Another in a series of data extrapolations that attempt to predict long-term cancer risk from medical radiation exposure was published in the July 13, 2009 Archives of Internal Medicine, viewable here.

Over the years, I've fussed about the radiation dose used by some centers for CT heart scans. (Note: I'm talking about CT heart scans, not CT coronary angiograms, an entirely different test with different radiation exposure.) In the "old" days, when electron-beam devices (EBT) were the best on the block, the old single-slice CT scanners (the predecessor of the current 64-slice MDCT scanners) exposed patients to ungodly quantities of radiation, while the EBT devices required very small quantities (0.5 mSv or about the equivalent of 4 standard chest x-rays or one mammogram).

But CT technology has advanced considerably. While EBT has been phased out (although it was an exceptional technology, GE acquired the small California manufacturer, then promptly scrapped the operation; you can guess why), multi-detector CT (MDCT) technology has improved in speed, image quality, and radiation exposure.

While it has improved, radiation exposure still remains an issue. The authors of the study applied the scanning protocols used at three hospitals and those in several CT heart scan studies, then calculated radiation exposure. They found a more than ten-fold range of exposure, from 0.8 mSv to 10.5 mSv. (All scanners were MDCT, none EBT.)

That's precisely what I've been worrying about: In the rapid rush to develop new devices, radiation exposure has often been a neglected issue. While some scan centers do an excellent job and take steps to minimize exposure, others barely lift a finger and consequently expose their patients to unnecessary radiation.

However, it's not as bad as it sounds. For one, the study included 16-slice MDCT scanners, a scanner type that I warned people to not use because of radiation. On the current most popular 64-slice devices, much lower radiation exposure is possible, on the order of 0.8-1.2 mSv routinely--if the center takes the effort.

This study, while eye-opening, will achieve some good: CT heart scans are here to stay. But the day-to-day practice of heart scanning should be:

1) standardized
2) conducted with radiation exposure as low as possible, preferably <0.8 mSv

To read more about this issue, below I've reprinted a 2007 full Track Your Plaque Special Report, CT Heart Scans and Radiation: The Real Story.

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

“My personal opinion is that many patients today who are receiving multiple CT scans may well be getting at least comparable doses to subjects that have now developed malignancies from x-ray radiation received in the 1930s and '40s. And, similar to those days when the doses were unknown, the dose that patients receive today over a course of years of multiple CT scans is also completely unknown . . .

“I recommend that all healthcare providers become familiar with the concept that 1 in 1000 CT studies of the chest, abdomen, or pelvis may result in cancer.”

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

Is this just hype to generate headlines? Or is the truth buried in the enormous marketing clout of the medical device industry, among which the imaging device manufacturers reign supreme?

It’s been over 110 years since radiation was first used for medical imaging. Over those years, it has had its share of misadventures.

In the 1930s and 1940s, before the dangers of radiation were recognized, shoe shoppers had shoes fitted using an x-ray device of the foot to assess fit. High doses of radiation were used to shrink enlarged tonsils and extinguish overactive thyroid glands. Attitudes towards radiation were so lax that doctors commonly permitted themselves to be exposed without protection day after day, year after year, until an unexpected rise in blood cancers like leukemia was observed. As recently as the 1970s and 1980s, cancers like Hodgkins’ disease were treated with high doses of radiation, also leading to radiation-induced diseases decades later.

Not all radiation is bad. Radiation can also be used as a therapeutic tool and even today remains a useful and reasonably effective method to reduce the size, sometimes eliminate, certain types of cancer. Forty percent of people with cancer now receive some form of radiation as part of their treatment (Ron E 2003).

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

Estimates vary, but most experts estimate that medical imaging provides approximately 15% of total lifetime exposure. In other words, radiation exposure from medical imaging is simply a small portion of total exposure that develops over the years of life. Exposure can be much higher, however, in a specific individual who undergoes repeated radiation imaging or treatment of one sort or another.

For all of us, exposure to medical radiation is part of lifetime exposure from multiple sources, added to the radiation we receive from the world around us. Just by living on earth, we are exposed to radiation from space and naturally-occurring radioactive compounds, and receive somewhere around 3.0 mSv per year (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). (Doses for radiation exposure are commonly expressed in milliSieverts, mSv, a measure that reflects whole-body radiation exposure.) People living in high-altitude locales like Colorado get exposed to an additional 30–50% ambient radiation (1.0–1.5 mSv more per year).

Much of the information on radiation exposure comes from studies like the Life Span Study that, since 1961, has tracked 120,000 Japanese exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs dropped in 1945 (Preston DL et al 2003). Although regarded as a high-dose exposure study for obvious reasons, there are actually thousands of people in this study who were exposed to lesser quantities of radiation (because of distance from the bomb sites) who still display a “dose-response” increased risk for cancer many years later in life. Radiation exposures of as little as 5–20 mSv showed a slight increase in lifetime risk.

Occupational and excessive medical exposure to radiation also provides a “laboratory” to examine radiation risk. Miners exposed to radon gas; patients exposed to the imaging agent, Thorotrast, containing radioactive isotope thorium dioxide and used as an x-ray contrast agent in the 1930s and 1940s and possesses the curious property of lingering in the body for over 30 years after administration; radium injections administered between 1945 and 1955 to treat diseases like ankylosing spondylitis and tuberculosis, all provide researchers an opportunity to study the long-term effects of various types of radiation exposure over many years (Harrison JD et al 2003).

The excess exposure of workers and several hundred thousand nearby residents to the Mayak nuclear plant in Russia has also revealed a “dose-response” relationship, with increasing exposure leading to more cancers, including leukemia and solid cancers of the bone, liver, and lung (Shilnikova NS et al 2003). Nuclear waste released into the Techa river between 1948 and 1956 contaminated drinking water used by over 100,000 Russians. A plant explosion in 1957 also released an excess of radiation into the atmosphere, yielding exposure via inhalation. Some sources estimate that at least 272,000 people have been affected by radiation from the Mayak plant. This unfortunate situation has, however, yielded plenty of data on radiation exposure and its long-term effects.

It’s also been known for several decades that people who receive therapeutic radiation for treatment of cancer, even with the reduced doses now employed, are subject to increased risk of a second cancer consequent to the radiation treatment.

From experiences like this, radiation experts estimate that an exposure of 10 mSv increases a population’s risk for cancer by 1 in 1000 (Semelka RC et al 2007).

This question was recently thrust into the spotlight with publication of a study from Columbia University in New York suggesting that a 20-year old woman would be exposed to a lifetime risk of cancer as high as 1 in 143 consequent to the radiation received during a CT coronary angiogram. (Important note: This was estimated risk from a CT coronary angiogram, not a simple heart scan that we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program.) The risk at the low end of the spectrum would be in an 80-year old man (because of the shorter period of time to develop cancer), with a risk of 1 in 5017. If “gating” to the EKG is added (which many scan centers do indeed perform nowadays), risk for a 60-year old woman is estimated at 1 in 715; risk for a 60-year old male, 1 in 1911 (Einstein AJ et al 2007). This study generated some criticism, since it did not directly involve human subjects, but used “phantoms” or x-ray dummies to simulate x-ray exposure. Nonetheless, the point was made: CT coronary angiograms in current practice do indeed expose the patient to substantial quantities of radiation, sufficient to pose a lifetime risk of cancer.

The media frenzy

The NY Times ran an article called With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests in which they stated:

"According to a new study, the per-capita dose of ionizing radiation from clinical imaging exams in the United States increased almost 600 percent from 1980 to 2006. In the past, natural background radiation was the leading source of human exposure; that has been displaced by diagnostic imaging procedures, the authors said."

“This is an absolutely sentinel event, a wake-up call,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., principal investigator for the study, by the National Council on Radiation Protection. “Medical exposure now dwarfs that of all other sources.”

Radiation is a widely used imaging tool in medicine. Although CT scans of the brain, bones, chest, abdomen, and pelvis account for only 5% of all medical radiation procedures, they are responsible for nearly 50% of medical radiation used. It’s been known for years that increasing radiation exposure increases cancer risk over many years, but the boom of newer, faster devices that provide more detailed images has opened the floodgates to expanded use of CT scanners.

But before we join in the hysteria, let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

Head CT 1 – 2 mSv
Pelvis CT 3 – 4 mSv
Chest CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen/pelvis CT 8 – 11 mSv
Coronary CT angiography 5 – 12 mSv

Non-CT

Hand radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Chest radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Mammogram 0.3 – 0.6 mSv
Barium enema exam 3 – 6 mSv
Coronary angiogram 5 – 10 mSv
Sestamibi myocardial perfusion (per injection) 6 – 9 mSv
Thallium myocardial perfusion (per injection) 26 – 35 mSv

Source: Cynthia H. McCullough, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

A plain, everyday chest x-ray, providing less than 0.1 mSv exposure, provides about the same quantity of radiation exposure as flying in an airplane for four hours, or the same amount of radiation from exposure to our surroundings for 11–12 days. Similar exposure arises from dental x-rays.

If you have a heart scan on an EBT device, then your exposure is 0.5-0.6 mSv, roughly the same as a mammogram or several standard chest x-rays.

With a heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, exposure is ideally around 1.0-2.0 mSv, about the same as 2-3 mammograms, though dose can vary with this technology depending on how it is performed (gated to the EKG, device settings, etc.)

CT coronary angiography presents a different story. This is where radiation really escalates and puts the radiation exposure issue in the spotlight. As Dr. Cynthia McCullough's chart shows above, the radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms is 5-12 mSv, the equivalent of 100 or more chest x-rays or 20 mammograms. Now, that's a problem.

The exposure is about the same for a pelvic or abdominal CT. The problem is that some centers are using CT coronary angiograms as screening procedures and even advocating their use annually. This is where the alarm needs to be sounded. These tests, as wonderful as the information and image quality can be, are not screening tests. Just like a pelvic CT, they are diagnostic tests done for legitimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

It’s also worth giving second thought to any full body scan you might be considering. These screening studies include scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. These scans, performed for screening, expose the recipient to approximately 10 mSv of radiation (Radiological Society of North American, 2007). Debate continues on whether the radiation exposure is justified, given the generally asymptomatic people who generally undergo these tests.

Always be mindful of your radiation exposure, as the NY Times article rightly advises. However, don't be so frightened that you are kept from obtaining truly useful information from, for instance, a CT heart scan (not angiography) at a modest radiation cost.

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

Unfortunately, practicing physicians and those involved in providing CT scans are generally unconcerned with radiation exposure. The majority, in fact, are entirely unaware of the dose of radiation required for most CT scan studies and unaware of the cancer risk involved. It is therefore up to the individual to insist on a discussion of the type of scanner being used, the radiation dose delivered (at least in general terms), the necessity of the test, alternative methods to obtain the same diagnostic information, all in the context of lifetime radiation exposure.

Our concerns about radiation exposure all boil down to concern over lifetime risk for cancer, a disease that strikes approximately 20% of all Americans. Many factors contribute to cancer risk, including obesity, excessive saturated fat intake, low fiber intake, lack of vitamin D, repeated sunburns, excessive alcohol use, smoking, exposure to pesticides and other organochemicals, asbestos and other industrial exposures, electromagnetic wave exposure, and genetics. Radiation is just one source of risk, though to some degree a controllable one.

Some people, on hearing this somewhat disturbing discussion, refuse to ever have another medical test requiring radiation. That’s the wrong attitude. It makes no more sense than wearing lead shielding on your body 24 hours a day to reduce exposure from the atmosphere. Taken in the larger context of life, radiation exposure is just one item on a list of potentially harmful factors.

It is, however, worth some effort to minimize radiation exposure over your lifetime, particularly before age 60, and by submitting to high-dose testing only when truly necessary, or when the potential benefits outweigh the risks. Thus, with heart scans and CT coronary angiography, some thought to the potential benefits of knowing your score or the information gained from the CT angiogram need to be considered before undergoing the test. Often the practical difficulty, of course, is that your risk for heart disease simply cannot be known until after the test.

In our view, in the vast majority of instances a simple CT heart scan can serve the simple but crucial role of quantifying risk for heart attack and atherosclerotic plaque. CT heart scans yield this information with less than a tenth of the radiation exposure of a CT coronary angiogram. In people without symptoms and a normal stress test, there is rarely a need for CT coronary angiography with present day levels of radiation exposure. Perhaps as technology advances and the radiation required to generate images is reduced, then we should reconsider.

Early experiences are suggesting that the newest 256-slice scanners, now being developed but not yet available, will cut the dose exposure of 64-slice CT angiograms in half (from 27.8 mSv to 14.1 mSv in a recent Japanese study). The 256-slice scanners will allow scanning that is faster over a larger area in a given period of time.

Thankfully, the scanner manufacturers are increasingly sensitive to the radiation issue and have been working on methods to reduce radiation exposure. However, it still remains substantial.

References:
Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007 Jul 18;298(3):317–323.

Harrison JD, Muirhead CR. Quantitative comparisons of cancer induction in humans by internally deposited radionuclides and external radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 2003 Jan;79(1):1–13.

Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzyky M et al. Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. Circulation 2006;113:1305–1310.

Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard J, Saini S. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619–628.

Mayo JR, Aldrich J, Müller NL. Radiation exposure at chest CT: A statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2003; 228:15–21.

Mori S, Nishizawa K, Kondo C, Ohno M, Akahane K, Endo M. Effective doses in subjects undergoing computed tomography cardiac imaging with the 256-multislice CT scanner. Eur J Radiol 2007 Jul 10; [Epub ahead of print].

Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Ron E, Mabuchi K. Dose response and temporal patterns of radiation-associated solid cancer risks. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):43–46.

Ron E. Cancer risks from medical radiation. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):47–59.

Shilnikova NS, Preston DL, Ron E et al. Cancer mortality risk among workers at the Mayak nuclear complex. Radiation Res 2003 Jun;159(6):787–798.

Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, Huda W. Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007 May;25(5):900–9090.

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

Even if you’re not interested in building big muscles like a bodybuilder, there are health benefits to increasing muscle mass: increased bone density, better balance, and fewer injuries. Greater muscle mass means higher metabolic rate, improved insulin responsiveness, lower blood sugar. The inevitable loss of muscle mass of aging can lead to frailty, an increasingly common situation for the elderly. Muscle loss be reversed, health improved as a result.

Since its introduction in 1994, creatine has exploded in popularity, particularly among bodybuilders and athletes interested in gaining muscle mass and strength. But creatine is not just for young weight lifters. If you are just interested in increasing muscle mass for its health benefits, then creatine is something to consider.

A study of creatine supplementation in men, average age 70 years, demonstrated that, when creatine was combined with strength training, it increased muscle mass 250% better than placebo (7.26 lb muscle vs 2.86 lb muscle), along with improved leg strength and endurance. The same group also demonstrated 3.2% increased bone density (measured using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) after 12 weeks in participants taking creatine with strength training, while the control (no strength training, no creatine) group decreased by 1.0%.

Benefits are not confined to men. Similar results were observed in another study that included women (age 65 and older), with outcomes in females comparable to males. This is especially important for females, given the common development of osteopenia and osteoporosis in postmenopausal females.

Other studies have shown that benefits are maintained after stopping creatine supplementation.

The most popular form of creatine is the monohydrate, generally taken as a “loading” phase of 15-20 grams per day (generally split into 3-4 doses of 5 grams) for 5-7 days, followed by weeks to months of 2-5 grams per day.

An alternative form, polyethylene glycosylated creatine (PEG-creatine) provides similar effects at one-fourth to one-half the dose of creatine, i.e., 1.25-2.5 grams per day.

Despite previous concerns about kidney toxicity with prolonged use, another study showed that athletes taking creatine for up to 21 months have shown no adverse effects on kidney fu All posts by william-davis

What's for breakfast?

16. março 2008 William Davis (106)

Breakfast, for some reason, seems to be the toughest meal of the day for many people.

I think it's because the quest for sweet has dominated the American breakfast for so long, with its half-century legacy of cartoon character-festooned breakfast cereals; baked flour products like pancakes, waffles, and English muffins; more recently, "healthy" alternatives like bran muffins and oat waffles.

This breakfast lifestyle has also contributed to the obesity and diabetes ("diabesity") epidemic. Breakfasts of wheat- or corn-based cereals, even those labeled "heart healthy," fruit, and whole grain breads are guaranteed paths to low HDL cholesterol, high triglycerides, flagrant small LDL, increased inflammatory responses, high blood pressure, and higher blood sugar. Such foods also make you tired, make your abdominal fat grow (wheat belly), and increase appetite so that you want more.

So what can you eat for breakfast that doesn't provoke these patterns?

I will never pretend to be terribly clever in creating meal menus, but I can tell you what has worked for me and many of my patients. Be warned: It may require you to suspend your previous notions of what "should" be included in a list of breakfast foods.

Here are some examples that you may find helpful:

--Raw nuts--one or several handfuls of raw almonds, walnuts, pecans, pistachios
--Cheeses--the real, traditional sorts like gouda, goat, Swiss, edam, etc. (not Velveeta, Cheez Whiz, etc.)
--Eggs, Egg Beaters--and "spice" them up with sun-dried tomatoes, salsa, olives, tapenades, olive oil, onions, green peppers, etc.
--Yogurt (real, of course), cottage cheese
--Ground flaxseed, oat bran--as hot cereals or added to yogurt, cottage, or other foods. Esp. helpful for reducing both total LDL and the proportion of small LDL.
--Oatmeal--slow-cooked, not the instant nonsense.
--Soups--great for winter.
--Dinner foods--chicken, beef, fish, green beans, asparagus, tomatoes, etc., most easily added by saving left-overs from dinner. You'll be surprised how filling dinner foods eaten at breakfast can be.

It's really not that tough. It just means selecting from an entirely different list of foods than you might be accustomed to.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

The first lawsuit?

16. março 2008 William Davis (1)

The closing arguments in actor John Ritter's wrongful death lawsuit are over and the two doctors charged with negligence cleared, five years after his death from a dissection (tear of the inner lining) of the thoracic aorta. The family sought $67 million in damages, claiming that the aortic dissection was misdiagnosed as a heart attack and that the enlarged aorta should have been reported to Mr. Ritter two years earlier during a full body scan.

The AP story can be viewed at http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmv6HnJJPBee2gWgEYResT5m6YkAD8VDF9CO0

Well, perhaps this is the start of a trend. Up until now, it has been commonplace for doctors to ignore many of the important findings on heart scans, full body scans, and similar direct-to-the-public imaging services. For instance, similar to John Ritter's case, enlarged thoracic aortas are commonly ignored. I'd even say that as a rule they are ignored. I have seen many patients in consultation who have had large aortas identified on heart scans, yet nothing--not a thing--was done about it. While the doctors escaped a lawsuit this time, it might not happen a second time.

I truly hope that Mr. Ritter's unfortunate experience and the consequent lawsuit do not trigger the usual defensive medicine response of resorting to major procedural "solutions."

A better response would be to 1) identify the problem--enlarged aorta in this case, 2) identify the causes, then 3) correct the causes. It does not necessarily mean that a major procedure like replacing the aorta (a horrendous surgery, by the way) needs to be pursued each and every time.

It is possible that Mr. Ritter's lawsuit is just the first. Over the next several years, it could trigger an avalanche of lawsuits for all the neglected findings on tests like heart scans, body scans, and other imaging methods that are gaining expanded direct-to-consumer access.

Images courtesy Wikipedia.

The origins of heart catheterization: Part II

13. março 2008 William Davis (0)

On the afternoon of October 30th, 1958, nearly 30 years after Werner Forssmann’s fumbling attempts, Dr. Mason Sones, a 5 foot 5 inch, plain-talking, cuss-every-few-words, cigarette-wielding radiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, was performing a routine angiogram of a patient’s aorta (the large vessel emerging from the heart) in a dark basement laboratory. (In Sones’ day, imaging methods remained primitive, disease diagnosis relying more than anything else on the physician’s powers of observation and crude diagnostic procedures. Abdominal pain was assessed with exploratory laparotomy, headaches with air injected into the brain and nervous system (“pneumoencephalography”), an excruciatingly painful ordeal. Being able to track the course of x-ray dye injected into specific internal organs, whether liver, biliary tree, aorta, lungs, or coronary arteries, represented a huge advance in diagnostic tools for human disease.)

In 1958, no one had yet injected dye directly into the coronary artery of a living human.

Just as the dye injector was triggered, Dr. Sones’ eyes widened in horror when the black and white monitor showed that the catheter had inadvertently jumped into the right coronary artery. The injection pump, already triggered to release its load, proceeded to pump 30 cc of X-ray dye straight into the artery. (Modern techniques usually require only 5–10 cc of dye.) Dr. Sones recounts the incident:

“It was late in the day and we were tired. I hit the switch to rev up the x-ray generator so I could see. As the picture came on, I could see that the damn catheter was in the guy’s right coronary artery. And there I was, down in the hole [a recess to shield him from radiation]. I yelled, “Pull it out! Pull it out!”*? By that time, about 30 cc of the dye had gone into the coronary artery. I climbed out of the hole and I grabbed a knife. I thought that his heart would fibrillate and I would have to open his chest and shock his heart. [In Sones’ day, modern CPR hadn’t yet been developed as a method of resuscitation.] But he didn’t fibrillate—his heart stopped. I demanded he cough. He coughed three times and his heart began to beat again. I knew at once that if the heart could tolerate 30 cc of dye, we would be able to safely inject small amounts directly into the coronary artery. I knew that night that we would have a tool to define the anatomic nature of coronary disease.”

*An observer, Dr. Julio Sosa, reported that Dr. Sones, in his shock, also blurted, “We’ve killed him!” After all, conventional wisdom of that era, based on observations from dye injections into the coronary arteries of dogs, was that injecting x-ray dye into human coronary arteries would result in immediate death from the electrical imbalance provoked in heart muscle momentarily deprived of oxygen-carrying blood.

Thus it was established that it was indeed possible to directly inject x-ray dye into human coronary arteries and reveal its internal contours. That’s not to say that the x-ray dyes of 1958 were innocuous. Far from it. In addition to briefly interrupting heart rhythm, as happened with Sones’ first accidental attempt, the dyes used then typically caused dizziness and the sudden urge to vomit. During the first 30 years of direct coronary catheterizations, it was common for hospital staff to run to the patient’s side, bucket in hand to catch the inevitable vomit, once the heart was jump-started by coughing.

Not surprisingly, Dr. Sones’ discovery set off both an avalanche of criticism and bold predictions of how the new technique might change the course of diagnosis in heart disease.

Over the subsequent weeks and months, Dr. Sones proceeded to purposefully insert catheters into coronary arteries and create angiograms that revealed the extent of coronary atherosclerosis. He learned how to fashion new catheter shapes to facilitate access to the arteries. Sones developed an impressive experience in the new technique. For the first time, clear images of the coronary arteries were routinely obtainable for the confident diagnosis of coronary atherosclerosis before death. Dr. Sones became an unlikely celebrity in Cleveland, entertaining physicians from around the world eager to learn about his methods, politicians and celebrities, even Middle Eastern nobility complete with bodyguards and food testers.

Dr. Sones continued to work in Cleveland, furthering the techniques of heart catheterization after his fortuitous error. He died of lung cancer in 1985, 17 years after his discovery.

Thus was born the modern age of heart catheterization.

Today, over 10,000 heart procedures are performed in the U.S. every day, 365 days a year, the vast majority of which involve heart catheterization or begin with a heart catheterization. Dr. Sones' fortuitous blunder was followed by 30 years of productive refinement and development before the blatant excesses of this technique really began to be exploited.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

The origins of heart catheterization: Part I

12. março 2008 William Davis (2)

The modern era of heart disease care was born from an accident, quirky personalities, and even a little daring.

The notion of heart catheterization to visualize the human heart began rather ignominiously in 1929 at the Auguste-Viktoria Hospital in Eberswalde, Germany, a technological backwater of the day. Inspired by descriptions of a French physician who inserted a tube into the jugular vein of a horse and felt transmitted heart impulses outside the body, Dr. Werner Forssmann, an eager 25-year old physician-in-training, was intent on proving that access to the human heart could be safely gained through a surface blood vessel. No one knew if passing a catheter into the human heart would be safe, or whether it would become tangled in the heart’s chambers and cause it to stop beating. On voicing his intentions, Forssmann was ordered by superiors not to proceed. But he was determined to settle the question, especially since his ambitions captured the interest of nurse Gerda Ditzen, who willingly even offered to become the first human subject of his little experiment.

Secretly gathering the necessary supplies, he made his first attempt in private. After applying a local anesthetic, he used a scalpel to make an incision in his left elbow. He then inserted a hollow tube, a catheter intended for the bladder, into the vein exposed under the skin. After passing the catheter 14 inches into his arm, however, he experienced cold feet and pulled it out.

One week later, Forssman regained his resolve and repeated the process. Nurse Ditzen begged to be the subject, but Forssmann, in order to allow himself to be the first subject, tricked her into being strapped down and proceeded to work on himself while she helplessly watched. After stanching the oozing blood from the wound, he threaded the catheter slowly and painfully into the cephalic vein, up through the bicep, past the shoulder and subclavian vein, then down towards the heart. He knew that simply nudging the rubber catheter forward would be sufficient to direct it to the heart, since all veins of the body lead there. With the catheter buried 25 inches into his body, Forssmann untied the fuming Ditzen. Both then ran to the hospital’s basement x-ray department and injected x-ray dye into the catheter, yielding an image of the right side of his heart, the first made in a living human.

Thus, the very first catheterization of the heart was performed.

An x-ray image was made to document the accomplishment. Upon hearing of the experiment, Forssmann was promptly fired by superiors for his brazen act of self-experimentation. Deflated, Forssmann abandoned his experimentation and went on to practice urology. He became a member of the Nazi party in World War II Germany and served in the German army. Though condemned as crazy by some, physicians in Europe and the U.S., after hearing of his experience, furthered the effort and continued to explore the potential of the technique. Forssmann himself was never invited to speak of his experiences outside of Germany, as he had been labeled a Nazi.

Many years after his furtive experiments, the once intrepid Dr. Forssmann was living a quiet life practicing small town medicine. He received an unexpected phone call informing him that he was one of three physicians chosen to receive the 1956 Nobel Prize for Medicine for his pioneering work performing the world’s first heart catheterization, along with Drs. André Cournand and Dickinson W. Richards, both of whom had furthered Forssmann’s early work. Forssmann remarked to a reporter that he felt like a village pastor who was made a cardinal.

Strange, but true.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Conventional therapy vs. alternative therapy

11. março 2008 William Davis (5)

Rose is a 75-year old woman, mother of four, grandmother of many more.

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

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

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

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

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

Initial laboratory results:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

The JELIS Trial

9. março 2008 William Davis (5)

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

This enormous trial followed a simple design:

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

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

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

There are several features that make the JELIS trial interesting:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Omega-3 MUST be from fish oil

7. março 2008 William Davis (14)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Osteoporosis and coronary calcium

4. março 2008 William Davis (9)

Several studies over the years have demonstrated a curious paradox:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Lack of ) Quality of nutritional supplements

16. May 2007 William Davis (0)

In my last post, I blogged about how we must not confuse marketing with truth. They are often two different things.

A patient I saw today was absolutely convinced that his fish oil was the best available in the world: purer, uncontaminated by mercury or pesticides--"not like that other crap on the shelves." I asked him how he knew this. "They say so," he proudly declared.

Do you recognize this? He fell for the marketing. While there may be some truth in the manufacturer's claims, you can't believe it from the mouth of the manufacturer. True judgements about quality and purity have to come from an independent source like Consumer Reports, Consumer Lab, or the FDA.

But the FDA doesn't regulate the quality and purity of nutritional supplements. On the positive side, this has allowed supplement manufacturers to keep costs down, not having to navigate arcane and complex regulatory restrictions.

On the negative side, a fair number of supplement manufacturers get away with 1) producing supplements that fail to contain the stated amounts of ingredients, occasionally containing none of the essential ingredient(s), 2) contain contaminants like lead, and 3) make extravagant and often unfounded claims like "superior", "more effective", and "purer". (DHEA, for instance, is a particular landmine of poor quality. I recently suggested that a patient take DHEA; despite consistently taking 50 mg of a specific brand for several months, the blood level of DHEA-S didn't budge one bit--there was likely little or none in the capsule.)

The Fanatic Cook at http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com has posted some very insightful discussions on this issue and the proposed FDA regulations of supplements. They're worth perusing.

I really wish regulation weren't necessary and that the industry could have policed itself. But it clearly has failed and perhaps federal oversight is not such a bad thing, as long as the FDA regulations restrict themselves to oversight over quality and purity and not to efficacy. It's the efficacy regulation that could hogtie innovation in supplement development.

Marketing and truth are not the same

15. May 2007 William Davis (0)

I often remind people: Don't confuse marketing with the truth.

Today, I spent a total of probably an hour and a half dissuading patients that some crazed piece of marketing trying to sell them something was not the same as truth.

I spent approximately 40 minutes alone with a woman who was absolutely convinced that:

--Nattokinase would cure her of all heart disease. It does not. Despite the promising health benefits of natto and vitamin K2 supplementation, nattokinase is a scam with no basis in science nor logic.

--Niacin destroys your liver and homeopathic remedies are superior. Quite simply, homeopathy = quackery. No rational thinking scientist endorses the utter nonsense practiced in this strange and outrageous set of practices that requires you to suspend all reason.

--Sufficient vitamin D is obtainable through a "potent" multivitamin. I know of no multivitamin preparation that even begins to provide the dose of vitamin D that is actually required by adults, nor is it absorbed since these D preparations are powder based.

--Fish oil will poison you with mercury. Accordingly, one brand of fish oil claims to be the only safe form. Those of you following these posts, or the reports of the USDA and FDA, as well as the reports of Consumer Reports and Consumer Lab (www.consumerlab.com) know that, unlike fish itself, there is no mercury in fish oil capsules.

--All coronary atherosclerotic heart disease is caused by heavy metal poisoning. Thus chelation with EDTA represents a cure for heart disease.

People are inundated with marketing that promise extravagant cures, remove need for any medication, make you smarter, sexier, thinner, and on and on.

If you see a TV ad for Ford that says they make the best cars in the U.S., do you immediately run out and put a For Sale sign on your GM car and buy a Ford? No, of course not. You recognize the ad for what it is: marketing. It may be true, but a TV commercial is not enough to convince you.

Then why would an ad promising extraordinary cures for cancer or heart disease convince you that this is true? It should not. Marketing ads should only serve to alert you to the possibility of value or benefit, but should never-- never--stand alone as proof. Take marketing for what it is: marketing of a product or service, not a scientific report, not a factual report, not news.

Marketing is advertising. Period.

More on erectile dysfunction

13. May 2007 William Davis (8)

Several facts on erectile dysfunction and coronary plaque:

If you have erectile dysfunction, there's at least a 50% chance you also have coronary plaque.

If you have coronary plaque by a CT heart scan, there's a 50% chance you have erectile dysfunction.

If you have symptomatic coronary disease (chest pains, breathlessness, prior heart attack), there's a 90% chance you also have erectile dysfunction.

Coronary disease is characterized by a dysfunctional state of the "endothelium", or inner lining of the coronary arteries. Erectile dysfunction is characterized by dysfunction of the endothelium of the penile circulation. Same phenomenon, different territories. (There are other differences, of course, but the two conditions share this fundamental phenomenon.)

If you have any doubts about the physiologic effects of the supplement, l-arginine, just give it a try if you have erectile dysfunction. The erection enhancing effects alone should convince you that a genuine artery-dilating effect is exerted by this very powerful nutritional supplement.

If l-arginine fails by itself to restore full erectile capacity, there are additional strategies, both nutritional and medical, that you can consider.

Our newest Track Your Plaque Special Report on erectile dysfunction is coming out any day now.

High LDL cholesterol--only

11. May 2007 William Davis (3)

As a sequel to my last post, just how often can we blame an isolated high LDL cholesterol as the cause of coronary plaque and a heart scan score?

In other words, how often does someone prove to have only LDL cholesterol as the cause of a heart scan score . . . and nothing else? No low HDL, small LDL, lipoprotein(a), a post-prandial (after-eating) intermediate-density lipoprotein, inflammatory responses, phospholipase A2, high triglycerides, vitamin D deficiency, etc.

Rarely. In fact, I can truly count the number of people who have only LDL cholesterol as their sole cause of coronary atherosclerotic plaque on one hand. It is really an infrequent situation.

Far more commonly, people have 5, 6, 7 or more reasons for coronary plaque.

Thus, the idea that a statin drug to reduce LDL will cure heart disease is completely folly. It does happen--but rarely. I think I've seen it happen twice. Much more commonly, a program that addresses all the causes of coronary plaque yields far superior benefits.

In my view, an effort to identify all the causes is relatively easy, makes far better sense, and provides you much greater assurance that you will succeed in conquering heart disease and removing its evil influence from your life.

Heart disease = statin deficiency

10. May 2007 William Davis (1)

Judging from the conversations I hear from colleagues, what I hear from the media, and drug company advertising, you'd think that heart disease has one cause--a deficiency of statin drugs.

As their thinking goes, if you have coronary disease, you need a statin drug (Lipitor, Zocor, Crestor, pravachol, etc.). If you have progressive coronary disease, you need more statin drug. If you have a heart attack while on a statin drug, you need even more statin drug.

Some "experts" have even proposed that we do away with LDL cholesterol and we just give everybody a statin drug at high doses.

Does this make any sense to you?

Doesn't it make better sense that if someone has progressive heart disease or heart attack while on a statin drug, then target the other causes largely unaffected by a statin drug? Perhaps if LDL cholesterol remains high on the statin drug, then a higher dose is justified. But more often than not, it's not a high LDL on statin drugs that responsible, it's other causes. And there's many of them: low HDL, VLDL, IDL, Lp(a), deficiency of omega-3 fatty acids, inflammatory processes, vitamin D deficiency, among others. (An important exception to this is when the conventional calculated LDL substantially underestimates true LDL as measured by LDL particle number by NMR, apoprotein B, or 'direct' LDL.)

Imagine someone has pneumonia. After 2 weeks of antibiotics, they are only partly better. The solution: a higher dose of the same antibiotic--but never question if it was the right antibiotic in the first place. That's what is going on in heart disease.

The doctors have been brainwashed into believing this $22 billion dollar per year bit of propaganda. The drug companies actively try to recruit the public into believing the same. Don't fall for it.

The statin drugs do indeed have a role. But they are not the complete answer. More of the same when disease progresses makes no sense at all.

Fish oil and mercury

9. May 2007 William Davis (2)

I often get questions about the mercury content in fish oil. I've even had patients come to the office saying their primary care doctor told them to stop fish oil to avoid mercury poisoning.

Manufacturers of fish oil also make claims that this product or that ("super-concentrated", "pharmaceutical grade", "purified", etc.) is purer or less contaminated than competitors' products. The manufacturers of the "drug" Omacor, or prescription fish oil, have added to the confusion by suggesting that their product is the most pure of all, since it is the most concentrated of any fish oil preparation (900 mg EPA+DHA per capsule). They claim that "OMACOR is naturally derived through a unique, patented process that creates a highly concentrated, highly purified prescription medicine. By prescribing OMACOR® (omega-3-acid ethyl esters), a prescription omega-3, your doctor is giving you a concentrated and reliable omega-3. Each OMACOR capsule contains 90% omega-3 acids (84% EPA/DHA*). Nonprescription omega-3 dietary supplements typically contain only 13%-63% EPA/DHA."

How much truth is there in these concerns?

Let's go to the data published by the USDA, FDA, and several independent studies. Let's add to that the independent (and therefore presumably unbiased) analyses provided by Consumer Reports and Consumer Labs (www.consumerlab.com). How much mercury has been found in fish oil supplements?

None.

This is different from the mercury content of whole fish that you eat. Predatory fish that are at the top of the food chain and consume other fish and thereby concentrate organic methyl mercury, the toxic form of mercury. Thus, shark, swordfish, and King mackerel are higher in mercury than sardines, herring, and salmon.

The mercury content of fish oil capsules have little to do with the method of processing and much more with the animal source of oil. Fish oil is generally obtained from sardines, salmon, and cod, all low in mercury. Fish oil capsules are not prepared from swordfish or shark.

Thus, concerns about mercury from fish oil--regardless of brand--are generally unfounded, according to the best information we have. Eating whole fish--now that's another story for another time. But you and I can take our fish oil to reduce triglycerides, VLDL, IDL, small LDL, and heart attack risk without worrying about mercury.

How much omega-3s are enough?

8. May 2007 William Davis (7)

The basic dose we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program is 1200 mg per day of EPA + DHA, the essential omega-3 fatty acids.

1200 mg EPA+DHA is generally obtainable by taking 4 capsules of 1000 mg of fish oil, since the majority of preparations contain 180 mg EPA and 120 mg DHA per capsule.

But how will you know if a higher dose wouldn't be even better?

The principal parameter to look at is triglycerides. If triglycerides remain above 60 mg/dl, we usually consider increasing fish oil.

Another measure that's very important is intermediate-density lipoprotein, or IDL, also called "remnant lipoproteins" on a VAP panel. Persistence of any IDL or remnant lipoproteins is reason to consider more fish oil. Most commonly, if there is some persistence of either, we increase fish oil to 6000 mg per day of a standard preparation, or 1800 mg/day of EPA+DHA.

The only time we see persistence of IDL or remnant lipoproteins with this higher dose is when triglycerides are really high. If starting triglycerides are, for instance, 500 mg/dl, then even this higher dose may be insufficient. This is when more highly concentrated preparations of fish oil may be necessary, occasionally even the prescription form, Omacor. (We currently use Omacor only when high doses of EPA+DHA are required, most because of its outrageous cost. Two capsules per day costs around $120 per month; three capsules per day to provide 1800 mg/day of EPA+DHA costs $180 per month. I think this is outrageous and so we use it only when absolutely necessary.)

You might even argue that a higher dose of 1800 mg EPA+DHA, or 6000 mg of a standard capsule, might be preferable for more assured reduction of heart attack risk--even when triglycerides and IDL are perfectly under control. I wouldn't argue with you. But you won't observe any measurable feedback that tells you that a heightened effect is being obtained. I take that dose myself, in fact, despite the fact that elimination of wheat products and weight loss was sufficient to drop my triglycerides to the target level. I figure it's a small additional effort for added peace of mind.

Repentance for past sins

7. May 2007 William Davis (0)

If you are new to the Track Your Plaque program and would like to jump start your effort, or if you are struggling with losing weight and excess weight is a part of the situation that created your CT heart scan score, then don't forget about fasting.

Fasting is the cessation of eating. However, recall from the Track Your Plaque Special Report, Fasting: Fast Track to Control Plaque at http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_04-012fasting.asp, there are many variations on fasting that permit some intake of healthy foods. (Thus, they are not, in the strict sense, "fasting". Accurate or no, there are variations that may be more palatable or do-able in the real world by real people.)

My personal favorite method to fast is to use a low-sugar, low-fat soy milk such as Light Silk, available at most major grocery stores. This high-protein, low-fat, low-sugar soy milk takes the edge off hunger and provides a minimal quantity of calories. A minimum of 72 hours is required for substantial results. (My one reservation about this brand of soy milk is that the Fanatic Cook claims that the manufacturer, Dean Foods, is a factory farm operation that abuses livestock--a discussion for another day.)

Fasting yields more than weight loss. It refreshes your appreciation for food. It reawakens you to the amount and quality of food you've been putting in your body. Fasting also allows you to recognize just how bad you might feel from the diet you were eating.

You also emerge from a fast with a reduced appetite and a renewed sense of appreciation for food. It makes the discipline of healthy eating a lot easier when you break your fast.

I tell people that fasting is not punishment. It is a form of enlightenment, of re-experiencing food and life. Fasting allows you to "catch up" on all the indiscretions you've been guilty of over the years.

It also provides enormous advantage in gaining control over coronary plaque.

A fanatic for Fanatic Cook

6. May 2007 William Davis (1)

If you haven't already done so, I'd urge you to peruse the wonderfully insightful, sophisticated, and biting commentary provided by the Fanatic Cook Blog at http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com.

She (I assume it's a she) has been discussing the proposed Safe Food Act recently, an effort to address all the dangers in foods that have come to attention lately, like melamine in pet food and E. coli in bagged spinach. Her most recent post is:

Nebraska Farm Bureau Thinks Food Safety Act Bad Idea, the latest in a series of posts exploring this issue.

I'd like to know who the Fanatic Cook is, or "Bix" as she calls herself. (I assume it's a "she" but I don't really know that for a fact.) I've corresponded with her and she prefers to remain anonymous for unspecified reasons. I'd like to know who this person is both for a more secure sense of credibility, as well as I'd simply like to know who can write so intelligently and why. I suspect that she's a professional nutrition scientist or something along those lines, since the level of insight into many scientific issues is quite impressive. Her Blogs will make great material for a book, if compiled and organized. Watch out for this one.

Erectile dysfunction and coronary plaque

6. May 2007 William Davis (5)

Erectile dysfunction (ED), previously known as "impotence," and coronary atherosclerotic plaque go hand in hand.

A recent study in men with advanced coronary disease showed that 93% experienced ED. The participants in the Track Your Plaque program, for the most part, do not have advanced coronary atherosclerosis, but have an earlier form detected by a CT heart scan.

What proportion of men with asymptomatic coronary plaque as measured by a CT heart scan have ED? Around 50%. In other words, it's not a rare occurrence.

The conversation about ED (and even its renaming from impotence) really gained momentum with the development of ED-drugs like Viagra and Cialis. The drugs are reasonably effective and safe. However, you will hear little about all the strategies that can either precede your need for these drugs and/or enhance your response to these drugs if the response is partial. That part of the conversation, of course, doesn't yield loads of drug company revenues.

One of the most helpful and specific nutritional supplements available that can partially restore the nitric oxide-deficiency of ED is l-arginine. L-arginine is the body's source of nitric oxide (NO), the master dilator (relaxing agent) for all arteries of the body. NO dilates penile arteries, it dilates coronary arteries. Lack of NO disables the penile capacity for erection and encourages growth of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Track Your Plaque Members are already familiar with l-arginine as a facilitator of coronary plaque regression.

We will detail the supplements that you can use safely in your Track Your Plaque program to both enhance erectile function if you suffer ED, as well as impact positively on coronary health, in an upcoming and detailed Special Report on the www.cureality.com website.

Where do you find fructose?

Do heart scans cause cancer?

Goodbye, fructose

The statin-free life

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads