NY Times' health columnist, Jane Brody, recently wrote a bit of fluff for her paper:

"CT Scans of the Heart Come With Trade-Offs

In her report, she says:

Coronary CT scans are being sold directly to the public, and they have found a market in health-conscious people who can afford them. But screening exams can have downsides. They can cause needless worry, and they sometimes reveal other potential conditions that require invasive procedures like biopsies to diagnose.

I soon learned that among the strongest proponents of CT scans of coronary arteries were physicians with financial ties to drug companies that make statins and others connected to imaging centers that would profit directly from widespread CT screenings.

She then goes on to discuss how the Framingham scoring calculation can tell you whether or not you are at low-, intermediate-, or high-risk for heart disease. She therefore concludes that heart scans are therefore irrelevant for the majority of people. She then proceeds to take a statin agent.

This sort of nonsense continues to get published, despite the clear lack of real "digging" for the truth. She clearly fell for the conventional arguments that continue to mis-guide the majority of people, myths like:

--the Framingham scoring system is reliable--Reliable it is NOT; it is susceptible to substantial "misclassification" bias, meaning people who appear low risk can actually be high risk, and people at high risk can actually be low risk. Among the latest studies that question the scoring system is Family history of premature coronary heart disease and coronary artery calcification: Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). This study pointed out how the Framingham scoring system, which leaves out family history, can cause people classified as low risk to actually have substantial heart scan scores. This is crucial. A heart scan gets beyond the uncertainties and shows with >95% certainty whether or not hidden coronary atherosclerotic plaque is present.

--"Coronary risk" is a dynammic phenomenon, subject to changes in a person's life. What if, for instance, a person smoked for 20 years, quit 10 years ago, lost 30 lbs, dropped their blood pressure as a result of the weight loss, then relied on the Framingham Risk Calculator to determine risk. They would likely be classified as low- risk, since risk factors now appear favorable. This person could easily have a heart scan score of 500, or 700, or 1000, levels that carry a cardiovascular event risk of 5-25% per year, hardly low-risk, because much of their risk accumulated earlier in life and is no longer revealed by an assessment of risk factors.

--There are sources of risk that have nothing to do with Framingham, such as lipoprotein(a), which is often revealed by family history; the presence of small LDL, which co-varies with HDL and triglycerides, but can behave independently also; and, my favorite, deficiency of vitamin D. This would explain part of the 60-70% of people who are typically mis-classified by Framingham.

Where did Ms. Brody get the idea that proponents of heart scans had ties to drug companies? I think she's barking up the wrong tree on that one. Of course, she ends up on a statin drug. For my part, I am a critic of statin drugs. Yes, they play a role, but they are miserably misused and abused by practicing physicians, based on the endless onslaught of drug company-sponsored trials that have served to distort their usefulness.

If I were Ms. Brody, I would be quaking in my shoes, not knowing what my true risk for heart disease was, relying on the--at best--30% reduction in heart attack risk of Lipitor or other statin drug. Ms. Brody: You are not cured, you're simply wearing a superficial Band-Aid. If you want to know your true risk for heart attack, and you want a precise value that you can track over time, the answer is simple: Reject the conventional notion and get a heart scan.

Neal is our current male record holder for greatest reduction in heart scan score. (Yes, the ladies have the lead!)

You may remember that this 40-year old man reduced his heart scan score from 339 to 161--a 51% drop. If you haven't yet read his story, go to

http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_07-001nealt51.asp

Neal reminded me of the experience he had when he underwent his second heart scan. Both scans had been performed at the same scanning center. At this center, the radiologists provide the added service of sitting down with people and actually going over the images and results.

After the scan, the radiologist pulled up the result from Neal's first scan for comparison. "There must be a mistake! This score is lower. Scores never drop."

The radiologist was apparently stumped, unable to provide an explanation. However, Neal then proceeded to tell the radiologist that we had warned Neal that this could happen and that he might even be told that it was due to error of some sort. This yielded a puzzled look on the radiologist but no further comment.

Of course it's not a mistake. It's something we achieve on purpose. Curiously, I still get comments that this is impossible, heart scan scores never drop, etc. Of course, those of you following this conversation know this is completely untrue. Heart scan scores DO drop, and sometimes drop enormous amounts, as it did for Neal.

I would have liked the radiologist to have had the lightbulb of understanding go off in his head when he realized that a reduction in heart scan score is a cause for celebration. Unfortunately, this radiologist's reaction is all too common: disbelief, confusion, dismissal.

Heart disease reversal is simply not in the realm of understanding of most doctors, radiologists and cardiologists alike. By conventional thought, if you have it, it just gets worse. "Maybe some high-dose Lipitor might help."

Ironically, when they see it right in front of their eyes, plain as day on the computer screen, they don't understand what has happened. It's Greek to them.

Should this happen to you, don't be surprised. Just bite your tongue, because you know better.

Enter "weight loss" or "low carb" in your web search and you can't help but stumble across the prolific and widely-connected Jimmy Moore.

On his Blog, Livin' la Vida Lo Carb , Jimmy conducts a wide-ranging and informative discussion of the benefits of a low carbohydrate diet, a la Atkins. Though his initial claim to fame was the 180 lbs he lost in his first year of dieting on this approach, Jimmy has extended the conversation and built a considerable community of like-minded individuals, all of whom are participating in this grand "experiment."

Anybody who looks at lipoproteins and associated factors in health will quickly come to the conclusion that processed carbohydrates are the culprits in much of heart disease, diabetes, and heart disease. But I have had a hard time dismissing the ill-effects of saturated fat. After all, we've all been taught--drilled--with the idea that saturated fats cause LDL cholesterol to go higher, cause arterial constriction, growth of atherosclerotic plaque, inflammation, even cancer.

But there does indeed seem to be a growing sentinment that this long-held dogma may not be true. So I went to the ever-entertaining and informative Jimmy Moore, an able spokesman for these concepts.

TYP: It's certainly impossible to argue with the success you had in weight loss and the health you've regained on your program.

I think that the approach we use in diet in the Track Your Plaque program and the nutrition approach you advocate overlap to a great extent. We both emphasize plenty of vegetables, fruits, healthy oils, nuts, etc. The major point of difference seems to lie in saturated fat: We say restrict it, you say don't restrict it. Could you elaborate?

JM: Thank you for inviting me to your blog today, Dr. Davis. I have nothing but deep respect and admiration for the work you are doing to help educate others about how to keep their heart health in tip-top shape. Keep fighting the good fight, my friend.

While we do agree on probably 99% of the basic tenets of what I describe as
"livin' la vida low-carb," the issue of saturated fat to me is one where we
indeed do not. It's not a deal breaker regarding my support for what you do
just as I'm sure you would say the same regarding your backing of what I do. If
we all agreed on everything, then what a boring world this would be!

My thinking on saturated fat has evolved since I started eating this way nearly
four years ago. Like most people, I was terrified to eat ANY fat at all because
of the abject fear that people like Dr. Dean Ornish and other so-called health
"experts" instilled in me about how dangerously unhealthy it is to consume it.
This fat phobia is arguably the single biggest contributor to the ongoing
obesity crisis our world faces today.

With that said, you and I both know fat consumption is a part of a healthy
lifestyle. There are just too many benefits to the body that come from the
consumption of fats and even saturated fats such as coconut oil, butter, lard,
nuts, seeds, and animal fat when it is combined with a restricted carbohydrate
intake.

An intriguing study was presented at a scientific conference in November 2006 by two highly-respected researchers--Dr. Stephen Phinney from the University of California at Davis and Dr. Jeff Volek from the University of Connecticut--who conducted a side-by-side comparison of the amount of saturated fat in the blood of people on a low-carb diet with those following those highly-touted low-fat diets. What they found was the low-carb study participants had "significantly less" saturated fat in their blood than the low-fatties did.

Here are the actual numbers from the study:

- LOW-FAT/HIGH-CARB DIETERS: lowered saturated fat by 24%
- LOW-CARB/HIGH-FAT DIETERS: lowered saturated fat by 57%
- Eating 3X the saturated fat cut the amount in the blood in half

In an interview I conducted at my blog with Dr. Volek last year (here's the
link: http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2006/09/volek-high-carb-low-fat-diet-useless-to.html),
he said the conventional wisdom regarding fat, especially saturate fat, is dead
wrong while the significance of carbs is all but ignored by those who claim to
understand the metabolic response mechanism.

Here's what Dr. Volek said in my interview:

"Eating fat does not make you fat, storing fat makes you fat. And carbohydrates play a major role in storing fat. So the level of dietary carbohydrate is really the most important factor to control because it dictates what happens to fat. Carbs are dominant and fat is passive. When carbohydrates are low, fat tends to be burned, and when carbohydrates are high dietary fat tends to be stored. The same holds true for the atherogenic effects of saturated fat. The body handles saturated fat better when carbohydrates are low."

Long-time low-carb practitioner and current President of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians (ASBP) Dr. Mary C. Vernon from Lawrence, Kansas confirms the findings of Dr. Volek and Dr. Phinney in a succinct recap of what their research showed.

Here's what she said:

"Eating fat (whatever kind) does not make you fat. It does not increase blood
stream saturated fat. Eating carbs does make you fat. Eating carbs does put
saturated fat in your blood stream."

To me, as a simple layperson with no medical background, it's all a matter of who you believe. Do we continue to buy into the low-fat propaganda machine and assume that what they are telling us about saturated fat is true? Or do we instead start paying closer attention to the latest research that is coming out about saturated fat that doesn't exactly line up with the edicts of the last three decades? The choice for me is a simple one.

And if you haven't read the brand new Gary Taubes book entitled GOOD CALORIES, BAD CALORIES yet, then it is REQUIRED reading to arm yourself with the research studies about fat. After you read that book, it will be almost impossible for ANYONE to believe fat, including saturated fat, is unhealthy.

TYP: In our program, we advocate a wheat-free approach for many people, because of the addictive potential of wheat products, as well as the flagrant creation of the small LDL pattern that wheat products create, thereby adding to atherosclerotic plaque growth. However, many people express a concern over a lack of fiber in their diets if they eliminate whole wheat bread, pasta, Fiber One, Raisin Bran cereal, etc.

Have you encountered any phenomena of low-fiber on your approach?

JM: What an excellent question and I even wrote a humorous blog post about the importance of fiber intake called "Allow Your Bowel To Shake, Rattle, And Roll" (http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2006/06/allow-your-bowel-to-shake-rattle-and.html).

Fiber consumption is another one of those issues that not everyone who advocates
a controlled-carb approach agrees is necessary. I'm on the side that it IS a healthy part of your diet and should be consumed in high enough quantities to keep you regular...something many people think is impossible on a low-carb diet.
Not true! I take a fiber supplement like FiberCon, eat plenty of high-fiber vegetables, drink lots of water, and even consume high-fiber, low-carb products that help me maintain high levels of fiber in my diet (see my favorite ones in this post: http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2007/04/there-are-plenty-of-low-carb-fiber.html).

As for consuming the highly-touted "healthy whole grain" cereals that you
mentioned, what a travesty that would be for people trying to manage their
weight and health. While the cereal manufacturers have had a heyday in their
marketing efforts promoting their whole grain content, it's all just a big fat
ruse on the public trying to convince them that these cereals are somehow healthy for their bodies. Sure, they're better than the sugary cereals, but all those grains are metabolized as sugar inside the body, so you might as well be eating Lucky Charms and Fruit Loops!

Many of these "healthy" cereals contain as many carbohydrates in a single bowl
without the milk as I would eat in an entire day. Raisin Bran, for example, which used to be my favorite cereal before my low-carb lifestye, has a whopping 47 grams of carbohydrates. Needless to say, I don't touch that with a ten-foot pole nowadays because I would surely gain weight and get back on the blood sugar rollercoaster ride that I was on prior to beginning the Atkins diet on January 1, 2004. Plus, all those carbs just make you hungrier sooner, so it's better just to eat some delicious eggs cooked in butter, a couple of slices of sausage, and tomato slices to start your day off right. You'll get enough fiber in your body the rest of your day.

TYP: 180 lbs of weight loss in your first year is absolutely astounding.

I take it that you've continued this trend and have lost more weight since your early success. What role did exercise play during your first year and subsequently?
How are your food choices today different from that first year?

JM: Yes, that weight loss was indeed one of the greatest accomplishments I have ever experienced in my life. It was a hard-fought battle that even included a 10-week period where I was stalled with no weight loss. But I knew my chosen diet was the right one for me because I felt better than I ever had on a diet, was never hungry because I ate every 2-3 hours, and could see myself doing this for the rest of my life. So far, so good!

It has been close to four years since I began this journey and I am indeed continuing this pathway to better health. My low weight in 2004 was 230 pounds and I currently weigh 225 pounds. As long as I keep my carbs reduced, I am able to maintain my weight right where it is. I've had minor fluctuations in both directions where I got down to as low as 215 pounds at one point (but didn't feel good at that weight) and as high as 252 pounds (when I was allowing myself one too many high-carb foods here and there).

There's a balance that people need to find for themselves and it's different for
all of us. I am one of the unlucky people who has to keep his carbohydrate
intake below 50g daily or I gain. It's just a fact of life that I've come to
grips with and realize is a necessity in order to manage my weight for the rest
of my life. But I wouldn't have it any other way!

Exercise was indeed a part of my low-carb weight loss success in 2004 as I
forced myself to do cardio every single day as a commitment to this journey. In
hindsight, that was probably not the best thing for me to do since the body has
a rather peculiar way of telling you it needs to wiggle and move spontaneously
on its own rather than forcing the issue. But I consider the exercise I did to
be such an integral part of my success that I dedicated an entire chapter of my
book to the subject.

Today, my daily cardio routine is out the window and I choose instead to engage
in activities outside the gym that let me burn calories and have some fun in the
process. I regularly play volleyball, basketball, and referee flag football at
my church which all give me quite a workout. I'm very physically active and fit
on my 6'3" body and just enjoy burning off all this excess energy that I have
been given since losing nearly have my weight! I do want to get into a little
more organized resistance training routine soon to try to shape and tone some
areas of my body that still show signs of that 410-pound man I used to be
(although the loose, hanging skin in my abdomen and inner thighs isn't going to
get any better with exercise since the elasticity has been ruined from being
stretched out so far). Here is a link to some posts and pictures I have written
about this subject:
http://lowcarblinks.blogspot.com/2007/04/theme-based-low-carb-links-loose-skin.html

As for my food choices today compared to my weight loss year in 2004, they
haven't really changed a whole lot. This was a lifestyle change in every sense
of the phrase and I've learned to implement this way of eating into a permanent
and healthy diet that I can and will gladly live with forever and ever amen. I
probably eat more berries, melons, and nuts today than I did then, but otherwise
it's the identical diet.

TYP: I'm sure that you are as impressed as I am that much of the wisdom in healthy eating doesn't always come from doctors or clinical studies, but from the collective wisdom that emerges from this national experiment (inadvertent, for the most part) in eating. Your Livin' La Vida Low-Carb is, in my view, a perfect example of the sort of wisdom that is helping all of us understand what happened to our health over the last 20 years.

Does the approach you advocate today differ in any substantial way from the diet as originally articulated by Dr. Atkins?

JM: Actually, my personal diet is precisely based on the teaching of the late great Dr. Robert C. Atkins in his classic bestseller DR. ATKINS' NEW DIET REVOLUTION (DANDR) book. But most people are surprised when they learn I do not necessarily advocate the Atkins diet as the nutritional approach for everyone.

Nope, I sure don't!

Instead, my philosophy is simple: Find the diet plan that will work for YOU, read and research everything you can about that chosen plan, follow that plan exactly as prescribed by the author of that book, and then KEEP doing that plan for the rest of your life. If you do that, then there's no reason why you can't succeed just like I did.

Anyone interested in doing the low-carb lifestyle and needs help finding which
plan is right for them, let me HIGHLY encourage you to pick up a copy of Dr. Jonny Bowden's LIVING THE LOW-CARB LIFE (read my review: http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2005/05/must-have-book-for-everybody-doing-low.html).
It's the perfect overview of low-carb living with a comparison and recap of the
major plans.

THANK YOU again for allowing me to share my story with you and your readers, Dr.
Davis!

TYP: And thanks to you, Jimmy!

For more on Jimmy Moore's lively and informative discussion of these issues, go to

Livin' la Vida Lo Carb

Also, watch "Livin' La Vida Low-Carb on YouTube"

Join the conversation at Jimmy's new low-carb forum called "Livin' La Vida
Low-Carb Discussion" at LowCarbDiscussion.com

Also, Jimmy's 2005 book on his weight loss experience:
"Livin' La Vida Low-Carb: My Journey From Flabby Fat To
Sensationally Skinny In One Year"

Some people have called CT heart scans the "mammogram of the heart." The analogy contains a lot of wisdom.

First of all, both--mammograms and CT heart scans--are screening tests, one for cancer, of course, the other for coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Both are performed in specific age groups, mammograms in women 40 years and over (generally), heart scans in women 50 years and over (generally).

Mammograms: Left, normal; right, a small mass. (Courtesy Nat'l Institutes of Health and Wikipedia.)

Both are also meant to be repeated periodically when normal as a surveillance process.

Both use low quantities of radiation of about 0.3-0.4 mSv (the most real-life measure of total body exposure), a modest quantity of radiation.

Both are good for their purposes, though not perfect. Can a mammogram performed properly miss a small cancerous mass? Sure it can, but it's still unusual. Can a CT heart scan miss the non-calcified plaque prone to rupture? Sure it can, but this is also unlikely (<5% probability).

Given the exorbitant costs of medical tests, both are quite inexpensive. On the flip side, they are both also quite unprofitable for the centers providing the tests. Unfortunately, this means that mammography centers and heart scan centers come and go because of the difficulties of the profit-side of these services.

Both tests initially struggled to gain acceptance among the medical community. In 1960, for instance, mammograms were performed on standard x-ray devices, the same as that used to perform chest x-rays--low precision, high radiation back then. In 1969, dedicated mammography devices made the scene. However, it took over 10 years for even these new dedicated devices to become widely used. Use of mammograms has gradually increased over the ensuing 20 years. In other words, 47 years have passed since the introduction of mammography.

CT heart scans, of course, have had a shorter history of approximately 20 years, since engineer, Dr. Douglas Boyd, first invented the "ultra-fast" EBT devices, the first devices with sufficient scanning speed to scan the heart and coronary arteries.

One interesting difference between the two: In a woman between the age of 50 and 60, the likelihood of detecting cancer is 1 in 237. The likelihood of detecting coronary atherosclerotic plaque? About 1 in 4. Coronary disease eventually kills 1 in 3 females, hugely overshadowing breast cancer in frequency.

Progress on both fronts, one in cancer detection, the other in atherosclerotic coronary plaque detection. But still lots more progress to go.

I’m fascinated by the perspectives that nutritionists (free-thinking ones, at least), food scientists, and biochemists bring on nutrition and nutritional supplements.

A few months ago, I met a fascinating nutritionist/biochemist named Susie Rockway, PhD. Dr. Rockway brings a world of experience in the world of nutritional supplements, clinical trials with supplements, and their development. She has special expertise in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), having been among the scientists who initially developed CLA as a supplement. We are also exploring CLA as a possible addition to the Track Your Plaque program and wanted to get Dr. Rockway’s perspectives.

So I asked Dr. Rockway if she’d answer a few questions for us.

TYP: Dr. Rockway, we understand that you are particularly excited about the prospects of CLA for FAT loss and perhaps for regression of atherosclerosis. Can you tell us about the origins of your interest in CLA and why you're so enthusiastic?

Dr. Rockway: I have been fascinated with this unique fatty acid since the early 1990’s when CLA was first being discussed as nature’s most potent anti-carcinogen. I was then working in the granting/funding section of the National Dairy Council and saw this molecule as truly one of the future functional fats that would likely benefit people (next to omega-3’s!)

I think the benefits of CLA have just begun to be investigated—animal studies are extraordinary for showing fat reduction, lean mass (muscle) increases, immune enhancements, blood glucose normalization, anti-inflammatory properties and plaque reduction!

Human data to date is very encouraging for fat reduction. As a nutritionist seeing the massive increase in abdominal fat (stomach fat) in the world population and the direct relationship to cardiovascular disease, I see CLA as a great supplement to take to help this. Of course eating lots of vegetables, fruit, lean protein and whole grain products is also a must for maximizing good health.

I am studying the impact of CLA in reducing muscle loss in aging women—a condition known as sarcopenia. As we lose muscle with age, we lose strength, falls increase, we become frailer, and eventually many of us lose our independence. Along with the muscle atrophy, most people gain fat—never a good thing! So, if CLA can reduce fat and increase muscle, our bodies are more likely to withstand the hurdles that life throws at us much more efficiently.

So, how can you not be excited about this very bioactive molecule?

TYP: What are your specific areas of interest in nutrition and health?

Dr. Rockway: I strive to understand the role of bioactive molecules that can be taken to improve the aging process and enhance health.

As a trained nutritional biochemist, we tend to look at cell metabolism in a very ideal sense: what we learned in our biochemistry texts years ago where all substrates, proteins, enzymes, etc. are made exactly when we need them, where all cells behave as they should.

Unfortunately, little research has been devoted to understanding the changes in metabolism as we age. Do we still produce everything as efficiently as when we were 20? I suspect not. So, I think we need a little help, and supplements are a key to getting there.

Two nutrients that I think are emerging as “super nutrients” are the fatty acids found in fish oil (EPA and DHA) and vitamin D. Where we know these two nutrients are essential for life, we are seeing that they play a huge role in the QUALITY of life. Mood, depression, PMS, wound healing, bone growth, atherosclerosis, and arthritis are clinical areas where we see a direct benefit with doses of omega-3 and Vitamin D that are probably much greater than the RDA. Our current requirements for nutrients are really based on fixing deficiencies and not maximizing health, and maximizing health is where I’m at.

Thus, I am very interested molecules like CLA as mentioned above, and other bioactive ingredients such as plant derived ingredients (phytochemicals) called flavonoids that may well help explain why people who have diets high in fruits and vegetables are less likely to have certain cancers and heart disease. Reducing oxidative stress through foods that provide these active molecules (think colored fruits and veggies) is a new and exciting area of research.

TYP:The big "diet experiment" in America has clearly steered people in the wrong direction, usually by 50 or more pounds. As a scientist in nutrition, what are your thoughts?

Dr. Rockway: The American Heart Association was keen 20 years ago to promote the low-fat diet for all Americans as the key way to reduce cholesterol levels and decrease chance of heart disease, the number one killer of men and women. However, I must admit the nutritional community bought into this one, too. Unfortunately, the general public took this message to reduce percent fat in their diet (and they did a bit), but increased overall calories instead—and a large portion of the increased calories was from simple carbohydrates. I’m convinced that this in itself has been part of the huge rise in obesity…we simply eat more food and it’s not the healthy kind of food either.

When you increase sugar intake beyond what you burn off, you will store some of it as glycogen in the liver and muscles, but you will convert most of the excess into fat—and that we can store very efficiently! The fat that is made in the liver is sent to the blood as VLDL’s which are the precursor to the class of lipids called low density lipoproteins (LDL) that are the “lethal” type of cholesterol circulating in our blood.

So, Americans now have to listen to a new message that they need to eat more fruits and vegetables in hopes they will cut down on fast foods—tending to be high in fat (saturated particularly), low in fiber and low in nutrients and other high calorie dense foods. We nutritionists have our work cut out for us, that’s for sure.

TYP: We are especially excited that nutritionists are assuming a leading role in shining light on the confusion in diet and nutrition that has characterized the last 40 years. Do you have a sense for the emerging important issues for the next 10 years?

Dr. Rockway: Certainly, the scientists in the nutritional field are well aware of the problems facing this nation—it’s in fixing them that we fall short!

We aren’t very well coordinated to get a single message out, nor do we all agree on what that message should be. I feel that people need to eat healthy MOST OF THE TIME, exercise all of the time, and take supplements that have clear evidence of benefit. Lots of my colleagues would not concur with supplement use. Our bodies were designed to move a lot and eat a lot…we just do the latter now and are paying the price!

One emerging and very exciting area that we have to teach Americans is that all fat is not bad. The different types of fat—omega-6 vs. omega-3, are where we need to focus our education.

Decreasing the corn oil we pour on everything needs to go out the window! Consume olive oil and eat fish or take fish oil supplements—we simply have tons and tons of research showing the benefits of reducing the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3. Did you know that cattle that are grass fed actually have less omega-6 in their tissues and more CLA? But most cattle are fed corn-based diets, so we have perturbed their natural selection of food and their fat composition.

See, it all comes back to CLA!

TYP: Thanks, Susie!

Susie Rockway, Ph.D., C.N.S.

Dr. Susie Rockway is an experienced scientist with accomplishments in both the academic and food and supplement industry business directing science/technology research. Her background includes faculty appointments at the graduate level in teaching and research at Rush University Medical Center and industrial experience managing basic and applied research studies.

Dr. Rockway received her Ph.D. in Nutritional Sciences, Biochemistry from the University of Arizona. Dr. Rockway has authored several publications in journals such as the Physiological Genomics, Journal of Nutrition, the Journal of Food Science, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health and has published chapters on nutrition on inflammatory bowel diseases. She is a member of the American Society for Nutrition, American Oil Chemists Society, the Institute of Food Technology, American College of Nutrition and is a Certified Nutrition Specialist.

We're also proud to add Dr. Rockway to our panel of Track Your Plaque Experts.

If you have the common pattern of high LDL particle number (NMR) with small LDL--a pattern highly related to coronary plaque--which is better:

Lipitor or a combination of fish oil, vitamin D, and elimination of wheat?

Lipitor quite effectively reduces LDL particle number, usually on the order of 40% or so. Effect on LDL particle size: None. Side-effects: plenty, including muscle aches (inevitable in my experience, not the ridiculous 2% they claim) and occasionally mental effects such as impaired short-term memory.

Lipitor does seem to exert a modest effect on reduction of C-reactive protein, around 30%. It also reduces cardiovascular events by 30%.

A combination of fish oil, vitamin D, and elimination of wheat:

Reduces LDL particle number commonly by a similar 40% (though variable, depending on body weight). There is substantial improvement in LDL particle size, a large drop in C-reactive protein, often >50%, a 30% or more reduction in cardiovacular events.

On this combination, however, you also:

--Lose weight, often substantially.

--Improve bone health, esp. osteoporosis and arthritis.

--Reduce cancer risk from the vit D supplementation.

--Reduce risk of stroke.

--Reduce postprandial (after-eating) abnormalities like intermediate-density lipoprotein.

--Reduce winter blues.

--Experience more energy.

--Obtain increased clarity of thought (from elimination of wheat).

--Reduce blood pressure.

Oh, and there's no muscle aches.

I'm kidding.

What I'm referring to is the incredibly lame information I come across that passes as "heart health" on the internet, magazines, and other media. Just to keep abreast of what is being said, I subscribe to multiple newsletters and magazines and I witness the sorts of advice offered to the reading public.

A recent long-winded article on a popular website listed the "exciting" strategies available for a healthy heart:

Eat healthy--by eating a "balanced" diet low in saturated fat

Don't smoke

Exercise

Don't ignore chest pain symptoms or breathlessness

Know your numbers! meaning your cholesterol numbers. "If your cholesterol is high, you may need to speak to your doctor about medication to reduce it."

Surely they must all believe we're stupid. Otherwise, why would they repeat the same obvious information over and over again? Quit smoking? Gee, you think so?

How about some real heart healthy advice:

Get a heart scan--since we have to accept that cholesterol values are a miserable failure in detecting hidden heart disease. So is waiting for symptoms to appear.

If you have any measure of coronary plaque, ask your doctor to assess lipoproteins, not lipids (cholesterol).

Take fish oil for omega-3 fatty acids--At a dose of 1000 mg or more of EPA + DHA, heart attack risk is reduced by at least 28%.

Eliminate wheat and other processed carbohydrates --Small LDL has emerged as the number one cause of coronary plaque, not high cholesterol from saturated fat.

Get vitamin D assessed--The effects are huge--HUGE. There's already a study in a kidney disease population that showed a substantial reduction in mortality with vitamin D supplementation. More data are coming, including our own.

That's a start--truly effective, practical heart healthy strategies that go way beyond the conventional bland advice.

Copyright 2007 William Davis, MD

I've been asked the question numerous times:

Why aren't heart scans more popular?

First, let me qualify by saying that heart scan have indeed grown in popularity over the past decade. I think the real question is:

Given the enormous usefulness of CT heart scanning to detect hidden, asymptomatic coronary atherosclerotic plaque, why haven't they more readily been incorporated into conventional medical practice?

That's easy: There's no money in it.

Say, for instance, your doctor orders a heart scan and somehow receives a $1000 for the test. Scan centers would be scanning 100 people a day, falling over themselves to do scans.

This would be similar to a heart catheterization. Order a catheterization, do 30 minutes of work, and get $1000. Or, order a nuclear stress test. Depending on how its done and where, $1800-4000 is paid by the insurer.

Order a CT heart scan and how much is paid to the doctor? Usually nothing. At most, a nominal fee might be paid if the doctor reads the scan.

With heart scans, there simply is no big payoff.

We learned the implications of this situation 10 years ago when I was trying to help my friend, Steve Burlingame, the owner of Milwaukee Heart Scan. (I am NOT and NEVER WAS an owner.) Steve was trying to let everybody know about this great new $2 million dollar heart scan device in the Milwaukee area.

The first few years were tough for Steve: Carrying the substantial expense of this device while doctors essentially gave the technology the cold shoulder. It simply did not fit into the financial equation. Why change the way things were, particularly when there was virtually no financial reason to do so? To counter this, Milwaukee Heart Scan followed the model many other scan centers have followed and marketed directly to the public.

I see this as yet another example of why people need to take control of health care away from doctors and hospitals, the current controllers of the system who are providing a disservice to the public they are supposed to be serving. These institutions, for the most part, serve their self-serving financial interests, not your health interests. It's the same equation that drives food manufacturers to make more and more processed carbohydrate foods that they sell for substantial markups, not green peppers and cucumbers that make little money.

I regard heart scans as among the greatest self-empowering tools in health ever conceived. It was that way in 1997; it remains that way in 2007.

Ginnie came in for an opinion about her heart scan score of 393. At age 57, this put her in the 99th percentile, a high score.

As usual, we did a lipoprotein analysis by NMR (Liposcience). Some numbers:

LDL cholesterol: 96 mg/dl
This value puts Ginnie's LDL in the most favorable 25% in the country.

LDL particle number: 2140 nmol/l
This value is in the worst 25% of the country and is the equivalent of an LDL cholesterol of 214 mg/dl (take off the zero).

In addition, over 90% of Ginnie's LDL particles fell into the small class.

Had we run some other values, how would they have turned out? These are my estimates (since we didn't actually run them in Ginnie), but having run side-by-side numbers in past, reasonable estimates would have put:

Apoprotein B somewhere in the 120 to 140 mg/dl range

Direct LDL 100-130 mg/dl range.

In other words, conventional calculated LDL is the least reliable of all the ways of examining low-density lipoprotein.

It can also go the other way: High calculated LDL, low LDL particle number or ApoB or direct LDL. And, indeed, these other measures have proven superior in their ability to predict "events" like heart attack over conventional calculated LDL.

Unfortunately, relying on conventional LDL is like a broken speedometer on your car. You really can't gauge accurately how fast you're going; sometimes you could be way off. While insurance companies and many physicians still continue to balk at this argument, the data have already been generated that show that lipoprotein analysis (my bias is NMR) is not just superior, but enormously superior for accuracy and event prediction.

In addition, lipoprotein analysis has proven a crucial tool that accounts for our extraordinary success in reducing and controlling CT heart scan scores in the Track Your Plaque program. I doubt that we could have achieved the same level of success using conventional lipids.

I'm also aware of the logistical difficulties obtaining lipoprotein testing in a world enthusiastically supportive of hospital procedures and smugly ignorant of superior prevention tools like lipoprotein analysis. I've learned just how difficult it can be in our Track Your Plaque Member Forum; I've also learned about some strategies for obtaining these tests that I hadn't been aware of, thanks to the resourcefulness of our Members.

We will be working on some solutions in the coming months.

Copyright 2007 William Davis, MD

Say you begin with a CT heart scan score of 400.

You correct your lipoprotein pattterns, take fish oil, correct 25-OH-vitamin D3 to 50 ng/ml, correct your other hidden patterns, follow a diet suited to your patterns.

One year later, you get another heart scan. What score would constitute "success"?

With all of our recent talk about record-setting reductions in heart scan scores, is it really necessary to drop your score that much to succeed?

For instance, is our latest record-setting 63% drop in score better than "only" a 10% drop in score? Both represent reversal of coronary plaque. Both signify huge reductions in risk for plaque rupture, or heart attack.

You can read about how we view the various forms of success in the program by reading our latest Track Your Plaque Special Report, Winning Your Personal War with Heart Disease: The Track Your Plaque 5 Stages of Success.

We are making the Report available to everyone. Just go to the www.cureality.com homepage.

If we followed the lead of the pharmaceutical industry and my cardiology colleagues, we would all subscribe to the "statins for all" philosophy. There is now $2 billion of clinical "research" to back up this "evidence-based" practice.

I do not endorse this "statins for all" philosophy. I believe it is a product of the raw profiteering of the pharmaceutical industry, who are adept at recruiting physicians to their cause.

But lost in the confusion of tainted studies and over-the-top media saturation is the fact that there are small groups of people who likely do obtain benefit from statin drugs. They would certainly benefit from better informed scrutiny of their lipoprotein and metabolic abnormalities. But treatment may involve statins.

This is entirely distinct from the "statins for all" argument, the simpleminded rule that primary care physicians and cardiologist are told to follow.

Groups who may indeed benefit from statin therapy include:

Homozygous or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia--Lacking a receptor for LDL particles, LDL piles up to very high levels in these people. LDLs of 300+ are common and lead to heart disease and stroke at relatively young ages.

Combined mixed hyperlipidemia--Among the one or more genetic defects underlying this condition involves excessive production of apoprotein B and VLDL particles. This leads to high risk for heart disease.

People unable to follow a diet to correct their lipid disorder--I have 80+-year old patients, for instance, who say, "I've eaten this way for 82 years. I'm not going to change now!" In the absence of diet and other efforts (e.g., omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil), drugs may be the answer.

In other words, of the $27 billion annual bill for statin drugs, perhaps a tiny fraction is truly necessary. The majority of people taking statin drugs would not really need them if they had the real answers. But don't let that confuse us: There are some people who do indeed benefit.

In a previous post, Atkins Diet: Common Errors, I commented on butter's unusual ability to provoke insulin responses. I offer this as a possible reason why, after a period of effective weight loss on a low-carbohydrate program, inclusion of some foods, such as butter, will trigger weight gain or stall weight loss efforts.

This develops because of butter's insulin-triggering effect, doubling or tripling insulin responses (postprandial area-under-the-curve). If insulin is triggered, fat gain follows.

Here's one such study documenting this effect: Distinctive postprandial modulation of ß cell function and insulin sensitivity by dietary fats: monounsaturated compared with saturated fatty acids

López et al 2008

From Lopez et al 2008. Mean (± SD) plasma glucose, insulin, triglyceride, and free fatty acid (FFA) concentrations during glucose and triglyceride tolerance test meal (GTTTM) with no fat (control), enriched in monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) from refined olive oil (ROO meal), with added butter, with a mixture of vegetable and fish oils (VEFO) or with high-palmitic sunflower oil (HPSO). N = 14.

The postprandial (after-eating) area-under-the-curve is substantially greater when butter is included in the mixed composition meal. This effect is not unique to butter, but is shared by most other dairy products.

Fat, in general, does not make you fat. But butter makes you fat.

If you were reading The Heart Scan Blog back in 2007, or read my Life Extension article on vitamin D deficiency as a cardiovascular risk factor, you already knew that vitamin D deficiency is rampant and adds to cardiovascular risk.

Results of a study from the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Utah bolster the concept that vitamin D deficiency is a cardiovascular risk factor, vitamin D normalization/supplementation reduces cardiovascular risk.

Science Daily reported:

For the first study, researchers followed two groups of patients for an average of one year each. In the first study group, over 9,400 patients, mostly female, reported low initial vitamin D levels, and had at least one follow up exam during that time period. Researchers found that 47 percent of the patients who increased their levels of vitamin D between the two visits showed a reduced risk for cardiovascular disease.

In the second study, researchers placed over 31,000 patients into three categories based on their levels of vitamin D. The patients in each category who increased their vitamin D levels to 43 nanograms per milliliter of blood or higher had lower rates of death, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, heart failure, high blood pressure, depression, and kidney failure. Currently, a level of 30 nanograms per milliliter is considered "normal."

Over the past 4 years, people in our program have been enjoying the extravagant benefits of vitamin D restoration. Cardiovascular benefits are becoming better documented and the bone health, cancer-preventing, insulin-normalizing, mood-adjusting, and anti-inflammatory effects likewise.

No doubt: The diet approach advocated by the late Dr. Robert Atkins was a heck of a lot closer to an ideal diet than the knuckleheaded advice emitting from the USDA, American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association, and the Surgeon General's office.

But having just spent a week with Atkins low-carbers, here are some common errors that I see many make, errors that I believe have long-term health consequences, including impairment of weight loss.

Excessive consumption of animal products--Non-restriction of fat often leads to over-reliance on animal products. Higher intakes of red meats (heme proteins?) have been strongly associated with increased risk for colon and other gastrointestinal tract cancers. It is not a fat issue; it is an animal product issue. We should consume less meat, more vegetables and other plant-sourced foods.

Consumption of cured meats--Cured, processed meats, such as sausage, hot dogs, salami, bologna, and bacon, have a color fixative called sodium nitrite, an additive that has been confidently linked to gastrointestinal cancers. Risk is likely dose-dependent: The more you ingest, the greater the long-term risk.

Overconsumption of dairy products--Dairy products, especially milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, and butter, are potent insulinotropic foods, i.e., foods that trigger insulin release. There can be up to a tripling of insulin (area-under-the-curve) levels. This is not good in a world populated with tired, overworked pancreases, exhausted from a lifetime of high-carbohydrate eating.

Too many calories--While I agree that "a calorie is a calorie" and "calories in, calories out" are faulty concepts, I have anecdotally observed that long-time low-carbers often trend towards unlimited consumption of food, a phenomenon that seems to result in weight gain, especially in the sedentary. I wonder if this is a reflection of the insulinotropic action of dairy products and other proteins, compounded by the poor insulin responsiveness that develops with lack of physical activity. Factor into this conversation that lower calorie intake extends life, probably substantially (Sirt-2 activation and related phenomena, a la resveratrol). If lower calorie intake extends life, unlimited calorie intake likely shortens life.

Please don't hear this as low-carb bashing--it is not. It is a call to improve diets and not stumble into common traps that can impair heart health, weight loss, and longevity.

Here's another great clip from Tom Naughton's documentary, Fat Head, describing the colossal mistakes made in "official" dietary advice, starting with the blunders of Dr. Ancel Keyes :

I'd be crying if Tom Naughton didn't make me laugh so hard.

I just got back from Jimmy Moore's low-carb cruise to the Bahamas.

Among the many interesting people I met on the cruise was the creator of the documentary film, Fat Head, Tom Naughton.

Tom brings both creative insights into low-carbohydrate eating as well as humor. Low-carb eating can be a pretty contentious issue, but Tom made it fun. He will make you laugh about many of the odd notions we have about diet.

Among the best parts of Fat Head is Tom's portrayal of the effects of carbohydrates on insulin and fat metabolism:

Fat Head joins the ranks of films like Food, Inc, that make nutrition information entertaining. For anyone interested in a unvarnished look at diet, weight loss, along with a few laughs along the way, Tom Naughton's Fat Head is worth viewing.

You've heard it before: oatmeal reduces cholesterol. Oatmeal producers have obtained permission from the FDA to use a cholesterol-reducing claim. The American Heart Association provides a (paid) endorsement of Quaker Oats.

I've lost count of the times I've asked someone whether they ate a healthy breakfast and the answer was "Sure. I had oatmeal."

Is this true? Is oatmeal heart healthy because it reduces LDL cholesterol?

I don't think so. Try this: Have a serving of slow-cooked (e.g., steel-cut, Irish, etc.) oatmeal. Most people will consume oatmeal with skim or 1% milk and some dried or fresh fruit. Wait an hour, then check your blood sugar.

If you are not diabetic and have a fasting blood sugar in the "normal" range (<100 mg/dl), you will typically have a 1-hour blood glucose of 150-180 mg/dl--very high. If you have mildly increased fasting blood sugars between 100 and 126 mg/dl, postprandial (after-eating) blood sugars will easily exceed 180 mg/dl. If you have diabetes, hold onto your hat because, even if you take medications, blood sugar one hour after oatmeal will usually be between 200 and 300 mg/dl.

This is because oatmeal is converted rapidly to sugar, and a lot of it. Even if you were to repeat the experiment with no dried or fresh fruit, you will still witness high blood sugars in these ranges. Do like some people and pile on the raisins, dried cranberries, or brown sugar, and you will see blood sugars go even higher.

Blood sugars this high, experienced repetitively, will damage the delicate insulin-producing beta cells of your pancreas (glucose toxicity). It also glycates proteins of the eyes and vascular walls. The blood glucose effects of oatmeal really don't differ much from a large Snickers bar or bowl of jelly beans.

If you are like most people, you too will show high blood sugars after oatmeal. It's easy to find out . . . check your postprandial blood sugar.

In past, I recommended oat products, specifically oat bran, to reduce LDL, especially small LDL. I've changed my mind: I now no longer recommend any oat product due to its blood sugar-increasing effects.

Better choices: eggs, ground flaxseed as a hot cereal, cheese (the one dairy product that does not excessively trigger insulin), raw nuts, salads, leftovers from last evening's dinner.

Could mustard--yes, the yellow condiment you smear on hot dogs--be a super heart healthy food in disguise?

Consider that mustard contains:

Vinegar

Turmeric

No appreciable sugar

The vinegar slows gastric emptying, resulting in slower absorption of any carbohydrates and a reduced glucose area-under-the-curve. Of the little fats contained (about 3 grams per 1/4 cup), most are desirable monounsaturates. Mustards are relatively rich in selenium, with 20 mcg per 1/4 cup, helpful for protection against cancer and thyroid disease, and magnesium, 31 mg per 1/4 cup.

Turmeric is added to most mustards. One of the constituents of turmeric, curcumin, the substance that confers the bright yellow color, has been a focus of interest for its anti-inflammatory effects. Curcumin has been documented to reduce activity of the inflammatory enzymes cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), lipoxygenase, and reduce activity of inflammatory signal molecules, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a), interleukin (IL)-1,2,6,8, and 12, and monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP). Curcumin also has been shown to reduce LDL oxidation, a potentially important step in atherosclerotic plaque formation. Turmeric is used as a tea by Okinawans. (Hmmmm . . . )

Turmeric content of mustard can vary, of course. Likewise, sugar content. Look for mustards that are not sweetened, so avoid honey mustard in particular. Look for hot, brown, horseradish, Dijon, etc. If there is a downside to mustard, it's sodium content, though the 709 mg per 1/4 cup should only be a problem for those who are sodium-sensitive (African Americans, in particular).

So perhaps mustard isn't exactly a super health food. But it may have some bona fide health effects and should be used generously especially if you are concerned about blood sugar and inflammatory phenomena.

There is no doubt that exercise yields benefits across a spectrum of health: reduced blood pressure, reduced inflammation, reduced blood coagulation, better weight control, stronger bones, less depression, reduced risk for heart attack.

Exercise also influences blood sugar. Diabetics understand this best: Exercise reduces blood sugar 20, 30, 50 or more milligrams. A starting blood sugar, for instance, of 160 mg/dl can be reduced to 80 mg/dl by jogging or riding a bicycle. (I recently had brunch at an Indian restaurant with my family. Blood sugar one-hour postprandial: 134 mg/dl. I was sleepy and foggy. I got on my stationary bike and pedalled at a moderate clip for 60 minutes. Blood sugar: 90 mg/dl.)

Could the reduction of blood sugar with exercise be THE reason that exercise and physical activity provide such substantial benefits?

Think about it. Reduced blood sugar:

1) Reduces risk for future cardiovascular events.
2) Reduces glycation of proteins, i.e., reduced glucose binding to proteins like the ones in artery walls and the lenses of your eyes.
3) Reduces blood coagulation
4) Reduces endothelial dysfunction (abnormal artery constriction that leads to atherosclerosis)

This might explain why it doesn't require high levels of aerobic activity to derive benefit from exercise, since even modest efforts (e.g., a 15-minute walk after eating) reduce blood sugar substantially.

The incredible 33-year, 18,000-participant Whitehall study tells us that a postprandial (after-eating) blood sugar of an impossibly-difficult 83 mg/dl is required to erase the excess cardiovascular risk of blood sugar. Could this simply be telling us that physical activity or exercise is required to suppress blood sugars to these low levels?

It makes me wonder if an index of the adequacy of exercise is your post-exercise blood glucose.

Here is Dr. John Cannell's Vitamin D Council Newsletter reprinted in its entirety. It answers some of the questions that came up on The Heart Scan Blog about the recent release of a study of vitamin D and cancer

The Vitamin D Newsletter

December, 2007

Does vitamin D prevent cancer? If it does, will doctors who ignore the research end up with blood on their hands? The press makes it easy for doctors to believe what they want to believe. Below are six stories about the same scientific study; read the six different headlines. According to your a priori beliefs, you can choose the story you want to believe and read that one. Don't feel bad, we all do it. As Walter Lippman once said, "We do not see and then believe, we believe and then we see."

Vitamin D cuts colon cancer death risk

Study Finds No Connection Between Vitamin D And Overall Cancer Deaths

Vitamin D protects against colorectal cancer

Vitamin D May Not Cut Cancer Deaths

Vitamin D protects against colorectal cancer

Scientists advise a vitamin D downgrade as there is no real proof ...

Another option is to read the study yourself.

Freedman DM, et al. Prospective Study of Serum Vitamin D and Cancer Mortality in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Oct 30; [Epub ahead of print]

What Dr. Freedman actually discovered is that when you take a very large group of people (16,818), some as young as seventeen, measure their vitamin D levels, and then wait about ten years to see who dies from cancer, you find 536 die and that a vitamin D level from ten years earlier is not a good predictor of who will die from cancer. However, even a level drawn ten years earlier predicted that those with the lowest level were four times more likely to die from colon cancer, suggesting, as Ed Giovannucci has, that colon cancer may be exquisitely sensitive to vitamin D. Furthermore, 28 women got breast cancer, 20 in the group with the lowest vitamin D level but only 8 in the highest. The breast cancer findings were not statistically significant - even during a very long breast cancer awareness month - but can you imagine what critics at the American Cancer Society would be telling women if the numbers were reversed, if the 20 women who got breast cancer were in the high vitamin D group?

Another large epidemiological study appeared about breast cancer the very next day. This time, the press passed on the story and the American Cancer Society was mum, no editorials by Dr. Lichtenfeld, their spokesman, in spite of breast cancer awareness month.

Abbas S, et al. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer - results of a large case-control study. Carcinogenesis. 2007 Oct 31; [Epub ahead of print]

In the above study, 1,394 women with breast cancer were case-controlled with a similar number of women without breast cancer. The women with breast cancer were three times more likely to have low vitamin D levels. That is a lot of women who may be dying during next year's breast cancer awareness month.

Both of the above studies were epidemiological, not randomized controlled trials. Of course a randomized controlled trial has already shown a 60% reduction in internal cancers in women taking even a modest 1,100 IU per day of vitamin D.

Lappe JM, et al. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.

What is interesting is the difference in the response of the Canadian Cancer Society and the American Cancer Society. The Canadian Cancer Society has advised all Canadians to take 1,000 IU per day - not enough but a good first step - and for immediate additional large scale clinical trials. The Canadians simply performed a risk/benefit analysis. What is the risk of treating vitamin D deficiency versus what are the potential benefits? They quote the American Food and Nutrition Board, which says 2,000 IU/day is safe for anyone over the age on one to take, on their own, without being under the care of a physician. If there is little or no risk, then the next question is what are the potential benefits of treating vitamin D deficiency? This is not quantum mechanics.

Cancer society calls for major vitamin D trial

The Canadians acted because the Canadian government knows it could save billions of dollars by treating vitamin D deficiency.

Vitamin D Deficiency Drains $9 billion From Canadian Health Care ...

If wide spread treatment of vitamin D deficiency became the rule, ask yourself, "Who would be helped and who would be hurt." First ask yourself that question about Canada and then about the USA. Remember, in Canada, the government directly pays for its citizen's health insurance; in the USA, private insurance is the norm. In Canada, the government is realizing they could save billions if vitamin D deficiencies were treated. In the USA, a large segment of the medical industry would be hurt, some anti-cancer drug manufacturers would have to close their doors, thousands of patents would become worthless, lucrative consulting contracts between industry and cancer researchers would dry up.

Both Canadians and Americans are shocked to think their doctors care about money, are in the illness business. In some ways people think of their doctors like they do their local public schools. They know medicine is a business and know doctors do things for money but they don't think their own doctors do. Likewise they think public schools are in bad shape but think their local schools are above average. They think their doctor is above average, like their "Lake Woebegone" kids.

Lake Woebegone Effect

The fact is that doctors, hospitals, regional cancer centers, and the cancer drug manufacturers are all in business to make money and all of these businesses make money off the sick, not off the well. Just a fact, but, as Aldous Huxley once observed, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

Vitamin D will save the Canadian government enormous amounts of money but will cause widespread economic disruption in the USA. Do the physicians leading the American Cancer Society have strong economic ties to the cancer industry in the form of patents, stock options, and consulting fees? If so, what do you expect them to do? What would you do? It's simple. You would believe what you have to believe, what you need to believe, that is, anything with the word "vitamin" in it is simply the latest Laetrile. Look to Canada, not the USA, to lead the way.

Vitamin D may fight cancer

What about American physicians? They are apparently waiting for the American trial lawyers to smell a tort. After all, the case is quite simple. Doctor, did you advise Mrs. Jones to avoid the sun? Doctor, did you tell her the sun is the source of 90% of circulating stores of vitamin D? Doctor, did you prescribe vitamin D to make up for what the sun would not be making? Doctor, did you measure her vitamin D levels? So you had no way of knowing if your sun-avoidance advice resulted in vitamin D deficiency? Doctor, do you know our expert tested her vitamin D level and it was less than 20? Doctor, did you tell her about any of the studies indicating vitamin D deficiency causes cancer? Doctor, did you know Mrs. Jones has terminal breast cancer and will be leaving behind a loving husband and two young children?

And what about the American Cancer Society? Dr. Lichtenfeld, their spokesman, quickly gave his opinion; from what I can tell the first time he ever commented on a vitamin D study. That is, he has ignored the hundreds of positive epidemiological studies, ignored the incredible randomized controlled trial, but he jumped on this one:

Maybe Vitamin D Isn't The Answer After All

Dr. Lichtenfeld, implied the Canadian Cancer Society has acted precipitously in recommending that all Canadians take 1,000 IU of vitamin D daily. He implied that Americans should placidly wait until more randomized controlled trials, such as Lappe JM, et al (above), accumulate before they address their vitamin D deficiency. That is, nothing should be done until more randomized controlled trials prove vitamin D prevents cancer, one randomized controlled trial is not enough; epidemiological studies are not enough, animal studies are not enough, multiple anti-cancer mechanisms of action are not enough? If that is his position, I challenge him to point to one human randomized controlled trial that proves smoking is dangerous?

If he cannot, then he must admit that the American Cancer Society's position on smoking is entirely derived from epidemiological studies, animal studies, and a demonstrable mechanism of action, not on human randomized controlled trials? Vitamin D not only has hundreds of epidemiological studies, thousand of animal studies, and at least four anti-cancer mechanisms of action, vitamin D deficiency has something smoking does not have, it has a high quality randomized controlled trial. If future randomized controlled trials fail to show vitamin D prevents cancer - and Dr. Lichtenfeld better hope they do - he can have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so." If future randomized controlled trials confirm vitamin D prevents cancer, then he needs to look at his hands, the red he sees is the blood of needless cancer deaths.

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.

Remember, we are a non-profit and rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:

The Vitamin D Council

9100 San Gregorio Road

Atascadero, CA 93422

A Heart Scan Blog reader recently posted this comment:

You wouldn't believe the trouble I'm having trying to get someone to give me a CT Heart Scan without trying to talk me into a Coronary CTA [CT angiogram]. Every facility I've talked to keeps harping on the issue that calcium scoring only shows "hard" plaque...and not soft.

I also had a nurse today tell me that 30% of the people that end up needing a coronary catheterization had calcium scores of ZERO. That doesn't sound right to me. What determines whether or not someone needs a coronary catheterization anyway?

There was a time not long ago when I saw heart scan centers as the emerging champions of heart disease detection and prevention. Heart scans, after all, provided the only rational means to directly uncover hidden coronary plaque. They also offered a method of tracking progression--or regression--of coronary plaque. No other tool can do that. Carotid ultrasound (IMT)? Indirectly and imperfectly, since it measures thickening of the carotid artery lining, partially removed from the influences that create coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Cholesterol? A miserable failure for a whole host of reasons.

Then something happened. General Electric bought the developer and manufacturer of the electron-beam tomography CT scanner, Imatron. (Initial press releases were glowing: The Future of Electron Beam Tomography Looks Better than Ever.The new eSpeed C300 electron beam tomographic scanner features the industry’s fastest temporal resolution, and is now backed by the strength of GE Medical Systems. Imatron and GE have joined forces to provide comprehensive solutions for entrepreneurs and innovative medical practitioners.)

Within short order, GE scrapped the entire company and program, despite the development of an extraordinary device, the C-300, introduced in 2001, and the eSpeed, introduced in 2003, both yanked by GE. The C-300 and eSpeed were technological marvels, providing heart scans at incredible speed with minimal radiation.

Why would GE do such a thing, buy Imatron and its patent rights, along with the fabulous new eSpeed device, then dissolve the company that developed the technology and scrap the entire package?

Well, first of all they can afford to, whether or not the device represented a technological advancement. Second (and this is my reading-between-the-lines interpretation of the events), it was in their best financial interest. Not in the interest of the public's health, nor the technology of heart scanning, but they believed that focusing on the multi-detector technology to be more financially rewarding to GE.

GE, along with Toshiba, Siemens, and Philips, saw the dollar signs of big money with the innovations in multi-detector technology (MDCT). They began to envision a broader acceptance of these devices into mainstream practice with the technological improvements in CT angiography, a device (or several) in every hospital and major clinic.

Anyway, this represents a long and winding return to the original issue: How I once believed that heart scan centers would be champions of heart disease detection and reversal. This has, unfortunately, not proven to be true.

Yes, there are heart scan centers where you can obtain a heart scan and also connect with people and physicians who believe in prevention of this disease. I believe that Milwaukee Heart Scan is that way, as is Dr. Bill Blanchet's Front Range Preventive Imaging, Dr. Roger White's Holistica Hawaii, and Dr. John Rumberger's Princeton Longevity Center.

But the truth is that most heart scan centers have evolved into places that offer heart scans, but more as grudging lip service to the concept of early detection earned with sweat and tears by the early efforts of the heart scan centers. But the more financially rewarding offering of CT coronary angiograms, while a useful service when used properly, has corrupted the prevention and reversal equation. "Entry level" CT heart scans have been subverted in the quest for profit.

CT angiograms pay better: $1800-4000, compared to $100-500 for a heart scan (usually about $250). More importantly, who can resist the detection of a "suspicious" 50% blockage that might benefit from the "real" test, a heart catheterization? Can anyone honestly allow a 50% blockage to be without a stent?

CT angiograms not only yield more revenue, they also serve as an effective prelude to "downstream" revenue. By this equation, a CT angiogram easily becomes a $40,000 hospital procedure with a stent or two, or three, or occasionally a $100,000 bypass. Keep in mind that the majority of people who are persuaded that a simple heart scans are not good enough and would be better off with the "superior" test of CT angiography are asymptomatic--without symptoms of chest pain, breathelessness, etc. Thus, the argument is that people without symptoms, usually with normal stress tests, benefit from prophylactic revascularization procedures like stents and bypass.

There are no data whatsoever to support this practice. People who have no symptoms attributable to heart disease and have normal stress tests do NOT benefit from heart procedures like heart catheterization. They do, of course, benefit from asking why they have atherosclerotic plaque in the first place, followed by a preventive program to correct the causes.

So, beware: It is the heart scan I believe in, a technique involving low radiation and low revenue potential. CT angiograms are useful tests, but often offered for the wrong reasons. If we all keep in mind that the economics of testing more often than not determine what is being told to us, then it all makes sense. If you want a simple heart scan, just say so. No--insist on it.

Take trust out of the equation. Don't trust people in health care anymore than you'd trust the used car salesman with "a great deal."

Finally, in answer to the reader's last comment about 30% of people needing heart catheterizations having zero calcium scores, this is absolute unadulterated nonsense. I'm hoping that the nurse who said this was taken out of context. Her comments are, at best, misleading. That's why I conduct this Heart Scan Blog and our website, www.cureality.com. They are your unbiased sources of information on what is true, honest, and not tainted by the smell of lots of procedural revenue.

Russ had a beer belly, a big protuberant, hanging-over-the belt-on-top-of-skinny-legs sort of beer belly. Except he didn't get it from beer (only). Yes, he did drink beer, up to 3 or 4 per day on weekends, rarely during the week.

Russ got his "beer belly" from snack foods, processed foods, and yes, wheat products.

He came to my office for consultation for unexplained breathlessness. His primary care physician was stumped and asked for an opinion.

So, part of Russ' evaluation included laboratory work. Russ proved to have a blood sugar (glucose) of 136 mg/dl, well into the diabetic range. His insulin level was 102 microunits/ml, way above the desirable range of <10. I interpreted this to mean that Russ had early diabetes but still maintained vigorous pancreatic function, since the pancreas is the abdominal organ responsible for insulin production. In pre-diabetes and early diabetes, insulin levels can be high, reflecting the revved up output of the pancreas. However, the pancreas eventually "burns out," unable to keep up with the demand to product enormous quantities of insulin. That's when blood sugar skyrockets.

Along with the blood sugar and insulin, Russ showed all the expected markers of this syndrome (the "metabolic syndrome"): low HDL of 34 mg/dl, high triglycerides of 257 mg/dl, severe small LDL (80% of total LDL), high c-reactive protein, and high blood pressure.

A heart scan showed a surprisingly small amount of coronary plaque with a score of only 4. Thus, Russ' symptoms were unlikely to represent a coronary issue ("ischemia"). Breathlessness was far more likely to be from 1) his obesity and protuberant abdomen, large enough to encroach on his chest and lung volume, and 2) high blood pressure (which can, in turn, lead to high heart pressure and breathlessness, often called "left ventricular diastolic dysfunction").

I persuaded Russ to eliminate his previously flagrant and abundant over-reliance on wheat products and snack foods. Two months later, 15 lbs lighter, and a modestly less protuberant beer belly, Russ' laboratory evealuation showed:

--Blood sugar 90 mg/dl--normal.

--Insulin 12 microunit/ml--darn near normal.

Blood pressure was down 20 points. Russ' breathlessness was now entirely gone. He has another 30-40 lbs to go, but he's off to a great start. He is now clearly, solidly, and confidently NON-diabetic.

I see experiences like this every day, as do committed diabetes fighters like Jenny at Diabetes Update.

Why isn't this common practice? If pre-diabetes and diabetes can be cured by such a simple approach, why isn't it more widely embraced? After all, what other devastating diseases can claim to have such a simple, straightforward way to achieve cure?

And why does the American Diabetes Association (ADA) actually condone the inclusion of abundant carbohydrates in diabetics? Their modified food pyramid shows the widest part of the pyramid filled with "breads, grains, and other starches."

How about this question taken from a Q&A on the ADA website:

Can I eat foods with sugar in them?

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

The answer is simple. Just as the American Heart Association focuses on ways to deliver the message of palliation, so does the ADA. So ADA diet advice is designed to help diabetics maintain a stable blood sugar on their medication. It is definitely not intended to reverse or eliminate diabetes. My patient Russ would be deep into diabetes on the ADA diet, enjoying his rolls, whole wheat bread, breakfast cereals, and birthday cake.

Once again, another example of the growing irrelevance of the "official" arbiters of health information for those of us looking for reversal of disease.

I'd like to start an occasional series of blog posts on The Heart Scan Blog in which I review studies relevant to the whole heart scan score reversal experience.

In a previous post, Don't be satisfied with "deceleration,"I discussed the BELLES Trial (Beyond Endorsed Lipid Lowering with EBT Scanning (BELLES)), in which either atorvastatin (Lipitor), 80 mg, or pravastatin (Pravachol),40 mg, was given to 615 women. Both groups showed an average of 15% annual plaque growth, regardless of which agent was taken and regardless of the amount of LDL cholesterol reduction.

I cited another study in which 471 participants received either Lipitor, 80 mg, or Lipitor, 10 mg. The rate of annual score increase was 25-27%, regardless of drug dose or LDL lowering.

Here's yet another study, a small German experience in 66 patients, with a curious design and using the now-defunct statin drug, cerivastatin (Bayccol, pulled in 2001, nearly simultaneous with the publication of this study, due to greater risk of muscle damage, particularly when used in combination with gemfibrozil). Achenbach et al in Influence of lipid-lowering therapy on the progression of coronary artery calcification: A prospective evaluation reported on this trial in which all participants underwent heart scanning to obtain a heart scan score; no treatment was initiated based on the score. A second scan was obtained after the no treatment period, followed by treatment with cerivastatin, 0.3 mg per day. A third scan was finally obtained.

In year one without treatment, the average increase in heart scan scores was 25%. In year two with cerivastatin, the average increase in heart scan score was 8.8%. In 32 participants who achieved LDL<100 mg/dl on the drug, there was an average modest reduction in heart scan scores of 3.7% (i.e., -3.7%).

Now, that was eye-opening. Why did this small study achieve such startlingly different results from the other two studies that showed relentless progression despite even high doses of Lipitor? That remains unanswered. Was cerivastatin unique among statins? Did the unique two-phase trial design somehow change the outcome by triggering participants to change lifestyle habits after their first scan (since most exhibited an increase in score; they were not "blinded" to their scores). Those questions will remain unanswered, since the drug has been made unavailable. This smal l study had actually been intended to be larger, but was prematurely terminated because of cerivastatin's withdrawal.

This experience is unique, as you can see, compared to the two other studies. But it was also smaller. The results are also different than what I have seen in day-to-day practice when I've seen people treated with statin drugs alone (not cerivastatin, of course): rarely do heart scan scores stop increasing. While slowing does usually occur (18-24% per year rates of annual score increase are very common in people who do nothing but take a statin drug and make modest lifestyle changes), I have personally seen only two people stop their score with this strategy alone. Nobody has ever dropped their score taking a statin alone, in my experience.

You can also see the nature of clinical studies: single or limited interventions instituted in order to control for unexpected or complex effects. If three different treatments are used, then what desirable or undesirable effects, or lack of an effect, is due to which treatment agent?

My experience is that no single treatment stops or reduces heart scan scores. It requires a more rational effort that includes 1) identification of all causes of coronary plaque (e.g., low HDL, high triglycerides, Lp(a), small LDL, deficiency of vitamin D, etc, none of which are substantially affected by statin drugs), and 2) correction of all causes. That simple concept has served us well.

I don't mean to beat this discussion to a pulp, but looking back over the comments posted on www.theHeart.org forum, I am so deeply impressed with Dr. William Blanchet's grasp of the issues, that I posted his articulate and knowledgeable comments again.

Here is one post in which Dr. Blanchet, in response to accusations of trying to profit from heart scans, provides a wonderful summary of the logic and evidence behind the use of heart scans as the basis for heart disease prevention.

Yes, I have seen a dramatic reduction in coronary events.

Of 6,000 active patients, 48% being Medicare age and over, I have seen 4 heart attacks over the last 3+ years. 2 in 85 year old diabetics undergoing cancer surgery, one in a 90 year old with known disease and one in a 69 year old with no risk factors, who was healthy, and had never benefited from a heart scan.

The problem with coronary disease is that we rely on risk factors. Khot et al in JAMA 2003 showed that of 87,000 men with heart attacks, 62% had 0 or 1 major risk factor prior to their MI. According to ATP-III, almost everyone with 0-1 risk factors is low risk and most do not qualify for preventive treatment. EBT calcium imaging could identify 98% of these individuals as being at risk before their heart attack and treatment could be initiated to prevent their MI.

Treating to NCEP cholesterol goals prevents 30-40% of heart attacks. Treating to a goal of coronary calcium stability prevents 90% of heart attacks. Where I went to school, a 40% was an F. Why are we defending this result instead of striving to improve upon it? I am not making this up, look at Raggi's study in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 2004;24:1272, or Budoff Am J Card.[I believe it's the study Dr. Blanchet was referring to.]

I strongly disagree with the assertion that the stress test is a great risk stratifier. Laukkanen et al JACC 2001 studied 1,769 asymptomatic men with stress tests. Although failing the stress test resulted in an increased risk of future heart attack, 83% of the total heart attacks over the next 10 years occurred in those men who passed the stress test. Falk E, Shah PK, Fuster V Circulation 1995;92:657-671 demonstrated that 86% of heart attacks occur in vessels with less than 70% as the maximum obstruction. A vast majority of
patients with less than 70% vessel obstruction will pass their stress test.

Regarding [the] question of owning or referring for EBT imaging, I would be amused if it were not insulting. The mistake that is often made is that EBT imaging is a wildly profitable technology. It is not nearly as profitable as nuclear stress imaging. Indeed there are few EBT centers in the country that are as profitable as any random cardiologist's stress lab.

How can we justify not screening asymptomatic patients? Most heart attacks occur in patients with no prior symptoms and according to Steve Nissen, 150,000 Americans die each year from their first symptom of heart disease. My daughter is at this moment visiting with a friend who lost her father a few years ago to his first symptom of heart disease when she was 8 years old. That is not OK! We screen asymptomatic women for breast cancer risk. Women are 8 times more likely to die from heart disease than breast cancer. We do mass screening for colon cancer and we are over 10 times more likely to die from heart attacks than colon cancer. An EBT heart scan costs 1/8th the cost of a colonoscopy.

So what say we drop the sarcasm and look at this technology objectively. Read the literature, not just the editorial comments. This really does provide incredibly valuable information that saves lives.

Yes, a 90% reduction in heart attacks in my patients compared to the care I could provide 5 years ago when I was doing a lot of stress testing and referring for revascularization. Much better statistics than expected national or regional norms. I welcome your scrutiny.

That's probably the best, most concise summary of why heart scanning makes sense that I've ever heard. And it comes from a primary care physician in the trenches. With just a few paragraphs, Dr. Blanchet, in my view, handily trumps the arguments of my colleagues arguing to maintain the status quo of cholesterol testing, stress tests, and hospital procedures.

Note:
Dr. Blanchett talks openly about his affiliation with an imaging center in Boulder, Colorado, Front Range Preventive Imaging. I'm no stranger to the accusations Dr. Blanchet receives about trying to profit from the heart scan phenomenon. Ironically, heart scanning loses money. It is a preventive test, not a therapeutic, hospital-based procedure. Free-standing heart scan centers that do little else (perhaps virtual colonoscopies) usually manage to pay their bills but make little profit. Hospitals that offer heart scans usually do so as a "loss-leader," i.e., an inexpensive test that brings you in the door in the hopes that you will require more testing.

Accusations of profiteering off heart scans are, to those in the know, ridiculous and baseless. On the contrary, heart scans are both cost-saving and life-saving.

Here's a sampling of prescription vitamin D2/ergocalciferol products available:

Prescription ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) (Drisdol brand), 50 caps for $130.84.

Alfcip brand of erogocalciferol (vitamin D), 30 capsules for $28.20.

Ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as Drisdol oral solution, 1 bottle $146.26.

How about vitamin D3/cholecalciferol?

Carlson's brand cholecalciferol (vitamin D3), 120 capsules $5.09.

Cholecalciferol, vitamin D3, is far less expensive than ergocalciferol, vitamin D2. Cholecalciferol is available as a supplement without prescription. Ergocalciferol is available only by prescription.

The price difference must mean that the plant-based form, ergocalciferol, must be far superior to the naturally-occurring human form, vitamin D3.

Of course, that's not true. Dr. Robert Heaney's study is just one of several documenting the inferiority of D2/ergocalciferol, Vitamin D2 Is Much Less Effective than Vitamin D3 in Humans. D2 exerted less than a third of the effect of D3.

In my experience, D2/ergocalciferol often exerts no effect whatsoever. One woman I consulted on came into the office having been prescribed Drisdol capsules, 50,000 units every day for the past 18 months (by mistake by her physician). Blood level of active 25-OH-vitamin D3: Zero.

But the pharmacy and drug manufacturer collected $1413 for her 18-month course. Cost for a 4000 unit per day dose of D3/cholecalciferol: $45--and it would have actually worked.

In my view, prescription vitamin D2 is yet another example of drug manufacturer scams, a product that provides no advantages, costs more, but yields bigger profits.

Yet this wonderful supplement called cholecalciferol, among which Carlson's is an excellent choice, is available to you inexpensively, without prescription, and actually provides the benefits you desire.

One of the most common misunderstandings encountered by both physicians and the public is that, to create an effective heart disease prevention program, we need tools for atherosclerotic plaque detection. What we do not need is a tool for stenosis detection. (Stenosis means percent blockage. A 50% stenosis means 50% of the diameter of an artery is reduced by atherosclerosis.)

This issue came to mind recently with the ongoing conversation at Heart.org forum, in which the conversation predictably degenerated into a "what good are heart scans when there are better tests to detect blockage" sort of mentality.
They are right: There are better tests to detect stenoses or blockages, such as stress tests, heart catheterization, and CT coronary angiography. If someone is having chest pain or breathlessness, these tests are useful to help understand why. These tests are preludes to stents, bypass surgery, and the like. They are the popular tools in hospitals, the ones that provide entry into the revenue-yielding world of heart disease procedures.

Plaque detection, on the other hand, is principally a tool for the person without symptoms. In this regard, it is more like cholesterol testing. I doubt my colleagues would bash cholesterol because it doesn't reveal blockages. Plaque detection identifies the person who has already started developing atherosclerosis.

Dr. William Blanchett of Colorado articulates this idea well:

EBT calcium imaging not only identifies the vast majority of individuals at risk, it also identifies individuals with minimal risk. In other words, it distinguishes those who are likely to benefit from treatment . . .and it identifies those unlikely to benefit from treatment. Furthermore, the greatest value of EBT calcium imaging is that with serial imaging you can determine who is and who is not responding to treatment.

Those patients not responding to the initial treatment are identified by progression of their calcified plaque on a subsequent scan are then placed on additional therapies. The net result is a remarkable reduction in heart attack rates.

Ahh, the voice of reason. Plaque detection empowers you in your prevention program. If you know how much plaque your begin with, you can track that value to know whether you have having a full effect or not. Stenosis detection, on the other hand, empowers your doctor and provides the irresistible impulse to stent.

Another common objection raised to plaque detection is "why bother if you're going to give everybody a statin anyway?" We know the origins of that argument, don't we? If the only strategy known to your doctor is cholesterol reduction with statin drugs, then perhaps that's right. But, with awareness of all the things that go beyond statin drugs, often make them unnecessary, then knowledge of who should engage in an intensive program of prevention or not is enabled by plaque detection.

In response to an earlier Heart Scan Blog post, I don't care about hard plaque!, reader Dave responded:

Hello Dr Davis,

Interesting post about hard and soft plaque. I recently had a discussion with my GP regarding my serious increase in scan score (Jan 2006 = 235, Nov 2007 = 419).

After the first scan we started aggressively going after my LDL, HDL and Trig...196,59,221

And have them down to 103, 65, 92 - we still have a way to go to 60/60/60 [The Track Your Plaque target values]-

So the increase is a surprise, but my doctor said that the increase could in part be cause some of the soft plaque had been converted to hard plaque and the scan would show that conversion.

Dave's doctor then responded to him with this comment:

"Remember that although your coronary calcium score has gone up, this does not mean that you are at greater risk than you were a year ago. Remember that the most dangerous plaque is the not-yet calcified soft plaque, which will not show up on an EBT [i.e., calcium score]. It is only the safe, calcified plaque that can be measured with the EBT. [Emphasis mine.] For your score to go up like it did, while your lipids came down so much, what had to happen was that lots of dangerous unstable plaque was converted to stable, calcified plaque. There are no accepted guidelines for interpreting changes in calcium scores over time, because the scores tend to go up as treatment converts dangerous plaque to safer plaque. We do know that aggressively lowering LDL reduces both unstable and stable plaque, and we know that risk can be further lowered by adjuvant therapy such as I listed above."

Huh?

This bit of conventional "wisdom" is something I've heard repeated many times. Is it true?

It is absolutely NOT true. In fact, the opposite is true: Dave's substantial increase in heart scan score from 235 to 419 over 22 months, representing a 78% increase, or an annualized rate of increase of 37%. This suggests a large increase in his risk for heart attack, not a decrease. Big difference!

Dr. Paulo Raggi's 2004 study, Progression of coronary artery calcium and risk of first myocardial infarction in patients receiving cholesterol-lowering therapy in 495 participants addresses this question especially well. Two heart scans were performed three years apart, with a statin drug initiated after the first scan, regardless of score.

During the period of study, heart attacks occurred in 41 participants. When these participants were analyzed, it was found that the average annual increase in score over the three year period was 42%. The average annual rate of increase in those free of heart attack was 17%. The group with the 42% annual rate of increase--all on statin drugs--the risk of heart attack was 17.2-fold greater, or 1720%.

The report made several other important observations:

--20% of the heart attack-free participants showed reduction of heart scan scores, i.e., reversal. None of the participants experiencing heart attack had a score reduction.
--Only 2 of the 41 heart attacks occurred in participants with <15% per year annual growth, while the rest (39) showed larger increases.
--The intensity of LDL reduction made no difference in whether heart attacks occurred or not. Those with LDL<100 mg/dl fared no better than those with LDL>100 mg/dl.

Dr. Raggi et al concluded:

"The risk of hard events [heart attack] was significantly higher in the presence of CVS [calcium volume score] progression despite low LDL serum levels, although the interaction of CVS change and LDL level on treatment was highly significant. The latter observation strongly suggests that a combination of serum markers and vascular markers [emphasis mine] may constitute a better way to gauge therapeutic effectiveness than isolated measurement of lipid levels."

This study demonstrates an important principle: Rising heart scan scores signal potential danger, regardless of LDL cholesterol treatment. Yes, LDL reduction does achieve a modest reduction in heart attack, but it does not eliminate them--not even close.

These are among the reasons that, in the Track Your Plaque program, we aim to correct more than LDL cholesterol. We aim to correct ALL causes of coronary plaque, factors that can be responsible for continuing increase in heart scan score despite favorable LDL cholesterol values.

So, Dave, please forgive your doctor his misunderstanding of the increase in your heart scan score. He is not alone in his ignorance of the data and parroting of the mainstream mis-information popular among the statin-is-the-answer-to-everything set.

Just don't let your doctor's ignorance permit the heart attack that is clearly in the stars. Take preventive action now.

There's a fascinating and vigorous debate going on at the Heart.org website among Dr. Melissa Shirley-Walton, the recently publicized proponent of "a cath lab on every corner": Dr. William Blanchet, a physician in northern Colorado; and a Track Your Plaque Member who calls himself John Q. Public.

John Q. has been trying to educate the docs about the Track Your Plaque program. Unfortunately, Dr. Shirley-Walton essentially pooh-poohs his comments, preferring to lament her heavy work load. In her last post, when she discovered that John Q. was not a physician, she threatened to block his posts and delete all prior posts.

However, Dr. Blanchet has emerged as a champion of heart scanning, intensive lipid management, and lipoproteins, much similar to our program. In fact, many of Dr. Blanchet's comments were so similar to mine that John Q. asked me if it was really me! (It is definitely not.)

Here's a sampling of some of the discussion going on now:

Dr. Blanchett started out the discussion by saying:

Stent Insanity
I have no trouble agreeing with the argument that we have initiated the widespread use of DES without adequate study regarding outcomes. Shame on us.

That said, we are ingoring the DATA that shows that most heart attacks occur as a result of non-obstructing plaque and all the talk about which stent to use ignors the majority of individuals at risk. In addition, for a decade we have known that stenting does not improve net outcomes anyway.

What ever happened to effective primary prevention? We discarded EBT calcium imaging like moldy cabbage without even looking at the outcomes DATA. With direction provided by EBT calcium imaging and effective primary prevention, I have been able to reduce myocardial infarction by 90% in my very large Internal Medicine practice. Through effectively identifying patients at risk and measuring success or failure of treatment with serial EBT, I have made the argument as to which stent to use moot. No symptomatic angina and rare infracts equals little need for any stent.

Is anybody listening? Certainly not the cardiologists whose wealth and fortunes are based on nuclaer imaging, angiography and stenting.

Dr. Shirley-Walton, skeptical of Dr. Blanchet's claim of >90% reduction of heart attacks using a prevention program starting with a heart scan:

To rely soley upon a calcium score will deprive you of a lot of information that could be otherwise helpful in the management of your patients.

Without seeming sarcastic, I must refute : "of 6,000 patients I've seen 4 heart attacks in 3 years". Although I certainly hope your statistics are accurate, I will suggest the following:

You've not seen all of the heart attacks since up to 30% of all heart attacks are clinically silent. So unless you are echo'ing or nuclear testing all of these patients in close followup, you aren't certain of your stats.

Secondly, in order to attribute this success to your therapy, you would have to have nearly 100% compliance. In the general population, compliance is often less than 50% with any regimen in any given year of treatment. If you can tell us how you've achieved this level of compliance, we could all take a lesson.

Dr. Blanchett, commenting on his use of heart scanning as a primary care physician:

CAC [coronary artery calcium] is an inexpensive and low radiation exam to identify who is at increased risk for heart attacks.

A study of 222 non-diabetic patients admitted with their first MI found 75% of them did not qualify for cholesterol modifying therapy prior to their initial MI (JACC 2003:41 1475-9). In another study of 87,000 men with heart attacks, 62% had 0 or 1 major risk factors (Khot, et al. JAMA. 2003). Almost all individuals with 0 or 1 risk factor are Framingham "Low risk" and therefore will not qualify for cholesterol lowering therapies. (JAMA. 2001;285:2486-2497)

Risk factors alone are not sufficient. In my practice, of the last 4 patients who have died from heart attacks, none qualified for preventive therapies by NCEP guidelines.

Studies have shown that CAC by EBT provides an independent and incremental predictor of heart attack risk. (1. Kondos et al, Circulation 2003;107:2571-2176, 2. Am Heart J 141. 378-382, 2001, 3. St Francis Heart Study Journal of the American College of Cardiology July, 2005) The old saw that CAC simply reflects risk factors and age is just wrong.

Although CT angiography shows great promise to reduce unnecessary conventional angiography and is helpful in emergency room chest pain evaluation, I do not see CT angiography as a screening study in asymptomatic individuals. 10 times more radiation than EBT calcium imaging plus the risk of IV dye exposure makes CT angiography inconsistent with the principles of a screening test. Taken in the context of a primary care physician's evaluation of heart attack risk, EBT calcium imaging has great value.

Coronary calcium changes management by: 1. Identifying those at risk who do not show up with standard risk stratification (St Francis Heart Study: Journal of the American College of Cardiology July, 2005). 2. Motivating patients to be compliant with therapies (Atherosclerosis 2006; 185:394-399). 3. By measuring serial calcium, we can see who is and who is not responding to our initial treatment so that we can further refine our therapeutic goals (Atherosclerosis, 2004;24:1272).

When used in the primary care preventive setting, CAC imaging is indeed of great incremental value. In my practice, in improves my outcomes so greatly that it compels Melissa Walton-Shirley to question my veracity.

Dr. Melissa Walton-Shirley:

Ahhhhhh.......the aroma of profit making, I thought I smelled it. [Accusing Dr. Blanchett of referring patients for heart scans for personal profit.]

I will tell you that I was a little hurt when I was called "a typical cardiologist with a butcher block mentality" after my primary pci piece for med-gen Med was reviewed by the track your placque [sic] folks.

Though, it's clear that they misunderstood and thought I was cathing for dollars, instead my intention was to "push" for primary PCI for AMI, it left me seething until the blessing of a busy schedule and a forgetful post menopausal brain took its toll.
None the less, an honest open discussion is always welcome here but I would appreciate it if everyone would just divulge their affiliations up front so that the context of their opinions could be better understood.

I also insist that the compliance described by you William B. is rather astounding and a bit unbelieveable, however if it's accurate, you are to be congratulated.

Dr. Blanchett, in response to Dr. Shirley-Walton's statement that she relies on stress testing:

I think that the threshold of comfort you get from stress test stratification is different than what I consider acceptable. It is hard for me to tell a bereaved spouse that the departed did everything I suggested and still died from a MI. Coronary calcium imaging provides me the tool that I need.

Are you aware that there are a number of studies that show a dramatic increase in risk of MI in individuals with an annualized increase in calcified plaque burden of >14%? I consider this to be a valuable measure of inadequacy of medical management. A stress test does not become positive until we have catastrophically failed in medical management. Consequently, even in the patient with “high risk” stratification, one can justify a calcium score to establish a baseline to measure adequacy of primary prevention. Calcium scores by EBT cost about 1/5th the cost of a nuclear stress test and subject the patient to 1/10th the radiation of nuclear imaging and provides more precise information.

Regarding John Q, I do not think that non-medical prospective should be excluded from this blog. I think we as physicians benefit from hearing how the non-physician public views medicine. I have become much better at what I do by listening to my patients and learning from them.

Dr. Blanchett continues:

Yes, I have seen a dramatic reduction in coronary events. Of 6,000 active patients, 48% being Medicare age and over, I have seen 4 heart attacks over the last 3+ years. 2 in 85 year old diabetics undergoing cancer surgery, one in a 90 year old with known disease and one in a 69 year old with no risk factors, who was healthy, and had never benefited from a heart scan.

The problem with coronary disease is that we rely on risk factors. Khot et al in JAMA 2003 showed that of 87,000 men with heart attacks, 62% had 0 or 1 major risk factor prior to their MI. According to ATP-III, almost everyone with 0-1 risk facto is low risk and most are do not qualify for preventive treatment. EBT calcium imaging could have identify 98% of these individuals as being at risk before their heart attack and treatment could be initiated to prevent their MI.

Treating to NCEP cholesterol goals prevents 30-40% of heart attacks. Treating to a goal of coronary calcium stability prevents 90% of heart attacks. Where I went to school a 40% was an F. Why are we defending this result instead of striving to improve upon it? I am not making this up, look at Raggi's study in Ateriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 2004;24:1272, or Budoff Am J Card

Melissa, I strongly disagree with the assertion that the stress test is a great risk stratifier. Laukkanen et al JACC 2001 studied 1,769 asymptomatic men with stress tests. Although failing the stress test resulted in an increased risk of future heart attack, 83% of the total heart attacks over the next 10 years occurred in those men who passed the stress test.
Falk E, Shah PK, Fuster V Circulation 1995;92:657-671 demonstrated that 86% of heart attacks occur in vessels with less than 70% as the maximum obstruction. A vast majority of patients with less than 70% vessel obstruction will pass thier stress test.

William, regarding your question of owning or referring for EBT imaging, I would be amused if it were not insulting. The mistake that is often made is that EBT imaging is a wildly profitable technology. It is not nearly as profitable as nuclear stress imaging. Indeed there are few EBT centers in the country that are as profitable as any random cardiologists stress lab.

How can we justify not screening asymptomatic patients? Most heart attacks occur in patients with no prior symptoms and according to Steve Nissen, 150,000 Americans die each year from their first symptom of heart disease. My daughter is at this moment visiting with a friend who lost her father a few years ago to his first symptom of heart disease when she was 8 years old. That is not OK! We screen asymptomatic women for breast cancer risk. Women are 8 times more likely to die from heart disease than breast cancer. We do mass screening for colon cancer and we are over 10 times more likely to die from heart attacks than colon cancer. An EBT heart scan costs 1/8th the cost of a colonoscopy.

So what say we drop the sarcasm and look at this technology objectively. Read the literature, not just the editorial comments. This really does provide incredibly valuable information that saves lives.

Yes, a 90% reduction in heart attacks in my patients compared to the care I could provide 5 years ago when I was doing a lot of stress testing and referring for revascularization. Much better statistics than expected national or regional norms. I welcome your scrutiny.

John Q. Public jumps into the fray with:

Fascinating, isn't it, that there appear to be two doctors, William Blanchet in this forum and Dr. William Davis, FACC, of cureality.com that both claim to have dramatically reduced risk of heart attack among their patients and/or actual calcium plaque score regression and BOTH are ardent proponents of CT Calcium Scoring?

Despite Dr. Blanchet's persuasive arguments backed up with numerous scientific citations and John Q.'s support, I sense they had no effect whatsoever on Shirley-Walton's way of thinking.

Such are the deeply-entrenched habits of the cardiology community. It will be many years and impassioned pleas to see things in a different light before the wave of change seizes hold.

Curious thing about fasting: It teaches you how to eat.

In previous posts, I've discussed the potential benefits of fasting: reduction of blood pressure, reduction of inflammatory responses, drop in blood sugar, weight loss, and reduced heart attack risk. In my recent Heart Scan Blog post, Fasting and Heart Disease, I discussed the just-released results of a study in people who fast for religious reasons and experience less heart disease.

Fasting can mean going entirely without food and just making do with (plenty of) water, or it can mean variations on "fasting" such as vegetable juice fasts, soy milk fasts, etc.

How can fasting teach you any lessons about food and eating?

People who fast will tell you that the experience:

--Helps you appreciate food tastes when you resume eating. After a fast, flavors are stronger; sensations like sweet, sweet, or salty are sharper; you become reacquainted with the variety of wonderful food textures.

--Makes you realize how you ate too much before your fast. After a fast, you are satisfied with less. You will eat more for taste and enjoyment, less for satiety and mindless indulgence.

--Makes you more mindful of the act of eating. For many of us, eating is an automatic activity that provides fleeting satisfaction. After a fast, each bite of food brings its own special enjoyment.

--Reveals to you how awful you felt when many foods were eaten. For example, many people are physically slightly ill after eating pancakes, pizza, or other highly processed foods but cease to recognize it. Remove the offensive foods entirely and you might realize just how bad you felt.

--Takes away fear of hunger. Many people have a gut-wrenching fear of hunger. It's probably partly instinctive, that animal-like fear of not knowing when your next meal is coming, partly the abnormal, artificial drive to eat ignited by processed foods like wheat and corn syrup.

--Makes you realize just how much of your day is spent in some activity associated with food. Shopping, eating, cleaning up afterwards, thinking and talking about food all occupy an extraordinary portion of everyone's life. A fast can open your eyes to just how much time is spent in these pursuits. Sometimes, gaining an awareness of a mindless, repetitive behavior can provide the first step towards changing direction.

Most people consider a fast for rapid weight loss. But fasting is far more than that. Perhaps fasting has become an integral part of many religious practices because of its capacity for enlightenment, reawakening, revelation, but not of only the spiritual, but also of how far many of us have strayed in diet.

Fasting is what Omnivore's Dilemma author Michael Pollen might describe as looking the pig you're about to eat in the eye, an opportunity to open your eyes to what it is you 've been doing all these years.

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

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

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

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

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

Atalanta Corporation
Celebrity 99% Fat Free Premium Imported Healthy Ham

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chiquita Brands Company, N.A.
Chiquita Bananas

Clearwater Seafoods Limited Partnership
Clearwater Frozen Arctic Surf Clams

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

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

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

Colleen Strawberries, Inc. / EKT Farms
Colleen Strawberries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cooper Farms
Cooper Farms All Natural Turkey Breast Fillet

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

Dare Foods Incorporated
Breton Reduced Fat & Sodium Wheat Crackers

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

Eurofresh Inc.
Eurofresh Campari Tomatoes

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

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

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

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

FoodTech International
Veggie Patch California Veggie Burgers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

King Soopers
Ground Beef 96/4 Extra Lean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meijer Distribution, Inc.
Meijer Purple Grape Juice

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

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

Motts LLP
Yoo-hoo Lite Chocolate Drink

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

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

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

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

Nulaid Foods Inc.
Nulaid ReddiEgg Real Egg Product

Oberto Sausage Company
Kirkland Signature Premium Brisket Roast Beef

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ruprecht Company
Sommers 100% Organic Extra Lean Beef Burgers

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

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

Setton International Foods, Inc.
Setton Farms Heart Healthy Mix

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

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

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

Smithfield Premium Cuts
Smithfield: Self-Basting Pork Tenderloin

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

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

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

Sunrise Growers, Inc.
Sunrise Growers California Strawberries

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

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

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

The Baker
The Baker 7-Grain Sourdough Whole Wheat Bread

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stan did everything right.

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

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

What did he do wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Honey Bunches of Oats

--Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats

--Cocoa Puffs cereal

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

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

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

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

--Obesity

--Diabetes

--Drop in HDL

--Rise in triglycerides

--Small LDL particles

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

--Mental cloudiness

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles was visibly confused.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NY Times Jane Brody misses the mark

"There must be a mistake"

Jimmy Moore Interview: Is saturated fat the villain we thought?

Mammogram of the heart

Dr. Susie Rockway on conjugated linoleic acid (CLA)

Which is better?

Heart health for stupid people

Money, money, money, money

The many faces of LDL

What does "Success" mean in the Track Your Plaque program?

Statin stupid

Butter and insulin

Vitamin D as a cardiovascular risk factor gains ground

Atkins Diet: Common errors

Herd health

Fat Head, Wheat belly, and the Adventures of Ancel Keys

Fat Head: Tom Naughton's manifesto for low-carb eating

Oatmeal: Good or bad?

Mustard: Super health food?

Exercise and blood sugar

Dr. Cannell on vitamin D and cancer

"Yes, Johnnie, there really is an Easter bunny"

Diabetes: controlled or . . . cured?

Study review: cerivastatin

Dr. William Blanchet: A voice of reason

Vitamin D2 rip-offs

Stenosis detection vs. plaque detection

Is an increase in heart scan score GOOD?

The Heart.org online debate

To learn how to eat . . . try fasting

More on the American Heart Association Check Mark program

More on the American Heart Association

Exercise and blood pressure

Cheese and vitamin K2

Vitamin D disappointment ahead

In search of truth

American Heart Association stamp of approval

"Your heart scan score means nothing"

Vitamin D toxicity?

Non-profit hospitals