Diet is superior to drugs

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


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

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

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

Isn't that great? Spectacular job, Might!

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

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

Comments (27) -

  • Janknitz

    1/7/2012 6:24:17 PM |

    7 months ago I was dying. I was (still am) morbidly obese. I have GERD, hypertension,  sleep apnea, PCOS/insulin resistance, asthma, chronic back and skeletal pain. I could not walk across the room without severe pain and shortness of breath. I was afraid to do any testing or discuss this with my doctor because I knew that I would be prescribed a bunch of meds (statins, diuretics and BP meds) and sent to kaiser's group nutritional counseling to learn all about how six servings of whole grains and daily exercise would fix everything if I was "compliant".   I am not a compliant person . . .

    I had amazing success with low carb 12 years ago--so successful that I conceived my second child despite PCOS (our first daughter was an in vitro).  But having a baby, working two jobs, and attending a doctoral program at night was a lot to handle, and gradually my diet fell by the wayside.

    Returning to low carb was not as difficult as I imagined. I was still eating wheat and other grains, albeit in very small amounts within my 20 to 30 grams of carbs daily. While I felt better, I was still in a lot of pain and discomfort, still could not exercise.

    I was reading everything I could get my hands on and eventually stumbled upon your blogs and Paleo and primal blogs to.   I decided to cut out grains, even my beloved oats. Even though I love baking bread, I was never a great bread eater, so wheat was actually easier to give up. And since I was already in low carb ketosis, it wasn't physically difficult at all.

    I feel like a 1 ton cement jacket has been removed from my body!  My weightloss has stalled (looks like thyroid or IR is the culprit so I'm working on it) but I feel so energetic that on days I don't have time to exercise I feel restless to get moving. I can walk 2 1/2 miles and all of my chronic pain is gone. GERD is gone, I  haven't had an asthma exacerbation in since last winter, BP is normal. My post prandial blood sugars are good.

    Most of all, LOOK AT THESE LABS!
    Cholesterol  235  
    Triglyceride  71  
    HDL  79  
    Low density lipoprotein calculated  142  

    I know there's more work to be done (I'm going to get those triglycerides below 60!), but this is amazing to me considering I eat all the butter, cream, whole eggs,  animal fat, coconut oil, and olive oil I want.   I eat no grains or sugar, very occasional starchy vegetables, and a small serving of berries daily.  I feel like I have my life back. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

  • Jan

    1/7/2012 6:52:31 PM |

    Very interesting stats and the controlled elements show their significance to the lipid profile. Wondering what the rest of your diet looks like. Are you primal or paleo, vegetarian, vegan? Do you drink fresh green juice daily?  Just curious....one concern I would have, in light of all the great things you are doing, eating out everyday with Asian-style foods leaves freshness, preparation, ingredients to someone else. I have found no matter how careful we are in our choice of a restaurant, eating out means eating off! I couldn't do it everyday.  It will be interesting to follow your diet changes and see what happens!  Happy 2012!

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/7/2012 11:46:08 PM |

    Hi Jan,
    Context first:  my results may not translate to everyone, since weight is never a real problem as the 1st NMR results coincided with laboratory measured fasting serum blood glucose = 83 mg/dL & HbA1c = 5.4 (for comparison after 3rd NMR  HbA1c = 5.3 & then serum glucose = 88 mg/dL, probably a mild side effect from added high dose fish oil).
    Asian restaurant lunch "specials" were chosen for  offering me a variety of affordable places &  menu variation to eat 7 days a week. It was to deliberately try to determine how well my lab results might hold up when have to partly yield responsibility &  dine in the world at large.
    I  arranged all other meals to be one's that were nutritious,  yet  whose regularity could become factored around if the lab results from 1/2 year of  cheap lunches played havoc with my NMR  (or  glycation indicator HbA1c).  I  precisely wanted to avoid trying to micro-manage an unknown assortment of cooks who might be using a  bit of sugar, cheap cooking oil, starch for thickening &  flour to sometimes crust fish. The lunch meal's standard full cup of cooked white/brown rice was eaten to see if it made any difference to my metabolism (ie: fasting serum glucose).
    I stuck with seafood dishes because I haven't eaten meat/chicken in over 40 years & have always had robust fortitude without those proteins. My breakfast & desert/snack protein preference is low/non-fat dairy casein (fermented milk solids with reduced whey - consistency of a pudding I can add anything to).
    To establish a standard evening meal I found a olive oil based brand hummus to measure out as a known portion to make up into a nightly mixed vegetable salad (no additional bread/rice) that didn't whack my post-prandial blood sugar (tested once every 15 min. like Doc suggests & after 1 hour blood sugar just 2 units higher than pre-meal, with just 1 unit higher after 2nd hour of meal).
    Green juice was not a part of these trials , so can't say if would affect NMR results. My budget for lab tests is empty so I am not experimenting to determine any other diet nuances now.

  • Andrew

    1/9/2012 1:04:15 PM |

    While Niacin is not a drug, 500 mg 3 times a day is excessive.

    Recommend reducing Niacin supplementation to reasonable levels taking with everything else taken into consideration.

  • Jim

    1/9/2012 5:54:03 PM |

    Mit:

    So happy for you. I have recently found this site and been reading the info for a couple months now. Is the NMR that you get from ineedlabs the full NMR (beyond standards lipid test from local doctor) or is it a truncated version? Thank you for mentioning the site! Jim

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/9/2012 6:30:07 PM |

    Hi Andrew,
    ? How do  you attribute the rise in HDL those NMR demonstrated ?
    My assessment of my carbohydrate intake during last 1/2 year was certainly not very low carb, but more like moderate . I tried to calculate daily carbs & figure a minimum of  100  to more commonly over 120 gr./day . But ,quite frankly , often as not  more likely at least 150 gr./day since ate couple lunches weekly of spicy asian food that chef's told me they  use some sugar as an ingredient (schechwan fish, 3 flavors fish, half a fortune cookie), starch for  cup of soup thickening& wheat for breading (outer fish crispy)  .
    If I was moderate & not low carb I am at a loss to surmise how  that  made my HDL genetics  now re-programmed to going forward be able to provide me with (say) at least 60 mg/dL  if I cut back to 1,000 mg daily niacin.
    Allow me to recapitulate this data:
    NMR   with  zero (0)  niacin   HDL=45 mg/dL
    next    taking     1,500 mg/d  HDL = 64 mg/dL
    or   lastly           2,000 niacin HDL = 88 mg/dL  ( with no increase in fish oil, nor inc. in vit D supplement)
    You echo Doc in cutting back the niacin & presumably this is to avoid over-taxing the liver - am I correct?
    If  this orientates you opinion after 4 months on 1,500 mg daily Niacin I deliberately tested the standard liver enzymes;  showed  SGOT (AST) =  20 Iu/L & SGPT(ALT) = 17 IU/.  And, let me specify I think liver enzymes should  be checked by anyone regularly taking high  Niacin .
    ? Doesn't it seem that at least 1,500 mg/d Niacin is my individual safe dose ?

  • Jacob

    1/9/2012 10:37:21 PM |

    I'm a 38yo white male who experienced a nearly identical change to Mitochondri'Al's without reducing my carbs at all or changing my exercise routine. I'm taking 2,500mg/day of niacin with no side-effects apart from the flush (which I enjoy). My liver enzymes have remained stable and there has been no appreciable increase in homocysteine. Obviously Dr. Davis has infinitely more experience in this realm, but my suggestion would be to continue with the niacin. 1,500 is definitely a safe dose. Intuitively (and I STRESS "intuitively") I feel that it's better for me to take niacin and eat a moderately low-carb diet than to reduce my carb intake to the vanishingly small amount that Dr. Davis recommends. I have cut out wheat though and most grains. Really would love to reincorporate quinoa Smile

    September 2010
    HDL 39
    LDL 135
    Triglycerides 149
    These values had remained stable for 5 years, remaining unchanged in spite of diet and exercise changes. I won't go into all the VAP and NMR nuances (I've had both tests several times), but all the measures improved VERY dramatically...shifted from pattern B -->A LDL, more than quadrupled the "helpful" form of HDL (8 to 35), essentially eliminated IDL. CRP and Fibrinogen were fine to begin with and remained so after a year.

    November 2011
    HDL 87
    LDL 89
    LDL-P 700
    sdLDL <90
    Triglycerdes 40

    My regime included:
    * 2,500 mg/day nicotinic acid
    * Vitamin K2
    * Lovaza, 2 caps/day (I know Dr. Davis hates Lovaza because of the exorbitant price, but my insurance pays for it and I'm not going to shell out $$$ for a nonprescription fish oil of equivalent dosage)
    * Metformin, 500 mg/day (I'm not remotely diabetic. My NMR IR score was 4. However, I wanted to take it as a general antiaging drug and to offset any possible blood sugar increases from the niacin.)
    * D-3, 4000 mcg (or is it IU?)/day
    * Deplin, 7.5 mg/day (to methylate any extra homocysteine from the niacin and metformin and to provide precursors for monoamine neurotransmitters)
    * TMG (same reason as Deplin)
    * Methyl B12 (same as Deplin and TMG; also I'm vegan and don't get much from my diet)
    * 1 tablespoon extra virgin coconut oil / day
    * I purchased a blood glucose meter and test strips. There's more postprandial fluctuation than I would like to see, but my glycated hemoglobin remains at a respectable 5.1. I'd like to get that down to 4.9.
    * Had the battery of cardiovascular-related genetic tests. I'll only mention one: I'm an ApoE 2/3, meaning that moderate fat intake is indicated (versus low fat for 3/4s and 4/4s).

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/9/2012 10:42:21 PM |

    Hi Jim,
    I think  ineedlabs authorized NMR is now sent through the  Labcorp system & so I got whatever Labcorp's NMR details; namely: "LDL-P,  LDL-C,  HDL-P , HDL-C, Triglycerride, Total Cholesterol, small-LDL, LDL size" & also some suggested interpretations Doc says he ignores. Standard old type of lipid test is not  the same as NMR lipo-protein profile , nor  is the  VAP type of lipid test some get.

  • Jacob

    1/9/2012 11:00:15 PM |

    @ Mitochondri'Al

    I had my liver enzymes tested pre-niacin and have repeated the test 7 times. There has been no change. From what I've read it's people taking the extended- and sustained-release formulations who develop liver issues. Immediate-release niacin doesn't seem to affect the liver much.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/10/2012 1:20:11 AM |

    Hi Jacob,
    I daily eat a good cooked handful  (trying to get beyond need to micro-manage all  portions of ingredients)  of low salt canned red beets into my night time hummus salad.  So, maybe that betaine has been enough to neutralize the homocysteine  you just informed me arises from high dose niacin. I have split niacin in 1,000 mg with morning dairy quark & 1,000mg  with evening meal; flushing has long been minor, aside from reddened face I splash with cold water if think anyone will freak out.

    Since you are the first to suggest blood sugar may elevate from taking high dose niacin this is also intriguingly new to me. My understanding is that it is high dose fish oil that Doc's protocol leads to higher blood sugar. When I introduced high dose EPA/DHA fasting serum glucose went from 1st 83 mg/dL  without fish oil after 4 months on fish oil to 88 mg/dL. Of course I  did start fish oil at the same time as  the niacin, but when I kept fish oil constant and varied upward the niacin (from 1,550 to 2,000 daily) for that last 1/2 year  experimentation my fasting serum glucose stayed at 88 mg/dL. Which  implicates fish oil is the controlled factor provoking 3 mg/dL more fasting blood sugar.

    Doc recently trashed the NMR's derivative chat; but  if  other's have noticed the category "IR score" I'll mention lab 1st gave me an "Insulin Resistance Score " (IR) of 45, 2nd test rated an IR score of 4 and then last NMR put me at 1.  But I am inclined to think many other readers may be more prone to overweight & they  may find it extremely helpful to go with Doc's  "very" low carb to see  lab results he aims for them to achieve if their genetics of blood glucose and lipo-protein are not as favorably responsive as mine seem to be.

  • Jacob

    1/10/2012 3:33:50 AM |

    @Mitochondri'Al...

    The hyperglycemic effect of high-dose niacin is very well documented, though in my case I don't think it had much of an effect. Even in diabetics, the consensus seems to be that the benefits of niacin outweight any associated blood sugar increase. Like you, I didn't go into this with a weight issue. I'm ~5 pounds lighter than when I began this regimen (5'10'' 152 pounds now), a change attributable entirely to the Metformin.

    The rise in homocysteine from high-dose niacin has something to with niacin's action depleting the available methyl donors. I don't think beets will provide anything approaching the amount of TMG necessary to methylate excess homocysteine back to methionine (which is a SAM-E precursor...oh happy day). I take about 3,000 mg/day of TMG. It's an inexpensive supplement, and I'd rather be safe than sorry, as homocysteine can make some major mischief over time in the vascular endothelium.

    I didn't know about the fish oil / blood sugar connection.

    FYI, I don't know if you're familiar with the study in which participants taking vitamins A and C with niacin showed a much-reduced--in fact, practically negated--effect of niacin on blood lipis versus those not taking A and C. No further investigation took place, and the mechanism (assuming this finding is valid) remains unknown. As a precautionary measure, I drink my vitamin A - rich green juices and take my C supplements at least a few hours before or after taking niacin.

    BTW, I've read in several places that effects of niacin can become MORE robust over time, which squares with the steady increase in HDL and the HDL-2 subfraction I've observed over the last year, as well as a decreasing LDL value and increase in mean LDL size.

    One anomalous thing I've noticed is that my lp(a) reading on VAP tests has increased from 4 to 17, but the test for lp(a) alone has remained at the minimum value. I had a VAP today and will be getting the lp(a) monoassay on Wednesday. If this strange discrepancy shows up again, I'm going to call Atherotech and LabCorp and ask them what's up. I did recently read a study in which blood samples from one or more patients were sent to Atherotech, Liposcience, Berkeley Heartlab, and one other company; there were striking discrepancies among the reported results from the four labs. Interestingly, of the four, Atherotech's VAP test was the least likely to characterize a patient as having Pattern A LDL; although, now that I think about it, Liposcience (NMR) doesn't even use the Pattern A, AB, B terminology, do they? Anyway, it's fun to share these observations with a group that actually is thinking about this stuff! I've posted all my blood panels to my facebook account along with what I did to achieve the dramatic changes reflected in the data. My friends found it all very interesting but only one has initiated a similar experiment.

  • Jacob

    1/10/2012 3:34:45 AM |

    outweight = outweigh

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/10/2012 7:59:56 AM |

    Why Doc's low carb may be more important for some more than others is these after meal events. He's pointed out that high after meal (post-prandial) blood sugar (glucose) are a problem because the liver will make that excess glucose into triglycerides (trigs). Some of us may also trend toward low trigs, despite any  post-prandial  glucose spikes, because of our constellation of genetic quirks in how the sequential triglyceride synthesizing enzymes play out their essential esterifying and hydrolyzing ( enzymes = glycerol-3 phosphate acyl-transferase1, 1-acyl-glycerol-3-phosphate-O-acyl-transfe​rase5 & 9, plus di-acyl-glycerol acyl-transferase2). I should stress that my non-low carb lunches were always followed by me walking around extensively on errands - so any contradiction inferred from my lab results (above)  with Doc's low carb preference may be explained by my immediate use of the post-prandial glucose in real time skeletal muscle activity  & not just my genetics.

    Doc insists excess post-prandial trigs should be avoided because those trigs get cobbled into VLDL cholesterol and sent out from the liver. It is when the VLDL comes back to the liver without giving up most of it's trigs that confuses many people. This is because, in the specific context of post-prandial  VLDL, the molecule that brokers recycling entry into the  liver of that VLDL (whatever it's residual trig load) does so in accord with ApoE. (note: it is  not the same type of dynamic that happens with clearing our LDL.)

    Curiously, it is the isoform variant of ApoE4 which can help get the most VLDL quickest into the liver cells; so ApoE4 individuals are shunting plenty of  VLDL in, for recycling, but at the same time plenty of  ApoE4 is also coming into that liver cell. Conversely, ApoE3 will be relatively slower clearing VLDL out of circulation & ApoE2 conformation is slowest in helping get returning VLDL into liver cells; which means, for ApoE2 there's more of a backlog going on in the blood stream of VLDL (& any of those post-prandial trigs our skeletal muscles didn't take up when trigs circulated by).

    Once an individual VLDL complex is inside a liver cell it is subjected to an initial processing in a specialized compartment  (endo-some) of the cell that naturally lowers the pH in that intra-cellular compartment to break the VLDL complex apart for recycling. In response to that normal processing pH drop the ApoE4 molecule (as opposed to other ApoE isoforms) becomes more fickle; basicly  it's (ApoE4) molecular configuration is vulnerable to undergo changes like become globular gel, truncated in some sectors and open up it's hydro-phobic surfaces. In simple terms this means that re-cycling truncated ApoE4 won't move well in the liver cell's interior fluid matrix and hug the lipids it finds closest there more so than recylcled ApoE3 & ApoE2 does.

    VLDL, thus will shed it's ApoE  and that ApoE will ideally move to another compartment inside the same liver cell to tag up with an HDL that has been taken up by that liver cell. One of the things this does for us is hold that ApoE molecule nearby, but where pH isn't going to drop. In this phase until the ApoE gets incorporated, as a component, into on of two cholesterol components. One is to put the recycled ApoE into fledgeling HDL that then becomes "mature" HDL sent out of the liver into circulation.. The other, less understood function (and purpose of this long explanation) is of stashing our VLDL recycled ApoE temporarily bound close by to an HDL (inside the liver cell) is to take & re-use it  (ApoE) reformulated with a VLDL molecule when the liver needs to send out any post-prandial trigs.

    Doc's paradigm is preventative, meaning avoid lingering high blood glucose (hyper-glycemia) due to excessive single meal carbs and thus put less demand for ApoE to be cycled into trig loaded VLDL that might just come back again & again demanding the liver engage in futility. For those with degrees of ApoE4 variants there is slower teaming up of it to that helpful HDL inside the liver cell that normally pulls ApoE away from the cell's low pH compartment. Explicitly it is HDL itself that activates this key stage; it is an additional specialized function of HDL. I don't know if one aspect of having low blood level's of HDL is from when a person's stuck with high trigs driving them to cobble it (trigs) into VLDL  with ApoE and this stalls too much HDL inside liver cells performing an HDL function in there & not out as circulating.HDL.

    Some theorize that by diverting so much ApoE  into post-prandial trig loaded  VLDL there is then going to be "mature" HDL going out of the liver that doesn't carry the ideal amount of  ApoE  to fully perform a cholesterol pick-up function for the HDL molecule while HDL is out in circulation. And  if one has ApoE4 being recycled, which is relatively slower to get over to any HDL in the liver cell, then the "mature" HDL will also go out with less ApoE to snatch back cholesterol.

    Lost? ....We essentially don't want "fat" (lipid, like trigs) we may have made to build up in the liver. So,  if we can't get all the "fat" lipids we made out of our excess blood sugar (glucose) get sent out  of the liver as trigs tied to VLDL there is a backlog of trigs always hanging around in the liver . And then, because the process of  us making trigs potentially stalls at a transitional molecule involved called di-acyl-glycerol (please note, don't let this long word make you confused now: this is just being two "fats", since "di" =2 in a formation that is one step short of the well known  tri =3 "fats"  formation  of tri-acyl-glycerol , that everybody  calls tri-glyceride for short & I  lazily type as  "trigs" ). Anyway ending simply,  it is this intermediate "fat" lipid of di-acyl-glycerol  subsequently building up in the liver that triggers a cascade  (for geeks: protein kinase C ), which ends up involving  the receptor for insulin in that liver cell. This unwanted downstream phase of bonding to that insulin receptor blunts the next cascade (4 geeks: tyrosine kinase) and  then that step is more directly what contributes to liver insulin resistance over time (ie: insulin comes to liver cell but more & more insulin receptors being kept too busy) . This is the problem played out by  our "fat" lipids in a chain of events that individuals with excessive trigs risk getting stuck with. Doc warns us to  beware of carbs making you synthesize lots of after meal trigs from prolonged high blood glucose which then forces you to put out VLDL (ie: to try to reliably take trig load off your liver). Elsewhere he stated, in accord with current science, that it is post-prandial trigs that are the most insidious trigs.

  • Jacob

    1/10/2012 8:58:03 AM |

    Interesting about the postprandial trigs. I was unaware of their significance. Makes sense, though, given the relatively greater importance of the magnitude of postprandial blood glucose excursions versus fasting levels.

    Your post conjured up images from long-ago courses on enzyme mechanisms, except without the fun electron pushing.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/11/2012 3:44:15 AM |

    2011 Post-prandial trigs relation to cardio-vascular details at the link below will give abstract but click at box where says "The full text is free" in pdf. if inclined.
    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/cvp/2011/00000009/00000003/art00001
    (titled) "Free Content Assessment and Clinical Relevance of Non-Fasting and Postprandial Triglycerides: An Expert Panel Statement"
    Current Vascular Pharmacology, Volume 9, Number 3, May 2011 , pp. 258-270(13)

  • Taking Charge

    1/11/2012 3:55:46 PM |

    While not directly related to this thread I wanted to get this request out there. I am hoping that  some one can help me find a doctor that is following a similar or the same protocol wtih vitamin K2 etc. and diet as Dr. Davis'.
    I was recently diagnosed with aortic stenosis and am looking for an alternative to valve replacement. I am looking for a cardiologist in the Greater Toronto ON  - Buffalo NY area.
    Thanks in advance for any suggestions given.

  • Galina L.

    1/11/2012 7:14:38 PM |

    @ Might
    Sorry, it my comment is out of tangent, but as a long-time fan of you, I want to share a Russian recipe of a beet salad with you. It contains cooked (or canned) chopped beets, chopped raw onion, chopped  fermented pickles or sauerkraut, some potatoes cooked and cut in small cubes (it is possible to skip), salad is seasoned with mix of brine and olive oil (in Russia an unrefined sunflower oil is used).  Other things may be added like cooked cubed or shredded raw carrots, fresh cucumber ,celery, some herbs, maybe garlic.  It is often consumed instead of a potatoes salad, especially at winter time..

  • Jacob

    1/13/2012 4:50:46 AM |

    The lp(a)  measurement truly puzzles me. When I get the lp(a) monoassay it always comes back <2 (the minimum measurable) , but the VAP is all over the place (up to 17).

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/13/2012 3:31:55 PM |

    Hi GalinaL,
    Thank you. Beets' nitrate are converted into nitrite in us to do all kinds of good things, as medical news reports.

  • Gene K

    1/13/2012 6:15:53 PM |

    Galina,
    How about a Russian borscht (a beet soup, for those who are not familiar with it)? We had it at home recently, but I neglected to take my BG after eating, so will do it next time. It is hard to give up beets, but Might's comment about it is encouraging. I also surprised Dr Davis that such dish existed, when I saw him not long ago.

  • Galina L

    1/14/2012 3:32:19 AM |

    Borscht is a cabbage soup , with two main features - first of all it contains beets(obviously), second, very important  secret difference,  that it is seasoned , when it is almost ready,  with the bacon (fatty part) crashed together with some salt and couple garlic gloves. I use mortar and pestle, but it is possible to do crashing between wax paper sheets, plastic sheets, just make sure it looks more or less like a paste. There several recipes,
    here is an example - use broth or  water, may be 3 - 4 cups, bring it to a boil, while water is getting into a  boiling, make sauteed veggies , fist put on a pan chopped carrots (1 big or 2 small) and parsley , then bell pepper, then chopped onions, when onions are ready - add  1 -2 tomatoes. Prepare garlic+bacon paste. Put 1/2 head of shredded cabbage into boiling salted water, when cabbage is almost ready, add sauteed veggies, let is quickly boil, add  the chopped content of one can of beets(beets must be added only after sour ingredient - tomato in that recipe) with the liquid and the paste, then  take it  from the heat, close with a lid.. Taste is better next day. I didn't mention herbs, possible vegetables to add, when to put salt. It taste very good with sour cream, chopped chives, even slice of a lemon in your plate..

    There many variations, important thing - don't let it boil again after it  isready - it will change color and flavor.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/14/2012 4:39:38 AM |

    Hi Jacob,
    Lp(a) is a molecule with an Apo-lipo-protein B100 core like an LDL with protein ApoA bonded on it. The gene LPA encodes for the Apo-lipo-protein A & there are many genetic variations of LPA.

    When the LPA copy # if greater the amount of gene driven expression going on is less. This is apart from  any SNP (polymorphism) of LPA & involves the number of reating domain(s), called  "kringles" (kringle IV domain). Basicly the more kringles the less genetic induced protein to build up into a full Apo-lipo-protein A. In Europeans +/- 60% of the variation in circulating Lp(a) is due to the peculiarity of kringle copy #.

    The SNP variants (of LPA) have more relationship to the way that particular conformation of  Lp(a) might uniquely degrade and give off metabolic by-products that potentially can act against organ tissue promoting enough new blood supply (angio-genesis). If the heart can readily make new blood supply routes that is ideal & thus a specific genetic Lp(a) variant that doesn't stymie angio-genesis is not a cardio-vascular problem  - irregardless of that Lp(a) level.

    You take supplements to restore homocysteine back into methionine. There is a specific LPA polymorphism giving one a SNP allele 4399 methionine (in substitution for the standard isoleucine amino) inclining those people to make +/- 6 times more Lp(a) than otherwise. I don't know if you carry that particular SNP, but if your rise in Lp(a) coincides with your protocol against homocysteine you may (?) be feeding  into
    the LPA4399Met hand . Admittedly far fetched, yet methionine boosting is not always benign for longevity according to some investigators.

    Vitamin A converts to retinoic acid in the body & this may ( ?) be more relevant. The Retinoic acid-related orphan receptor alpha (RORalpha) has 4 different variant iso-forms. It (RORalpha) is found in the nucleus of liver cells and responds to melatonin if you supplement with  melatonin as well.

    Your RORalpha iso-form may also be prone to receiving activation when there is  excess vitamin A's retinoic acid reaching the liver. RORalpha activation gets it's  nuclear response element ( Rev-erba) to bind to DNA & this engages several genes. In other words liver RORalpha up-regulation greatly influences Apo-lipo-proteins A, as well as A"V"(5), & C"III" (3) put out by the liver - among other things (ex: carb processes).

    Which, coincidentally, leads back to heart as per 3rd paragraph above....Hypoxia (oxygen low) also activates RORalpha, and thus Lp(a);  but one's LPA variant iso-form can give an Lp(a) degradation that acts anti(against)-angio-geneic. Then that heart's ability to get alternate blood supply  of oxygen to fall back on is limited; meaning the degree of  hypoxia damage done to any of that heart's cells becomes more problematic. Hypoxia isn't an all at once state of an all over or nothing organ-wide event.

    Cardio-vascular problems are said to be an "inflammation" problem & the more pro-inflammatory Il-6 (interleukin 6) the greater upregulation of Lp(a) going into circulation. Doc expounds his low carb protocol cuts down inflammation marker CRP (C-reactive protein) & Il-6 is a big part of CRP dynamic.  By blunting  Il-6 (or if  fortunately genetically don't make or even receptor  much) there is less Apo-lipo-protein B being made that is an important part of  liver's VLDL formation. Consider, as an example,  that the drug "Mipomersin" acts to block ApoB synthesis with a side effect of lowering Lp(a).

    Unfortunately too, high Il-6 is associated with lots of  triglycerides being made in the liver .  Having high Il-6 instigating lots of ApoB to cobble the excess trigs it (Il-6) provoked into VLDL  favors getting those Il-6 hyped trigs get sent out into circulation. Then too high Il-6 makes for lower rates of liver trig clearance from the trigs brought back by various lipo-proteins. D ue to the inflammatory  settting when the VLDL (with it's remaining load of trigs) comes back to a liver cell for VLDL re-cycling (detailed in earlier comment here)  it can't unload  & clear it's trigs  due to the co-existing high levels of Lp(a).

    In other words,  induced to make lots of Lp(a) overactivated LPA gene means excessive ApoA. Since ApoA can also go where ApoE  can , the  molecule of ApoE that is normally designed to get free from the VLDL risks getting out-competed. Then HDL inside that liver cell doesn't mediate the movement of  stale VLDL's  ApoE as much (because busy with ApoA),  which creates a backlog of  freed ApoE in that  cell's endosome  forcing other returning VLDL ( with it's trigs & ApoE) stalled in a traffic jam.  And that HDL doesn't rush to leave the liver cell because it isn't getting normal ApoE chain of events making it a "mature" HDL; so circulating HDL level is paradoxically lessened despite plenty of  ApoA  around.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    1/14/2012 6:23:11 AM |

    IL-6 meant by Il-6 (among other proof reading  mistakes )

  • Gene K

    1/14/2012 9:32:24 PM |

    Galina,
    Thank you for this extensive recipe. I am tempted to continue, but it is not my blog. Maybe Dr Davis will find these Russian recipes good for the TYP program...

  • Jacob

    1/16/2012 1:52:02 AM |

    ". There is a specific LPA polymorphism giving one a SNP allele 4399 methionine (in substitution for the standard isoleucine amino) inclining those people to make +/- 6 times more Lp(a) than otherwise. I don’t know if you carry that particular SNP..."

    I don't. I'm 4399 Ile/Ile homozygous.

  • Jacob

    1/16/2012 1:58:50 AM |

    Also LPA-Intron 25: tt homozygous.
    KIF6: 719 Trp/Arg heterozygous :-(  [[I don't want to take statins though]]
    9p21: ag heterozygous at rs10757278 and gc heterozygous at rs1222049 [[I read a recent study indicating that a diet primarily composed of vegetables and fruits (and maybe nuts) almost negates the associated risk here, and that's how I eat. So, fingers crossed.]]

  • Dennis

    1/23/2012 6:47:58 PM |

    While Dr. Davis' website & blogs got me started on the path of getting off the statins, etc (thank you 1000 times!!!)...I believe we are over-thinking this and making it way too complicated.
    Look at it from an evolutionary biology perspective (I just finished Food and Western Disease by Staffan Lindeberg, http://www.amazon.com/Food-Western-Disease-evolutionary-perspective/dp/1405197714) Our metabolic processes developed over the course of millions of years, being optimized by evolution all along the way. We ate meat, eggs, fruit, veges, nuts and did just fine. Then about 10,000 years ago we figured out we could stay put, not follow the wild herds and dig up food as much, and grow our food where we lived. Big problem...the food we decided to grow makes us sick (wheat, corn, rice). Not falling down, vomiting sick, but just a little at a time sick. We get fat, have strokes, heartattacks, high BP, diabetes, cancer, etc... aka Western Disease. But don't all the experts tell us to eat whole grain, and drink milk, and eat cheese, and use olive oil??? That's where the next problem arises...we don't know what we don't know. All the "science" behind good nutrition today is based on studies with many, many flaws. And, our metabolic systems are so enourmously complex, that we don't really understand how it works. If you look at people today, who still maintain a paleolithic diet (hunter / gatherer) you find that they do not suffer from Western Diseases. When they move from their ancestral ways to "modern" diets, they suffer like we do.
    I've gone from a Mediterranean diet to a Paleo diet, lost 15 lbs in 7 wks without changing my exercise routine, stopped taking my statin, am eating less, sleeping better, and feel really good. And this coming from a lifelong semi-hardcore athlete, who at 45 got a stent in a coronary artery, and prescriptions for Plavix and Simvastatin. Two years later i felt like crap and decided it was time to do something different. First stop was DR. Davis' sites, then others. The blood work is coming in mid Feb to establish the first real data points.
    Bottom line...eat what the cave man ate, get plenty of sleep, go outside in the sun, do some strenuous excercise, and quit letting your doctor feed you the Big Pharma line of BS. It's not easy. Nothing worth while is. But, as your body changes, so will your resolve to save your own life!
    //DM9

Loading

Dr. William Blanchet: A voice of reason

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

Vitamin D2 rip-offs

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






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










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









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










How about vitamin D3/cholecalciferol?



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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stenosis detection vs. plaque detection

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

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

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

Dr. William Blanchett of Colorado articulates this idea well:

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

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

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

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

Is an increase in heart scan score GOOD?

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

Hello Dr Davis,

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

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

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

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



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

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


Huh?

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

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

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

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

The report made several other important observations:

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

Dr. Raggi et al concluded:

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

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

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

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

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

The Heart.org online debate

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

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

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


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


Dr. Blanchett started out the discussion by saying:

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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



Dr. Melissa Walton-Shirley:

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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


Dr. Blanchett continues:

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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



John Q. Public jumps into the fray with:

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


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

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

To learn how to eat . . . try fasting

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

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

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

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

People who fast will tell you that the experience:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Don't be satisfied with "deceleration"

In the Track Your Plaque program, we aim to stop or reduce your heart scan score.

Recall that, without any preventive efforts, heart scan scores can be expected to increase at the average rate of 30% per year (faster at lower scores, slower at higher scores by a quirk of arithmetic).

I am continually surprised at how often people--that is, people not in the Track Your Plaque program--are often content with what I term "deceleration," or the slowing of plaque growth. In truth, most people are content with deceleration of plaque growth because they simply don't know that plaque continues to grow.

For instance, the BELLES Trial (Beyond Endorsed Lipid Lowering with EBT Scanning (BELLES)), reported in 2005 showed that 650 women participants continued to increase heart scan scores 15% whether they took "high-intensity" statin therapy in the form of Lipitor 80 mg or "low-intensity" statin therapy as pravastatin 40 mg, even though the group taking Lipitor experienced twice the amount of LDL reduction. In other words, heart scan scores continued to increase at the same rate of 15% per year regardless of the intensity of LDL lowering by statin drug.

Another study reported in 2006, Effect of intensive versus standard lipid-lowering treatment with atorvastatin on the progression of calcified coronary atherosclerosis over 12 months: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial reported similar results. Of the 471 participants, those taking Lipitor 80 mg per day experienced 27% per year plaque growth (LDL cholesterol 87 mg/dl); those taking 10 mg Lipitor experienced 25% plaque growth (LDL 107 mg/dl). The intensity of statin therapy made no difference on the rate of plaque growth.

In other words, if we are content to sit back and take Lipitor or other statin drug, follow the conventional American Heart Association low-fat, low-cholesterol diet, we will experience somewhere between 15 to 27% annual plaque growth--year after year.

No wonder that conventional advice offered by your friendly neighborhood doctor will avoid (postpone?) only one heart attack in four.

Such is the nature of coronary plaque deceleration: growth is modestly slowed, but is not stopped. Nor is it reversed.

In the Track Your Plaque program, we grade deceleration of plaque growth into three distinct stages out of a total of five. (See Winning Your Personal War with Heart Disease: The Track Your Plaque 5 Stages of Success.)

Why be satisfied with deceleration? Why not aim for a total stop to plaque growth? Why not aim for stage 5 of Track Your Plaque success: reversal?

Whole grains and half truths

(For followers of the Heart Scan Blog, below is a re-posting of a recent post. I've moved it up to make it accessible to a number of patients that I asked to look at this post for some conversation about the concept of wheat-free diets.)


TV ads, media conversations, magazine articles, even advice from the American Heart Association and USDA (a la Food Pyramid) all agree: eat more whole grains, get more fiber.

What happens when you follow this advice to add more and more whole grains to your diet? Look around you: People gain weight, they become pre-diabetic and diabetic. Lipids and lipoprotein patterns emerge: increased triglycerides and VLDL, reduced HDL, small LDL. Blood sugar goes up, inflammatory responses are ignited. You feel crumby, cancer risk is increased.

"Official" agencies have urged us to eat more grains, get more fiber and most Americans have complied. We now have a nationwide health disaster that will eventually lead to more people with coronary plaque, more heart disease, more heart attack, more heart procedures.

This is why I've been urging patients to go wheat-free. It has proven an extraordinarily and surprisingly effective strategy for:

1) rapid and profound weight loss
2) raising HDL and reducing triglycerides, VLDL, and small LDL
3) reducing blood sugars, pre-diabetes and diabetes

So here I (re-) post just a sampling of the comments sent by readers of the Heart Scan Blog who have given this idea a try.






Barbara W said:

It's true! We've done it. My husband and I stopped eating all grains and sugar in February. At this point, we really don't miss them any more. It was a huge change, but it's worth the effort. I've lost over 20 pounds (10 to go)and my husband has lost 45 pounds (20 to go). On top of it, our body shapes have changed drastically. It is really amazing. I've got my waist back (and a whole wardrobe of clothes) - I'm thrilled.

I'm also very happy to be eating foods that I always loved like eggs, avocados, and meats - without feeling guilty that they're not good for me.

With the extremely hot weather this week in our area, we thought we'd "treat" ourselves to small ice cream cones. To our surprise, it wasn't that much of a treat. Didn't even taste as good as we'd anticipated. I know I would have been much more satisfied with a snack of smoked salmon with fresh dill, capers, chopped onion and drizzled with lemon juice.

Aside from weight changes, we both feel so much better in general - feel much more alert and move around with much greater flexibility, sleep well, never have any indigestion. We're really enjoying this. It's like feeling younger.

It's not a diet for us. This will be the way we eat from now on. Actually, we think our food has become more interesting and varied since giving up all the "white stuff". I guess we felt compelled to get a little more creative.

Eating out (or at other peoples' places) has probably been the hardest part of this adjustment. But now we're getting pretty comfortable saying what we won't eat. I'm starting to enjoy the reactions it produces.



Weight loss, increased energy, less abdominal bloating, better sleep--I've seen it many times, as well.


Dotslady said:

I was a victim of the '80s lowfat diet craze - doc told me I was obese, gave me the Standard American Diet and said to watch my fat (I'm not a big meat eater, didn't like mayo ... couldn't figure out where my fat was coming from! maybe the fries - I will admit I liked fries). I looked to the USDA food pyramid and to increase my fiber for the constipation I was experiencing. Bread with 3 grams of fiber wasn't good enough; I turned to Kashi cereals for 11 years. My constipation turned to steattorrhea and a celiac disease diagnosis! *No gut pains!* My PCP sent me to the gastroenterologist for a colonscopy because my ferritin was a 5 (20 is low range). Good thing I googled around and asked him to do an endoscopy or I'd be a zombie by now.

My symptoms were depression & anxiety, eczema, GERD, hypothyroidism, mild dizziness, tripping, Alzheimer's-like memory problems, insomnia, heart palpitations, fibromyalgia, worsening eyesight, mild cardiomyopathy, to name a few.

After six months gluten-free, I asked my gastroenterologist about feeling full early ... he said he didn't know what I was talking about! *shrug*

But *I* knew -- it was the gluten/starches! My satiety level has totally changed, and for the first time in my life I feel NORMAL!


Feeling satisfied with less is a prominent effect in my experience, too. You need to eat less, you're driven to snack less, less likely to give in to those evil little bedtime or middle-of-the-night impulses that make you feel ashamed and guilty.



An anonymous (female) commenter said:

My life changed when I cut not only all wheat, but all grains from my diet.

For the first time in my life, I was no longer hungry -no hunger pangs between meals; no overwhelming desire to snack. Now I eat at mealtimes without even thinking about food in between.

I've dropped 70 pounds, effortlessly, come off high blood pressure meds and control my blood sugar without medication.

I don't know whether it was just the elimination of grain, especially wheat, or whether it was a combination of grain elimnation along with a number of other changes, but I do know that mere reduction of grain consumption still left me hungry. It wasn't until I elimnated it that the overwhelming redution in appetite kicked in.

As a former wheat-addicted vegetarian, who thought she was eating healthily according to all the expert advice out there at the time, I can only shake my head at how mistaken I was.


That may be a record for me: 70 lbs!!


Stan said:

It's worth it and you won't look back!

Many things will improve, not just weight reduction: you will think clearer, your reflexes will improve, your breathing rate will go down, your blood pressure will normalize. You will never or rarely have a fever or viral infections like cold or flu. You will become more resistant to cold temperature and you will rarely feel tired, ever!



Ortcloud said:

Whenever I go out to breakfast I look around and I am in shock at what people eat for breakfast. Big stack of pancakes, fruit, fruit juice syrup, just like you said. This is not breakfast, this is dessert ! It has the same sugar and nutrition as a birthday cake, would anyone think cake is ok for breakfast ? No, but that is exactly the equivalent of what they are eating. Somehow we have been duped to think this is ok. For me, I typically eat an omelette when I go out, low carb and no sugar. I dont eat wheat but invariably it comes with the meal and I try to tell the waitress no thanks, they are stunned. They try to push some other type of wheat or sugar product on me instead, finally I have to tell them I dont eat wheat and they are doubly stunned. They cant comprehend it. We have a long way to go in terms of re-education.

Yes. Don't be surprised at the incomprehension, the rolled eyes, even the anger that can sometimes result. Imagine that told you that the food you've come to rely on and love is killing you!


Anne said:

I was overweight by only about 15lbs and I was having pitting edema in my legs and shortness of breath. My cardiologist and I were discussing the possible need of an angiogram. I was three years out from heart bypass surgery.

Before we could schedule the procedure, I tested positive for gluten sensitivity through www.enterolab.com. I eliminated not only wheat but also barley and rye and oats(very contaminated with wheat) from my diet. Within a few weeks my edema was gone, my energy was up and I was no longer short of breath. I lost about 10 lbs. The main reason I gave up gluten was to see if I could stop the progression of my peripheral neuropathy. Getting off wheat and other gluten grains has given me back my life. I have been gluten free for 4 years and feel younger than I have in many years.

There are many gluten free processed foods, but I have found I feel my best when I stick with whole foods.



Ann has a different reason (gluten enteropathy, or celiac disease) for wanting to be wheat-free. But I've seen similar improvements that go beyond just relief of the symptoms attributable to the inflammatory intestinal effects of gluten elimination.



Wccaguy said:

I have relatively successfully cut carbs and grains from my diet thus far.

Because I've got some weight to lose, I have tried to keep the carb count low and I've lost 15 pounds since then.

I have also been very surprised at the significant reduction in my appetite. I've read about the experience of others with regard to appetite reduction and couldn't really imagine that it could happen for me too. But it has.

A few weeks ago, I attended a party catered by one of my favorite italian restaurants and got myself offtrack for two days. Then it took me a couple of days to get back on track because my appetite returned.

Check out Jimmy Moore's website for lots of ideas about variations of foods to try. The latest thing I picked up from Jimmy is the good old-fashioned hard boiled egg. Two or three eggs with some spicy hot sauce for breakfast and a handful of almonds mid-morning plus a couple glasses of water and I'm good for the morning no problem.

I find myself thinking about lunch not because I'm really hungry but out of habit.

The cool thing too now is that the more I do this, the more I'm just not tempted much to do anything but this diet.



Going wheat-free, along with a reduction in processed sugary foods like Hawaiian Punch, sodas, and candy, is the straightest, most direct path I know of to lose weight, obtain all the health benefits listed by our commenters, as well as achieve the lipoprotein corrections we seek, like reduction of small LDL particles and rise in HDL, in the Track Your Plaque program.

Fasting and heart disease

Followers of the Track Your Plaque program know that we advocate periodic fasts to reduce heart disease risk.

I came across an interesting report form an abstract presented at last week's American Heart Association meetings in Orlando:

(Read the report at HeartWire. You will need to register or sign-in.)

In this study, the investigators tried to determine why members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) tended to have reduced risk of heart disease compared to others in the area but not in the LDS faith. While the reduced risk of heart disease in LDS members had been traditionally attributed to the no smoking policy advocated by the Mormon church, the investigators suspected that there was more to the reduced risk.

Of 515 people interviewed, periodic fasting, whether for religious or other reasons, was found to distinguish people who were less likely to have coronary disease by conventional catheterization (59% vs. 67%). (Since the study was published in only abstract form, it's not clear why all these people underwent heart catheterization in the first place.)

Nonetheless, it's an interesting observation and one consistent with the benefits we see when someone fasts: reduced blood pressure, reduced inflammatory responses, improved lipids and lipoproteins, weight loss.

Fasting can be an especially effective method to gain control over heart disease and coronary plaque if rapid control is desired. In fact, I wonder if the normally year-long process of plaque control that I advocate can be much abbreviated. Fasting, I believe, is a crucial component of rapid control, what I've talked about in Instant Heart Disease Reversal

There's also additional thoughts on fasting in my Heart Scan Blog post, For rapid success, try the "fast" track.

Fasting is not something to fear. It can be an enlightening process that can serve to abruptly sever bad habits, perhaps even turn the clock back on prior dietary and lifestyle excesses. My favorite variation on fasting is to use soy milk (yes, yes, I know! I can already hear the the soy bashers screaming!) as a meal substitute. It is an easy, less dramatic way that still maintains most of the benefit of a full, water-only fast.

Coronary arteries aren't what they seem

Why do stress tests so often fail to detect coronary atherosclerotic plaque? Why do even heart catheterizations--the "gold standard"--fail to disclose the full extent of plaque within the walls of coronary arteries?

We owe much of the explanation of these phenomena to Dr. Seymour Glagov, retired professor of pathology at the University of Chicago.



When studying the coronary arteries of people who died, he observed that people commonly had plenty of atherosclerotic plaque lining the artery wall, yet it did not necessarily impinge on the artery "lumen," or the internal path for blood to flow.

The only time the lumen became obstructed by plaque was when either 1) plaque grew to overwhelming levels and was severe and extensive, or 2) when a plaque had "ruptured," meaning its thin covering had been penetrated and eroded by the underlying plaque tissue like a volcano emerging from the surface and erupting.

This groundbreaking observation, now dubbed "the Glagov phenomenon," explains why someone can have a normal stress test on Tuesday but erupt a plaque on Wednesday.

The Glagov phenomenon also explains why heart scans can detect plaque when both stress tests and heart catheterizations fail to do so. Many physicians will then interpret this to mean that the heart scan was wrong. With the Glagov phenomenon in mind, you can see that the heart scan is not wrong, it is simply detecting coronary atherosclerotic plaque at a stage that is not yet detectable by the other methods.

In the illustration, you can see that the lumen of the vessel is maintained--despite the artery on the left having minimal plaque, the artery on the right containing moderate plaque. If either artery were examined by a test that relies on blood flow--stress test or heart catheterization--both would appear normal. But a test that examines the artery wall, such as a heart scan, would readily detect the artery on the right and probably even the artery on the left.




I am very grateful to Dr. Glagov and his insight into this important process. Otherwise, we might still be floundering around trying to understand the apparent discrepances between these tests that simply provide different perspectives on the same problem.