Low HDL makes Dr. Friedewald a liar 17. March 2007 William Davis (5) There's a $22 billion industry based on treating LDL cholesterol, a fictitious number. LDL cholesterol is calculated from the following equation:LDL cholesterol = Total cholesterol - HDL cholesterol - triglycerides/5So when your doctor tells you that your LDL cholesterol is X, 99% of the time it has been calculated. This is based on the empiric calculation developed by Dr. Friedwald in the 1960s. Back then, it was a reasonable solution, just like bacon and eggs was a reasonable breakfast and a '62 Rambler was a reasonable automobile.One of the problems with Dr. Friedewald's calculation is that the lower HDL cholesterol, the less accurate LDL cholesterol becomes. If it were just a few points, so what? But what if it were commonly 50 to 100 mg/dl inaccurate? In other words, your doctor tells you that your LDL is 120 mg/dl, but the real number is somewhere between 170 and 220 mg/dl. Does this happen?You bet it does. In my experience, it is an everyday event. In fact, I'm actually surprised when the Friedewald calculated LDL closely approximates true LDL--it's the exception. Dr. Friedewald would likely have explained that, when applied to a large population of, say, 10,000 people, calculated LDL is a good representation of true LDL. However, just like saying that the average weight for an American woman is 176 lbs (that's true, by the way), does that mean if you weigh 125 lbs that you are "off" by 41 lbs? No, but it shows how you cannot apply the statistical observations made in large populations to a single individual. The lower HDL goes, the more inaccurate LDL becomes. This would be acceptable if most HDLs still permitted reasonable estimation of LDL--but it does not. LDL begins to become significantly inaccurate with HDL below 60 mg/dl. How to get around this antiquated formula? In order of most accurate to least accurate:--LDL particle number (NMR)--the most accurate by far.--Apoprotein B--available in most laboratories.--"Direct" LDL--Non-HDL--i.e., the calculation of total cholesterol minus HDL. But it's still a calculated with built-in flaws. --LDL by Friedewald calculation. My personal view: you need to get an NMR if you want to know what your LDL truly is. A month of Lipitor costs around $80-120. A basic NMR costs less than $90. It's a relative bargain.
Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Regular Site Log in Why an RDA for vitamin D? 24. January 2009 William Davis (10) The Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) of the Institute of Medicine is charged with setting the values for the Recommended Daily Allowances of various essential nutrients. However, when it comes to vitamin D, the FNB decided that "evidence is insufficient to develop an RDA and [an Adequate Intake, AI] is set at a level assumed to ensure nutritional adequacy."The National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements lists the AI's for various groups of people:14-18 years Male 200 IUFemale 200 IU 19-50 years Male 200 IUFemale 200 IU 51-70 years Male 400 IUFemale 400 IU 71+ years Male 600 IUFemale 600 IU A reconsideration is apparently being planned in near-future that will (hopefully) incorporate the newest clinical data on vitamin D. My question: Who cares what the FNB decides? Let me explain. I monitor blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D to assess the 1) starting level of vitamin D without supplementation, and 2) levels while on supplementation, preferably every 6 months (during sunny weather, during cold weather). I have done for the past 3 years in over 1000 people. The requirement for vitamin D dose in adults, in my experience, ranges from as low as 1000 units per day to as high as 20,000 units per day, rarely more. The vast majority of women require 5000 units per day, males 6000 units per day to maintain a blood level in the desirable range. (I aim for 60-70 ng/ml.) A graph of the distribution of vitamin D needs in my area (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) is a bell curve, a curve more heavily weighted towards the upper vitamin D dose range. Need for vitamin D to achieve the same blood level is influenced by age, sex, body size, race, presence or absence of a gallbladder, as well as other factors. But needs vary, even among similar people. For instance, a 50-year old woman weighing 140 lbs might need 4000 units per day to achieve a blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D of 65 ng/ml. Another 50-year old womacial current Upper Limit of 2,000 IU/day is the same for a 300 pound adult as it is for a 25 pound toddler. That is, the government says it's safe for a one-year-old, 25-pound, child to take 2,000 IU per day but it's not safe for a 30-year old, 300-pound, adult to take 2,000 and one IU a day. I mean, whoever thought up these Upper Limits must have left their thinking caps at home. Nevertheless, nothing worked. My vitamin D deficient patient was not interested in taking any vitamin D. What are young men interested in? I remembered that he had told me: "Sex and sports." Two years ago I had researched the medical literature looking for any evidence vitamin D enhanced sexual performance. Absolutely nothing. That would have been nice. Can you imagine the interest? Then I remembered that several readers had written to ask me if vitamin D could possibly improve their athletic performance? They told me that after taking 2,000 to 5,000 IU per day for several months, they seemed just a little faster, a little stronger, maybe had a little better balance and timing. A pianist had written to tell me she even played a better piano, her fingers moved over the keys more effortlessly! Was vitamin D responsible for these subtle changes or was it a placebo effect? That is, did readers just think their athletic performance improved because they knew vitamin D was a steroid hormone precursor (hormone, from the Greek, meaning "to set in motion")? The active form of vitamin D is a steroid (actually a seco-steroid) in the same way that testosterone is a steroid and vitamin D is a hormone in the same way that growth hormone is a hormone. Steroid hormones are substances made from cholesterol, which circulate in the body, and work at distant sites by "setting in motion" genetic protein transcription. That is, both vitamin D and testosterone regulate your genome, the stuff of life. While testosterone is a sex steroid hormone, vitamin D is a pleomorphic (multiple function) steroid hormone. All of a sudden, it didn't seem so silly. Certainly steroids can improve athletic performance although they can be quite dangerous. In addition, few people are deficient in growth hormone or testosterone, so when athletes take sex steroids or growth hormone they are cheating, or doping. The case with vitamin D is quite different because natural vitamin D levels are about 50 ng/ml and, since almost no one has such levels, extra vitamin D is not doping, it's just good treatment. I decided to exhaustively research the medical literature on vitamin D and athletic performance. It took me over a year. To my surprise, I discovered that there are five totally independent bodies of research that all converge on an inescapable conclusion: vitamin D will improve athletic performance in vitamin D deficient people (and that includes most people). Even more interesting is who published this literature, and when. Are you old enough to remember when the Germans and Russians won every Olympics in the 60's and 70's? Well, it turns out that the most convincing evidence that vitamin D improves athletic performance was published in old German and Russian medical literature. With the help of my wife and mother-in-law, both of whom are Russian, and with the help of Marc Sorenson, whose book Solar Power is a must read, I finally was able to look at translations of much of the old Russian and German literature. When one combines that old literature with the modern English language literature on neuromuscular performance, the conclusion is inescapable. The readers who wrote me are right. If you are vitamin D deficient, the medical literature indicates that the right amount of vitamin D will make you faster, stronger, improve your balance and timing, etc. How much it will improve your athletic ability depends on how deficient you are to begin with. How good an athlete you will be depends on your innate ability, training, and dedication. However, peak athletic performance also depends upon the neuromuscular cells in your body and brain having unfettered access to the steroid hormone, activated vitamin D. In addition, how much activated vitamin D is available to your brain, muscle, and nerves depends on having ideal levels of vitamin D in your blood - about 50 ng/ml, to be precise. Why would I write about such a frivolous topic like peak athletic performance when cancer patients all across this land are dying vitamin D deficient? Like many vitamin D advocates, I have been disappointed that the medical profession and the public don't seem to care about vitamin D. Maybe people, like my young basketball player, will care if it makes better athletes. So, Hey! You jocks! Listen up! I'm talking speed, balance, choice reaction time, muscle mass, muscle strength, squats, reps, etc. Important stuff. Here's the Vitamin D Council's first ever sports quiz. 1. Vitamin D-producing UVB radiation improves athletic performance and may have been widely practiced by German and Russian Olympic athletes in the 1960's and 70's. True. I found tantalizing evidence the Russians and especially the Germans were on to this during the 60's and 70's when those two nations took turns placing number one and number two in the Olympics every year? For example, in 1938, Russian researchers reported that a course of ultraviolet irradiations improved speed in the 100-meter dash in college students compared to matched controls, both groups undergoing daily training. Average 100-meter dash times decreased from 13.51 seconds to 13.28 seconds in the non-irradiated controls, but from 13.63 seconds to 12.62 seconds in the irradiated students. Here we see training improved times but training and irradiation improved times much more. Obviously, irradiation or vitamin D would not render the same magnitude of improvements in world-class sprinters, but they would be happy with a few milliseconds. Gorkin Z, Gorkin MJ, Teslenko NE. [The effect of ultraviolet irradiation upon training for 100m sprint.] The Journal of Physiology of the USSR [Fiziol, z. (RSSR)] 1938; 25: 695-701. (In Russian) If you want to know what early German thinking was on this, read this summation of the German literature:"It is a well-known fact that physical performance can be increased through ultra-violet irradiation. In 1927, a heated argument arose after the decision by the German Swimmers' Association to use the sunlamp as an artificial aid, constituting an athletic unfairness, doping, so to speak. In 1926, Rancken had already reported the improving effect of sunlamp irradiation on muscle work with the hand-dynamo-graph. Heib observed an improvement in swimming times after repeated irradiations. In thorough experiments, Backmund showed that a substantial increase in muscle activity happens after radiation of larger portions of the body with an artificial sunlamp; that this performance increase is not caused through local - direct or indirect - effects on the musculature, but through a general effect. This general effect, triggered by ultra-violet irradiation, is caused by a systemic effect on the nervous system." (p. 17) Parade GW, Otto H. Die beeinflussung der leistungsfahigkeit durch Hohensonnenbestrahlung. Zeitschrift fur Klinische Medizin (Z Klin Med),1940;137:17-21 [In German] In 1945, two Americans measured the cardiovascular fitness and muscular endurance of 11 male Illinois subjects undergoing training in an indoor physical education class, comparing them to 10 matched controls. Both groups underwent similar physical training. Treatment consisted of ultraviolet irradiation, given in the nude, up to two minutes per session, three times per week, for ten weeks in the late fall and winter. After ten weeks, the treatment group had a 19% standard score gain in cardiovascular fitness compare to a 2% improvement in the control students. To regular readers of this newsletter, it should come as no surprise that the un-irradiated control group reported twice as many viral respiratory infections as the treatment group. Allen R, Cureton T. Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation on Physical Fitness. Arch Phys Med 1945: 10: 641-44. In 1952, the German sports medicine researcher, Spellerberg, reported on the effects of wholesale irradiation of athletes studying and training at the Sports College of Cologne - including many elite athletes - with a "central sun lamp." He irradiated the athletes in their bathing suits, on both sides of their bodies, for up to ten minutes, twice a week, for 6 weeks. He reported a "convincing effect" on athletic performance and a 50% reduction in sports injuries. Results were particularly impressive for swimmers, soccer, handball, hockey, and tennis players, as well as for boxers and most track and field athletes. He reported that irradiation leading to burns, further irradiation of athletes having achieved peak performance, and irradiation within 24 hours of competition, all impaired athletic performance. Their results were so convincing, the Sports College of Cologne officially notified the "national German and International Olympic committee." (p. 570) Spellerberg AE. [Increase of athletic effectiveness by systematic ultraviolet irradiation.] Strahlentherapie 1952; 88: 567-70. [In German] In 1952, Ronge exposed 120 German schoolchildren to UV lights installed in classrooms and compared them to 120 un-irradiated control children. Over a two-year period - excluding summer vacations - he tested both groups with a series of six cardiovascular fitness tests using a bike ergometer. Un-irradiated children showed a distinct seasonality in fitness, with the highest values right after summer break and the lowest values in the spring. Treated children showed no seasonal differences in physical performance. Differences in work performance between the irradiated and un-irradiated children were most conspicuous in the spring with 56% difference between the two groups. In a final experiment, he gave 30 children in the control classrooms 6.25 mg (250,000 IU) of vitamin D as a single dose in February and found their performance had "increased considerably," one month later but did not report the actual numbers. He concluded that vitamin D, either as a supplement or induced via UV irradiation, improved physical performance.Ronge HE. [Increase of physical effectiveness by systematic ultraviolet irradiation.] Strahlentherapie 1952; 88: 563-6. [In German] In 1954, another researcher, at the Max-Planck Institute for Industrial Physiology in Dortmund, Germany, administered three different wavelengths of UV light over 8 weeks to university students. He found that ultraviolet light in the vitamin D-producing UVB range was consistently effective in reducing resting pulse, lowering the basal metabolic rate, and increasing athletic performance. UVA had no effect; interestingly, artificial UVC irradiation (the atmosphere normally completely filters out UVC radiation and thus it's not naturally present on earth) also gave some positive results.Lehmann G. [Significance of certain wave lengths for increased efficacy of ultraviolet irradiation.] Strahlentherapie. 1954 Nov;95(3):447-53. [In German] In 1956, Hettinger and Seidel irradiated seven subjects in two different experiments: athletic performance on bike-ergometers and forearm muscle strength. They found that UV radiation induced a significant improvement in both muscle strength and athletic performance. Hettinger T, Seidl E. [Ultraviolet irradiation and trainability of musculature.] Internationale Zeitschrift für angewandte Physiologie, einschliesslich Arbeitsphysiologie 1956; 16: 177-83. [In German] Another German researcher, at the Institute for Medical Physics and Biophysics at the University of Gottiingen, studied reaction times (the time needed to recognize a light and switch it off) during October and November in a series of controlled experiments on 16 children and an unspecified number of adults. He first controlled for practice effects (getting better by practicing) and then administered nine full-body UV radiation treatments over three weeks to the two treatment groups, using placebo radiation in the two control groups. UV radiation improved choice reaction time by 25% in children and 20% in adults while reaction time worsened in controls. The improvements in the irradiated groups peaked at the end of the three weeks of UV treatments and reverted to baseline levels three weeks later. In the two control groups, he found distinctly improved reaction times in the sunnier months. Sigmund R. [Effect of ultraviolet rays on reaction time in man.] Strahlentherapie. 1956; 101: 623-9. [In German] The next study threw me because it was very well conducted, meticulously designed, and completely negative. In 1963, Berven reported on the effects of ultraviolet irradiation and vitamin D supplementation in a group of 30 Stockholm schoolchildren, aged 10 -11, comparing them to appropriate controls. He found no seasonality of fitness in the control group and no effect from either irradiation or two different vitamin D supplementation protocols (1500 IU of cholecalciferol daily for two months and a single dose of 400,000 IU of ergocalciferol) on performance on a bike ergometer.Berven H. The physical working capacity of healthy children; seasonal variations and effect of ultraviolet irradiation and vitamin-D supply. Acta paediatrica. Supplementum 1963; 148: 1-22. However, two things were not right and got me thinking. One, Berven found no seasonality of physical fitness and was the only author who found no such seasonal variations in athletic performance. Second, he found no effect from irradiation, again, the only author. Then I realized he was working with Swedish children in the late 1950's. Supplementation of children with high doses of vitamin D - often as cod liver oil - was routine in Scandinavia in the past, particularly in children. For example, in neighboring Finland, the official recommended daily dose of vitamin D for children - including infants - was 4,000 IU per day until 1964, when authorities reduced it to 2,000 IU/day. (That's right, you read that correctly, 4,000 IU per day for infants, which is too much by the way.) In 1975, Finnish authorities reduced it to 1,000 IU per day, and, in 1992, to 400 IU per day. I emailed Professor Elina Hypponen who confirmed that the Swedish recommendations were similar to the Finnish ones. Therefore, it seems highly unlikely that many of Berven's Swedish children, studied in 1958 and 1959, all from "families with a good standard of living," were vitamin D deficient. Therefore, this study showed that vitamin D will not improve athletic ability in vitamin D replete people. That's very important because it indicates more is not necessarily better. More is only better if you are not taking enough.Hypponen E, et al. Intake of vitamin D and risk of type 1 diabetes: a birth-cohort study. Lancet. 2001 Nov 3;358(9292):1500-3.In the 1960's, three American researchers conducted experiments with university students. Rosentswieg studied the effects of a single six-minute dose of UV light on each side of the trunk in 23 college women, recording changes in various tests of muscle strength at one and five hours. He found a trend towards significance after five hours in white but not African American students. In 1968, Cheatum found that a six-minute administration of UV light, on each side of the trunk, increased the speed of 15 college women in the 30-yard dash. In 1969, Rosentswieg found a six-minute dose of UV light, on each side of the trunk, finding improved performance on a bicycle ergometer inhey have no business talking about. This is one such example, a newsletter from pop exercise guru, Denise Austin. Although I'm sure she means well, I have a problem with people who have little to no experience acting as experts, often simply repeating something they heard or read somewhere else. This has become particular problem with the internet, in which bad information can get repeated thousands of times, gaining a veil of "truth" through its repetition. I don't mean to pick specifically on Ms. Austin, since she joins a growing rank of pseudo-experts on vitamin D and other topics, but she provides a good example of how far wrong mainstream information can be. Simple StepsDo Your D!Calcium often gets all the glory when it comes to bone health. But calcium wouldn't benefit your bones much without its partner, vitamin D!Why? Vitamin D helps your body absorb calcium and keeps your bones strong; without enough vitamin D, the bones become weak and brittle, a condition called rickets in children, and osteomalacia in adults. Adults from 19 to 50 need 200 IU (international units) per day, while those from 51 to 70 need 400 IU daily. Those over 70 need 600 IU per day.Unfortunately, not too many foods contain vitamin D naturally. (Tuna and sardines canned in oil are exceptions.) The good news is that many foods are now regularly fortified with vitamin D, including milk, some yogurts, margarines, and cereals. You can check the Nutrition Facts panel on packages and containers to see which products contain vitamin D. It should be listed after vitamins A and C, along with the percentage of the Daily Value that a serving of the food contains. The Daily Value (a standardized amount) for vitamin D is 400 IU, so if your milk has 25 percent of the Daily Value, it provides 100 IU per serving.Your skin can also make vitamin D using sunlight — you need about a half hour of exposure to the midday sun twice a week to make enough. However, because of the increasing incidence of skin cancer in recent years, many experts are wary about recommending sun exposure.So take a closer look at milk, yogurt, cereal, and margarine selections when you're doing your weekly shopping, and stock up on brands that are fortified with vitamin D. Challenge yourself to consume one source of vitamin D at least three days in the coming week! If you cannot eat or do not like any foods that contain vitamin D or are fortified with it, talk with your health care provider ASAP about taking a supplement. Your bones will thank you for it!Let me list the mistakes in this piece: Adults from 19 to 50 need 200 IU (international units) per day, while those from 51 to 70 need 400 IU daily. Those over 70 need 600 IU per day.This is the same non-information that was the advice originally offered by the Food and Nutrition Board based on a best guesstimate due to lack of data. It is clear from newer data that doses required for full restoration of vitamin D are in the thousands of units. (My personal dose for full restoration of vitamin judged by serum levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D is 8000 units per day.) The information coming from the Food and Nutrition Board is about as good as the information coming from the USDA (you know, that "government" agency meant to represent the interests of ConAgra, Cargill, and Big Farming) and the American Heart Association (that represents consensus opinion from data 20 years out of date and now arm-in-arm with Big Food like General Mills, Kraft, and Nabisco). These agencies and the advice they offer has, over the past few years, become increasingly irrelevant and outdated. It is the Information Age, in which ulterior motives are becoming more readily exposed, yet they still operate by the rules of the Industrial Age and deliver a message that serves their own purposes.Ms. Austin fell for it. The good news is that many foods are now regularly fortified with vitamin D, including milk, some yogurts, margarines, and cereals.First of all, what is a "diet expert" doing advocating industrial foods? Cereals, in particular, are among the worst foods on the supermarket shelves, whether or not they are fortified. Candy bars can be fortified, too; that doesn't make them any better for you. The vitamin D added to these foods is, more often than not, the ergocalcferol, or D2, form that is woefully ineffective. And the dose added is trivial, usually in the 100-200 unit range per serving. The same goes for the milk, an inadequate source that we don't even factor into total intakes because of the low quantity. Your skin can also make vitamin D using sunlight — you need about a half hour of exposure to the midday sun twice a week.Nope. This might be true for a young person below age 30 in a southern environment. It is NOT true for the majority of people in northern climates and anyone over age 30 or 40, since we lose most of the capacity to activate vitamin D in the skin as we age. A deep, dark Florida tan does not necessarily mean that vitamin D has been activated. See A tan does not equal vitamin D. Here in Wisconsin, where, despite this darn cold winter, does enjoy wonderfully warm and beautiful summers, the average vitamin D dose need ranges from 4000-8000 units per day in summer, slightly more in winter. By the way, it is not calcium that is instrumental to bone health. It is vitamin D. Calcium is the passive bricks and mortar of bones, while vitamin D is the bricklayer, the determinant of calcium's fate, the master control of bone health. Calcium supplementation becomes almost immaterial when vitamin D is restored.I praise Ms. Austin for her hard work, trying to help fat Americans lose weight. But please ignore her advice on vitamin D, along with the numbing repetition of this mis-information that will likely propagate from other exercise gurus, dietitians, and pseudoexperts. A Tale of Two LDL's 15. January 2009 William Davis (10) Kurt, a 50-year old businessman with a heart scan score of 323, had a :--Conventional (calculated) LDL of 128 mg/dl--Real measured LDL 241 mg/dl. Laurie, a 53-year old woman who underwent a coronary bypass operation last year (before I met her), had a:--Conventional LDL of 142 mg/dl--Real measured LDL was 85 mg/dl. (By "real, measured" LDL, I'm referring to LDL particle number in units of nmol/L obtained through NMR lipoprotein testing and dividing by 10, or just dropping the last digit to convert the value to mg/dl. This technique was arrived at by comparing the population distributions of these two parameters, LDL particle number and calculated LDL. This is the gold standard in my view. Similar numbers can be obtained by measuring apoprotein B, direct LDL, or calculated non-HDL, with diminishing reliability from first to last.)In other words, Kurt's conventional LDL underestimated real LDL by 88%. Laurie's conventional LDL overestimated real LDL by 40%. Interestingly, Laurie's doctor had insisted she take Lipitor for a high LDL cholesterol. Her real LDL was, in fact, low to begin with and benefits of a statin drug would be little to none. (Remember, in our Track Your Plaque approach, multiple other treatments are included, such as omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, vitamin D normalization, and wheat elimination, strategies that yield benefits that others expect to obtain with statins.) Laurie's real cause of her heart disease proved to have nothing to do with LDL cholesterol, but involved lipoprotein(a) and thyroid issues. Kurt proved to have a severe preponderance of small LDL particles--the worst kind of LDL, while Laurie had none--a benign pattern. Then how can anyone make sense of the conventional, calculated LDL cholesterol that is generally (95% of the time) provided? If accuracy can stretch to plus or minus 80% . . . you can't. Conventional LDL is a miserably inaccurate number. The problem is that obtaining a superior number requires a step or two more testing and insight, something most busy primary care doc's simply don't have in the midst of a day filled with arthritis, bronchitis, diarrhea, belly aches, and seborrhea. Yet conventional--I call it "fictitious"--LDL serves as the basis for this $27 billion (annual revenues) industry selling statin drugs. This is meant to be neither an argument in favor of nor against statin drugs. However, it is plain as day that any study designed to reduce LDL cholesterol will be hopelessly clouded by calculated LDL imprecision. A calculated LDL of, say, 143 mg/dl might really be 187 mg/dl, or it might be 74 mg/dl--you can't tell by looking just at LDL. Yet billions of dollars of research and billions of dollars of healthcare costs are based on the treatment of this number. This reminds me of the mark-to-market accounting magic that helped topple Wall Street. I don't think that the statin world is poised for such a huge downfall. But I do see this as a source of enormous dilution of the effects of statin drugs. People who barely stand to benefit get the drugs, while others who might truly benefit are treated inadequately. It provides fuel to the growing idea that reducing LDL cholesterol fails to truly provide benefit. I am no lover of statin drugs nor drugs in general. But I am a fan of knowing the truth. Despite my bashing of the drug industry (and make no mistake: the drug industry is a cutthroat, profit-seeking, do-anything-to-increase-sales industry), I do believe that there is a role for statin drugs (though far smaller than $27 billion per year). But the usual method of selecting people for treatment is pure fiction. The ATP-III cholesterol treatment guidelines? An anemic attempt to apply structure to meaningless values. You and I do not need to subscribe to this sort of non-quantitative nonsense. Niacin scams 12. January 2009 William Davis (0) In the Track Your Plaque program, we often resort to niacin (vitamin B3 or nicotinic acid) to: --Raise HDL cholesterol--Reduce the proportion of small LDL particles--Shift HDL towards the healthy larger fraction (HDL2b or "large")--Reduce lipoprotein(a), the most aggressive risk factor known But niacin comes with a crazy "hot flush," a warm, prickly feeling that usually envelops the upper chest, neck and face that is, without a doubt, annoying. Around 1 in 20 people simply cannot tolerate any amount of niacin >100 mg, while others have no problem even into the 3000 mg per day or more range. (Tolerance to niacin is genetically determined, governed by the rapidity of metabolism to the niacin metabolite, nicotinuric acid.)The niacin flush has spawned an entire panel of niacin-like scams, agents that sound like niacin or may even contain niacin, but exert no beneficial effect whatsoever:Flush-free niacin--I have previously posted on this useless but ubiquitous preparation that often costs several times more than conventional niacin. Flush-free niacin, or inositol hexaniacinate, does indeed contain niacin, but it is not released in the human body. You simply pass it out down the toilet, where this preparation belongs in the first place. Nicotinamide--Also called niacinamide. While the nicotinamide/niacinamide forms of vitamin B3 can be used to treat B3 deficiency ("pellagra"), they do not reproduce the lipid and lipoprotein effects of niacin. For our purposes, they are useless. Niacin-containing heart-healthy supplements--These are the multi-supplements that contain a little of everything that might be beneficial for the heart, but none at a dose that provides genuine benefit. Don't throw your money away. There's also a prescription niacin, Niaspan, that costs 20-fold more than the best over-the-counter preparation, Sloniacin. Niaspan has yielded hundreds of millions of dollars for the pharmaceutical industry. Your money, in my view, is far better spent on Sloniacin (around $12-14 per bottle of 100 tablets of 500 mg). For more on niacin, here's an article I wrote for the Life Extension Magazine people a while back: Using Niacin to Improve Cardiovascular Health. Deja vu all over again? 10. January 2009 William Davis (8) HeartHawk brought a report and debate on The Heart.Org website to my attention: Screening for risk factors or detecting disease? Debate divides the CV community. After landing on theheart.org, paste this onto your URL address:article/883239.do. (Full address: http://www.theheart.org/article/883239.do. I don't know why, but I couldn't go there directly.)Some interesting comments: Dr. Jay Cohn (University of Minnesota):"They're saying that we can't identify disease very effectively so let's just stick with risk factors, which we know are very poorly predictive and nonspecific. It boggles my mind as to why they won't open up their minds to the importance of moving forward in finding better strategies to identify the disease that we are treating. It's very strange. They criticize these disease markers because they are not predictive of events, but they are looking at very short-term outcomes. We're interested in lifetime risk. We're screening people in their 40s who are concerned about morbid events in their 60s and 70s, and no trials are going to track them that long.""You have to accept the pathophysiologic reality that heart attacks don't occur in the absence of coronary disease, and coronary disease doesn't occur in the absence of endothelial dysfunction and vascular disease, all of which now can be identified."". . . Can we as a society and as a profession accept the idea that there is a link between the vascular abnormalities and the events? "And that that linkage is tight enough that it should allow us to accept slowing of progression of the vascular abnormalities as an adequate marker for slowing disease progression, without waiting for events to occur? As soon as you use the word surrogate, people jump up and say we have all these markers that we know don't work well—things like premature ventricular contractions [PVCs] on the electrocardiogram, LDL, HDL—but those are not the markers we're talking about. We're talking about structural and functional changes in the blood vessel and in the heart."Wow. The idea may be starting to catch on. As an interesting aside, Cohn et al use a 10-test panel to screen for vascular disease: "Named for the center's benefactor, the Rasmussen score includes tests for large and small artery elasticity (compliance), resting blood pressure, blood-pressure response to moderate treadmill exercise, optic fundus photography, carotid intimal-media thickness (IMT), microalbuminuria, electrocardiography, left ventricular (LV) ultrasonography for LV volume and mass, and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP). Each test result is scored out of 10 for low, intermediate, or high risk, and the combined results yields a score that Cohn et al believe is more predictive than any of the existing standalone tests."The counterarguments in this debate were provided by Dr. Philip Greenland (Northwestern University), who repeated his oft-used argument that, while he accepts that vascular disease can be identified, no one has proven that measuring it improves outcomes: "We do have that evidence for risk-factor screening. Even though people criticize risk-factor assessment because it is not sensitive enough or not accurate enough, the interesting and curious thing is that we actually have evidence that if you go to the trouble of screening for risk factors and treating them, patients have better outcomes. We do not have that evidence for any of these other tests."An interesting debate ensues that includes Track Your Plaque friend, Dr. William Blanchet, who characteristically argues persuasively in favor of broad screening for coronary disease with coronary calcium scoring:"If we were doing our jobs in primary prevention, we would not need to look at improved intervention and secondary prevention to reduce coronary death."Here's a shock: Dr. Melissa Shirley-Walton, the cardiologist who previously preached the "cath lab on every corner" argument seems to have undergone a change of heart:"What if I walked up to a gentleman and said, "you are at risk for CAD, take a statin", to which he replies, "I'm afraid of those meds". BUT if he sees his calcium score........he is then convinced to be pro-active. What is so wrong with that? What is so wrong with allowing him to spend 250.00 US out of pocket in order to save the US 150,000.00 US later on? No hard endpoints you say with intensive therapy for primary prevention? What about extrapolating from trials for secondary prevention like HATS? ARBITER2? And what exactly is the true definition of secondary prevention? Is it truly primary prevention if we already have intima thickness abnormalities, or fatty streaks? That would more likely fall under secondary prevention by today's new standards. So, I'm all for any visual aid that will encourage compliance with life style change, necessary medical therapy and followup. If the patient is willing to spend 250.00$ to get a calcium score, so be it. Better yet, why not lower the price so everyone can have the option if they are motivated enough to seize an opportunity?"I have to admit that I thought that Dr. Blanchet was wasting his time trying to persuade Shirley-Walton et al, but perhaps he is having an impact, though having hammered away at them for the last year or so. These arguments, for me, eerily echo many previous debates I've heard. But I am encouraged by the more favorable treatment the notion of atherosclerosis screening is receiving. Just 5 years ago, all coronary calcium scoring would have received from the conventionalists is "more clinical studies are needed." So perhaps the cardiology and medical worlds are inching slowly towards broad acceptance of screening for coronary and vascular disease. BUT, screening is not sufficient. What do you do with the information? Here is where the conventional-thinkers stop. The question that seems to occupy them: Perhaps we should screen people for hidden coronary and vascular atherosclerosis so we can better decide who needs a statin drug or a procedure. I would pose a different challenge: We should screen people for hidden coronary and vascular atherosclerosis so we can better decide who needs to engage in an intensive program of disease reversal using natural means and as little medication and procedures as possible. Well, perhaps in time. Lead to Gold: The alchemy of transforming nutritional-supplement-to-medication 9. January 2009 William Davis (25) Here's a recipe to make hundreds of millions of dollars. Others have done it and you can do it, too!1) Identify a nutritional supplement that works. Find some agent deemed to fall within the broad allowances of the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act . However, because this agent is already in the public domain and is essential non-patent-protectable, you may need to develop some patent protectable aspect of its production, application, or encapsulation. This patent-protected aspect may or may not provide genuine advantage, but that's not your concern. Your concern is protecting your investment and providing the appearance of exclusivity. 2) Identify a medical indication for your product. Choose a disease or condition that is likely to yield unquestioned efficacy, e.g., omega-3 fatty acids to reduce high triglycerides in people with familial hypertriglyceridemia (triglycerides >500 mg/dl). While this will restrict your ability to make market claims, it will not restrain your ability to sell or allow use of your agent for "off-label" applications. In fact, there are methods to surreptitiously promote the use of your product for off-label use, such as hiring experts to discuss the science behind your product with doctors who can prescribe your product. Ideally, your product's primary indication will provide a substantial market on its own to justify your investment. However, the eventual off-label sales can be substantial, even outstripping the sales generated through your primary indication. 3) Obtain at least $230 million to pay for the clinical trials required to obtain FDA approval. You will also have to raise the capital to build the business to manufacture, distribute, and sell your product. 4) After FDA approval is obtained, your business is up and running, and distribution begins, start bashing the non-FDA-approved nutritional products that stand to compete in your market. You could point out that only your product has actually passed through the rigorous FDA process. You could make claims regarding purity, potency, "approved by your doctor," etc., whether or not there is any truth behind the claim. 5) Buy that second vacation home in Aspen and the corporate jet you've been dreaming about! After all the risks you've taken, you deserve it!That's it, plain and simple. It is a tried-and-true formula that has been applied many times. It is a formula like this that brought Lovaza-brand omega-3 fatty acids to market, Niaspan brand of niacin, ergocalciferol form of vitamin D, Folbee (prescription combination B vitamins), with a slightly different spin for Synthroid (since the Armour Thyroid it is meant to replace is not a nutritional supplement, but a low-cost, generic thyroid replacement). Whatever you do, don't EVER run a head-to-head comparative trial of your agent versus the nutritional supplement competition. For instance, NEVER compare Lovaza to supplemental fish oil capsules, matched milligram-for-milligram for EPA and DHA content. NEVER compare Niaspan to over-the-counter Sloniacin. NEVER compare Armour Thyroid to Synthroid. You never know what you might find. (Psssssttt! They might be equivalent!) The formula is not a foolproof road paved with riches, however. There have been market failures, as well. Folbee, for instance, is hardly a household name. So there's risk involved, no question about it. But, should it all work out, the payoff can be big, VERY big, as it has been for Niaspan and Lovaza. So, start thinking about how you might follow this formula for:1) Cholecalciferol (vitamin D3)--e.g., for osteopenia, low HDL, or high c-reactive protein2) Vitamin K2--also for osteopenia3) Magnesium--for suppression of ventricular arrhythmias (especially Torsade de Pointes)4) Iodine--for goiter and iodine deficiency5) Vitamin C--for uric acid reductionWho said you can't turn lead into gold? Irvingia and Leptin Resistance: Fact or fiction? 7. January 2009 William Davis (0) << Older posts Newer posts >> Newer posts12...484950515253545556...John Cannell, MD 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. We don't copyright this newsletter. Please feel free to reproduce it and post it on Internet sites and blogs. Remember, we are a non-profit educational organization. Our pathetic finances are available for public inspection. We rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:The Vitamin D Council (www.vitamindcouncil.com)9100 San Gregorio RoadAtascadero, CA 93422 Watch your groin 9. March 2007 William Davis (0) The reason why I've been blogging lightly these past few days is because, as a favor, I'm covering the practice for some colleagues who I'm (very) loosely affiliated with. The time demands have been great. Nonetheless, it is a good reminder to me just how far wrong conventional cardiology remains. Judging by what I see around me, there is a startling lack of restraint in proceeding to the catheterization laboratory. Curiously, the internists and family practitioners have been brainwashed into accepting this path. I suppose that all it takes is an occasional real "save" for these physicians to develop a fear of ever missing real disease. What I'm seeing is just how many people presenting with chest pain or similar symptoms end up going to the cath lab. I would crudely estimate 80%. That is, once you make it past the emergency room, there's a four out of five chance that you'll end up with a heart catheterization to "be sure your heart is okay", "make certain you're not going to die of heart disease", "see if there's a ticking time bomb in your chest". You've heard all the clever, scary phrases that get tossed around to scare the pants off you and justify putting catheters in your groin. Despite the fact that tools for heart disease prevention have improved dramatically, the volume of heart catheterizations continues to grow nationwide. I find it shocking and unacceptable. We're currently working behind the scenes to help change this situation through education of the public. Persuade a $1 million a year cardiologist that he is overdoing procedures? Unlikely in my experience. Educate the public about the shocking over-reliance on high-revenue procedures? Perhaps more practical. Garlic and cholesterol--Does everyone now need Lipitor? 6. March 2007 William Davis (1) Garlic May Not Lower CholesterolStudy Shows No Improvement in Cholesterol Levels From Raw Garlic or Garlic SupplementsLots of reports continue to hit the press about a small study that hoped to determine whether garlic as whole cloves (4 to 6), an aqueous extract of garlic called Kyolic, or an oil extract called Garlicin (high in allicin), or placebo. No differences in lipid numbers including LDL cholesterol were observed. (Full text at WebMD at http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/news/20070226/garlic-may-not-lower-cholesterol?ecd=wnl_chl_030507. You may be required to log in or register.)I believe that the researchers were sincere in their effort to follow an honest, scientfically sound clinical trial design. I'm personally not that surprised. The effect in prior studies has been modest, sometimes none. Does that mean that we should ignore the other studies that suggest there may be modest blood-thinning, anti-inflammatory, blood pressure-reducing, and cancer-preventing properties? No, it does not. Dr. Matt Budoff at UCLA even published a very small study in about 20 people that suggested a slowing of plaque growth by using Kyolic in persons tracked by CT heart scans. Nonetheless, garlic is, at best, probably no more than a source of small benefits. The biggest fallout from this kind of report, however, is not the neutral results from garlic, but from the open door the drug companies sense when this happens. If you read the WebMD report, you'll notice all sorts of advertisements from drug companies for statin cholesterol drugs ("Cholesterol health center"; "Understanding Cholesterol Numbers"; "There are two sources of cholesterol: food and family"), Niaspan (which I used to support but have been discouraged by the Kos companies excessively profiteering methods and recent big Wall Street sellout). It doesn't follow. The failure of one nutritional strategy to reduce LDL does nothave to trigger a run to the drugs. Don't fall for it. Drugs have their place. So do supplements and food choices, which can be very powerful. Drug manufacturers and their marketing people salivate when something like this comes along, an open invitation to say, "If garlic doesn't work, _____ sure does." Diet Coke saves father's life 6. March 2007 William Davis (0) Jason came to the office because of chest pain. At 34 years old, he works as manager of a (non-fast food) restaurant, but indulges in lots of the odds and ends. Among his indulgences: Diet Coke. Every time he'd have a diet Coke, he'd have chest pain. Not drinking diet Coke--no chest pain. If Jason drank coffee, no chest pain. Other foods, no chest pain. Anyway, just eliminating the diet Coke seemed to do the trick. (Aspartame?) Anyway, that's not why I tell you Jason's story. In the midst of his evaluation, an echocardiogram showed a mildly enlarged aorta, measuring 4.0 cm in diameter. So we obtained lipoproteins. Jason showed lipoprotein(a) and small LDL particles, the dreaded duo. We talked about how to correct this pattern. Among the strategies we discussed was niacin. But what bothered me was that neither of Jason's parents had a diagnosis of heart disease. Jason had to have gotten Lp(a) from either his mother or father, since you obtain the gene from one or the other parent. You cannot acquire Lp(a). So one of Jason's parents was sitting on a genetic time bomb of unrecognized Lp(a) and hidden heart disease. Because Jason's paternal grandfather had a heart attack at age 62, only Jason's Dad had the heart scan (though I urged both to get one). Score: 1483. Recall that heart scan scores >1000 carry a risk of death or heart attack of 25% per year if no preventive action is taken. Now, of course, we have to persuade Jason's Dad that a program of prevention--intensive prevention is in order, including a measure of Lp(a).So that's the curious story of how Diet Coke probably saved Jason's Dad's life. The lesson is that if you or someone you know has Lp(a), think about their children as well as their parents, each of whom carry a 50% chance of having the pattern. << Older posts Newer posts >> Newer posts12...9293949596979899100...123124Older posts
Why an RDA for vitamin D? 24. January 2009 William Davis (10) The Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) of the Institute of Medicine is charged with setting the values for the Recommended Daily Allowances of various essential nutrients. However, when it comes to vitamin D, the FNB decided that "evidence is insufficient to develop an RDA and [an Adequate Intake, AI] is set at a level assumed to ensure nutritional adequacy."The National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements lists the AI's for various groups of people:14-18 years Male 200 IUFemale 200 IU 19-50 years Male 200 IUFemale 200 IU 51-70 years Male 400 IUFemale 400 IU 71+ years Male 600 IUFemale 600 IU A reconsideration is apparently being planned in near-future that will (hopefully) incorporate the newest clinical data on vitamin D. My question: Who cares what the FNB decides? Let me explain. I monitor blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D to assess the 1) starting level of vitamin D without supplementation, and 2) levels while on supplementation, preferably every 6 months (during sunny weather, during cold weather). I have done for the past 3 years in over 1000 people. The requirement for vitamin D dose in adults, in my experience, ranges from as low as 1000 units per day to as high as 20,000 units per day, rarely more. The vast majority of women require 5000 units per day, males 6000 units per day to maintain a blood level in the desirable range. (I aim for 60-70 ng/ml.) A graph of the distribution of vitamin D needs in my area (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) is a bell curve, a curve more heavily weighted towards the upper vitamin D dose range. Need for vitamin D to achieve the same blood level is influenced by age, sex, body size, race, presence or absence of a gallbladder, as well as other factors. But needs vary, even among similar people. For instance, a 50-year old woman weighing 140 lbs might need 4000 units per day to achieve a blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D of 65 ng/ml. Another 50-year old womacial current Upper Limit of 2,000 IU/day is the same for a 300 pound adult as it is for a 25 pound toddler. That is, the government says it's safe for a one-year-old, 25-pound, child to take 2,000 IU per day but it's not safe for a 30-year old, 300-pound, adult to take 2,000 and one IU a day. I mean, whoever thought up these Upper Limits must have left their thinking caps at home. Nevertheless, nothing worked. My vitamin D deficient patient was not interested in taking any vitamin D. What are young men interested in? I remembered that he had told me: "Sex and sports." Two years ago I had researched the medical literature looking for any evidence vitamin D enhanced sexual performance. Absolutely nothing. That would have been nice. Can you imagine the interest? Then I remembered that several readers had written to ask me if vitamin D could possibly improve their athletic performance? They told me that after taking 2,000 to 5,000 IU per day for several months, they seemed just a little faster, a little stronger, maybe had a little better balance and timing. A pianist had written to tell me she even played a better piano, her fingers moved over the keys more effortlessly! Was vitamin D responsible for these subtle changes or was it a placebo effect? That is, did readers just think their athletic performance improved because they knew vitamin D was a steroid hormone precursor (hormone, from the Greek, meaning "to set in motion")? The active form of vitamin D is a steroid (actually a seco-steroid) in the same way that testosterone is a steroid and vitamin D is a hormone in the same way that growth hormone is a hormone. Steroid hormones are substances made from cholesterol, which circulate in the body, and work at distant sites by "setting in motion" genetic protein transcription. That is, both vitamin D and testosterone regulate your genome, the stuff of life. While testosterone is a sex steroid hormone, vitamin D is a pleomorphic (multiple function) steroid hormone. All of a sudden, it didn't seem so silly. Certainly steroids can improve athletic performance although they can be quite dangerous. In addition, few people are deficient in growth hormone or testosterone, so when athletes take sex steroids or growth hormone they are cheating, or doping. The case with vitamin D is quite different because natural vitamin D levels are about 50 ng/ml and, since almost no one has such levels, extra vitamin D is not doping, it's just good treatment. I decided to exhaustively research the medical literature on vitamin D and athletic performance. It took me over a year. To my surprise, I discovered that there are five totally independent bodies of research that all converge on an inescapable conclusion: vitamin D will improve athletic performance in vitamin D deficient people (and that includes most people). Even more interesting is who published this literature, and when. Are you old enough to remember when the Germans and Russians won every Olympics in the 60's and 70's? Well, it turns out that the most convincing evidence that vitamin D improves athletic performance was published in old German and Russian medical literature. With the help of my wife and mother-in-law, both of whom are Russian, and with the help of Marc Sorenson, whose book Solar Power is a must read, I finally was able to look at translations of much of the old Russian and German literature. When one combines that old literature with the modern English language literature on neuromuscular performance, the conclusion is inescapable. The readers who wrote me are right. If you are vitamin D deficient, the medical literature indicates that the right amount of vitamin D will make you faster, stronger, improve your balance and timing, etc. How much it will improve your athletic ability depends on how deficient you are to begin with. How good an athlete you will be depends on your innate ability, training, and dedication. However, peak athletic performance also depends upon the neuromuscular cells in your body and brain having unfettered access to the steroid hormone, activated vitamin D. In addition, how much activated vitamin D is available to your brain, muscle, and nerves depends on having ideal levels of vitamin D in your blood - about 50 ng/ml, to be precise. Why would I write about such a frivolous topic like peak athletic performance when cancer patients all across this land are dying vitamin D deficient? Like many vitamin D advocates, I have been disappointed that the medical profession and the public don't seem to care about vitamin D. Maybe people, like my young basketball player, will care if it makes better athletes. So, Hey! You jocks! Listen up! I'm talking speed, balance, choice reaction time, muscle mass, muscle strength, squats, reps, etc. Important stuff. Here's the Vitamin D Council's first ever sports quiz. 1. Vitamin D-producing UVB radiation improves athletic performance and may have been widely practiced by German and Russian Olympic athletes in the 1960's and 70's. True. I found tantalizing evidence the Russians and especially the Germans were on to this during the 60's and 70's when those two nations took turns placing number one and number two in the Olympics every year? For example, in 1938, Russian researchers reported that a course of ultraviolet irradiations improved speed in the 100-meter dash in college students compared to matched controls, both groups undergoing daily training. Average 100-meter dash times decreased from 13.51 seconds to 13.28 seconds in the non-irradiated controls, but from 13.63 seconds to 12.62 seconds in the irradiated students. Here we see training improved times but training and irradiation improved times much more. Obviously, irradiation or vitamin D would not render the same magnitude of improvements in world-class sprinters, but they would be happy with a few milliseconds. Gorkin Z, Gorkin MJ, Teslenko NE. [The effect of ultraviolet irradiation upon training for 100m sprint.] The Journal of Physiology of the USSR [Fiziol, z. (RSSR)] 1938; 25: 695-701. (In Russian) If you want to know what early German thinking was on this, read this summation of the German literature:"It is a well-known fact that physical performance can be increased through ultra-violet irradiation. In 1927, a heated argument arose after the decision by the German Swimmers' Association to use the sunlamp as an artificial aid, constituting an athletic unfairness, doping, so to speak. In 1926, Rancken had already reported the improving effect of sunlamp irradiation on muscle work with the hand-dynamo-graph. Heib observed an improvement in swimming times after repeated irradiations. In thorough experiments, Backmund showed that a substantial increase in muscle activity happens after radiation of larger portions of the body with an artificial sunlamp; that this performance increase is not caused through local - direct or indirect - effects on the musculature, but through a general effect. This general effect, triggered by ultra-violet irradiation, is caused by a systemic effect on the nervous system." (p. 17) Parade GW, Otto H. Die beeinflussung der leistungsfahigkeit durch Hohensonnenbestrahlung. Zeitschrift fur Klinische Medizin (Z Klin Med),1940;137:17-21 [In German] In 1945, two Americans measured the cardiovascular fitness and muscular endurance of 11 male Illinois subjects undergoing training in an indoor physical education class, comparing them to 10 matched controls. Both groups underwent similar physical training. Treatment consisted of ultraviolet irradiation, given in the nude, up to two minutes per session, three times per week, for ten weeks in the late fall and winter. After ten weeks, the treatment group had a 19% standard score gain in cardiovascular fitness compare to a 2% improvement in the control students. To regular readers of this newsletter, it should come as no surprise that the un-irradiated control group reported twice as many viral respiratory infections as the treatment group. Allen R, Cureton T. Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation on Physical Fitness. Arch Phys Med 1945: 10: 641-44. In 1952, the German sports medicine researcher, Spellerberg, reported on the effects of wholesale irradiation of athletes studying and training at the Sports College of Cologne - including many elite athletes - with a "central sun lamp." He irradiated the athletes in their bathing suits, on both sides of their bodies, for up to ten minutes, twice a week, for 6 weeks. He reported a "convincing effect" on athletic performance and a 50% reduction in sports injuries. Results were particularly impressive for swimmers, soccer, handball, hockey, and tennis players, as well as for boxers and most track and field athletes. He reported that irradiation leading to burns, further irradiation of athletes having achieved peak performance, and irradiation within 24 hours of competition, all impaired athletic performance. Their results were so convincing, the Sports College of Cologne officially notified the "national German and International Olympic committee." (p. 570) Spellerberg AE. [Increase of athletic effectiveness by systematic ultraviolet irradiation.] Strahlentherapie 1952; 88: 567-70. [In German] In 1952, Ronge exposed 120 German schoolchildren to UV lights installed in classrooms and compared them to 120 un-irradiated control children. Over a two-year period - excluding summer vacations - he tested both groups with a series of six cardiovascular fitness tests using a bike ergometer. Un-irradiated children showed a distinct seasonality in fitness, with the highest values right after summer break and the lowest values in the spring. Treated children showed no seasonal differences in physical performance. Differences in work performance between the irradiated and un-irradiated children were most conspicuous in the spring with 56% difference between the two groups. In a final experiment, he gave 30 children in the control classrooms 6.25 mg (250,000 IU) of vitamin D as a single dose in February and found their performance had "increased considerably," one month later but did not report the actual numbers. He concluded that vitamin D, either as a supplement or induced via UV irradiation, improved physical performance.Ronge HE. [Increase of physical effectiveness by systematic ultraviolet irradiation.] Strahlentherapie 1952; 88: 563-6. [In German] In 1954, another researcher, at the Max-Planck Institute for Industrial Physiology in Dortmund, Germany, administered three different wavelengths of UV light over 8 weeks to university students. He found that ultraviolet light in the vitamin D-producing UVB range was consistently effective in reducing resting pulse, lowering the basal metabolic rate, and increasing athletic performance. UVA had no effect; interestingly, artificial UVC irradiation (the atmosphere normally completely filters out UVC radiation and thus it's not naturally present on earth) also gave some positive results.Lehmann G. [Significance of certain wave lengths for increased efficacy of ultraviolet irradiation.] Strahlentherapie. 1954 Nov;95(3):447-53. [In German] In 1956, Hettinger and Seidel irradiated seven subjects in two different experiments: athletic performance on bike-ergometers and forearm muscle strength. They found that UV radiation induced a significant improvement in both muscle strength and athletic performance. Hettinger T, Seidl E. [Ultraviolet irradiation and trainability of musculature.] Internationale Zeitschrift für angewandte Physiologie, einschliesslich Arbeitsphysiologie 1956; 16: 177-83. [In German] Another German researcher, at the Institute for Medical Physics and Biophysics at the University of Gottiingen, studied reaction times (the time needed to recognize a light and switch it off) during October and November in a series of controlled experiments on 16 children and an unspecified number of adults. He first controlled for practice effects (getting better by practicing) and then administered nine full-body UV radiation treatments over three weeks to the two treatment groups, using placebo radiation in the two control groups. UV radiation improved choice reaction time by 25% in children and 20% in adults while reaction time worsened in controls. The improvements in the irradiated groups peaked at the end of the three weeks of UV treatments and reverted to baseline levels three weeks later. In the two control groups, he found distinctly improved reaction times in the sunnier months. Sigmund R. [Effect of ultraviolet rays on reaction time in man.] Strahlentherapie. 1956; 101: 623-9. [In German] The next study threw me because it was very well conducted, meticulously designed, and completely negative. In 1963, Berven reported on the effects of ultraviolet irradiation and vitamin D supplementation in a group of 30 Stockholm schoolchildren, aged 10 -11, comparing them to appropriate controls. He found no seasonality of fitness in the control group and no effect from either irradiation or two different vitamin D supplementation protocols (1500 IU of cholecalciferol daily for two months and a single dose of 400,000 IU of ergocalciferol) on performance on a bike ergometer.Berven H. The physical working capacity of healthy children; seasonal variations and effect of ultraviolet irradiation and vitamin-D supply. Acta paediatrica. Supplementum 1963; 148: 1-22. However, two things were not right and got me thinking. One, Berven found no seasonality of physical fitness and was the only author who found no such seasonal variations in athletic performance. Second, he found no effect from irradiation, again, the only author. Then I realized he was working with Swedish children in the late 1950's. Supplementation of children with high doses of vitamin D - often as cod liver oil - was routine in Scandinavia in the past, particularly in children. For example, in neighboring Finland, the official recommended daily dose of vitamin D for children - including infants - was 4,000 IU per day until 1964, when authorities reduced it to 2,000 IU/day. (That's right, you read that correctly, 4,000 IU per day for infants, which is too much by the way.) In 1975, Finnish authorities reduced it to 1,000 IU per day, and, in 1992, to 400 IU per day. I emailed Professor Elina Hypponen who confirmed that the Swedish recommendations were similar to the Finnish ones. Therefore, it seems highly unlikely that many of Berven's Swedish children, studied in 1958 and 1959, all from "families with a good standard of living," were vitamin D deficient. Therefore, this study showed that vitamin D will not improve athletic ability in vitamin D replete people. That's very important because it indicates more is not necessarily better. More is only better if you are not taking enough.Hypponen E, et al. Intake of vitamin D and risk of type 1 diabetes: a birth-cohort study. Lancet. 2001 Nov 3;358(9292):1500-3.In the 1960's, three American researchers conducted experiments with university students. Rosentswieg studied the effects of a single six-minute dose of UV light on each side of the trunk in 23 college women, recording changes in various tests of muscle strength at one and five hours. He found a trend towards significance after five hours in white but not African American students. In 1968, Cheatum found that a six-minute administration of UV light, on each side of the trunk, increased the speed of 15 college women in the 30-yard dash. In 1969, Rosentswieg found a six-minute dose of UV light, on each side of the trunk, finding improved performance on a bicycle ergometer inhey have no business talking about. This is one such example, a newsletter from pop exercise guru, Denise Austin. Although I'm sure she means well, I have a problem with people who have little to no experience acting as experts, often simply repeating something they heard or read somewhere else. This has become particular problem with the internet, in which bad information can get repeated thousands of times, gaining a veil of "truth" through its repetition. I don't mean to pick specifically on Ms. Austin, since she joins a growing rank of pseudo-experts on vitamin D and other topics, but she provides a good example of how far wrong mainstream information can be. Simple StepsDo Your D!Calcium often gets all the glory when it comes to bone health. But calcium wouldn't benefit your bones much without its partner, vitamin D!Why? Vitamin D helps your body absorb calcium and keeps your bones strong; without enough vitamin D, the bones become weak and brittle, a condition called rickets in children, and osteomalacia in adults. Adults from 19 to 50 need 200 IU (international units) per day, while those from 51 to 70 need 400 IU daily. Those over 70 need 600 IU per day.Unfortunately, not too many foods contain vitamin D naturally. (Tuna and sardines canned in oil are exceptions.) The good news is that many foods are now regularly fortified with vitamin D, including milk, some yogurts, margarines, and cereals. You can check the Nutrition Facts panel on packages and containers to see which products contain vitamin D. It should be listed after vitamins A and C, along with the percentage of the Daily Value that a serving of the food contains. The Daily Value (a standardized amount) for vitamin D is 400 IU, so if your milk has 25 percent of the Daily Value, it provides 100 IU per serving.Your skin can also make vitamin D using sunlight — you need about a half hour of exposure to the midday sun twice a week to make enough. However, because of the increasing incidence of skin cancer in recent years, many experts are wary about recommending sun exposure.So take a closer look at milk, yogurt, cereal, and margarine selections when you're doing your weekly shopping, and stock up on brands that are fortified with vitamin D. Challenge yourself to consume one source of vitamin D at least three days in the coming week! If you cannot eat or do not like any foods that contain vitamin D or are fortified with it, talk with your health care provider ASAP about taking a supplement. Your bones will thank you for it!Let me list the mistakes in this piece: Adults from 19 to 50 need 200 IU (international units) per day, while those from 51 to 70 need 400 IU daily. Those over 70 need 600 IU per day.This is the same non-information that was the advice originally offered by the Food and Nutrition Board based on a best guesstimate due to lack of data. It is clear from newer data that doses required for full restoration of vitamin D are in the thousands of units. (My personal dose for full restoration of vitamin judged by serum levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D is 8000 units per day.) The information coming from the Food and Nutrition Board is about as good as the information coming from the USDA (you know, that "government" agency meant to represent the interests of ConAgra, Cargill, and Big Farming) and the American Heart Association (that represents consensus opinion from data 20 years out of date and now arm-in-arm with Big Food like General Mills, Kraft, and Nabisco). These agencies and the advice they offer has, over the past few years, become increasingly irrelevant and outdated. It is the Information Age, in which ulterior motives are becoming more readily exposed, yet they still operate by the rules of the Industrial Age and deliver a message that serves their own purposes.Ms. Austin fell for it. The good news is that many foods are now regularly fortified with vitamin D, including milk, some yogurts, margarines, and cereals.First of all, what is a "diet expert" doing advocating industrial foods? Cereals, in particular, are among the worst foods on the supermarket shelves, whether or not they are fortified. Candy bars can be fortified, too; that doesn't make them any better for you. The vitamin D added to these foods is, more often than not, the ergocalcferol, or D2, form that is woefully ineffective. And the dose added is trivial, usually in the 100-200 unit range per serving. The same goes for the milk, an inadequate source that we don't even factor into total intakes because of the low quantity. Your skin can also make vitamin D using sunlight — you need about a half hour of exposure to the midday sun twice a week.Nope. This might be true for a young person below age 30 in a southern environment. It is NOT true for the majority of people in northern climates and anyone over age 30 or 40, since we lose most of the capacity to activate vitamin D in the skin as we age. A deep, dark Florida tan does not necessarily mean that vitamin D has been activated. See A tan does not equal vitamin D. Here in Wisconsin, where, despite this darn cold winter, does enjoy wonderfully warm and beautiful summers, the average vitamin D dose need ranges from 4000-8000 units per day in summer, slightly more in winter. By the way, it is not calcium that is instrumental to bone health. It is vitamin D. Calcium is the passive bricks and mortar of bones, while vitamin D is the bricklayer, the determinant of calcium's fate, the master control of bone health. Calcium supplementation becomes almost immaterial when vitamin D is restored.I praise Ms. Austin for her hard work, trying to help fat Americans lose weight. But please ignore her advice on vitamin D, along with the numbing repetition of this mis-information that will likely propagate from other exercise gurus, dietitians, and pseudoexperts.
A Tale of Two LDL's 15. January 2009 William Davis (10) Kurt, a 50-year old businessman with a heart scan score of 323, had a :--Conventional (calculated) LDL of 128 mg/dl--Real measured LDL 241 mg/dl. Laurie, a 53-year old woman who underwent a coronary bypass operation last year (before I met her), had a:--Conventional LDL of 142 mg/dl--Real measured LDL was 85 mg/dl. (By "real, measured" LDL, I'm referring to LDL particle number in units of nmol/L obtained through NMR lipoprotein testing and dividing by 10, or just dropping the last digit to convert the value to mg/dl. This technique was arrived at by comparing the population distributions of these two parameters, LDL particle number and calculated LDL. This is the gold standard in my view. Similar numbers can be obtained by measuring apoprotein B, direct LDL, or calculated non-HDL, with diminishing reliability from first to last.)In other words, Kurt's conventional LDL underestimated real LDL by 88%. Laurie's conventional LDL overestimated real LDL by 40%. Interestingly, Laurie's doctor had insisted she take Lipitor for a high LDL cholesterol. Her real LDL was, in fact, low to begin with and benefits of a statin drug would be little to none. (Remember, in our Track Your Plaque approach, multiple other treatments are included, such as omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, vitamin D normalization, and wheat elimination, strategies that yield benefits that others expect to obtain with statins.) Laurie's real cause of her heart disease proved to have nothing to do with LDL cholesterol, but involved lipoprotein(a) and thyroid issues. Kurt proved to have a severe preponderance of small LDL particles--the worst kind of LDL, while Laurie had none--a benign pattern. Then how can anyone make sense of the conventional, calculated LDL cholesterol that is generally (95% of the time) provided? If accuracy can stretch to plus or minus 80% . . . you can't. Conventional LDL is a miserably inaccurate number. The problem is that obtaining a superior number requires a step or two more testing and insight, something most busy primary care doc's simply don't have in the midst of a day filled with arthritis, bronchitis, diarrhea, belly aches, and seborrhea. Yet conventional--I call it "fictitious"--LDL serves as the basis for this $27 billion (annual revenues) industry selling statin drugs. This is meant to be neither an argument in favor of nor against statin drugs. However, it is plain as day that any study designed to reduce LDL cholesterol will be hopelessly clouded by calculated LDL imprecision. A calculated LDL of, say, 143 mg/dl might really be 187 mg/dl, or it might be 74 mg/dl--you can't tell by looking just at LDL. Yet billions of dollars of research and billions of dollars of healthcare costs are based on the treatment of this number. This reminds me of the mark-to-market accounting magic that helped topple Wall Street. I don't think that the statin world is poised for such a huge downfall. But I do see this as a source of enormous dilution of the effects of statin drugs. People who barely stand to benefit get the drugs, while others who might truly benefit are treated inadequately. It provides fuel to the growing idea that reducing LDL cholesterol fails to truly provide benefit. I am no lover of statin drugs nor drugs in general. But I am a fan of knowing the truth. Despite my bashing of the drug industry (and make no mistake: the drug industry is a cutthroat, profit-seeking, do-anything-to-increase-sales industry), I do believe that there is a role for statin drugs (though far smaller than $27 billion per year). But the usual method of selecting people for treatment is pure fiction. The ATP-III cholesterol treatment guidelines? An anemic attempt to apply structure to meaningless values. You and I do not need to subscribe to this sort of non-quantitative nonsense.
Niacin scams 12. January 2009 William Davis (0) In the Track Your Plaque program, we often resort to niacin (vitamin B3 or nicotinic acid) to: --Raise HDL cholesterol--Reduce the proportion of small LDL particles--Shift HDL towards the healthy larger fraction (HDL2b or "large")--Reduce lipoprotein(a), the most aggressive risk factor known But niacin comes with a crazy "hot flush," a warm, prickly feeling that usually envelops the upper chest, neck and face that is, without a doubt, annoying. Around 1 in 20 people simply cannot tolerate any amount of niacin >100 mg, while others have no problem even into the 3000 mg per day or more range. (Tolerance to niacin is genetically determined, governed by the rapidity of metabolism to the niacin metabolite, nicotinuric acid.)The niacin flush has spawned an entire panel of niacin-like scams, agents that sound like niacin or may even contain niacin, but exert no beneficial effect whatsoever:Flush-free niacin--I have previously posted on this useless but ubiquitous preparation that often costs several times more than conventional niacin. Flush-free niacin, or inositol hexaniacinate, does indeed contain niacin, but it is not released in the human body. You simply pass it out down the toilet, where this preparation belongs in the first place. Nicotinamide--Also called niacinamide. While the nicotinamide/niacinamide forms of vitamin B3 can be used to treat B3 deficiency ("pellagra"), they do not reproduce the lipid and lipoprotein effects of niacin. For our purposes, they are useless. Niacin-containing heart-healthy supplements--These are the multi-supplements that contain a little of everything that might be beneficial for the heart, but none at a dose that provides genuine benefit. Don't throw your money away. There's also a prescription niacin, Niaspan, that costs 20-fold more than the best over-the-counter preparation, Sloniacin. Niaspan has yielded hundreds of millions of dollars for the pharmaceutical industry. Your money, in my view, is far better spent on Sloniacin (around $12-14 per bottle of 100 tablets of 500 mg). For more on niacin, here's an article I wrote for the Life Extension Magazine people a while back: Using Niacin to Improve Cardiovascular Health.
Deja vu all over again? 10. January 2009 William Davis (8) HeartHawk brought a report and debate on The Heart.Org website to my attention: Screening for risk factors or detecting disease? Debate divides the CV community. After landing on theheart.org, paste this onto your URL address:article/883239.do. (Full address: http://www.theheart.org/article/883239.do. I don't know why, but I couldn't go there directly.)Some interesting comments: Dr. Jay Cohn (University of Minnesota):"They're saying that we can't identify disease very effectively so let's just stick with risk factors, which we know are very poorly predictive and nonspecific. It boggles my mind as to why they won't open up their minds to the importance of moving forward in finding better strategies to identify the disease that we are treating. It's very strange. They criticize these disease markers because they are not predictive of events, but they are looking at very short-term outcomes. We're interested in lifetime risk. We're screening people in their 40s who are concerned about morbid events in their 60s and 70s, and no trials are going to track them that long.""You have to accept the pathophysiologic reality that heart attacks don't occur in the absence of coronary disease, and coronary disease doesn't occur in the absence of endothelial dysfunction and vascular disease, all of which now can be identified."". . . Can we as a society and as a profession accept the idea that there is a link between the vascular abnormalities and the events? "And that that linkage is tight enough that it should allow us to accept slowing of progression of the vascular abnormalities as an adequate marker for slowing disease progression, without waiting for events to occur? As soon as you use the word surrogate, people jump up and say we have all these markers that we know don't work well—things like premature ventricular contractions [PVCs] on the electrocardiogram, LDL, HDL—but those are not the markers we're talking about. We're talking about structural and functional changes in the blood vessel and in the heart."Wow. The idea may be starting to catch on. As an interesting aside, Cohn et al use a 10-test panel to screen for vascular disease: "Named for the center's benefactor, the Rasmussen score includes tests for large and small artery elasticity (compliance), resting blood pressure, blood-pressure response to moderate treadmill exercise, optic fundus photography, carotid intimal-media thickness (IMT), microalbuminuria, electrocardiography, left ventricular (LV) ultrasonography for LV volume and mass, and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP). Each test result is scored out of 10 for low, intermediate, or high risk, and the combined results yields a score that Cohn et al believe is more predictive than any of the existing standalone tests."The counterarguments in this debate were provided by Dr. Philip Greenland (Northwestern University), who repeated his oft-used argument that, while he accepts that vascular disease can be identified, no one has proven that measuring it improves outcomes: "We do have that evidence for risk-factor screening. Even though people criticize risk-factor assessment because it is not sensitive enough or not accurate enough, the interesting and curious thing is that we actually have evidence that if you go to the trouble of screening for risk factors and treating them, patients have better outcomes. We do not have that evidence for any of these other tests."An interesting debate ensues that includes Track Your Plaque friend, Dr. William Blanchet, who characteristically argues persuasively in favor of broad screening for coronary disease with coronary calcium scoring:"If we were doing our jobs in primary prevention, we would not need to look at improved intervention and secondary prevention to reduce coronary death."Here's a shock: Dr. Melissa Shirley-Walton, the cardiologist who previously preached the "cath lab on every corner" argument seems to have undergone a change of heart:"What if I walked up to a gentleman and said, "you are at risk for CAD, take a statin", to which he replies, "I'm afraid of those meds". BUT if he sees his calcium score........he is then convinced to be pro-active. What is so wrong with that? What is so wrong with allowing him to spend 250.00 US out of pocket in order to save the US 150,000.00 US later on? No hard endpoints you say with intensive therapy for primary prevention? What about extrapolating from trials for secondary prevention like HATS? ARBITER2? And what exactly is the true definition of secondary prevention? Is it truly primary prevention if we already have intima thickness abnormalities, or fatty streaks? That would more likely fall under secondary prevention by today's new standards. So, I'm all for any visual aid that will encourage compliance with life style change, necessary medical therapy and followup. If the patient is willing to spend 250.00$ to get a calcium score, so be it. Better yet, why not lower the price so everyone can have the option if they are motivated enough to seize an opportunity?"I have to admit that I thought that Dr. Blanchet was wasting his time trying to persuade Shirley-Walton et al, but perhaps he is having an impact, though having hammered away at them for the last year or so. These arguments, for me, eerily echo many previous debates I've heard. But I am encouraged by the more favorable treatment the notion of atherosclerosis screening is receiving. Just 5 years ago, all coronary calcium scoring would have received from the conventionalists is "more clinical studies are needed." So perhaps the cardiology and medical worlds are inching slowly towards broad acceptance of screening for coronary and vascular disease. BUT, screening is not sufficient. What do you do with the information? Here is where the conventional-thinkers stop. The question that seems to occupy them: Perhaps we should screen people for hidden coronary and vascular atherosclerosis so we can better decide who needs a statin drug or a procedure. I would pose a different challenge: We should screen people for hidden coronary and vascular atherosclerosis so we can better decide who needs to engage in an intensive program of disease reversal using natural means and as little medication and procedures as possible. Well, perhaps in time.
Lead to Gold: The alchemy of transforming nutritional-supplement-to-medication 9. January 2009 William Davis (25) Here's a recipe to make hundreds of millions of dollars. Others have done it and you can do it, too!1) Identify a nutritional supplement that works. Find some agent deemed to fall within the broad allowances of the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act . However, because this agent is already in the public domain and is essential non-patent-protectable, you may need to develop some patent protectable aspect of its production, application, or encapsulation. This patent-protected aspect may or may not provide genuine advantage, but that's not your concern. Your concern is protecting your investment and providing the appearance of exclusivity. 2) Identify a medical indication for your product. Choose a disease or condition that is likely to yield unquestioned efficacy, e.g., omega-3 fatty acids to reduce high triglycerides in people with familial hypertriglyceridemia (triglycerides >500 mg/dl). While this will restrict your ability to make market claims, it will not restrain your ability to sell or allow use of your agent for "off-label" applications. In fact, there are methods to surreptitiously promote the use of your product for off-label use, such as hiring experts to discuss the science behind your product with doctors who can prescribe your product. Ideally, your product's primary indication will provide a substantial market on its own to justify your investment. However, the eventual off-label sales can be substantial, even outstripping the sales generated through your primary indication. 3) Obtain at least $230 million to pay for the clinical trials required to obtain FDA approval. You will also have to raise the capital to build the business to manufacture, distribute, and sell your product. 4) After FDA approval is obtained, your business is up and running, and distribution begins, start bashing the non-FDA-approved nutritional products that stand to compete in your market. You could point out that only your product has actually passed through the rigorous FDA process. You could make claims regarding purity, potency, "approved by your doctor," etc., whether or not there is any truth behind the claim. 5) Buy that second vacation home in Aspen and the corporate jet you've been dreaming about! After all the risks you've taken, you deserve it!That's it, plain and simple. It is a tried-and-true formula that has been applied many times. It is a formula like this that brought Lovaza-brand omega-3 fatty acids to market, Niaspan brand of niacin, ergocalciferol form of vitamin D, Folbee (prescription combination B vitamins), with a slightly different spin for Synthroid (since the Armour Thyroid it is meant to replace is not a nutritional supplement, but a low-cost, generic thyroid replacement). Whatever you do, don't EVER run a head-to-head comparative trial of your agent versus the nutritional supplement competition. For instance, NEVER compare Lovaza to supplemental fish oil capsules, matched milligram-for-milligram for EPA and DHA content. NEVER compare Niaspan to over-the-counter Sloniacin. NEVER compare Armour Thyroid to Synthroid. You never know what you might find. (Psssssttt! They might be equivalent!) The formula is not a foolproof road paved with riches, however. There have been market failures, as well. Folbee, for instance, is hardly a household name. So there's risk involved, no question about it. But, should it all work out, the payoff can be big, VERY big, as it has been for Niaspan and Lovaza. So, start thinking about how you might follow this formula for:1) Cholecalciferol (vitamin D3)--e.g., for osteopenia, low HDL, or high c-reactive protein2) Vitamin K2--also for osteopenia3) Magnesium--for suppression of ventricular arrhythmias (especially Torsade de Pointes)4) Iodine--for goiter and iodine deficiency5) Vitamin C--for uric acid reductionWho said you can't turn lead into gold?
Watch your groin 9. March 2007 William Davis (0) The reason why I've been blogging lightly these past few days is because, as a favor, I'm covering the practice for some colleagues who I'm (very) loosely affiliated with. The time demands have been great. Nonetheless, it is a good reminder to me just how far wrong conventional cardiology remains. Judging by what I see around me, there is a startling lack of restraint in proceeding to the catheterization laboratory. Curiously, the internists and family practitioners have been brainwashed into accepting this path. I suppose that all it takes is an occasional real "save" for these physicians to develop a fear of ever missing real disease. What I'm seeing is just how many people presenting with chest pain or similar symptoms end up going to the cath lab. I would crudely estimate 80%. That is, once you make it past the emergency room, there's a four out of five chance that you'll end up with a heart catheterization to "be sure your heart is okay", "make certain you're not going to die of heart disease", "see if there's a ticking time bomb in your chest". You've heard all the clever, scary phrases that get tossed around to scare the pants off you and justify putting catheters in your groin. Despite the fact that tools for heart disease prevention have improved dramatically, the volume of heart catheterizations continues to grow nationwide. I find it shocking and unacceptable. We're currently working behind the scenes to help change this situation through education of the public. Persuade a $1 million a year cardiologist that he is overdoing procedures? Unlikely in my experience. Educate the public about the shocking over-reliance on high-revenue procedures? Perhaps more practical.
Garlic and cholesterol--Does everyone now need Lipitor? 6. March 2007 William Davis (1) Garlic May Not Lower CholesterolStudy Shows No Improvement in Cholesterol Levels From Raw Garlic or Garlic SupplementsLots of reports continue to hit the press about a small study that hoped to determine whether garlic as whole cloves (4 to 6), an aqueous extract of garlic called Kyolic, or an oil extract called Garlicin (high in allicin), or placebo. No differences in lipid numbers including LDL cholesterol were observed. (Full text at WebMD at http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/news/20070226/garlic-may-not-lower-cholesterol?ecd=wnl_chl_030507. You may be required to log in or register.)I believe that the researchers were sincere in their effort to follow an honest, scientfically sound clinical trial design. I'm personally not that surprised. The effect in prior studies has been modest, sometimes none. Does that mean that we should ignore the other studies that suggest there may be modest blood-thinning, anti-inflammatory, blood pressure-reducing, and cancer-preventing properties? No, it does not. Dr. Matt Budoff at UCLA even published a very small study in about 20 people that suggested a slowing of plaque growth by using Kyolic in persons tracked by CT heart scans. Nonetheless, garlic is, at best, probably no more than a source of small benefits. The biggest fallout from this kind of report, however, is not the neutral results from garlic, but from the open door the drug companies sense when this happens. If you read the WebMD report, you'll notice all sorts of advertisements from drug companies for statin cholesterol drugs ("Cholesterol health center"; "Understanding Cholesterol Numbers"; "There are two sources of cholesterol: food and family"), Niaspan (which I used to support but have been discouraged by the Kos companies excessively profiteering methods and recent big Wall Street sellout). It doesn't follow. The failure of one nutritional strategy to reduce LDL does nothave to trigger a run to the drugs. Don't fall for it. Drugs have their place. So do supplements and food choices, which can be very powerful. Drug manufacturers and their marketing people salivate when something like this comes along, an open invitation to say, "If garlic doesn't work, _____ sure does."
Diet Coke saves father's life 6. March 2007 William Davis (0) Jason came to the office because of chest pain. At 34 years old, he works as manager of a (non-fast food) restaurant, but indulges in lots of the odds and ends. Among his indulgences: Diet Coke. Every time he'd have a diet Coke, he'd have chest pain. Not drinking diet Coke--no chest pain. If Jason drank coffee, no chest pain. Other foods, no chest pain. Anyway, just eliminating the diet Coke seemed to do the trick. (Aspartame?) Anyway, that's not why I tell you Jason's story. In the midst of his evaluation, an echocardiogram showed a mildly enlarged aorta, measuring 4.0 cm in diameter. So we obtained lipoproteins. Jason showed lipoprotein(a) and small LDL particles, the dreaded duo. We talked about how to correct this pattern. Among the strategies we discussed was niacin. But what bothered me was that neither of Jason's parents had a diagnosis of heart disease. Jason had to have gotten Lp(a) from either his mother or father, since you obtain the gene from one or the other parent. You cannot acquire Lp(a). So one of Jason's parents was sitting on a genetic time bomb of unrecognized Lp(a) and hidden heart disease. Because Jason's paternal grandfather had a heart attack at age 62, only Jason's Dad had the heart scan (though I urged both to get one). Score: 1483. Recall that heart scan scores >1000 carry a risk of death or heart attack of 25% per year if no preventive action is taken. Now, of course, we have to persuade Jason's Dad that a program of prevention--intensive prevention is in order, including a measure of Lp(a).So that's the curious story of how Diet Coke probably saved Jason's Dad's life. The lesson is that if you or someone you know has Lp(a), think about their children as well as their parents, each of whom carry a 50% chance of having the pattern.