60-year old man dies of high cholesterol

1. February 2012 William Davis (12)

Never saw a headline like this? Neither have I. That's because it doesn't happen.

Cholesterol doesn't harm, maim, or kill. It is simply used as a crude--very crude--marker. It is, in reality, a component of the body, of the cell wall, of lipoproteins (lipid-carrying proteins) in the bloodstream. It is used a an indirect gauge, a "dipstick," for lipoproteins in the blood to those who don't understand how to identify, characterize, and quantify actual lipoproteins in the blood.

Cholesterol itself never killed anybody, any more than a bad paint job on your car could cause a fatal car accident.

What kills people is rupture of atherosclerotic plaque in the coronary arteries. For all practical purposes, you must have atherosclerotic plaque in order for it to rupture (much like a volcano erupts and spews lava). It's not about cholesterol; it's about atherosclerotic plaque. Plaque might contain cholesterol, but cholesterol is not the thing itself that causes heart attack and death.

So why do most people obsess about cholesterol? Good question. It is, at best, a statistical marker for the possibility of having atherosclerotic plaque that ruptures. High cholesterol = higher risk for heart attack, low cholesterol = lower risk for heart attack. But the association is weak and flawed, such that people with high cholesterol can live a lifetime without heart attack, people with low cholesterol can die at age 43.The same holds true for LDL cholesterol, you know, the calculated value based on flawed assumptions about LDL's relationship to total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and VLDL cholesterol.

A crucial oversight in the world of cholesterol: There are many other factors that cause atherosclerotic plaque and its rupture, such as inflammatory phenomena, calcium deposition, artery spasm, hemorrhage within the plaque itself, degradative enzymes, etc., none of which are suggested by cholesterol measures.

But one observation has held up, time and again, over the past 40 years of observations on coronary disease: The greater the quantity of coronary atherosclerotic plaque, the greater the risk of atherosclerotic plaque rupture. An increasing burden of atherosclerotic plaque along the limited confines of coronary arteries, just a few millimeters in diameter and a few centimeters in length, is like a house of cards: It's bound to topple sooner or later, and the bigger it gets, the less stable it becomes.

If you are concerned about future potential for heart disease and heart attack, don't get a cholesterol panel. Get a measure of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Back to basics: Coronary calcium

30. January 2012 William Davis (42)

After having my attentions pulled a thousand different directions these past 6 months, with the release of Wheat Belly and all the wonderful media attention it has attracted, I've decided to pick up here with a series of discussions about the fundamental issues important to the Track Your Plaque program and prevention and reversal of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

I fear the discussions at times have drifted off into the exotic. This is great because this is how we learn new lessons, but we can never lose sight of the basics, else we risk losing control over this disease.

Imagine you've got a beautiful new car. You wax it, gap the spark plugs, rotate the tires, etc. and it looks brand-new, just like it came off the dealer's lot. 50,000 miles pass, however, and you realize you've forgotten to change the oil. Ooops! In other words, no matter how meticulous the attention to transmission, tires, and paint job, neglect of the most basic responsibility can ruin the whole thing. We can't let that happen with heart health.

If we propose to reverse coronary atherosclerotic plaque, we've got to have something to measure. First, it tells us whether we have atherosclerotic plaque in the first place, the stuff that accumulates and blocks flow and causes anginal chest pains, and ruptures like a little volcano and causes heart attacks. Second, it gives us something to track over the years to know whether plaque has grown, stopped growing, or been reduced. Without such a measure, you will be driving without a speedometer or odometer, just guessing whether or not you've gotten to your destination.

Of course, the conventional approach to heart disease and heart attack is not to track atherosclerotic plaque in your coronary arteries, but to track some distant "risk factor" for atherosclerotic plaque, especially LDL cholesterol. But LDL cholesterol is flawed at several levels. First, it is calculated, not measured. The nearly 50-year old Friedewald equation used to calculate LDL cholesterol is based on several flawed assumptions, yielding a value that can be 20, 30, or 50% inaccurate as a rule, only occasionally generating a value close to the real value. (No point in publicizing this problem, of course: Why compromise a $27 billion annual cash cow?) It also ignores the effect of diet. (No, cutting fat does not reduce LDL for real, only the calculated value. Cutting carbohydrates, especially wheat--"healthy whole grains"--slashes measured LDL values like NMR LDL particle number and apoprotein B.)

But all risk factors are, at best, snapshots of the situation at that moment in time. They change from day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year. If you do something dramatic in health, like lose 50 pounds, you can substantially change your risk factors values, like LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol. But you may not modify the amount of atherosclerotic plaque in your heart's arteries.

Measuring the amount of atherosclerotic plaque in your heart's arteries is, in effect, a cumulative expression of the effects of risk factors up until the moment of measurement.

There are several stumbling blocks, however, in the concept of measuring coronary atherosclerotic plaque. We cannot measure all the unique components of plaque, such as fibrous tissue like collagen, or degradative enzymes like collagenases, or inflammatory proteins like matrix metalloproteinase, or the debris of hemorrhage and inflammation. We struggle to contemporaneously mix in measures of bloodborne inflammation, coagulation and viscosity, and physiological phenomena of the artery itself, like endothelial dysfunction, medial (muscle) tone, and adventitial fat.

So we are left with semi-static measures of total coronary atherosclerotic plaque like coronary calcium, obtainable via CT heart scans as a calcium "score." No, it is not perfect. It does not reflect that moment's blood viscosity, it does not reflect the inflammatory status of the one nasty plaque in the mid-left anterior descending, nor does it reflect the irritating sheer effects of a blood pressure of 150/95.

But it's the best we've got.

If anyone has something better, I invite you to speak up. Carotid ultrasound, c-reactive protein, ankle-brachial index, stress nuclear studies, myoglobin, skin cholesterol, KIF6 genotype . . . none of them approach the value, the insight, the trackability of actually measuring coronary atherosclerotic plaque. And the only method we've got to gauge coronary atherosclerotic plaque that is non-invasive and available in 2012? Yup, a good old CT heart scan calcium score.

Myocardial infraction

15. January 2012 William Davis (45)

I've seen a few heart attacks this past year . . . but none in the people who follow this program.

I saw a heart attack in a priest, a wonderful man who was unable to say "no" to his parishioners who insisted on bringing pies, cakes, and cookies every day.

I saw an impending heart attack in a 74-year old man, a football coach who thought the whole wheat-free, low-carb thing was some wacko trend. Four stents later, he's changed his mind.

A 69-year old woman had to be hospitalized for heart failure due to partial closure of an artery. She repeatedly told me that she simply could not follow the diet because it was "too restrictive."

There were a few others. Interestingly, all felt they were eating healthy, minimizing junk foods and avoiding fatty foods. None were wheat-free nor restricted carbohydrates.

In other words, in the people who follow the basic advice of the Track Your Plaque program to do such simple things as eliminate wheat, don't indulge in junk carbohydrates, normalize vitamin D status, supplement omega-3 fatty acids, supplement iodine and correct any thyroid dysfunction . . . well, they have no heart attacks.

Diet is superior to drugs

7. January 2012 William Davis (27)

Might-o’chondri-AL left this wonderful record of his lipoprotein experience in the comments to the last Heart Scan Blog post. It is a great example of what is achievable with diet and a few supplements . . . without drugs.

(A) Jan. 2011 1st ever NMR lipo-protein analysis was done after 4 months of consistent home food prep of pretty low fat (only olive oil and 1 tablespoon coconut oil daily) but plenty of whole wheat and half potatoes:
* LDL # of particles (P) = 1,676 in nmol/L————being a LDL cholesterol (C) reading of 139 mg/dL
* small LDL # P = 1,021 nmol/L —————yikes! you advise smLDL be less than 117 nmol/L
* HDL # of particles = 28.8 umol/L ————–being a HDL C reading of 45 mg/dL
* Triglycerides = 90 mg/dL ————– true, I never struggled with my weight

(B) May 2011 2nd NMR after another 4 months but added in more fat (1 teaspoon highly concentrated fish oil daily, 90% chocolate, handfulls of nuts, more olive oil and kept coconut oil at 1 tablespoon daily for a controlled experiment), added 500 mg Niacin 3 times a day (in stages up to1,500 mg. total daily), 6000 IU daily vitamin D, deliberately cut out all grains except for social politeness and substituted in daily Koji fermented brown rice (rustic Amazake):
** LDL # P……………= 976 nmol/L ——————————– being LDL C of 100 mg/dL
** small LDL # P …. = 96 nmol/L ——————————– nice surprise
** HDL # P ………… = 27.3 umol/L ——————————being an increase to HDL C of 64 mg/dL
** Triglycerides …… = 42 mg/dL ——————————– despite daily carbs over 150 gr. daily

(C) Dec. 2011 3rd NMR after another 7 more months thinking Doc’s advice is worthwhile I added in yet more fat (mainly daily 2 tablespoons of coconut oil, more 90% chocolate), bumped Niacin up to 1,000 mg twice a day (2,000 mg. total daily), cut out the Amazake, kept up the vitamin D adding daily vitamin K & daily ate main mid-day meal out as lunch on spicy Thai & Chinese fish/shrimp/soup/rice meals (my next control):
*** LDL # P ………. = 764 nmol/L ————— being LDL C of 107 mg/dL ( 2x coconut’s saturated fat)
***small LDL # P… = less than 90 nmol/L ——–surprised me NMR can’t count lower
***HDL # P ……… = 41.4 umol/L ——————– being an increase to HDL C of 88 mg/dL
*** Triglycerides ….= 43 mg/dL ——————- daily carbs below ~ 120 gr. & lost too much weight

Isn't that great? Spectacular job, Might!

MIght achieved values that are superior to that achievable with, say, a high-dose statin strategy. Statins only reduce total LDL particles, reducing small LDL in a non-selective way. And, of course, this diet does not cause muscle aches, memory loss, nor liver problems.

Something to consider: As the diet has become so effective, we can reduce our reliance on niacin. In fact, the benefits of niacin diminish substantially, as small LDL is reduced, HDL increased, triglycerides decreased, and postprandial lipoproteins subdued with the diet only.

Low-carb is heart healthy

4. January 2012 William Davis (88)

Anybody following the discussions in these pages know that: Limiting carbohydrate intake reduces risk for coronary heart disease and heart attack.

First of all, why do conventional diets advocate restricting saturated and total fat? From the standpoint of surrogate markers of cardiovascular risk, cutting saturated and total fat reduces total cholesterol; reduces calculated LDL cholesterol; and may reduce c-reactive protein modestly (an index of inflammation). It also increases blood sugar and HbA1c (reflecting the prior 60 days blood sugars), increases glycation of the proteins of the body leading to cataracts, arthritis, and hypertension.

Problem: Total cholesterol is a combination of HDL cholesterol, an estimate of VLDL cholesterol (triglycerides), and LDL cholesterol. It is a composite of both "good" things (HDL) and "bad" things (LDL and VLDL). Cutting saturated and total fat results in reduced HDL, increased VLDL/triglycerides, and a reduction in calculated LDL. Pretty weak stuff. The last item, i.e., reduction in calculated LDL, is not even a real phenomenon. In fact, the net effect in most genotypes (genetic types) may be negative: increased heart disease risk.

In contrast, what is the effect of reducing carbohydrate without restricting fat? (In the approach I use, we start with elimination of the most destructive of carbohydrates, wheat, followed by reducing exposure to other carbohydrates, especially cornstarch and corn products, sugar, and oats.) If, say, we cut carbohydrate intake into the range of a truly low-carbohydrate diet of 10-15 grams per meal ("net" carbs, or total carbohydrates minus fiber), then we witness a number of metabolic transformations:

Reduced fasting triglycerides and VLDL
Reduced postprandial (after-eating) triglycerides, chylomicrons, and chylomicron remnants
Increased HDL and shift towards large HDL particles (presumably more protective)
Reduced small LDL particles
Reduced glycation and oxidation of small LDL particles
Reduced hemoglobin A1c
Reduced c-reactive protein and other inflammatory markers
Reduced blood pressure

By slashing carbohydrates, we also witness weight loss from visceral fat, reversal of pre-diabetes and diabetes, and reduced phenomena of glycation. And, if the wheat-free part of low-carb is maintained, you can also see marked improvement in gastrointestinal health, relief from joint pains, relief from leg edema, relief from migraine headaches, improved behavior and ability to concentrate in children with impaired learning, ADHD, and autism, better mood, deeper sleep. You will see multiple inflammatory and autoimmune diseases improve or completely relieved, such as rheumatoid arthritis and ulcerative colitis.

Having personally gone down the diabetic path and back by cutting the fat in my diet, now maintaining a HbA1c of 4.8% with fasting glucose 84 mg/d; (without medications), there should be no remaining doubt: Low-carb diets, especially if wheat-free, dramatically reduce the factors leading to heart disease; low-fat diets worsen the factors leading to heart disease.

Mocha Walnut Brownies

1. January 2012 William Davis (11)

Richer than a cookie, heavier than a muffin, brownies are ordinarily an indulgence that leaves you ashamed of your lack of restraint. Have one . . . or two or three, and you will surely pack on a pound of belly fat.

But these mocha walnut brownies, as with other recipes I provide, will not pack on the pounds. With no wheat to trigger appetite, nor any readily-digestible carbohydrate to generate blood sugar highs and lows, you can have a nice brownie or two or three and nothing bad happens: You don’t send blood sugar sky-high, don’t trigger formation of small LDL particles and triglycerides, you don’t trigger appetite, you don’t gain a pound of belly fat. You simply have your brownie(s) and enjoy them.

Serve these brownies plain or topped with cream cheese, natural peanut or almond butter, or dipped in coffee.

Ingredients:
8 ounces unsweetened baking chocolate (100% chocolate)
4 tablespoons coconut oil or butter, melted
2 large eggs, separated
½ cup coconut milk (or sour cream)
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
2 cups ground almonds
2 tablespoons coconut flour
1 cup chopped walnuts
¼ cup unsweetened cocoa powder
2 teaspoons instant espresso
Sweetener equivalent to 1 cup sugar or to taste (e.g., liquid stevia, Truvía, erythritol)

Preheat oven to 350º F.

Melt chocolate using double boiler method or in 15-second increments in microwave. Stir in melted coconut oil or butter.

In small bowl, beat egg whites until frothy. Add egg whites, egg yolks, coconut milk, and vanilla extract to chocolate mixture and mix thoroughly by hand.

In separate bowl, combine ground almonds, coconut flour, walnuts, cocoa powder, espresso, and sweetener. Mix thoroughly.

Add dry mix to chocolate mix and mix together thoroughly. If dough is too stiff, add additional coconut milk, one tablespoon at a time.

Place mixture in 9-inch baking pan and bake for 25 -30 minutes or until toothpick withdraws dry.

Are you hungry?

6. December 2011 William Davis (43)

Eliminate modern high-yield semi-dwarf Triticum aestivum . . . and what is the effect on appetite?

A reduction in appetite is among the most common and profound experiences resulting from wheat elimination. I know that I have personally felt it: Wake up in the morning, little interest in breakfast for several hours. Lunch? Maybe I'll have a few bites of something. Dinner . . . well, I'd like to exercise first.

The wheatless report that:

--Appetite diminishes to the point where you can't remember whether you've eaten or not. It is not uncommon to miss a meal, perfectly content. Calorie intake drops by 400 calories per day, on average, calories you otherwise would not have needed but all went to . . . you know where.
--Hunger feels different: It's not the gnawing, rumbling hunger that plagues you every 2 hours. In its place, you will find that hunger feels like a soft reminder that, gee, maybe it's time to have something to eat because you haven't had anything in--what?--4 to 6 hours. And it's a subtle reminder, not a desperate hunt that makes you knock people aside at the food bar, steal coworkers' lunches stored in the refrigerator, salivating at the mere thought of food.
--The simplest foods satisfy--It no longer requires an all-you-can-eat buffet to satisfy, but a few small pieces of healthy food. (Yeah, but what happens to revenues at Kraft, Nabisco, and Kelloggs, not to mention the revenues at agribusiness giants ADM and Monsanto? Slash consumption by, say, 30%, you likewise slash revenues by 30%. What would shareholders say?)
--Even prolonged periods of not eating, i.e., fasting, is endured with ease.

Hunger and the relentless search for something to eat disappear for most people. By eliminating the appetite-stimulating properties of wheat, we return to a natural state of eating for sustenance, to satisfy physiologic need. We are no longer victims of this incredibly powerful appetite-stimulant called gliadin from wheat.

This is why many diets fail: They fail to remove this powerful appetite stimulant. You might eat only lean meats, limit your calories, and exercise 90 minutes per day, but as long as the gliadin protein is pushing your appetite button, you will want to eat more or you will have to mount monumental willpower to resist it. You can lose 20 pounds on phase 1 of the South Beach diet, for instance, only to regain it in phases 2 and 3 when "healthy whole grains" are added back.

So the key is to remove the gliadin protein from your life, i.e., eliminate all things wheat.

Chocolate . . . for adults only

30. November 2011 William Davis (22)

If you've got a serious chocolate addiction and you'd like to make it as healthy as possible, give this X-rated dark chocolate a try.

I call it X-rated because it is certain to not satisfy young, sugar-craving palates, but is appropriate for only the most serious chocolate craver. This is a way to obtain the rich flavors and textures of cocoa, the health benefits (e.g., blood pressure reduction, antioxidation) of cocoa flavonoids, while obtaining none of the sugars/carbohydrates . . . and certainly no wheat!

It is easy to make, requiring just a few ingredients, a few steps, and a few minutes. Set aside and save for an indulgence, e.g., dip into natural peanut or almond butter.

Ingredients:
8 ounces 100% unsweetened cocoa
5 tablespoons coconut oil, melted
1/2 cup dry roasted pistachios
1/4 cup whole flaxseeds or chia seeds
Truvia or other non-aqueous sweetener

Using double-boiler method, melt cocoa. Alternatively, melt cocoa in microwave in 15-20 second increments. Stir in coconut oil, pistachios, and flaxseeds or chia seeds. Stir in sweetener, mixing thoroughly. (Note that the sweetener must be non-aqueous, as water-based sweeteners will separate in the oils.)

Lay a sheet of parchment paper out on a large baking pan. Pour chocolate mixture slowly onto paper, tilting pan carefully to spread evenly until thickness of thick cardboard obtained. Place pan in refrigerator or freezer for 20 minutes.

Remove chocolate and break by hand into pieces of desired size.

"Friday is my bad day"

19. November 2011 William Davis (29)

At the start, Ted had a ton of small LDL particles. His starting (NMR) lipoprotien values:

LDL particle number: 2644 nmol/L

Small LDL: 2301 nmol/L

In other words, approximately 85% of all LDL particles were abnormally small. I showed Ted how to use diet to markedly reduce small LDL particles, including elimination of wheat, limiting other carbohydrates, and even counting carbohydrates to keep the quantity no higher than 15 grams per meal ("net" carbs).

Ted comes back 6 months later, having lost 14 pounds in the process (and now with weight stabilized). Another round of lipoproteins show:

LDL particle number: 1532 nmol/L

Small LDL: 799 nmol/L

Better, but not perfect. small LDL persists, representing nearly 50% of total LDL particle number.

So I quiz Ted about his diet. "Gee, I really stick to this diet. I have nothing made of wheat, no sugars. I count my carbs and I almost never go higher . . . except on Fridays."

"What happens on Friday?" I asked.

"That's when I'm bad. Not really bad. Maybe just a couple of slices of pizza. Or I'll go out for a big custard cone or something. That wouldn't do it, would it?"

That's the explanation. Your liver is well-equipped to recognize normal, large LDL particles. Large LDL particles therefore "live" for only a couple of days in the bloodstream. But the human liver does not recognize the peculiar configuration of small LDL particles, so it lets them pass--over and over and over again. The result: Once triggered by, say two slices of pizza, small LDL particles persist for 5 days, sometimes longer.

So Ted's one "bad" day per week is enough to allow a substantial quantity of small LDL particles to persist. While a fat indulgence (if there is such a thing) pushes large LDL up, the effect is relatively short-lived. Have a carbohydrate indulgence, on the other hand, and small LDL particles persist for up to a week. It means that Ted's one "bad" day per week is enough to allow his small LDL particles to persist at this level, preventing him from gaining full control over coronary plaque.

It also means that, if you have blood drawn for lipoprotein analysis but had a carbohydrate goodie within the previous week, small LDL particles may be exaggeratedly high.

HDL 80 mg/dl

14. November 2011 William Davis (73)

More and more people in my clinic are showing HDL cholesterol values of 80 mg/dl or higher, males included.

Think about it: Nationwide, average HDL for males is 42 mg/dl and for females 52 mg/dl. Even though these average values are generally regarded as favorable, HDL cholesterol values at these levels are nearly always associated with higher levels of triglycerides, postprandial (after-eating) lipoprotein abnormalities, and excessive quantities of small LDL particles.

HDL particles are, of course, protective and are powerfully anti-oxidative. Higher levels of HDL have been associated with reduced potential for cancer, as well as reduced risk for heart disease.

Following the simple regimen that we follow to gain control over coronary plaque has therefore increased levels of HDL to heights that are uncommon in the rest of the population, levels that readily top 80, 90, or 100 mg/dl. That regimen includes:

1) Elimination of all wheat--Yes, consumption of "healthy whole grains" sets you up to have lower HDL levels; elimination of wheat increases HDL.
2) Limited carbohydrate consumption--While eliminating wheat is a powerful nutritional strategy to increase HDL, non-wheat carbohydrates like quinoa, millet, beans, rice, and fruit can still cause high triglycerides that lead to reduced levels of HDL. Limited exposure helps keep HDL at higher levels.
3) Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation--Because omega-3 fatty acids reduce both triglycerides and blunt the postprandial rise in lipoproteins that can cause HDL degradation, HDL rises with omega-3s from fish oil.
4) Vitamin D supplementation--The effect is slow, but it is BIG. HDL just goes up and up and up over about 2 years of supplementation. Before vitamin D, HDL levels of 60 mg/dl were the best I could hope for in most people. Now 80 mg/dl is an everyday occurrence.

Other factors can also be used to increase HDL levels, such as weight loss, red wine and alcohol, exercise, cocoa flavonoids, green tea, and niacin. But following the regimen above sends HDL through the roof in the majority.

All posts by william-davis

Wheat-free and still fat

15. February 2008 William Davis (14)

Readers of The Heart Scan Blog know that I preach a diet that contains foods with low glycemic index to control weight, raise HDL, and reduce triglycerides, blood sugar, and small LDL.

A crucial aspect of a low glycemic index approach is to sharply reduce, preferably eliminate, wheat products.

I pick on wheat specifically because it has come to dominate the American diet. Look at the shelves in the supermarket: aisle after aisle of processed wheat products. The bread shelves alone in some of the grocery stores in my neighborhood are 40 feet long, six shelves high. There's also breakfast cereals, granola products, cookies, cakes, baking products, pretzels, crackers, pasta, and on and on.

Wheat products like these are tasty and they're addicting--literally. Test animals given processed wheat will eat more and gain more weight. Wheat fails to trigger satiety. So laboratory mice--and you and I--eat and eat, because eating wheat stimulates appetite, creates a hunger for more wheat, and a vicious cycle ensues. Eliminating wheat, on the other hand, results in dramatic drop in appetite, substantial weight loss, followed by correction of the metabolic disruptions it created.

A quick Google search for "gluten-free" turns up a startling array of wheat-free, gluten-free, yet high glycemic index products. The breakfast cereal pictured, for instance, can do as much damage as most wheat containing products--though it won't cause gluten enteropathy (also known as "celiac disease").

The product shown contains:

Brown rice flakes, rice bran, evaporated cane juice, brown rice syrup, raisins, cinnamon, gum arabic, vanilla, molasses, ground flaxseed, rosemary extract.

A 1/2-cup serving contains:
Total Carbohydrate 31g
Dietary Fiber 5g
Sugars 8g

And I'll bet that most people eat a lot more than a half-cup serving.

But you and I are not laboratory mice. If deprived of wheat, many people will then seek out processed rice products (rice cakes, Rice Krispies), processed cornstarch or cornmeal products (tacos, cornbread, many processed foods using these products for texture or thickness), or other products labeled "gluten-free."

Going wheat-free for our purposes is not about avoiding the gluten in wheat. It is about seizing control of appetite, eliminating a food that disrupts insulin responses, reduces HDL, raises triglycerides, and creates small LDL particles. But this applies to processed corn, rice, and other high glycemic index foods, as well.

So, occasionally, someone will declare, "I've eliminated wheat! Now I only eat rice, corn, and I've discovered all the gluten-free alternatives!"

Unfortunately, they've traded one evil for another. So it's not just about wheat. It's really about reducing or minimizing foods that mess up metabolic responses and lead to coronary plaque growth. Wheat is the biggest culprit and so I focus on it. However, you could easily transfer far less popular rice and corn products into center stage and allow them to wreak all the health damage of wheat.

Going wheat-free for our atherosclerotic plaque-control purposes is not the same as going gluten-free. So be careful of the distinction.

Wheat-free gummi bears:

Contents:
Organic dehydrated cane juice, organic corn malt syrup, organic juice concentrates (may contain organic apple, organic apricot, organic aronia, organic carrot, organic cranberry, organic elderberry, organic lemon or organic red beet), organic spinach powder, organic apple pectin, citric acid, natural fruit flavors.

Virtually pure sugar--yet wheat-free.

Wheat-free rice bread

Ingredients:
White rice flour, water, honey, soy oil, natural gum, salt, yeast, natural gum

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Heart disease is reversible

13. February 2008 William Davis (10)

In a previous post, Take this survey: I double-dare you, I posed a challenge:

Ask your doctor: Is heart disease reversible? Their answer:

1) No. Heart disease is definitely not reversible.

2) Yes, in rare instances, like lightning striking twice.

3) Yes, of course it is! Let's talk about how to do it!

I predicted that few readers of this blog would respond. I also predicted that the few who did would respond with the first answer, Heart disease is definitely not reversible. After all, in nearly all medical practices, the only parameters routinely followed to track risk for heart disease are LDL cholesterol and blood pressure. A measure of the disease itself (i.e., coronary atherosclerotic plaque) is not followed. So how can your doctor actually tell whether heart disease is reversed or not? When I engage in this conversation with colleagues, it goes no farther than rolled eyes or a snort. In my experience, talking about reversal of heart disease is a wasted effort.

To my great surprise, this simple survey received a total of 177 responses. Even more surprising, 122 (69%) of respondents chose number 3, claiming that their doctor said that heart disease is reversible.

Overall results:

1--31 responses (17.5%)

2--24 responses (13.5%)

3--122 responses (69%)

Now wait a minute: Where is the disconnect? Why are doctors saying that heart disease is reversible, yet not following this concept in practice? Contrary to the survey results, I have yet to meet a patient who said their doctor was trying to reverse their heart disease. Of course, this may be a skewed population, but I find it hard to believe that the prevailing view is that heart disease is reversible.

Anyway, this simple survey cannot settle the why or how, nor can it suggest just how prevalent this opinion is.

I am encouraged by these results. If true, it means that the message that heart disease is a reversible process is spreading. It may be make-believe heart disease reversal as preached by Dr. Dean Ornish or claimed by statin drug manufacturers. It may be the hocus-pocus of practices like chelation, or scams like nattokinase. But perhaps the seed of this notion has been planted in the minds of the medical community.

I'd be interested in hearing from the respondents who reported that their doctor said heart disease is reversible. How exactly are they going about achieving reversal?

Looking for health in all the wrong places

12. February 2008 William Davis (11)

The American public now has unprecedented freedom to explore new directions in health.

Never before have we had the enormous resources now available to add to our health experience: nutritional supplements, endless books on health and diet, the internet, online discussion groups, insurance products to permit spending on self-directed health services like medical savings accounts and flex-spending. The Track Your Plaque program is just one facet of this emerging and exciting area of self-empowerment in health. Compare what you can achieve with such a program with the situation of just 25 years ago, when the most you might get to reduce your risk for heart disease was to take the (largely ineffective) drug cholestyramine, probucol, and a low-cholesterol, low-fat diet.

Unfortunately, it also means that people have unrestrained potential to be tripped up, to be misled down some dead end of health that fails to accomplish desired goals, maybe even dangerous. The more freedom we have, the greater the choices, the more room we have to screw up.

Among the unproductive strategies I've witnessed recently:

--Nattokinase--The staying power of this scam continues to shock me. There is no rational basis for its use. A woman today declared that she would like to stop the warfarin that she was taking to prevent stroke from atrial fibrillation by taking nattokinase. This would be a mistake that could cost her a major and disabling, even fatal, stroke. Though warfarin is far from perfect, it at least achieves its goal of reducing stroke risk. Nattokinase does not. Nattokinase does nothing but make money for the people who sell it.

--Poly-nutritional supplements. You've heard of polypharmacy, the phenomenon of taking numerous medications with overlapping effects and side-effects, usually because of multiple doctors, each prescribing drugs without knowledge or interest in what colleagues are prescribing. I'm seeing the same phenomenon with supplements: 20,30, or more supplements per day, all in the hopes of heightening health. A focused few supplements is, in my view, superior to a shotgun approach of trying to improve health by taking hawthorne, silymarin, chrysin, calcium, Chinese herbs, and 25 other supplements.

--Chelation--Based on the notion that heavy metal toxicity causes heart disease; removal of heavy metals cures it. I've read some of the books on chelation, in addition to the slim scientific data, to decide whether there was anything to it. In my view, it is a complete and utter scam. It does make money for its practitioners, however. That's not to say that heavy-metal chelation doesn't have a role in health--it does. But it serves no purpose in coronary disease prevention and control.

--Colonic purges--Achieved by a number of routes, some oral, others via enema. Promotions for purging are often accompanied by a pile of scum that apparently lined somebody's intestinal tract. Purges purportedly, well, purge it from the intestine. This is also plain nonsense. There is no such toxic scum lining anybody's intestinal tract. However, if calorie restriction or a fast results inadvertently from the effort, perhaps some good comes from it.

--Statin drug alternatives--The unprecedented $27 billion dollar a year success of the statin drug industry, accompanied by the enormous marketing push by their manufacturers, has spawned an entire industry of statin alternatives. They range from red yeast rice, to guggulipid, to various concoctions of sterol esters, Chinese herbs, chitosan, and a variety of others. Some actually do reduce cholesterol a few points. Preparations like red yeast rice even pose a side-effect profile not too different from the prescription statin agents. Unfortunately, even among those agents that work, the effects tend to be small to trivial. While I am no lover of statin drugs nor the statin drug industry, I find these preparations to be anemic imitators. You'd be better off with raw nuts and ground flaxseed than wasting your money on these cheap imitations.

--Worries about liver toxicity--A day doesn't go by that I don't have at least several questions about suffering toxic liver effects from niacin, vitamin D, statin drugs, etc. I have treated thousands of patients for heart disease in its various stages and forms and have used many different strategies. How many times have I seen serious liver toxicity? A handful of times and usually from either mis-use of the agent or drug, or in a person with several other coexisting diseases. (Other serious health conditions, like kidney failure, raise the toxicity of drugs and supplements.) Liver toxicity in the vast majority of otherwise healthy people is close to being a non-concern.

Readers of The Heart Scan Blog and of the Track Your Plaque website know that I celebrate expansion of knowledge and information access to the public. However, I am concerned that the flip side of this growing self-empowerment is expanding potential for mistakes. It reminds me of an attorney friend, who, when diagnosed with prostate cancer, explored all manner of alternative treatments, from laetrile to heavy metal chelation to high-dose lycopene tablets. At the initial stage of diagnosis, his cancer was readily treatable. He now has widely metastatic cancer.

Maintain an open mind, but think before you commit to some crazed claim of cure, some "secret" to health, somebody's brazen but concealed attempt at steering profits in their direction.

With freedom comes responsibility. Otherwise, you might be looking for love . . .oops, I mean health . . . in all the wrong places.

Track Your Plaque APB

9. February 2008 William Davis (7)

I'm posting this intriguing comment from the Track Your Plaque Member Forum because I would like to speak to the Member who posted it.

The Member said:

I tested at 965 last year, and while I have followed the TYP diet and nutraceutical recommendations, I was totally unprepared for my first repeat scan (at the same lab/machine) on January 29, 2008. My result was 4.0, and at first I assumed the rating scale had been changed.

I then noted that 3 of the big four arteries received scores of 0, which means the same in any scale, and that four nodules had disappeared from the scan field.

Wow!!

If this is true, it would represent the biggest success in the Track Your Plaque program--ever! It would be an incredible story to tell, to convince the public and medical community that it is indeed possible, and a cause for popping a bottle of champagne! It would also represent what I would regard as essentially a cure for coronary atherosclerosis, a virtual elimination.

While we have plenty of success in stopping the progression or reducing heart scan scores, we do not have 100% success. I wish we did. The Track Your Plaque program is, to some degree, a work in progress. We learn from experiences, continually adjust to obtain the results we desire. Even as it stands today, the Track Your Plaque program is superior to any program of heart disease prevention known--by a long stretch. But it's not infallible, it's not foolproof.

That's all the more reason I would like to communicate with the Track Your Plaque Member who posted this comment. I would also like permission to view the heart scans themselves. (I can't obtain them nor view them without the individual's permission.) While we often have difficulty judging reversal just by looking at heart scans, presumed reversal to this profound degree should be obvious, even to the naked eye.

I would like to know--in detail--precisely what steps were taken and whether there was anything unique about this person's medical history or in the program they followed. This is all in an effort to learn and help others do the same.

If you are the Member who posted this comment, I would like to hear more. Please post your further thoughts on the Track Your Plaque Member Forum, or privately through our Contact page . Or e-mail us at contact@cureality.com.

Vitamin D toxicity

6. February 2008 William Davis (26)

It is the craziest thing.

The notion of vitamin D being easily and readily toxic has grabbed hold of many people, including my colleagues who were taught that vitamin D was toxic in medical school based on the skimpiest (and often misinterpreted) observations in a handful of unusual cases.

In my practice and in the Track Your Plaque program, we routinely use doses of 2000-10,000 units per day, occasionally more. We are guided by blood levels of 25(OH) vitamin D3. I have personally never witnessed vitamin D toxicity.

Here's an interesting graph from Dr. Reinhold Vieth. Those of you familiar with the vitamin D argument know that Dr. Vieth is among the few genuine gurus in the vitamin D world.

From Vieth R. Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations, and safety. Am J Clin Nutr 1999;69:842-856. (Full text is available without charge.)

In the graph, the X's represent toxicity; circles fall within the non-toxic range. (Toxicity is generally defined as a level sufficient to raise blood calcium levels, "hypercalcemia.") Note that the 25(OH) vitamin D3 levels are given in nmol/L; to convert to ng/ml units that are customary in the U.S., divide the nmol/L value by a factor of 2.5.

You will notice that toxicity is virtually unheard of until the dose exceeds 10,000 units per day. Beyond 10,000 units per day, the curve heads upward sharply and toxicity does become a possibility, though not an absolute (since there are circles above 10,000 units).

You may also notice that the curve is relatively flat from vitamin D doses between 200 units and 10,000 units (log scale on x axis; arithmetic scale on y), the range of most common doses for vitamin D supplementation.

Another perspective on vitamin D blood levels is to examine the blood levels of people who are young and obtain plentiful sun exposure. Lifeguards, for instance, have blood levels of 84 ng/ml (210 nmol/L) without ill-effect. (Sun exposure cannot generate vitamin D toxicity, because of a feedback safety mechanism in skin.) While this may not represent an ideal level since they represent an extreme, it does provide reassurance that such levels are non-toxic. I also point out these levels occur in the youthful since most people lose 75% or more of vitamin D activating capacity in the skin by their 70s. Most of us over 40 are kidding ourselves if we think that a suntan provides sufficient vitamin D.

Keep in mind that it is not necessarily the dose of vitamin D that is toxic, but the blood level it generates. I take 10,000 units of vitamin D as a gelcap per day to maintain my blood level between 50-60 ng/ml (125-150 nmol/L). This strategy helps me keep my HDL in the 70-80 mg/dl range, my blood sugar around 90 mg/dl, my blood pressure <120/80, and I no longer experience colds nor winter "blues."

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Turning plaque into profit

3. February 2008 William Davis (7)

For reasons unknown to me, I received a solicitation to invest in a company called Prescient Medical, with a slogan that caught my eye:

Detect and treat heart attacks before they occur.

The glossy brochure details their technology development strategy:

Predict(TM) Optical Catheter System--A catheter introduced into the coronary artery during a catheterization procedure to determine whether a specific plaque or vessel area is "vulnerable," i.e., prone to rupture in future.

Protect(TM) Luminal Shield--A stent-like metal device deployed into the coronary artery at the region of vulnerable plaque to prevent future plaque rupture.

The company anticipates FDA approval for their systems by 2009 and sales to begin by 2010. They predict sales of $7 billion.

Let's stop and think about this for a moment. It seems to me that, rather than pursuing the market of another stent for a "severe blockage," this company is going after the untapped procedural market of vulnerable plaque. In other words, their technology (an optical sensor technology that emits and analyzes light wavelengths to map specific plaque characteristics) identifies plaque that may rupture in months or years, followed by implantation of stent(s) that presumably prevent plaque rupture.

Thus, conceivably, many 20%, 30%, 40% etc. "blockages", atherosclerotic plaques that do not block flow and thereby pose no need for a conventional stent, will end up with this new type of stent. One patient could therefore receive multiple "Luminal Shields" in a single procedure.

When would these devices be employed? One pathway I could conceive of that my colleagues will be sure to exploit is 1) identify plaque by CT angiography, then 2) bring patient to the catheterization laboratory and perform this procedure for whatever hot, vulnerable plaques are identified. In other words, symptoms are no longer necessary. Reduced blood flow is no longer necessary. An abnormal stress test is no longer necessary. All that is required is that you have plaque. If the plaque is then determined to be vulnerable, then it is stented.

What bothers me about all this is the emerging effort to exploit this untapped market--a big one--of early heart disease as identified by coronary atherosclerotic plaque. As heart scans have demonstrated, there is an enormous amount of hidden heart disease in this world. This company has discovered a way to turn plaque into a profit opportunity, much as the statin drug industry found a way to "turn cholesterol into money."

The conventional stent market has plateaued and now has been, to some degree, battered by the drug-coated stent argument. Prescient has found a new and significant market for procedures and stents.

Is this really necessary? Why does plaque have to become a procedural disease? Doesn't it make more sense that, if vulnerable plaque is identified, that clinical trials are then designed to develop treatment strategies that modify vulnerable characteristics? Shockingly, this has not been done to any significant extent. Instead, the easiest path to a profit opportunity is to implant a "Luminal Shield."

You and I are able to inactivate, disempower, and essentially shut down plaque, while others are working furiously to convert it into a procedural profit opportunity. I personally find this so distasteful that I would sooner endorse a high-dose statin strategy than this approach.

You can view a video of my colleague, Dr. Martin Leon, on the Prescient Medical website, (or click here to go directly to the video), talking about how this technology will "change the treatment paradigm of the interventionalist from reactive to proactive." Scary stuff. Dr. Leon has made millions of dollars (probably more like tens of millions of dollars) from his support of technology companies for the interventional coronary device market.

My hope is that word of the sorts of techniques we use in the Track Your Plaque program disseminate before this sort of luminal coating idiocy gets off the ground.

(In actuality, a different version of this approach has been available for years using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), another procedure that involves threading a catheter down each coronary artery during a catheterization procedure. IVUS can also cross-sectionally map a plaque's anatomy and identify "vulnerable" features, like a thin cap overlying a collection of semi-liquid fat ("lipid pool"). There has been some discussion of using this approach to identify vulnerable plaque followed by stent implantation, but it has never gotten off the ground and has certainly not found validation in any clinical study. By the way, any stent prevents plaque rupture, since by their very nature, the plaque contents are compressed, modified, and excluded to the exterior of the stent. Plaque rupture within a stent is very rare in its few millimeters of length. It may therefore not require some new technology to prevent plaque rupture.)

Statin mono-failure

1. February 2008 William Davis (6)

Evan's first heart scan score in November, 2006 yielded a high score for a 56-year old male: 542.

So he put up little fuss when his doctor prescribed simvastatin at a high dose.

Evan's LDL cholesterol before simvastatin: 158 mg/dl

Evan's LDL cholesterol on simvastatin: 72 mg/dl.

By conventional standards, Evan has had an excellent response. The rest of his lipid (cholesterol) panel was unrevealing: HDL 62 mg/dl, triglycerides 78 mg/dl. Evan doesn't smoke, has a normal blood pressure, and he is not diabetic. That should do it, right?

So his doctor thought. So Evan asked if another heart scan was in order. In December, 2007, after one year of simvastatin, his second heart scan score: 705--a 30% increase over one year.

Recall that, with no effort at prevention whatsoever, the natural progression of heart scan scores is a 30% per year increase. Did simvastatin do nothing?

This is quite typical of people who do nothing more than take a statin drug. While some people do slow plaque growth (we say "decelerate") modestly on a statin drug, Evan's experience is not unusual: plaque continues to grow despite high-dose statin drug and an apparently favorable cholesterol panel.

In fact, I can count the number of people who reduced their heart scan scores taking a statin drug alone on one finger.

Statins do not represent a cure for heart disease. They cannot be used as sole therapy to reduce risk for heart attack. In fact, given sufficient time, the majority of people who do nothing more than follow this standard line of treatment (along with the equally lame low-fat diet, etc.) will have done nothing more than postpone their heart attack. Elimination of risk? Nope.

This is among the reasons we developed the Track Your Plaque approach. While not foolproof, I know of no better approach to seize control over plaque growth.

Additional conversations on clinical studies which, as with Evan's experience, demonstrated how statin drugs fail to slow plaque growth can be found in previous Heart Scan Blog posts:

Don't be satisfied with "deceleration"

Study review: Yet another Lipitor study

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Triglyceride traps

31. January 2008 William Davis (17)

Triglycerides are a potent trigger for coronary plaque growth.

Triglycerides in and of themselves probably do not cause plaque growth. Instead, triglycerides contribute to the formation of abnormal lipoproteins in the blood that, in turn, trigger coronary plaque, like VLDL, intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), and small LDL. Excess triglycerides also modify HDL structure and cause you to lose HDL in the urine.

I see plenty of people who begin with triglycerides of 200 mg/dl, 300, 700, even over 1000 mg/dl. It doesn't take long before you learn what works, what doesn't to reduce triglycerides. This is especially true in the Track Your Plaque approach, in which our target for triglycerides is 60 mg/dl or less.

Here's a list of things to consider if you are trying to gain control of your triglycerides:

--Fish oil--A mainstay of treatment. The omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil are the number one most potent treatment for high triglycerides.

--Reduction of high-glycemic index foods--Most notably wheat. Everybody knows that we shouldn't eat Snickers bars or bags of licorice. But many people eat plenty of wheat-containing breads, pastas, pretzels, crackers, breakfast cereals, etc., all in the name of increasing whole grains and fiber. In reality, they are causing triglycerides to skyrocket, dropping HDL, forming small LDL, increaaing blood sugar and blood pressure, and increasing obesity.

--Eliminating fructose and high-fructose corn syrup--This ubiquitous sweetener is now consumed in enormous quantities by the average American, nearly 80 lbs per year per person. You'll find it in soft drinks, ketchup, beer, breads, breakfast cereals, and many other processed foods. You'll find none in green peppers, cucumbers, and raw nuts. Fructose causes large rises in triglycerides, as well as diabetic patterns. Don't let "fat-free" claims fool you. Take a look at the ingredients in Kraft Fat-Free Caesar Italian salad dressing, for instance:

Kraft Fat-Free Caesar Italian

Ingredients:
Water, Vinegar, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Corn Syrup, Salt, Parmesan Cheese, Part-Skim Milk, Cheese Culture, Salt, Enzymes, Contains less than 2% of Garlic, Whey, Onion Juice, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Phosphoric Acid, Worcestershire Sauce, Vinegar, Molasses, Corn Syrup, Water, Salt, Caramel Color, Dried Garlic, Sugar ,Spices, Tamarind, Natural Flavors, Hydrolyzed Soy Protein, Xanthan Gum, Potassium Sorbate and Calcium Disodium EDTA as Preservatives, Dried Garlic, Buttermilk, Spice, Dried Parsley, Caramel Color, Sodium Phosphate, Oleoresin Paprika.

--Alcohol--While a couple of drinks a day raises HDL, exerts anti-inflammatory effects, and reduces blood pressure, more than this begins to raise triglycerides. Although I've come across no formal studies on this question, my gut sense is that beer, in particular, raises triglycerides more than wine or other alcoholic beverages. Could it be the wheat source of beer? Or its high-fructose corn syrup? I don't know, but beer is the least desirable form of alcohol of the choices we have.

Following these simple steps, it is unusual in my experience that you cannot achieve a triglyceride level <60 mg/dl. Rarely do we need to add fibrate drugs or other prescription agents to reduce triglycerides.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

High-dose fish oil for Lp(a)

30. January 2008 William Davis (16)

Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), is a problem area in coronary plaque reversal.

While our current Track Your Plaque record holder for largest percentage reduction in heart scan score has Lp(a), it remains among the more troublesome lipoprotein patterns.

One unique treatment for Lp(a) is high-dose omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil. While the data are relatively meager, there is one solid study from Lp(a) expert, Dr. Santica Marcovina of the University of Washington, called "The Lugalawa Study."

In this unique set of observations, 1300 members of a Bantu tribe living in Tanzania were studied. What made this population unusual is the fact that two groups of Bantus lived under different circumstances. One group lived on Nyasa Lake (3rd largest lake in Africa and reputed to have the greatest number of species of fish of any lake in the world) and ate large quantities of freshwater fish providing up to 500 mg of omega-3s, EPA and DHA, per day. Another Bantu group lived away from the lake as farmers, eating a pure vegetarian diet without fish.

Nyasa Lake

This situation among genetically similar stock provided a unique learning opportunity, a chance to assess whether different diets influenced Lp(a) levels.

The results: The fish-eating Bantus had an average Lp(a) level of 14.0 mg/dl. The farming, non-fish eating Bantus had an average Lp(a) of 27.0--a 48% difference. Curiously, a comparison of the apo(a) component of Lp(a) between the groups also showed that the fisherman expressed fewer dangerous small apo(a) forms, despite equal potential to express both.

The Lugalawa Study opens the question of whether similar results can be obtained not by moving to Tanzania and fishing Nyasa Lake, but by mimicking their experience by supplementing high doses of omega-3 fatty acids.

It's an intriguing question. In the Track Your Plaque program, we have no specific experience with this strategy, but it is certainly worth exploring further.

Watch for two upcoming Special Reports on the Track Your Plaque website in which we will be detailing 1)unique strategies for Lp(a) reduction, and 2) the usefulness of high-dose fish oil for coronary plaque reversal.

Interesting enough for a Virtual Clinical Trial?

Image courtesy Wikipedia.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

The many faces of LDL

29. January 2008 William Davis (0)

Pam has an LDL cholesterol of 144 mg/dl.

To most people, this means that she has a mildly elevated LDL value. Many people would respond by cutting the saturated fat in their diet. Most physicians would concur and talk about prescribing a statin drug.

Let me tell you what an LDL cholesterol of 144 mg/dl means to me:

1) It could mean an LDL of all large particles (which is good) or an LDL of all small particles (which is very bad). Or, perhaps it's some combination of big and small. I can't tell which just by knowing that LDL is 144.

Small LDL responds to a diet reduced in processed carbohydrates and wheat flour; large LDL does not. Small LDL responds in an exagerrated way to niacin; large LDL does not. It makes a difference.

2) It could mean that, hidden within LDL, is lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a). Recall that Lp(a) is a high-risk genetic pattern that can provide the false appearance of high LDL cholesterol. If Pam were prescribed a statin drug, it would have little effect and little benefit. (See Red flags for Lipoprotein(a).)

Knowing that Pam has Lp(a) can point us in an entirely different direction than just LDL cholesterol. It might mean high-dose fish oil, a more serious approach to niacin, hormonal treatments like DHEA or testosterone. It might mean more attention to warning your children about the possibility that they, too, might share this genetic trait.

3) It could mean both small LDL and Lp(a) are present simultaneously, an especially dangerous combined pattern that is among the highest risks for heart disease known.

4) Because Pam's LDL of 144 mg/dl was not measured, but calculated, it means that it is subject to tremendous inaccuracy.

In my office, calculated LDL cholesterols can be inaccurate by 50 or 100 mg/dl--commonly. So Pam's LDL of 144 mg/dl could really be 70 mg/dl, or it could be 244 mg/dl. Once again, it's a big difference.

Just like The Three Faces of Eve, the 1957 film in which Joanne Woodward played the three wildly different sides of Eve's personality--the daytime Eve White, the fun-loving and daring Eve Black, and Jane--so can LDL assume several different faces, all with different personalities, different implications.

Accepting LDL cholesterol as LDL cholesterol is a fool's game. It is only a starting point, nothing more. Accepting a statin drug based on LDL is, likewise, a trap fraught with uncertainty, the potential for limited or ineffective results, the price being your heart and health.

Cureality | Real People Seeking Real Cures

No BS weight loss

13. April 2009 William Davis (18)

If there's something out there on the market for weight loss, we've tried it. By we, I mean myself along with many people and patients around me willing to try various new strategies.

Maybe you say: "Well that's not a clinical trial. How can we know that there aren't small effects?"

Who cares about small effects? If a weight loss strategy causes you to lose 1.2 lbs over 3 months--who cares? Sure, it may count towards a slight measure of health in a 230 lb 5 ft 3 inch woman. But it is insufficient to engage that person's interest and keep them on track. That little result, in fact, will discourage interest in weight loss and cause someone to return to previous behaviors.

What I'm talking about is BIG weight loss--20 lbs the first month, 40 lbs over 4 months, 50-60 lbs over 6 months.

Right now, there are only three things that I know of that yield such enormous effects:

1) Elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars

2) Thyroid normalization (I don't mean following what the laboratory says is "normal")

3) Intermittent fasting

Combine all three in various ways and the results are accelerated even more.

Self-directed health is ALREADY here

12. April 2009 William Davis (12)

It can't happen.

People are too stupid/ignorant/lazy or simply don't care.

It is irresponsible. People will misuse, abuse, misdiagnose, fail to recognize all manner of medical conditions.

It's all true. Most of the medical establishment believes it. And it is self-fulfulling: If you believe it, it will happen.

But it's not true for everybody. If readers of this blog, for instance, were to view the conversations we have in our Track Your Plaque Forum, you would immediately recognize that we have a following that is more sophisticated and knowledgeable about coronary heart disease than 90% of cardiologists. That is really something. Perhaps they can't put in a stent or defibrillator, but they understand an enormous amount about this disease we are all trying to control and reverse, sufficient to seize control over much of their own healthcare for this process and related conditons.

Anyway, self-directed health is already here. And it's happening on an incredible scale.

Witness:

--Nutritional supplements--Now a $21 billion (annual revenues) phenomenon, booming sales of nutritional supplements are a powerful testimonial to the enthuasiasm of the public for self-directed health treatments. Sure, there are plenty of junk supplements out there, but there are also many spectacularly effective products. Information, not marketing, will help tell the difference. Over the long-run, the truth will win out.

The 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act has allowed the definition of “nutritional supplement” to be stretched to the limit. "Nutritional supplements" includes obviously non-nutritional (though still potentially interesting) products like the hormones pregnenolone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), and melatonin to be sold on the same shelf as vitamin C. There are also amino acids, polysaccharides, minerals and trace minerals, herbal preparations, flavonoids, carotenoids, antioxidants, phytonutrients.

In fact, I believe that the nutritional supplement pipeline is likely to yield far more exciting and effective products than the drug research pipeline! And you will have access to all of it--without your doctor's involvement.

--Self-ordered laboratory testing--In every state except New York and California, an individual can obtain his or her own laboratory testing. New services are appearing to service this consumer segment. As more people become frustrated with the silly gatekeeping function of their primary care physician and as more people gain more control over some of their healthcare dollars through medical savings accounts, flex-spending, and high-deductible health insurance, more are shopping for cost-saving, self-ordered lab testing. Even at-home lab tests are becoming available, such as ZRT Lab tests we make available through Track Your Plaque.

(In California, a doctor's order, or an order from a health professional allowed to prescribe, is still required which, for most people, is just a formality. Just ask your doctor to sign the form with the tests you'd like. Only the most cretinous of physicians will refuse, in which case you should say goodbye. New York is the only state in the U.S. that still dunks women to see if they float, divines the entrails of sacrificial cows, and prohibits lab self-testing.)

--Self-ordered medical imaging--Heart scans, full body scans; ultrasound screening for abdominal aneurysms, carotid disease, osteoporosis such as that offered by LifeLine Screening (who does a great job). There's plenty of room here for entrepreneurial types to develop new services, though there will also be battles to fight with hospitals, radiologists, and others invested in the status quo. But it is happening and it will grow.

(By the way, since I've previously been accused of making bundles of money from medical imaging: I have never--NEVER--owned and do not currently own any medical imaging facility.)

So the question is not "will it happen?" It is already happening. The question is how fast will it grow to include a larger segment of the public? How much more of conventional healthcare can it include? How can we develop better unbiased information sources, untainted by marketing, that guide people through the maze of choices?

Fire your stockbroker, fire your doctor

11. April 2009 William Davis (10)

Is it yet time to fire your doctor?

I advocate a model of self-directed health, a style of healthcare in which individuals have the right to direct his or her own healthcare with only the occasional assistance of a physician or healthcare provider.

Healthcare would not be the first industry that converted to such a self-directed model. Remember travel agents? Only 15 years ago, making travel plans meant calling your travel agent to book your arrangements. This was a flawed system, because they worked on commission, thereby impairing incentive to search for the best prices. You were, in effect, at their mercy.

The investment industry is another such example, though on a larger scale.

Up until the 1980s, individual investment was managed by a stockbroker or other money manager. Stockbrokers, analysts, and investment houses commanded the flow of investment in stocks, options, futures, commodities, etc. Individuals lacked access to the methods and knowledge that allowed them to manage their own portfolios. Individuals had no choice but to engage the services of a professional investor. This was also a flawed system. Like travel agents, stockbrokers worked on commission. We've all heard horror stories in which stockbrokers churned accounts, making thousands of dollars in commissions while their clients' portfolios shrunk.

That has all changed.

Today, the process has largely converted to discount brokers and online services used by individuals trading and managing their own portfolios. Stockbrokers and investment houses continue, of course, but are competing for a shrinking piece of the individual investment market. Independent investors now have access to investment tools that didn’t even exist 20 years ago. Companies like E-Trade and Ameritrade now command annual revenues of approximately $2 billion each.

Travel agents, stockbrokers . . . is healthcare next? Can we convert from the paternalistic, “I’m-the-doctor, you’re the patient” relationship to what in which you self-direct your own healthcare and turn to the healthcare system only in unique situations?

I believe that the same revolution that shook the investment industry in the 1980s will seize healthcare in the future. In fact, the transition to self-directed health will dwarf its investing counterpart. It will ripple more broadly through the fabric of American life. Health is a more complicated “product,” with more complex modes of delivery, and more varied levels of need than the investment industry.

I predict that the emergence of health directed by the individual, just as the emergence of self-directed investment, will dominate in the coming years.

While I hope you've already fired your stockbroker, and I doubt that anyone on the internet still uses a travel agent, I wouldn't yet fire your doctor altogether. But I believe that we are approaching a time in which you should begin to take control over your own health and begin to reduce reliance on doctors, drugs, and hospitals.

Blast small LDL to oblivion

4. April 2009 William Davis (21)

Here's a graphic demonstration of the power of wheat elimination to reduce small LDL particles, now the number one cause for heart disease in the U.S.

Lee had suffered a stroke due to an atherosclerotic plaque in a brain artery. She also had plenty of coronary plaque with a heart scan score of 322.

Lee began with an LDL particle number (the "gold standard" for measuring LDL, far superior to conventional calculated LDL) of 2234 nmol/L. This is exceptionally high, the equivalent of an LDL cholesterol of 223 mg/dl (drop the last digit). Of this 2234 nmol/L, 90% were abnormally small, with 1998 nmol/L of small LDL particles.

Lee eliminated wheat products from her diet, as well as cutting out sugars and cornstarch. Six months later, her results:

LDL particle number: 1082 nmol/L--a 52% reduction from the starting value and equivalent to an LDL of 108 mg/dl. Small LDL: zero--yes, zero.

In other words, 100% of Lee's LDL particles had shifted to the more benign large LDL simply with elimination of these foods---NO statin drug. (In addition to wheat elimination, she was also taking vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids at our recommended doses.)

While not everybody responds quite so vigorously due to genetic variation, nor does everyone try as hard as Lee did to eliminate the foods that trigger small LDL, her case provides a great illustration of the power of this strategy.

Buy local, get a goiter

3. April 2009 William Davis (19)

The notion of buying food locally--"buy local"--i.e., food produced in your area, state, or region, is catching on.

And for good reason: Not only do you support your local economy, buying locally saves energy, since food doesn't have to be transported from South America or other faraway locations.

But what about those of us in the Midwest, particularly around the Great Lakes basin, i.e., the region previously known as the "goiter belt"? In the early 20th century, up to a third of the residents of this region had enlarged thyroid glands, or goiters, due to iodine deficiency. Lack of iodine causes the thyroid to enlarge, or "hypertrophy," in an effort to more efficiently extract any available iodine in the blood.

Well, there's been a resurgence of iodine deficiency nationwide with 11.3% of the population severely deficient, representing a four-fold increase since the 1970s.

Why an iodine deficiency? Because more people are avoiding iodized salt, the principal source of iodine for Americans since the FDA introduced its voluntary program for iodization of table salt back in 1924. Approximately 90% of the patients I ask now declare that they use very little iodized table salt. While a few take multimineral or multivitamin supplements that contain iodine, the majority do not. The globalization of the food supply--eat global--however, has softened the blow, since we eat tomatoes from Mexico, blueberries from Argentina, lettuce from the Salinas Valley of California.

Now, we have the growing trend to eat local. In the Midwest, it means that the vegetables, fruits, and meats grown locally will also be iodine depleted, since the soil is also iodine-poor, being so far from the sea.

Ironically, two healthy trends--avoiding salt and eating local--will be accounting for a surge in unsightly neck bulges in the Midwest, as well as an increase in thyroid disease.

The lesson: Avoid salt, eat local, but mind your iodine.

Self-directed thyroid management

2. April 2009 William Davis (9)

Is there an at-home test you can do to gauge thyroid status?

Yes. Measure your temperature.

Unlike a snake or alligator that relies on the sun or its surroundings to regulate body temperature, you and I can internally regulate temperature. The hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid glands are the organs involved in thermoregulation, body temperature regulation. While the system can break down anywhere in the sequence, as well as in other organs (e.g., adrenal), the thyroid is the weak link in the chain.

Thus, temperature assessment can serve as a useful gauge of thyroid adequacy. Unfortunately, temperature measurement as a reflection of thyroid function has not been well explored in clinical studies. It has also been subject to a good deal of unscientific discussions.

How should temperature be measured? The temperature you really desire is between 3 am and 6 am, while still asleep. However, this is difficult to do, since it would require your bed partner to surreptitiously insert a thermometer into some body orifice without disturbing you. A practical solution is to measure temperature first upon arising in the morning, before drinking water, coffee, making the bed, etc.--immediately.

While traditionalists (followers of Dr. Broda Barnes, who first suggested that temperature reflects thyroid function) still advocate axillary (armpit) temperatures, in 2009 it is clear that axillary temperatures are unreliable. Axillary temperatures are inconsistent, vary substantially with the clothing you wear, vary from right to left armpit, ambient temperature, sweat or lack of sweat, and other factors. It also can commonly be 2-3 degrees Fahrenheit below internal ("core") temperature and does not track with internal temperatures through the circadian rhythms of the day (high temperature early evening, lowest temperature 3-6 am).

Rectal, urine, esophageal, tympanic membrane (ear), and forehead are other means to measure body temperature, but are either inconvenient (rectal) or require correction factors to track internal temperature (e.g., forehead and ear). For these reasons, we use oral temperatures. Oral temperatures (on either side of the underside of the tongue) are convenient, track reasonably well with internal temperatures, and are familiar to most people.

Though there are scant data on the distribution of oral temperatures correlated to thyroid function, we find that the often-suggested cutoff of 97.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 36.4 C, seems to track well with symptoms and thyroid laboratory evaluation (TSH, free T3, and free T4). In other words, oral temp <97.6 F correlates well with symptoms of fatigue, cold hands and feet, mental fogginess, along with high LDL cholesterol, all corrected or improved with thyroid replacement and return of temperature to 97.6 F.

But be careful: There are many factors that can influence oral temperature, including clothing, season, level of fitness, "morningness" (morning people) vs. "nightness" (night owls), relation to menstrual cycle, concurrent medical conditions.

Also, be sure that your thermometer can detect low temperatures. Just because it shows low temperatures of, say 94.0 degrees F, doesn't mean that it can really measure that low. If in doubt, dip your thermometer in cold water for one minute. If an improbable temperature is registered, say, 97.0 F, then you know that your device is incapable of detecting low temps.

A full in-depth Special Report on thermoregulation will be coming soon on the Track Your Plaque website.

Self-directed health: At-home lab testing

29. March 2009 William Davis (20)

I have a prediction.

I predict that more and more healthcare can and will be obtained directly by the individual--without doctors, without hospitals, without the corrupt profit-at-any-costs modus operandi of the pharmaceutical industry. I predict that, given the right tools, Joe or Jane Q. Public will have the choice to manage his or her own health using tools that are directly accessible, tools that include direct-to-consumer medical imaging (CT scans, ultrasound, MRI, etc.), nutritional supplements (a loosely-defined term, to our advantage), and direct-to-consumer laboratory testing.

Done responsibly, self-directed healthcare is superior to healthcare from your doctor. While no one expects you to remove your own gallbladder, you can manage cholesterol, blood sugar issues, vitamin D, low thyroid, and others--better than your doctor.

As everyone becomes more comfortable with the notion of self-directed health, you will see new services appear that help individuals manage their health. You will see prices for direct-to-consumer medical imaging and lab testing drop due to competition, something that doesn't happen in current insurance-based healthcare delivery. People are being exposed to larger deductibles and/or draw money from a medical savings account and will seek more cost advantages. Such direct-to-consumer competitive pricing will meet those needs. Overall, the presently unsustainable cost of healthcare will decline.

To help accelerate the shift of human healthcare away from conventional paths and divert it towards the individual, we have launched a panel of direct-to-consumer at-home laboratory tests that we are making available on the Track Your Plaque website.

On your own (except in California, which requires a doctor's order or prescription; and NY, the only state in the nation that prohibits entirely), you can now test, in the comfort of your own home with no laboratory blood draw required, parameters including:

--Thyroid tests--Free T3, free T4, TSH
--Lipids
--C-reactive protein
--Vitamin D
--Testosterone
--Progesterone

and others.

As the technology improves, more tests will become available for testing at home. (Lipoproteins are not yet available, but will probably be available within the next few years. That would be an enormous boon to those of us interested in supercharged heart disease prevention and reversal.)

Anyone interested in our at-home testing can just go to the Track Your Plaque lab test Marketplace.

When I first began the Track Your Plaque program around 8 years ago, I saw it as a way for people to learn how to control or reverse coronary atherosclerotic plaque, and I'd hoped that physicians would begin to see the light and become patient advocates in this process. But I have lost hope that most of my colleagues are interested in becoming your advocate in health. They are too locked into the "call me when you hurt" mentality. I now see Track Your Plaque as a way for people to seize control over coronary plaque with minimal assistance from their doctors. Indeed, some of our Members have achieved reduction of their plaque in spite of their doctors.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of what's to come. Brace yourself for a cataclysmic shift in returning health to you and away from those who would profit from your misfortune.

Vitamin D for Peter, Paul, and Mary

27. March 2009 William Davis (15)

Why is it that vitamin D deficiency can manifest in so many different ways in different people? One big reason is something called vitamin D receptor (VDR) genotypes, the variation in the receptor for vitamin D.

It means that vitamin D deficiency sustained over many years in:

Peter yields prostate cancer

Paul yields coronary heart disease and diabetes

Mary yields osteoporosis and knee arthritis.

Same deficiency, different diseases.

VDR genotype-determined susceptibility to numerous conditions have been identified, including Graves' thyroiditis, osteoporosis and related bone demineralization diseases, prostate cancer (Fok1 ffI genotype), ovarian cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, breast cancer (Fok1 ff), birth weight of newborns, melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers, insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, susceptibility to type I diabetes, Crohn's disease, and neurological or musculoskeletal deterioration with aging that leads to falls, respiratory infections, kidney cancer, even periodontal disease.

Why is it that the dose of vitamin D necessary to reach a specific level differs so widely from one person to the next? VDR genotype, again. Variation in blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D from a specific dose of vitamin D can vary three-fold, as shown by a University of Toronto study. In other words, a dose of 4000 units per day may yield a 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level of 30 ng/ml in Mary, 60 ng/ml in Paul, and 90 ng/ml in Pete--same dose, different blood levels.

Should we all run out and get our VDR genotypes assessed? So far the data have not progressed far enough to tell us. If, for instance, you prove to have the high-risk Fok1 ff genotype, would you do anything different? Would vitamin D supplementation be conducted any differently? I don't believe so.

Virtually all of us should be supplementing vitamin D at a dose that generates healthy blood levels, regardless of VDR genotype. For those of us following the Track Your Plaque program for coronary plaque control and reversal, that means maintaining serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels between 60-70 ng/ml.

As the fascinating research behind VDR genotype susceptibility to disease unfolds, perhaps it will suggest that specific genotypes be somehow managed differently. Until then, take your vitamin D.

Blowup at Milwaukee Heart Scan

26. March 2009 William Davis (20)

A local TV investigative news report just ran a critical report of the goings-on at Milwaukee Heart Scan:

Andy Smith went to Milwaukee Heart Scan. "It passed the smell test like a road kill skunk. I mean it was bad," Smith explained.

Our hidden cameras went inside the high pressure sales pitch. "On a good day I sell eight, nine, 10 people. On a bad day probably three," sales manager Angelo Callegari told us.

What the heck happened?

Let me tell you a story.

Back in 1996, I learned of a new technology called UltraFast CT scanning, or electron-beam tomography (EBT), a variation on the standard CT technology that permitted very rapid scanning, sufficiently rapid to allow visualization of the coronary arteries. Back then, only a few dozen devices had been established nationwide.

But the technology was so promising and the initial data so powerful that I lobbied several hospital systems in town to consider purchasing one of the $1.8 million devices. I was interested in applying this exciting technology for early detection of coronary heart disease in Milwaukee. While administrators from several hospitals listened, they quickly lost interest when they figured out that the scanner was primarily a tool for prevention, and would not be directly useful to increase revenue-generating hospital procedures.

I floundered about for a year, trying to drum up support for obtaining a scanner. The manufacturer of the device, Imatron, put me in touch with a couple from Indiana who were also interested in setting up a scanner and had actually obtained the investment capital to do it. We met and, over the next year, got Milwaukee Heart Scan up and running. I served as Medical Director (but never an investor or owner).

Milwaukee Heart Scan was busy from day one, performing EBT heart scans, as well as CT coronary angiograms as long ago as the late 1990s, virtual colonoscopies, and other imaging tests. We all spent a great deal of time educating the public and physicians on what this technology meant for detection and prevention of disease.

Despite the public's perception that the owners, Nancy and Steve Burlingame, were making a bundle of money, in reality they could barely pay their expenses. As price competition heated up in Milwaukee with the lower-cost competing multidetector scanners cropping up, the Burlingames often did not pay themselves.

My interest was to keep this device afloat. I therefore told the Burlingames that they should pay their bills first--their staff, overhead, the scanner costs, and pay themselves--and not worry about reimbursing me for the (very modest) heart scan interpretation fees. For several years, I read thousands of scans without any compensation. But that was okay with me--I just wanted to be sure this device remained available.

But in 2008, some business people from Chicago contacted Steve Burlingame with prospects of applying a contract model of long-term scanning to patients,i.e.,getting people to sign a several-year contract for discounted imaging. They proposed that Milwaukee Heart Scan offer heart scans for free to get people in the door.

What was peculiar about all this is that none of the four physicians on staff at Milwaukee Heart Scan had any knowledge of these discussions at all, including myself. Personally, I figured something was afoot when I came in to read scans in the summer of 2008. While, ordinarily, there is a single stack of scans to read from the preceding few days, this time there were numerous stacks of scans, hundreds of scans in all. Not a word had been said to me or my colleagues. I quickly figured out (thanks to the staff filling me in) that they had been offering scans for free. Not surprisingly, many people took them up on the offer.

Up until then, I had been readily willing to read heart scans without compensation, provided I could perform scan readings in a modest time commitment every week on the weeks it was my responsibility. But work several hours every day for free? Impossible.

My colleagues and I were deeply upset and concerned and insisted on a meeting with all the people involved, including the Burlingames, who had engineered this new sales program. We expressed serious reservations about what they were doing and insisted that they dramatically scale back the promises being made to people. I personally asked that they fire several of the people they had hired as sales people, given what we thought was unprofessional appearance and behavior.

The Burlingames and their new business partners essentially thumbed their noses at the physicians and ignored our advice. So, of the four physicians (one radiologist, three cardiologists), three of us resigned. (The one remaining cardiologist, I believe, didn't really understand what was going on.)

Apparently, after we left, the hard sales tactics continued. The news media got hold of the story through some understandably disgruntled people, and you know the rest.

The tragedy in all this is that, as wonderful as heart scans are, they don't make money for the people who invest in the technology. In the sad case of Milwaukee Heart Scan, it meant that my former friends, the Burlingames, turned to questionable tactics to make this technology pay.

Make no mistake: Heart scans remain a wonderful medical imaging modality. EBT, in particular, remains a fabulous technology that would--even today--remain the pre-eminent means to image coronary arteries, except that GE (who acquired Imatron some years ago) decided that a more direct path to bigger revenues was to purchase Imatron, then promptly scrap the entire operation, choosing to focus on multidetector technology exclusively.

Don't let the spotty past and petty ambitions cloud the fact that heart scans remain the best way to identify and track coronary plaque. Just don't get tempted by the offer of any free scans "without obligation."

Do you work for the pharmaceutical industry?

24. March 2009 William Davis (30)

In response to my post, Lovaza Rip-off, I received this angry comment:

Very high triglycerides, as you all know, is a very serious and life-threatening condition. Therefore, it is very important that any medication you take for treatment must be FDA proven and scientifically backed. This is true for a few reasons. First, there have been zero studies done to show the effects of Costco brand fish oil pills on patients with high triglycerides. So, you cannot assume, simply because the pills you are taking "claim" to have a certain amount of Omega 3 in the them, that they actually do (supplement labeling is self-submitted by the company, and not regulated by any external or 3rd party agency).

Secondly, the other components in fish oil, and maybe in Costco brand (no one knows because it isn't on the label) can actually inhibit the bioavailablity of Omega 3, most notably, Omega 6. And, nowhere on the Costco label does it tell you how much Omega 6 is in it. We also cannot underestimate the importance of purity with these compounds: a top selling brand of fish oil found stores like CVS was recently recalled because it was found to have large amounts of fire retardant in it! These supplements are NOT regulated by the FDA.

Thirdly, be careful when you compare costs. The cost of hospitalization due to acute pancreatitis (a risk of very high triglycerides) far outweighs the cost of taking Lovaza for even several years. If you have a real disease, you need a real drug. And, until Costco does a prospective long-term clinical trial to show that it lowers triglycerides, it should not be used in place of Lovaza.

Finally, I am a living example of how taking a high-potency supplement form of Omega 3 barely lowered my triglycerides, yet within 2 weeks of being on Lovaza there was a significant difference. I am now at my goal. So, before you knock a company, that, in my opinion, has saved my life, please do your research and do not mislead people into thinking that an Omega 3 is an Omega 3 is an Omega 3. If your insurance covers the most potent, the most pure, and the ONLY proven Omega 3 pill on the market, you should be thankful.

The comment was posted anonymously, so I don't know who it came from. But I can tell who I think it is: Someone who works for the drug industry.

This is a common phenomenon: Large corporations are fearful of the comments that are generated on internet conversations and other media. On the internet, there are actually people whose job it is to do "damage control." I suspect this came from one of them.

Why bother? Surely there are better things to do? Well, that's easy. There are billions of dollars at stake. Lovaza, in particular, is sold on the perception that it is somehow superior. If word gets out that maybe you can achieve the same results at a fraction of the cost . . .

Perhaps the "commenter" should also question whether omega-3 fatty acids can come from eating fish.

As part of my cardiology practice, I provide consultation on complex hyperlipidemias, or unusual lipid abnormalities. I have many patients with something called familial hypertriglyceridemia, a genetic condition that permits triglyceride levels of 500, 1000, even many thousands of mg/dl, levels that, as the anonymous commenter points out, can be dangerous.

I virtually never prescribe Lovaza for these people. In their treatment program, I use simple fish oil supplements, such as that from Costco, Sam's Club, or other retailers. I have not witnessed a single failure in treating these people and reducing triglycerides. People with lesser triglyceride abnormalities likewise respond very nicely to inexpensive fish oil that we can buy at the health food store. (I do rely on useful services like Consumer Reports and www.consumerlab.com to reassure us that no pesticide residues, mercury, or other contaminants are in the brands we use.) Excellent, high-quality fish oil supplements are sold by Carlson, Life Extension, Barlean's, even the Members' Mark brand from Sam's Club.

So, the notion that only prescription fish oil is capable of reducing triglycerides is, in a word, nonsense.

Take that back to your CEO.

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.

Roger's near-miss CT angiogram experience

27. June 2009 William Davis (13)

Heart Scan Blog reader, Roger, described his near-miss experience with CT coronary angiograms.

Hoping to obtain just a simple CT heart scan, he was bullied to get a CT coronary angiogram instead. Roger held strong and just asked for the test that we all should be having, a CT heart scan.

I posted yesterday that I was about to have my first CT heart scan...well, it was an interesting experience for reasons I coudn't possibly have anticipated. Dr. Davis has commented in the past on the confusion in the media about the difference between a CT calcium score scan, and a CT angiography, the latter requiring a far higher dose of radiation. I assumed this was a source of confusion only among patients and lay folks, but, lo and behold, I discovered today that doctors--or at least their helpers--can be just as confused.

Here's my story:

After checking in, I asked the receptionist to see if she had any information on whether my medical insurance was covering the scan. She called someone, and I heard her say over the phone, "He's here for a CT angiogram." At that point my ears perked up. I explained I wasn't here for a CT angiogram, only a regular CT scan. "Well, do you want to call your doctor and talk about this?" she asked. No, I said, I would like to ask one of their folks to verify exactly what test my doctor had ordered. As luck would have it, the technician was walking by at that point. "Is this a CT angiogram?" the receptionist asked. "No, it's just a CT calcium score scan" was the reply. But apparently the technician had been unclear herself, and had called my doctor just to verify. In other words, the "default" procedure they were accustomed to doing at this august Houston vascular clinic was a CT angiogram.

In fact, my appointment was even listed on their calendar as a "CT angiogram." For all I know, my insurance will be billed for the same. Later, during the procedure, the technician acted surprised I wasn't doing the "full test." I explained I had minimal risk factors (actually only one, an HDL of 34 a couple of years ago, which has since been raised to 50 partly as a result of taking advice from this site), but that my doctor was progressive (he is an MD for the Houston Astros) and thought it was a good idea since there is heart disease in my immediate family. My doctor did indeed prescribe only a CT calcium score scan, but it seems to have been an order that this clinic, at least, wasn't all that used to seeing.

So, I guess the message is: we have a lot of educating to do. Had I not been a faithful reader of these pages, I certainly wouldn't have known what kind of test I was about to get, or what questions to ask!

As for the heart scan itself, a piece of cake. If you can hold your breath, you can take this test. Just be sure it is the right one!

Why the "push" towards CT coronary angiograms and not "just" a CT heart scan? Well, I know it's shocking but it's . . . money!

CT coronary angiograms yield around $1800-$4000 per test. CT heart scans yield somewhere around $200. Though the scan center support staff might not care too much about the money themselves, their administrators likely make the cost distinctions clear to them.

Another reason: Most scan center staff, ironically, don't understand what a heart scan means, nor do they understand how it might serve to launch a program of prevention. They do understand that severe blockage by CT angiogram "needs" to be stented or bypassed. So they push patients towards things they understand.

Nobody makes money from CT heart scans, just as nobody makes money from a mammogram. Heart scans also don't lead to heroic, "lifesaving" procedures. They just lead to this sleepy, unexciting, inexpensive thing called prevention.

The Myth of Prevention: Letter to the Wall Street Journal

25. June 2009 William Davis (20)

The June 20-21, 2009 Wall Street Journal Weekend Journal featured a provocative front page article written by physician, Dr. Abraham Verghese:

The Myth of Prevention

While eloquently written, I took issue with a few crucial points. Here is the letter I sent to the Editor at Wall Street Journal:

Dear Wall Street Journal Editor,

Re: Dr. Abraham Verghese’s article, The Myth of Prevention in the June 20-21, 2009 Weekend Journal.

I believe a more suitable title for Dr. Verghese’s article would be: “The Myth of What Passes as Prevention.”

As a practicing cardiologist, I, too, have witnessed firsthand the systemic “corruption” described by Dr. Verghese, the doing things “to” people rather than “for” them. Heart care, in particular, is rife with this form of profit-driven health delivery.

There is a fundamental flaw in Dr. Verghese’s otherwise admirable analysis: He assumes that what is called “prevention” in mainstream medicine is truly preventive.

Dr. Verghese makes issue of the apparent minor differences between preventing a condition and just allowing a condition to run its course. Prostate cancer screening is one example: Men subjected to repeated screenings have little length-of-life advantage over men who just allow their prostate to suffer the expected course of disease.

What if, instead, “prevention” as practiced today is nothing more than a solution that has been adopted in mainstream practice to suit yet another doing “to” strategy than doing “for”? In the prostate cancer example, PSA and prostate exam screenings often serve as little more than a means of harvesting procedures for the local urologist.

That’s not prevention. It is a prototypical example of “prevention” being subverted into the cause of revenue-generating procedures.

I submit that Dr. Verghese has fallen victim to the very same system he criticizes. His views have unwittingly been corrupted by the corrupt profit-driven system he describes.

What if, instead, prevention were just that: prevention or elimination of the condition. What if “prevention” of prostate cancer eliminated prostate cancer? What if heart disease “prevention” prevented all heart disease? What if this all proceeded without regard for profit or revenue-generating procedures, but just on results?

Dr. Verghese specifically targets heart scans or coronary calcium scoring, a test he likens to “miracle glow-in-the-dark minnow lures,” calling them “moneymakers.” Yes, when subverted into a corrupt algorithm of stress test, heart catheterization, stent, or bypass, heart scans are indeed a test used wrongly to “prevent” heart disease.

But what if the risk insights provided by heart scans prompt the start of a benign yet effective “prevention” program that inexpensively, safely, and assuredly prevents--in the true sense of the word--or eliminates heart disease? Then I believe the differences in mortality, quality of life, and costs would be substantial. Such strategies exist, yet do not necessarily include prescription drugs and certainly do not include the aftermath of heart catheterization and bypass surgery. Yet such programs fail to seize the limelight of media attention with no new high-tech lifesaving headline nor a big marketing budget to broadcast its message.

The problem in medicine is not prevention and its failure to yield cost- and life-saving results. It is the pervasively profit-driven mindset that keeps true preventive strategies from entering mainstream conversation. It is a repeat of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis’ late 19th-century pleads for physicians to wash their hands before delivering babies to reduce puerperal sepsis, ignominious advice that earned him life and death in an asylum. We are essentially continuing to deliver children with unwashed hands because there is no revenue-generating procedure to clean them.

No, Dr. Verghese, the economic and medical failings of preventive strategies are not at fault. The failure of the medical system, in which everyone is bent on seizing a piece of the financial action for himself, has resulted in the failure to support the propagation of true preventive strategies that could genuinely save money and lives.

President Obama’s goal of cultivating preventive practices in medicine can work, but only if the profit-motive for “prevention” does not serve as the primary determinant of practice. Results-driven practices that are applied without regard to profit have the potential to yield the sorts of cost-saving and life-saving results that can reduce healthcare costs.

William Davis, MD
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Medical Director, The Track Your Plaque Program (www.cureality.com)
Blog: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com

A victory for SHAPE, CT heart scans, and doing what is RIGHT

24. June 2009 William Davis (7)

The efforts of Texas House of Representatives Rep. Rene Oliveira and the SHAPE Guidelines committee have paid off: The Texas legislature passed a bill that requires health insurers to cover CT heart scans.

(NOTE: Don't make the same mistake that the media often makes and confuse CT heart scans with CT coronary angiography: two different tests, two different results, two different levels of radiation exposure. The difference is discussed here.)

Track Your Plaque previously reported the release of the SHAPE Guidelines, an ambitious effort to open CT heart scanning to people who would benefit from a simple screening test for coronary disease. Rep. Rene Oliveira initially introduced the bill in 2006, after having a heart scan uncovered extensive coronary plaque that resulted in coronary bypass surgery.

The bill requires that health-benefit providers cover the cost of CT heart scans (and carotid ultrasound) in men between the ages of 45-76, women 55-76, as well as anyone with diabetes or at "intermediate-risk" or higher for coronary disease by Framingham risk score.

The usual panel of cardiology knuckleheads stepped to the media podium, expressing their incredulity that something as "unvalidated" as heart scans could gain the backing of legislative mandate. Heartwire carried this comment:

"Contacted by heartwire, Dr Amit Khera (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas) confirmed there are still no comprehensive, adequately powered studies showing that these screening tests lead to better outcomes. In a phone interview, Khera said he has major concerns about how physicians will use these tests, particularly primary-care physicians. "I gave a talk last week to primary-care doctors, and there were probably 250 people in the room, and when I asked how many people had ordered a calcium scan, just one person raised a hand. . . . Most people don't even know what to do with the Framingham risk score, so they're going to follow an algorithm that they don't know how to follow to order a test result that they don't know what to do with."

It's the same criticisms hurled at heart scans over the years despite literally thousands of studies validating their application.

Studies have conclusively shown that:

--Coronary calcium scores generated by a CT heart scan outperform any other risk measure for coronary disease, including LDL cholesterol, c-reactive protein, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure.
--Coronary calcium scores yield a graded, trackable index of coronary risk. Scores that increase correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular events; scores that remain unchanged correlate with much reduced risk.
--A coronary calcium score of zero--no detectable calcium--correlates with extremely low 5-year risk for cardiovascular events.
--Coronary calcium scores correlate with other measures of coronary disease. Heart scans correlate with coronary angiography, quantitative coronary angiography, carotid ultrasound (intimal-medial thickness and plaque severity), ankle-brachial index, and stress tests, including radionuclide (nuclear) perfusion imaging.

The reluctance of my colleagues to embrace heart scans stems from two issues, for the most part:

1) No study has yet been performed showing that knowing what the score is vs. not knowing what the score is changes prognosis. That's true. But it is also true of the great majority of practices in medicine. While many wrongs don't make a right, the miserable and widespread failure of other coronary risk measures, like LDL cholesterol or c-reactive protein, to readily and reliably detect hidden coronary disease creates a gaping void for improved efforts at early detection. If your LDL cholesterol is 140 mg/dl, do you or don't you have coronary disease? If your doctor's response is "Just take a statin drug anyway" you've been done a great disservice. (If and when this sort of study gets done, its huge cost--outcome studies have to be large and last many years--it will likely be a statin study. It is unlikely it will include such Track Your Plaque strategies that help reduce heart scan scores, like vitamin D and correction of small LDL particles.)

2) Fears over overuse of hospital procedures triggered by heart scans. This is a legitimate concern--if the information provided by a heart scan is misused. Heart scans should never--NEVER--lead directly to heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery. Heart scans do not change the indications for performing revascularization (angioplasty, stents, bypass). Just because 20% of my cardiology colleagues are more concerned with profit rather than patient welfare does not invalidate the value of the test. Just because the mechanic at the local garage gouged you by replacing a carburetor for $800 when all you need was a new spark plug does not mean that we should outlaw all auto mechanics. Abuse is the fault of the abuser, not of the tool used to exercise the abuse.

All in all, while I am not a fan of legislating behavior in healthcare, the blatant and extreme ignorance of this simple tool for uncovering hidden heart disease makes the Texas action a huge success for heart disease prevention. I hope that this success will raise awareness, not just in Texas, but in other states and cities in which similar systemic neglect is the rule.

Remember: CT heart scans are tools for prevention, not to uncover "need" for procedures. They serve as a starting point to decide whether or not an intensive program of prevention is in order, and I don't mean statin vs. no statin.

Though not a multi-million dollar statin drug study, I have NEVER seen a heart attack or "need" for procedure in any person who has stopped progression or reduced their heart scan score. A small cohort from my practice was reported:

Effect of a Combined Therapeutic Approach of Intensive Lipid Management, Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation, and Increased Serum 25 (OH) Vitamin D on Coronary Calcium Scores in Asymptomatic Adults.

Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M.

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

Sleep: A to Zzzzzzzzzz

23. June 2009 William Davis (5)

Take a look at the results from the Heart Scan Blog's most recent reader poll (399 respondents):

How many hours do you sleep per night (on average)?

9 or more hours per night
15 (3.7%)

8-9 hours per night
72 (18%)

7-8 hours per night
152 (38.1%)

6-7 hours per night
111 (27.8%)

5-6 hours per night
38 (9.5%)

Less than 5 hours per night
11 (2.8%)

Like many issues in health, too much or too little of a good thing can present undesirable consequences.

Too much sleep: While psychologists and sleep researchers advise us that at least 9 hours are required to fully eliminate sleep "debt" and achieve optimal vigilance and mental performance, epidemiologic studies have shown increased mortality with this quantity of sleep.

Too little sleep: Getting less than 7 hours habituallly increases blood sugar, appetite, inflammatory measures, and encourages weight gain. Mortality is also increased, just as with sleeping too much. It is also associated with increased likelihood of a positive heart scan score.

7-8 hours per night from a health viewpoint is that Goldlilocks "just right" value: just enough to not erode mental performance substantially, but not so little that inflammatory, insulin-disrupting, and appetite-increasing effects develop.

Of our 399 respondents in the poll, 56.1% (38% + 18%) slept what appears to be an optimal amount for health. While only 3.7% slept too much (9 hours or more), the remaining 40.1% slept too little.

Our informal poll confirms what most of us observe in everyday life: The majority of people shortchange sleep in order to meet the demands of their high-pressure, squeeze-as-much-as-possible-into-every-day lives. But not paying off your sleep "debt" is like not paying the mortgage for a couple of months. You wouldn't expect your friendly neighborhood bank to say, "Oh, you forgot to pay your mortgage? Forget about it. Just pay next month's." Sure, fat chance. But if you don't pay off your sleep "debt," you will pay it back with health.