Thyroid: Be a perfectionist

27. July 2009 William Davis (18)
If you'd like to reduce LDL cholesterol with nearly as much power as a statin drug, think thyroid.

When thyroid is corrected to ideal levels, LDL cholesterol drops 20, 30, 40 mg/dl or more, depending on how poor thyroid function and how high LDL are at the start. The poorer the thyroid function (the higher the TSH or the lower the T3 and T4) and the higher the LDL cholesterol, the more LDL drops with thyroid correction.

(For those of you minding LDL particle size, such as Track Your Plaque Members, the "dominant" LDL species will drop: If you are genetic small LDL, small LDL will drop. If you have mostly large LDL because of being wheat-free and sugar-free, then large LDL will drop.)

One of the problems is that many healthcare providers blindly follow what the laboratory says is "normal" or the "reference range," which is usually nothing more than a population average (actually the mean +/- 2 standard deviations, a common method of developing references ranges). In other words, a substantial degree of low thyroid function, or hypothyroidism, can be present when your doctor adheres to the reference range provided by the laboratory.

What does it mean to achieve ideal thyroid status? My list includes:

--Normal oral temperature of 97.3 F first upon arising. (The thyroid is the body's thermoregulatory organ.)
--TSH 1.0 mIU/L or less
--Free T3 upper half "normal" range
--Free T4 upper half "normal" range
--You feel good: mental clarity, energy, upbeat mood. You lose weight when you try.

Iodine replacement should be part of any thyroid health effort. Iodine is not an optional trace mineral, no more than vitamin C is optional (else your teeth fall out). The only dangers to iodine replacement are to those who have been starved of iodine for many years; increase iodine and the thyroid can over-respond. I've seen this happen in 2 of the last 300 people who have supplemented iodine.

In my view, neglecting T3 replacement is absurd. While it is not clear to me why many otherwise healthy people have low T3 at the low range of "normal" or even in the below-normal range, people feel better and have better health--faster weight loss, reduced LDL, reduced triglycerides, they are happier and enjoy more energy--when T3 is increased to the upper half of the reference range. (Crucial question: Why is the 5'-deiodinase enzyme that converts T4 to T3 inhibited, resulting in reduced free T3? What is in our diets or environment that is exerting this effect? I don't have answer, but we sorely need one.)

It pays to be a perfectionist when it comes to thyroid. Not only do you feel better, but LDL cholesterol can drop with a statin-like magnitude, but with none of the adverse effects.

If interested, Track Your Plaque offers fingerstick blood spot testing that you can perform in your own home. Each test kit will test for: TSH, free T3, free T4, along with a thyroid peroxidase antibody (a marker for Hashimoto's thyroiditis, an autoimmune inflammatory condition of the thyroid).

Nutrition Syllogism

21. July 2009 William Davis (21)
What do you think of these chains of logic?

Cyanide is a potent lethal poison; carbon monoxide is a less lethal poison.
Therefore: plenty of carbon monoxide is good.



Having uterine cancer is a bad thing. Having uterine fibroids is a less bad thing.
Therefore: plenty of uterine fibroids are good.


These are obvious examples of seriously flawed logic. Students of logic and philosophy will recognize the above erroneous sequences as examples of the twisted arguments often used to persuade an argumentative opponent of the logic of a premise. As long ago as 335 B.C., Greek philosopher, Aristotle, recognized the pitfalls of thinking in such arguments. You think we’d know better by now.

Try this one:

White enriched flour is a bad for health; whole grains are less bad for health.
Therefore: plenty of whole grains are good for health.


Ouch!

In the 1960s, we all ate hot dogs on white buns, white flour Wonder Bread® sandwiches, Mom made cookies and cupcakes with white flour. Then, during the 1970s and 1980s, clinical studies were performed demonstrating that whole wheat and whole grains reduced colon cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease compared to white flour. In other words, add back fiber and B vitamins and health benefits develop: No argument here.

Therefore: whole grains must be good for health. Further, lots of whole grains?unlimited quantities of whole grains many times per day, every day?must be even better. Even the USDA says so on their nutrition pyramid, with 8-11 servings of grains per day, 4 of which should be whole grains, at the widest portion of the pyramid.

But what happens when you follow this logic through and fill your diet with whole grains?

Look around you and it’s easy to see: Appetite increases, people become obese, blood sugar increases, diabetes develops, HDL cholesterol plummets, triglycerides skyrocket, inflammatory patterns (e.g., c-reactive protein, or CRP) increase, small LDL (the number one cause for heart disease in the obese U.S.!) shoots through the roof.

I would no more fill my diet with “healthy whole grains” than I would close my garage door with the car running.

Is pomegranate juice healthy?

19. July 2009 William Davis (20)

Pomegranate juice, 8 oz:

Sugars, total 31.50 g

Sucrose 0.00 g

Glucose (dextrose) 15.64 g

Fructose 15.86 g




In your quest to increase the flavonoids in your diet, do you overexpose yourself to fructose?

Remember: Fructose increases LDL cholesterol, apoprotein B, small LDL, triglycerides, and substantially increases deposition of visceral fat (fructose belly?). How about a slice of whole grain bread with that glass of pomegranate juice? The Heart Association says it's all low-fat!


(Coming on the Track Your Plaque website: A full in-depth Special Report on fructose in all its glorious forms and whether this is truly an issue for your health. Fructose tables and the scientific data to establish a safe "threshold" value will be included.)

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Honeydew melon

18. July 2009 William Davis (4)

Honeydew melon:

Sugars, total 51.97 g

Sucrose 15.87 g

Glucose 17.15 g

Fructose 18.94 g

Because sucrose is half fructose (the other half is glucose), there are approximately 26 grams of fructose per one-half honeydew melon.



Image courtesy Wikipedia

Where do you find fructose?

14. July 2009 William Davis (25)
Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g




Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons



Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient
Ingredients: High Fructose Corn Syrup, Vinegar, Concentrated Tomato Juice (Water, Tomato Paste), Water, Modified Food Starch, Salt, Honey, Contains Less Than 2% of Molasses, Natural Flavor, Paprika, Spice, Mustard Flour, Guar Gum, Red 40.



A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient
Ingredients: Tomato puree (water, tomato paste), high fructose corn syrup, vinegar, salt, water dried onions, contains less than 2% of black pepper, modified food starch, citric acid, dried parsley, dried garlic, xanthan gum, caramel color, potassium sorbate and calcium disodium EDTA as preservatives, molasses, corn syrup, sugar, spices, tamarind, natural flavor

Do heart scans cause cancer?

14. July 2009 William Davis (3)
Another in a series of data extrapolations that attempt to predict long-term cancer risk from medical radiation exposure was published in the July 13, 2009 Archives of Internal Medicine, viewable here.

Over the years, I've fussed about the radiation dose used by some centers for CT heart scans. (Note: I'm talking about CT heart scans, not CT coronary angiograms, an entirely different test with different radiation exposure.) In the "old" days, when electron-beam devices (EBT) were the best on the block, the old single-slice CT scanners (the predecessor of the current 64-slice MDCT scanners) exposed patients to ungodly quantities of radiation, while the EBT devices required very small quantities (0.5 mSv or about the equivalent of 4 standard chest x-rays or one mammogram).

But CT technology has advanced considerably. While EBT has been phased out (although it was an exceptional technology, GE acquired the small California manufacturer, then promptly scrapped the operation; you can guess why), multi-detector CT (MDCT) technology has improved in speed, image quality, and radiation exposure.

While it has improved, radiation exposure still remains an issue. The authors of the study applied the scanning protocols used at three hospitals and those in several CT heart scan studies, then calculated radiation exposure. They found a more than ten-fold range of exposure, from 0.8 mSv to 10.5 mSv. (All scanners were MDCT, none EBT.)

That's precisely what I've been worrying about: In the rapid rush to develop new devices, radiation exposure has often been a neglected issue. While some scan centers do an excellent job and take steps to minimize exposure, others barely lift a finger and consequently expose their patients to unnecessary radiation.

However, it's not as bad as it sounds. For one, the study included 16-slice MDCT scanners, a scanner type that I warned people to not use because of radiation. On the current most popular 64-slice devices, much lower radiation exposure is possible, on the order of 0.8-1.2 mSv routinely--if the center takes the effort.

This study, while eye-opening, will achieve some good: CT heart scans are here to stay. But the day-to-day practice of heart scanning should be:

1) standardized
2) conducted with radiation exposure as low as possible, preferably <0.8 mSv


To read more about this issue, below I've reprinted a 2007 full Track Your Plaque Special Report, CT Heart Scans and Radiation: The Real Story.




CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

“My personal opinion is that many patients today who are receiving multiple CT scans may well be getting at least comparable doses to subjects that have now developed malignancies from x-ray radiation received in the 1930s and '40s. And, similar to those days when the doses were unknown, the dose that patients receive today over a course of years of multiple CT scans is also completely unknown . . .

“I recommend that all healthcare providers become familiar with the concept that 1 in 1000 CT studies of the chest, abdomen, or pelvis may result in cancer.”

Richard C. Semelka, MD
Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology
University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill



Is this just hype to generate headlines? Or is the truth buried in the enormous marketing clout of the medical device industry, among which the imaging device manufacturers reign supreme?

It’s been over 110 years since radiation was first used for medical imaging. Over those years, it has had its share of misadventures.

In the 1930s and 1940s, before the dangers of radiation were recognized, shoe shoppers had shoes fitted using an x-ray device of the foot to assess fit. High doses of radiation were used to shrink enlarged tonsils and extinguish overactive thyroid glands. Attitudes towards radiation were so lax that doctors commonly permitted themselves to be exposed without protection day after day, year after year, until an unexpected rise in blood cancers like leukemia was observed. As recently as the 1970s and 1980s, cancers like Hodgkins’ disease were treated with high doses of radiation, also leading to radiation-induced diseases decades later.

Not all radiation is bad. Radiation can also be used as a therapeutic tool and even today remains a useful and reasonably effective method to reduce the size, sometimes eliminate, certain types of cancer. Forty percent of people with cancer now receive some form of radiation as part of their treatment (Ron E 2003).


Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

Estimates vary, but most experts estimate that medical imaging provides approximately 15% of total lifetime exposure. In other words, radiation exposure from medical imaging is simply a small portion of total exposure that develops over the years of life. Exposure can be much higher, however, in a specific individual who undergoes repeated radiation imaging or treatment of one sort or another.

For all of us, exposure to medical radiation is part of lifetime exposure from multiple sources, added to the radiation we receive from the world around us. Just by living on earth, we are exposed to radiation from space and naturally-occurring radioactive compounds, and receive somewhere around 3.0 mSv per year (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). (Doses for radiation exposure are commonly expressed in milliSieverts, mSv, a measure that reflects whole-body radiation exposure.) People living in high-altitude locales like Colorado get exposed to an additional 30–50% ambient radiation (1.0–1.5 mSv more per year).

Much of the information on radiation exposure comes from studies like the Life Span Study that, since 1961, has tracked 120,000 Japanese exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs dropped in 1945 (Preston DL et al 2003). Although regarded as a high-dose exposure study for obvious reasons, there are actually thousands of people in this study who were exposed to lesser quantities of radiation (because of distance from the bomb sites) who still display a “dose-response” increased risk for cancer many years later in life. Radiation exposures of as little as 5–20 mSv showed a slight increase in lifetime risk.

Occupational and excessive medical exposure to radiation also provides a “laboratory” to examine radiation risk. Miners exposed to radon gas; patients exposed to the imaging agent, Thorotrast, containing radioactive isotope thorium dioxide and used as an x-ray contrast agent in the 1930s and 1940s and possesses the curious property of lingering in the body for over 30 years after administration; radium injections administered between 1945 and 1955 to treat diseases like ankylosing spondylitis and tuberculosis, all provide researchers an opportunity to study the long-term effects of various types of radiation exposure over many years (Harrison JD et al 2003).

The excess exposure of workers and several hundred thousand nearby residents to the Mayak nuclear plant in Russia has also revealed a “dose-response” relationship, with increasing exposure leading to more cancers, including leukemia and solid cancers of the bone, liver, and lung (Shilnikova NS et al 2003). Nuclear waste released into the Techa river between 1948 and 1956 contaminated drinking water used by over 100,000 Russians. A plant explosion in 1957 also released an excess of radiation into the atmosphere, yielding exposure via inhalation. Some sources estimate that at least 272,000 people have been affected by radiation from the Mayak plant. This unfortunate situation has, however, yielded plenty of data on radiation exposure and its long-term effects.

It’s also been known for several decades that people who receive therapeutic radiation for treatment of cancer, even with the reduced doses now employed, are subject to increased risk of a second cancer consequent to the radiation treatment.

From experiences like this, radiation experts estimate that an exposure of 10 mSv increases a population’s risk for cancer by 1 in 1000 (Semelka RC et al 2007).

This question was recently thrust into the spotlight with publication of a study from Columbia University in New York suggesting that a 20-year old woman would be exposed to a lifetime risk of cancer as high as 1 in 143 consequent to the radiation received during a CT coronary angiogram. (Important note: This was estimated risk from a CT coronary angiogram, not a simple heart scan that we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program.) The risk at the low end of the spectrum would be in an 80-year old man (because of the shorter period of time to develop cancer), with a risk of 1 in 5017. If “gating” to the EKG is added (which many scan centers do indeed perform nowadays), risk for a 60-year old woman is estimated at 1 in 715; risk for a 60-year old male, 1 in 1911 (Einstein AJ et al 2007). This study generated some criticism, since it did not directly involve human subjects, but used “phantoms” or x-ray dummies to simulate x-ray exposure. Nonetheless, the point was made: CT coronary angiograms in current practice do indeed expose the patient to substantial quantities of radiation, sufficient to pose a lifetime risk of cancer.


The media frenzy

The NY Times ran an article called With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests in which they stated:

"According to a new study, the per-capita dose of ionizing radiation from clinical imaging exams in the United States increased almost 600 percent from 1980 to 2006. In the past, natural background radiation was the leading source of human exposure; that has been displaced by diagnostic imaging procedures, the authors said."

“This is an absolutely sentinel event, a wake-up call,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., principal investigator for the study, by the National Council on Radiation Protection. “Medical exposure now dwarfs that of all other sources.”

Radiation is a widely used imaging tool in medicine. Although CT scans of the brain, bones, chest, abdomen, and pelvis account for only 5% of all medical radiation procedures, they are responsible for nearly 50% of medical radiation used. It’s been known for years that increasing radiation exposure increases cancer risk over many years, but the boom of newer, faster devices that provide more detailed images has opened the floodgates to expanded use of CT scanners.

But before we join in the hysteria, let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:


Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

Head CT 1 – 2 mSv
Pelvis CT 3 – 4 mSv
Chest CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen/pelvis CT 8 – 11 mSv
Coronary CT angiography 5 – 12 mSv


Non-CT

Hand radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Chest radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Mammogram 0.3 – 0.6 mSv
Barium enema exam 3 – 6 mSv
Coronary angiogram 5 – 10 mSv
Sestamibi myocardial perfusion (per injection) 6 – 9 mSv
Thallium myocardial perfusion (per injection) 26 – 35 mSv

Source: Cynthia H. McCullough, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN


A plain, everyday chest x-ray, providing less than 0.1 mSv exposure, provides about the same quantity of radiation exposure as flying in an airplane for four hours, or the same amount of radiation from exposure to our surroundings for 11–12 days. Similar exposure arises from dental x-rays.

If you have a heart scan on an EBT device, then your exposure is 0.5-0.6 mSv, roughly the same as a mammogram or several standard chest x-rays.

With a heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, exposure is ideally around 1.0-2.0 mSv, about the same as 2-3 mammograms, though dose can vary with this technology depending on how it is performed (gated to the EKG, device settings, etc.)

CT coronary angiography presents a different story. This is where radiation really escalates and puts the radiation exposure issue in the spotlight. As Dr. Cynthia McCullough's chart shows above, the radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms is 5-12 mSv, the equivalent of 100 or more chest x-rays or 20 mammograms. Now, that's a problem.

The exposure is about the same for a pelvic or abdominal CT. The problem is that some centers are using CT coronary angiograms as screening procedures and even advocating their use annually. This is where the alarm needs to be sounded. These tests, as wonderful as the information and image quality can be, are not screening tests. Just like a pelvic CT, they are diagnostic tests done for legitimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

It’s also worth giving second thought to any full body scan you might be considering. These screening studies include scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. These scans, performed for screening, expose the recipient to approximately 10 mSv of radiation (Radiological Society of North American, 2007). Debate continues on whether the radiation exposure is justified, given the generally asymptomatic people who generally undergo these tests.

Always be mindful of your radiation exposure, as the NY Times article rightly advises. However, don't be so frightened that you are kept from obtaining truly useful information from, for instance, a CT heart scan (not angiography) at a modest radiation cost.


Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

Unfortunately, practicing physicians and those involved in providing CT scans are generally unconcerned with radiation exposure. The majority, in fact, are entirely unaware of the dose of radiation required for most CT scan studies and unaware of the cancer risk involved. It is therefore up to the individual to insist on a discussion of the type of scanner being used, the radiation dose delivered (at least in general terms), the necessity of the test, alternative methods to obtain the same diagnostic information, all in the context of lifetime radiation exposure.

Our concerns about radiation exposure all boil down to concern over lifetime risk for cancer, a disease that strikes approximately 20% of all Americans. Many factors contribute to cancer risk, including obesity, excessive saturated fat intake, low fiber intake, lack of vitamin D, repeated sunburns, excessive alcohol use, smoking, exposure to pesticides and other organochemicals, asbestos and other industrial exposures, electromagnetic wave exposure, and genetics. Radiation is just one source of risk, though to some degree a controllable one.

Some people, on hearing this somewhat disturbing discussion, refuse to ever have another medical test requiring radiation. That’s the wrong attitude. It makes no more sense than wearing lead shielding on your body 24 hours a day to reduce exposure from the atmosphere. Taken in the larger context of life, radiation exposure is just one item on a list of potentially harmful factors.

It is, however, worth some effort to minimize radiation exposure over your lifetime, particularly before age 60, and by submitting to high-dose testing only when truly necessary, or when the potential benefits outweigh the risks. Thus, with heart scans and CT coronary angiography, some thought to the potential benefits of knowing your score or the information gained from the CT angiogram need to be considered before undergoing the test. Often the practical difficulty, of course, is that your risk for heart disease simply cannot be known until after the test.

In our view, in the vast majority of instances a simple CT heart scan can serve the simple but crucial role of quantifying risk for heart attack and atherosclerotic plaque. CT heart scans yield this information with less than a tenth of the radiation exposure of a CT coronary angiogram. In people without symptoms and a normal stress test, there is rarely a need for CT coronary angiography with present day levels of radiation exposure. Perhaps as technology advances and the radiation required to generate images is reduced, then we should reconsider.

Early experiences are suggesting that the newest 256-slice scanners, now being developed but not yet available, will cut the dose exposure of 64-slice CT angiograms in half (from 27.8 mSv to 14.1 mSv in a recent Japanese study). The 256-slice scanners will allow scanning that is faster over a larger area in a given period of time.

Thankfully, the scanner manufacturers are increasingly sensitive to the radiation issue and have been working on methods to reduce radiation exposure. However, it still remains substantial.


References:
Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007 Jul 18;298(3):317–323.

Harrison JD, Muirhead CR. Quantitative comparisons of cancer induction in humans by internally deposited radionuclides and external radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 2003 Jan;79(1):1–13.

Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzyky M et al. Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. Circulation 2006;113:1305–1310.

Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard J, Saini S. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619–628.

Mayo JR, Aldrich J, Müller NL. Radiation exposure at chest CT: A statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2003; 228:15–21.

Mori S, Nishizawa K, Kondo C, Ohno M, Akahane K, Endo M. Effective doses in subjects undergoing computed tomography cardiac imaging with the 256-multislice CT scanner. Eur J Radiol 2007 Jul 10; [Epub ahead of print].

Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Ron E, Mabuchi K. Dose response and temporal patterns of radiation-associated solid cancer risks. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):43–46.

Ron E. Cancer risks from medical radiation. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):47–59.

Shilnikova NS, Preston DL, Ron E et al. Cancer mortality risk among workers at the Mayak nuclear complex. Radiation Res 2003 Jun;159(6):787–798.

Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, Huda W. Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007 May;25(5):900–9090.


Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

Goodbye, fructose

12. July 2009 William Davis (35)
A carefully-conducted study by a collaborative research group at University of California-Berkeley has finally closed the lid on the fuss over fructose vs. glucose and its purported adverse effects.

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation--3% increased intra-abdominal fat with glucose; 14.4% with fructose. (Intraabdominal fat is the variety that blocks insulin responses and causes diabetes and inflammation.)

2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol but double the increase for Apoprotein B (an index of the number of LDL particles, similar to NMR LDL particle number).

3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, compared to 13.3% with glucose.

4) While glucose (curiously) reduced the net postprandial (after-eating) triglyceride response (area under the curve, AUC), fructose increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.


The authors propose that fructose specifically increases liver VLDL production, the lipoprotein particle that yields abnormal after-eating particles, increased LDL, and provides building blocks to manufacture small LDL particles. The authors also persuasively propose that fructose metabolism, unlike glucose, is not inhibited (via feedback loop) by energy intake, i.e., it's as if you are always starving.

Add to this the data that show that fructose increases uric acid (that causes gout and may act as a coronary risk factor), induces leptin resistance, causes metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes), and increases appetite, and it is clear that fructose is yet another common food additive that, along with wheat, is likely a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic.

Fructose is concentrated, of course, in high-fructose corn syrup, comprising anywhere from 42-90% of total weight. Fructose also composes 50% of sucrose (table sugar). Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose).

Also, beware of low-fat or non-fat salad dressings (rich with high-fructose corn syrup), ketchup, beer, fruit drinks, fruit juices, all of which are rich sources of this exceptionally fattening, metabolism-bypassing, LDL cholesterol/small LDL/ApoB increasing compound. Ironically, this means that many low-fat foods meant to reduce cholesterol actually increase it when they contain fructose in any form.

When you hear or say "fructose," run the other way, regardless of what the Corn Refiners Association says.

The statin-free life

8. July 2009 William Davis (20)
Matt came to me because his doctor couldn't reduce his LDL cholesterol.

His doctor had prescribed Zocor (simvastatin), Lipitor, Crestor, even pravastatin, all of which resulted in incapacitating muscle aches and weakness within a week of starting. No surprise, Matt had a jaundiced view of statin drugs.

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

--72% of LDL was small LDL, a moderately severe pattern. (This means that small LDL comprised 112 mg/dl of the total 155 mg/dl LDL; large LDL comprised 43 mg/dl--small LDL was the problem.)

--HDL 42 mg/dl --Triglycerides 133 mg/dl

--No lipoprotein(a)

Beyond lipoproteins, Matt proved severely deficient in vitamin D with a starting level of 18 ng/ml.

Matt's doctor had advised that he avoid salt, as his blood pressure had been borderline high. His thyroid assessment disclosed a TSH of 3.89 mIU/ml with thyroid hormones free T3 and free T4 in the lower half of the normal range.

I therefore asked Matt to:

--Eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars to reduce small LDL
--Add iodine
--Supplement 6000 units of an oil-based vitamin D preparation
--Take fish oil to provide at least 1800 mg EPA + DHA per day
--Take Armour Thyroid 1 grain per day


Several months later on this program, Matt had a repeat basic lipid panel:

--LDL 82 mg/dl--a 47% reduction

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

--Triglycerides 60 mg/dl--a 55% decrease

In addition, vitamin D was 66 ng/ml, TSH was <1.0 mIU/ml with free T3 and free T4 in the upper half of the "reference range." Matt also felt great.

While the numbers could be slightly better, Matt had made tremendous progress towards achieving perfect values.

There you have it: Marked correction of cholesterol values, no statin drugs involved.

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

5. July 2009 William Davis (29)
Even if you’re not interested in building big muscles like a bodybuilder, there are health benefits to increasing muscle mass: increased bone density, better balance, and fewer injuries. Greater muscle mass means higher metabolic rate, improved insulin responsiveness, lower blood sugar. The inevitable loss of muscle mass of aging can lead to frailty, an increasingly common situation for the elderly. Muscle loss be reversed, health improved as a result.

Since its introduction in 1994, creatine has exploded in popularity, particularly among bodybuilders and athletes interested in gaining muscle mass and strength. But creatine is not just for young weight lifters. If you are just interested in increasing muscle mass for its health benefits, then creatine is something to consider.

A study of creatine supplementation in men, average age 70 years, demonstrated that, when creatine was combined with strength training, it increased muscle mass 250% better than placebo (7.26 lb muscle vs 2.86 lb muscle), along with improved leg strength and endurance. The same group also demonstrated 3.2% increased bone density (measured using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) after 12 weeks in participants taking creatine with strength training, while the control (no strength training, no creatine) group decreased by 1.0%.

Benefits are not confined to men. Similar results were observed in another study that included women (age 65 and older), with outcomes in females comparable to males. This is especially important for females, given the common development of osteopenia and osteoporosis in postmenopausal females.

Other studies have shown that benefits are maintained after stopping creatine supplementation.

The most popular form of creatine is the monohydrate, generally taken as a “loading” phase of 15-20 grams per day (generally split into 3-4 doses of 5 grams) for 5-7 days, followed by weeks to months of 2-5 grams per day.

An alternative form, polyethylene glycosylated creatine (PEG-creatine) provides similar effects at one-fourth to one-half the dose of creatine, i.e., 1.25-2.5 grams per day.

Despite previous concerns about kidney toxicity with prolonged use, another study showed that athletes taking creatine for up to 21 months have shown no adverse effects on kidney function, lipid (cholesterol) values, or other basic health measures.

Having healthy muscle mass doesn't make you bulge like a bodybuilder. With modest efforts at strength training, augmented with creatine supplementation, you have a wonderful tool to feel better, reduce injury, increase bone density, and combat abnormal insulin resistance, not to mention accelerate weight loss, since lean muscle mass consumes energy.

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

2. July 2009 William Davis (19)
There has been a lot of debate over whether or not “bio-identical” hormones, i.e., hormones identical to the human form, are superior to non-human forms dispensed by the drug industry.

The FDA is currently taking steps to clamp down on availability of bioidentical hormones and their claims of superiority, despite a groundswell of grassroot support for them. The argument has pitted anti-aging practitioners and the public, as well as the likes of Oprah and Suzanne Somers, against Big Pharma and the FDA, the two forces trying to squash the bioidentical hormone movement.

Regardless of what heavy-handed approach the FDA takes, we already have access to hormones identical to the original human form. It requires no prescription and yields downstream hormones that the human body recognizes as human.

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

Pregnenolone is the first biochemical step in the conversion of dietary cholesterol (yes-cholesterol!) to numerous other hormones. Pregnenolone is the source of the hormones that lie at the center of the bioidentical hormone controversy: estrogens, progesterone, and testosterone. We therefore already have our own over-the-counter, non-prescription form of bioidentical hormones.

Supplemental pregnenolone increases estrogens (mildly), progesterone, and testosterone. Prenenonlone supplementation simply provide more of the basic substrate for hormone production. The increase in hormones is usually modest, not as vigorous as direct hormone replacement like, say, testosterone or progesterone topical creams. But pregnenolone can be useful when small to moderate increases are desired, such as for reduction of Lp(a). A theoretical downside is that pregnenonlone can also convert to cortisol, the adrenal gland hormone that regulates fluid and blood pressure. However, I've not seen any measurable increase in cortisol with low doses of pregnenonlone and limited data suggest that it does not. Pregnenolone also converts to the other adrenal gland hormone, DHEA; I call DHEA "the hormone of assertiveness," since some people who take too much pregnenolone (or direct DHEA) acquire excessive assertiveness.

The key to pregnenolone supplementation is to proceed gradually and begin with a small dose, e.g., 5 mg every morning. Hormonal assessment is best conducted periodically to assess the effects and to determine whether a dose adjustment is in order.
All posts by william-davis

Can I eat quinoa?

29. julio 2011 William Davis (15)
. . . or beans, or brown rice, or sweet potatoes? Or how about amaranth, sorghum, oats, and buckwheat? Surely corn on the cob is okay!

These are, of course, non-wheat carbohydrates. They lack several crucial undesirable ingredients found in our old friend, wheat, including no:

Gliadin--The protein that degrades to exorphins, the compound from wheat digestion that exerts mind effects and stimulates appetite to the tune of 400 additional calories (on average) per day.
Gluten--The family of proteins that trigger immune diseases and neurologic impairment.
Amylopectin A--The highly-digestible "complex" carbohydrate that is no better--worse, in fact--than table sugar.

So why not eat these non-wheat grains all you want? If they don't cause appetite stimulation, behavioral outbursts in children with ADHD, addictive consumption of foods, dementia (i.e., gluten encephalopathy), etc., why not just eat them willy nilly?

Because they still increase blood sugar. Conventional wisdom is that these foods trend towards having a lower glycemic index than, say, table sugar, meaning it raises blood glucose less.

That's true . . . but very misleading. Oats, for instance, with a glycemic index of 55 compared to table sugar's 59, still sends blood sugar through the roof. Likewise, quinoa with a glycemic index of 53, will send blood sugar to, say, 150 mg/dl compared to 158 mg/dl for table sugar--yeah, sure, it's better, but it still stinks. And that's in non-diabetics. It's worse in diabetics.

Of course, John Q. Internist will tell you that, provided your blood sugars after eating don't exceed 200 mg/dl, you'll be okay. What he's really saying is "There's no need for diabetes medication, so you're okay. You will still be exposed to the many adverse health consequences of high blood sugar similar to, though less quickly than, a full diabetic, but that's not my problem."

In reality, most people can get away with consuming some of these non-wheat grains . . . provided portion size is limited. Beyond limiting portion size, there are two ways to better manage your carbohydrate sensitivity to ensure that metabolic distortions, such as high blood sugar, glycation, and small LDL particles, are not triggered.

More on that in the future.


Lipoproteins . . . zero!

27. julio 2011 William Davis (23)
With the recent refinements in our approach to correction of the lipoprotein abnormalities that lead to coronary plaque and heart disease risk, I have been witnessing more and more people achieve:

Small LDL particles 0 nmol/L
Lipoprotein(a) 0 nmol/L


For instance, Ted, a 58-year old man I saw in the office today started with:

Small LDL 1673 nmol/L
Lipoprotein(a) 219 nmol/L

In other words, both small LDL particles and lipoprotein(a) are being knocked down to zero values.

Incidentally, the combination of lipoprotein(a) with small LDL is among the most atherogenic (atherosclerotic plaque-causing) patterns known. Despite his athletic, slender build and avoidance of unhealthy habits, Ted's heart scan score was 922--very high.

So Ted followed the diet I advocate, i.e., wheat elimination followed by elimination of cornstarch, oats, and sugars; high-dose fish oil (total daily EPA + DHA of 6000 mg/day); vitamin D supplementation sufficient to achieve a 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 60-70 ng/ml; iodine supplementation; and thyroid normalization which, in Ted's case, required supplementation with the T3 thyroid hormone, liothyronine, at a small dose.

The result:

Small LDL particles 0 nmol/L
Lipoprotein(a) 0 nmol/L

Not everybody, of course, is achieving these incredible--and previously impossible--results. But the numbers are growing. Ted is the third person to achieve zeroes all around, in fact, over the past 10 days.

Heart disease prevention is getting better and more powerful every day. And it ain't all about Lipitor and low-fat.


Chocolate almond biscotti

22. julio 2011 William Davis (8)
Biscotti are twice-baked biscuits or cookies that are perfect for dipping into coffee, latté, or espresso. These wheat-free, low-carb biscotti are rich with the taste of chocolate and almonds.

Yield: approximately 15 biscotti



Ingredients:

2 cups almond meal
½ cup chopped walnuts
1/4 cup cocoa powder (undutched)
½ cup dark chocolate chips
Sweetener equivalent to ½ cup sugar (e.g., liquid stevia, Truvia)
½ cup ricotta cheese, room temperature (replace with coconut milk if lactose intolerant)
4 tablespoons butter, melted (replace with coconut oil if lactose intolerant)
2 large eggs
¼ cup milk, unsweetened almond milk, or soy milk
¼ cup almond, peanut, or sunflower seed butter, room temperature

Preheat oven to 350º F.

Mix almond meal, walnuts, sweetener, cocoa powder, and chocolate chips in bowl. Mix in ricotta, butter, eggs, milk, and nut butter and blend by hand thoroughly.

Pour mix onto baking pan lined with parchment paper or greased with coconut oil or other oil. Shape into loaf approximately 1 inch deep and 3½ to 4 inches in width. Place in oven and bake for 40 minutes.

Remove loaf and allow to cool 15 minutes. Slice into approximately ¾-inch widths and lay each biscotto on its side on baking pan. Put back in oven for 10 minutes.

Remove pan and flip biscotti over. Place back in oven and bake an additional 5 minutes. Remove and cool.

Optional: For a little dark chocolate "icing":
Melt 3-4 oz semisweet or dark chocolate in microwave (in 15 second increments until melted) or in metal bowl placed in heated water. Stir in 1-2 teaspoons butter.
Dip each biscotti into melted chocolate mix or drizzle chocolate mixture over top of each biscotto.

Sun green tea

21. julio 2011 William Davis (11)
Here's a great way to enjoy the health benefits of green tea during the summer: sun green tea.


I dropped two green tea bags into approximately one-half gallon of cold water in a clear glass jar. I placed the jar in the sun (with top on) for four hours, then brought it into the kitchen. I served it as iced tea with a slice of lemon and mint leaf.

The sun green tea was a smoother than standard green tea brewed with hot water. Ordinarily, if you brew hot green tea for more than 3-5 minutes, it becomes more bitter or tannic. This sun green tea, despite steeping for four hours, was not the least bit bitter or tannic.

The green tea lasted well for about 48 hours, more than enough to enjoy several glasses per day.

Calling all super-duper weight losers!

9. julio 2011 William Davis (12)





Have you lost at least 1/2 your weight, e.g., 300 lbs down to 150 lbs? If you have, I have a major national magazine editor looking to talk to you.

If you have gone wheat-free and/or followed the dietary advice offered here in The Heart Scan Blog or through the Track Your Plaque program and would be willing to share your story, please let me know by commenting below. While losing half your body weight is not necessarily a requirement for health, it makes an incredibly inspiring story for others.

If we use your story, I will set aside a copy of my soon-to-be-released book, Wheat Belly.

Lp(a): Be patient with fish oil

8. julio 2011 William Davis (35)
High-dose omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil has become the number one strategy for reduction of lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), in the Track Your Plaque program for gaining control over coronary plaque and heart disease risk.

The original observations made in Tanzanian Bantus in the Lugalawa Study by Marcovina et al first suggested that higher dietary exposure to fish and perhaps omega-3 fatty acids from fish were associated with 40% lower levels of Lp(a). Interestingly, higher omega-3 exposure was also associated with having the longer apo(a) "tails" on Lp(a) molecules, a characteristic associated with more benign, less aggressive plaque-causing behavior.

Of course, the 600+ fish- consuming Bantus in the study consumed fish over a lifetime, from infancy on up through adulthood. So what is the time course of response if us non-Bantus take higher doses of fish oil to reduce Lp(a)?

We have been applying this approach in the Track Your Plaque program and in my office practice for the past few years. To my surprise, the majority of people taking 6000 mg per day of omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA, will drop Lp(a) after one year.  Some have required two years.  Therefore checking Lp(a) after, say, 3 or 6 months, is nearly useless. (An early response does, however, appear to predict a very vigorous 1-2 year response.)

I'm sure that there is an insightful lesson to be learned from the incredibly slow response, but I don't currently know what it is.  But this strategy has become so powerful, despite its slow nature, that it has allowed many people to back down on niacin.

Baby your pancreas

1. julio 2011 William Davis (35)
There it is, sitting quietly tucked under your diaphragm, nestled beneath layers of stomach and intestines, doing its job of monitoring blood sugar, producing insulin, and secreting the digestive enzymes that allow you to convert a fried egg, tomato, or dill pickle into the components that compose you.

But, if you've lived the life of most Americans, your pancreas has had a hard life. Starting as a child, it was forced into the equivalent of hard labor by your eating carbohydrate-rich foods like Lucky Charms, Cocoa Puffs, Hoho's, Ding Dongs, Scooter Pies, and macaroni and cheese. Into adolescent years and college, it was whipped into subservient labor with pizza, beer, pretzels, and ramen noodles. As an adult, the USDA, Surgeon General's office and other assorted purveyors of nutritional advice urged us to cut our fat, cholesterol, and eat more "healthy whole grains"; you complied, exposing your overworked pancreas to keep up its relentless work pace, spewing out insulin to accommodate the endless flow of carbohydrate-rich foods.

So here we are, middle aged or so, with pancreases that are beaten, worn, hobbling around with a walker, heaving and gasping due to having lost 50% or more of its insulin-producing beta cells. If continued to be forced to work overtime, it will fail, breathing its last breath as you and your doctor come to its rescue with metformin, Actos, Januvia, shots of Byetta, and eventually insulin, all aimed at corralling the blood sugar that your failed pancreas was meant to contain.

What if you don't want to rescue your flagging pancreas with drugs? What if you want to salvage your poor, wrinkled, exhausted pancreas, eaking out whatever is left out of the few beta cells you have left?

Well, then, baby your pancreas. If this were a car with 90,000 miles on it, but you want it to last 100,000, then change the oil frequently, keep it tuned, and otherwise baby your car, not subjecting it to extremes and neglect to accelerate its demise. Same with your pancreas: Allow it to rest, not subjecting it to the extremes of insulin production required by carbohydrate consumption. Don't expose it to foods like wheat flour, cornstarch, oats, rice starch, potatoes, and sucrose that demand overtime and hard labor out of your poor pancreas. Go after the foods that allow your pancreas to sleep through a meal like eggs, spinach, cucumbers, olive oil, and walnuts. Give your pancreas a nice back massage and steer clear of "healthy whole grains," the nutritional equivalent of a 26-mile marathon. Pay your pancreas a compliment or two and allow it to have occasional vacations with a brief fast.

Bread equals sugar

22. junio 2011 William Davis (36)
Bread, gluten-free or gluten-containing, in terms of carbohydrate content, is equivalent to sugar.

Two slices of store-bought whole grain bread, such as the gluten-free bread I discussed in my last post, equals 5- 6 teaspoons of table sugar:








 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some breads can contain up to twice this quantity, i.e., 10-12 teaspoons equivalent readily-digestible carbohydrate.

Gluten-free carbohydrate mania

18. junio 2011 William Davis (14)
Here's a typical gluten-free product, a whole grain bread mix. "Whole grain," of course, suggests high-fiber, high nutrient composition, and health.



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What's it made of? Here's the ingredient list:
Cornstarch, Tapioca Starch, Whole Grain Sorghum Flour, Whole Grain Teff Flour, Whole Grain Amaranth Flour, Soy Fiber, Xanthan Gum, Soy Protein, Natural Cocoa and Ascorbic Acid

In other words, carbohydrate, carbohydrate, carbohydrate, carbohydrate and some other stuff. It means that a sandwich with two slices of bread provides around 42 grams net carbohydrates, enough to send your blood sugar skyward, not to mention trigger visceral fat formation, glycation, small LDL particles and triglycerides.

Take a look at the ingredients and nutrition facts on the label of any number of gluten-free products and you will see the same thing. Many also have proud low-fat claims.

This is how far wrong the gluten-free world has drifted: Trade the lack of gluten for a host of unhealthy effects.

Gluten-free is going DOWN

16. junio 2011 William Davis (18)
The majority of gluten-free foods are junk foods.

People with celiac disease experience intestinal destruction and a multitude of other inflammatory conditions due to an immune response gone haywire. The disease  is debilitating and can be fatal unless all gliadin/gluten sources are eliminated, such as wheat, barley, and rye.

A gluten-free food industry to provide foods minus gliadin/gluten has emerged, now large enough to become an important economic force. Even some Big Food companies are getting into the act, like Kraft, that now lists foods they consider gluten-free.

So we have gluten-free breads, cupcakes, scones, pretzels, breakfast cereals, crackers, bagels, muffins, pancake mixes and on and on. All are made with ingredients like brown rice flour, cornstarch, tapioca starch, and potato starch. Occasionally, they are made with amaranth, teff, or quinoa, other less popular, but gluten-free, grains.

Problem: These gluten-free ingredients, while lacking gliadin and gluten, make you fat and diabetic. They increase visceral fat, cause blood sugar to skyrocket higher than nearly all other foods (even higher than wheat, which is already pretty bad), trigger formation of small LDL and triglycerides, and are responsible for exaggerated postprandial (after-eating) lipoprotein distortions. They cause heart disease, cataracts, arthritis, and a wide range of other conditions, all driven by the extreme levels of glycation they generate.

Eliminating all things wheat from the diet is one of the most powerful health strategies I have ever witnessed. But replacing lost wheat with manufactured gluten-free foods is little better than replacing your poppyseed muffin with a bowl of jelly beans.

Whenever we've relied on the food industry to supply a solution, they've managed to bungle it. Saturated fat was replaced with hydrogenated fat and polyunsaturates; sucrose replaced with high-fructose corn syrup. Now, they are replacing wheat gluten-containing foods with junk carbohydrates.

For this reason, I am bringing out a line of recipes and foods that will be wheat gliadin/gluten-free, do NOT contain the junk carbohydrates that gluten-free foods are made of, and are genuinely healthy. They are tasty, to boot.

The gluten-free industry needs to smarten up. Having a following that is free of cramps and diarrhea but are obese, diabetic, and hobbling on arthritic knees and hips is good for nobody.

The myth of mild coronary disease

19. January 2008 William Davis (27)
I hear this comment from patients all the time:

"They told me that I had only mild blockages and so I had nothing to worry about."

That's one big lie.

I guess I shouldn't call it a lie. Is it a lie when it comes from ignorance, arrogance, laziness, or greed?

"Mild coronary disease" is usually a label applied to coronary atherosclerotic plaque that is insufficient to block flow. Thus, having a few 20%, 30%, or 40% blockages would be labeled "mild." No stents are (usually) implanted, no bypass surgery performed, and symptoms should not be attributable to the blockages. Thus, "mild."

The problem is that "mild" blockages are no less likely to rupture, the eruptive process that resembles a little volcano spewing lava. Except it's not lava, but the internal contents of atherosclerotic plaque. When these internal contents of plaque gain contact with blood, the coagulation process is set in motion and the artery both clots and constricts. Chest pains and heart attack result.

So, the essential point is not necessarily the amount of blood flow through the artery, but the presence of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Just having plaque--any amount of plaque--sets the stage to permit plaque rupture.

One thing is clear: The more plaque you have, the greater the risk for rupture. But the quantity of plaque cannot be measured by the "percent blockage." It is measured by the lengthwise extent of plaque, as well as the depth of plaque within the wall. Neither of these risk features for plaque rupture can be gauged by percent blockage.


Coronary atherosclerosis is a diffuse process that involves much of the length of the artery. It is therefore folly to believe that a 15 mm long stent has addressed the disease. This is no more a solution than to replace the faucet in your kitchen in a house with rotting pipes from the basement up.

The message: ANY amount of coronary plaque is reason to engage in a program of prevention--prevention of plaque rupture, prevention of further plaque growth, perhaps even regression (reversal). It is NOT a reason to be complacent and buy into the myth of "mild" coronary disease, the misguided notion that arises from ill-conceived procedural heart disease solutions.


Image courtesy Wikipedia.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Red flags for lipoprotein(a)

17. January 2008 William Davis (24)


Lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), is an important cause for heart disease, heart attack, and coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

How do you know you have it?

Of course, it could be as simple as checking a blood level. But there are also a number of red flags for the presence of Lp(a), tell-tale signs that suggest it is present and contributing to the growth of coronary plaque.

I've seen so much of this pattern over the years that it's gotten so that I can pretty much pick out most of the people with Lp(a) just by either looking at them or by hearing their story. I do this simply by knowing what hints to look for.

Some of the red flags for Lp(a) include:

--High blood pressure in a slender person. Overweight is the overwhelmingly common reason for high blood pressure. However, inappropriate high blood pressure in a slender person can serve to tip you off that Lp(a) is present.

--HIgh LDL cholesterol poorly responsive to statin drugs. For instance, someone's LDL cholesterol of 190 mg/dl will be treated with Lipitor 40 mg, but drops to only 165 mg/dl, a very poor response. This can sometimes point towards Lp(a).

--Family clustering of heart disease in people before age 60. For instance, father with heart attack age 53, uncle with heart attack at age 55, aunt with heart attack age 59, etc. This clustering of risk, more often than not, signals Lp(a).

--Coronary disease or high heart scan score in the presence of relatively bland appearing lipids. For instance, LDL cholesterol 130 mg/dl, HDL 55 mg/dl, triglycerides 70 mg/dl on no medications or other efforts--figures ordinarily not associated with high likelihood of heart disease--yet heart disease is indeed present. This can mean that Lp(a) is the concealed culprit behind coronary atherosclerosis.

These red flags are not perfect. If you lack any of them, it doesn't necessarily rule out the possbility of having Lp(a). They simply serve as signs to suggest that Lp(a) may be lurking.

Once Lp(a) is identified, then the battle begins to gain control over this somewhat troublesome genetic pattern. Resourcesfulness and some ingenuity may be required. However, knowing that you have it shows you where to concentrate your efforts.

Vytorin study explodes--But what's the real story?

15. January 2008 William Davis (28)
The makers of Vytorin, Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals, issued a press release about the the Enhance Study yesterday. The news has triggered a media frenzy.

The NY Times reporting of the story:

Drug Has No Benefit in Trial, Makers Say

The 700 participants in the trial all had a condition called "heterozygous hypercholesterolemia," a genetic disorder that permits very high LDL cholesterols. The average LDL at the start was 318 mg/dl.

The Times reported that, while Vytorin cut "LDL levels by 58 percent, compared to a 41 percent reduction with simvastatin alone," but "the average thickness of the carotid artery plaque increased by 0.0111 of a millimeter in patients taking Vytorin, compared to an increase of 0.0058 of a millimeter in those taking only simvastatin." There was no difference in heart attacks or other "events" between the two groups.

(Vytorin is the combination of simvastatin and Zetia.)

In other words, the participants taking Vytorin had 53 ten-thousands of a millimeter more plaque growth than the group taking just simvastatin.

I am always uncomfortable when put in the position of defending a drug or drug company. However, it is patently absurd that this study has generated such attention. I suspect the public and media are waiting for another Vioxx-like debacle, with memories of concealed or suppressed data that suggested heightened heart attack risk that was dismisssed by the drug manufacturer. (That's not to say that the company hasn't been trying to delay or modify the outcome of the study, which they apparently have, much to the objections of the FDA.)

However, at this point, there is no reason to believe that this question possesses any parallels to the Vioxx fiasco.

If we accept the data as reported, however, we might say it calls the entire "Lipid Hypothesis" into question: If LDL cholesterol is significantly reduced but is not correlated with reduction in plaque, is LDL the means by which atherosclerotic plaque progresses? This trial does not answer that question, but does serve to raise some doubt.

Another issue: Heterozygous hypercholesterolemia, and thereby LDL cholesterol, may not be the overwhelming driver of plaque growth in this population. It is probably the number of small LDL particles, a factor which is not revealed by LDL cholesterol. For this reason, heterozygous hypercholesterolemia by itself is insufficient to cause heart disease. Some other factor(s) needs to be present. I would propose that it is the size of the LDL particle: When small, heart disease develops; when large, heart disease is less likely to develop. This issue was not addressed by this study. Readers of The Heart Scan Blog know that conventional LDL cholesterol, the number used in this study, is a virtually worthless number for truly gauging plaque behavior because of its flagrant inaccuracy.

So, there are substantial uncertainties, contrary to the absolute certainty expressed by people like Dr. Steve Nissen (who, by the way, has no expertise in lipoprotein disorders). It is premature to reach any firm conclusions from this study. The only conclusions that I personally come to are 1) Is this yet another reason to question the entire Lipid Hypothesis as it stands? and 2) What would the results have been had LDL particle number and LDL particle size been examined, not just LDL?

I would not automatically conclude that Zetia causes carotid plaque. This is absurd. And I am definitely not one to come to the rescue of a drug or drug manufacturer. I am simply after understanding and truth.

As an interesting aside, Dr. Howard Hodis of the University of Southern California and an expert in carotid scanning for heart disease prevention research, made a comment relevant to us in the Track Your Plaque program:

"Clearly, progression of atherosclerosis is the only way you get events,” Dr. Hodis said. “If you don’t treat progression, then you get events."

Dr. Arthur Agatston in the news

15. January 2008 William Davis (7)


The Miami Herald has a new report on Dr. Arthur Agagtston (of South Beach Diet fame) to announce his new book, The South Beach Heart Health Revolution:
The South Beach Diet doctor takes on cardio care

Agatston, the granddaddy of CT heart scanning, is always at least worth listening to. Although his diet may not be perfect, it clearly has jumped light years ahead of conventional diets like the inane American Heart Association diet. The South Beach Diet focuses on healthy oils, nuts, lean meats, vegetables, and fruits, while slashing grains (except in the often disastrous phase III).

The article lists Dr. Agatston's advice to achieve a "heart healthy" lifestyle:


• Maintain a healthy weight through diet.

• Undergo CT heart scans to check for arterial plaque.

• Do aerobic exercise, along with stretching and strengthening workouts.

• Ask your doctor about taking statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs.


We wouldn't have CT heart scan scoring (at least in its present form) without Dr. Agatston, who developed the algorithm for scoring years ago in the early days of heart scanning. We also need to credit him with putting together a rational diet despite the counter-information emanating from the Heart Association, the USDA (a la Food Pyramid, the one that makes Americans fat and diabetic), and the American Diabetes Association, among others.

But "Ask your doctor about taking statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs"? This is where Dr. Agatston begins to falter. While he is putting his enormous notoriety to use, his message is bland and ineffective. "Do aerobic exercise"? We don't need Dr. Agatston to tell us this.

As much as Art Agatston has added to the national conversation on heart disease and diet, he has failed to deliver the message of true heart disease prevention. His approach lacks just a few crucial ingredients like lipoprotein testing, diagnosis of hidden causes of heart disease (like Lp(a)), and vitamin D. (Two years ago I had a patient I saw for an opinion after he'd showed Dr. Agatston his lipoprotein panel. The patient said Dr. Agatston looked at the report and didn't know what to do with it and handed it back to him without comment. He then asked if he wanted his autograph.)

Anyway, the rising tide raises all boats. Agatston's repeated public endorsements of heart scans will help deliver the message that heart disease is detectable in its early stages and should trigger action to follow a heart disease prevention program.

That alone is an accomplishment in a world hell-bent on dragging us into the hospital for procedures.

Take this survey: I DOUBLE-DARE YOU

14. January 2008 William Davis (10)
In a previous post I entitled Heart disease reversal a big "No No", I posed a challenge--a dare--to readers to ask their doctors if coronary heart could be reversed.

Here's what I said:

I dare you: Ask your doctor whether coronary heart disease can be reversed.

My prediction is that the answer will be a flat "NO." Or, something like "rarely, in extraordinary cases," kind of like spontaneous cure of cancer.

There are indeed discussions that have developed over the years in the conventional scientific and medical literature about reversal of heart disease, like Dean Ornish's Lifestyle Heart Trial, the REVERSAL Trial of atorvastatin (Lipitor) and the ASTEROID Trial of rosuvastatin (Crestor). Reversal of atherosclerotic plaque in these trials tends to be small in scale and sporadic.

The concept of reversal of heart disease has simply not gained a foothold in the lexicon nor in the thinking of practicing physicians. Heart disease is a relentlessly, unavoidably, and helplessly progressive disease in their way of thinking. Perhaps we can reduce the likelihood of cardiovascular events like heart attack and death with statin drugs and beta blockers. But reverse heart disease? In your dreams!

We need to change this mentality. Heart disease is a reversible phenomenon. Atherosclerosis in other territories like the carotid arteries is also a reversible pheneomenon. Rather than throwing medicines and (ineffective) diets at you (like the ridiculous American Heart Association program), what if your doctor set out from the start not just to reduce events, but to purposefully reduce your heart's plaque? While it might not succeed in everyone, it would certainly change the focus dramatically.

After all, isn't this the theme followed in cancer treatment? If you had a tumor, isn't cure the goal? Would we accept an oncologist's advice to simply reduce the likelihood of death from cancer but ignore the idea of ridding yourself completely of the disease? I don't think so.

Then why accept "event reduction" as a goal in heart disease? We shouldn't have to. Heart disease reversal--elimination--should be the goal.

I know of one person who actually followed through on this challenge and asked his cardiologist whether his heart disease could be reduced or reversed. As predicted, the answer was no. No explanation followed.

But allow me to reiterate: Heart disease is 1) detectable, 2) quantifiable, 3) controllable, and, in many cases 4) reversible.

What if there was a big payoff to your doctor if heart disease was reversed, say $100,000? That's enough to dwarf the payoff from procedures. Guess what? You'd have doctors fighting for your business, a chance to reverse your disease, ads to that effect, champions of reversal emerging. No new tools would be necessary. They could use the tools already available. Then why hasn't this happened? Is the technology unavailable? Are the treatments ineffective?

No, heart disease is a controllable and reversible process with tools that are available today. But there is, of course, no big payoff for doing it. So the financial incentive remains to do procedures, not to reverse the disease.

But I'd like to re-pose this challenge. Ask your doctor if heart disease can be reversed, or at least reduced. I've even posted a Survey at the top left for anyone who tries.

Again, my prediction: Nobody will try it and nobody will post survey results. Why? Despite my rantings (and those of a few others) about the concept of heart disease being a reversible process, in the public's consciousness it remains a death sentence and the only solution is hospital procedures. My colleagues continue to cultivate this attitude and it serves them well financially.

I'll be disappointed if I prove to be right. I hope that I am wrong. But I don't think that I am.



Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Michael Pollan on Nutritionism

13. January 2008 William Davis (8)


The wonderfully articulate Michael Pollan has written another book. Although he presents little new to anyone who read his previous book, The Omnivore's Dilemma: A natural history of four meals, he is such a wonderful writer, with such clever ways of seeing the world, that I couldn't resist this new, less ambitious book.

The new book is In Defense of Food: An eater's manifesto.

As in Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan reminds us that we've lost contact with real food, foods that our great grandmother would recognize, not the just-add-water, dried, pulverized, sweetened, high-fructose, hydrogenated, shrink-wrapped, artificially-colored products that pass as foods in the grocery store.

In particular, Pollan attacks what he calls the ideology of Nutritionism. "The widely shared but unexamined assumption is that the key to understanding food is indeed the nutrient. Put another way: Foods are essentially the sum of their nutrient parts." He calls this "Nutritionism."

In the section called "Nutritionism comes to market," he uses margarine as the prototypical product of this philosophy:

"No idea could be more sympathetic to manufacturers of processed foods, which surely explains why they have been so happy to jump on the nutritionism bandwagon. Indeed, nutritionism supplies the ultimate justification for processing food by implying that with a judicious application of food science, fake foods can be made even more nutritious than the real thing. This of course is the story of margarine, the first important synthetic food to slip into our diet. Margarine started out in the nineteenth century as a cheap and inferior sustitute for butter, but with the emergence of the lipid hypothesis in the 1950s, manufacturers quickly figured out that their product, with some tinkering, could be marketed as better--smarter!--than butter: butter with the bad nutrients removed (cholesterol and saturated fats) and replaced with good nutrients (polyunsaturated fats and then vitamins). Every time margarine was found wanting, the wanted nutrient could simply be added (Vitamin D? Got it now. Vitamin A? Sure, no problem. But of course margarine, being the product not of nature but of human ingenuity, could never be any smarter than the nutritionists dictating its recipe, and the nutritionists turned out to be not nearly as smart as they thought. The food scientists' ingenious method for making healthy vegetable oil solid at room temperature--by blasting it with hydrogen--turned out to produce unhealthy trans fats, fats that we now know are more dangerous than the saturated fats they were designed to replace. Yet the beauty of a processed food like margarine is that it can be endlessly reengineererd to overcome even the most embarrassing about-face in nutritional thinking--including the real wincer that its main ingredient might cause heart attacks and cancer. So now the trans fats are gone, and margarine marches on, unfazed and apparently unkillable. Too bad the same cannot be said of an unknown number of margarine eaters."

Anyone who reads and thinks a lot about nutrition will find little new here. But nobody says it better than Pollan. While Gary Taubes (Good Calories, Bad Calories) is the real thinker of our age about nutrition, Michael Pollan is the true writer about it.

With books like these making the bestsellers list, I believe that we are gradually seeing rationality return to eating. It makes people skeptical of the glitzy ads that run on TV around the clock. I hope that Pollan's new book will make more and more people leery of the latest health claim that adorn some product. "More omega-3!" "A low-fat snack." "Heart Healthy!" "High in healthy fiber!"

Cholesterol follies

11. January 2008 William Davis (5)
Rudy is a 59-year old man. He's had three heart catheterizations, two of which resulted in stent implantations. Obviously, Rudy should be the beneciary of a prevention program.

His basic cholesterol values:

Total cholesterol 164 mg/dl--pretty good, it seems.

LDL cholesterol 111 mg/dl--Wow! Not too bad.

HDL cholesterol 23 mg/dl--Uh oh, that's not too good.

Triglycerides 148 mg/dl--By national (NCEP ATP-III) guidelines, triglycerides of 150 mg/dl and below fall within the desirable range.


So we're left with an apparently isolated low HDL cholesterol, nothing more. On the surface, it doesn't seem all that bad.

Of course, we need to keep in mind that this pattern landed Rudy in the hospital on several occasions and prompted several procedures.

Should we rely on these results? How about Rudy's lipoproteins?

Here they are (NMR; Liposcience):

LDL particle number 2139 nmol/l--Representing an effective LDL of 213--over 100 mg higher than the standard value (above) suggests.

Small LDL particles 2139 nmol/l--In other words, 100% of all Rudy's LDL particles are small. (Thus, weight-based measures of LDL cholesterol fail to tell us that he has too many small particles.)

Large HDL 0 (zero) mg/dl--Rudy has virtually no functional HDL particles.


If we had relied only on Rudy's standard cholesterol values, we would have focused on raising HDL. However, lipoprotein analysis uncovered a smorgasbord of additional severe patterns. The high LDL particle number comprised 100% of small particles is especially concerning.

Truly, conventional cholesterol testing is a fool's game, one that time and again fails to fully uncover or predict risk for heart disease. One look at Rudy's lipoproteins and it becomes immediately obvious: This man is at high risk for heart disease and the causes are clear.

Of course, many physicians and insurance companies argue that the added information provided by this portion of the lipoprotein test added around $70 more to the expense.

When you see results like this, is there even a choice?

Equal calories, different effects

9. January 2008 William Davis (15)
A great study was just published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology:

Metabolic effects of weight loss on a very-low-carbohydrate diet compared with an isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet in abdominally obese subjects.

88 obese adults with metabolic syndrome were placed on either of two diets:

1) A very low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet (VLCHF): 4% calories from carbohydrates (truly low-carb); 35% protein; 61% fat, of which 20% were saturated. In the first 8 weeks, carbohydrate intake was severely limited to <20 grams per day, then <40 grams per day thereafter.

2) A high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (HCLF): 46% calories from carbohydrates; 24% protein; 30% total fat, of which <8% were saturated.

Both diets were equal in calories (around 1400 calories per day--rather restrictive) and participants were maintained on the program for six months.

At the end of the six month period, participants on the VLCHF diet lost 26.4 lb, those on the HCLF diet 22.2 lbs (though the difference did not reach statistical significance). Thus, both approaches were spectacularly successful at weight loss.

Surprisingly, blood pressure, blood sugar, insulin and insulin sensitivity (a measure called HOMA) were all improved with both diets equally. Thus, these measures seemed to respond more to weight loss and less to the food composition.

Lipids differed between the two diets, however:


VLCHF:
Total cholesterol: initial 208.4 mg/dl final 207.7 mg/dl

LDL: initial 125 mg/dl final 123 mg/dl

HDL: initial 55 mg/dl final 64.5 mg/dl

Triglycerides: initial 144 mg/dl final 74 mg/dl

Apoprotein B: initial 98 mg/dl final 96 mg/dl


HCLF
Total cholesterol: initial 208.4 mg/dl final 187.5 mg/dl

LDL: initial 126 mg/dl final 108 mg/dl

HDL: initial 51 mg/dl final 54.5 mg/dl

Triglycerides: initial 157.6 mg/dl final 111 mg/dl

Apoprotein B: initial 100 mg/dl final 95 mg/dl


Some interesting differences became apparent:
--The VLCHF diet more effectively reduced triglycerides and raised HDL.
--The HCLF diet more effectively reduced total and LDL.
--There was no difference in Apo B (no statistical difference).

The investigators also made the observation that individual responsiveness to the diets differed substantially. They concluded that both diets appeared to exert no adverse effect on any of the parameters measured, both were approximately equally effective in weight loss with slight advantage with the carbohydrate restricted diet, and that lipid effects were indeed somewhat different.


What lessons can we learn from this study? I would propose/extrapolate several:

When calories are severely restricted, the composition of diet may be less important. However, when calories are not so severely restricted, then composition may assume a larger role. When calories are unrestricted, I would propose that the carbohydrate restriction approach may yield larger effects on weight loss and on lipids when compared to a low-fat diet.

The changes in total cholesterol are virtually meaningless. Part of the reason that it didn't drop with the VLCHF diet is that HDL cholesterol increased. In other words, total cholesterol = LDL + HDL + trig/5. A rise in HDL raises total cholesterol.

Despite no change in Apo B, if NMR lipoprotein analysis had been performed (or other assessment of LDL particle size made), then there would almost certainly have seen a dramatic shift from undesirable small LDL to less harmful large LDL particles on the VLCHF diet, less change on the HCLF diet.

The lack of restriction of saturated fat in the VLCHF that failed to yield adverse effects is interesting. It would be conssistent with the re-analysis of saturated fat as not-the-villain-we thought-it-was put forward by people like Gary Taubes (Good Calories, Bad Calories).

In the Track Your Plaque experience, small LDL is among the most important measures of all for coronary plaque reversal and control. Unfortunately, although this study was well designed and does add to the developing scientific exploration of diet, it doesn't add to our insight into small LDL effects. But if I had to make a choice, I'd choose the low-carbohydrate, high-fat approach for overall benefit.

Is skinny necessary for reversal?

6. January 2008 William Davis (19)
Nothing we do in the Track Your Plaque program guarantees that coronary atherosclerotic plaque or your heart scan score is reduced or reversed.



But everything we do weighs the odds in your favor of successfully achieving reversal: correction of lipoprotein patterns, uncovering hidden patterns like Lp(a), vitamin D, being optimistic--it all tips the scales in your favor.

But how necessary is it to be skinny, meaning somewhere near your ideal weight?

It is important, but not as important as it used to be. Let me explain.

I used to tell people that plaque would not regress unless ideal weight was achieved and all the parameters of abdominal obesity and metabolic syndrome were corrected. This includes blood pressure, blood sugar, low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, and high c-reactive protein. Curiously, though, as we've gotten better and better at reducing coronary calcium scores, I've been finding that complete correction of all parameters, including achieving ideal weight, don't seem to be as necessary to achieve plaque reversal.

I almost hate to say this, but I've even witnessed significant drops in heart scan scores in people with body mass indexes (BMI) of 30--obese.

The necessary change doesn't seem to be weight, per se, but the consequences of weight. In other words, if you remain overweight, but blood sugar, HDL, small LDL, etc. have shown substantial improvement, then reversal is still achievable.

Then is it okay to be fat or overweight?

Reducing weight to ideal weight does indeed tip the scales in your favor, since it represents an observable, perceptible measure of all associated patterns. Dropping weight can also minimize the need for efforts to correct the consequences of overweight--you might need less niacin, fish oil, exercise, blood pressure medication, etc. to succeed at plaque reversal. Achieving ideal weight may also provide benefits like reduced risk of cancers and degenerative diseases of the hips and knees. But, to my recent surprise over the last two years, achieving ideal weight is not an absolute requirement to achieve reversal.

This is contrary to what some others say. For instance, in an upcoming interview with Dr. Joel Fuhrman on the Track Your Plaque website, Dr. Fuhrman argues that 10% body fat for males, 22% body fat for females, accelerates plaque and symptom reversal. Dr. Fuhrman is author of Fasting and Eating for Health, Eat to Live, and a new upcoming 2-part book, Eat for Health, and proponent of high-nutrient vegetarian diets and fasting. Dr. Fuhrman has been helpful in teaching us some important lessons on how to apply periodic fasting to accelerate plaque reversal.

So, which is it, fat or skinny?

If given a choice (which everyone has), I'd choose skinny. But, provided all the parameters associated with overweight are corrected, then remaining overweight doesn't necessarily mean that you can't still succeed at plaque reversal.

If you are interested in knowing what your ideal weight is, there are a number of software calculators and tables available, including the HealthCentral.com calculator and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute BMI Calculator.


Image courtesy Wikipedia.

Copyright William Davis, MD 2008

MESA Study: Track Your Plaque-Lite?

4. January 2008 William Davis (11)
The long-awaited data analyses from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) are finally making it to press.

The MESA Study is an enormously ambitious and important study of 6800 people, 45 to 84 years old, that includes white, black, Hispanic, and Chinese participants from six communities around the U.S. (Forsyth County, NC; Northern Manhattan and the Bronx, NY; Baltimore and Baltimore County, Md; St Paul, Minn; Chicago, Ill; and Los Angeles County, California.) Participants had no history of heart disease at enrollment. All underwent a heart scan (either EBT or multi-detector heart scans) at the start. It is therefore the largest prospective study involving heart scans ever performed. It is, not unexpectedly, yielding some fascinating observations relevant to the Track Your Plaque program. The MESA study is, incidentally, funded by the non-commercial, publicly-funded National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and is therefore presumably free of commercial bias.

Among the most recent publications is Risk factors for the progression of coronary artery calcification in asymptomatic subjects: Results from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) In this analysis of 5700 of the MESA participants, a repeat heart scan was obtained an average of 2.4 years after the first. Conventional risk factors for heart disease were obtained at the start (see below for details under Measurement of Covariates.)

After analyzing the data and risk factors assessed, such as age, sex, race, blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), presence of diabetes, blood sugar, and family history of heart disease, two questions were asked:

1) What risk factors predict heart scan scores?

2) What risk factors predict progression (i.e., increase) in heart scan scores?

(The second question is particularly relevant to us and the Track Your Plaque experience.)

The MESA analysis showed that essentially all the risk factors assessed correlated with both the initial heart scan score, as well as the rate of progression. No surprises here.

But the most eye-opening finding was that the conventional risk factors assessed explained only 12% of the variation and progression in heart scan scores (coefficient of determination, or R squared, = 0.12.) In other words:

--Conventional risk factors like LDL cholesterol, diabetes, and excess weight explain only a tiny fraction of why someone develops coronary atherosclerotic plaque as represented by a heart scan score.

--The great majority of risk for a high heart scan score remains unexplained by conventional risk factors.

--The great majority of risk for progressive increase in heart scan scores also remains unexplained by conventional risk factors.


In light of the MESA analysis, it's no surprise that strategies like reducing LDL cholesterol with statin drugs fails to prevent most heart attacks. It's no surprise that conventional prevention programs that talk about "knowing your numbers," eating a "balanced" or low-fat diet, etc., fail miserably to prevent the vast majority of heart attacks and heart procedures.

MESA confirms what we've been saying these past few years: If you want control over coronary heart disease, you won't find it in Lipitor, a low-fat diet, and other limited conventional notions of risk. Correction of conventional risk factors like cholesterol and blood pressure are, in a word, a failure. I wouldn't even call the conventional approach Track Your Plaque-Lite. They don't even come close.

If conventional risk factors can explain only 12% of the reason behind heart disease, we've got to look elsewhere to understand why you and I develop this process.



Measurement of Covariates
Information on demographics, smoking, medical conditions, and family history was collected by questionnaire at the initial examination. Height and weight were also measured at the baseline examination, and blood was drawn for measurements, including lipids, inflammation, fasting glucose, fibrinogen, and creatinine. Resting blood pressure was measured 3 times in the seated position, and the average of the last 2 measurements was used in the analysis. Medication use was determined by questionnaire. Additionally, the participant was asked to bring to the clinic containers for all medications used during the 2 weeks before the visit. The interviewer then recorded the name of each medication, the prescribed dose, and frequency of administration from the containers.


Copyright 2008 William Davis,MD

My life is easy

17. February 2007 William Davis (3)
In the old days (the 1980s and 1990s), practicing cardiology was very physically and emotionally demanding. Since procedures dominated the practice and preventive strategies were limited, heart attacks were painfully common. It wasn't unusual to have to go to the hospital for a patient having a heart attack at 3 am several times a week.

Those were the old days. Nowadays, my life is easy. Heart attacks, for the most part, are a thing of the past in the group of people who follow the Track Your Plaque principles. I can't remember the last time I had a coronary emergency for someone following the program.

But I am reminded of what life used to be like for me when I occasionally have to live up to my hospital responsibilities and/or cover the practices of my colleagues. (Though I voice my views on prevention to my colleagues, the most I get is a odd look. When a colleague recently covered my practice for a weekend while I visited family out of town, he commented to me how quiet my practice was. I responded, "That's because my patients are essentially cured." "Oh, sure they are." He laughed. No registration that he had witnessed something that was genuine and different from his experience of day-to-day catastrophe among his own patients. None.)

I recently had to provide coverage for a colleague for a week while he took his family to Florida. During the 7 days, his patients experienced 4 heart attacks. That is, 4 heart attacks among patients under the care of a cardiologist.

If you want some proof of the power of prevention, watch your results and compare them to the "control" group of people around you: neighbors, colleagues, etc. Unfortunately, the word on prevention, particularly one as powerful as Track Your Plaque, is simply not as widespread as it should be. Instead, it's drowned out in the relentless flood of hospital marketing for glitzy hospital heart programs, the "ask your doctor about" ads for drugs like Plavix, which is little better than spit in preventing heart attacks (except in stented patients), and the media's fascinating with high-tech laser, transplant, robotic surgery, etc.

Prevention? That's not news. But it sure can make the slow but sure difference between life and death, having a heart attack or never having a heart attack.

My bread contains 900 mg omega-3

15. February 2007 William Davis (8)
Phyllis is the survivor of a large heart attack (an "anterior" myocardial infarction involving the crucial front of the heart) several years ago. Excessive fatigue prompted a stress test, which showed poor blood flow in areas outside the heart attack zone. This prompted a heart catheterization, then a bypass operation one year ago.

FINALLY, Phyllis began to understand that her unhealthy lifestyle played a role in causing her heart disease. But lifestyle alone wasn't to blame. Along with being 70 lbs overweight and overindulging in unhealthy sweets every day, she also had lipoprotein(a), small LDL particles, and high triglycerides. The high triglycerides were also associated with its evil "friends," VLDL and IDL (post-prandial, or after-eating, particles).

When I met her, Phyllis' triglycerides typically ranged from 200-300 mg/dl . Fish oil was the first solution, since it is marvelously effective for reducing triglycerides, as well as VLDL and IDL. Her dose: 6000 mg of a standard 1000 mg capsule (6 capsules) to provide 1800 mg EPA + DHA, the effective omega-3 fatty acids.

But Phyllis is not terribly good at following advice. She likes to wander off and follow her own path. She noticed that the healthy bread sold at the grocery store and containing flaxseed boasted "900 mg of omega-3s per slice!". So she ate two slices of the flaxseed-containing bread per day and dropped the fish oil.

Guess what? Triglycerides promptly rebounded to 290 mg/dl, along with oodles of VLDL and IDL.

A more obvious example occurs in people with a disorder called "familial hypertriglyceridemia," or the inherited inability to clear triglycerides from the blood. These people have triglycerides of 800 mg/dl, 2000 mg/dl, or higher. Fish oil yields dramatic drops of hundreds, or even thousands of mg. Fish oil likely achieves this effect by activating the enzyme, lipoprotein lipase, that is responsible for clearing blood triglycerides. Flaxseed oil and other linolenic acid sources yield . . .nothing.

Don't get me wrong. Flaxseed is a great food. As the ground seed, it reduces LDL cholesterol, reduces blood sugar, provides fiber for colon health, and may even yield anti-cancer benefits. Flaxseed oil is a wonderful oil, rich in monounsaturates, low in saturates, and rich in linolenic acid, an oil fraction that may provides heart benefits a la Mediterranean diet.

But linolenic acid from flaxseed is not the same as EPA + DHA from fish oil. This is most graphically proven by the lack of any triglyceride-reducing effects of flaxseed preparations.

Enjoy your flaxseed oil and ground flaxseed--but don't stop your fish oil because of it. Heart disease and coronary plaque are serious business. You need serious tools to combat and control them. Fish oil is serious business for triglycerides. Flaxseed is not.

More Omnivore's Dilemma

11. February 2007 William Davis (2)
Another irresistible quote from Michael Pollan’s book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma:

“In many ways breakfast cereal is the prototypical processed food: four cents’ worth of commodity corn (or some other equally cheap grain) transformed into four dollars’ worth of processed food. What an alchemy! Yet it is performed straightforwardly enough: by taking several of the output streams issuing from a wet mill (corn meal, corn starch, corn sweetener, as well as a handful of tinier chemical fractions) and then assembling them into an attractively novel form. Further value is added in the form of color and taste, then branding and packaging. Oh yes, and vitamins and minerals, which are added to give the product a sheen of healthfulness and to replace the nutrients that are lost whenever whole foods are processed. On the strength of this alchemy the cereals group generates higher profits for General Mills than any other division. Since the raw materials in processed foods are so abundant and cheap (ADM and Cargill will gladly sell them to all comers) protecting whatever is special about the value you add to them is imperative.”

A food manufacturer’s nightmare is when you and your family shop in the produce aisle in the grocery store. Produce is unmodified (aside from the pesticide and genetic-engineering issues), not added to, and therefore of no interest to the food manufacturer, since no additional profit can be squeezed out of it. If you pay 45 cents for a cucumber, there’s no room for a processor to multiply it’s return.

Vegetables and fruits have imperfections, no doubt, particularly pesticide residues and the “dumbing-down” of some foods to increase their desirability (e.g., green grapes, what I call “grape candy”). But vegetables and fruits are the closest you can get to foods that are essentially unmodified by a food manufacturer. Due to the absence of processing, they are not calorie-dense like a bag of chips; they include all the naturally-occurring healthy factors like flavonoids that food scientists have, thus far, struggled and failed to identify, quantify, and control; and they lack all the unhealthy additives that processed foods require for extended shelf life, palatability, and reconstitution (anti-separating agents, emulsifiers, sweeteners, etc.)

Vegetables, in particular, should be the cornerstone of your plaque control program. Not breakfast cereals, breads, bacon, sausage, mayonnaise, fruit drinks and soda, all the foods that worsen the causes of coronary plaque and raise your heart scan score.

If you would like to understand how the current perverted state of affairs in food have come about, Pollan’s book is must reading.

Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma

11. February 2007 William Davis (0)

“ ‘You are what you eat’ is a truism hard to argue with, and yet it is, as a visit to a feedlot suggests, incomplete, for you are what what you eat eats, too. And what we are, or have become, is not just meat but number 2 corn and oil.”

Author Michael Pollan offers unique, enlightening, and entertaining insights into the food we eat in his new book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A natural history of four meals.

Pollan draws parallels between the dilemma of the primitive human living in the wild, having to stumble through the choices of animals and plants that could nourish or kill, and the ironically modern return of this phenomenon in present-day supermarkets. While the dangers of food choices aren’t as immediate as in the wild (eat the wrong mushroom or herb, for instance, and you die), they can nonetheless be life-threatening, or at least health-threatening. Hydrogenated oils, high-fructose corn syrup, carageenan, guar gum. . .“What is all this stuff anyway, and where in the world did it come from?”

Among the issues Pollan discusses is that of modern cattle raising practices: the rush to fatten a cow from an 80 lb calf to a 1200-pound, bloated cow over a period of 14 months. Nature created this animal to mature over a 4 to 5 year period through grazing, thus it’s beautifully “engineered” ruminant system that allows it to digest cellulose in grasses, a process that humans and other mammals are incapable of. The pressures to bring greater quantities of beef to market at a reduced price and make more money have resulted in a farming industry that encourages the incorporation of unnatural, often inhumane practices like corn feeding (rather than grass grazing), refeeding of bovine body parts (thus “mad cow disease”), and widespread and chronic administration of hormones and antibiotics.

(I can't help but think that the rapid and perverse fattening of cattle by industrial "farming" is paralleled by the fattening of the eating American. After all, we are the hapless recipients of this flood of cheap, unhealthy, plasticized food.)

The industrialization of food has de-personalized the act of eating. You no longer have any connection with the green pepper in your salad (unless you grew it yourself), nor do you have any appreciation for the suffering of the cow in your hamburger. Worse, the distortion of livestock raising practices has modified the food composition of meat. Range-fed animals, leaner and richer in omega-3 fatty acids, have been replaced by the marbled, saturated fat-rich modern grocery bought meats.

This is a theme that Pollan reiterates time and again: how food processing adds value to the manufacturer, often starting with a healthy ingredient but modifying it, adding ingredients, taking out others, until it’s something decidedly unhealthy. Yet the manufacturer will trumpet the fact that a healthy ingredient is included. Breakfast cereals are the most blatant example of this. What the heck are Cheerios but an over-processed attempt to make more money out of the simple oat?

Pollan’s eloquent and unique insights into food are definitely worth reading.

As always, per our Track Your Plaque policy, I recommend Mr. Pollan’s book strictly on its merits. We obtain no “cut”, commission, or other financial gain by recommending his book. Track Your Plaque members pay their modest membership fee for truth. They do not pay for us to advertise something that provides hidden advantage to us. We do not advertise, editorialize to steer you towards a specific product or service. What we say, we truly believe.

The most frequently asked question of all

8. February 2007 William Davis (0)
The most frequently asked question on the Track Your Plaque website:

"Can you recommend a doctor in my area who can help me follow the Track Your Plaque program?"

This is a problem. Unfortunately, I wish I could tell everyone that we have hundreds or thousands of physicians nationwide who have been thoroughly educated and adhere to the principles I believe are crucial in heart disease:

1) Identify and quantify the amount of coronary atherosclerotic plaque present. In 2007, the best technique remains CT heart scans.

2) Identify all hidden causes of plaque. This includes Lp(a), post-prandial disorders, small LDL, and vitamin D deficiency.

3) Correct all patterns.


But we don't.

You'd think that this simple formula, as straightforward and rational as it sounds, would be easily followed by many if not most physicians. But Track Your Plaque followers know that it simply is not true. My colleagues, the cardiologists, are hell-bent on implanting the next new device, providing a lot more excitement to them as well as considerably more revenue.

The primary care physician is already swamped in a sea of new information, going from osteoporosis drugs, to arthritis, to gynecologic issues, to skin rashes and flu. Heart disease prevention? Oh yeah, that too. They can only dabble in heart disease prevention a la prescription for Lipitor. That's quick and easy.

Nonetheless, I believe we should work towards identifying the occasional physician who is indeed willing to help people follow a program like Track Your Plaque. As we grow, we will need to identify some mechanism of professional education and we will maintain a record of these practitioners. But right now, we're simply already stretched to the limit just doing what we are doing.

If you come across a physician who practices in this fashion and you've had a positive relationship, we'd like to hear about it.

Do stents kill?

6. February 2007 William Davis (5)
There's apparently a lively conversation going on at the HeartHawk Blog (www.hearthawk.blogspot.com). Among the hot topics raised was just how bad it is to have a stent.

I think that my comments some time back may have started this controversy. I've lately noticed that having a stent screws up your heart scan scoring in the vicinity of the stent. I was referring to the fact that I've now seen several people in the Track Your Plaque program do everything right and then show what I call "regional reversal": unstented arteries show dramatic drops in score of 18-30%, but the artery with a stent shows significant increase in score.

This is consistent with what we observe in the world outside Track Your Plaque when stents are inserted. Someone will get a stent, for instance, in the left anterior descending artery. A year later, there will be a "new" plaque at the mouth of the stent or just beyond the far end. This is generally treated by inserting another stent. Use of a drug-coated stent seems to have no effect on this issue.

Now, my smart friends in the Track Your Plaque program would immediately ask, "Does this mean you continually end up chasing these plaques that arise as a result of stents? Do you create an endless loop of procedures?"

Thankfully, the majority of times you do not. Rarely, this does happen and can lead to need for bypass surgery to circumvent the response. But it is unusual. The tissue that grows above and below stents does seem to be unusually impervious to the preventive efforts we institute.

Perhaps there's some new supplement, medication, or other strategy that will address this curious new brand of plaque growth. Until then, you and I can only take advantage of what is known. If it's any consolation, the plaque that seems to grow because of a previously inserted stent seems to lack the plaque "rupture" capacity of "naturally-occuring" plaque. It is, indeed, somehow different. It is more benign, less likely to cause heart attack. It's always been my feeling that this tissue behaves more like the "scar" tissue that grows within stents, causing "re-stenosis", a more benign, less rupture-prone kind of tissue.

Dr. Reinhold Vieth on vitamin D

5. February 2007 William Davis (4)
A Track Your Plaque member brough the following webcast to our attention:

Prospects for Vitamin D Nutrition
which can be found at http://tinyurl.com/f93vl

Despite the painfully dull title, the webcast is the best summary of data on the health benefits on vitamin D that I've seen. The presenter is Dr. Reinhold Vieth, who is among the handful of worldwide authorities on vitamin D. In 1999, Dr. Vieth authored the first review to concisely and persuasively argue that vitamin D nutrition was woefully neglected and that its potential for health was enormous.
(See Vieth R, Am J Clin Nutr 1999 May;69(5):842-856 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10232622&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum.)

I predict that, after viewing Dr. Vieth's hour-long discussion, you will be as convinced as I am that vitamin D is crucial for health. Unfortunately, Dr. Vieth doesn't delve into the conversation about the potential effects on heart disease, since his audience was primary interested in multiple sclerosis, a disease for which vitamin D replacement promises to have enormous possibilities. Even in 2007, the data suggesting that vitamin D has heart benefits is circumstantial. Nonetheless, from our experience, I am thoroughly convinced that, with replacement to blood levels of vitamin D to 50 ng/ml, heart scan scores drop more readily and faster.

If you view Dr. Vieth's wonderful webcast, keep in mind that when he discusses vitamin D blood levels, he's using units of nmol/l, rather than ng/ml. To convert nmol/l to ng/ml, divided by 2.5. For example, 125 nmol/l is the same as 50 ng/ml (125/2.5 = 50).

Vitamin D on Good Morning America

1. February 2007 William Davis (9)

Positive comments about vitamin D made it to a discussion on Good Morning America today about the new and exciting developments in nutrition and "functional foods".

I'm thrilled that the media is conducting these conversations. It sure is making my job easier, not having to persuade patients that taking vitamin D is truly and hugely beneficial for health. I still have to struggle with my colleagues, who tell patients to stop the "poisonous" doses we use.

But I worry that many of the details behind vitamin D don't quite make it to the media conversation. These are crucial, make-it-or-break-it issues, such as:

--Vitamin D must be vitamin D3 or cholecalciferol, not D2 or ergocalciferol. D2 is virtually worthless. Little or none is converted to the active D3, despite the fact that D2 is the form often added to some foods.

--Vitamin D3 supplements must be oil-based capsules, or gelcaps. Tablets are so poorly or erratically absorbed that it's simply not worth the effort. (We get ours from the Vitamin Shoppe.)

--The dose should be sufficient to eliminate the phenemena of deficiency, which is around 50 ng/ml. I take 6000 units per day. Dr. John Cannell of www.vitamindcouncil.com takes 5000 units per day. I give my wife 2000 units per day (she's not as deficient as I was), each of my kids 1000 units per day, except for my 180 lb. 15 year old who takes 2000 units.

I fear that, when people hear that vitamin D packs fabulous effects for health, they will take a 400 unit tablet--nothing will happen. They will not obtain the benefits such as reduction of blood pressure and blood sugar; increased bone density, reduction of arthritis, dramatic reduction in risk for fractures; reduction in risk for colon, prostate, and breast cancer; reduction in risk for multiple sclerosis; reduction in inflammatory processes such as those evidenced by C-reactive protein; and facilitation of reduction of heart scan score.

Would you bet your life on chelation?

31. January 2007 William Davis (1)

Hugh's heart scan score was 1751, an awful score. Recall that, at this level of scoring, Hugh's heart attack and death risk is 25% per year.

Obviously, serious efforts need to be taken. In this situation, much as I despise drug companies and what they represent and their heavy-handed ways, I'm more inclined to resort directly to prescription agents, as well as our nutritional supplements and other strategies. The price of dilly-dallying could be his death.

Hugh and his wife asked about chelation. Now, there are five studies I'm aware of that have tried to examine the value of chelation. None showed any measurable benefit, though all were rather weak in design and small in number of participants. One study, for instance, looked at whether anginal chest pains were provoked any later after chelation. Another looked at whether calf claudication, or calf cramping while walking due to artery blockages in the leg arteries, was delayed on treadmill testing after chelation. No benefit was observed: no delay in provocation of angina, no delay in provocation of claudication.

However, the adherents of chelation have been vehement enough that the NIH has funded a large, multi-center study to settle the question once and for all. Best I can tell, the study has not been contaminated by any drug company involvement. It is meant to be an unbiased, objective study of whether chelation has any value.

My personal experience in patients who underwent chelation is that, despite spending hundreds or thousands of dollars, plaque grew at the expected rate--no effect at all.

None of this constitutes proof of efficacy nor proof of lack of efficacy. We will need to await the NIH trial to have better information.

Should Hugh bet his life on chelation? I advised him strongly against it. At this point, the only reason I can see to pursue chelation would be faith--that is, expectation based not on fact, but on hope.

The powerful forces preserving the status quo

31. January 2007 William Davis (1)

An interesting quote from the book, Critical Condition: How health care in American became big business--and bad medicine:


Politics and Profits

To protect its interests and expand its influence, the health care industrial complex has done what all successful special interests do: It's become a big donor and a high-powered lobby in Washington. In the last fifteen years, HMOs, insurers, pharmacuetical companies, hospital corporations, physicians, and other segments of the industry contributed $479 million to political campaigns--more than the energy industry ($315 million), commercial banks ($133 million), and big tobacco ($52 million). More telling is how much the health care industry spends on lobbying. It invests more than any other industry except one, according to the nonpartiisan Center for Responsive Politics. From 1997 to 2000, the most recent year for which complete data is available, the industry spent $734 million lobbying Congress and the executive branch. Only the finance, insurance, and real estate lobby exceeded that amount in the same period, with a ttoal of $823 million. In contrast, the defense industry spent $211 million--less than one-third of the health care expenditure.


These telling statistics indicate just how vigorously profit-seeking forces in heart care are trying to preserve the status quo. Hospitals want to protect their valuable procedure-driven enterprise, the pharmaceutical industry wants to protect its enormous though little-known niche of procedure-based medications (like $1200 a dose ReoPro), and the medical device industry wants to maintain the multi-billion dollar-generating machine aided and abetted by the FDA's 501k rule (that makes entry to market a breeze).

The current procedure based formula for heart disease profits so many and they are desperate to preserve it. Resistance to the deep-pocketed efforts of industry and hospitals will come from people like you and me, trying to propagate a better way.

Remember: hospital procedures for coronary disease represent the failure of prevention. They are not--any longer--successes in and of themselves.

Read a scathing insight into some of these practices by reading investigative journalists' Donald Barlett and James Steele's book, Critical Condition. I found their descriptions painfully accurate. (But don't get too angry! Remember: only optimists reverse their plaque! We need to turn the conversation in a positive direction, not just in this Blog or the Track Your Plaque website, but nationwide.)

One of the new missions for the www.cureality.com website is to help you understand just how powerful, insidious, shrewd, and pervasive the efforts to maintain the current system truly are.