Fish oil: The natural triglyceride form is better

2. February 2011 William Davis (43)
If you have a choice, the triglyceride form of fish oil is preferable. The triglyceride form, i.e., 3 omega-3 fatty acids on a glycerol "backbone," is the form found in the body of fish that protects them from cold temperatures (i.e., they remain liquid at low ambient temperatures).

Most fish oils on the market are the ethyl ester form. This means that the omega-3 fatty acids have been removed from the glycerol backbone; the fatty acids are then reacted with ethanol to form the ethyl ester.

If the form is not specified on your fish oil bottle, it is likely ethyl ester, since the triglyceride form is more costly to process and most manufacturers therefore boast about it. Also, prescription Lovaza--nearly 20 times more costly than the most expensive fish oil triglyceride liquid on a milligram for milligram basis--is the ethyl ester form. That's not even factoring in reduced absorption of ethyl esters compared to triglyceride forms. Remember: FDA approval is not necessarily a stamp of superiority. It just means somebody had the money and ambition to pursue FDA approval. Period.

Taking any kind of fish oil, provided it is not overly oxidized (and thereby yields a smelly fish odor), is better than taking none at all. All fish oil will reduce triglycerides, accelerate clearance of postprandial (after-eating) lipoprotein byproducts of a meal (via activation of lipoprotein lipase), enhance endothelial responsiveness, reduce small LDL particles, and provide a physical stabilizing effect on atherosclerotic plaque.

But if you desire enhanced absorption and potentially lower dose to achieve equivalent RBC omega-3 levels, then triglyceride forms are better.

Here are cut-and-pasted abstracts of two of the studies comparing forms of fish oil.

Bioavailability of marine n-3 fatty acid formulations.

Dyerberg J, Madsen P, Moller JM et al. 
Department of Human Nutrition, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Abstract

The use of marine n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFA) as supplements has prompted the development of concentrated formulations to overcome compliance problems. The present study compares three concentrated preparations - ethyl esters, free fatty acids and re-esterified triglycerides - with placebo oil in a double-blinded design, and with fish body oil and cod liver oil in single-blinded arms. Seventy-two volunteers were given approximately 3.3g of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) daily for 2 weeks. Increases in absolute amounts of EPA and DHA in fasting serum triglycerides, cholesterol esters and phospholipids were examined. Bioavailability of EPA+DHA from re-esterified triglycerides was superior (124%) compared with natural fish oil, whereas the bioavailability from ethyl esters was inferior (73%). Free fatty acid bioavailability (91%) did not differ significantly from natural triglycerides. The stereochemistry of fatty acid in acylglycerols did not influence the bioavailability of EPA and DHA.
(Full text of the Dyerberg et al study made available at the Nordic Naturals website here.)



Eur J Clin Nutr 2010 Nov 10. 

Enhanced increase of omega-3 index in response to long-term n-3 fatty acid supplementation from triacylglycerides versus ethyl esters.

Neubronner J, Schuchardt JP, Kressel G et al. 
Institute of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Am Kleinen Felde 30, Hannover, Germany.

Abstract

There is a debate currently about whether different chemical forms of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are absorbed in an identical way. The objective of this study was to investigate the response of the omega-3 index, the percentage of EPA+DHA in red blood cell membranes, to supplementation with two different omega-3 fatty acid (n-3 FA) formulations in humans. The study was conducted as a double-blinded placebo-controlled trial. A total of 150 volunteers was randomly assigned to one of the three groups: (1) fish oil concentrate with EPA+DHA (1.01?g+0.67?g) given as reesterified triacylglycerides (rTAG group); (2) corn oil (placebo group) or (3) fish oil concentrate with EPA+DHA (1.01?g+0.67?g) given as ethyl ester (EE group). Volunteers consumed four gelatine-coated soft capsules daily over a period of six months. The omega-3 index was determined at baseline (t(0)) after three months (t(3)) and at the end of the intervention period (t(6)). The omega-3 index increased significantly in both groups treated with n-3 FAs from baseline to t(3) and t(6) (P < 0.001). The omega-3 index increased to a greater extent in the rTAG group than in the EE group (t(3): 186 versus 161% (P < 0.001); t(6): 197 versus 171% (P < 0.01)). Conclusion: A six-month supplementation of identical doses of EPA+DHA led to a faster and higher increase in the omega-3 index when consumed as triacylglycerides than when consumed as ethyl esters.

Diarrhea, asthma, arthritis--What is your wheat re-exposure syndrome?

30. January 2011 William Davis (52)
Have you experienced a wheat re-exposure syndrome?

As I recently discussed, gastrointestinal distress--cramps, gas, diarrhea--is the most common "syndrome" that results from re-exposure to wheat after a period of elimination.

Others experience asthma, sinus congestion and infections, mental "fogginess" and difficulty concentrating, or joint pains and/or overt swelling.

Still others say there is no such thing.

Let's take a poll and find out what readers say.

Marathoners, triathletes, and heart disease

30. January 2011 William Davis (0)
Curious thing: People with lipoprotein(a) gravitate towards elite levels of exercise.

I tell my lipoprotein(a) patients that, if they want to see a lot of other people with lipoprotein(a), go to a marathon or triathlon.

This effect applies more to males than to females, just as the fascination with numbers seems to be confined to men, too. That's why I've posted in past about the "prototypical" lipoprotein(a) male.

I believe this is a big part, perhaps the only, reason why there seems to be a modest increased risk for cardiovascular events despite high exercise levels in marathoners. It has nothing to do with the exercise itself; it has to do with the kind of people who choose to exercise at this level.

The best fish oil

29. January 2011 William Davis (30)
The best fish oils available are the liquid forms. Contrary to many people's expectations, the best liquid fish oils have no fishy odor or taste.

I use a lot of liquid fish oils because of the higher doses we use in the Track Your Plaque program, as well as our strategy of high-dose fish oil to reduce lipoprotein(a). Women, in particular, don't like taking the oodles of capsules required to achieve the higher doses we need. So the ladies really like the liquid forms.

The best liquid fish oils are non-fishy, highly-concentrated, and come in the better absorbed triglyceride form. Many capsules, including prescription Lovaza, are the less well-absorbed ethyl ester form. Several studies, such as this one, have now demonstrated that the naturally-occurring triglyceride form yields higher blood (RBC) levels of omega-3 fatty acids, likely due to more efficient digestion via pancreatic lipase.

While there are many good forms of fish oil and only a few bad, these are the best of the best:

Pharmax
The Pharmax Finest Pure Fish Oil with Essential Oil of Orange contains 1800 mg EPA + DHA per teaspoon. This is the preparation I've been taking.

Nordic Naturals
The Nordic Naturals lemon-flavored ProOmega Liquid contains 2752 mg EPA + DHA per teaspoon, the most concentrated of any fish oil I've seen.

(This list is not exclusive. These are just two brands I've used extensively with good results.)

These highly-concentrated, triglyceride forms are more expensive, due to their concentrated nature. 1 teaspoon Pharmax fish oil, for example, provides an equivalent quantity of omega-3 fatty acids as 6 standard fish oil capsules on a milligram for milligram basis, but more like 8 to 9 capsules when absorption efficiency is factored in. The triglyceride form is also more laborious to manufacture. On our Track Your Plaque Marketplace, our Pharmax 500 ml runs $58.95 list. (500 ml provides 100 teaspoons or 600-capsule equivalent.)

Note that, minus the protection of the capsule, liquid fish oils will oxidize if not refrigerated. So be sure to keep your liquid fish oil in the fridge.

What do Salmonella, E coli, and bread have in common?

28. January 2011 William Davis (22)
Say you happen to eat some chicken fingers contaminated with bacteria because the 19-year old kid behind the counter failed to wash his hands after using the toilet, or because the kitchen is poorly managed with unwashed counters and cutting boards, or because the food is undercooked. You get a bout of diarrhea and cramps, along with a desire to banish chicken from your life.

Here's yet another odd wheat phenomenon: About 30% of people who eliminate wheat from their lives experience an acute food poisoning-like effect on re-exposure. You've been wheat-free for, say, 6 months. You've lost 25 lbs from your wheat belly, you've regained energy, joints feel better. You go to an office party where they're serving some really yummy looking bruschetta. Surely a couple won't hurt! Within a hour, you're getting that awful rumbling and unease that precede the explosion.

The majority of people who experience a wheat re-exposure syndrome will have diarrhea and cramps that can last from hours to days, similar to food poisoning. (Why? Why would a common food trigger a food poisoning-like effect? It happens too fast to attribute to inflammation.) Others experience asthma attacks, joint pains that last 48 hours to a week, mental fogginess, emotional distress, even rage (in males).

Wheat re-exposure in the susceptible provides a tidy demonstration of the effects of this peculiar product of genetic research. So if you are wheat-free but entertain an occasional indulgence, don't be surprised if you have to make a beeline to the toilet.

The world of intermediate carbohydrates

28. January 2011 William Davis (0)
There are clear-cut bad carbohydrates: wheat, oats, cornstarch, and sucrose. (Fructose, too, but in a class of bad all its own.)

Wheat: The worst. Not only does wheat flour increase blood sugar higher than nearly all other carbohydrates, it invites celiac disease, neurologic impairment, mental and emotional effects, addictive (i.e., exorphin) effects, asthma, irritable bowel syndrome, acid reflux, sleepiness, sleep disruption, arthritis . . . just to name a few.

Oats: Yeah, yeah, I know: "Lowers cholesterol." But nobody told you that oats, including slow-cooked oatmeal, causes blood sugar to skyrocket.

Cornstarch: Like wheat, cornstarch flagrantly increases blood sugar.It also stimulates appetite. That's why food manufacturers put it in everything from soups to frozen dinners.

Sucrose: Not only does sucrose create a desire for more food, it is also 50% fructose, the peculiar sugar that makes us fat, increases small LDL particles, increases triglycerides, slows the metabolism of other foods, encourages diabetes, and causes more glycation than any other sugar.

But there are a large world of "other" natural carbohydrates that don't fall into the really bad category. This includes starchy beans like black, kidney, and pinto; rices such as white, brown, and wild; potatoes, including white, red, sweet, and yams; and fruits. It includes "alternative" grains like quinoa, spelt, triticale, amaranth, and barley.

For lack of a better term, I call these "intermediate" carbohydrates. They are not as bad as wheat, etc., but nor are they good. They will still increase blood glucose, small LDL, triglycerides, etc., just not as much as the worst carbohydrates.

The difference is relative. Say we compare the one-hour blood glucose effects of 1 cup of wheat flour product vs. one cup of quinoa. Typical blood sugar after wheat product: 180 mg/dl. Typical blood sugar after quinoa: 160 mg/dl--better but still pretty bad.

Some people are so carb-sensitive that they should avoid even these so-called intermediate carbohydrates. Others can have small indulgences, e.g., 1/2 cup, and not generate high blood sugars.

Heroin, Oxycontin, and a whole wheat bagel

25. January 2011 William Davis (27)
For a substantial proportion of people who remove wheat from their diet, there is a distinct and unpleasant withdrawal syndrome. Here are the comments of Heart Scan Blog reader, Scott, from Texas:

Hello Dr. Davis,

I've been experimenting with diet, converging upon a Paleo type diet, but I keep running into problems. I have isolated the problem to cutting out wheat.

Sugar, rice, fruit, corn, potatoes, etc. are relatively ok to add or remove from the diet, but cutting out wheat in particular brings on a moderate headache with heavy fatigue all day long. This resembles the wheat withdrawal symptoms I found on your blog. As I write this, I'm on day 8 of wheat-free. I consume a fair variety of meat and veggies each day with a moderate amount of white rice for carbs. Perhaps a bowl of corn flakes with milk and half a bar of dark chocolate a day. I've learned from experience over the past 5 months or so that none of these foods affect the withdrawal. It's purely wheat.

My question is, what is the range of times for withdrawal symptoms that you've heard from different people? Has there been anyone who never recovered from the wheat withdrawal symptoms even after many months?

It's very tough to get work done like this, and even though my body and head feel much healthier in general, my sinuses have cleared, don't have to take a big nap after I eat, etc., I don't want to go down a path where this is the way things are going to be forever. 


People who have never experienced wheat withdrawal pooh-pooh the effect. But, for about 30% of people, wheat withdrawal is a real, palpable, and sometimes incapacitating experience.

Beyond removing an exceptionally digestible carbohydrate that yields blood sugar rises higher than nearly any other known food (due to the unique amylopectin structure of wheat-derived carbohydrate), wheat withdrawal is a form of opiate withdrawal, somewhat like stopping heroin, Oxycontin, and other opiates. Stop eating whole wheat toast for breakfast, whole grain sandwiches for lunch, or whole grain pasta for dinner, and the flow of exorphins, i.e., exogenous morphine-like compounds, stops. You experience dysphoria (sadness, unhappiness), mental "fog," inability to concentrate, fatigue, and decreased capacity to exercise. It is milder than withdrawal from prescription opiates. Unlike withdrawal from more powerful opiates like heroine, there are, thankfully, no seizures or hallucinations. There are also no deaths.

In my experience, most people get through with wheat withdrawal in about 5 days. An occasional person will struggle for as long as 4 weeks. Thankfully for Scott, I've never seen it last longer than 4 weeks. (Interestingly, people who survive the withdrawal syndrome are often prone to a peculiar re-exposure phenomenon that I will discuss in future, i.e., they get sick upon re-exposure.)

The modern dwarf mutant variant of Triticum aestivum (that our USDA urges us to eat more of) contains greater proportions of gluten proteins compared to wheat pre-1970; glutens are the source of wheat-derived exorphins.

Incidentally, a drug company should be releasing a drug in the next year that will contain naltrexone, an oral opiate blocking drug, for a weight loss indication. They claim it is a blocker of the "mesolimbic reward system." I say it's a blocker of wheat exorphins.

The five most powerful heart disease prevention strategies

24. January 2011 William Davis (39)
You've seen such lists before: 5 steps to prevent heart disease or some such thing. These lists usually say things like "cut your saturated fat," eat a "balanced diet" (whatever the heck that means), exercise, and don't smoke.

I would offer a different list. You already know that smoking is a supremely idiotic habit, so I won't repeat that. Here are the 5 most important strategies I know of that help you prevent heart disease and heart attack:

1) Eliminate wheat from the diet--Provided you don't do something stupid, like allow M&M's, Coca Cola, and corn chips to dominate your diet, elimination of wheat is an enormously effective means to reduce small LDL particles, reduce triglycerides, increase HDL, reduce inflammatory measures like c-reactive protein, lose weight (inflammation-driving visceral fat), reduce blood sugar, and reduce blood pressure. I know of no other single dietary strategy that packs as much punch. This has become even more true over the past 20 years, ever since the dwarf variant of modern wheat has come to dominate.

2) Achieve a desirable 25-hydroxy vitamin D level--Contrary to the inane comments of the Institute of Medicine, vitamin D supplementation increases HDL, reduces small LDL, normalizes insulin and reduces blood sugar, reduces blood pressure, and exerts potent anti-inflammatory effects on c-reactive protein, matrix metalloproteinase, and other inflammmatory mediators. While we also have drugs that mimic some of these effects, vitamin D does so without side-effects.

3) Supplement omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil--Omega-3 fatty acids reduce triglycerides, accelerate postprandial (after-meal) clearance of lipoprotein byproducts like chylomicron remnants, and have a physical stabilizing effect on atherosclerotic plaque.

4) Normalize thyroid function--Start with obtaining sufficient iodine. Iodine is not optional; it is an essential trace mineral to maintain normal thyroid function, protect the thyroid from the hundreds of thyroid disrupters in our environment (e.g., perchlorates from fertilizer residues in produce), as well as other functions such as anti-bacterial effects. Thyroid dysfunction is epidemic; correction of subtle degrees of hypothyroidism reduces LDL, reduces triglycerides, reduces small LDL, facilitates weight loss, reduces blood pressure, normalizes endothelial responses, and reduces oxidized LDL particles.

5) Make exercise fun--Not just exercise for the sake of exercise, but physical activity or exercise for the sake of having a good time. It's the difference between resigning yourself to 30 minutes of torture and boredom on the treadmill versus engaging in an activity you enjoy and look forward to: go dancing, walk with a friend, organize a paintball tournament outdoors, Zumba class, plant a new garden, etc. It's a distinction that spells the difference between finding every excuse not to do it, compared to making time for it because you enjoy it.

Note what is not on the list: cut your fat, eat more "healthy whole grains," take a cholesterol drug, take aspirin. That's the list you'd follow if you feel your hospital needs your $100,000 contribution, otherwise known as coronary bypass surgery.

Topping up your vitamin D tank

22. January 2011 William Davis (17)
Now that my vitamin D replacement experience dates back nearly 5 years, I've been witnessing an unusual phenomenon:

The longer you take vitamin D, the less you need.

Let me explain. You take 10,000 units D3 in gelcap form. 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels, checked every 6 months, have remained consistently between 60 and 70 ng/ml. Three years into your vitamin D experience and 25-hydroxy vitamin D level rises to 98 ng/ml--an apparent need for less vitamin D.

So we cut your intake from 10,000 units per day to 8000 units per day. Another 25-hydroxy vitamin D level 6 months later: 94 ng/ml. We cut dose again to 6000 units, followed by another 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 66 ng/ml.

This has now happened in approximately 20% of the people who have been taking vitamin D for 3 or more years. I know of no formal analysis of this effect, what I call the "topping up" phenomenon. Reasoned simply, it seems to me that, once your vitamin D "tank" is topped up (i.e., tissue stores have been replenished), it requires less to keep it full.

No one has experienced any adverse consequence of this topping up effect though it has potential for some people to develop toxic levels if 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels are not monitored long-term. In my office, I measure 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels every 6 months.

It means that long-term monitoring of 25-hydroxy vitamin D is crucial to maintain favorable and safe levels.

Thirteen catheterizations later

21. January 2011 William Davis (16)
When I first met her, Janet couldn't stop sobbing. She'd just been through her 10th heart catheterization in two years.

It started with chest pains at age 56, prompting her first heart catheterization that uncovered severe atherosclerotic blockages in all three coronary arteries. Her cardiologist advised a bypass operation.

Six months after the bypass operation, Janet was back with more chest pains, just as bad as before. Another heart catherization showed that two of the three bypass grafts had failed. The third bypass graft contained a severe blockage that required a stent, along with multiple stents in the two now unbypassed arteries.

In the ensuing 18 months, Janet returned for 8 additional catheterizations, each time leaving the hospital with one or more stents.

Janet's doctor was puzzled as to why her disease was progressing so aggressively despite Lipitor and the low-fat diet provided by the hospital dietitian. So he had Janet undergo lipoprotein testing (NMR):

LDL particle number: 3363 nmol/L
Small LDL particle number: 2865 nmol/L
HDL cholesterol: 32 mg/dl
Triglycerides: 344 mg/dl
Fasting blood glucose 118 mg/dl
HbA1c 5.8%

Unfortunately, Janet's doctor didn't understand what these values meant. He pretty much threw his arms up in frustration. That's when I met Janet.

From her lipoprotein panel and other values, it was clear to me that Janet was miserably carbohydrate-sensitive and carbohydrate-indulgent, as demonstrated by the extravagant quantity (2865 nmol/L) and proportion (2865/3363, or 85%) of small LDL, the form of LDL particles created by carbohydrate exposure. Janet struggled with depression over the years and had been using carbohydrate foods as "comfort" foods, often resorting to cookies, pies, cakes, breads, and other wheat-containing foods for emotional solace.

It took a bit of persuasion to convince Janet that it was low-fat, "healthy whole grains," as well as comfort foods, that had led her down this path. I also helped Janet correct her severe vitamin D deficiency, mild thyroid dysfunction, and lack of omega-3 fatty acids.

Since meeting Janet and instituting her new prevention program, she has undergone three additional catheterizations (performed by another cardiologist), all performed for chest pain symptoms that struck during periods of emotional stress. All showed . . . no significant blockage. (Apparently, the repeated "need" for stents triggered a Pavlovian response: chest pain = "need" for yet more stents.)

In short, correction of the causes of coronary atherosclerotic plaque--small LDL, vitamin D deficiency, omega-3 fatty acid deficiency, and thyroid dysfunction--and Janet's disease essentially ground to a halt.

Imagine, instead, that Janet had undergone 1) a heart scan to identify hidden coronary plaque 5-10 years before her first heart procedure, then 2) corrected the causes before they triggered symptoms and posed danger. She might have been spared an extraordinary amount of life crises, hospital procedures, expense (nearly $1 million), and emotional suffering.

Why an RDA for vitamin D?

24. January 2009 William Davis (10)
The Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) of the Institute of Medicine is charged with setting the values for the Recommended Daily Allowances of various essential nutrients. However, when it comes to vitamin D, the FNB decided that "evidence is insufficient to develop an RDA and [an Adequate Intake, AI] is set at a level assumed to ensure nutritional adequacy."

The National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements lists the AI's for various groups of people:

14-18 years
Male 200 IU
Female 200 IU

19-50 years
Male 200 IU
Female 200 IU

51-70 years
Male 400 IU
Female 400 IU

71+ years
Male 600 IU
Female 600 IU


A reconsideration is apparently being planned in near-future that will (hopefully) incorporate the newest clinical data on vitamin D.

My question: Who cares what the FNB decides? Let me explain.

I monitor blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D to assess the 1) starting level of vitamin D without supplementation, and 2) levels while on supplementation, preferably every 6 months (during sunny weather, during cold weather). I have done for the past 3 years in over 1000 people.

The requirement for vitamin D dose in adults, in my experience, ranges from as low as 1000 units per day to as high as 20,000 units per day, rarely more. The vast majority of women require 5000 units per day, males 6000 units per day to maintain a blood level in the desirable range. (I aim for 60-70 ng/ml.) A graph of the distribution of vitamin D needs in my area (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) is a bell curve, a curve more heavily weighted towards the upper vitamin D dose range.

Need for vitamin D to achieve the same blood level is influenced by age, sex, body size, race, presence or absence of a gallbladder, as well as other factors. But needs vary, even among similar people. For instance, a 50-year old woman weighing 140 lbs might need 4000 units per day to achieve a blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D of 65 ng/ml. Another 50-year old woman weighing 140 lbs might need 8000 units to achieve the same level, and 4000 units might increase her level to only 38 ng/ml. Two similar women, very different vitamin D needs. The differences can be striking.

Being a hormone--not a vitamin, as it was incorrectly labeled--vitamin D needs to be tightly regulated. We should have neither too little nor too much. I would liken it to thyroid hormones, which need to be tightly regulated for ideal health.

Now the FNB, in light of new data, wants to set new AI's, or even RDA's, for vitamin D for the U.S. This is an impossible--impossible--task. There is no way a broad policy can be crafted that serves everyone. It is impossible to state that all men or women, categorized by age, require X units vitamin D. This is pure folly and it is misleading.

The only rational answer for the FNB to provide is to declare that:

It is not possible to establish the precise need for vitamin D in a specific individual because of the multiplicity of factors, only some of which are known, that determine vitamin D needs. Individual need can only be determined by assessing the blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D prior to initiation of replacement and periodically following replacement to assess the adequacy of replacement dose. Continuing reassessment is recommended (e.g., every 6-12 months), as needs change with weight, lifestyle, and age.

Sure, it adds around $100-150 per year per person for lab testing to assess vitamin D levels. But the health gains made--reduced fractures, reduced incidence of diabetes, reduced colon, breast, and prostate cancer, less depression, reduced heart attack and heart procedures--will more than compensate.

Bargains for Armour Thyroid

23. January 2009 William Davis (10)
We use Armour thyroid almost exclusively. I take it myself.

I am thoroughly convinced that, for at least 70% of people requiring thyroid replacement, the added T3 component makes a world of difference compared to isolated T4: More energy, greater alertness, better mental clarity, better weight loss, larger effects on lipoprotein(a).

However, there are substantial price disparities in different pharmacies.

For instance, in Milwaukee, a one month supply of 1 grain (60 mg) tablets costs:

Walgreen's: $36.00

Walmart: $9.54


That's a considerable price difference of nearly 400%. It therefore always pays to do a little bit of shopping.

Heart scan mis-information on WebMD

22. January 2009 William Davis (3)
If you want information on how prescription drugs fit into your life, then go to WebMD.

But, if you are looking for information that cuts through the bullcrap, is untainted by the heavy-handed tactics of the drug industry, or doesn't support the "a heart catheterization for everyone" mentality, then don't go there.

A Heart Scan Blog reader turned up this gem on the WebMD site:

Should I have a coronary calcium scan to check for heart disease?

In their report, they list some reasons why a heart scan should not be obtained:

Most of the time, a physical exam and other tests can give your doctor enough information about your risk for heart disease.

You've got to be kidding me. What tests are they talking about?

EKG? An EKG is a crude test that tells us virtually nothing about the coronary arteries or risk for heart attack. It is helpful for heart rhythm disorders and other abnormalities, but virtually useless for coronary disease unless a heart attack is underway or has already occurred.

Cholesterol? What level of cholesterol tells you whether you have heart disease? Tim Russert, for instance, had the same cholesterol values 5 years before his death as on the day of his death. How would cholesterol have told his doctor that heart disease was present? Does an LDL cholesterol of 180 mg/dl tell you that someone has heart disease, while a value of 130 mg/dl does not?

Stress test? You mean like the normal stress test Bill Clinton had 3 months before his near-fatal collapse? Stress tests are a gauge of coronary flow, not of coronary atherosclerosis. Huge amounts of coronary plaque can be present while a stress test--flow--remains normal.

No, a physical exam does not uncover hidden heart disease. The annual physical is, in fact, a miserable failure for detection of hidden heart disease.


You already know that your risk for heart disease is low or high. The test works best in people who are at medium risk but have no symptoms.

This bit of fiction comes from a compromise statement in the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association "consensus" document detailing the role of heart scans in heart disease detection. Because conventional thinkers don't like the idea of very early detection in seemingly "low risk" people, nor do they like the idea of diabetics and smokers getting a heart scan because it's "obvious" that they are already at high risk, the middle ground was taken: Scan only people at "intermediate risk."

What the heck is "intermediate risk"? Are you intermediate risk?

In real life, using standard criteria (e.g., Framingham scoring) to decide who is low-, intermediate-, or high-risk fails to identify over 1/3 of people with heart disease, while subjecting many without heart disease (plaque) to needless treatment (meaning statins, since that's the only real preventive treatment on most doc's armamentarium).

Another fact: Heart scans are quantitative, not just normal or abnormal. Your heart scan score could be 5, it could be 150, it could be 500, or 5000---it makes a world of difference. The risk of someone with a score of 5000 is at very different risk than someone with a score of 5. It also provides much greater precision in determining a specific individual's risk.



The test could give a high score even if your arteries aren't blocked. This might lead to extra tests that you don't need.

This is true--if you doctor has no idea what he's doing.

This is like saying that you should never take your car to the repair shop because all mechanics are crooks. If you have an unscrupulous cardiologist who tells you that your heart scan score of 25 means you are a "walking time bomb" and heart catheterization is necessary to determine whether you "need" a stent . . . well, this is no different than the shady mechanic who advises you that your car's engine needs to be rebuilt for $3000, when all you really needed was a few new spark plugs.

Coronary plaque is coronary plaque, and all coronary plaque has potential for rupture (heart attack)--even if it doesn't block flow. This is true at a score of 10, or 100, or 1000--all plaque is potentially rupture-prone, though the more plaque you have, the greater the likelihood.


Not all blocked arteries have calcium. So you could get a low calcium score and still be at risk.

They're missing the point: ANY calcium score carries risk, so a low score should not be interpreted as having no risk. But, just because a procedure like stenting or bypass surgery is not necessary to restore flow, it does not mean that risk for plaque rupture is not present--it is.

Any heart scan score should be taken seriously, meaning sufficient reason to engage in a program of heart disease prevention.

Although not perfect, coronary calcium scoring remains the easiest, most accessible, and least expensive means for identifying and quantifying coronary atherosclerosis--whether or not WebMD and drug industry money endorse them.

Heart disease prevention for the helpless, ignorant, or non-compliant

19. January 2009 William Davis (9)
The media outlets are gushing with the "research"/marketing spinoff of the JUPITER trial, an analysis conducted by Dr. Erica Spatz of Yale University, that suggests that statin use should be expanded to many millions more Americans.

USA Today: Study: 11M more should get statins

MedPage: JUPITER Findings Could Boost Statin Use by 20%

Health Day: Millions More Americans Might Be Placed on Statins

WebMD: More May Benefit From Cholesterol Drugs: Study Shows More Would Qualify for Statin Treatment if Levels of C-Reactive Protein Are Considered


You may recall that the JUPITER trial (discussed previously in a Heart Scan Blog post) studied the cardiovascular event risk in people with "normal" LDL cholesterols (calculated, of course, not measured) of 130 mg/dl or less, along with increased c-reactive protein, a crude inflammatory measure, of 2.0 mg/dl or greater. A 54% (relative) reduction in cardiovascular events occured in the group taking Crestor 20 mg per day.

What I see is a confluence of events that have brought us to the "statin drugs are necessary for everybody" mentality:

--The low-fat diet advice of the last 40 years has increased non-fat or low-fat foods that increase LDL, since removing fat from the diet provokes small LDL particle production and increases the inflammatory measure, c-reactive protein (CRP).

--The proliferation of "healthy whole grains" in the diet have also caused an enormous boom in small LDL particles, which is interpreted to the uninformed as "high cholesterol." It has also provoked CRP substantially.

--The advice to reduce salt intake has brought a broad re-emergence of iodine deficiency. When thyroid hormone production flags due to lack of iodine, LDL cholesterol (both large and small) increase.

--Our lives, which are increasingly conducted indoors, have worsened the already substantial vitamin D deficiency. While deficiency of vitamin D primarily reduces HDL cholesterol and increases triglycerides, it can also cause an increase in small LDL and a large increase in CRP.


In other words, a collection of events have converged to provide the appearance of high LDL cholesterol and high CRP. This creates the appearance of a "need" for statin drugs. The JUPITER trial now exploits both the LDL-reducing and CRP-decreasing effects of statins.

I view the foisting of Crestor via the JUPITER argument on the public as taking full advantage of the helpless situation many Americans find themselves in: Reduce fat intake, eat more healthy whole grains and . . . cholesterol and CRP skyrocket! "You need Crestor! See, I told you it was genetic," says the doctor after attending the nice AstraZeneca-sponsored drug dinner.

The notion of using a drug like Crestor to suppress inflammatory patterns is absurd. There are far better, easier, cheaper ways to achieve this goal, along with dramatic reduction in cardiovascular risk. But, to the ignorant, the helpless, or non-compliant with real change in diet and lifestyle, then Crestor does serve a purpose.

I can only hope that the excessive pushing of statin drugs on the public will sooner or later trigger a revolt.

Dangerous mis-information on vitamin D

16. January 2009 William Davis (12)

Please be aware of the ignorant propagating information they have no business talking about.

This is one such example, a newsletter from pop exercise guru, Denise Austin.

Although I'm sure she means well, I have a problem with people who have little to no experience acting as experts, often simply repeating something they heard or read somewhere else. This has become particular problem with the internet, in which bad information can get repeated thousands of times, gaining a veil of "truth" through its repetition. I don't mean to pick specifically on Ms. Austin, since she joins a growing rank of pseudo-experts on vitamin D and other topics, but she provides a good example of how far wrong mainstream information can be.



Simple Steps
Do Your D!

Calcium often gets all the glory when it comes to bone health. But calcium wouldn't benefit your bones much without its partner, vitamin D!

Why? Vitamin D helps your body absorb calcium and keeps your bones strong; without enough vitamin D, the bones become weak and brittle, a condition called rickets in children, and osteomalacia in adults. Adults from 19 to 50 need 200 IU (international units) per day, while those from 51 to 70 need 400 IU daily. Those over 70 need 600 IU per day.

Unfortunately, not too many foods contain vitamin D naturally. (Tuna and sardines canned in oil are exceptions.) The good news is that many foods are now regularly fortified with vitamin D, including milk, some yogurts, margarines, and cereals. You can check the Nutrition Facts panel on packages and containers to see which products contain vitamin D. It should be listed after vitamins A and C, along with the percentage of the Daily Value that a serving of the food contains. The Daily Value (a standardized amount) for vitamin D is 400 IU, so if your milk has 25 percent of the Daily Value, it provides 100 IU per serving.

Your skin can also make vitamin D using sunlight — you need about a half hour of exposure to the midday sun twice a week to make enough. However, because of the increasing incidence of skin cancer in recent years, many experts are wary about recommending sun exposure.

So take a closer look at milk, yogurt, cereal, and margarine selections when you're doing your weekly shopping, and stock up on brands that are fortified with vitamin D. Challenge yourself to consume one source of vitamin D at least three days in the coming week! If you cannot eat or do not like any foods that contain vitamin D or are fortified with it, talk with your health care provider ASAP about taking a supplement. Your bones will thank you for it!



Let me list the mistakes in this piece:

Adults from 19 to 50 need 200 IU (international units) per day, while those from 51 to 70 need 400 IU daily. Those over 70 need 600 IU per day.

This is the same non-information that was the advice originally offered by the Food and Nutrition Board based on a best guesstimate due to lack of data. It is clear from newer data that doses required for full restoration of vitamin D are in the thousands of units. (My personal dose for full restoration of vitamin judged by serum levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D is 8000 units per day.)

The information coming from the Food and Nutrition Board is about as good as the information coming from the USDA (you know, that "government" agency meant to represent the interests of ConAgra, Cargill, and Big Farming) and the American Heart Association (that represents consensus opinion from data 20 years out of date and now arm-in-arm with Big Food like General Mills, Kraft, and Nabisco). These agencies and the advice they offer has, over the past few years, become increasingly irrelevant and outdated. It is the Information Age, in which ulterior motives are becoming more readily exposed, yet they still operate by the rules of the Industrial Age and deliver a message that serves their own purposes.

Ms. Austin fell for it.


The good news is that many foods are now regularly fortified with vitamin D, including milk, some yogurts, margarines, and cereals.

First of all, what is a "diet expert" doing advocating industrial foods? Cereals, in particular, are among the worst foods on the supermarket shelves, whether or not they are fortified. Candy bars can be fortified, too; that doesn't make them any better for you.

The vitamin D added to these foods is, more often than not, the ergocalcferol, or D2, form that is woefully ineffective. And the dose added is trivial, usually in the 100-200 unit range per serving. The same goes for the milk, an inadequate source that we don't even factor into total intakes because of the low quantity.


Your skin can also make vitamin D using sunlight — you need about a half hour of exposure to the midday sun twice a week.

Nope. This might be true for a young person below age 30 in a southern environment. It is NOT true for the majority of people in northern climates and anyone over age 30 or 40, since we lose most of the capacity to activate vitamin D in the skin as we age. A deep, dark Florida tan does not necessarily mean that vitamin D has been activated. See A tan does not equal vitamin D. Here in Wisconsin, where, despite this darn cold winter, does enjoy wonderfully warm and beautiful summers, the average vitamin D dose need ranges from 4000-8000 units per day in summer, slightly more in winter.

By the way, it is not calcium that is instrumental to bone health. It is vitamin D. Calcium is the passive bricks and mortar of bones, while vitamin D is the bricklayer, the determinant of calcium's fate, the master control of bone health. Calcium supplementation becomes almost immaterial when vitamin D is restored.

I praise Ms. Austin for her hard work, trying to help fat Americans lose weight. But please ignore her advice on vitamin D, along with the numbing repetition of this mis-information that will likely propagate from other exercise gurus, dietitians, and pseudoexperts.

A Tale of Two LDL's

15. January 2009 William Davis (10)
Kurt, a 50-year old businessman with a heart scan score of 323, had a :

--Conventional (calculated) LDL of 128 mg/dl
--Real measured LDL 241 mg/dl.


Laurie, a 53-year old woman who underwent a coronary bypass operation last year (before I met her), had a:

--Conventional LDL of 142 mg/dl
--Real measured LDL was 85 mg/dl.


(By "real, measured" LDL, I'm referring to LDL particle number in units of nmol/L obtained through NMR lipoprotein testing and dividing by 10, or just dropping the last digit to convert the value to mg/dl. This technique was arrived at by comparing the population distributions of these two parameters, LDL particle number and calculated LDL. This is the gold standard in my view. Similar numbers can be obtained by measuring apoprotein B, direct LDL, or calculated non-HDL, with diminishing reliability from first to last.)

In other words, Kurt's conventional LDL underestimated real LDL by 88%. Laurie's conventional LDL overestimated real LDL by 40%.

Interestingly, Laurie's doctor had insisted she take Lipitor for a high LDL cholesterol. Her real LDL was, in fact, low to begin with and benefits of a statin drug would be little to none. (Remember, in our Track Your Plaque approach, multiple other treatments are included, such as omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, vitamin D normalization, and wheat elimination, strategies that yield benefits that others expect to obtain with statins.) Laurie's real cause of her heart disease proved to have nothing to do with LDL cholesterol, but involved lipoprotein(a) and thyroid issues.

Kurt proved to have a severe preponderance of small LDL particles--the worst kind of LDL, while Laurie had none--a benign pattern.

Then how can anyone make sense of the conventional, calculated LDL cholesterol that is generally (95% of the time) provided? If accuracy can stretch to plus or minus 80% . . . you can't. Conventional LDL is a miserably inaccurate number. The problem is that obtaining a superior number requires a step or two more testing and insight, something most busy primary care doc's simply don't have in the midst of a day filled with arthritis, bronchitis, diarrhea, belly aches, and seborrhea.

Yet conventional--I call it "fictitious"--LDL serves as the basis for this $27 billion (annual revenues) industry selling statin drugs.

This is meant to be neither an argument in favor of nor against statin drugs. However, it is plain as day that any study designed to reduce LDL cholesterol will be hopelessly clouded by calculated LDL imprecision. A calculated LDL of, say, 143 mg/dl might really be 187 mg/dl, or it might be 74 mg/dl--you can't tell by looking just at LDL. Yet billions of dollars of research and billions of dollars of healthcare costs are based on the treatment of this number.

This reminds me of the mark-to-market accounting magic that helped topple Wall Street.

I don't think that the statin world is poised for such a huge downfall. But I do see this as a source of enormous dilution of the effects of statin drugs. People who barely stand to benefit get the drugs, while others who might truly benefit are treated inadequately. It provides fuel to the growing idea that reducing LDL cholesterol fails to truly provide benefit.

I am no lover of statin drugs nor drugs in general. But I am a fan of knowing the truth. Despite my bashing of the drug industry (and make no mistake: the drug industry is a cutthroat, profit-seeking, do-anything-to-increase-sales industry), I do believe that there is a role for statin drugs (though far smaller than $27 billion per year). But the usual method of selecting people for treatment is pure fiction. The ATP-III cholesterol treatment guidelines? An anemic attempt to apply structure to meaningless values.

You and I do not need to subscribe to this sort of non-quantitative nonsense.

Niacin scams

12. January 2009 William Davis (0)
In the Track Your Plaque program, we often resort to niacin (vitamin B3 or nicotinic acid) to:

--Raise HDL cholesterol
--Reduce the proportion of small LDL particles
--Shift HDL towards the healthy larger fraction (HDL2b or "large")
--Reduce lipoprotein(a), the most aggressive risk factor known


But niacin comes with a crazy "hot flush," a warm, prickly feeling that usually envelops the upper chest, neck and face that is, without a doubt, annoying. Around 1 in 20 people simply cannot tolerate any amount of niacin >100 mg, while others have no problem even into the 3000 mg per day or more range. (Tolerance to niacin is genetically determined, governed by the rapidity of metabolism to the niacin metabolite, nicotinuric acid.)

The niacin flush has spawned an entire panel of niacin-like scams, agents that sound like niacin or may even contain niacin, but exert no beneficial effect whatsoever:

Flush-free niacin--I have previously posted on this useless but ubiquitous preparation that often costs several times more than conventional niacin. Flush-free niacin, or inositol hexaniacinate, does indeed contain niacin, but it is not released in the human body. You simply pass it out down the toilet, where this preparation belongs in the first place.

Nicotinamide--Also called niacinamide. While the nicotinamide/niacinamide forms of vitamin B3 can be used to treat B3 deficiency ("pellagra"), they do not reproduce the lipid and lipoprotein effects of niacin. For our purposes, they are useless.

Niacin-containing heart-healthy supplements--These are the multi-supplements that contain a little of everything that might be beneficial for the heart, but none at a dose that provides genuine benefit. Don't throw your money away.


There's also a prescription niacin, Niaspan, that costs 20-fold more than the best over-the-counter preparation, Sloniacin. Niaspan has yielded hundreds of millions of dollars for the pharmaceutical industry. Your money, in my view, is far better spent on Sloniacin (around $12-14 per bottle of 100 tablets of 500 mg).

For more on niacin, here's an article I wrote for the Life Extension Magazine people a while back: Using Niacin to Improve Cardiovascular Health.

Deja vu all over again?

10. January 2009 William Davis (8)
HeartHawk brought a report and debate on The Heart.Org website to my attention:

Screening for risk factors or detecting disease? Debate divides the CV community. After landing on theheart.org, paste this onto your URL address:article/883239.do. (Full address: http://www.theheart.org/article/883239.do. I don't know why, but I couldn't go there directly.)

Some interesting comments:

Dr. Jay Cohn (University of Minnesota):

"They're saying that we can't identify disease very effectively so let's just stick with risk factors, which we know are very poorly predictive and nonspecific. It boggles my mind as to why they won't open up their minds to the importance of moving forward in finding better strategies to identify the disease that we are treating. It's very strange. They criticize these disease markers because they are not predictive of events, but they are looking at very short-term outcomes. We're interested in lifetime risk. We're screening people in their 40s who are concerned about morbid events in their 60s and 70s, and no trials are going to track them that long."

"You have to accept the pathophysiologic reality that heart attacks don't occur in the absence of coronary disease, and coronary disease doesn't occur in the absence of endothelial dysfunction and vascular disease, all of which now can be identified."

". . . Can we as a society and as a profession accept the idea that there is a link between the vascular abnormalities and the events? "And that that linkage is tight enough that it should allow us to accept slowing of progression of the vascular abnormalities as an adequate marker for slowing disease progression, without waiting for events to occur? As soon as you use the word surrogate, people jump up and say we have all these markers that we know don't work well—things like premature ventricular contractions [PVCs] on the electrocardiogram, LDL, HDL—but those are not the markers we're talking about. We're talking about structural and functional changes in the blood vessel and in the heart."


Wow. The idea may be starting to catch on.

As an interesting aside, Cohn et al use a 10-test panel to screen for vascular disease:

"Named for the center's benefactor, the Rasmussen score includes tests for large and small artery elasticity (compliance), resting blood pressure, blood-pressure response to moderate treadmill exercise, optic fundus photography, carotid intimal-media thickness (IMT), microalbuminuria, electrocardiography, left ventricular (LV) ultrasonography for LV volume and mass, and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP). Each test result is scored out of 10 for low, intermediate, or high risk, and the combined results yields a score that Cohn et al believe is more predictive than any of the existing standalone tests."


The counterarguments in this debate were provided by Dr. Philip Greenland (Northwestern University), who repeated his oft-used argument that, while he accepts that vascular disease can be identified, no one has proven that measuring it improves outcomes:

"We do have that evidence for risk-factor screening. Even though people criticize risk-factor assessment because it is not sensitive enough or not accurate enough, the interesting and curious thing is that we actually have evidence that if you go to the trouble of screening for risk factors and treating them, patients have better outcomes. We do not have that evidence for any of these other tests."


An interesting debate ensues that includes Track Your Plaque friend, Dr. William Blanchet, who characteristically argues persuasively in favor of broad screening for coronary disease with coronary calcium scoring:

"If we were doing our jobs in primary prevention, we would not need to look at improved intervention and secondary prevention to reduce coronary death."


Here's a shock: Dr. Melissa Shirley-Walton, the cardiologist who previously preached the "cath lab on every corner" argument seems to have undergone a change of heart:

"What if I walked up to a gentleman and said, "you are at risk for CAD, take a statin", to which he replies, "I'm afraid of those meds". BUT if he sees his calcium score........he is then convinced to be pro-active. What is so wrong with that? What is so wrong with allowing him to spend 250.00 US out of pocket in order to save the US 150,000.00 US later on?

No hard endpoints you say with intensive therapy for primary prevention? What about extrapolating from trials for secondary prevention like HATS? ARBITER2? And what exactly is the true definition of secondary prevention? Is it truly primary prevention if we already have intima thickness abnormalities, or fatty streaks? That would more likely fall under secondary prevention by today's new standards.

So, I'm all for any visual aid that will encourage compliance with life style change, necessary medical therapy and followup. If the patient is willing to spend 250.00$ to get a calcium score, so be it. Better yet, why not lower the price so everyone can have the option if they are motivated enough to seize an opportunity?"


I have to admit that I thought that Dr. Blanchet was wasting his time trying to persuade Shirley-Walton et al, but perhaps he is having an impact, though having hammered away at them for the last year or so.

These arguments, for me, eerily echo many previous debates I've heard. But I am encouraged by the more favorable treatment the notion of atherosclerosis screening is receiving. Just 5 years ago, all coronary calcium scoring would have received from the conventionalists is "more clinical studies are needed."

So perhaps the cardiology and medical worlds are inching slowly towards broad acceptance of screening for coronary and vascular disease.

BUT, screening is not sufficient. What do you do with the information?

Here is where the conventional-thinkers stop. The question that seems to occupy them: Perhaps we should screen people for hidden coronary and vascular atherosclerosis so we can better decide who needs a statin drug or a procedure.

I would pose a different challenge: We should screen people for hidden coronary and vascular atherosclerosis so we can better decide who needs to engage in an intensive program of disease reversal using natural means and as little medication and procedures as possible.

Well, perhaps in time.

Lead to Gold: The alchemy of transforming nutritional-supplement-to-medication

9. January 2009 William Davis (25)
Here's a recipe to make hundreds of millions of dollars. Others have done it and you can do it, too!

1) Identify a nutritional supplement that works.

Find some agent deemed to fall within the broad allowances of the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act . However, because this agent is already in the public domain and is essential non-patent-protectable, you may need to develop some patent protectable aspect of its production, application, or encapsulation. This patent-protected aspect may or may not provide genuine advantage, but that's not your concern. Your concern is protecting your investment and providing the appearance of exclusivity.


2) Identify a medical indication for your product.

Choose a disease or condition that is likely to yield unquestioned efficacy, e.g., omega-3 fatty acids to reduce high triglycerides in people with familial hypertriglyceridemia (triglycerides >500 mg/dl). While this will restrict your ability to make market claims, it will not restrain your ability to sell or allow use of your agent for "off-label" applications. In fact, there are methods to surreptitiously promote the use of your product for off-label use, such as hiring experts to discuss the science behind your product with doctors who can prescribe your product. Ideally, your product's primary indication will provide a substantial market on its own to justify your investment. However, the eventual off-label sales can be substantial, even outstripping the sales generated through your primary indication.


3) Obtain at least $230 million to pay for the clinical trials required to obtain FDA approval.

You will also have to raise the capital to build the business to manufacture, distribute, and sell your product.


4) After FDA approval is obtained, your business is up and running, and distribution begins, start bashing the non-FDA-approved nutritional products that stand to compete in your market.

You could point out that only your product has actually passed through the rigorous FDA process. You could make claims regarding purity, potency, "approved by your doctor," etc., whether or not there is any truth behind the claim.


5) Buy that second vacation home in Aspen and the corporate jet you've been dreaming about! After all the risks you've taken, you deserve it!


That's it, plain and simple. It is a tried-and-true formula that has been applied many times.

It is a formula like this that brought Lovaza-brand omega-3 fatty acids to market, Niaspan brand of niacin, ergocalciferol form of vitamin D, Folbee (prescription combination B vitamins), with a slightly different spin for Synthroid (since the Armour Thyroid it is meant to replace is not a nutritional supplement, but a low-cost, generic thyroid replacement).

Whatever you do, don't EVER run a head-to-head comparative trial of your agent versus the nutritional supplement competition. For instance, NEVER compare Lovaza to supplemental fish oil capsules, matched milligram-for-milligram for EPA and DHA content. NEVER compare Niaspan to over-the-counter Sloniacin. NEVER compare Armour Thyroid to Synthroid. You never know what you might find. (Psssssttt! They might be equivalent!)

The formula is not a foolproof road paved with riches, however. There have been market failures, as well. Folbee, for instance, is hardly a household name. So there's risk involved, no question about it. But, should it all work out, the payoff can be big, VERY big, as it has been for Niaspan and Lovaza.

So, start thinking about how you might follow this formula for:

1) Cholecalciferol (vitamin D3)--e.g., for osteopenia, low HDL, or high c-reactive protein
2) Vitamin K2--also for osteopenia
3) Magnesium--for suppression of ventricular arrhythmias (especially Torsade de Pointes)
4) Iodine--for goiter and iodine deficiency
5) Vitamin C--for uric acid reduction

Who said you can't turn lead into gold?

Conventional therapy vs. alternative therapy

11. March 2008 William Davis (5)
Rose is a 75-year old woman, mother of four, grandmother of many more.

Rose's story started after a heart attack 18 months ago that resulted in two stents. She was advised to follow an American Heart Association diet and take Lipitor. However, some months later, after her fourth stent, she became disilluioned in the conventional approach to heart disease and sought alternative therapies to help reduce or reverse her heart disease.

She found an alternative health practitioner who advised chelation, antioxidant vitamins for "excessive oxidation," and several homeopathic preparations.

Nothing was said about diet or exercise. Nothing was said about the baked flour products and pastries that occupied at least two meals every day. Nothing was said about the candies she indulged in several times per day, nor the soft drinks. Nothing was said about the wildly fluctuating blood sugars, poorly controlled by an oral diabetes agent. Thirty pounds of weight gain over the past 5 years with no exercise or physical activity? No comment here, too.

In short, Rose was the "graduate" of the conventional approach, as typically offered nationwide thousands of times a week. She was also the recipient of the insight of at least one alternative health practitioner, eager to reject conventional notions of how to achieve heart health.

So I then met her. She was experiencing chest pains every day, several times per day. Blood pressure over 200. At 5 ft, 3 inches, weight: 186 lbs.

Initial laboratory results:

HDL cholesterol 42 mg/dl
LDL 132 mg/dl
Triglycerides 263 mg/dl
Blood sugar 173 mg/dl


You can fill in the rest. In short, Rose was a disaster. Despite the attentions of several professionals from both the conventional as well as alternative camps, she was careening rapidly towards failure. She'd been given various crutches, Band-Aids, and salves, none of which resulted in any possibility of long-term relief from her aggressive disease.

My point: As I've said previously, all we want is truth. We want effective, rational approaches that yield real benefit. A stent? All that provides is temporary restoration of blood flow. Statin agents? They do indeed reduce LDL cholesterol. But what if Rose has 8, 9, or 10 other causes of heart disease unaffected by the statin drug? It will do little or nothing.

Nobody had addressed many of the root causes of Rose's disease: insulin resistance, high triglycerides, inactivity, obesity, hypertension (and identifying the reasons why her blood pressure was so high), vitamin D deficiency (virtually guarantted to be severe), junk foods including the ones known as "whole grains."

My message: Success in heart disease, as well as all aspects of health for that matter, doesn't necessarily have to come from an "alternative" approach, nor a "conventional" approach. It comes from applying what is truly effective, regardless of what label someone applied to it.

I would no sooner trust my health and life to an alternative health practitioner hawking unusual herbs and remedies than I would submit to a heart catheterization, three stents, followed by a statin drug. There's small benefit in both approaches, but none are the best. You've got to look elsewhere for that.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

The JELIS Trial

9. March 2008 William Davis (5)
The Japan eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS) is a clinical trial that all Track Your Plaquers should know about.

This enormous trial followed a simple design:

Japanese men, between 40-75 years, and Japanese postmenopausal women aged <75 years with total cholesterol 250 mg/dl or greater were enrolled. A total of 18,645 subjects (mean age, 61 years; 31% male) participated: 36% had hypertension, 15% had diabetes, and 20% had coronary disease (history of heart attack or heart procedure). Average starting total cholesterol 275 mg/dl; LDL 180 mg/dl. All participants were treated with pravastatin 10 mg/day or simvastatin 5 mg/day; approximately half also received the omega-3, EPA, 1800 mg/day, in addition to one of the statin drugs.

Treatment resulted in an average LDL reduction of 26% in all participants; the group taking EPA experienced an additional 10% reduction in triglycerides. All major cardiovascular events were tracked and tabulated, including sudden cardiac death, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina pectoris, coronary artery bypass surgery, and coronary angioplasty.

After nearly five years, 3.5% of statin-only participants experienced an event; 2.8% of statin + EPA experienced an event. The (often misleading and frequently abused value) "relative reduction" was therefore 19%.

There are several features that make the JELIS trial interesting:

--There were an unusually low number of cardiovascular events in the entire group, lower than nearly all American and European trials of similar design. This likely points to the greater burden of atherosclerotic heart disease in the U.S. compared to Japan. Rates in comparable U.S.-based trials usually range from 6-14%, sometimes more.

--Both the participants without identified heart disease at enrollment and those with heart disease at enrollment obtained a similar magnitude of beneficial reduction in cardiovascular events.

--There was an unusual preponderance of women--69%--unlike most other trials of cardiovascular events. We might therefore argue that JELIS most conclusively showed that benefits of EPA are most confidently demonstrated for females.

--A fish oil preparation containing only EPA was used, rather than the usual EPA + DHA. There are discussions from some corners that argue that DHA is more important than EPA, e.g., algae sources. However, JELIS would argue that EPA does play a role. Is EPA with DHA better, worse, or no different? Unfortunately, there are insufficient data--large, randomized data like JELIS--to help us. Recall that GISSI Prevenzione used a combination of EPA and DHA, as have virtually all other trials examining the effects of fish oil. Also, keep in mind that the epidemiologic observations of the cardiovascular benefits of eating fish suggest that the naturally-sourced omega-3s--a combination of EPA and DHA--are associated with benefit.

--It's surprising that any difference at all was demonstrated, given the high intake of fish in the Japanese. In fact, blood levels of EPA in participants before taking EPA was five-fold higher than in western populations.


One potential difficulty: The study was funded by the manufacturer of the EPA preparation used, Mochida Pharmaceutical Company. We all know what that can do to results.

Nonetheless, the JELIS trial is a study that adds to the emerging wisdom in fish oil.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Omega-3 MUST be from fish oil

7. March 2008 William Davis (14)
Despite my rants in this blog and elsewhere, at least once a day I'll have a patient say, "I cut back (or eliminated) my fish oil because I get my omega-3s from _______ (insert your choice of flaxseed oil, walnuts, yogurt, mayonnaise, bread, etc.)."

(See prior Heart Scan Blog post: Everything has omega-3.)

When I point out to them that the "omega-3s" in these products are not the same as the EPA and DHA from fish oil, they invariably declare, "But it says so here on the label: 'Contains 200 mg of omega-3 fatty acids'!"

Apparently, some of my colleagues have even endorsed this concept of replacing the omega-3s from fish oil with these "alternatives."

It's simply not true. The linolenic acid that is being labeled as omega-3, while it may indeed provide health benefits of its own, cannot replace the EPA and DHA that fish oil provides.

The most graphic example of the differences between the two classes of oils is in people with a condition called familial hypertriglyceridemia. People with this condition have triglyceride levels of 400, 600, even thousands of mg/dl--very high. Fish oil, usually providing EPA and DHA doses of 1800 mg per day and higher, reduce triglycerides dramatically. A person with a starting triglyceride level of, say, 900 mg/dl, may take 2400 mg of EPA and DHA from fish oil and triglycerides plummet to 150 mg/dl. This person then decides to replace fish oil with a linolenic acid source like flaxseed oil. Triglycerides? 900 mg/dl--no effect whatsoever.

Familial hypertriglyceridemia represents an exagerrated example of the differences between the two oils. Even if you don't have this genetic condition, the differences between the oils still apply.

EPA and DHA are activators of the enzyme, lipoprotein lipase, that accelerates clearance of triglycerides from the blood. Linolenic acid from flaxseed oil, walnuts, and other food sources does not. EPA and DHA block after-eating (post-prandial) accumulation of food by-products that can contribute to coronary and carotid plaque. Linolenic acid does not. EPA and DHA block platelets, reduce fibrinogen, and exert other healthy blood clot-inhibiting effects. Linolenic does not.

The 11,000-participant GISSI-Prevenzione Trial that showed 28% reduction in heart attack, 45% reduction in cardiovascular death with omega-3s used . . . fish oil.

The 18,000 participant JELIS trial that showed 19% reduction in cardiovascular events when omega-3s were added to statin therapy used . . . fish oil. (Actually, in JELIS, they used only EPA wtihout DHA.)

Linolenic acid is not a waste, however. It may exert anti-inflammatory benefits of its own, for instance. But it exerts none of the triglyceride-modifying effects of EPA or DHA.

EPA and DHA from fish oil and linolenic acid from foods each provide benefits in their own way. Ideally, you include both forms of oils--fish oil and linolenic acid sources--in your daily diet and obtain full benefit from each separate class. But they are not interchangeable.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Osteoporosis and coronary calcium

4. March 2008 William Davis (9)
Several studies over the years have demonstrated a curious paradox:

People with more osteoporosis (thin bones) tend to be more likely to have coronary disease (heart attacks). They also tend to have higher heart scan scores (more coronary calcification as an index of atherosclerotic plaque).

People with more coronary disease and higher heart scan scores tend to have more osteoporosis.


In other words, regardless of which way you tackle the question--osteoporosis first or heart disease first--it leads to the same conclusion: Both conditions are somehow related.

I realize I harp an awful lot on this whole vitamin D issue. But, even after correcting the vitamin D blood levels of many hundreds of people, I remain enthusiastic as ever about the untapped potential of this fascinating factor.

So I couldn't resist showing this amazing comparison of how the long-term effect can be quite graphic.

The first scan is from a 46-year old man and shows normal coronary arteries without calcium and normal density of the vertebra (a common and reliable place to measure bone density).

























The second image is from a 79-year old man with both severe coronary calcification (and therefore severe coronary disease) and severe osteoporosis.
























It makes you wonder if the disordered metabolism of calcium through vitamin D deficiency allows transport of calcium away from bone and into coronaries. This has, however, been shown to not be the case. Instead, they are separate processes, each under local control, but sharing a common pathophysiology (causative factors).

An intriguing question: Would the 79-year old still look like the 46-year old had he begun increasing his vitamin D intake at, say, age 30?

About comment responses and moderation

2. March 2008 William Davis (10)
Just a brief word about my responses to reader comments:

I appreciate the many often insightful and interesting reader comments I receive to the Heart Scan Blog. However, managing them and responding to them has simply become impossible, due to time demands.

I'm afraid that I am unable to answer questions seeking medical advice; this is for your doctor, who knows you and can diagnose and prescribe. I cannot.

I'm also unable to engage in lengthy debates; I've had commenters become very angry when I was unable to engage in lengthy conversations on some topic. Nor am I able to do Google or literature searches for commenters, or review studies, papers, or other materials.

I would urge any readers who wish to engage in in-depth discussions about these issues, talk about lipoproteins, heart disease reversal, etc. to do so on the Track Your Plaque Forums. Yes, it is a fee-for-membership website, a model that has become necessary to pay for the services we provide (not pay me).

I wish that I could answer all the concerns and questions that come my way, but it's simply physically impossible doing so while maintaining a full-time very busy cardiology practice, developing the Track Your Plaque website (which is becoming an enormous responsibility), publishing scientific data, maintaining hospital responsibilities, and spending time with my wife and family. We're all busy and I'm no different. I'm afraid that it's my responses to blog comments that I will have to sacrifice.

I invite commenters to continue to comment on these posts, as I've learned many new things by reading them and find them helpful feedback. And I do read them. Should an especially helpful comment be made, I will feature it in a new blog post, rather than respond directly.

"Flying in the fog"

2. March 2008 William Davis (3)
I received this wonderful response to The Heart Scan Blog post Hammers and Nails:

I am 65 years old. I had a stent inserted in the "widow-maker" artery (80% blockage) a year ago. I had passed out a couple of times (heart rate dangerously low - 30s). I rode to the hospital in an ambulance. Tests revealed short LBBB episodes; mild mitral regurgitation, mild tricuspid regurgitation. Catherization showed 3 vessel CAD. I was told that a medicated stent was absolutely necessary given the situation; regardless, I have to accept that. A pacemaker was installed to prevent bradycardia and keeps heart rate from dropping below 60. I have 20% L distal main blockage and 90% lesion of the high first obtuse marginal at the takeoff. The right coronary had 60% posterior lateral branch stenosis.

Since then I have reduced TG from 360 to 60, LDL from 89 to 82 (although a few months ago it was in the mid-70s), and increased HDL from 30 to 46. I went from 265lbs to 190lbs and hope to eventually get to 180lb this Spring. I did it by progressing from walking to trotting (slow run) and dietstyle changes (low-GI veggies, fruits, etc.) .













On a recent visit the cardiologist said the the LDL needs to be 70 or below to "freeze" the 90% blockage and gave me a prescription for Lipitor. I asked if there were alternatives, like diet, supplements, etc. He admitted that he did not know about those alternative but did know Lipitor. When the only tool you have is a hammer then everything is a nail. I understand that the 90% blockage is important but will not take the Lipitor to achieve the 12 points reduction. Seems like an overkill.

I asked him if there was a way to evaluate my current condition. I was told there was no way. Basically, if I have no symptoms, good. If I have symptoms then it will have to be evaluated. Death could be the only symptom. I swear he was about to say bypass surgery ($$$$$$!) was inevitable. Something is wrong with this "fly-in-the-fog-and-hope-you-don't- hit-a-mountain" approach. Hope is not a strategy!

I am confident that I can reduce LDL to below 70 based on eliminating wheat-products in my diet plus increasing oat bran in my diet. I also take fish oil daily (EPA/DHA-2g). I am looking for a new cardiologist. I just recently purchased your book and find it very instructive. In the meantime I have an appointment with my primary care physician to discuss implementing the Track Your Plaque program. I realize that the one stent will skew the scan numbers but can be used as a baseline number.


Phenomenal weight loss! That alone has likely cut this man's risk in half. But is that it? Is the cardiologist correct--take Lipitor and hope for the best?

Of course not. There are many additional strategies to employ. Eliminating wheat from the diet is an excellent idea: HDL will skyrocket, triglycerides drop even further, small LDL will drop like a stone, blood sugar and blood pressure will drop. He will have more energy, get rid of afternoon energy slumps, sleep better.

He has already added fish oil. If his cardiologist did not mention this, I would say he was guilty of malpractice. The data supporting the addition of fish oil to the treatment program of anyone with heart disease is overhwelming. GISSI Prevenzione: 11,000 participants--28% reduction in heart attack, 45% reduction in death from heart attack. The Japanese JELIS trial of 18,645 participants--19% reduction in dangerous heart events. It's also clear that omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil also compound the benefits of statin agents, should this man choose to begin Lipitor.

Vitamin D brought to normal blood levels is his next "secret weapon" that will further boost his lipids and lipoproteins further into not just "normal" territory, but beyond belief. Even though we aim for 60-60-60 for LDL-HDL-triglycerides in the Track Your Plaque program, adding vitamin D can yield numbers you've never seen before. It's not uncommon, for instance, to see a 10 or 20 mg/dl jump in HDL.

Identify all other hidden causes of coronary plaque. If all the causes have not been fully identified, how can anyone hope to gain full control over coronary plaque growth?

Re: LDL cholesterol of 89 mg/dl at the start. Of course, this is a calculated value, not measured. Because HDL was low and triglycerides high at the start of his program, this means that true LDL--if actually measured--was probably more like 180 to 250 mg/dl, and it was probably nearly all small. So his cardiologist might have advised a helpful treatment, though for the wrong reasons.

Our reader has gone a long way on his own in creating his own prevention program. But there's yet more to do, particularly if the goal is reversal. It is shocking to me that a man like our reader, clearly articulate and motivated, gets virtually no advice beyond "take Lipitor" after all the procedural benefits have been reaped.

Even though one artery can no longer be "scored" due to the presence of the metallic stent, a heart scan would still be invaluable for long-term tracking purposes, just as we advocate in the Track Your Plaque program.



Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Goodbye, Dr. Jarvik

29. February 2008 William Davis (0)
HeartWire, the news service of www.theheart.org, posted the following report:

Pfizer pulls Lipitor ads featuring Dr Robert Jarvik in HeartWire

New York, NY - After a series of questions and attacks over its choice of Dr Robert Jarvik to endorse Lipitor in a series of TV commercials, Pfizer has announced that it is withdrawing the ads. As previously reported by heartwire, Jarvik invented the first artificial heart, but he is not a cardiologist, nor does he hold a medical license—factors that drew criticism from detractors and made him and Pfizer a target of a US House Committee on Energy and Commerce investigation into celebrity endorsements in direct-to-consumer advertisements.

In a January 2008 statement, committee chair Rep John D Dingell (D-MI) observed: "Dr Jarvik's appearance in the ads could influence consumers into taking the medical advice of someone who may not be licensed to practice medicine in the United States. Americans with heart disease should make medical decisions based on consultations with their doctors, not on paid advertisements during a commercial break."

Complaints about Jarvik went up a notch this month when the latest ad in the series depicted the inventor rowing a racing scull across a lake, despite the fact that Jarvik himself does not row and the commercial used a body double.

This is typical pharmaceutical industry sleight-of-hand, now you see it, now you don't, that has come to define their policies. And this is just the stuff that comes to light because of some obvious blunders. We can only begin to imagine what sorts of other shenanigans have been swept under the rug, especially adverse effects of drugs that never made it to the light of publication.

Is this just another example of how direct-to-consumer advertising has backfired? I now have patient after patient tell me that they have been so overwhelmed and fed up with TV and magazine ads for drugs that they



Other media outlets have reported that Jarvik was guaranteed $1.35 million for the ads and that Pfizer spent $258 million on Lipitor advertisements between January 2006 and September 2007.

Hammers and nails

28. February 2008 William Davis (4)
I'm sure you've heard the old saying that,

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.


It couldn't be truer than in heart procedures (the man with the hammer) and heart disease (the nail).

What does it take in 2008 to become an interventional cardiologist trained in all the techniques of angioplasty, stenting, intracoronary ultrasound, etc.? Start with your undergraduate degree (4 years), then medical school (another 4 years), then training in internal medicine (3 years), then general cardiology taining (3 years), then an additional year in interventional cardiology. Each step along the way also involves competing for these spaces, a process that requires much time, money, and sweat.

The total time investment is 15 years after high school. Many if not most college students graduate with debt. Pile on the substantial cost of medical school. Training after medical school pays a modest salary, enough for a single person. Many trainees by then have spouses and a family, would like to buy a house, have bills to pay. (I managed to buy my first house for $69,000 in Columbus, Ohio and paid my mortgage by sleeping only every other night and moonlighting on my off nights.)

By the time the interventional cardiologist-in-training finishes his/her 15 years, they are hungry for a hefty increase in income. After such a time and money investment, I do believe that there is at least some justification for generous income for the years of work involved.

Back to our hammer and nail metaphor. Not only do we now have a man or woman with a hammer, but a really expensive hammer that required a substantial amount of effort to obtain. Now, our hapless hammer-bearer is desperate to see everything in sight as a nail.

You're seen in consultation by this fresh interventional cardiologist in practice for only a few years. Guess what he/she advises? Go straight to the catheterization laboratory, of course. Throw in the fact that insurance reimbursement is most generous for heart procedures, far more than for consulting in the office, doing a stress test, or other simpler, non-invasive tests, and the incentives are clear.

The system, you see, is set up to follow such a path. The path to the cath lab is heavily incentivized, paths in the other direction discouraged, disparaged, or just ignored.

My message: Don't get nailed.

What is abnormal?

27. February 2008 William Davis (1)
What is abnormal?

You'd think that the answer would be easy and straightforward.

However, consider these instances of medical findings that I have witnessed fall repeatedly into the "normal" category:

Diameter of the thoracic aorta: 4.5 cm

Mild coronary plaque by heart catheterization

Carotid plaque of 30-50%


Why isn't a thoracic aorta (the big artery in your chest) of 4.5 cm normal? Because it can be expected to increase in diameter by about 2.5 mm (0.25 cm) per year. Even at its current diameter, it means that stroke risk is greater, since enlarged aortas are diseased aortas that commonly accumulate atherosclerotic plaque with potential to fragment and shower debris to the brain. It means that high blood pressure and/or cholesterol/lipoprotein abnormalities have been uncorrected for years that have allowed the aorta to enlarge.

How about "mild coronary plaque"? Followers of the Track Your Plaque program already know the answer to this one. Mild plaque does not mean mild risk. In fact, most plaques that cause heart attack are mild plaques, not severe blockages. While severe blockages can provide symptom warning and are detected by stress tests, it's the mild blockages that rupture without symptom warning and cause heart attack. So "mild coronary plaque" is no less dangerous than severe coronary plaque.

Likewise, carotid plaque of 30-50%, while it doesn't justify surgery, can grow within just a few years to a severity that allows it to fragment and shower debris to the brain, i.e., a stroke. As with the enlarged aorta, it means that multiple causes of carotid plaque are likely active, including high blood pressure and cholesterol or lipoprotein abnormalities.

Then why would any of these findings be labeled "normal"?

Simple. In the minds of many physicians, if a condition doesn't pose immediate risk, or if it doesn't qualify for surgical "correction," then it is labeled "normal" or "mild."

Thus, an aorta of 4.5 cm cannot justify surgical replacement until it achieves a diameter of 5.5 cm. It is therefore labeled "normal."

"Mild coronary plaque" does not justify insertion of stents or performance of bypass surgery. It must therefore be "normal."

Carotid plaque over 70% is surgically removed, but not 30-50%. 30-50% is therefore "normal."

The tragedy is that many "normal" or "mild" findings, if cast in the proper light, could lead to corrective strategies that could prevent danger long-term or keep surgery from becoming necessary.

The enlarged aorta, for instance, could be stopped and an aneurysm (defined as 5.5 cm or greater) could be prevented, along with dramatically reducing risk for stroke. Carotid plaque, more so than coronary plaque, is a controllable and manipulable condition that should trigger a program of prevention and reversal. Instead, it usually generates advice to have another ultrasound in a year to see if it has yet achieved severity sufficient to justify surgery.

Of course, "mild coronary plaque" is the reason for the Track Your Plaque approach, a chance to seize control over this disease years or decades before procedures are necessary and reduce danger now, not years from now.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Niacin and hydration

27. February 2008 William Davis (12)
Many people know about niacin's curious effect of the "hot flush," a feeling of warmth that covers the chest and neck, occasionally the entire body.

However, many people are unaware of the fact that hydration can block this effect. In fact, many people who were not advised of this will come to the office describing miserable experiences with niacin--hot flushes that last for hours, intolerable itching, etc.--only to experience little or none of these effects with generous hydration.

The vast majority of the time, two 8-12 oz glasses of water when the hot flush occurs will eliminate the flush within a few minutes.

Sometimes, the hot flush will occur many hours after taking niacin. Nine times out of ten, this delayed effect is also due to poor hydration. For instance, you might be engrossed in your work and forget to keep up with fluid demands. Or, it may be warm and you've lost fluids through sweating. That's when you begin to feel the hot flush creep up on you.

The cure: Lots of water. In this situation, in which you have allowed dehydration to develop, it may require more than two big glasses. Relief from the flush may also take more time, but it still works nearly every time.

On those rare occasions when water by itself is insufficient, then an adult (325 mg), uncoated aspirin or 200 mg ibuprofen can also be used to accelerate relief.

Why go to some much bother? Well, niacin remains the best agent we have for reduction of small LDL, raising HDL (although vitamin D is proving to be a powerful competitor in this arena), and reducing lipoprotein(a). How much do statin drugs contribute to these effects? Very little, if at all.

Several drug manufacturers are also working on "antidotes" to the hot flush effect of niacin that will be packaged within the niacin tablet. Naturally, it will also boost the cost up many times higher.

In the meantime, if or when you experience the niacin hot flush, just think: Put out the "fire" with plenty of water.

Wheat-free 2007

1. January 2007 William Davis (4)

Long ago, most of us made the change of reducing saturated fat in our diet. Few people now rely on butter (despite the idiotic butter vs. margarine controversy), full-fat dairy products, fried foods, and greasy meats. That's a healthy change, since saturated fat has conclusively been tied to various cancers, high blood pressure, rise in LDL, and is calorie-dense.

But if there were just one change you were to make beyond a reduction in saturated fat, a change that would translate into dramatic health benefits, it would be a drastic reduction, even elimination, of wheat products.

People do indeed eat enormous quantities of wheat flour-containing products. U.S. per capita consumption of wheat flour was 110 pounds in the early 1970s, and rose to 141 pounds in 1991. It's even higher now. 20% or more of most people's caloric intake every day is provided by wheat flour products.

Wheat containing foods are tasty and convenient. Witness the popularity of bagel shops, the goodie counter at Starbuck's, the proliferation of crackers, breads, and breakfast cereals at the grocery store. Patients are horrified when I suggest that they find a substitute for the sandwiches they eat every day. Even Mom said they were okay!

You're unlikely to hear much about this from the popular press. The wheat industry is enormous and exerts extraordinary clout, just like the drug industry. Texas alone farms 6 million acres of wheat, yielding over $2 billion for the state's economy. The "wheat chain" is complex and far-reaching: growers, processors, food manufacturers, the transportation industry, retailers, chemical producers, and on and on. Wheat futures are traded on the Chicago Board of Trade. Wheat is a major export industry for the U.S.

Of course, these are not evil people, intent on corrupting your health. In fact, most of them are probably working under the perception that they are raising a healthy product. The point is that the notion that wheat is healthy is deeply entrenched in the minds and economy of the U.S. Don't expect to hear unbiased commentary on the health effects of wheat products from most media sources.

What can you expect if you sharply reduce or eliminate wheat? The majority of people:

--Feel like a cloud has been lifted from their thinking.
--Don't experience the afternoon blah or tired feeling after lunch.
--Lose weight, sometimes substantial quantities.
--Raise HDL.
--Reduce small LDL.
--Reduce triglycerides, particularly if they start >100 mg/dl.
--Reduce blood sugar.

The reduction in small LDL can be especially impressive.

For most people, reducing or eliminating wheat is a sacrifice, a major change in food choices and even a loss of convenience. But the health benefits for most people can be dramatic.

Is vitamin D a "vitamin"?

29. December 2006 William Davis (5)
Vitamins are crucial participants in the body's reactions and are obtainable from food. Vitamin C, for example, comes from citrus fruits and vegetables. Vitamin K comes from green vegetables. The B vitamins are found in meats, soy, dairy products, and grains. Vitamin A comes from carrots, squash, and other orange and green colored vegetables.

How about vitamin D? What foods contain vitamin D? The list includes:


Food International Units(IU) vitamin D per serving

Cod liver oil, 1 Tablespoon 1,360
Salmon, cooked, 3½ ounces 360
Mackerel, cooked, 3½ ounces 345
Tuna fish, canned in oil, 3 ounces 200
Sardines, canned in oil, drained, 1¾ ounces 250

Milk, nonfat, reduced fat, and whole, vitamin D fortified, 1 cup 98
Margarine, fortified, 1 Tablespoon 60
Pudding, prepared from mix and made with vitamin D fortified milk, ½ cup 50
Cheese, Swiss, 1 ounce 12

Ready-to-eat cereals fortified with 10% of the DV for vitamin D, ¾ cup to 1 cup servings (servings vary according to the brand) 40

Egg, 1 whole (vitamin D is found in egg yolk) 20
Liver, beef, cooked, 3½ ounces 15

(Modified from the Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health)


You'll note that the only naturally-occurring food sources of vitamin D are the modest quantities in fish, egg yolks, and liver. All the other vitamin D-containing foods like cereal, milk, and other dairy products have vitamin D only because humans add it.

It takes me (personally) 6000 units of vitamin D per day to bring my blood level to an acceptable 50 ng/ml. To obtain this from eating salmon, I would have to eat 58 ounces, or 3 1/2 pounds of salmon--every day. Or, I could eat 30 cans of tuna fish.

If I didn't want to eat loads of fish every day, I could drink 60 glasses of milk every day. After I recovered from the diarrhea, my vitamin D might be adequate, provided the milk indeed contained the amount stated on the label (which it often does not when scrutinized by the USDA).

If vitamin D is a vitamin, how are humans supposed to get sufficient quantities? I don't know anybody who can eat 3 1/2 lbs of salmon per day, nor drink 60 glasses of milk per day. But aren't vitamins supposed to come from food?




The problem is that vitamin D is not really a vitamin, it's a hormone. If your thyroid hormone level was low, you'd gain 20, 30, or more pounds in weight, your blood pressure would skyrocket, you'd lose your hair, become constipated, develop blood clots, be terribly fatigued. In other words, you'd suffer profound changes. Likewise, if thyroid hormone levels are corrected by giving you thyroid hormone, you'd experience profound correction of these phenomena.

That's what I'm seeing with vitamin D: restoration of this hormone to normal blood levels (25-OH-vitamin D3 50 ng/ml) yields profound changes in the body.

If there's one thing that I've come across lately that packs extraordinary potential to help us in reducing heart scan scores, it's the vitamin--sorry, the hormone--cholecalciferol, or D3.

Heart scan curiosities 3

28. December 2006 William Davis (0)

Note the shape of the chest in this 64-year old man. The front of his chest (upper portion of scan) is concave. In other words, if you were looking at this man (shirtless, of course) face to face, his chest would bow inward, rather than the usual outward configuration. The official name for this is "pectus excavatum".





Compare this to the normal chest in the second image, in which the chest is convex. Face to face, the chest would bow slightly outward.















What does it matter? The pectus excavatum in and of itself has no importance, just a curiousity. (I personally find this surprising, given the fact that the heart actually appears squashed by the sternum, or chest wall.) However, it is commonly associated with a "floppy" mitral valve (also called mitral valve prolapse), a common congenital disorder of the mitral valve often accompanied by a slender build, loose joints, and even a nervous disposition. Occasionally, in its more severe forms, the aorta is also enlarged. (This man's aorta is not enlarged.)

So, while we can't actually visualize the mitral valve by a CT heart scan, we can surmise that he likely has a floppy mitral valve, is slender, is probably a nervous sort, and has long limbs with loose joints. He probably required braces as a child, since many people have a phenemenon of "crowded teeth". The roof of his mouth, or hard palate, probably unusually high up in the mouth. He probably has a "weak chin", meaning a less prominent protuberance of his chin. His fingers and toes are likely unusually long and slender.

It could mean that some attention and exploration of how floppy his mitral valve might be could be useful, e.g., an ultrasound or echocardiogram. He might even require oral antibiotics at the time of any oral or some gastrointestinal procedures, since floppy valve are more susceptible to blood infections when potentially "dirty" orifices are instrumented.

All that from a heart scan!

Gratitude

24. December 2006 William Davis (2)
The holidays and the end of the year may be a good time to reflect on how grateful we should be for having the freedom to discuss the ideas we share on this Blog, the Track Your Plaque website, online and offline.

Although I rant and rave against the status quo in heart disease, the shameful profiteering of my colleagues and hospitals, the cut-throat marketing practices of drug and device manufacturers, I am truly grateful that, in the U.S., I have the extraordinary freedom to say these things. You have the freedom to agree or disagree and none of us pays a price for truth.

I've been reflecting myself a great deal on this idea of happiness and gratitude being a critical component of coronary plaque regression and dropping your heart scan score. (See The Heart Scan Blog from earlier this week.) The more I think about this, the more I think that it is indeed true: Harboring anger and resentment, regrets, irritability, all those petty emotions that most of us know are not good for us, erode our chances for success in dropping your heart scan score.

We could rationalize it this way: Anger and other negative emotions are adrenaline-driven states, also characterized by activation of the "sympathetic" nervous system. (Despite its name, the sympathetic system is not sympathetic, as in compassionate; its the "fight-or-flight" activator that accelerates heart rate and blood pressure.)

Happiness, contentment, and gratitude are "parasympathetic" states characterized by slower heart rates, deeper respiration, greater variation in beat-to-beat heart rates (a powerful predictor for health and the basis for the HeartMath program of Lew Childre), lower blood pressure, and even a subtle change in brain waves. In other words, happiness is not just a mental and emotional state, it is a constellation of physical phenomena.

Even though I pick on Dr. Dean Ornish for his stubborn adherence to the outdated low-fat mantra, I do agree with him on the value of happiness. His book, Love and Survival, articulates this concept. Ornish has even said on several occasions that it wasn't the diet that was most important but the connection and warmth that was created by the comraderie created by participation in the Ornish Program group sessions.

I am personally grateful that the concepts I promote are gaining a following and that I can say so without fear of prosecution. I am grateful that Track Your Plaque followers are not just sharing our concepts, but obtaining genuine and powerful health advice that will help keep them home and healthy, away from hospitals, procedures, and the dangers of heart disease.

I hope you share in my gratitude and are thankful for all the truly wonderful things that surround us. I wish you all a wonderful holiday and long, healthy life filled with gratitude.

A Track Your Plaque failure

23. December 2006 William Davis (0)
We recently had a man suffer a heart attack after beginning the program. Let me tell you the details.

Jerry's heart scan score 781, age 53. Multiple lipoprotein abnormalities: HDL 32 mg/dl, triglycerides 279 mg/dl, nearly all of his LDL was in small particles with an "effective" LDL (LDL particle number), and very high IDL. So Jerry added fish oil 6000 mg per day, niacin, and vitamin D to the statin drug prescribed by his primary physician. Jerry added oat bran, ground flaxseed, and tried to eat fish at least once per week.

However, Jerry continued to smoke. He'd smoked for 40 years (!), up to 2 packs per day, and just reasoned that it was too late to quit. He also continued to indulge in the packaged, processed foods that were part of his convenience story business.

Jerry's stress test was normal--no chest pain, normal EKG, normal images of blood flow, though he was somewhat breathless, likely from his lung disease from smoking.

Two months into his program, he abruptly experienced severe crushing pain in his chest. Because he was traveling, he ended up in a small local hospital. A failed angioplasty led to urgent coronary bypass surgery.

Jerry's alive. Now he's a non-smoker. He's got the pursed lips and peculiar breathing pattern that smokers get, but he's breathing.

Lesson: In the face of the most powerful program for heart disease known, it can still be overpowered by Twinkies, Hoho's, pretzels, chips--and cigarettes.

The new year is approaching. Be grateful for another year of healthy life and commit to a new year of even greater health. If you're a smoker, there's no choice: you've got to quit.

Are you more like a dog or a rabbit?

20. December 2006 William Davis (11)
Dr. William Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology and cardiovascular pathologist, is a perennial source of clever ideas on heart disease.
In a recent editorial, Dr. Roberts comments:








"Because humans get atherosclerosis, and atherosclerosis is a disease only of herbivorers, humans also must be herbivores. Most humans, of course, eat flesh, but that act does not make us carnivores. Carnivores and herbivores have different characteristics. (1) The teeth of carnivores are sharp; those of herbivores, flat (humans have some sharp teeth but most are flat for grinding the fruits, vegetables, and grains we are built to eat). (2) The intestinal tract of carnivores is short (about 3 times body length); that of herbivores, long (about 12 times body length). (Since I am 6 feet tall my intestinal tract should be about 60 feet long. As a consequence, if I eat bovine muscle [steak], it could take 5 days to course through those 20 yards.) (3) Body cooling for carnivores is done by panting because they have no ability to seat; although herbivores also can pant, they cool their bodies mainly by sweating. (4) Drinking fluids is by lapping them for the carnivore; it is by sipping them for the herbivore. (5) Vitamin C is made by the carnivore's own body; herbivores obtain their ascorbic acid only from their diet. Thus, although most human beings think we are carnivores or at least conduct their lives as if we were, basically humans are herbivores. If we could decrease our flesh intake to as few as 5 to 7 meals a week our health would improve substantially."



You can always count on Dr. Bill Roberts to come up with some clever observations.

I think he's right. Some of the most unhealthy people I've known have been serious meat eaters. Most of the vegetarians have been among the healthiest. (I say most because if a vegetarian still indulges in plenty of junk foods like chips, crackers, breakfast cereals, breads, etc., then they can be every bit as unhealthy as a meat eater.)

Should you become a vegetarian to gain control over coronary plaque and other aspects of health? I don't believe you have to. However, modern livestock raising practices have substantially modified the composition of meats. A steak in 2006, for instance, is not the same thing as a steak in 1896. The saturated and monounsaturated fat content are different, the pattern of fat "marbling" is different, the lean protein content is different. Meat is less healthy today than 100 years ago.

Take a lesson from Dr. Roberts' tongue-in-cheek but nonetheless provocative thoughts. Pardon me while I chew on some carrots.

Are happy people more likely to reduce heart scan scores?

18. December 2006 William Davis (0)
I was talking to Darryl, a patient today: 71 years old with a heart scan score of 378, as well as an enlarged aorta (4.5 cm).

We had identified numerous lipoprotein abnormalities 12 months ago and advised him on a program for correction. His patterns included small LDL, high triglycerides, sky-high IDL (VERY important when you have an enlarged aorta), and lipoprotein(a). Blood pressure was also high, another crucial fact to correct when the aorta is enlarged.

Anyway, Darryl corrected lipoproteins to perfection: basic lipids were substantially better than 60-60-60; lipoprotein(a) was reduced well into the desirable range; IDL was eliminated; blood pressure was 108/64. Repeat heart scan score: 354.

There's nothing spectacular about Darryl's story, except that, despite these issues, Darryl was a happy man. He smiled throughout our conversation. He has told me on several occasions how grateful he is for the life he has.

Darryl is not wealthy. He retired around 4 years ago and fills his day with helping his wife, walking outdoors, helping out at his church, and contributing to the care of his grandchildren. Through all this Darryl is incurably, unfailingly, and irrepressibly happy.

It made me think back through all the other people who've also had great succes in their Track Your Plaque program. It struck me that, for the most part, they too were a happy bunch: generally optimistic, happy, not overly stressed nor prone to extremely stressful responses to stressful situations. All seem to also be grateful for the good in their lives, though most had no more money than the average person and had their share of difficulties in life. In fact, I can only recall one person who reversed coronary plaque who was an angry, pessimistic personality. Just one.

Could it be that happy, optimistic people are more likely to reverse coronary plaque? It would, after all, be consistent with all the other observations that type A personalities have more heart attack, etc.

Anyway, this is just an informal observation but one that seems very consistent. Track your plaque--and be happy!

Don't overdo the vitamin D

17. December 2006 William Davis (1)
As time passes and I advise more and more people to supplement vitamin D, I gain increasing respect for this powerful "vitamin". I am convinced that vitamin D replacement is the reason for a recent surge in our success rates in dropping CT heart scan scores. I believe it is also explains the larger drops we've been witnessing lately--20-30%.

But vitamin D can be overdone, too. Too much of a good thing . . .

Despite being labeled a "vitamin", cholecalciferol is actually a hormone. Vitamins are obtained from food and you can thereby develop deficiencies because of poor intake. Deficiency of vitamin C, for instance, arises from a lack of vegetables and fruits.

Vitamin D, on the other hand, is nearly absent from food. The only naturally-occuring source is oily fish like salmon and sardines. Milk usually has a little (100 units per 8 oz) because milk producers have been required by law to put it there to reduce the incidence of childhood rickets.

A woman came to me with a heart scan score of nearly 3800, the highest score I've every seen in a woman. (Record for a male >8,000!) She was taking vitamin D by prescription from her family doctor but at a dose of 150,000 units per week, or approximately 21,000 units per day. This had gone on for about 3-4 years. This may explain her excessive coronary calcium score. Interestingly, she had virtually no lipoprotein abnormalities identified, which by itself is curious, since most people have some degree of abnormality like small LDL. Obviously, I asked her to stop the vitamin D.

Should you be afraid of vitamin D? Of course not. If your neighbor is an alcoholic and has advanced cirrhosis, does that mean you shouldn't have a glass or two of Merlot for health and enjoyment? It's a matter of quantity. Too little vitamin D and you encourage coronary plaque growth. Too much vitamin D and you trigger "pathologic calcification", or the deposition of calcium in inappropriate places and sometimes to extreme degrees, as in this unfortunate woman.

Ideally, you should have your doctor check your 25-OH-vitamin D3 blood levels twice a year in summar and in winter. We aim for a level of 50 ng/ml, the level at which the phenemena of deficiency dissipate.

"It must have been the statin"

13. December 2006 William Davis (0)
After four years of trying, Randy finally reduced her heart scan score. It not only dropped, it plummeted. After four previous scans that showed 25% or more increases, she'd finally dropped her score 23%. (I Blogged about Randy's case a few weeks ago.)

Randy also works for a cardiologist. When she told him that she had reversed her coronary plaque and reduced her heart scan score by 23%, he said, "It must have been the statin agent."

Randy was indeed on a statin drug at a low dose. But she also had taken great efforts in exercise, food choices, fish oil, and vitamin D. In fact, her score had progressed dramatically while she was taking the drug. Put simply, it was not the statin.

But that is the mindset of the conventionally thinking cardiologist. Stent, bypass, or statin drug--what else is there? Even with crystal clear evidence for coronary plaque regression, they refuse to acknowledge that tools that are not in their everyday consciousness could have achieved so spectacular a result.

Given a choice, 9 out of 10 cardiologists would rather put a stent in and walk away $2000 richer for an hour of work. Don't allow them to have this choice. Take control now.

12. December 2006 William Davis (0)
Statin Drugs May Help the Healthy:
Cholesterol-Lowering Statin Drugs May Benefit People Without Heart Disease

That's the headline on WebMD, reporting the findings of a recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. In reality, it wasn't really a study at all, but a re-analysis of previously published data, a so-called meta-analysis.

Nonetheless, the University of Toronto group re-analyzed the results of several studies, pooling data on 28,000 people, none of whom had known coronary disease. The results were similar to the results of the studies that were reported individually: a 29% reduction in heart attack and other "events" in people taking statin drugs.

What's surprising to me is this notion that statins, or any other treatment for that matter, prevent heart attack in people without heart disease. This is idiotic. Of course they had coronary heart disease. You can't have a heart attack in the absence of coronary disease. (There are very rare exceptions, like cocaine users, who experience coronary spasm from the drug).

What the study shows is that people with unrecognized heart disease experienced a reduction in heart attack. What it also means is that many, many people truly without heart disease were unnecessarily treated. As you'd predict, the drug manufacturers love this sort of broad, untargeted use of their drugs. It's an approach that brings in billions of dollars of revenues. The article on WebMD, in fact, was accompanied by three ads for various cholesterol drugs on this single page story.

What if only people with heart disease, as identified by CT heart scan scores, were treated? You would indeed witness an even larger reduction in heart attack risk, because the group receiving treatment both has the disease and is thereby at greater risk. Treatment should yield even greater risk reduction than treating broad groups who superficially appear to not have heart disease.

Ignore this nonsense about statin drugs reducing heart attack risk in people without heart disease. If you don't look for it, you won't know you have it. Once again, you can be lots smarter than the media. Get a heart scan and find out if your risk is worth reducing.