of prevention.

At 53, Sam had been through the wringer with heart disease. After his first heart attack at age 50, he'd undergone four heart catheterizations, 5 stents, and, most recently, a bypass operation. He came to us to see if there was a better solution.

After hearing Sam's story, I asked,"Did your doctors suggest to you why you had heart disease?"

"Well, they said it was genetic, since my father went through the same thing in his early 50s, though he died after his second heart attack at age 54. They said it was bad luck and nothing could be done about it."

Though Sam's case is more dramatic than most, I hear this argument every day: Risk for heart disease is genetic.

It's true: There are indeed multiple reasons for inheriting causes for coronary heart disease, genes that heighten inflammatory responses, oxidative responses, modify lipoprotein particles, increase blood pressure, etc. There has even been some excitement over developing chromosomal markers for heightened risk.

That's all well and fine, but what can we do about it today?

In practical life, many inherited genetic patterns can be expressed in ways that you and I can identify--and correct. They are not chromosomal markers, but end products of genetic patterns. (Although there are indeed identifiable chromosomal markers, they have not yet led to meaningful treatments to my knowledge.)

These readily identifiable patterns include:

--Lipoprotein(a)--Clearly genetically transmitted, passed from mother or father to each child with a 50% likelihood, then you onto your children if you have it.

--Small LDL--Although small LDL is amplified by high-carbohydrate diets and obesity, it can also occur in slender people who do not indulge in carbohydrates --i.e., a genetic tendency. Or, it can be a combination of poor lifestyle magnifying the genetic tendency for small LDL.

--Low HDL--Particularly the extremes of low HDL below 30 mg/dl. (Although, interestingly, I am seeing more of these people, though not all, respond to vitamin D replacement. Perhaps an important subgroup of low HDL people are really Vitamin D Receptor (VDR) variants.)

--ApoE--Two variants are relevant: ApoE2 and ApoE4. In my experience, it's the E2 that carries far greater significance, though the data are somewhat scanty. ApoE4 people are more sensitive to the fats in their diet (greater rises in LDL with fats; thus, some people advocate a tighter saturated fat restriction with this pattern, though I am not convinced that is the best solution), while ApoE2 people are exceptionally sensitive to carbohydrates, develop extravagant increases in triglycerides, and are very diabetes-prone with even the most minimal weight gain. If two "doses" of the E2 gene are present (homozygotic), then the tendencies are very exagerrated. E4 people are also subject to greater likelihood of Alzheimer's, though it is not a certain risk in a specific individual.

--Postprandial disorders--We use the fasting intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL) as an easy, obtainable index of the ability to clear after-eating byproducts of meals from the blood. Increased IDL has been related to increased coronary, carotid, and aortic aneurysmal disease.

--Hypertriglyceridemia-i.e., increases in triglycerides, While not all forms of high triglycerides confer risk for atherosclerosis, many do, particularly if associated with IDL, small LDL, increased LDL particle number and/or apoB.

There are more, but you get the point. There are clear-cut genetically-transmitted reasons for greater risk for cardiovascular disease. Some, like lipoprotein(a), yield very high risk. Others, like increased triglycerides, yield mixed levels of risk.

Importantly, all of these patterns--ALL--are identifiable and are treatable. Treatment may not always be the easiest thing, but they are treatable nonetheless. While lipoprotein(a), for instance, is the most difficult pattern to correct in the above list, I remind everyone that our current "record holder" for reversal of plaque and heart scan scores--63% reduction--has lipoprotein(a) that we corrected.

If you've been told that your risk for cardiovascular disease or coronary plaque is "genetic" and thereby uncorrectable and hopeless, run the other direction as fast as you can. Get another opinion from someone willing to take the modest effort to tell you precisely why.

A Heart Scan Blog reader brought this piece by Dr. MacDougall to my attention.

Dr. MacDougall created a fictitious posthumous conversation between himself and the late Tim Russert. MacDougall paints a picture of a hardworking, hard-living man who adhered to an overindulgent lifestyle of excessive eating. He concludes that a vegetarian, low-fat diet would have saved his life.

Beyond being disrespectful, I would differ with Dr. MacDougall’s assessment. In fact, I’ve heard an interview with Mr. Russert’s primary care physician in which the doctor claimed that Mr. Russert had been counseled on the need for a low-fat diet and, in fact, adhered to it quite seriously. Far from being an overindulgent, overeating gourmand, he followed the dictates of conventional dietary wisdom according to the American Heart Association. The low-fat diet articulated by Dr. MacDougall is simply a little more strict than that followed by Mr. Russert.

What exactly could Mr. Russert have done to prolong his life? Several basic strategies:

--Added fish oil. This simple strategy alone would have reduced the likelihood of dying suddenly by almost half.

--Eliminated wheat and cornstarch—Mr. Russert developed diabetes in the last few years of his life. By definition, diabetes is an inability to handle sugars and sugar-equivalents. Wheat and cornstarch yield immediate and substantial surges in blood sugar greater than table sugar; elimination causes weight to plummet, blood sugar to drop, and diabetes (at least in its early phases) can be eliminated in many people, particularly those beginning with substantial excess weight.

Just those two strategies alone would more than likely have avoided the tragic death that brought Mr. Russert’s wonderful life and career to an abrupt end.

Of course, he could have even taken his heart health program even further, as we do in the Track Your Plaque program. While the conversation has focused on how to avoid tragic events like sudden cardiac death, why not take it a step farther and ask, "How can coronary plaque be measured, tracked, and reversed?"

In that vein, Mr. Rusert could have restored vitamin D to normal levels; identified all hidden sources of heart disease using lipoprotein testing (though he had small LDL without a doubt, given his generous waist size, HDL of 36 mg/dl and high triglycerides); considered niacin. Simple, yet literally lifesaving efforts, that make reversal much more likely.

Those simple steps, in fact, would have tipped the scales heavily in Mr. Russert’s favor, making a heart attack and/or sudden death from heart disease exceptionally unlikely.

The Fanatic Cook has a great post discussing the findings of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) on the quality of bottled water.

The full text of the study from the EWG can be viewed here.

They report that "the bottled water industry promotes an image of purity, but comprehensive testing by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reveals a surprising array of chemical contaminants in every bottled water brand analyzed" . . . After analyzing 10 brands, they conclude that "tests strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted. Given the industry's refusal to make available data to support their claims of superiority, consumer confidence in the purity of bottled water is simply not justified."

"EWG's study has revealed that bottled water can contain complex mixtures of industrial chemicals never tested for safety, and may be no cleaner than tap water. Given some bottled water company's failure to adhere to the industry's own purity standards, Americans cannot take the quality of bottled water for granted. Indeed, test results like those presented in this study may give many Americans reason enough to reconsider their habit of purchasing bottled water and turn back to the tap."

For these reasons, as well as environmental reasons (plastic bottles filling up dumpsites), I think it is becoming clearer and clearer that bottled water is something we should only use in a pinch, not habitually.

The JUPITER study has sparked a lot of discussion about c-reactive protein, or CRP.

If we follow the line of reasoning that prompted this study, reducing CRP may correlate with reduction of cardiovascular events. Thus, in the JUPITER study, Crestor 20 mg per day reduced cardiovascular events by nearly half.

From a CRP perspective, starting values were 4.2 mg/dl in the Crestor group of the trial, 4.3 mg/dl in the placebo group. After 24 months, CRP in the Crestor group was 2.2 mg/dl, 3.5 mg/dl in the placebo group, representing a 37% reduction.

Now, in our Track Your Plaque program--an experience that has yielded the virtual ELIMINATION of cardiovascular events--we aim for a CRP level of 1.0 mg/dl or less, ideally 0.5 mg/dl or less. The majority of people achieve these ambitious levels. In fact, it is a rare person who does not.

How do we achieve dramatic reductions in CRP? We use:

--Weight loss through elimination of wheat and cornstarch--This yields impressive reductions.

--Vitamin D--I have no doubt whatsoever of vitamin D's capacity to exert potent anti-inflammatory effects. I am not entirely sure why this happens (enhanced sensitivity to insulin, reduced expression of tissue inflammatory proteins like matrix metalloproteinase and others, etc.), but the effect is profound.

--Elimination of junk foods--like candies, cookies, pretzels, rice cakes, potato chips, etc.

--Exercise--Amplifies the benefits of diet on CRP reduction.

--Not allowing saturated fats to dominate--Yes, yes, I know. The demonization of saturated fat conversation has been largely replaced by the Taubesian saturated fat has not been confidently linked to heart disease conversation. But controlled feeding studies, in which a single component of diet is manipulated (e.g., saturated vs. monounsaturated vs. polyunsaturated fat) have clearly shown that saturated fats do activate several factors in the inflammatory response.

--Fish oil--Though I am a firm believer in the huge benefits of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation/restoration, the anti-inflammatory effect is modest from a CRP perspective. However, there are anti-inflammatory benefits beyond that of simple CRP (via normalization of eicosanoid metabolism and other pathways).

--Weight loss--A BIG effect. Weight loss drops CRP like a stone. The CRP-reducing effect is especially large if achieved via carbohydrate reduction.

Of course, this is much more complicated than taking a pill. But it is effective to achieve health benefits outside of cardiovascular risk, is enormously useful as part of a weight loss effort, and doesn't cost $1400 per year like Crestor.

In short, if CRP reduction is the goal, it certainly does not have to involve Crestor.

What is C-reactive protein (CRP)?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Image courtesy Liposcience, Inc.)

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

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

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

(Image courtesy Wikipedia)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vitamin D and autism

Michael Pollan Podcast

Are you addicted to fructose?

Chicken Little

200 point drop in heart scan score

How tough is the Track Your Plaque 60-60-60 target?

Vitamin D2 belongs in the garbage

Angioplasty vs. Track Your Plaque

Plaque is like money

Triglycerides: What is normal?

The Framingham Crap Shoot

At what score should a heart catheterization be performed?

"It's genetic"

Tim Russert Revisited

Water: Bottled vs. tap

Can CRP be reduced?

CRP and Jupiter

Nutritional approaches: Large vs. small LDL

Factory hospitals

Medicare and The Law of Unintended Consequences