American Heart Association stamp of approval 2. June 2007 William Davis (8) The American Heart Association (AHA) has a program called the Heart-Check Mark, an "approval" process that permits a food manufacturer to affix the AHA logo and stamp of approval on various food products. A company simply makes application to the AHA. The application and product details are reviewed and then approved or turned down. To date, 106 companies have obtained the AHA stamp of approval on 768 products. What kinds of products are on the approved list? Here's a sample:--Honey Bunches of Oats--Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats --Cocoa Puffs cereal--Cookie Crisp cereal ("The great taste of chocolate chips in every bite!")There are 764 others. If you doubt this, just go to the store and take a look at the product containers. What the heck is going on here? Most of us with any judgment know that these products are pure sugar. They may contain "no more" than 15-40 grams sugar per sugar, but the principal products--corn, wheat, fructose--mean that these products are, in effect, nearly pure sugar. Yet they carry the AHA stamp of approval. What do products like this cause? It's a long list but the major effects include:--Obesity--Diabetes--Drop in HDL--Rise in triglycerides--Small LDL particles--Heightened inflammation (i.e., C-reactive protein)--Mental cloudinessNeed I go on? Why are products like these and many others deserving of the AHA heart-check approval? Because they lack high fat and saturated fat (3.0 grams, 1.0 grams respectively, by AHA criteria). In other words, just lacking these ingredients means that, to the AHA, they qualify as "heart healthy." By that same line of reasoning, many candy bars are "heart healthy", as are many cookies and cupcakes. What's the reason behind this extraordinary absurdity? Is the AHA stupid? There may be many reasons, but one very suspicious fact becomes immediately obvious when you realize these endorsements product a substantial revenue source for the AHA, since companies must pay for the right to use the heart-check approval mark. Also, just look at the major contributors (millions of dollars) to the AHA: ConAgra, General Mills, Kraft, etc.) You get the picture.Does this make the AHA evil? Not necessarily. But it seriously erodes credibility. it also should make you very leery of any advice that comes from such an agency that is reluctant to bite the food manufacturer hands that feed it.In my view, we simply cannot rely on the AHA for genuine, unbiased heart health advice.
"Your heart scan score means nothing" 1. June 2007 William Davis (7) Charles was visibly confused. He'd gotten his CT heart scan after hearing one of the local scan center's ads on the radio. His score 2773, obviously in the 99th percentile for any age. "Do you think the score means anything? My primary doctor said that it was meaningless because it was all in the deep wall of the artery. He said that it has nothing to do with risk for heart attack. As long as I feel good, he says don't do anything."What exactly did his doctor mean, in the "deep wall of the artery"?What the doctor is referring to is the fact that some people with a long history (many years) of diabetes or kidney failure (also for many years) tend to develop calcium deposits in the media, or muscular layer of arteries. The media is the tissue thin layer just below the intima, the most inner layer of arteries that we usually associate with atherosclerotic plaque and the layer that is most prone to calcium accumulation that we score on heart scans.Aging, generally into your late 70s, 80s, and onwards, also increases the likelihood of medial calcification. Lastly, longstanding deficiency of vitamin D encourages medial calcification.Is there any way to distinguish intimal vs medial calcification on a heart scan? No, there is not. Having read many thousands of CT heart scans, I can tell you that there is no practical way in 2007 to tell the difference. Then how did this doctor "know" that Charles' calcium was "deep walled" or medial? Simple: He didn't. This was yet another example of ignorance based on old thinking. Unfortunately, he did Charles a serious disservice by dismissing his heart scan score that predicted a 25% per year risk for heart attack. Interestingly, whether calcium is intimal as in atherosclerotic plaque, or medial, both are strongly associated with risk for heart attack. In other words, if calcium is confined to the intima, heart disease risk is present. If calcium is limited to the media, risk is still present. In all practicality, the only difference we make of the intima vs. media argument (that is, when the distinction has been made by some other means like intracoronary ultrasound, the test that is truly necessary to distinguish the two patterns) is that medial calcification may be more powerfully related to vitamin D deficiency. Thus, someone with heavy medial calcification may require closer attention to maintaining a perfect year-round blood level of 25-OH-vitamin D3. But that's the only practical difference.
Vitamin D toxicity? 30. May 2007 William Davis (3) "My primary care doctor said to stop the vitamin D because it's toxic. So I stopped it and I just take a multivitamin. He said that a multivitamin and two glasses of milk a day was all I needed."So proclaimed Eleanor to me. This happens around once every week by doctors frightened of the vitamin D. So I reminded Eleanor that, before starting vitamin D supplementation, her blood level of 25-OH-vitamin D3 had been 17 ng/ml--severe deficiency. On 4000 units per day (oil-based gelcap), her blood level had been 37 ng/ml--still deficient, below the desirable range of 50-60 ng/ml. That's the dose Eleanor's doctor had declared "toxic."When exactly does deficiency develop? There's not full agreement on this, but Dr. Michael Holick of Boston University, among the most experienced and insightful authorities on vitamin D, states that toxicity is more likely when blood levels exceed 150 ng/ml (Nutr Clin Pract. 2007 Jun;22(3):297-304).In other words, Eleanor and her doctor should not be concerned with toxicity, but with the persistent levels of deficiency she is suffering. Some authorities call the behavior of vitamin D "bi-phasic": Deficiency is toxic, excessive levels are toxic. We're really just trying to achieve a middle ground in vitamin D levels that are above deficiency but below toxicity. In reality, deficiency is exceptionally common. In fact, it's the rule around here (northern U.S.), with >95% of everybody we check severely deficient in winter, mildly-moderately deficient in summer. Very few people approach normal levels year round without supplementation. Toxicity, on the other hand, is exceedingly rare. I have seen it once in a woman who was taking a toxic dose of 50,000 units a day on the instructions of her (mis-guided) doctor. Thankfully, no ill-effects developed from this little "experiment."So, it's not toxicity that is the overwhelmingly common worry, but deficiency, severe and sustained.
Non-profit hospitals 30. May 2007 William Davis (0) Take a look at your local hospital and you're likely to notice several curious things:1) It is likely non-profit, meaning it enjoys a non-profit status with the Internal Revenue Service and enjoys the tax benefits of not paying taxes on profits. This provides an advantage to tax-protected hospitals. 70% or more of hospitals in the U.S. are "non-profit."2) Non-profit or no, many hospitals operate under the guise of a religious affiliation, e.g., St. Mary's Hospital, Trinity Hospital, All Saints', Jewish Hospital, etc. 3) Executives in non-profit hospitals can make capitalistic salaries. One CEO of a Milwaukee hospital took home $3.7 million dollars in salary last year. That's not including the very substantial perks and business interests in the spin-off businesses the hospital owns, including pharmacies, drug and medical device disitributors, even a venture capital division. "Non-profit" does not have to mean that executives within the operation can't benefit handsomely. That same hospital system spends over $10 million dollars in a year in local marketing for TV ads, print advertising, etc. Ads are slick and professionally produced. Make no bones about it: These are "non-profit" for tax purposes only . They are for-profit in every other sense of the phrase, including rich rewards for the insiders.Guess how those fat executive salaries and large marketing budgets are paid for? That's right: the 12-inch incision in your chest; the four stents, defibrillator, and repeated nuclear stress tests; the revolving door of hospitalization after hospitalization that typifies the "heart patient" experience. See the hospital for what it is: In the 21st century, it is no longer a charitable operation worthy of your volunteer time and donations. It is a business no different than Home Depot, IBM, or--Enron. Yes, they do perform needed services, as well. But the perverse equation that often determines who needs hospitalization and who doesn't, who needs a heart procedure and who doesn't, is not always based on necessity but on financial return. Just ask the CEO.
What's the best lipoprotein test? 29. May 2007 William Davis (5) This is a frequent question from Track Your Plaque Members and others interested in improving their heart disease prevention program beyond that of simple-minded cholesterol testing. I obtain lipoprotein testing every day on patients. I can tell you with the confidence of having done thousands of these tests that plain, old-fashioned cholesterol testing is like relying on riding a scooter to work compared to an 8-cylinder modern automobile. The scooter might get you there, but any rain, snow, or long distance to travel and you can just forget it. All too often, lipoprotein testing uncovers abnormalities that standard cholesterol testing simply fails to uncover. So, among the various lipoprotein tests available, which is best?There are three commercial tests available today:1) Gel electropheresis (GGE)--often known by its "brand" name as the Berkeley lipoprotein profile, after Berkeley HeartLabs. GGE uses a gel with an electric field applied to cause lipoproteins to migrate, based on particle size and charge. 2) Vertical auto-profile (VAP)--a form of centrifugation, or high-speed spinning of blood plasma to separate lipoprotein particles.3) Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)--the idea of putting plasma in an NMR (also known as MRI) device to characterize blood proteins. All three tests do an excellent job. All are competitively priced. All have validating data--lots of it--to justify their broad use (though health insurers, in their vast wisdom, would still have you believe that the tests are "experimental"). But is one better? Having done many of all three (though least of VAP), I am partial to Liposcience's NMR. (By the way, I receive no fees from Liposcience to use their test, nor to promote it in any way.) I believe NMR is superior in a few ways:1) I believe that the LDL particle number is the best way to truly quantify LDL, better than apoprotein B and "direct" LDL. 2) It provides what I believe to be more accurate small LDL measures. 3) It provides intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), a post-prandial, or after-eating, measure not available on the other two. Perhaps I'm biased because I use the NMR most frequently. But I've used it because I felt it yielded superior, more clinically believable, data. In truth, all three laboratories do an excellent job and you'd be served fine by obtaining any of the three. But my heart goes to NMR.
Vitamin K2, aspirin, fish oil and blood thinning 27. May 2007 William Davis (12) An interesting question came up from one of our Track Your Plaque Members on the Forum. "I am now taking 9 mg of vitamin K1 and 1000 mcg of K2.Does taking this supplement with this much K1 have a counteracting effect on the thinning/anticlotting properties of aspirin and fish oil that I also take?"Great question (along with lots of other greater discussions we have on the Forum.) The answer: Vitamin K should have no effect on the platelet-blocking effects of aspirin or fish oil. The majority of blood clot inhibiting effects of aspirin and fish oil arise from their ability to keep blood platelets from "clumping" (just like the TV commercials for Plavix). Vitamin K, on the other hand, participates in the liver production of blood clotting factors (like II, VII, IX, and X, among others for you curious ones). Thus, vitamin K-dependent clotting factors and platelet-blocking are two separate pathways to forming blood clots. Some of us refer to the difference as "red clots" from the vitamin K pathway and "white clots" from the platelet pathway, since they really do have this different physical appearance. The vitamin K2 conversation, like that about vitamin D, is fascinating for its potential to provide the missing link between the tightly-tied fortunes of bone health and atherosclerosis. Why is someone with a high CT heart scan score far more likely to have osteoporosis? Vitamin D and K2 deficiency may provide the missing link for many people.
"Drug no cure for gluttony" 24. May 2007 William Davis (0) That's the headline I'd like to see associated with rosiglitazone, brand name Avandia. The recent negative press, whether deserved or not, surrounding the prescription drug rosiglitazone for pre-diabetes and diabetes highlights the fact that drugs never--never--substitute for what we can achieve with lifestyle changes. Typically, rosiglitazone reduces blood sugar a few milligrams, reduces C-reactive protein, and very modestly reduces triglycerides and its associated evil lipoprotein friends. It also causes an average weight gain of 8 lb in the first year of use. What will weight loss achieve, especially if accomplished through dramatic reduction or elimination of processed carbohydrates and wheat products, along with fish oil supplementation, vitamin D normalization, and exercise? Extraordinary benefits, far superior to what is achievable with this drug. In fact, while rosiglitazone is a Band-Aid for this process, the lifestyle changes can represent a cure in many or most instances.It should come as no surprise that a drug that does nothing more than increase sensitivity to insulin cannot erase the devastating effects of an unhealthy life. Take rosiglitazone but neglect exercise, don't bother with vitamin D, indulge in pretzels and breakfast cereals, gain more weight . . . It serves the drug company's agenda better than it serves health.
Rosiglitazone not so rosy? 23. May 2007 William Davis (3) Dr. Steve Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic published a study that suggests that the pre-diabetes and diabetes drug, rosiglitazone, may increase likelihood of heart attack by 43%.I say "suggests" because the analysis was something called a "meta-analysis", a re-examination of data obtained by pooling unrelated studies and reanalyzing the data. Strengths of this sort of analysis: Sometimes trends that are not evident in smaller studies finally become evident in the larger numbers of participants obtained through pooling of data. Downside: Any statistician will tell you that a meta-analysis can only suggest an association, it cannot prove it. Nonetheless, we are talking about people's lives. As they say, if you are taking this drug, also known by the brand name, Avandia, then talk to your doctor. I think that this is sound advice, as there are a number of factors to weigh in decision making. For instance, how far along the diabetic path are you? Have you had negative experiences with other agents? It will, unfortunately, be months to years before confirmatory evidence on this question become available. In the meantime, Nissen will accuse the drug industry of pushing drugs through the FDA approval process without full safety data. GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of Avandia, will counter with claims of weak data, the existing trials not confirming Nissen's findings, etc. We've seen it before. My take on this is to step back and look at the broad picture. Do we need yet another reason to say that it's far better to maintain normal body weight, dramatically reduce reliance on processed carbohydrates and wheat, exercise, and following other insulin-sensitizing strategies, rather than rely on insulin-sensitizing drugs? (That's what rosiglitazone is supposed to do.) Metabolic syndrome, also known as pre-diabetes, or diabetes is present to various degrees in two thirds of all adults I meet. Nearly all of it is self-inflicted. Nearly all of it is curable with the above lifestyle strategies if undertaken early enough in the process. A 190 lb, 5 foot 2 inch woman, or a 220 lb, 5 foot 10 inch man, both of whom are surprised that they have pre-diabetes really need to get a grip on reality and health. To me, it's no surprise that drugs do not reverse all the nasty manifestations of lifestyle gone berserk. It should also come as no surprise that the complex, chaotic physiologic mess created by metabolic syndrome and pre-diabetes is not perfectly managed by adding one drug.
The lipid distorting effects of weight loss 22. May 2007 William Davis (0) Roger experienced a near-fatal heart attack 6 years ago. He survived thanks to the quick action of bystanders who initiated CPR and called 911. An emergency catheterization was performed and a stent implanted into the closed right coronary artery. But that's not why I tell Roger's story. Since then, Roger has become comfortable with the idea that he has heart disease. His initial commitment to good nutrition and exercise has waned, as it often does in us distractable humans. So Roger gained about 30 lbs through a long winter, inactivity, eating frozen dinners, and the cookies and baked goodies his daughters made him. As a result of the weight gain and inactivity, Roger's HDL dropped to 32 mg/dl, triglycerides rose to 211 mg/dl, blood sugar crept up into the pre-diabetic range of 116 mg/dl. Undoubtedly, small LDL was out of control beneath the surface. His tummy reflected the weight gain, flaccid and overhanging his belt. I read Roger the riot act. I reminded him of what he had experienced and nearly didn't survive. Weight loss and a re-invigoration of his nutrition and exercise efforts was going to be crucial.Roger listened and took it to heart. Over three months, he lost 24 lbs, a phenomenal result. However, his repeat lipid panel showed an HDL of 28 mg/dl, triglycerides 234 mg/dl, blood sugar unchanged. "I don't get it! I lose all this weight and the number get worse?!" Roger was understandably upset after his enormous effort. I told Roger that after a profound weight loss, lipids can go berserk for up to two months after weight has stabilized. Typically, HDL drops and triglycerides rise--the opposite of what we want. But wait another two or so months after weight has stabilized and the numbers begin to look beautiful. Why does this crazy effect happen? I really don't know and I've never heard a satisfactory explanation for it. But it is very real and quite predictable. The lesson: after a substantial weight loss, be patient. Check your lipid numbers too soon and you might be confused or disappointed. If you do check them, bear in mind that additional time may need to pass before you see the weight loss fully reflected.
Cholesterol reduction and wheat 22. May 2007 William Davis (0) In my previous post, Identical twins and the explosive influence of weight , we witnessed an excellent example of the profound influence of food choices and weight control on lipoproteins. The heavier twin among these 35-year old male twins (Steve) had an LDL particle number over two-fold higher than his more slender counterpart (Alfred).The heavier twin, Steve, got here through numerous and longstanding dietary excesses: fast foods, saturated fats, sweets, processed foods. The conventional answer to Steve's lipid dilemma would be to modestly reduce his reliance on saturated fat, exercise, and limit snacks. How far would that get Steve? Not very far at all. With regards to his high LDL particle number of 2256 nmol/l (representing an "effective" LDL cholesterol of around 225 mg/dl), it would be reduced a little, perhaps 10%. Notice, however, that 72% of all Steve's LDL particles are small (1639/2256). This is the pattern that responds dramatically to a sharp reduction in processed carbohydrates, especially wheat-containing products. If Steve were to eliminate all wheat products--all breads, breakfast cereals, pretzels, cookies, cakes, pasta, crackers--LDL particle number will drop dramatically, perhaps 50%, often more depending on the magnitude of weight loss. Small LDL will respond most obviously and will be sharply reduced, perhaps disappear. Incidentally, these changes might not be well reflected by the conventional calculated LDL cholesterol, since small LDL particles are well-concealed by standard measures.Reducing corn products, white and brown rice, and potatoes would also add to the effect. But, in 2007, wheat products represent 90% of the problem for the majority of people. Reducing or eliminating wheat therefore yields the biggest effect by a long shot. Steve therefore represents an excellent example of how reducing processed carbohydrates, esp. wheat-containing products, can yield an unexpected and paradoxical reduction in LDL cholesterol as evidenced by the highly accurate LDL particle number (or apoprotein B). Reducing saturated fat sources also helps, but it certainly will not yield the kind of results most people need. You've got to be smarter than the simple-minded conventional advice.