Alvin came into the office for consultation on his cholesterol values: LDL 198 mg/dl, HDL, 43 mg/dl, triglycerides 143 mg/dl. He says that he doesn't really try to choose healthy foods but he restricts his overall calorie intake by following the Weight Watcher's exchange approach.

Every morning, 7 days a week, Alvin eats a Sausage McMuffin for breakfast. He justified this by skipping lunch to make up for the 450 calories in the Sausage McMuffin, and not eating anything until dinner.

Can this work? Can you eat foods with unhealthy ingredients but make up the excessive calories by cutting back elsewhere?

The nutritional composition of McDonald's Sausage McMuffin includes 27 grams of total fat (10 gm saturated); 255 mg cholesterol; 950 mg sodium; 31 gm carbohydrate; 2 grams fiber. In other words, it's essentially the same as butter with sugar on it--pure fat, processed wheat, with little fiber or nutritive value.

For Alvin, this is an extremely unhealthy way to eat. His lipid patterns are just the tip of the iceberg: multiple hidden factors are also at work to create heart disease, atherosclerosis in other territories outside the heart, diabetes, high blood pressure, and cancer.

I think the effects are not much different than what Morgan Spurlock achieved in his Super Size Me documentary, but in little bits and pieces. Eating at McDonald's "restaurants" three times a day yielded frightening changes in his lipids, liver function, kidney function, not to mention his appearance and the way he felt. Alvin is doing the same thing, though in less dramatic fashion.

I see this very frequently: people mimicking the experience of Spurlock, just a little at a time, with overindulgence in processed fats and starches.

When you seen a set of Mcdonald's golden arches (or any fast food restaurant, for that matter), run as fast as you can in the other direction. Such indulgences, even in small bits and pieces, still creates a mess of your health.

Many people, upon first learning of their CT heart scan score, feel like they're on the edge of a sharp drop. It can feel like you're facing a vast, unknown abyss. At the bottom, all those dreaded things that can happen to you: heart attack, heart failure, hospitals, even dying.

I've encountered this "deer in the headlights" look many times. It truly can be frightening to hear that your heart scan score is 300, or 500, or whatever.

What I find truly frightening, however, is when your score prompts the usual array of misinformation commonly dispensed by physicians: "That's so bad you need a heart catheterization", "Nobody knows why people get calcified plaque", or "Reversal is impossible". All absolute bunk.

Let your fear motivate you to do something about your risk for heart disease. Aim for reversal of your coronary plaque and seek out the tools to achieve this. It is possible and, in fact, we do it all the time. I can't claim 100% success, but the majority of people who engage in an effort like the Track Your Plaque program to reverse coronary plaque succeed. Even a substantial slowing of plaque growth from the expected 30% per year is better than submitting to the conventional approach.

At the very least, get both LDL and HDL cholesterol around 60 mg/dl. This alone is a major plus in reducing the risks associated with your heart scan score. It doesn't guaranteee reversal, but it sure tips the odds in your favor.

Breakfast cereal manufacturing giant, Kelloggs, is launching a line of three cereals that will carry the "organic" designation: Organic Rice Krispies, Organic Raisin Bran, and Organic Frosted Mini-Wheats.

This reminds me of the advertisements I've seen for "fresh fried chicken", or "fresh from the can", or "contains only pure cane sugar". How about organic tobacco? Would that make cigarettes healthier?

The TV ad ends with the slogan "Childood is calling!" Oh, those marketers are a shrewd, clever bunch. I worry that they're so clever that most people will fall for these ludicrous tricks.

Don't fall for these thinly-shrouded marketing shenanigans. Organic? Who cares. These foods remain unhealthy whether or not they contain pesticide residues. Take a look at the nutritional composition: Rice Krispies, organic or not, is sugar to your body. It is the sort of food that creates pre-diabetes, diabetes, makes us fat, and fans the flames of lipoprotein patterns like small LDL, VLDL, and postprandial particles, all of which is like throwing cow manure on the weed patch of your coronary plaque.

Food manufacturers gave nuts a bad name when they started adding evil ingredients to them. "Party mix", "honey-roasted", mixed nuts, etc., are made with added hydrogenated oils, salt, sugar, excessive quantities of raisins, or other added ingredients that turned a healthy food--nuts--into something that made us fat and hypertensive, raised LDL, dropped HDL, and raised blood pressure.

But nuts themselves are, for the most part, very healthy foods. The very best are nuts with a brown fiber coating like almonds, walnuts, and pecans. Nearly all nuts also come rich in monounsaturated oils similar to that in olive oil. Although calorie-dense, nuts tend to be very filling and slash your appetite for other foods. I have never seen anyone gain weight by adding raw nuts to their diet. In fact, I find adding raw nuts cuts craving for sweets.

Nuts are also among the most concentrated sources of magnesium, containing around 150 mg per 1/2 cup serving. As most Americans are at least marginally if not severely deficient in magnesium, this really helps. Magnesium deficiency is a prominent aspect of "metabolic syndrome" and resistance to insulin.

Some nuts have added benefits like the l-arginine content of almonds or the linolenic acid content of walnuts. However, I think the real health "punch" comes from the fiber and monounsaturate content.

Add 1/4-1/2 cup of raw almonds, walnuts, or pecans per day to your diet and what can you expect? The effects that I see every day that are relevant to plaque control/heart scan score-reducing efforts include:

--Reduction in LDL--usually a 20 mg/dl drop, sometimes more.

--Reduction in triglycerides, especially if nuts replace processed carbohydrate calories. This may be because the fiber and monounsaturate content of nuts reduces blood sugar and the effective glycemic index of any accompanying foods.

--Modest blood pressure reduction.

--Though somewhat inconsistent, partial suppression of the dreaded small LDL particle pattern. We struggle with turning off the small LDL pattern in some people, and raw nuts can provide a real advantage.

If that isn't enough, the fiber content also makes your bowels regular.

Unless there's some reason to avoid nuts (e.g., allergy), nuts should be a part of your heart scan score reducing program. Shop around, as prices can vary wildly. I've been paying $12.99 for a 3 lb bag of raw almonds from Sam's Club, though I've seen almonds elsewhere for up to $12.99 per pound.

For additional commentary, go to one of my favorite Blogs, http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com. The Fanatic Cook's recent post, The Season for Walnuts , provides additional discussion on walnuts and the recent study showing how they improve "endothelial function". The nutritionist behind this Blog has fabulous insights into food, including the concept of "functional foods", i.e., using foods as a treatment tool. She is also unfailingly entertaining.

Stan is 55 years old. He feels fine, is in moderately good physical condition. His LDL cholesterol is 135 mg/dl, HDL 43 mg/dl, triglycerides 167 mg/dl, total cholesterol 211 mg/dl.

Can you tell me whether Stan has heart disease or not?

How about Charles? Charles has an LDL cholesterol of 127 mg/dl, HDL of 44 mg/dl, triglycerides of 98 mg/dl, and total cholesterol of 191 mg/dl. He is also reasonably fit and feels fine. Can you tell whether Charles has heart disease?

If you can't, don't feel bad. Neither can your doctor. But this is the folly of using cholesterol for risk prediction.

Stan's heart scan score: 0

Charles' heart scan score: 978

Look even more closely at Stan's and Charles' cholesterol numbers. Is there some fine distinction we overlooked? What if we calculated total cholesterol to HDL ratio? Or LDL/HDL ratio?

No matter how you squeeze it, shake it, beat it with a stick, you simply cannot use cholesterol numbers to predict heart disease in specific individuals. Yes, the higher your LDL cholesterol and lower your HDL, the higehr your total cholesterol to HDL ratio, the greater the likelihood of heart disease. But you can simply cannot tell in a specific individual at a specific point in time. If you've seen your doctor puzzle over the numbers, understand that he/she is trying to make sense out of something that doesn't make sense, no matter how hard he/she tries.

You simply need to measure the disease itself: get a CT heart scan, the only measure of atherosclerotic coronary plaque that you have access to.

By the way, if you haven't seen it yet, go to the Track Your Plaque website (www.cureality.com) to see the news piece reporting the American Heart Association's much overdue position statement on CT heart scanning. The AHA has finally released a statement which, in effect, provides their "official" endorsement. Blocked by political shenanigans behind the scenes for several years, the guidelines finally made it to press. The only real difference it makes to me is that my patients may finally get their heart scans paid for by insurance, once the insurance companies realize that it's getting tougher and tougher to dodge their responsibility.

How common are muscle aches with the statin drugs?

It depends on who you ask. If you ask the drug manufacturers, they will tell you no more than 2% of people who take them. They back this up with the experience in tens of thousands of people in published clinical trials.

What if we ask people who take them outside of clinical trials. How many then? I estimate, from my large experience, over 80%! In other words, muscle aches are inevitable in nearly everyone who takes them. The longer you take them, the higher your dose, the more likely muscle aches are going to be.

Why the disconnect between published data and real-world experience? I really don't know. In some instances, the differences are dramatic. The ASTEROID trial, for instance, in which Crestor, 40 mg, was given for two years, only resulted in 8% of people dropping out because of side-effects. My experience: everybody--nobody can tolerate this dose for any length of time.

Let me qualify what "muscle aches" mean. It means achiness and/or weakness, usually mild, occasionally moderate to severe, worse upon awakening and less with use. It can affect many muscles or it can involve only one. Rarely is it incapacitating but it is commonly annoying and frightening. It commonly shows up as gradually diminishing strength with exercise. Strength usually returns promptly upon stopping the offending drug.

"Rhabdomyolysis", or true muscle destruction is, fortunately, very unusual in otherwise well people. People with abnormal kidney function, diabetes, and other concurrent illnesses are somewhat more prone. But in reality, rhabdomyolysis is unusual. I've personally seen it twice, both in people sick for other reasons.

Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) supplementation has been a godsend for us. At least 4 out of 5 people who require statins and develop muscle aches respond favorably, but it requires 100 mg per day. The preparation must be oil-based to work, not powder in a capsule which exerts no effect. Some people get by with less; some require as much as 300 mg per day. I've had favorable experiences with the CoQ10 from Sam's Club, GNC, Vitamin Shoppe, and Life Extension (www.LEF.org).

The Track Your Plaque target for LDL cholesterol is 60 mg/dl. Many people do indeed use statins to achieve this level, the level of LDL that amplifies your chances of heart disease reversal, i.e., reduction of heart scan score. The only drawback that I'm aware of with CoQ10 replacement is cost. Beyond this, it's a benign supplement that even supplies higher energy for some people who take it.

I received this fax today from a cardiologist seeking a position:

"I would prefer to perform as many interventions [stents, angioplasties, etc.] as possible..."

That about sums it up, doesn't it? The goal of this young man, trained in major universities including Columbia University, Harvard, and Emory, is not to pursue an avenue of investigation or healthcare that yields real answers. His goal is to perform as many procedures as possible.

This attitude is deeply ingrained in cardiologists. It's also shared by all procedural medical specialties: the drive to do more and more procedures. It's not because it does more good for the public, but it fulfills a primitive impulse to spread your influence, enlarge your territory, and--of course--make more money.

Personally, I find this impulse repulsive. The fact that this young cardiologist looking for a position is willing to make this statement out in the open demonstrates how widely accepted this attitude is. Imagine your cancer surgeon, looking for a new job, said, "I'm looking to remove as many tumors as I can."

My colleagues have lost sight of the fact that we're trying to reduce or eliminate disease, not enrich our pockets or service some primitive impulse to beat others at our game.

I get this comment occasionally, usually from the fishy belching that can occur, rarely because of other crazy effects like rash, fishy body odor, etc.

In the vast majority, fish oil is a benign but wonderfully effective agent. Track Your Plaque followers know that fish oil, starting at 4000 mg per day of a standard 1000 mg capsule preparation, dramatically reduces triglycerides and thereby raises HDL, partially suppresses small LDL, and is the best agent available for reducing postprandial (after eating) abnormalities like IDL and certain VLDL fractions.

However, an occasional person (about 1 in 20) just doesn't like the effects. Are there alternatives? Fish oil packs such a wallop of beneficial effects that can not be replaced by any other single agent or lifestyle practice. For this reason, we have a number of easy strategies to enhance your tolerance for fish oil. (Of course, if your and/or you doctor determine that you're allergic to fish oil, then you should indeed avoid it; thankfully, this is rare.)

Helpful strategies include:

--Refrigerate fish oil capsules--this cuts back on fish belching.
--Take only with meals. This also may increase fish oil's benefits on suppressing after-eating lipoprotein abnormalities.
--Take an enteric-coated preparation--this delays breakdown of the tablet/capsule, making fishy belching less of an issue. Sam's Club has an inexpensive preparation.
--Take liquid fish oil. Usually orange or lemon flavored, liquid fish oil may be a faint fishy taste and odor, but usually not as prominent as the capsules. There's also less stomach upset.
--Coromega--a paste form of fish oil available at health food stores or through http://www.coromega.com. Coromega tastes fruity and comes in little squeeze envelopes.
--Frutol--Pharmax, a British company, makes another fruity fish oil that is non-oily and tastes like apricot. It's actually fairly reasonably priced, too. However, it is hard to find. The only way I know to get is to go online at www.pharmaxllc.com. You may have to actually order through a health care provider.

When using any preparation of fish oil, the best way to determine your dose is to add up the EPA and DHA content. For instance, if you use a fish oil liquid that contains 320 mg EPA and 240 mg DHA per teaspoon, you will need two teaspoons a day to achieve the equivalent of our starting dose of 1200 mg of EPA+DHA, usually provided by 4000 mg total in 4 capsules. Note that some lipid and lipoprotein disorders will require higher doses, e.g., 1800 mg EPA+DHA for high triglycerides (>200 mg/dl) or high IDL.

A recent report in the Journal of the American Medical Association details how a group in the Veneto region of Italy cut back on the incidence of sudden cardiac death in athletes by a simple screening program.

You can read the abstract of the article at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/296/13/1593.

Although sudden death in athletes is still a rare event, it is especially tragic when it happens. In this population, the incidence was 3.6 deaths per 100,000 athletes aged 12 to 35 years. By implementing a simple screening program that involved only a physical examination and an EKG, an astounding 89% reduction in sudden death was documented.

What lessons does this hold for those of us interested in coronary plaque reversal? Beyond the obvious lesson of pointing out the great benefit of simple screening of athletes, I believe that it tells us the value of simple screening tools for heart disease in general. It is my strong belief that, if we were to implement CT heart scans among the broad population of men 40 years and over, women 50 years and over--without regard to cholesterol or other relatively lame risk identifiers--we could slash the risk for heart attack and death 90% or more. Putting CT heart scans into the hands of the public makes your coronary risk obvious. It takes the guesswork out of risk predictors like cholesterol and high blood pressure.

But heart scans are already available, you say! Yes, of course they are. But the lack of insurance reimbursement continues to be a restricting factor for many people, despite the number of lives that could be potentially saved and the money that would be saved in the long run by reducing need for major heart procedures. The continuing resistance to prevention by my cardiology colleagues and the persistent ignorance of primary care physicians also remain major impediments.

But it's getting better. You don't have to be chained by ignorance. Put your CT heart scan to good use.

Tom came into the office ready for a confrontation.

Tom's wife insisted that he see me to discuss the implications of his CT heart scan score of 459. At age 50, this was clearly bad news that placed Tom in the 99th percentile (worst 1% of men in his age group).

But Tom had already undergone a stress test. There had apparently been a small abnormality, and a heart catheterization had been performed by another cardiologist. "They told me they didn't need to do anything. No stent, no ballon, no bypass, nothing!"

I asked, "Did they tell you that there was any plaque or blockages seen?"

"Yeah, but he said it was nothing. So the heart scan was wrong!"

I've been here many times before. I explained to Tom that, no, his heart scan was not wrong. All the tests he'd undergone siimply provided a different perspective on the same disease. You could say:

--The stress test, being a test of blood flow, may have been abnormal because of the abnormal constrictive behavior of arteries containing plaque, known as "endothelial dysfunction", because the inner lining of arteries (the endothelium) control the tone of the artery. Abnormal constriction in arteries with plaque is quite common.

--The catheterization simply showed that no plaque had collected in a configuration to block flow, thus no stent, etc., since flow was normal. But there was indeed plaque.

All three tests were right; none were wrong. They all provided a little different perspective on the same process. Of course, I favor the heart scan as the means to identify, precisely measure, and track the atherosclerotic plaque in your arteries. The stress test is too crude and only measures flow, the catheterization is not something you'd want to undergo year after year. Catheterization also is too crude a measure to precisely track plaque growth or reversal.

So I explained to Tom that, even though a stent or similar procedure was unnecessary, he remained at substantial risk for heart attack due to plaque "rupture". In fact, Tom's heart attack risk was 5% per year, or approximately 50% over the next decade. That is, indeed, substantial. In fact, you might say that, of the three tests Tom underwent, only the heart scan revealed his true risk.

You know that cynical old saying:

It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

In other words, knowing the right person provides you strategic advantage in business, social advancement, etc.

In health, it was often true. Knowing who the better doctors were, for instance, in your city might provide you with access to better care.

Enter the Information Age. You now have access to medical information equal to that of your doctor. You now have access to patient discussions about doctors, their practices, their performance records. There is now a depth and breadth of information on health that was never available before.

I’d therefore turn the old saying into the new Health 2.0 version:

It’s not who you know, it’s what you know.

In health, information now reigns supreme, not knowing somebody else who has the right connections.

Positive: Everybody now theoretically has access to an equal amount of information, since you can access information on any topic just as easily as I can.

Negative: It puts more of the burden on you. If you screw up in health, perhaps you didn’t try to get the best information hard enough.

I love this new development, this emergence of empowerment in health. I call it self-directed health, the individual capacity to exert enormous influence over the quality of your healthcare.

This is obviously a work in progress. All the answers and tools for self-directed care, self-empowerment are not yet available, some haven’t even yet been imagined.

But they are coming.

“Do you really think I need a heart scan?” asked Terry.

“My doctor said that heart scans show too many false positives. He says that many people end up getting unnecessary heart catheterizations because of them.”

At age 56, Terry was becoming increasingly frightened. His father had suffered his first heart attack at age 53, Terry’s paternal uncle had a heart attack at age 56, his paternal grandfather a heart attack at age 50.

Is this true? Do heart scans yield too many false positives, meaning abnormal results when there really is no abnormality?

No, it is not. What Terry’s doctor is referring to is the fact that, in the decades-long process that leads to heart attack, heart scans have the ability to detect early phases of developing coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Let’s take Terry’s case, for example. Given his family history, it is quite likely that he does indeed have coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Will it be detectable by performing a stress test? Probably not. In fact, Terry jogs and feels well while doing so. While a stress test abnormality that fails to reach conscious perception is possible, it’s fairly unlikely given his exercise routine.

Will Terry’s coronary atherosclerotic plaque be detectable by heart catheterization? Very likely. But why perform an invasive hospital procedure just as a screening test? Should a woman wishing to undergo a screening test for breast cancer undergo breast removal? Of course not.

Is waiting for symptoms a rational way to approach diagnosis of heart disease? Well, when symptoms appear, it means that coronary blood flow is reduced. Stents and bypass surgery may be indicated. The risk of heart attack and death skyrocket. Sudden death becomes a real possibility.

In the 30 or so years required to establish sufficient coronary plaque to permit the appearance of symptoms or the development of an abnormality detectable by stress testing, there were many years when the disease was early--too early to generate symptoms, too early to be detectable by stress testing.

That’s when heart scans uncover evidence for silent coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Should we call this a “false positive” just because it doesn’t also correlate with “need” for a catheterization, stent, bypass operation or result in heart attack within the next few weeks?

The detection of early plaque is just that: early disease detection.

Imagine, for instance, that the breast cancer that will grow into a palpable nodule or mass detectable by mammogram is detectable by a special breast scan 15 years before it becomes a full-blown tumor, metastasizing to other organs. What if effective means to halt that earliest evidence of cancer could put a stop to this devastating disease decades ahead of danger? Is this a “false positive” too?

In my view, this is the knuckleheaded thinking of the conventional practitioner: “Don’t bother me until you’re really sick.” Prevention is a practice that has become fashionable only because of the push of the drug industry. Nutrition is an afterthought, a message conceived through consensus of “experts” with suspect motivations and allegiances.

So, no, heart scans do not uncover “false positives.” They uncover early disease--true positives--years before it is detectable by standard tests or by the appearance of catastrophe. But that is the whole point: Early detection means getting a head start on prevention.

Do heart scans lead to unnecessary heart catheterizations? Yes, sadly they do. But not because heart scans are false positive. It happens because of unscrupulous or ignorant cardiologists who use the information wrongly. In my view, heart scans should NEVER lead directly to heart catheterization in an asymptomatic patient. Heart scans, as helpful as they are, do not modify the standard reasons for performing heart procedures.

If a car mechanic is dishonest and fixes a carburetor that didn't need fixing, should we condemn all car mechanics? No, of course not. We only need to develop the means to weed out the bad apples. The same applies to heart scans.

Here's a bit of lipid tedium that might nonetheless help you one day decipher the meaning of shifts in your cholesterol panel.

Recall from prior discussions that conventional LDL cholesterol is a calculated value. Contrary to popular opinion, LDL is usually not measured, but calculated from the Friedewald equation:

LDL cholesterol = Total cholesterol - HDL cholesterol - triglycerides/5

For the sake of simplicity, let's call total cholesterol TC; HDL cholesterol HDL, and triglycerides TG.

We've also talked in past how a low HDL makes calculated LDL inaccurate, sometimes wildly so. (See Low HDL makes Dr. Friedewald a liar.)

Here's yet another source of inaccuracy of the Friedewald-calculated LDL: any increase in triglycerides.

Let's say, for instance, that starting lipid panel shows:

TC 170 mg/dl
LDL 100 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
TG 100 mg/dl

You're advised to follow a standard low-fat, whole grain-rich diet advocated by "official" agencies (the diet I bash as knuckleheaded). Another panel a few months later shows:

TC 230 mg/dl
LDL 140 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
TG 200 mg/dl

(Obviously, I've oversimplified the response for the sake of argument. HDL would likely go down, LDL would change more depending on body weight, small LDL tendencies, and other factors. You'd also likely get fat.)

Now your doctor declares that your LDL has gone up and you "need" a statin agent.

Nonsense, absolute nonsense.

What has really happened is that the increased dietary intake of wheat and other "healthy whole-grain foods" has caused triglycerides to skyrocket. LDL increases, in turn, by a factor of TG/5, or 40 mg/dl. Thus, LDL has been inflated by the triglyceride-raising effect of whole grains.

This is yet another reason why the standard lipid panel, full of hazards and landmines, needs to be abandoned. But calculated LDL in particular is an exercise in frustration.

Though the example used is hypothetical, I've witnessed this effect thousands of times. I've also seen many people placed on statin drugs unnecessarily, due to the appearance of a high LDL cholesterol that really represented increased TG/5, usually induced by an excessive carbohydrate intake, including those commonly misrepresented as healthy such as whole grains.

In the Heart Scan Blog, I am often guilty of speaking out loud of my varied thoughts on this crazy thing that we've created called the cardiovascular healthcare machine. But I discuss it in the context of asking "How could this be done better--better outcomes, more patient-friendly, more accessible . . . more do-it-yourself?

The last part is the part that throws most people. Do-it-yourself? My colleagues would claim I'm nuts, suggesting that coronary heart disease is something manageable by yourself. In the conventional pathway, after all, coronary disease is that unpredictable, poorly detected by standard tests, condition that then leads to heart catheterization, stents, bypass , and the like.

Several factors distinguish the readers of The Heart Scan Blog that surprised me:

--Nearly 60% are women
--There are a disproportionate number of Asian people. (Can someone explain this to me?)
--A great number have graduate degrees

I believe this tells me that The Heart Scan Blog appeals to a somewhat more sophisticated audience. This, to some degree, warms my heart, since it means that I've captured the attention of some people who may be more discriminating and thoughtful in their Internet surfing.

However, I also lament the fact that these conversations are not achieving the mainstream. After all,

Lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), can be a tough nut to crack.

Having struggled and wrestled with this genetic pattern for the last 12 years or so in hundreds of patients, I have gained great respect for this difficult to control pattern.

I regard lipoprotein(a) as the number one most aggressive cause for heart disease and coronary plaque known. It can account for heart attacks in men in their 40s, women in their 50s. It can cause heart disease and heart attacks in even the ultra-fit like marathon runners. It accounts for both excessive coronary risk and misleading cholesterol values in slender, healthy-appearing people.

Niacin is the number one treatment choice for Lp(a), followed by testosterone for men, estrogens (preferably human, not horse or other non-human mammal) for women. I then often resort to DHEA, along with adjunctive nutritional agents like raw almonds, ground flaxseed, and others.

Our most recent addition to the Lp(a) treatment list is high-dose fish oil, which appears to exert a significant effect in about 40% of people with Lp(a).

Even with this multi-agent approach, not everybody gains control over Lp(a).

That makes me wonder if someone has Lp(a) at a substantial level of, say, 200 nmol/L or 70 mg/dl (values can differ tremendously, depending on the method of measurement), should we throw everything but the kitchen sink at Lp(a) from the start? Right now, by adding an agent one at a time, it often takes two years to gain control over Lp(a) (if we are going to get it at all).

While many people might find this unpalatable and overwhelming from the starting gate of their program, I do believe it may be a strategy we should consider adopting for full and more immediate plaque control in the Track Your Plaque program. Something to chew on.

Clearly, we need better answers for Lp(a). A "kitchen sink," full-frontal assault might be a way to gain faster control, though not necessarily a superior approach with regards to efficacy and potency.

There are a number of unique, potentially effective therapies for Lp(a) that are worth examining. Given the difficulty of performing clinical trials with non-drug agents (largely a lack of financial support, since nobody gets a financial return with non-patent-protectable agents), I am anxious to put these potential treatments to a test in the Track Your Plaque program Virtual Clinical Trail (VCT). The VCT gives us a quick and relatively easy method to test various potential treatments, with feedback generated in months, rather than years.

Any suggestions on promising agents to test? Of course, they must be widely available nutritional agents, not drugs.

Colleen started with the usual discrepancy between conventional calculated LDL cholesterol of 121 mg/dl and the far more accurate LDL particle number (NMR) of 1927 nmol/L.

Those of you following this conversation or our many conversations on the Track Your Plaque Forum know that a useful and highly reliable rule-of-thumb for converting NMR LDL particle number to LDL is to drop the last digit: 1927 nmol/L becomes 192 mg/dl. (This is, admitttedly, arrived at empirically, not by design. However, it has held up through thousands of NMR analyses and plays out reasonably when you compare distributions of Friedewald LDL and LDL particle number on a population basis.)

In other words, by this simple manipulation, Colleen's Friedewald calculated LDL is off by 58%. This is very common, a phenomenon I witness several times every day.

By LDL particle size, 75% of all Colleen's LDL particle were abnormally small (small LDL particle number 1440 nmol/L). This is a moderately severe small LDL tendency.

So we took all the steps for reduction of small LDL/LDL, including elimination of wheat and cornstarch, exercise, weight loss (which happens inevitably when wheat and cornstarch are eliminated), fish oil, vitamin D, etc.

Another NMR lipoprotein panel showed an LDL particle number of 882 nmol/L and a Friedewald calculated LDL of 87 mg/dl. Using our rule-of-thumb, LDL by particle number is virtually the same as the calculated LDL. This time, small LDL numbered only 237 nmol/L, or 26.8% of the total, a marked reduction.

Isn't that interesting? As small LDL is corrected, the crude Friedwald calculated LDL approximates the more accurate LDL particle number.

It assumes that accuracy of the Friedewald calculation may be more likely to occur as LDL size approaches normal. However, when LDL size is abnormally small--a condition shared by at least 70% of people with coronary heart disease--then the Friedewald LDL becomes increasingly inaccurate.

The opposite can also happen: When all or nearly all LDL particles are large, Friedewald calculated LDL can markedly overestimate LDL particle number. Yesterday, for instance, a patient had a Friedewald calculated LDL of 183 mg/dl, but an NMR particle number of 1110 nmol/L--drop the zero . . . LDL 110 mg/dl. This woman was advised to take a statin drug by her primary care physician, based on the Friedewald LDL. Instead, she proved to have a far lower LDL. She would not have benefitted from taking a statin drug.

As I've warned many times before: Beware the Friedewald calculated LDL.

The last post on vitamin D raised a number of basic questions among readers. So let me discuss some of these questions one by one. All of them raise important issues surrounding the practical aspects of managing vitamin D in your health.

Anne said:

I think it is important to stress that vitamin D supplementation needs to be continued long term.

I have met too many people who have been prescribed 50,000 IU of D2 for 8-12 weeks and then told to stop because their 23(OH)D went over 30ng/ml. I know one person who's doctor stopped and started the D2 3 times.

Thanks for pointing that out, Anne. Excellent point. I also see doctors do this with statin drugs: start it, check a LDL level which is lower, then think that you're done and stop the drug. What the heck are they thinking?

If vitamin D is not being produced by sun exposure and not obtainable through diet, continued supplementation is necessary, essentially for life.

Twinb asked:

How often you think Vit. D levels should be tested after the initial test is done, especially if the levels are drastically low?

We have used every 6 months in the office. Ideally, levels are in mid-summer and mid- to-late winter in order to gauge the extremes of your seasonal fluctuations. While most adults over 40 fail to fluctuate more than 10 ng/ml in the Wisconsin climate (and this summer, after an initial rainy season early, has been flawlessly bright and sunny, in the high-70s and 80s every single day for months), an occasional person fluctuates more widely. The only way to judge is to check a blood level.

Rich said:

Vitamin D dosage effects appear to be quite idiosyncratic.

Yes, indeed it is. Despite using crude rules-of-thumb, like taking 1000 units of vitamin D per 10 ng/ml desired (a rule I learned from Dr. John Cannell, which he offered fully aware of its inaccuracy), many people will surprise you and have levels that make no sense. Testing is crucial to know your vitamin D level.

Richard asked: Where do we get enough vitamin D wihout worring about laboratory tests?

Well, the entire point of the post was that you absolutely, positively cannot just take vitamin D blindly at any dose and hope that your level is ideal, no more than you can blindly take a dose of thyroid and know you have achieved normal thyroid levels. In my view, vitamin D blood levels are an absolute.

Another simple issue: Don't be afraid of vitamin D. It is, in all practicality, no more dangerous than getting a dark tan. (But, as many of you realize, getting a tan is no assurance of raising vitamin D if you are over 40 years old.)

Wouldn't it be great if someone developed a do-it-yourself-at-home skin test for vitamin D? I know of no effort to develop this, but it would be a huge advantage for all of us.

It’s probably the number one most common question I get today:

“How much vitamin D should I take?”

Like asking for investing advice, there are no shortage of people willing to provide answers, most of them plain wrong.

The media are quick to offer advice like “Take the recommended daily allowance of 400 units per day,” or “Some experts say that intake of vitamin D should be higher, as high as 2000 units per day.” Or “Be sure to get your 15 minutes of midday sun.”

Utter nonsense.

The Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine has been struggling with this question, also. They have an impossible job: Draft broad pronouncements on requirements for various nutrients by recommending Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) for all Americans. The Food and Nutrition Board has tried to factor in individual variation by breaking vitamin D requirements down by age and sex, but what amounts to a one-size-fits-nearly-all approach.

Much of the uncertainty over dosing stems from the fact that vitamin D should not be called a “vitamin.” Vitamins are nutrients obtained from foods. But, outside of oily fish, you'll find very little naturally-occurring vitamin D in food. (Even in fish, there is generally no more than 400 units per 4 oz. serving.) Sure, there’s 20 units in an egg yolk and you can activate the vitamin D in a shiitake mushroom by exposing it to ultraviolet radiation. Dairy products like milk (usually) contain vitamin D because the USDA mandates it. But food sources hardly help at all unless you’re an infant or small child.

It all makes sense when vitamin D is viewed as a hormone, a steroid hormone, not a vitamin. Vitamin-no, steroid hormone-D exerts potent effects in tiny quantities with hormone-like action in cells, including activation of nuclear receptors.

It is the only hormone that is meant to be activated by sun exposure of the skin, not obtained through diet. But the ability to activate D is lost by the majority of us by age 40 and even a dark tan is no assurance that sufficient skin prohormone D activation has taken place.

As with any other hormone, such as thyroid, parathyroid, or growth hormones, dose needs to be individualized.

Imagine you developed a severely low thyroid condition that resulted in 30 lbs of weight gain, lose your hair, legs swell, and heart disease explodes. Would you accept that you should take the same dose of thyroid hormone as every other man or woman your age, regardless of your body size, proportion of body fat, metabolism, genetics, race, dietary habits, and other factors that influence thyroid hormone levels? Of course you wouldn’t.

Then why would anyone insist that vitamin D be applied in a one-size-fits-all fashion? (There’s another world in which a one-size-fits-all approach to hormone replacement has been widely applied, that of female estrogen replacement. In conventional practice, there’s no effort to identify need, estrogen-progesterone interactions, nor assess the adequacy of dose, not to mention the perverse non-human preparation used.)

With thyroid hormone, ideal replacement dose of hormone ranges widely from one person to another. Some people require 25 mcg per day of T4; others require 800% greater doses. Many require T3, but not everybody.

Likewise, vitamin D requirements can range widely. I have used anywhere from 1000 units per day, all the way up to 16,000 units per day before desirable blood levels were achieved.

Vitamin D dose needs to be individualized. Factors that influence vitamin D need include body size and percent body fat (both of which increase need substantially); sex (males require, on average, 1000 units per day more than females); age (older need more); skin color (darker-skinned races require more, fairer-skinned races less); and other factors that remain ill-defined.

But these are “rules” often broken. My office experience with vitamin D now numbers nearly 1000 patients. The average female dose is 4000-5000 units per day, average male dose 6000 units per day to achieve a blood level of 60-70 ng/ml, though there are frequent exceptions. I’ve had 98 lb women who require 12,000 units, 300 lb men who require 1000 units, 21-year olds who require 10,000 units. (Of course, this is a Wisconsin experience. However, regional differences in dosing needs diminish as we age, since less and less vitamin D activation occurs.)

Let me reiterate: Steroid hormone-vitamin D dose needs to be individualized.

There’s only one way to individualize your need for vitamin D and thereby determine your dose: Measure a blood level.

Nobody can gauge your vitamin D need by looking at you, by your skin color, size, or other simple measurement like weight or body fat. A vitamin D blood level needs to be measured specifically-period.

Unfortunately, many people balk at this, claiming either that it’s too much bother or that their doctor refused to measure it.

I would rank normalizing steroid hormone-vitamin D as among the most important things you can do for your health. It should never be too much bother. And if your doctor refuses to at least discuss why he/she won’t measure it, then it’s time for a new doctor.

If you’re worried about adding to rising healthcare costs by adding yet another blood test, think of the money saved by sparing you from a future of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, diabetes, etc. The cost of a vitamin D blood test is relatively trivial (around $40-50, a fraction of the cost of a one month supply of a drug for diabetes.)

So how much vitamin D should you take? Enough to raise your blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D to normal. (We aim for a normal level of 60-70 ng/ml.)

The results of the recent Heart Scan Blog survey in response to the question: MY DAILY DOSE OF EPA + DHA FROM FISH OIL IS revealed:

Zero--I don't take any
17 (7%) of respondents

Less than 1000 mg per day
24 (10%) of respondents

1000-2000 mg per day
91 (38%) of respondents

2000-3000 mg per day
44 (18%) of respondents

3000-4000 mg per day
40 (16%) of respondents

More than 4000 mg per day
20 (8%) of respondents

Based on the above results, I would say that only a minority of respondents are taking an ideal dose of omega-3 fatty acids. Nearly all of us should consider taking more.

Benefits of omega-3 fatty acids (EPA + DHA) from fish oil begin around a dose of 840 mg per day, according to the GISSI Prevenzione Trial of 1999, an 11,000-participant trial. This dose also corresponds to a quantity of omega-3s that have been shown to raise EPA + DHA blood levels and thereby reduce the notoriously high AA:EPA ratio of Americans.

But what dose is sufficient? What dose is ideal?

Well, the answer to a great degree depends on what you are taking the fish oil for. If being taken to reduce triglycerides and triglyceride-containing lipoproteins, like VLDL and the after-eating (postprandial) IDL, then a higher dose will be necessary. (Triglyceride reduction for the genetically-determined very high triglyceride level of familial hypertriglyceridemia is the FDA-approved indication for prescription Lovaza.)

If you are taking fish oil for treatment of ADHD, depression, or bipolar illness, very high doses are often necessary.

But how about maximal reduction of cardiovascular risk and for control or reversal of atherosclerotic plaque?

This conversation is still evolving. But we can learn some important lessons from three populations of the world that are vigorous consumers of fish:

--The Inuits (aka Eskimos) of Greenland and northern Canada
--The Japanese
--The Bantus of Tanzania who live along Nyasa Lake

All three indigenous populations have several-fold greater intakes of fish and omega-3 fatty acids, have higher blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids, and have enjoyed reduced cardiovascular events, reduced atherosclerotic plaque, or improvement in various surrogates of cardiovascular risk (e.g., Lp(a)).

The most recent addition to this conversation is the ERA JUMP Study, discussed in a previous Heart Scan Blog post. In ERA JUMP, despite being heavy smokers and having other markers for greater risk for heart disease, Japanese men living in Japan had markedly less carotid and coronary plaque, as compared to Caucasian men living in PIttsburgh or Hawaiian men of Japanese descent. The difference appeared to be attributable to serum levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

I believe that the trend is here is to increase the amount of omega-3 fatty acids that most of us take. In the Track Your Plaque program, we have been advocating a rock-bottom starting dose of EPA + DHA of 1200 mg per day. However, I believe that this is due for a change.

We will be increasing the minimum dose for plaque regression and control. Please attend our Webinar this evening for a full, in-depth discussion of the rationale behind this important change.

As always, let me remind you that I am not selling, nor ever have sold, fish oil supplements. If I advocate a specific dose, a higher dose, I do so based on my interpretation of the data and experience with patients, not because I am interested in selling brand X of fish oil.

Despite the paucity of scientific documentation of this phenomenon, I am continuing to witness extraordinary increases in HDL cholesterol levels with vitamin D supplementation.

I've touched on the interaction of vitamin D supplementation with HDL in The Heart Scan Blog previously:

Vitamin D: Treatment for metabolic syndrome?

HDL for Dummies

At first, I thought it was attributable to other factors. In real life, most people don't modify one factor at a time. They reduce
processed carbohydrates/eliminate wheat and cornstarch, lose weight, add or increase omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, begin niacin, increase exercise and physical activity. All these efforts also impact on HDL.

Among the many things I do, I consult on complex lipid (cholesterol) disorders (complex hyperlipidemias) in my office. A substantial number of these people carry a diagnosis of hypoalphalipoproteinemia, a mouthful that simply means these people are unable to manufacture much apoprotein A1, the principal protein of HDL cholesterol particles. As a result, people with hypoalphalipoproteinemia have HDL cholesterol levels in the neighborhood of 20-30 mg/dl--very low. They are also at high risk for heart disease and stroke.

Encourage these people to exercise, attain ideal weight, eliminate wheat and cornstarch: HDL increases 5 mg/dl or so.

Add niacin, HDL increases another 5-10 mg/dl.

Perhaps we're now sitting somewhere around an HDL of 35-40 mg/dl--better, but hardly great.

Add vitamin D to achieve our target serum level . . . HDL jumps to 50, 60, 70, even 90 mg/dl.

The first few times this occurred, I thought it was an error or fluke. But now that I've witnessed this effect many dozens of time, I am convinced that it is real. Just today, I saw a 40-year old man whose starting HDL was 25 mg/dl increase to 87 mg/dl.

Responses like this are supposed to be impossible. Before vitamin D, I had never witnessed increases of this magnitude.

Not all therapies for raising HDL raise the important large (also known as HDL2b) fraction. With lipoprotein analyses, it appears that is principally the large fraction of HDL that rises with vitamin D supplementation.

Why? How?

That I can't tell you. But for those of you struggling with low HDL cholesterols despite your best efforts, vitamin D can make a world of difference.

An interesting corollary: If super-high HDL cholesterols are associated with extreme longevity, as they are with centenarians, does raising HDL to extraordinary levels with vitamin D lead to longer, healthier life, all the way up to age 110 years?

Again, no answers, but an interesting thought. And one I'd bet on. (And I'm not selling vitamin D.)

Although Dr. John Cannell's most recent Vitamin D Newsletter concerns the connection between autism and vitamin D, and has nothing to do with coronary plaque reversal, this fascinating discussion between a mother of an autistic boy and Dr. Cannell is so enlightening that I thought that it was still worth passing on.

I also feel very deeply for parents with autistic children, who I see struggle with the developmental difficulties their children encounter. (I even have several patients who are parents of 2 or 3 autistic children.)

As always, Dr. Cannell is at the cutting-edge of converting hard scientific information into practical use. You will note several points or questions raised:

1) Dr. Cannell advocates a powdered capsule form of vitamin D. In my experience, most powdered or tablet forms do not work. But some do. He apparently has success with the brand he specifies.

2) Are there vitamin D-receptor (VDR) genotypes that respond differently? Should there be different 25 (OH) vitamin D blood level targets for different VDR genotypes? Nobody knows yet, but it will be an important question to explore in the future.

3) Is heavy metal toxicity, at least in its milder forms, a surrogate for vitamin D deficiency? (Are chelationists unwittingly treating vitamin D deficiency?)

4) If this is a genuine association, and vitamin D replenishment exerts profound neurologic effects in autistic children, does a similar, though less marked effect, hold in non-autistic children? Will children perform better, learn more effectively, etc. with vitamin D supplementation to normal levels?

5) Vitamin A--Is vitamin A with vitamin D good or bad? This one I do not have an answer to. Reading the literature Dr. Cannell cites didn't help much. (Dr. BG--Any comments? Dr. BG is a vitamin A advocate.)

Perhaps, should the association between autism and vitamin D hold, it raises more questions than it settles. But, true to my experience with vitamin D, every day I stumble on some unique, fascinating effect, all beneficial. We continue to learn new lessons about vitamin D and Dr. Cannell's insights as a practicing psychiatrist deeply concerned with vitamin D issues have helped enormously.

(Sorry, but I did not copy the links to the literature Dr. Cannell cites. To obtain the links, go to the original Vitamin D Newsletter.)

The Vitamin D Newsletter
June 2008

This month we feature a remarkable series of letters from a mother of an autistic son who treated her child with vitamin D. It is the first case report in the medical literature suggesting vitamin D has a treatment effect in autism.

First, a brief case report and then a more detailed exchange of emails between the mother and me.

Case Report:

John is a seven-year old boy living in the northeastern U.S. with a long-standing diagnosis of autism. Symptoms include temper tantrums, repetitive self-stimulatory behavior, impaired language, mood swings, fear of being alone, toileting problems, dysbacteriosis, and impaired muscle strength. John spends a lot of time outdoors starting in the spring and his mother noticed a distinct seasonal variation in his symptoms in that he improved in the summer and regressed in the winter. A 25-hydroxy-vitamin D in April of 2008 was 25 ng/ml and obtained after John had begun to play outside. Due to the seasonality of John's symptoms the mother consulted me. I advised the mother to stop all products containing vitamin A including cod liver oil and begin John on 5,000 IU of vitamin D3 per day for two weeks followed by 2,000 IU per day in the form of powdered vitamin D dissolved in juice. Within a week of starting the vitamin D, John's language began to return and he was no longer as fearful of being alone. At the end of two weeks his language showed further improvement, he began to toilet himself, counted to 10 and knew the spelling of his name. After three weeks language continued to improve and some improvements were noted in his dysbacteriosis. After four weeks of vitamin D treatment, the mother noted improvements in muscle strength as well as continued improvements in language. A repeat 25-hydroxy-vitamin D is pending while John continues taking 2,000 IU of vitamin D per day.

Before you read the series of emails between the mother and me, I'd like to caution that this is only a case report of sorts and does not prove a treatment effect. Spontaneous remissions, while rare in autism, have been reported, thus the supplemental vitamin D may have had nothing to do with his improvement. If the response is due to vitamin D, there is no assurance it will prove lasting. I think it unlikely that older autistic children or individuals with severe autism will show these sorts of apparent improvements. Furthermore, autism is a multifactorial disease with strong genetic roots and it is highly unlikely that treatment of vitamin D deficiency in all autistic children will result in similar improvements. Finally, I did not examine this child, and I am relying on the child's mother to report both his condition and his apparent response to vitamin D treatment. However, the mother agreed to speak with the press about her son and allow for independent confirmation of the apparent treatment response.

Below are the emails, edited for brevity, clarity, and confidentiality.

Dear Dr. Cannell:

I am writing because I believe my son John is strongly affected by vitamin D and I need some advice. John is seven and autistic and weighs 50 pounds. We live in the northeastern part of the United States . He starts spending lots of time outside in May and continues until September. Every year, like clockwork, he has the same patterns of behavior and ability. After about six weeks of sun exposure, every July, he begins feeling much better, seems to be comfortable in his skin, does not have as much self-stimulatory behavior, can eat a variety of foods and has language. This past summer, he was using 14-word sentences. By the end of November, he can't even ask you for a cup of juice. He becomes more exclusive, has emotional highs and lows, has tantrums and is easily frustrated.

His 25(OH)D level on April 15th was 25 ng/ml but he had already been going out in the sun so his level must have been lower in the winter. I have had his genetics tested (Nutrigenomic) and he has mutations in his vitamin D receptors:

VDR Bsm/Taq ++
VDR Fok --
VDR Taq ++

My first question, does it sound like the changes in his behaviors and abilities could be caused by lack of vitamin D? Could you elaborate on the time it would take to get adequate amounts of vitamin D to start seeing positive results? For example, even if he starts going out in the sun in May, it's usually not until July that I see positive changes. Then would it take a month or two to go back to being deficient, thus explaining his 'regression' by the time November comes around. Secondly, I am looking at different forms of vitamin D therapy: a vitamin D lamp, vitamin D3 cream, or oral vitamin D. Can you tell me what might be the best form during the winter months?

Thank you very much for your time and attention.

Jane, Boston MA

Dear Jane:

Yes, it is possible your son's autism is related to vitamin D. Such seasonality has been reported before in autism, both in an individual and in autistic children at a summer camp. Although suggestive, such seasonality does not prove a vitamin D connection. Sun exposure, unless it is full body, takes several months to get vitamin D levels up. If sunblock or clothes are worn sun exposure will not get 25(OH)D levels much above 30 ng/ml. As far as the "mutations" you list, they are actually vitamin D receptor (VDR) polymorphisms and not referred to as mutations although all such changes occurred through mutations at some time in the past. VDR polymorphisms are simply the different structures of the vitamin D receptor that different people have and they are widely distributed. A pilot study of actual VDR receptor mutations did not detect VDR mutations in 24 autistic individuals but they did not assess for VDR polymorphisms. However, a highly significant association exists between one VDR polymorphism and larger head size. Mean head circumference is larger in autism.

Yan J, et al. Vitamin D receptor variants in 192 patients with schizophrenia and other psychiatric diseases. Neurosci Lett 2005;380(1-2):37-41.

Handoko HY, et al. Polymorphisms in the vitamin D receptor and their associations with risk of schizophrenia and selected anthropometric measures. Am J Hum Biol 2006;18(3):415-7.

Lainhart JE, et al. Head circumference and height in autism: a study by the Collaborative Program of Excellence in Autism. Am J Med Genet A 2006;140(21):2257-74.

Lainhart JE, et al. Macrocephaly in children and adults with autism. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1997;36(2):282-90.

I emailed the world's foremost expert on VDR polymorphisms asking him about your son's polymorphisms and his reply, quite technical, is below.

Dear John:

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you regarding VDR polymorphisms. Initial studies by Eisman and coworkers many years ago suggested that several of the polymorphs identified above in the VDR gene (Bsm/Tag) correlated strongly with osteoporosis. Despite the hoopla, subsequent analyses by many different investigators did not really confirm these results, i.e. only a very modest (3%) correlation. This spawned multiple studies searching for correlations between VDR polymorph's and cancer, autoimmune disease and so forth. It is fair to say from all of these studies that the correlation is at best weak, and in most cases non-existent. Part of this may be due to the fact that the Bsm and Taq polymorphs are located in VDR gene introns and as a first approximation cannot affect the VDR protein's function. This is not an absolute statement, however, as our work is now showing that regulatory regions that control the VDR's expression are located within introns as well as upstream. Therefore the possibility exists that these polymorphs could affect expression, although we have not found these regions to contain enhancers yet. This is clearly where gene and disease studies are going. The only polymorph that could affect function is the Fok1 site, which we identified many years ago following our initial cloning and structural analysis of the human VDR gene. The presence of this site leads to the expression of a shorter VDR protein (424 aa) that is purported to have a slight increase in transcriptional activity (10%?) vs the large protein (427 aa). The above analysis suggests that this polymorph is absent, leading to production of the larger perhaps less active protein. On a single patient basis, it is really difficult to conclude anything regarding this finding. Indeed, despite large numbers of patients, the VDR polymorph have not really revealed any significant insight. Given the summer correlations, it is probably more likely that the individual is low in vitamin D3 in winter.

Sincerely,

Professor John Doe

Thus, one of your son's polymorphisms may have less functionality but that should be easily overcome by higher vitamin D levels. The first thing to do is stop all vitamin A, multivitamins containing vitamin A, or cod liver oil and start vitamin D. As you will see below, vitamin A antagonizes the action of vitamin D and he should have plenty of vitamin A if he eats colorful vegetables, colorful fruit, eggs and fortified oatmeal. As far as vitamin D, I think the easiest way to give vitamin D is powdered capsules, not a cream. You can open the capsule and put the powder in about anything, such as juice. To buy the capsules, go toBio Tech Pharmacal and buy both a bottle of the 5,000 and the 1,000 IU capsules. He should take one 5,000 IU capsule a day for two weeks then take 2,000 IU per day. After a month, go to the doctor and have another 25-hydroxy-vitamin D blood test. Do not let your doctor order a 1,25-dihydroxy-vitamin D as it will give you and your doctor false information about your son's vitamin D status. The other option is buying a Sperti vitamin D light. Daily use of the light on both sides of his trunk will raise levels fairly quickly but he should still have a 25(OH)D blood test every month to assure his levels rise to the mid level of normal ranges, about 70 ng/ml. Vitamin D is very safe. Your son would have to take more than 10,000 IU a day for more than a year to have any risk of toxicity. If he improves and his level is 50 ng/ml, the next question is would he improve even more if his level was 70 ng/ml? Some lifeguards have levels of 80-100 ng/ml; normal ranges in the labs in the USA are 30 -100 ng/ml (ideal ranges are 50 -100 ng/ml.) If you have any more questions, let me know. I certainly want to know how he is doing.

Sincerely,

John Cannell

Dear Dr. Cannell:

It has been one week on 5,000 IUs of vitamin D3 daily and already we're getting some language back! We haven't had original language since probably around the end of November. The only language we have had in the past five months has been verbal scripting. Today John has already told me "turn off the TV" and "clean up the water". This is all very exciting. Will it last? I will continue to keep you updated on progress and change in behavior. One more thing, all winter long he was afraid to be by himself anywhere. Now he is starting to be able to be in another room or outside by himself.

Thanks so much,

Jane

Dear Jane:

I can't tell you how happy I am for you. I suspect John will continue to improve. Do you have any parent rating scales or does his treating pediatrician have any objective rating scales? If you have before and after rating scales or his treating doctor does then it becomes important to track his progress on an objective measure. Jane, if you are a member of any autism discussion groups, you should post about this, including doses used. If your son's case is typical, then hundreds of thousands of autistic children may be helped with vitamin D.

John Cannell

Dear Dr. Cannell:

It has been two weeks on 5,000 IU per day and I want to inform you that we are having continued success with language. Continued in the sense that it is consistent, it wasn't just a one day fluke. In addition, he is taking himself to the bathroom; this is another thing that goes away in winter months. I usually have to catch him holding it in and then suggest he go, but now he is going completely by himself. In therapy last week, he started drawing again. He drew a bee and then ran around the room buzzing. His toileting is consistent with his therapists, not just mommy. Last night, I asked him to count to 10 for me and he did - quite enthusiastically. Then I said what does J-O-H-N spell? It took him a bit but then he said "John."

Unfortunately, the last scale taken was when he was 3 when he had his first developmental evaluation. But we do track behavior and language on a weekly basis. The forms we fill out give a good indication as to how he is doing.

I belong to a parent forum. It was created by a doctor named Amy Yasko. She's a PhD, a researcher, not a medical doctor. It was through her that I got John's genetics tested. She advocates vitamin D as being very crucial. I will post something on her forum for the parents there. However, if the parents on the forum are following her recommendations, they should be taking it already - 2000 IUs in winter and 1000 IUs in summer is her recommendation. I will post something on the forum to really emphasize how important vitamin D is.

Jane

Dear Jane:

I'm glad the improvements are continuing. I see Dr. Yasko recommends 10,000 IU of vitamin A/day as well as cod liver oil. I strongly disagree. Make sure your son is taking neither vitamin A nor cod liver oil. Rather, make sure he eats colored fruits and vegetables as well as fortified oatmeal. Vitamin A interferes with vitamin D's function, especially at the doses Dr. Yasko recommends.

Vitamin A antagonizes the action of vitamin D. In humans, even the vitamin A in a single serving of liver impairs vitamin D’s rapid intestinal calcium response. Furthermore, the consumption of preformed retinols, even in amounts consumed by many Americans in both multivitamins and cod liver oil appears to be causing low-grade, but widespread, bone toxicity, perhaps through its antagonism of vitamin D. In a recent dietary intake study, Kyungwon et al found high retinol intake completely thwarted vitamin D’s otherwise protective effect on distal colorectal adenoma and they found a clear relationship between vitamin D and vitamin A intakes as the women in the highest quintile of vitamin D intake also ingested almost 10,000 IU of retinols/day. As early as 1933, Hess et al warned about vitamin A consumption, concluding, “as to a requirement of thousands of units of vitamin A daily, the unquestionable answer is that this constitutes therapeutic absurdity, which, happily, will prove to be only a passing fad.”

Rohde CM, Deluca HF. All-trans retinoic acid antagonizes the action of calciferol and its active metabolite, 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol, in rats. J Nutr. 2005;135(7):1647-1652.

Johansson S, Melhus H. Vitamin A antagonizes calcium response to vitamin D in man. J Bone Miner Res. 2001;16(10):1899-1905.

Penniston KL, Tanumihardjo SA. The acute and chronic toxic effects of vitamin A. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;83(2):191-201.

Oh K, Willett WC, Wu K, Fuchs CS, Giovannucci EL. Calcium and vitamin D intakes in relation to risk of distal colorectal adenoma in women. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(10):1178-1186.

Hess AF, Lewis JM, Barenberg LH. Does our dietary require vitamin A supplement? JAMA. 1933;101:657-663.

Unfortunately, Hess’s prophecy of a passing fad proved premature and many Americans continue to consume “absurd” and dangerous quantities of vitamin A. For example, multivitamins, until recently, had small amounts of vitamin D (200 to 400 IU) but high amounts of preformed retinols (5,000 to 10,000 IU). This pales in comparison to a tablespoon of modern cod liver oil, which contains sub-physiological amounts of vitamin D (400 to 1200 IU) but supra-physiological amounts of completely preformed retinols (5,000 to 15,000 IU or in some cases 30,000 IU).

John Cannell

Dear Dr. Cannell:

It has been three weeks and he went from 5,000 IU of vitamin D per day to 2,000 IU per day a week ago. His language is increasing. He's now back to saying the things he wants with some prompting. He also has gut dysbiosis and I'm sure the D is helping with microbes in his gut. He has a lot of problems with his immune system and bacteria and viruses. Also, doesn't vitamin D aid in the production of glutathione? I feel that could be a big part of his increased language.

Jane

Dear Jane:

Yes, abnormal immune responses are associated with both autism and vitamin D deficiency. For example, autistic individuals have immune abnormalities that show a striking similarity to the immune functions affected by vitamin D. Animal evidence indicates some vitamin D deficiency induced brain damage may be malleable, that is, vitamin D may partially reverse the brain damage, if given early enough. These studies offer hope that sunlight or oral vitamin D, especially in young autistic children, may have a treatment effect.

Ashwood P, et al. The immune response in autism: a new frontier for autism research. J Leukoc Biol 2006;80(1):1-15.

Cantorna MT, et al. Vitamin D status, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3, and the immune system. Am J Clin Nutr 2004;80(6 Suppl):1717S-20S.

Burne TH, et al. Combined prenatal and chronic postnatal vitamin D deficiency in rats impairs prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle. Physiol Behav 2004;81(4):651-5.

Both the brain and the blood of autistic individuals show evidence of ongoing chronic inflammation and oxidative stress. That is, the disease process is probably increasingly destructive. Further hope for a treatment effect rests in activated vitamin D's powerful anti-inflammatory properties. Its administration reduces production of inflammatory cytokines in the brain, which have consistently been associated with cognitive impairment. Furthermore, activated vitamin D is remarkably neuroprotective by stimulating neurotropin release, reducing toxic cellular calcium levels in the brain, inhibiting the production of nitrous oxide, and by its immunomodulating properties, especially in reducing inflammatory cytokines and by increasing brain glutathione.

Moore ME, Piazza A, McCartney Y, Lynch MA. Evidence that vitamin D3 reverses age-related inflammatory changes in the rat hippocampus. Biochem Soc Trans 2005;33(Pt 4):573-7.

Cohen-Lahav M, Shany S, Tobvin D, Chaimovitz C, Douvdevani A. Vitamin D decreases NFkappaB activity by increasing IkappaBalpha levels. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006;21(4):889-97

Kalueff AV, Eremin KO, Tuohimaa P. Mechanisms of neuroprotective action of vitamin d(3). Biochemistry (Mosc) 2004;69(7):738-41.

This last function of vitamin D, increasing cellular levels of glutathione, may explain the purported link between heavy metals, oxidative stress, and autism. For example, activated vitamin D reduces iron-induced and zinc-induced oxidative injuries in rat brain. The primary route for the neurotoxicity of most heavy metals is through depletion of glutathione and subsequent generation of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species. Besides its function as a master antioxidant, glutathione acts as a chelating (binding) agent to remove heavy metals. Several studies indicate autistic individuals have difficulty excreting heavy metals, especially mercury. If vitamin D deficient brains are unable to utilize glutathione properly, and thus unable to remove heavy metals, they may be oxidatively damaged by heavy metal loads normal children easily excrete. The amount of activated vitamin D in the brain directly depends on how much vitamin D is made in the skin or put in the mouth.

Garcion E, Wion-Barbot N, Montero-Menei CN, Berger F, Wion D. New clues about vitamin D functions in the nervous system. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2002;13(3):100-5.

Chen KB, Lin AM, Chiu TH. Systemic vitamin D3 attenuated oxidative injuries in the locus coeruleus of rat brain. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2003;993:313-24.

Lin AM, Chen KB, Chao PL. Antioxidative effect of vitamin D3 on zinc-induced oxidative stress in CNS. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2005;1053:319-29.

Valko M, Morris H, Cronin MT. Metals, toxicity and oxidative stress. Curr Med Chem 2005;12(10):1161-208

Kern JK, Jones AM. Evidence of toxicity, oxidative stress, and neuronal insult in autism. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 2006;9(6):485-99.

Sincerely,

John Cannell

Dear Dr. Cannell:

It has been a month now and John's Improvements are continuing. In the last week, he has been using his muscles more, he goes on the swing outside and lifts his legs and bends in ways that take core muscle strength. This is yet another skill or interest that left and is returning. I will report more next week.
Jane

Conclusion:

It is too early to say vitamin D has a treatment effect in autism. However, a simple risk/benefit analysis suggests that autistic children should be diagnosed and aggressively treated for vitamin D deficiency. If readers want to learn more about vitamin D and autism, they can obtain the entire paper on the link below. Unfortunately, Elsevier charges $31.50 to download it. You can read a similar document for free on the website, where we first published the theory a year ago.

Cannell JJ. Autism and vitamin D. Med Hypotheses. 2008;70(4):750-9.

http://vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2007-may.shtml

In summation, autistic children should be given enough vitamin D to get their 25(OH)D levels up to the mid to high range of normals, that is, 70 ng/ml (175 nmol/L in countries that use the metric system). In the absence of sun exposure, this usually requires long-term administration of about 1,000 IU/day per 20 pounds of body weight with a loading dose of 2,000 IU of vitamin D/day for every 20 pounds of body weight for the first two weeks. As individual variation in response is very high, they should have 25(OH)D blood tests every month until their level has stabilized around 70 ng/ml. They should stop all products containing preformed retinols (vitamin A), especially cod liver oil.

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you don't want to get the newsletter, please hit reply and let us know. As we are a 501(3)(c) non-profit corporation, dedicated to ending vitamin D deficiency and not making money, the Vitamin D Council does not copyright this newsletter. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. If this newsletter proves useful to a child you know with autism, the Vitamin D Council asks for a donation as we have not been able to secure a grant and our bank account balance is again below $5,000. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:

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

Rather than the headline New Study Could Change Heart Disease Diagnosis And Treatment being run in Utah TV and newspapers, instead it should read:

Make big money fast with CT scans!

Is your bottom line shrinking? Have you fallen on hard economic times? Is competition from other hospitals and providers threatening your financial health?

Then we have a solution: Do a CT coronary angiogram on everybody! Look for disease in people with no symptoms, scare the heck out of them, and voila! Instant need for bypass surgery!

Ka-ching!! That'll be $100,000, please.

Do it again, and again, and again, and your hospital will be quickly in the black in no time!

And, for the savvy marketer, tell the newspapers that you're going to conduct a study to see if this approach works--even before the study gets started! Even if the study pans, you'll come out a winner because you did it in the name of "research"!

Apparently a group of cardiologists at the Intermountain Medical Center and LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City, with the financial assistance of Siemens, a manufacturer of CT scanners, is funding a 1000-patient study of diabetics, all without symptoms of heart disease, half of whom will undergo "screening" CT coronary angiograms (not heart scans) followed by bypass surgery, if "needed". The other half will receive conventional, "aggressive" medical therapy. "Aggressive" means cholesterol treatment, blood pressure control, and blood sugar control (no kidding).

The outcomes of the two groups will be compared after two years.

To understand the absurdity of this study, note that they are proposing what amounts to "prophylactic" bypass surgery, since the participants are without symptoms. Since there are no stress tests, a measurement of flow or functional capacity (exercise tolerance) cannot be factored in. Decisions will be made on the basis of severity of "blockages" in asymptomatic people, a hazardous notion that has never been shown to provide benefit. No doubt: Some diabetics with extensive disease may obtain benefit from screening, but many more will undergo what amounts to unnecessary bypass that provides no benefit. We already know from studies dating back over 20 years to the days of the original CASS (Coronary Artery Surgery Study) that putting asymptomatic people through bypass surgery willy-nilly does not reduce mortality.

Of course, the "aggressive" preventive treatment they propose is more like the least common denominator level of treatment. In fact, I would characterize the "aggressive" preventive treatment as ridiculous. Doing less would be malpractice. Much more could be done, but doing a lot more would pose a real challenge to the bypass arm of the trial.

But the smell of money drives such efforts: More CT angiograms, more hospitalization for bypass surgery. The payoff to the hospitals from this effort is likely to exceed $5 to $10 million, all money that they might not have otherwise seen. The ill-informed people in the local media gush with enthusiasm, the hospital acts like they are at the cutting edge of medical technology, the doctors pose as saviors.

All this time, real preventive efforts go unmentioned. No fish oil (28% reduction in heart attack, 45% reduction in sudden death from heart attack), no genuine diet efforts (i.e., not the diabetes-promoting American Diabetes Association diet), no effort to identify sources of coronary risk beyond LDL cholesterol (low HDL,small LDL,and postprandial or after-eating abnormalities, for instance, are prominent sources of risk in diabetics), no vitamin D. In my view, the preventive arm of the study amounts to doing virtually nothing beyond prescribing statin drugs.

Don't fall for it.

The Fountain of Youth, Louis Cranach the Younger (1546)

In the Track Your Plaque program, we sometimes use the adrenal hormone, DHEA. It is a fascinating and--surprisingly--an over-the-counter hormone that can be useful and safe when used properly.

DHEA can be useful for:

--Reduction of Lp(a)--Though more effective in females, it can also be useful in males. In the women, DHEA often reduces Lp(a) 15-18%, somewhat less in males. The lower the starting DHEA, the greater the Lp(a) reduction.

--Improved libido--in both men and women. The effect is modest. It's magnified when used with other strategies. Although this is not specifically a goal in the program, it sure helps to get side-benefits like this, rather than unwanted side-effects.

--Increased energy and mood--The boost in mood is, for many, the most perceptible effect: More ambition, more stamina, greater staying power in work and exercise.

--Reduction in abdominal (visceral) fat--A modest effect, but one that, over a long period of use (>6 months) can yield improved insulin responses.

Most commonly, I will suggest DHEA supplementation when blood levels allow. Some people, however, Google "DHEA" and come back horrified that I would suggest such a dangerous supplement.

"I read that it makes women grow mustaches and makes their voices deeper!"

And it does--if you take a lot.

10-15 years ago, when the benefits of DHEA became apparent, some people wanted to believe that DHEA was the fountain of youth. People interested in the anti-aging potential for DHEA figured that, if 50 mg per day made you feel energized and vigorous, what would be the effect of 1000 mg, 2000 mg, or 3000 mg per day? A number of clinical trials were conducted using these doses and, interestingly, depression can lift, men and women increase muscle mass, there is a slight increase in bone density, even pain symptoms from rheumatoid arthritis and lupus may improve. But . . . women grow mustaches, become sexually aggressive, and develop deep voices. Men can become hyperaggressive or overly emotional.

No wonder: Any hormone taken in extraordinary, supraphysiologic doses will exert wacky effects. Imagine taking testosterone or estrogen at 50 times the usual dose.

The doses we use for the above benefits, including Lp(a) reduction, range from 25-100 mg per day; most people do fine with 50 mg. We also adjust doses to starting blood levels. In this dose range, I have never seen any of the above side-effects.

The only side-effects I see at these doses are 1) excessive assertiveness or crabbiness, and 2) insomnia if taken at bedtime.

In my experience, DHEA is a benign hormone, provided it is taken in limited doses and not abused. An occasional female younger than 55 years old will be able to tolerate only 10-20 mg per day before developing the edgy side-effects, but I've never witnessed masculinizing side-effects at these low doses, nor have I ever seen excessive increases in testosterone in men or women. (Women can raise testosterone levels slightly, but almost never enough to exert much effect beyond modestly increased libido.)

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Here is detailed comment from a reader who figured out the wheat (and dairy) issue on her own with impressive results.

Though it seems an unpardonable over-simplification of diet, this concept of eliminating wheat-based products (along with obvious unhealthy foods like candy and soda) yields unexpectedly large results, as our reader relates.

Hi Dr. Davis,

Several years ago, chronic untreated asthma infections hospitalized me. I thought it was recurring bronchitis as I'd never had asthma in my life. Killed much of the alveoli... took awhile to de-crap the lungs and regrow the alveoli. Got assigned a cardiologist sort-of by accident while in the hospital for that (couple days of constant heated steroid, stress, a pain + situation combined, elevated my heart rate to 298 for a brief time). When I went to see him, he wrote me a prescription for the Eades' PPLP [Protein Power LifePlan] book.

It's taken awhile, since it's required radical gradual changes in most aspects of my overly Type-A life, but I'm now about 140 lbs lighter, and hopefully much more in the future.

Miraculously, after 10 days on a hard meat-eggs-cheese-veggie-berry approach (which I sadly confess was mostly pepperoni & mozz nuked... I was busy! ;-)), all my medical symptoms disappeared too. Acid reflux, acne, brain-fog, rashes, 'severe asthma', allergies, etc. etc. By trial and error I realized I wrongly attributed that to lowcarbing when it was getting off gluten that actually did it for me. Which since I'm lowcarb also means all the crap my celiac boyfriend can eat, I can't. Lowcarb does many great things for me (just dropping all the bloating and increasing the energy level are awesome), but getting off wheat was critical.

I've since found that a single tablespoon of "milk" in the morning, or something with wheat (say a tortilla), will make me ravenous *specifically for milk and wheat* all day. Conversely, I can be eating lowcarb and then eat total junk--but something without gluten--and not have it bother me much at all. But one pumpernickel slice at Outback and I am DOOMED. It doesn't always happen that instant; will-power has some sway; but the odds of my making a 'poor decision that leads to cascade failure and totally abandoning my eating plan' in the next 48 hours is astronomically higher if milk or wheat were involved. Oddly, cheese does not seem to affect me this way.

When I was younger (I'm 42 now) I had to stop drinking milk. If I drank some I wanted more. If I drank more I needed more. If I drank more, that was it: I'd be stumbling to the kitchen in the dark at 3am, drinking out of the carton, falling gasping against the refrigerator after several long gulps, like a heroin addict who just got a fix. I finally realized that since I'd lived on a ton of milk my whole life, maybe this was a milk problem; so I usually stayed away from it. So then it turned out wheat/gluten were an issue too. Which made me realize how much of my life was filled with not-eating most of the time (very busy, workaholic, but very sedentary), but when I did eat, ingesting amazing amounts of wheat products. I'm astounded that my whole life I mostly ate things I am apparently intolerant to "or something." Sometimes I wonder how much different even my brain would be if it'd been different.

This might contribute to my ending up weighing 500# at one point. The only amazing thing is that I didn't get a disease. (Well I did--obesity--but I mean any others.) I'm from a family of people who are mostly fat, mostly alcoholic, and mostly dead of cancer. I'm just fat, worse than the others but otherwise seemingly ok. Now I'm starting to think that maybe my whole family may have some 'issue' with the primary foods of our culture.

I tell friends that my horrible chronic acid reflux was solved merely by getting off gluten. They nearly all say, "I could never give up bread!" (Isn't it funny, you never hear people say, "Oh man, I could never give up broccoli!") I tried to convince one young friend to try it; her doctor told her eating more protein and fat was unhealthy, and gave her a prescription (this is lifetime--it doesn't cure it, merely treats the symptom) to a drug to help with acid reflux. I said you're kidding me, you think taking a drug the rest of your life is healthier than trading your pasta for a steak?? Go figure.

I still haven't figured out the milk connection (or why I seem ok with cheese for some reason; maybe there is a dosage-difference, or the sugar combined with it has some effect), but I think it's pretty clear that dropping milk and wheat has very radically changed my life for the better. I may actually live, which being a single mom to an awesome 11 year old girl, is a good thing.

Best,
P.

Given the confusion over what constitutes the "ideal" diet, a discussion that has been hotly debated for decades, some people become very angry that we still don't agree on what is truly healthy.

"Why should I even try if the experts don't agree? They say something is bad one day, then say it's okay the next!"

But that's a short-sighted half-truth born of frustration. We have certainly zigzagged in our understanding of diet over the years. The grand national experiment in low-fat eating, for instance, clearly failed to improve our health. In fact, the opposite occurred: The largest epidemic of obesity and diabetes in world history. You could get angry from this failed experiment . . . or you could learn from it, take what lessons we can and improve on it.

Step back for a moment and consider: In what other age could we even have this discussion?

If we lived in a world where you were hungry, your children were hungry, and you didn't know where the day's food was to be found, we would have no need whatsoever for this conversation: You would take whatever you could find, kill, or steal.

Say you woke up this morning and your cabinets and refrigerator were empty. The stores were far away or non-existent. You and your family would have to improvise, to forage or hunt your day's food. It would require hours. You wouldn't fuss about glycemic index, or saturated fat, or whether or not sugar or wheat was present. You would just eat whatever you could get your hands on. When caloric deprivation threatens, we take what is available.

But we live in a world of plenty--of enormous excess--that allows us choices. It is a world that encourages eating more than is required for existence, a world tailored more to indulgence than to simple satiety or sustenance. That's when distinctions among food types and quality make a difference. But it is a dilemma born of riches.

Starvation and caloric deprivation would settle the argument for us very quickly. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to debate the finer points of diet. But don't do it with anger or frustration. Do it GRATEFULLY, recognizing that we are lucky to be able to have such a conversation in the first place.

Image courtesy Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

I frequently peruse conventional health websites to keep track of their message. One painfully conventional (read "drug company-supported") website that echoes the standard advice on heart disease and heart health is Everyday Health .

Since I subscribe to the newsletters for many conventional sites, I received an e-mail that took me to this Q & A about HDL cholesterol:

Q: I'm 36 years old and my good cholesterol is too low. What can I do?
– Nilsa, Florida

Dr. Lori Mosca of New York-Presbyterian Hospital responds:

A: A woman's HDL goal should be greater than 50 mg/dL (greater than 40 mg/dL in men). You can raise your HDL levels by eating a diet low in saturated fat and trans fat but high in monounsaturated fats. Lose weight if you need to and get at least 30 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise on a minimum of four days per week. If you smoke, quit. Despite positive lifestyle changes, though, some individuals may still be candidates for HDL-raising drug therapy because they are at increased risk for cardiovascular disease. Discuss your options with your health care provider.

Are you satisified with that answer? I certainly am not.

First of all, is this something you've never heard before? "Eat right, exercise, cut your unhealthy fats." Then why do people who follow this sort of conventional advice often still fail? Is the next step always medication?

Here's the part that Dr. Mosca and other conventional, drug-minded "authorities" have left out:

To raise HDL powerfully--not to 40 mg/dl for males or 50 mg/dl for females, but to 60, 70 or 80 mg/dl--think about the following strategies:

--Eliminate wheat and cornstarch products. I have droned on endlessly about this concept, but it is enormously effective. While the weight loss that inevitably follows elimination of these foods adds to the HDL-raising effect, there is also an independent effect, as well.

--Fish oil--The omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil reduce triglycerides. Triglycerides accelerate the destruction of HDL. Remove triglycerides, HDL goes up. (Though krill oil may share, even surpass this effect, we need more data than the single manufacturer-sponsored study.) Of course, this requires real doses, not the namby-pamby doses you often read about.

--Vitamin D--Achieving normal levels of 25(OH) vitamin D raises HDL with power I have never witnessed from any other strategy before, barring weight loss of 30+ lbs. Readers of the Heart Scan Blog know that just taking vitamin D is not enough. Verification with blood levels is an absolute necessity, particularly if raising HDL maximally is among your goals.

--Adding back saturated fat. I say "adding back" since most of us (including myself) went too far down the "saturated fat is bad" path over the past few years. While I do not advocate a carte blanche approach to saturated fat, I believe that adding back eggs (preferably free-range and/or omega-3 rich), lean meats, and hard cheeses is a good idea. The saturated fat in these foods raise HDL 5 or more mg/dl.

--Dark chocolate--Or other cocoa prepartions. What a cool way to raise HDL! Reach for the lowest-sugar, highest cocoa preparations.

--Alcoholic beverages--I am partial to the red wine/flavonoid-rich concept, being a wine drinker. Although all alcoholic beverages raise HDL due to the ethanol content, for benefits beyond alcohol (as well as to avoid wheat-based drinks like beer), I do believe that the bulk of data argue for flavonoid-rich red wines from southern France, Italy, and California.

--Achieve ideal weight--The toughest of all. But eliminating wheat and cornstarch makes it far easier.

Follow the conventional advice of those like Dr. Lori Mosca, and the majority of people will fail. ("It just so happens that I have a prescription drug just for that purpose!")

Buck the conventional advice, adopt strategies that won't be found in the drug ads, nor be provided by the conventionally-thinking, and you can succeed to heights you never thought possible.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Let me tell you a story, a tale of a woman who gained 30 lbs by eating one cracker.

At age 50, Claire's health was a disaster. Her initial lipoprotein patterns were a mess, including HDL 36 mg/dl, triglycerides 297 mg/dl, blood sugar 122 mg/dl (pre-diabetic range), blood pressure 155/99. Small LDL comprised over 90% of all LDL particles.

At 5 feet 3 inches, she weighed 210 lbs--90 lbs over her ideal weight. Her face was flushed and red, her eyes swollen and weighted down with bags, her eyes dull. While interested in hearing about how to improve her health, I would hardly call her enthusiastic.

We talked about how removing wheat products entirely from her diet could result in weight loss--enormous weight loss--yet with reduced appetite, increased energy, less daytime sleepiness and fogginess, improved sleep quality. Removing wheat would also allow substantial correction of her lipoprotein patterns with minimal medication.

At first, she seemed confused by this advice. After all, it ran directly opposite to what she'd been told by her family doctor, not to mention the advice from TV, food ads, and food packages.

To my surprise, Claire did it. She didn't return to the office for another 5 months. But she came in, a big beaming smile on her face.

Even at 167 lbs--still overweight--Claire looked great. She glowed. She'd already dropped nearly 2 1/2 inches from her waist. She felt lighter on her feet, discovered energy she thought she'd lost 10 years earlier. Her blood results matched, with dramatic shifts in each and every pattern.

I quizzed Claire on her diet, and she had indeed made substantial changes. In addition to eliminating all foods made of wheat flour, she also eliminated foods made with cornstarch, rice flour, snacks, and other sweets. She ate her fill of vegetables, fruits, raw nuts, lean meats, and healthy oils. She was less hungry while eating less. Even her husband, skeptical at first, joined Claire after the first two months and her initial 20 lbs of weight loss. He, too, was well on his way to dropping to ideal weight.

But a dinner party invitation came. In the few that Claire and her husband had gone to over the few months, she had religiously stuck to her program, choosing cheese, pickles, olives, vegetables that she dipped, but avoided the pretzels, breads, Doritos, potato chips, and others.

This time, a tray of whole wheat crackers was laid on the buffet table, covered with some sort of sweetened cheese. She had just one. She savored the taste that she'd missed. "Maybe one more. I'll be extra good this weekend,'" she told herself.

Now Claire was hungry. The bruschetta covered with tomatoes and mozzarella looked awfully good. "It's got some good things on it, too!" she thought. She had three.

The floodgates opened. I saw Claire three months later, weighing just shy of 200 lbs. "I almost cancelled this appointment," she whispered quietly, tears at the corner of her eyes. "I don't know what happened. I just lost control. After losing all that weight and feeling so good, I blew it!"

I've seen it before: Fabulous success eliminating the foods that created the situation--the insatiable appetite, the endless cycle of hunger, brief satiety, the rolling, rumbling hunger--followed by temptation, then disaster. The weight lost comes right back.

It's experiences like Claire's that have absolutely, positively convinced me: Wheat products are addictive. It's not true for everybody, but it's true for many people, certainly most people who have weight struggles. It triggers some sort of appetite button, a signal to eat more . . . and more, and more. Keep it up long enough, and you have drops in HDL, increases in triglycerides, upward jumps in blood sugar and blood pressure, diabetes, etc. It doesn't matter if it's whole grain, 7-grain, or 12-grain. Yes, the whole grains contain more fiber and more B vitamins. But they all share one characteristic: They trigger a desire for more.

So that's the story of how one whole wheat cracker caused one woman to gain 30 lbs.

Next week's story:

California woman claims: My children are aliens!

Just kidding.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Eliminate wheat from your diet and wonderful things happen:

--Lose 15-20 lbs, sometimes in the first 1-3 months. (More or less, depending on your prior dietary habits, weight, age, etc.)
--HDL cholesterol goes up, triglycerides go down
--Blood sugar drops
--Small LDL is reduced
--C-reactive protein is reduced
--Pre-diabetics often convert to non-diabetics
--Diabetics gain far better control over blood glucose. Some even become non-diabetic (as long as they maintain the wheat-free, low-glycemic index diet and weight control).
--You feel better: Less mental fogginess, more energy, better sleep.
--Appetite shrinks dramatically.

(Many diet programs makes lots of money promising similar results. Prescription medications like the pre-diabetes drugs, Actos and Avandia, and the fibrates, Tricor and Lopid, nearly--nearly--reproduce the effects of eliminating wheat. Of course, these medications do not lead to weight loss or make you feel better. In fact, Actos and Avandia usually trigger a weight gain of 8 lbs in the first year of use.)

All of these wonderful effects develop with elimination of wheat. . . unless you confuse wheat-free with gluten-free. There's a difference.

Remove wheat from your diet, but discover the world of gluten-free products made for people with celiac disease, or gluten enteropathy, and you can regain the weight and recreate many of the phenomena associated with wheat. I've talked about this in past, but it trips up so many people that it's worth talking about again.

The concept that I am advocating is really low-glycemic index (or low glycemic load, actually). Foods that trigger a substantial rise in blood sugar, whether immediate (like whole wheat crackers) or delayed (like whole wheat pasta) are the culprits. The same effects develop with candy, cookies, fruit drinks, pizza, chips, table sugar, and other junk foods.

However, I pick on wheat specifically because it so dominates the American diet. It has grown to fill so many processed food products. It is also a food ingredient that is falsely advertised as healthy. In reality, pretzels, whole wheat crackers, whole grain bread, high-fiber cereals, etc. exert the same effect on blood sugar as candy or white table sugar. They also generate all the "downstream" phenomena listed above.

But wheat is hardly the only food that makes us fat, diabetic, and unhealthy. This is true for foods made with cornstarch (taco shells, cornbread, tortillas, chips, breakfast cereals); rice flour, puffed rice, and polished rice; and potatoes, particularly pulverized potato starch (potato chips). There are others.

These are the gluten-free products that are marketed to the gluten enteropathy (celiac disease) market. Yes, you can make muffins with cornstarch and no wheat gluten, but is it good for you?

No. It is nearly as bad as wheat. It can still skyrocket blood sugar, drop HDL, raise triglycerides, create small LDL, heighten inflammation, etc.

Ground flaxseed, oat bran, barley, quinoa, are some of the alternatives that do not create these effects. But not the majority of gluten-free products on the market.

Ingredients: Potato starch, rice flour, modified corn starch, olive oil, yeast, vegetable protein(lupine), corn syrup, sugar, salt, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, sodium bicarbonate, ammonium bicarbonate, diacetyltataric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides of edible fats, natural flavor.

". . . only naturally gluten-free and wheat-free ingredients and adhere to the strictest quality processes, testing every batch for gluten using the ELISA assay."

NUTRITION FACTS
Serving Size 7 bread sticks (31g)
Servings per container 5

Calories 120 Calories from fat 25
Amount per serving
Total Fat 2.5g
Saturated Fat 0.5g
Trans Fat 0g
Cholesterol 0mg
Sodium 310mg
Total Carb 24g
Dietary Fiber 1g
Sugars less than 1g
Protein less than 1g

Does chelation work?

It's a question I get asked fairly frequently. Although I have never performed chelation, IV or oral, and therefore have no direct experience, my concerns for this purported therapy have included:

1) The concept of extracting calcium from atherosclerotic plaque by removing it first from the blood is absurd. Early chelationists believed that this was the means by which EDTA might reverse coronary atherosclerosis. However, removing calcium from blood would more likely lead to osteoporosis or calcium extraction from bone, since bone is a more ready repository for calcium. Blood calcium levels are also tightly and narrowly controlled; any significant reduction in calcium ("hypocalcemia") can be life-threatening. And, indeed, there have been deaths from hypocalcemia in people receiving chelation.

More recently, chelationists have argued that removal of heavy metals like lead and mercury are responsible for the purported benefits of chelation. And, indeed, blood levels of these heavy metals can be reduced by chelation. That alone may be a benefit. But to then make the leap to say that it also regresses atherosclerotic plaque by the same mechanism has no basis in science.

2) Practitioners associated with chelation tend to be shady. I have seen homeopathic therapies (among THE most ridiculous of concepts), "energy balance" therapies, desiccated organ extracts ("applied kinesiology"), and a variety of other fringe treatments offered by practitioners offering chelation. This doesn't necessarily mean, of course, that chelation is also fringe or suspect, but it tends to be offered by practitioners who engage in generally unscientific, unfounded practices.

The few people I've seen go through multiple courses of chelation (usually 30 or so infusions) have shown no impact on heart scan scores or any other measure of heart disease.

In response to the many questions I receive on chelation, I had been answering that, if we would simply wait for the publication of the NIH-sponsored trial of IV chelation therapy, perhaps we'd know once and for all.

However, in a lengthy criticism, four expert authors argue that the TACT trial to assess chelation study is doomed to failure for an entire list of reasons and should therefore be abandoned. The discussion is available on Medscape Cardiology. (Free sign-in required.)

Why the NIH Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) Should Be Abandoned
We investigated the social and the scientific histories of chelation therapy beginning in the 1950s. We examined TACT protocols and consent forms, which, in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, the NIH provided to us with curious redactions. We examined the existing RCTs and the numerous case series cited by the TACT protocols. We examined evidence for risks, including information that is not in the standard medical literature. We examined various hypotheses that advocates have offered to explain how chelation "works."

We present our findings in 4 parts. First, we provide a brief history of the use of disodium EDTA as a treatment for CAD. Next, we describe the origin and nature of the TACT. Next, we discuss the evidence for chelation as a treatment for CAD and for atherosclerosis in general, and place it in the context of other proposed treatments that have been ineffective after an initial period of enthusiasm. Finally, we discuss the risks. For each topic, we contrast our findings with relevant statements in the TACT literature, to the extent that such statements exist.

Among the highlights:

--Since the mid-1970s, court documents and newspapers have reported at least 30 deaths associated with IV disodium EDTA, most of it administered by ACAM members.

--Early chelation investigators had chosen the disodium salt of EDTA, reasoning that if it could remove calcium from atherosclerotic plaques, it might shrink them. That notion was soon demonstrated to be invalid. It has largely been replaced by a "toxic heavy metals" antioxidant hypothesis, which is based on the potential for metal ions to produce free radical damage. Chelationists now cite "removing heavy metals" as the basis for their claim that chelation is effective for approximately 70 conditions, ranging from schizophrenia and autism to cancer. This provides them with numerous reasons to ignore any trial that finds chelation ineffective for CAD.

--Biochemical literature, either not cited or misrepresented in the TACT protocols, has demonstrated that the heavy metals hypothesis is implausible. Antithetically, it also demonstrates that the chelation mixture used in the TACT has pro-oxidant effects in vitro.

--In our opinion, TACT literature -- including 2 versions of the protocol, the consent form, information posted on the NCCAM Web site, and 2 editorials co-authored by the PI -- has misrepresented chelation, its risks, and the facts of the study. It has exaggerated the value of supportive case series, not only by ignoring evidence of bias and incompetence, but by misrepresenting citations and reporting erroneous data. It has minimized the dangers, both by understatements and by omissions of specific, published complications. It has not acknowledged the deaths mentioned above. It has repeatedly conflated disodium EDTA and a different drug, calcium-sodium EDTA.

--The TACT includes nearly 100 "chelation site" co-investigators who, in our opinion, are unsuitable to care for human subjects or to report trial data. Most espouse implausible health claims while denigrating proven methods; several have been disciplined, for substandard practices, by state medical boards; several have been involved in insurance fraud; at least 3 are convicted felons. Several were members of the ACAM or GLACM IRBs mentioned above. Few appear to have real expertise, required by TACT literature, in treating patients with CAD or in conducting clinical trials. Most continue to promote chelation while the TACT is in progress, contrary to good science, to human studies ethics, and to US Federal Code.

While the criticism itself does not prove the point one way or another, as a clinical trial should, anyone contemplating chelation therapy would be well-advised to read the document first. Another reference: EDTA chelation therapy for cardiovascular disease: a systematic review.

The authors of the exhaustive discussion are:
Kimball C. Atwood IV, MD, Anesthesiologist, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Newton, Massachusetts; Assistant Clinical Professor, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts; Associate Editor, Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine
Author's email: katwood@partners.org

Elizabeth Woeckner, AB, MA, President, CIRCARE (Citizens for Responsible Care and Research), Columbia, Maryland

Robert S. Baratz, MD, DDS, PhD, Medical Director, South Shore Health Center, Inc., Braintree, Massachusetts; Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts; President, National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc.

Wallace I. Sampson, MD, Clinical Professor of Medicine (Emeritus), Stanford University, Stanford, California; Senior Attending Physician and formerly Chief of Medical Oncology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, California; Editor-in-Chief, Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine

The authors provided the following disclosures:

Disclosure: Kimball C. Atwood IV, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships in addition to his employment.

Disclosure: Elizabeth Woeckner, AB, MA, has disclosed that she has received compensation for consulting in civil litigation and professional disciplinary actions.

Disclosure: Robert S. Baratz, MD, DDS, PhD, has disclosed that he has been retained by state licensing boards, the Office of the US Attorney, and plaintiff counsel as an expert in disciplinary proceedings and litigation with regard to chelation therapy and associated matters. He is compensated only for his time and has no commercial interest in the outcome of the proceedings or litigation.

Disclosure: Wallace I. Sampson, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships in addition to his employment.

These are actual quotes from the American Diabetes Association website:

Myth #2 (from list of Diabetes Myths): People with diabetes can't eat sweets or chocolate.
If eaten as part of a healthy meal plan, or combined with exercise, sweets and desserts can be eaten by people with diabetes. They are no more “off limits” to people with diabetes, than they are to people without diabetes.

Myth #5: If you have diabetes, you should only eat small amounts of starchy foods, such as bread, potatoes and pasta.
Starchy foods are part of a healthy meal plan. What is important is the portion size. Whole grain breads, cereals, pasta, rice and starchy vegetables like potatoes, yams, peas and corn can be included in your meals and snacks. The key is portions. For most people with diabetes, having 3-4 servings of carbohydrate-containing foods is about right. Whole grain starchy foods are also a good source of fiber, which helps keep your gut healthy.

How can I have sweets and still keep my blood glucose on target?
The key to keeping your blood glucose on target is to substitute small portions of sweets for other carb-containing foods in your meals and snacks. Carb-containing foods include bread, tortillas, rice, crackers, cereal, fruit, juice, milk, yogurt, potatoes, corn, and peas. For many people, having about 45 to 60 grams at meals is about right. Serving sizes make a difference. To include sweets in your meal, you can cut back on the other carb foods at the same meal.

For example, you’d like to have cookies with your lunch. Your lunch is a turkey sandwich with two slices of bread. Your first step is to identify the carb foods in your meal. Bread is a carb. You decide to swap two slices of bread for two slices of low-calorie bread and have the cookies -- it’s an even trade. Your total amount of carbohydrate remains the same for the meal.

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

Or take a look at the recipes for breads, muffins, cakes, pies, cookies, and pizza.

My point? As I often say, while the "official" organizations like the American Diabetes Association, the American heart Association, and the USDA dominate the message provided to mainstream Americans, to those of us who know better, they have become irrelevant. You can see how obviously boneheaded their advice is. I'd go so far as to say that, if you want diabetes, follow the American Diabetes Association diet. If you have diabetes, and you'd like to accelerate complications like kidney disease, heart disease, and neuropathy, then follow the American Diabetes Association diet.

I'm going to bet that American Diabetes Association sponsors like Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Abbott ($1 million or more annual contributions) and Cadbury Schweppes (3-year, multi-million dollar support for Weight Loss Matters program) will continue to charge full-speed ahead to maintain the status quo. Cadbury Schweppes are the proud makers of Dr. Pepper, Hawaiian Punch, Snapple, Motts' Apple Juice, and Hires Root Beer--you know, the foods and drinks that you can have as long as you adjust your insulin dose or talk to your doctor about adjusting your diabetes medications. And if you gain, say, 30 or 40 lbs eating these foods. . . well, we've got a treatment for that. Merck's Januvia , for instance, can help you out for only about $200 a month!

Looking at the facts this way, and it seems like some cheap conspiracy theory: They're all out to get us. Dispense information that virtually guarantees propagation of the disease, and all your friends and cronies profit. I don't know if it is or it isn't, but it sure smells like it sometimes.

Super size me in little bits and pieces

View from the precipice

Organic Rice Krispies?

Nuts as functional foods

Can you tell the difference?

Statin agents and muscle aches

More catheterizations would make me happy!

"I hate fish oil!"

Sudden death in athletes

My heart scan was wrong!

Who knows what

“Too many false positives”

Triglycerides divided by five

Who reads The Heart Scan Blog?

Kitchen sink approach for Lp(a)

Making Dr. Friedewald an honest man

Some basic vitamin D issues

“How much vitamin D should I take?”

You probably don't take enough fish oil

Vitamin D and HDL

Vitamin D Newsletter-Autism and Vitamin D

"Make big money fast with CT scans"

Is DHEA dangerous?

Wheat addiction: 140 lbs lost

Diet: Don't be angry, be GRATEFUL

HDL for Dummies

"I gained 30 lbs from one cracker"

Wheat-free is not gluten-free

Death to chelation?

American Diabetes Association