Phytosterols, or just "sterols" to its friends and neighbors, are a group of cholesterol-like compounds that are abundant in the plant world. Lately, however, sterols have proliferated in the processed food supply, thanks to the observation that sterols reduce LDL cholesterol when ingested by humans.

This must mean that sterols are good for you.

Uh oh. Wait a minute: There is a rare disease called sitosterolemia in which there is unimpeded intestinal absorption of all sterols ingested through diet. They must have really low LDL cholesterols! Nope. They develop coronary disease--heart attacks, angina, etc.--in their late teens and 20s. In other words, if sterols gain access to your bloodstream, they are bad. Very bad.

Conventional thinking is that only a modest quantity of dietary sterols gain access to the bloodstream. But there are two potentially fatal flaws in this overly simplistic line of thinking:

1) What happens when you load up your diet with "heart healthy" sterols, such as those in "heart healthy" margarines, mayonnaise, and yogurt, effectively increasing sterol intake 10-fold?

2) What happens in people with the genetic pattern, apo E4, that is carried by 25% of the general population that permits much greater intestinal absorption of sterols?

My prediction: Despite the fact that sterols reduce LDL, they may, in certain genetically-susceptible people, such as those with apo E4, increase risk for heart disease: heart unhealthy.

Here are two studies that suggest that greater sterol absorption in people without sitosterolemia are at higher risk for heart disease:

Alterations in cholesterol absorption/synthesis markers characterize Framingham offspring study participants with CHD

Plasma sitosterol elevations are associated with an increased incidence of coronary events in men: results of a nested case-control analysis of the Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study

As I suggested in a previous Heart Scan Blog post, a glucose meter is your best tool to:

1) Lose weight
2) Cure diabetes
3) Reduce or eliminate small LDL particles
4) Achieve anti-aging or age-slowing effects

But it means getting hold of a glucose meter and applying it in a very different way.

Diabetics typically check fasting morning glucose and again several times during the day to assess medication effects. But you and I can measure blood glucose to assess the immediate effects of food choices--two very different approaches.

The concept is simple: Check a blood glucose just prior to a food or meal of interest, then one hour after finishing.

Let's take two hypothetical breakfasts. First, oatmeal, a so-called "low-glycemic index" food. Slow-cooked, stone ground oatmeal with skim milk, a handful of walnuts, just a few blueberries.

Blood glucose just prior: 95 mg/dl
Blood glucose one hour after finish: 175 mg/dl

I made those numbers up, but this is a fairly typical response for many adults. (This is why "low-glycemic index" is an absurd notion.) This kind of response causes 1) glycation, the adverse effects of glucose modification of proteins that leads to cataracts, kidney disease, cartilage damage and arthritis, atherosclerosis, skin wrinkles, etc., 2) high insulin response that cascades into fat deposition, especially visceral fat ("wheat belly"), and 3) glucotoxicity, i.e., direct damage to the pancreas that can, over years, lead to diabetes.

Next day, let's try a breakfast of 3-egg omelet made with green peppers, sundried tomatoes, and olive oil.

Blood glucose just prior: 95 mg/dl
Blood glucose one hour after finish: 93 mg/dl

This is a meal of virtually zero-glycemic index. This kind of response triggers none of the effects experienced following the oatmeal. Repeated over time and you fail to trigger glycation, you stop provoking insulin, and visceral fat mobilizes rather than accumulates: you lose weight, particularly around the middle.

We therefore aim to keep the one-hour blood glucose 100 mg/dl or less. If you start with a high fasting blood glucose of, say, 118 mg/dl, then we aim to keep the one-hour after-eating blood glucose no higher than the pre-meal.

It works. Plain and simple.

This makes the primary care docs crazy: "How dare you check your blood sugar! You're not diabetic." In truth, blood glucose meters are relatively simple devices to use. The test strips and lancets will cost a few bucks. (The meters themselves are either low-cost or free, just like Gillette sometimes sends you a beautiful new razor for free but expects you to buy the blades). These are direct-to-consumer products. While a prescription written by your doctor for a glucose meter and supplies helps insurance cover the costs, you can easily get these devices without a prescription. Some stores, like Target, keep their devices out on the shelves with the shampoo and bath soap.

Warning: Anyone taking diabetes drugs will have to consult with their doctors about the safety of such an approach. Because this approach can actually cure diabetes in some people, if you are taking some diabetes drugs, especially glyburide, glipidize, and glimepiride, you can experience dangerously low blood sugars, just as any non-diabetic taking these drugs would.

Here are the results of the week-long poll asking the question:

Have you experienced a wheat re-exposure syndrome?

Yes, undesirable gastrointestinal effects 223 (41%)
Yes, asthma or sinus problems 51 (9%)
Yes, joint pains and/or swelling 85 (15%)
Yes, emotional or other nervous system effects 59 (10%) No, nothing, nada 107 (19%)

No. Wheat is sacred and you're all nuts 13 (2%)

There are several interesting observations to make from this informal poll. First, as I have observed, the most common wheat re-exposure syndrome is gastrointestinal, usually involving cramps, diarrhea, and lame explanations to your dinner partner.

Second most common: joint pains and/or swelling.

Third: asthma or sinus congestion.

The incidence of emotional or nervous system effects surprised me a bit. I didn't expect 10% of people to share this effect. This is an effect I also experience personally, along with the gastrointestinal consequences.

To be sure, this is a skewed poll, since many people likely come to this blog in the first place because of such issues. But I was nonetheless impressed with the relatively modest proportion of people who did not share such a re-exposure syndrome: only 19%.

Beyond the interesting numbers provided by readers, a good many also provided some fascinating and graphic comments. Here's a sample:

Sassy said:

Reflux -- starts a day later and goes for up to a week. And Bloat:2-5 inches on my waistline in a day, lasting up to three. Miserable. And why, having experienced this once, have I done it often enough to verify the connection with certainty? I am working on that one.

Anonymous said:

Wheat increased hunger with even with only a small amount. Crackers in soup was enough to set it off.

Also, when I was trying to get off wheat, I noticed that 2 eggs and 2 bacon and I could go 5 hours before hunger, or 2 eggs and 2 bacon and toast was good for three hours before hunger. That was the final step to giving up wheat. Now three years and 59 Kg [130 lbs!] loss later, there is no doubt in my mind that wheat is evil, and I do not regard it as suitable for human food. I speculate that it increases ghrelin or cortisol.

Anna said:

For me, in the two years since I began eating Gluten-Free (Low Carb for 6 years), the few times I've had re-exposure to wheat, I've experienced fast onset and intense abdominal pain (known exposure during the daytime) and heartburn, indigestion, intense nausea, and disrupted sleep (exposures during evening meal not discovered until the next day).

My husband wants to think he's fine with wheat (though I know that he has at least one gene that predisposes to celiac), but IMO, he isn't. He eats no wheat at home because that's the default, and he's OK with that. But if he goes out to dinner at a restaurant that serves "good" artisan bread, he will indulge in a few bites (he does restrict his carb intake, so it's still a limited amount). More often than not, he will sleep fitfully on those nights, snore more, and wake in the night with indigestion. He wants to bury his head in the sand and will only acknowledge the discomfort being due to eating too many carbs, not the wheat itself. I notice he sleeps fine if he eats a small amount of potato or rice. Go figure.

Our 12 yo son has been eating GF for two years also. About 6 months into GF, he unknowingly ate wheat a number of times (licorice candy laces at a friend's house), which resulted in outbreaks of canker sores in his mouth each time. He also exhibits mood and behavior changes when he eats wheat, which is what prompted me to test him for gluten intolerance in the first place.

Mark said:

If I go for 3-4 days without wheat, grains or sugar and then go out and binge on a pizza and ice cream or something like that I become explosive within 20 minutes to an hour. It's like a wheat and sugar rage.(I'm not saying this is an excuse for rage, I'm saying it has happened to me and I believe partly do to re-exposure) It seems the combination of the wheat plus sugar can be the worst.

I get red rashes around my neck sometimes right away and sometimes up to a day or later and sometimes get bad diarrhea.

I think it can be almost dangerous to cut things like gluten and sugar suddenly out of the diet without being very serious about keeping them out. I have found it very hard to cut out wheat without binging on it later after 4 or 5 days. I don't believe that my symptoms are just psychological either.

I was also diagnosed with ADHD as a young kid and then rediagnosed with adult ADHD by 3 different doctors. I also have bouts of mania at times too. I am considering trying to go completely gluten/refined carbohydrate free to see if it helps with the symptoms and gives me some relief.

I have never been tested for celiac or gluten intolerance but I would like to be. I think it would help explain to my girlfriend, family and friends why I can't go out and eat pizza or have a beer or ice cream. Right now they all think I'm a hypochondriac. At times I have experienced an intense fatigue the next day like I can't wake up and also sharp pains in my body and headaches.

Anonymous said:

I ditched wheat a year ago after my wife was diagnosed celiac. I immediately experienced a number of health improvements (blood lipids, sleep, allergies, etc.).

Fast forward: We all suffered some inadvertent wheat exposure yesterday via some chocolate covered Brazil nuts (of all things). This accidental A-B-A experimental design resulted in the following:

1. My celiac wife experienced what she calls "the flip" within an hour of exposure (i.e., intense GI distress).
2. My five-year old son went to bed with some wicked reflux.
3. I woke up with some twinges in my lower back and an ache in my football-weary left shoulder. I was also complaining to my wife about fuzzy-headedness that refused to respond to caffeine or hydration. I could only describe it as "carb flu"...

And then I read your post!

Anne said:

Depression, agitation and brain fog if I get glutened. Some times this comes with abdominal pain and a rash on my back - I think it is dose dependent. Cross contamination with wheat is a big issue when eating out. Needless to say, I eat out infrequently and then try to stick with the restaurants that are the most aware of gluten issues.

Terrence said:

Several weeks ago, I started Robb Wolf's 30 day challenge.

The first two weeks were brutal - calling it a withdrawal flu was a massive understatement. So, I thought I would try some wheat and see what happened (could not be worse, I thought). Well, it was.

I still felt extremely crappy, but I was now MASSIVELY GASSY - AMAZINGLY GASSY, for about 48 hours - flatulence on wheels, in spades. I did not go out at all in those 48 hours - when the gas came on, it went out, LONG, and QUICKLY and LOUDLY.

I am easing back into wheat and grain free. I am gluten free today and tomorrow (Sunday and Monday). I expect to try a small amount of wheat on Thursday, then maybe a little more the following Thursday.

Donald said:

I have limited wheat consumption severely over the last 8 months. I have lost 120 pounds, no longer have bouts of illness, asthma, depression, or low energy. I also take vitamin D and other supplements that have helped (many are from your blog recommendations).

Last week I ate a small piece of cake and dessert pizza. Shortly thereafter I started sneezing, had a scratchy throat, and runny nose. I called off sick the next day for fear of being contagious. My symptoms subsided quickly and I am now attributing them to the processed flour eaten at my work luncheon. I think it was an allergic reaction since I recall having much more severe symptoms fairly regularly in my wheat eating days. Those were attributed to an "allergy" of unknown origin back then.

John said:

I suffered from Ankylosing Spondylitis, Iritis, Plantar Fasciits, etc for a number of years. I restricted carbs, especially wheat and I've been symptom free for the past two years now.

Lori said:

I found wheat to be one of the worst things for giving me gas bloating and acid reflux, and I'd had sinus and nasal congestion my whole life. When I ate that cookie, it just re-introduced old problems. I can occasionally eat a gluten-free, grainy goody at my party place without any side effects. I also have a little sprouted rice protein powder every day.

Another odd thing about wheat: it was hard for me to stop eating it once I started. I could go through a whole box of cookies in one sitting, even though I wasn't a binge eater. But I can have a couple of gluten-free cookies and stop.

Paul said:

Except for one slip up this recently past holiday season, I've been sugar-grain-starch free since July 2008. Mental fog was the most noticable re-exposure symptom I had.

My mom has had the worst acid-reflux for 40-plus years. It had become so bad that she was on three medications just to deal with the symptoms. After much training and coaxing, I finally got across to her how to totally get off wheat. Not at all to my surprise, after being wheat free for a few weeks, she lost weight and her acid reflux was GONE!

But she had been addicted to wheat for so long, she relapsed, and the reflux fire soon returned. Wheat must be akin to heroin with some people. Even though they know it's very bad for them, they can't help themselves.

Onschedule said:

Re-exposure often leads to diarrhea for me, or such a heavy feeling of tiredness that all I can do is lay down and pass out. A local pizzeria makes a darn good pie, but since I started practicing wheat-avoidance, I can't keep my eyes open after eating there. I can't say for sure that it's the wheat causing it, but definitely something in the crust. Diarrhea, on the other hand, is definitely triggered by the wheat for me.

My mom complained of gastric reflux for years, but never filled the prescriptions that her doctors would give her. I suggested wheat-avoidance- gastric reflux disappeared within 3 days and hasn't returned (has been 6 months now). I've already commented elsewhere on this blog about how much weight and bloating she has lost...

Steve said:

Interesting that I should sit down, turn on my computer and find your poll. Having gone several weeks, maybe months, avoiding gluten, I took my daughter and her boyfriend out to eat because my wife has been working late at the office lately. Although I was thinking I would just eat my steak and chicken, I succumbed to the temptation of eating about a dozen greasy, breaded shrimp that my daughter and her boyfriend ordered. It's 1:39am and I still do not feel sleepy. My left nostril is completely blocked, my stomach feels bloated, really, really full and I've been burping. In your poll I checked sinus problems but could have chose gastrointestinal or nervous problems just as well.

A few weeks ago my daughter brought home a pizza and, once again, despite my knowing that I shouldn't, I ate a couple of pieces. I was sick for two days. The pain in what I think was my transverse colon was so bad I thought I might have to go to ther emergency room. Before I ate the pizza I had never gone grain-free that long before. I did this after reading Robb Wolf's book.

I AM CONVINCED. No more wheat for me! Please, Lord, give me strength.

LV said:

What don't I experience! I typically avoid wheat (and gluten for that matter) as I'm pretty sure it makes me sick, but when I slip (or someone else slips me some) I end up with massive amounts of joint swelling and tenderness, diarhea, cramping, gas, bloating and brain fog. I'm absolutely miserable. Just that alone is enough to keep me off gluten. I have RA, so if I have repeated exposures I'll have a flare which SUCKS!

A carpenter wouldn't build a house using just his bare hands. You shouldn't stumble your way through nutritional blunders without the proper tools to guide you.

Best tool to lose weight:

Best tool to cure diabetes:

Best tool to reduce small LDL particles:

Best tool for anti-aging:

Observing blood sugar excursions after eating is proving to be among the most powerful tools I have come across.

Pretend I'm a mad food scientist. I'd like to create a food that:

1) Wreaks gastrointestinal havoc and cause intractable diarrhea, cramps, and anemia.
2) Kills some people who consume it after a long, painful course of illness.
3) Damages the brain and nervous system such that some people wet their pants, lose balance, and lose the ability to feel their feet and legs.
4) Brings out the mania of bipolar illness.
5) Amplifies auditory hallucinations in people with paranoid schizophrenia.
6) Makes people diabetic by increasing blood sugars.
7) Worsens arthritis, such as osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.
8) Triggers addictive eating behavior.
9) Punishes you with a withdrawal process if you try to remove it from your diet.

I will develop a strain that is exceptionally hardy and tolerates diverse conditions so that it can grow in just about any climate. It should also be an exceptionally high yield crop, so that I can sell it cheaply to the masses.

Now, if my evil scheme goes as planned, I will then persuade the USDA that not only is my food harmless, but it is good for health. If they really take the bait, they might even endorse it, create a diet program around it.

Dag nabit! Such a plan has already been implemented. Another evil food scientist already beat me to the punch. The food is called wheat.

Diabetics experience long-term health difficulties, including atherosclerosis/heart attacks, peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, cataracts, kidney disease, neuropathies, male erectile dysfunction, osteoarthritis, and colorectal cancer. They also die, on average, 10 years earlier than non-diabetics.

In effect, diabetics compress their lives into a shorter period of time. They experience all the "complications" of aging at a younger age. People without diabetes, of course, can develop atherosclerosis, cataracts, kidney disease, etc., but they tend to do so later in life compared to diabetics.

One index of the rate of aging (but not chronologic age itself) is hemoglobin A1c, or HbA1c, a "moving average" of glycated hemoglobin, i.e., glucose-modified hemoglobin. Blood glucose glycates hemoglobin linearly and irreversibly; measuring HbA1c thereby provides an index of the last 60 or so days average blood glucose.

To put HbA1c values into perspective:

Average HbA1c of hunter-gatherers: 4.5%
Average HbA1c for Americans: 5.6%
American Diabetes Association definition of diabetes: 6.5% or greater
American Diabetes Association definition of adequate control of diabetes: 7.0% or less

Why do diabetics age faster? There are likely several reasons. One important reason is glycation, as indexed by HbA1c. Glycated proteins in the lens of the eye causes cataracts. Glycated proteins in cartilage leads to arthritis. Glycated LDL particles (apo B) leads to atherosclerosis. Glycated nerve cells causes neuropathy. And so on.

If glycation underlies many of the phenomena of aging, then we might surmise that:

1) The less you glycate, the slower you age.
2) The more you glycate, the faster you age.

Therefore, the higher the HbA1c, the faster you are aging.

What foods increase HbA1c? Carbohydrates. That bowl of slow-cooked, stone ground oatmeal? A one-hour after-eating blood sugar of 170 mg/dl is common. Your doctor says that's okay because it's below 200 mg/dl and you don't "need" medication yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bioavailability of marine n-3 fatty acid formulations.

Dyerberg J, Madsen P, Moller JM et al.

Department of Human Nutrition, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Abstract

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

(Full text of the Dyerberg et al study made available at the Nordic Naturals website here.)

Eur J Clin Nutr 2010 Nov 10.

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

Neubronner J, Schuchardt JP, Kressel G et al.

Institute of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Am Kleinen Felde 30, Hannover, Germany.

Abstract

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

Have you experienced a wheat re-exposure syndrome?

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

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

Still others say there is no such thing.

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

Curious thing: People with lipoprotein(a) gravitate towards elite levels of exercise.

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

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

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

The best fish oils available are the liquid forms. Contrary to many people's expectations, the best liquid fish oils have no fishy odor or taste.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Niacin:

--Raises HDL and shifts HDL towards the healthier large (HDL2b) subclass.
--Reduces total LDL.
--Reduces small LDL particles.
--Reduces triglycerides and triglyceride-containing particles like VLDL and IDL (intermediate-density lipoprotein).
--Reduces fibrinogen.
--Reduces inflammatory responses.

Weight loss achieved through a low-carbohydrate (read "wheat-free") diet:

--Raises HDL and shifts HDL towards the healthier large (HDL2b) subclass.
--Reduces total LDL.
--Reduces small LDL particles.
--Reduces triglycerides and triglyceride-containing particles like VLDL and IDL (intermediate-density lipoprotein).
--Reduces fibrinogen.
--Reduces inflammatory responses.

Curious, isn't it? Niacin achieves virtually the same effect as weight loss achieved through a low-carbohydrate diet, particularly if free of wheat products. The only major difference is that niacin also reduces lipoprotein(a), though even that distinction shrinks if monounsaturated fat sources like almonds are included in a low-carbohydrate program.

So which should you do first if you have any of the above patterns? Well, it's a question of 1) severity, 2) how carbohydrate-rich your starting diet is, 3) how much weight you could stand to lose, and 4) how urgent your program is (determined largely by your heart scan score).

Niacin can also be very helpful if you've taken full advantage of weight loss through a carbohydrate-restricted program, yet still retain some of the abnormal lipoprotein patterns that could continue to grow coronary plaque. For instance, if HDL cholesterol rises from 28 to 40 mg/dl by eliminating wheat and reducing carbohydrates and losing weight, niacin could raise HDL to 50 mg/dl or higher.

As much as I love and use niacin for its broad array of plaque-controlling effects, a low-carbohydrate, wheat-free diet can achieve many of the same effects. Use this strategy to full advantage.

Every once in a while, we will see someone experience more-than-expected rate of coronary plaque growth, a sudden jump in heart scan scores. I'm talking about increases in score of 50%, even 100%, sometimes despite favorable lipid and lipoprotein patterns.

It's not always easy to pin this phenomenon down, since we often detect it after a year or more on a repeat heart scan. It would be wonderfully insightful to perform heart scans more frequently and track plaque growth more precisely, but of course, radiation exposure is the most important limiting factor, as is cost.

So this list is, admittedly, speculative. It is based on observation, on presumptive associations between events and heart scan scores. But, judging from what we do confidently know about coronary atherosclerotic plaque, I think these observations make physiologic sense.

These are the sorts of increases in heart scan score that can scare the heck out of you, silent yet explosive growth of coronary atherosclerotic plaque that can grow with no warning whatsoever.

Image courtesy Wikipedia and the United States Geological Survey.

Factors which I have observed to possibly be responsible for explosive plaque growth include:

--Overwhelming tragedy such as death of a loved one, financial ruin, divorce. One of my early and catastrophic failures was a young man in his early 40s who, in the space of just a few months, suffered the loss of his mother, a brother, and his mother-in-law, while working a high-stress job. His heart scan score doubled from around 100 to 200 in one year, despite perfect lipoproteins. He had a heart attack shortly after the second score, despite a normal stress test just months earlier. (Pessimism is tragedy's weak cousin, but one that still holds power to corrupt our otherwise best efforts at plaque reversal.)

--Substantial weight gain. In the early years of the Track Your Plaque program, before it was even called "Track Your Plaque," I witnessed a man more than double his score from 1100 to 2400 in 18 months just by allowing himself to gain 40 lbs. (I don't know what became of him. His life apparently suffered other disasters, as well, and we lost track of him.)

--Poorly-controlled diabetes. High blood sugars out of control have yielded explosive growth.

--Kidney disease--However, I am uncertain of how much this overlaps with a deficiency of vitamin D's active form, 1,25-OH-vitamin D3, the form that is often deficient in people with dysfunctional kidneys.

--An inflammatory disease that is out of control, e.g., rheumatoid arthritis.

--This is very speculative, but I've witnessed explosive growth after vaccine administration that yielded strange viral-like symptoms. In this one instance, the man was getting heart scans (on his own) every three to six months and described a severe illness following a vaccine administered in preparation for travel out of the U.S.

--Unrecognized low thyroid function--i.e., hypothyroidism. This is easily corrected with thyroid hormone replacement.

These factors can also be relative and they can be overcome. Look at our current Track Your Plaque reversal record-holder: a 53-year old woman who dropped her heart scan score an amazing 63% despite the loss of a loved one during the 15 months of her program. Despite an overwhelming tragedy, she overcame the potential adverse effects and set a record, probably a record for the entire world.

In his most recent Vitamin D Council Newsletter (reprinted in its entirety below, minus clickable links, as Dr. Cannell apparently lost his webmaster and this issue of the newsletter is therefore not posted on the Vitamin D Council website; if you would like to either donate money to the Vitamin D Council or pitch in with help with his website, go to www.vitamindcouncil.com), Dr. John Cannell once again enlightens us with some new insights into vitamin D and its enormous role in health. In this issue, he discusses the role of vitamin D in people diagnosed with cancer (treatment, not prevention).

While cancer is not our focus on the Heart Scan Blog, Dr. Cannell's always insightful comments provide some helpful thoughts for our management of vitamin D doses and blood levels.

Dr. Cannell cites a recent study from vitamin D research expert, Dr. Bruce Hollis:

In the first study of its kind, Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina gave all of us something to think about. He asked and answered a simple question: How much vitamin D do you have to take to normalize the metabolism of vitamin D?

Remember, unlike other steroid hormones, vitamin D has very unusual metabolism in most modern humans, called first-order, mass action, kinetics. All this means is that the more vitamin D you take, the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, and the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, the higher the levels of activated vitamin D in your tissues. No other steroid hormone in the body behaves like this. Think about it: would you like your estrogen level to be dependent on how much cholesterol you ate? Or your cortisol level? (I'd ask the same about testosterone levels but I know men well enough not to ask.) No, the body must tightly regulate powerful steroid hormones through substrate inhibition, that is, if an enzyme turns A into B, when the body has enough B, B inhibits the enzyme and so limits its own production.

Not so with vitamin D, at least at modern human vitamin D levels. Professor Reinhold Vieth was the first to write about this and Vieth's Chapter 61 in Feldman, Pike, and Glorieux's wonderful textbook, Vitamin D (Elsevier, 2005, second edition), is a great reason to buy the textbook or have your library do so. (I'm glad to see Amazon is out of stock of the new ones (someone must be reading about vitamin D) but you can still buy used editions.)

Why would the kinetics of vitamin D be different from all other steroids? Maybe they are not, Hollis reasoned, like Vieth before him. Maybe vitamin D levels are so low in modern humans that its metabolic system is on full blast all the time in an attempt to give the body all the vitamin D metabolites it craves. So Hollis asked, Is vitamin D's metabolism different in populations in the upper end of 25(OH)D levels (a population of sun-exposed people and a group of women prescribed 7,000 IU per day)? Note, the Hollis study is free on Medline, you can download the entire paper on the right hand of the PubMed page below.

Hollis BW, et al. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-634.

If you look at the two graphs, Figures 1 and 2 of Hollis' paper, you find vitamin D's kinetics can be normalized, made just like all other steroid hormones in the body, but you have to get enough sunshine or take enough vitamin D to get your 25(OH)D level above 50 ng/ml, and 60 ng/ml would be better. Then your body starts to store cholecalciferol in the body without much further increase in 25(OH)D levels. The reaction becomes saturable. This is a remarkable discovery and it implies levels of 30 and 40 ng/ml are usually not sufficient. It also implies actual vitamin D levels (cholecalciferol levels), not just 25(OH)D levels, may be useful in diagnosing and treating deficiency. Note, that not all of the sun-exposed individuals or women prescribed 7,000 IU/day achieved such levels. That's because the sun-exposed individuals were tested after an Hawaiian winter and because prescribing and taking are two different things.

In answer to the question, "How much vitamin D should someone with cancer take?," Dr. Cannell advises:
"Take enough to get your 25(OH)D level above 60 ng/ml, summer and winter." In doing so, you will have normalized the kinetics of vitamin D and stored the parent compound, cholecalciferol, in your tissues. In the absence of sunshine, you need to take about 1,000 IU/day per 30 pounds of body weight to do this. A 150 pound cancer patient may need to take 5,000 IU per day, a 210 pound cancer patient about 7,000 IU per day, all this in the absence of sunlight.

Dr. Cannell, no stranger to the resisitance among many practicing physicians unaware of the expanding and robust literature on vitamin D, advises people with cancer that:
In the end, if you have cancer and your physician won't do a risk/benefit analysis, do it yourself. The risk side of that equation is easy. Both Quest Diagnostics and Lab-Corp, the two largest reference labs in the USA, report the upper limit of 25(OH)D normal is 100 ng/ml and toxic is above 150 ng/ml, so 60 ng/ml is well below both. The reason levels up to 100 ng/ml are published normals is because there is no credible evidence in the literature that levels of 100 ng/ml do any harm and because sun worshipers often have such levels. (If you don't believe me, go to the beach in the summer for one month, sunbath every day for 30 minutes on each side in your bathing suit, and go home and have a 25(OH)D level.) By getting your level above 60 ng/ml, all you are doing is getting your levels into the mid to upper range of laboratory reference normals. Little or no risk.

For readers wishing to read the entire text of Dr. Cannell's newsletter, it is reprinted below:

The Vitamin D Newsletter
January, 2008

The January newsletter is coming early as I will be out of touch for awhile. If you remember, the last newsletter was on preventing cancer, not treating it. Below is a sampling of the tragic emails the last newsletter generated:

"Dr. Cannell, I was just diagnosed with breast cancer, how much vitamin D should I take?"

"My mother has colon cancer, how much vitamin D should she take?"

"I've had prostate cancer for four years, is there any reason to think vitamin D would help?"

"Dr. Cannell, my son has leukemia, should I give him vitamin D?"

It's one thing to talk about evidence vitamin D may prevent cancer but something quite different to discuss evidence vitamin D might help treat cancer. I used to think the answers to all the above questions were the same. Like anyone else, people with cancer should be screened for vitamin D deficiency and be treated if deficiency is present. Simple. However, it's not that simple. The real questions are, What are reasonable 25-hydroxy-vitamin D [25(OH)D] levels for someone with a life-threatening cancer? How much vitamin D do they need to take to obtain such levels? Is there any evidence, of any kind, that vitamin D will help treat cancer? The risk/benefit analysis of taking vitamin D is quite different if you are in perfect health than if your life, or your child's life, is on the line.

Remember, unlike cancer prevention, not one human randomized controlled trial exists showing vitamin D has a treatment effect on cancer. By treatment effect, I mean prolongs the lives of cancer patients. However, as I cited in my last newsletter, Dr. Philippe Autier of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and Dr. Sara Gandini of the European Institute of Oncology, performed a meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials showing even low doses of vitamin D extend life but they looked at all-cause mortality, not just cancer (Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(16):1730-1737). However, some epidemiological studies indirectly address the treatment issue and are quite remarkable. The first are a series of discoveries by Professor Johan Moan, Department of Physics at the University of Oslo, with Dr. Alina Porojnicu as the lead author on most of the papers.

Moan J, et al. Colon cancer: Prognosis for different latitudes, age groups and seasons in Norway. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2007 Sep 19

Lagunova Z, et al. Prostate cancer survival is dependent on season of diagnosis. Prostate. 2007 Sep 1;67(12):1362-70.

Porojnicu AC, et al. Changes in risk of death from breast cancer with season and latitude: sun exposure and breast cancer survival in Norway. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007 May;102(3):323-8.

Porojnicu A, et al. Season of diagnosis is a predictor of cancer survival. Sun-induced vitamin D may be involved: a possible role of sun-induced Vitamin D. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):675-8.

Porojnicu AC, et al. Season of diagnosis is a prognostic factor in Hodgkin's lymphoma: a possible role of sun-induced vitamin D. Br J Cancer. 2005 Sep 5;93(5):571-4.

Porojnicu AC, et al. Seasonal and geographical variations in lung cancer prognosis in Norway. Does Vitamin D from the sun play a role? Lung Cancer. 2007 Mar;55(3):263-70.

What Professor Moan's group discovered, repeatedly, is quite simple, whether it be cancer of the breast, colon, prostate, lung, or a lymphoma. You live longer if your cancer is diagnosed in the summer. And it is not just Moan's group who has found this. A huge English study recently confirmed Moan's discovery.

Lim HS, et al. Cancer survival is dependent on season of diagnosis and sunlight exposure. Int J Cancer. 2006 Oct 1;119(7):1530-6.

What do these studies mean? Something about summer has a treatment effect on cancer. Whatever it is, you live longer if you are diagnosed in the summer but die sooner if you are diagnosed in the winter. What could it be about summer? Exercise? Fresh air? Melatonin? Sunlight? Pretty girls? Remember, these patients already had cancer. Whatever it is about summer, it is not a preventative effect that Professor Moan discovered, it is a treatment effect. Something about summer prolongs the life of cancer patients.

Dr. Ying Zhou, a research fellow, working with Professor David Christiani at the Harvard School of Public Health, went one step further. The stuffy Harvard researchers assumed summer worked its magic, not by pretty girls, but by summer sunlight making vitamin D. So they looked at total vitamin D input, from both sun and diet, to see if high vitamin D input improved the survival of cancer patients. Yes, indeed, remarkably. They found that early stage lung cancer patients with the highest vitamin D input (from summer season and high intake from diet) lived almost three times longer than patients with the lowest input (winter season and low intake from diet). Three times longer is a huge treatment effect, a treatment effect that most conventional cancer treatment methods would die for.

Zhou W, Vitamin D is associated with improved survival in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005 Oct;14(10):2303-9.

And that's not all, Marianne Berwick and her colleagues, at the New Mexico Cancer Institute, found malignant melanoma patients with evidence of continued sun exposure had a 60% mortality reduction compared to patients who did not. That implies a robust treatment effect from sunlight.

Berwick M, et al. Sun exposure and mortality from melanoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Feb 2;97(3):195-9.

I will not list the thousands of animal studies that indicate vitamin D has a treatment effect on cancer as almost all of them studied activated vitamin D or its analogs, drugs that bypass normal regulatory mechanisms, cannot get autocrine quantities of the hormone into the cell, and that often cause hypercalcemia. However, Michael Holick's group found that simple vitamin D deficiency made cancers grow faster in mice. That is, vitamin D has a cancer treatment effect in vitamin D deficient mice. Professor Gary Schwartz, at Wake Forest, recently reviewed the reasons to think that vitamin D may have a treatment effect in cancer.

Tangpricha V, et al. Vitamin D deficiency enhances the growth of MC-26 colon cancer xenografts in Balb/c mice. J Nutr. 2005 Oct;135(10):2350-4.

Schwartz GG, Skinner HG. Vitamin D status and cancer: new insights. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2007 Jan;10(1):6-11.

Finally, one human interventional study exists. In 2005, in an open trial, Professor Reinhold Vieth and his colleagues found just 2,000 IU of vitamin D per day had a positive effect on PSA levels in men with prostate cancer.

Woo TC, et al. Pilot study: potential role of vitamin D (Cholecalciferol) in patients with PSA relapse after definitive therapy. Nutr Cancer. 2005;51(1):32-6.

So we come back to the crucial question. If you have cancer, how much vitamin D should you take, or, more precisely, what 25(OH)D level should you maintain? We don't know. You can correctly say that definitive studies have not been done and, incorrectly, conclude physicians treating cancer patients should do nothing. I say incorrectly because standards of medical practice have always demanded that doctors make reasonable decisions based on what is currently known, doing a risk/benefit analysis along the way to decide what is best for their patients based on what is known today. If a patient has a potentially fatal cancer, the doctor cannot dismiss a relatively benign potential treatment modality just because definitive studies have not been done, and passively watch his patient die. Standards of care require doctors consider what is known now, using information currently available, perform a risk/benefit analysis, and then act in the best interest of their patient.

Luckily, such doctors recently obtained some guidance. In the first study of its kind, Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina gave all of us something to think about. He asked and answered a simple question: How much vitamin D do you have to take to normalize the metabolism of vitamin D?

Remember, unlike other steroid hormones, vitamin D has very unusual metabolism in most modern humans, called first-order, mass action, kinetics. All this means is that the more vitamin D you take, the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, and the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, the higher the levels of activated vitamin D in your tissues. No other steroid hormone in the body behaves like this. Think about it, would you like your estrogen level to be dependent on how much cholesterol you ate? Or your cortisol level? (I'd ask the same about testosterone levels but I know men well enough not to ask.) No, the body must tightly regulate powerful steroid hormones through substrate inhibition, that is, if an enzyme turns A into B, when the body has enough B, B inhibits the enzyme and so limits its own production.

Not so with vitamin D, at least at modern human vitamin D levels. Professor Reinhold Vieth was the first to write about this and Vieth's Chapter 61 in Feldman, Pike, and Glorieux's wonderful textbook, Vitamin D (Elsevier, 2005, second edition), is a great reason to buy the textbook or have your library do so. [ I'm glad to see Amazon is out of stock of the new ones (someone must be reading about vitamin D) but you can still buy used editions.)

Why would the kinetics of vitamin D be different from all other steroids? Maybe they are not, Hollis reasoned, like Vieth before him. Maybe vitamin D levels are so low in modern humans that its metabolic system is on full blast all the time in an attempt to give the body all the vitamin D metabolites it craves. So Hollis asked, Is vitamin D's metabolism different in populations in the upper end of 25(OH)D levels (a population of sun-exposed people and a group of women prescribed 7,000 IU per day)? Note, the Hollis study is free on Medline, you can download the entire paper on the right hand of the PubMed page below.

Hollis BW, et al. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-4.

If you look at the two graphs, Figures 1 and 2 of Hollis' paper, you find vitamin D's kinetics can be normalized, made just like all other steroid hormones in the body, but you have to get enough sunshine or take enough vitamin D to get your 25(OH)D level above 50 ng/ml, and 60 ng/ml would be better. Then your body starts to store cholecalciferol in the body without much further increase in 25(OH)D levels. The reaction becomes saturable. This is a remarkable discovery and it implies levels of 30 and 40 ng/ml are usually not sufficient. It also implies actual vitamin D levels (cholecalciferol levels), not just 25(OH)D levels, may be useful in diagnosing and treating deficiency. Note, that not all of the sun-exposed individuals or women prescribed 7,000 IU/day achieved such levels. That's because the sun-exposed individuals were tested after an Hawaiian winter and because prescribing and taking are two different things.

So my answer to "How much should I take if I have cancer?" is "Take enough to get your 25(OH)D level above 60 ng/ml, summer and winter." In doing so, you will have normalized the kinetics of vitamin D and stored the parent compound, cholecalciferol, in your tissues. In the absence of sunshine, you need to take about 1,000 IU/day per 30 pounds of body weight to do this. A 150 pound cancer patient may need to take 5,000 IU per day, a 210 pound cancer patient about 7,000 IU per day, all this in the absence of sunlight. And this may not be enough; cancer patients may use it up faster (increased metabolic clearance) and children may do the same due to their young and vital enzymes. Or you may need less, because you get more sun than you think, more from your diet, or because you are taking a modern medicine that interferes with the metabolism of vitamin D. An even easier way to do it is go to a sun tanning booth every day and obtain and keep a dark, full-body, tan. Then you don't have to worry about blood levels but I'd get one anyway, just to be sure it was above 60 ng/ml.

Given what Hollis discovered, given the well-known potent anti-cancer properties of activated vitamin D, given epidemiological evidence that summer extends the life of cancer patients, given a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that vitamin D prolongs life, given animal data that simple vitamin D has a treatment effect on cancer, and given a patient with a life-threatening cancer, what would a reasonable physician do? Simply let their patient die while muttering something about the lack of randomized controlled trials?

No, they would simply check a 25(OH)D level every month and advise cancer patients to take enough vitamin D or frequent sun tanning parlors enough to keep their level above 60 ng/ml. Toxicity does not start until levels reach 150 ng/ml but if you take more than 2,000 IU per day have your doctor order a blood calcium every month or two along with the 25(OH)D. Both you and he will feel better and because if you have cancer, you are probably taking lots of other drugs and little is known about how modern drugs interact with vitamin D metabolism. By getting your level above 60 ng/ml, all you are doing is getting your level to where most lifeguards' levels are at the end of summer, to levels our ancestors had when they lived in the sun, to levels regular users of sun-tan parlors levels achieve, and most importantly, to levels where vitamin D's pharmacokinetics are normalized.

In the end, if you have cancer and your physician won't do a risk/benefit analysis, do it yourself. The risk side of that equation is easy. Both Quest Diagnostics and Lab-Corp, the two largest reference labs in the USA, report the upper limit of 25(OH)D normal is 100 ng/ml and toxic is above 150 ng/ml, so 60 ng/ml is well below both. The reason levels up to 100 ng/ml are published normals is because there is no credible evidence in the literature that levels of 100 ng/ml do any harm and because sun worshipers often have such levels. (If you don't believe me, go to the beach in the summer for one month, sunbath every day for 30 minutes on each side in your bathing suit, and go home and have a 25(OH)D level.) By getting your level above 60 ng/ml, all you are doing is getting your levels into the mid to upper range of laboratory reference normals. Little or no risk.

What are the potential benefits? It probably depends on a number of things. Did your cancer cells retain the enzyme that activates vitamin D? Many do. Did your cancer cells retain the vitamin D receptor? Many do. If your cancer cells get more substrate [25(OH)D], will that substrate induce the cancer cells to make more vitamin D receptors or more of the activating enzyme? Some cancer cells do both. In practical terms, vitamin D is theoretically more likely to help your cancer the earlier you start taking it. However, no one knows. Certainly there is no reason, other than bad medicine, for cancer patients to die vitamin D deficient. Unfortunately, most do.

Tangpricha V, et al. Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in patients attending an outpatient cancer care clinic in Boston. Endocr Pract. 2004 May-Jun;10(3):292-3.

Plant AS, Tisman G. Frequency of combined deficiencies of vitamin D and holotranscobalamin in cancer patients. Nutr Cancer. 2006;56(2):143-8.

It is very important that readers understand I am not suggesting vitamin D cures cancer or that it replace standard cancer treatment. Oncologists perform miracles every day. Do what they say. The only exception is vitamin D. If your oncologist tells you not to take vitamin D, ask him three questions. 1) How do you convert ng/mls to nmol/Ls? How many IU in a nonogram? 3) How do you spell "cholecalciferol?" If he doesn't know how to measure it, weigh it, or spell it, chances are he doesn't know much about it.

All of the epidemiological and animal studies in the literature suggest cancer patients will prolong their lives if they take vitamin D. I can't find any studies that indicate otherwise. However, none of the suggestive studies are randomized controlled interventional trials; they are all epidemiological or animal studies, or, in the case of Vieth's, an open human study. However, if you have cancer, or your child does, do you want to wait the decades it will take for the American Cancer Society to fund randomized controlled trials using the proper dose of vitamin D? Chances are you, or your child, will not be around to see the results.

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

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you don't want to get the newsletter, please hit reply and let us know. This newsletter is not copyrighted. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. Remember, we are a non-profit and rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:

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

PS: The Vitamin D Council lost our webmaster. If you want to donate your time to a good cause, know all about maintaining websites, are interesting in keeping up with the latest press about vitamin D, and are willing to do so for free, please hit reply and let me know. We currently have $405.52 in our bank account so we cannot pay you now but may be able to pay you in the future.

Let me paint a picture:

A 78-year old woman, tired and bent. She's lost an inch and a half of her original height because of collapse of several vertebra in her spine over the years, leaving her with a "dowager's hump," a stooped position that many older women assume with advanced osteoporosis. It's also left her with chronic back pain.

(Image courtesy of National Library of Medicine)

This poor woman also has arthritis in her knees, hips, and spine. All three locations add to her pain.

She also has hypertension, a high blood sugar approaching diabetes, and distortions of cholesterol values, including a low HDL and high triglycerides.

Look inside: On a simple x-ray, we see that the bones of her body are unusually transparent, with just a thin rim of bone at the outer edges, depleted of calcium. Weight-bearing bones like the spine, hips, and knees have eroded and collapsed.

On an echocardiogram of her heart (ultrasound), she has dense calcium surrounding her mitral valve ("mitral anular calcium"), a finding that rarely impairs the valve itself but is a marker for heightened potential for heart attack and other adverse events. Her aortic valve, another of the four heart valves, is also loaded with calcium. In the aortic valve, unlike the mitral valve, the collection of calcium makes the valve struggle to open, causing a murmur. The valve is rigid and can barely open to less than half of its original opening width.

If a heart scan were performed, we'd see the coronary calcification, along with calcification of the aorta, and the mitral and aortic valves.

Obviously, it's not a pretty picture. It is, however, a typical snapshot of an average 78-year old woman, or any other elderly man or woman, for that matter.

This collection of arthritis, osteoporosis, coronary and valve calcification, high blood pressure, abnormal cholesterol patterns, and pain is not unusual by any stretch. Perhaps you even recognize someone you know in this description. Perhaps it's you.

Look at this list again. Does it seem familiar? I'd say that the common factor that ties these seemingly unrelated conditions together is chronic and severe deficiency of vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency leads to arthritis, osteoporosis, coronary and valve calcification, high blood pressure, abnormal cholesterol patterns, and pain.

Should we go so far as to proclaim that aging, or at least many of the undesirable phenomena of aging, are really just manifestations of vitamin D deficiency? I would propose that much of aging is really deficiency of vitamin D, chronic and severe, in its end stages.

My colleagues might propose a 30- or 40-year long randomized trial, one designed to test whether vitamin D or placebo makes any difference.

Can you wait?

Here's a fascinating e-mail we received recently. It came from a man in Hawaii who dropped his heart scan score a modest amount, but did it in two months using fasting. He also has the advantage of access to the Holistica Hawaii scan center with our friend, Dr. Roger White. His experience is so fascinating that we asked for his permission to reprint his story which he did enthusiastically.

So here is Don's story:

I am a 61 year old male with a history of heart disease in my family. My maternal grandfather, for instance, died at age 39 of a
heart attack and my mother died of a stroke. There are other instances in my family as well.

I, personally, before going to Holistica had had three heart procedures; one radio catheter ablation for WPW Syndrome, and two radio catheter ablations for atrial fibrilations. After suffering with WPW for over 30 years and A-Fibs for about a year, those issues seem to be behind me fortunately.

Three or four months back, however, I was suffering from shortness of breath and slight chest pains when doing the uphill part of a 5 mile walk that I do almost every day. My wife had had a coronary heart scan several years back at Holistica so that's how I knew about it.

I had a scan done on October 4th this year. The scan did show fairly
advanced plaque build up; my total coronary plague burden was
312.9. The day following the scan I felt absolutely terrible; lightheaded, weak, much like feeling you were at death's door.

I had read a book a number of years back about therapeutic fasting
(water only) called "Fasting and Eating for Health" by Dr. Joel
Furhman.

According to his book, one on the areas where he consistently has dramatic and quick results with fasting is with reducing arterial plaque. Based on how badly I was feeling at the time, I decided to start an immediate fast. Within just the first 24 hours, the relief was dramatic and amazing. I continued the water only fast for 3 weeks.

Yesterday, December 1st I went in for another cardio scan instead of the coronary angiogram that I had previously been scheduled for. I could tell they were a little confused why I was doing that but went ahead and did another coronary EBT scan.

When I went in for the doctor consultation, Dr. McGriff said, "OK, exactly what is it you've done since last time." In less than two months, my coronary plaque burden had dropped to 296.2. That's a 6% reduction in less than 2 months. Had I gone back in for the second scan right after my 3 week fast then it probably would have a 6%
reduction in less than a month.

Frankly, based on how good I've been feeling (I'm even thinking of
getting back into jogging instead of walking), I was surprised it was
only 6%. Based on the common experience, however, that it sometimes
takes a year or two to just stabilize your plaque increase, much less
actually start losing it, the doctor was truly startled and
surprised. He said he had never seen such a sudden reduction as that
before!

We are still going to proceed with the coronary angiogram and I
intend to apply what I find in your book but I thought you might be interested in these results since I've never heard or read of anyone actually measuring the effectiveness of a fast with before and after EBT Scans.

I admire your direction and work focusing on prevention instead of catastrophic management like most doctors. Dr. Fuhrman is very much the same with the greatest attention on prevention so if you haven't heard of his book you might be interested. Especially interesting regarding this particular issue is Chapter 5 entitled, "The Road Back to a Healthy Heart-the Natural Way."

I can personally verify everything he has said about the fasting procedure itself from start to finish. I consider his book the Bible about fasting. As I mentioned, given your similar direction in medicine, I thought I would bring my personal experience on the matter to your attention for your consideration. Maybe in a future edition of your book, you might want to include some information on fasting.

Anyhow, I hope you will find this helpful. Any other questions,
don't hesitate to e-mail back. Please keep up your good work and
thanks for what your doing!

Yours truly,

Don P.
Honolulu, Hawaii

Isn't that great?

Now, in all honesty, a change of 6% could conceivably be within the margin of error for heart scanning. (Although several studies from a number of years ago suggested that variation in heart scan scoring was about 10%, sometimes more, in my experience, on EBT devices like the one Don used, variation is <5% at this score range.) Genuine regression would probably be better documented by yet another scan down the road. If the trend is consistent, then it is probably real.

Nonetheless, Don's story may support we've been saying for some time: Fasting is a rapid method to gain control over plaque--but I didn't know it might be that quick! Perhaps Don is a living example of what I've called "instant" heart disease reversal.

Don is potentially off to a good start. But, unless he can periodically repeat his fast, he will still have to engage in a program that allows continuing control over coronary plaque in between fasts. Also, fasting cannot address issues like vitamin D deficiency, lipoprotein(a), and any residual lipid/lipoprotein issues. But I am continually impressed with the power of fasting to "jump start" a program of heart disease reversal.

It would be a fascinating study to perform, with serial heart scans within brief periods of weeks or months to gauge rapid response. However, we need to keep in mind that as wonderful as heart scans are, they do involve modest radiation exposure.

It might be interesting in future to add a fasting "arm" to the virtual clinical trial. That might yield some great insights.

Copyright 2007 William Davis,MD

This continues a series I've begun recently that discusses studies that have emerged over the past 10 years relevant to heart scan scoring and reversal of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

The St. Francis Heart Study from St. Francis Hospital, Roslyn, New York, was released in 2005. This was yet another study that set out to determine whether Lipitor exerted a slowing effect on coronary calcium scores. This time, Lipitor (atorvastatin), 20 mg per day, was combined with vitamin C 1 g daily, and vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) 1,000 U daily, vs. placebo. A total of 1,005 asymptomatic men and women, age 50 to 70 years, with coronary calcium scores 80th percentile or higher for age and gender
participated in the study.

After four years, heart scan scores in the placebo group increased 73%, compared to 81% in the treatment group. Statistically, the cocktail of drug, vitamins C and E had no effect on heart scan scores.

Other findings included:

--Participants experiencing heart attack and other events during the study showed greater progression of scores than those not experiencing heart attack: score increase of 256 vs. increase of 120.

--While treatment did not reduce the number of heart attacks and events overall, participants with starting heart scan scores >400 did show a benefit: 8.7% with events on treatment (20 of 229) vs. 15.0% with placebo (36 of 240).

(Note what is missing from the treatment regimen: efforts to raise HDL (starting average HDL 51 mg/dl); reduce triglycerides (starting average 140 mg/dl); identify those whose LDL was false elevated by lipoprotein(a); omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil; correction of other factors like vitamin D deficiency.)

Are we pretty in agreement that just taking Lipitor and following an American Heart Association low-fat diet is an unsatisfactory answer to gain control over coronary plaque growth? No slowing of heart scan score growth seen in the St. Francis Heart Study and similar studies is consistent with the 25-30% reductions in heart attack witnessed in large clinical trials. Yes, heart attack and related events are reduced, but not eliminated--not even close.

And when you think about it, it should come as no surprise that the simple strategy studied in the St. Francis Heart Study failed to completely control plaque growth. Lipitor and statin drugs exert no effect on small LDL particles, barely raise HDL cholesterol at all, and have no effect on Lp(a), factors that increase heart scan scores substantially.

Though these discussions have frightened some people because of the suggestion that increasing heart scan scores are inevitable and unavoidable, they shouldn't. It really should not be at all shocking to learn that taking one drug all by itself should cure coronary heart disease.

Instead, findings like those of the St. Francis study should cause us to ask: What could be done better? How can we better impact on heart scan scores and how can we further reduce heart attack, particularly in people with higher heart scan scores?

My answer has been the Track Your Plaque program, a comprehensive effort to 1) address all causes of coronary plaque, and then 2) correct all the causes.

Here is Dr. John Cannell's Vitamin D Council Newsletter reprinted in its entirety. It answers some of the questions that came up on The Heart Scan Blog about the recent release of a study of vitamin D and cancer

The Vitamin D Newsletter

December, 2007

Does vitamin D prevent cancer? If it does, will doctors who ignore the research end up with blood on their hands? The press makes it easy for doctors to believe what they want to believe. Below are six stories about the same scientific study; read the six different headlines. According to your a priori beliefs, you can choose the story you want to believe and read that one. Don't feel bad, we all do it. As Walter Lippman once said, "We do not see and then believe, we believe and then we see."

Vitamin D cuts colon cancer death risk

Study Finds No Connection Between Vitamin D And Overall Cancer Deaths

Vitamin D protects against colorectal cancer

Vitamin D May Not Cut Cancer Deaths

Vitamin D protects against colorectal cancer

Scientists advise a vitamin D downgrade as there is no real proof ...

Another option is to read the study yourself.

Freedman DM, et al. Prospective Study of Serum Vitamin D and Cancer Mortality in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Oct 30; [Epub ahead of print]

What Dr. Freedman actually discovered is that when you take a very large group of people (16,818), some as young as seventeen, measure their vitamin D levels, and then wait about ten years to see who dies from cancer, you find 536 die and that a vitamin D level from ten years earlier is not a good predictor of who will die from cancer. However, even a level drawn ten years earlier predicted that those with the lowest level were four times more likely to die from colon cancer, suggesting, as Ed Giovannucci has, that colon cancer may be exquisitely sensitive to vitamin D. Furthermore, 28 women got breast cancer, 20 in the group with the lowest vitamin D level but only 8 in the highest. The breast cancer findings were not statistically significant - even during a very long breast cancer awareness month - but can you imagine what critics at the American Cancer Society would be telling women if the numbers were reversed, if the 20 women who got breast cancer were in the high vitamin D group?

Another large epidemiological study appeared about breast cancer the very next day. This time, the press passed on the story and the American Cancer Society was mum, no editorials by Dr. Lichtenfeld, their spokesman, in spite of breast cancer awareness month.

Abbas S, et al. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer - results of a large case-control study. Carcinogenesis. 2007 Oct 31; [Epub ahead of print]

In the above study, 1,394 women with breast cancer were case-controlled with a similar number of women without breast cancer. The women with breast cancer were three times more likely to have low vitamin D levels. That is a lot of women who may be dying during next year's breast cancer awareness month.

Both of the above studies were epidemiological, not randomized controlled trials. Of course a randomized controlled trial has already shown a 60% reduction in internal cancers in women taking even a modest 1,100 IU per day of vitamin D.

Lappe JM, et al. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.

What is interesting is the difference in the response of the Canadian Cancer Society and the American Cancer Society. The Canadian Cancer Society has advised all Canadians to take 1,000 IU per day - not enough but a good first step - and for immediate additional large scale clinical trials. The Canadians simply performed a risk/benefit analysis. What is the risk of treating vitamin D deficiency versus what are the potential benefits? They quote the American Food and Nutrition Board, which says 2,000 IU/day is safe for anyone over the age on one to take, on their own, without being under the care of a physician. If there is little or no risk, then the next question is what are the potential benefits of treating vitamin D deficiency? This is not quantum mechanics.

Cancer society calls for major vitamin D trial

The Canadians acted because the Canadian government knows it could save billions of dollars by treating vitamin D deficiency.

Vitamin D Deficiency Drains $9 billion From Canadian Health Care ...

If wide spread treatment of vitamin D deficiency became the rule, ask yourself, "Who would be helped and who would be hurt." First ask yourself that question about Canada and then about the USA. Remember, in Canada, the government directly pays for its citizen's health insurance; in the USA, private insurance is the norm. In Canada, the government is realizing they could save billions if vitamin D deficiencies were treated. In the USA, a large segment of the medical industry would be hurt, some anti-cancer drug manufacturers would have to close their doors, thousands of patents would become worthless, lucrative consulting contracts between industry and cancer researchers would dry up.

Both Canadians and Americans are shocked to think their doctors care about money, are in the illness business. In some ways people think of their doctors like they do their local public schools. They know medicine is a business and know doctors do things for money but they don't think their own doctors do. Likewise they think public schools are in bad shape but think their local schools are above average. They think their doctor is above average, like their "Lake Woebegone" kids.

Lake Woebegone Effect

The fact is that doctors, hospitals, regional cancer centers, and the cancer drug manufacturers are all in business to make money and all of these businesses make money off the sick, not off the well. Just a fact, but, as Aldous Huxley once observed, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

Vitamin D will save the Canadian government enormous amounts of money but will cause widespread economic disruption in the USA. Do the physicians leading the American Cancer Society have strong economic ties to the cancer industry in the form of patents, stock options, and consulting fees? If so, what do you expect them to do? What would you do? It's simple. You would believe what you have to believe, what you need to believe, that is, anything with the word "vitamin" in it is simply the latest Laetrile. Look to Canada, not the USA, to lead the way.

Vitamin D may fight cancer

What about American physicians? They are apparently waiting for the American trial lawyers to smell a tort. After all, the case is quite simple. Doctor, did you advise Mrs. Jones to avoid the sun? Doctor, did you tell her the sun is the source of 90% of circulating stores of vitamin D? Doctor, did you prescribe vitamin D to make up for what the sun would not be making? Doctor, did you measure her vitamin D levels? So you had no way of knowing if your sun-avoidance advice resulted in vitamin D deficiency? Doctor, do you know our expert tested her vitamin D level and it was less than 20? Doctor, did you tell her about any of the studies indicating vitamin D deficiency causes cancer? Doctor, did you know Mrs. Jones has terminal breast cancer and will be leaving behind a loving husband and two young children?

And what about the American Cancer Society? Dr. Lichtenfeld, their spokesman, quickly gave his opinion; from what I can tell the first time he ever commented on a vitamin D study. That is, he has ignored the hundreds of positive epidemiological studies, ignored the incredible randomized controlled trial, but he jumped on this one:

Maybe Vitamin D Isn't The Answer After All

Dr. Lichtenfeld, implied the Canadian Cancer Society has acted precipitously in recommending that all Canadians take 1,000 IU of vitamin D daily. He implied that Americans should placidly wait until more randomized controlled trials, such as Lappe JM, et al (above), accumulate before they address their vitamin D deficiency. That is, nothing should be done until more randomized controlled trials prove vitamin D prevents cancer, one randomized controlled trial is not enough; epidemiological studies are not enough, animal studies are not enough, multiple anti-cancer mechanisms of action are not enough? If that is his position, I challenge him to point to one human randomized controlled trial that proves smoking is dangerous?

If he cannot, then he must admit that the American Cancer Society's position on smoking is entirely derived from epidemiological studies, animal studies, and a demonstrable mechanism of action, not on human randomized controlled trials? Vitamin D not only has hundreds of epidemiological studies, thousand of animal studies, and at least four anti-cancer mechanisms of action, vitamin D deficiency has something smoking does not have, it has a high quality randomized controlled trial. If future randomized controlled trials fail to show vitamin D prevents cancer - and Dr. Lichtenfeld better hope they do - he can have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so." If future randomized controlled trials confirm vitamin D prevents cancer, then he needs to look at his hands, the red he sees is the blood of needless cancer deaths.

John Cannell, MD

The Vitamin D Council

9100 San Gregorio Road

Atascadero, CA 93422

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you don't want to get the newsletter, please hit reply and let us know.

Remember, we are a non-profit and rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:

The Vitamin D Council

9100 San Gregorio Road

Atascadero, CA 93422

A Heart Scan Blog reader recently posted this comment:

You wouldn't believe the trouble I'm having trying to get someone to give me a CT Heart Scan without trying to talk me into a Coronary CTA [CT angiogram]. Every facility I've talked to keeps harping on the issue that calcium scoring only shows "hard" plaque...and not soft.

I also had a nurse today tell me that 30% of the people that end up needing a coronary catheterization had calcium scores of ZERO. That doesn't sound right to me. What determines whether or not someone needs a coronary catheterization anyway?

There was a time not long ago when I saw heart scan centers as the emerging champions of heart disease detection and prevention. Heart scans, after all, provided the only rational means to directly uncover hidden coronary plaque. They also offered a method of tracking progression--or regression--of coronary plaque. No other tool can do that. Carotid ultrasound (IMT)? Indirectly and imperfectly, since it measures thickening of the carotid artery lining, partially removed from the influences that create coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Cholesterol? A miserable failure for a whole host of reasons.

Then something happened. General Electric bought the developer and manufacturer of the electron-beam tomography CT scanner, Imatron. (Initial press releases were glowing: The Future of Electron Beam Tomography Looks Better than Ever.The new eSpeed C300 electron beam tomographic scanner features the industry’s fastest temporal resolution, and is now backed by the strength of GE Medical Systems. Imatron and GE have joined forces to provide comprehensive solutions for entrepreneurs and innovative medical practitioners.)

Within short order, GE scrapped the entire company and program, despite the development of an extraordinary device, the C-300, introduced in 2001, and the eSpeed, introduced in 2003, both yanked by GE. The C-300 and eSpeed were technological marvels, providing heart scans at incredible speed with minimal radiation.

Why would GE do such a thing, buy Imatron and its patent rights, along with the fabulous new eSpeed device, then dissolve the company that developed the technology and scrap the entire package?

Well, first of all they can afford to, whether or not the device represented a technological advancement. Second (and this is my reading-between-the-lines interpretation of the events), it was in their best financial interest. Not in the interest of the public's health, nor the technology of heart scanning, but they believed that focusing on the multi-detector technology to be more financially rewarding to GE.

GE, along with Toshiba, Siemens, and Philips, saw the dollar signs of big money with the innovations in multi-detector technology (MDCT). They began to envision a broader acceptance of these devices into mainstream practice with the technological improvements in CT angiography, a device (or several) in every hospital and major clinic.

Anyway, this represents a long and winding return to the original issue: How I once believed that heart scan centers would be champions of heart disease detection and reversal. This has, unfortunately, not proven to be true.

Yes, there are heart scan centers where you can obtain a heart scan and also connect with people and physicians who believe in prevention of this disease. I believe that Milwaukee Heart Scan is that way, as is Dr. Bill Blanchet's Front Range Preventive Imaging, Dr. Roger White's Holistica Hawaii, and Dr. John Rumberger's Princeton Longevity Center.

But the truth is that most heart scan centers have evolved into places that offer heart scans, but more as grudging lip service to the concept of early detection earned with sweat and tears by the early efforts of the heart scan centers. But the more financially rewarding offering of CT coronary angiograms, while a useful service when used properly, has corrupted the prevention and reversal equation. "Entry level" CT heart scans have been subverted in the quest for profit.

CT angiograms pay better: $1800-4000, compared to $100-500 for a heart scan (usually about $250). More importantly, who can resist the detection of a "suspicious" 50% blockage that might benefit from the "real" test, a heart catheterization? Can anyone honestly allow a 50% blockage to be without a stent?

CT angiograms not only yield more revenue, they also serve as an effective prelude to "downstream" revenue. By this equation, a CT angiogram easily becomes a $40,000 hospital procedure with a stent or two, or three, or occasionally a $100,000 bypass. Keep in mind that the majority of people who are persuaded that a simple heart scans are not good enough and would be better off with the "superior" test of CT angiography are asymptomatic--without symptoms of chest pain, breathelessness, etc. Thus, the argument is that people without symptoms, usually with normal stress tests, benefit from prophylactic revascularization procedures like stents and bypass.

There are no data whatsoever to support this practice. People who have no symptoms attributable to heart disease and have normal stress tests do NOT benefit from heart procedures like heart catheterization. They do, of course, benefit from asking why they have atherosclerotic plaque in the first place, followed by a preventive program to correct the causes.

So, beware: It is the heart scan I believe in, a technique involving low radiation and low revenue potential. CT angiograms are useful tests, but often offered for the wrong reasons. If we all keep in mind that the economics of testing more often than not determine what is being told to us, then it all makes sense. If you want a simple heart scan, just say so. No--insist on it.

Take trust out of the equation. Don't trust people in health care anymore than you'd trust the used car salesman with "a great deal."

Finally, in answer to the reader's last comment about 30% of people needing heart catheterizations having zero calcium scores, this is absolute unadulterated nonsense. I'm hoping that the nurse who said this was taken out of context. Her comments are, at best, misleading. That's why I conduct this Heart Scan Blog and our website, www.cureality.com. They are your unbiased sources of information on what is true, honest, and not tainted by the smell of lots of procedural revenue.

Russ had a beer belly, a big protuberant, hanging-over-the belt-on-top-of-skinny-legs sort of beer belly. Except he didn't get it from beer (only). Yes, he did drink beer, up to 3 or 4 per day on weekends, rarely during the week.

Russ got his "beer belly" from snack foods, processed foods, and yes, wheat products.

He came to my office for consultation for unexplained breathlessness. His primary care physician was stumped and asked for an opinion.

So, part of Russ' evaluation included laboratory work. Russ proved to have a blood sugar (glucose) of 136 mg/dl, well into the diabetic range. His insulin level was 102 microunits/ml, way above the desirable range of <10. I interpreted this to mean that Russ had early diabetes but still maintained vigorous pancreatic function, since the pancreas is the abdominal organ responsible for insulin production. In pre-diabetes and early diabetes, insulin levels can be high, reflecting the revved up output of the pancreas. However, the pancreas eventually "burns out," unable to keep up with the demand to product enormous quantities of insulin. That's when blood sugar skyrockets.

Along with the blood sugar and insulin, Russ showed all the expected markers of this syndrome (the "metabolic syndrome"): low HDL of 34 mg/dl, high triglycerides of 257 mg/dl, severe small LDL (80% of total LDL), high c-reactive protein, and high blood pressure.

A heart scan showed a surprisingly small amount of coronary plaque with a score of only 4. Thus, Russ' symptoms were unlikely to represent a coronary issue ("ischemia"). Breathlessness was far more likely to be from 1) his obesity and protuberant abdomen, large enough to encroach on his chest and lung volume, and 2) high blood pressure (which can, in turn, lead to high heart pressure and breathlessness, often called "left ventricular diastolic dysfunction").

I persuaded Russ to eliminate his previously flagrant and abundant over-reliance on wheat products and snack foods. Two months later, 15 lbs lighter, and a modestly less protuberant beer belly, Russ' laboratory evealuation showed:

--Blood sugar 90 mg/dl--normal.

--Insulin 12 microunit/ml--darn near normal.

Blood pressure was down 20 points. Russ' breathlessness was now entirely gone. He has another 30-40 lbs to go, but he's off to a great start. He is now clearly, solidly, and confidently NON-diabetic.

I see experiences like this every day, as do committed diabetes fighters like Jenny at Diabetes Update.

Why isn't this common practice? If pre-diabetes and diabetes can be cured by such a simple approach, why isn't it more widely embraced? After all, what other devastating diseases can claim to have such a simple, straightforward way to achieve cure?

And why does the American Diabetes Association (ADA) actually condone the inclusion of abundant carbohydrates in diabetics? Their modified food pyramid shows the widest part of the pyramid filled with "breads, grains, and other starches."

How about this question taken from a Q&A on the ADA website:

Can I eat foods with sugar in them?

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

The answer is simple. Just as the American Heart Association focuses on ways to deliver the message of palliation, so does the ADA. So ADA diet advice is designed to help diabetics maintain a stable blood sugar on their medication. It is definitely not intended to reverse or eliminate diabetes. My patient Russ would be deep into diabetes on the ADA diet, enjoying his rolls, whole wheat bread, breakfast cereals, and birthday cake.

Once again, another example of the growing irrelevance of the "official" arbiters of health information for those of us looking for reversal of disease.

I'd like to start an occasional series of blog posts on The Heart Scan Blog in which I review studies relevant to the whole heart scan score reversal experience.

In a previous post, Don't be satisfied with "deceleration,"I discussed the BELLES Trial (Beyond Endorsed Lipid Lowering with EBT Scanning (BELLES)), in which either atorvastatin (Lipitor), 80 mg, or pravastatin (Pravachol),40 mg, was given to 615 women. Both groups showed an average of 15% annual plaque growth, regardless of which agent was taken and regardless of the amount of LDL cholesterol reduction.

I cited another study in which 471 participants received either Lipitor, 80 mg, or Lipitor, 10 mg. The rate of annual score increase was 25-27%, regardless of drug dose or LDL lowering.

Here's yet another study, a small German experience in 66 patients, with a curious design and using the now-defunct statin drug, cerivastatin (Bayccol, pulled in 2001, nearly simultaneous with the publication of this study, due to greater risk of muscle damage, particularly when used in combination with gemfibrozil). Achenbach et al in Influence of lipid-lowering therapy on the progression of coronary artery calcification: A prospective evaluation reported on this trial in which all participants underwent heart scanning to obtain a heart scan score; no treatment was initiated based on the score. A second scan was obtained after the no treatment period, followed by treatment with cerivastatin, 0.3 mg per day. A third scan was finally obtained.

In year one without treatment, the average increase in heart scan scores was 25%. In year two with cerivastatin, the average increase in heart scan score was 8.8%. In 32 participants who achieved LDL<100 mg/dl on the drug, there was an average modest reduction in heart scan scores of 3.7% (i.e., -3.7%).

Now, that was eye-opening. Why did this small study achieve such startlingly different results from the other two studies that showed relentless progression despite even high doses of Lipitor? That remains unanswered. Was cerivastatin unique among statins? Did the unique two-phase trial design somehow change the outcome by triggering participants to change lifestyle habits after their first scan (since most exhibited an increase in score; they were not "blinded" to their scores). Those questions will remain unanswered, since the drug has been made unavailable. This smal l study had actually been intended to be larger, but was prematurely terminated because of cerivastatin's withdrawal.

This experience is unique, as you can see, compared to the two other studies. But it was also smaller. The results are also different than what I have seen in day-to-day practice when I've seen people treated with statin drugs alone (not cerivastatin, of course): rarely do heart scan scores stop increasing. While slowing does usually occur (18-24% per year rates of annual score increase are very common in people who do nothing but take a statin drug and make modest lifestyle changes), I have personally seen only two people stop their score with this strategy alone. Nobody has ever dropped their score taking a statin alone, in my experience.

You can also see the nature of clinical studies: single or limited interventions instituted in order to control for unexpected or complex effects. If three different treatments are used, then what desirable or undesirable effects, or lack of an effect, is due to which treatment agent?

My experience is that no single treatment stops or reduces heart scan scores. It requires a more rational effort that includes 1) identification of all causes of coronary plaque (e.g., low HDL, high triglycerides, Lp(a), small LDL, deficiency of vitamin D, etc, none of which are substantially affected by statin drugs), and 2) correction of all causes. That simple concept has served us well.

Apo E4 and sterols: Lethal combination?

Glucomania

Diarrhea, runny noses, and rage: Poll results

A carpenter is only as good as his tools

The perfect Frankengrain

Diabetes: A study in aging

Fish oil: The natural triglyceride form is better

Bioavailability of marine n-3 fatty acid formulations.

Abstract

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

Abstract

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

Marathoners, triathletes, and heart disease

The best fish oil

Niacin vs. low-carb weight loss

Explosive plaque growth

Dr. Cannell on "How much vitamin D?"

End-stage vitamin D deficiency

"Instant" reversal with fasting?

Study review: yet another Lipitor study

Dr. Cannell on vitamin D and cancer

"Yes, Johnnie, there really is an Easter bunny"

Diabetes: controlled or . . . cured?

Study review: cerivastatin