All posts by william-davis

If you'd like to reduce LDL cholesterol with nearly as much power as a statin drug, think thyroid.

When thyroid is corrected to ideal levels, LDL cholesterol drops 20, 30, 40 mg/dl or more, depending on how poor thyroid function and how high LDL are at the start. The poorer the thyroid function (the higher the TSH or the lower the T3 and T4) and the higher the LDL cholesterol, the more LDL drops with thyroid correction.

(For those of you minding LDL particle size, such as Track Your Plaque Members, the "dominant" LDL species will drop: If you are genetic small LDL, small LDL will drop. If you have mostly large LDL because of being wheat-free and sugar-free, then large LDL will drop.)

One of the problems is that many healthcare providers blindly follow what the laboratory says is "normal" or the "reference range," which is usually nothing more than a population average (actually the mean +/- 2 standard deviations, a common method of developing references ranges). In other words, a substantial degree of low thyroid function, or hypothyroidism, can be present when your doctor adheres to the reference range provided by the laboratory.

What does it mean to achieve ideal thyroid status? My list includes:

--Normal oral temperature of 97.3 F first upon arising. (The thyroid is the body's thermoregulatory organ.)
--TSH 1.0 mIU/L or less
--Free T3 upper half "normal" range
--Free T4 upper half "normal" range
--You feel good: mental clarity, energy, upbeat mood. You lose weight when you try.

Iodine replacement should be part of any thyroid health effort. Iodine is not an optional trace mineral, no more than vitamin C is optional (else your teeth fall out). The only dangers to iodine replacement are to those who have been starved of iodine for many years; increase iodine and the thyroid can over-respond. I've seen this happen in 2 of the last 300 people who have supplemented iodine.

In my view, neglecting T3 replacement is absurd. While it is not clear to me why many otherwise healthy people have low T3 at the low range of "normal" or even in the below-normal range, people feel better and have better health--faster weight loss, reduced LDL, reduced triglycerides, they are happier and enjoy more energy--when T3 is increased to the upper half of the reference range. (Crucial question: Why is the 5'-deiodinase enzyme that converts T4 to T3 inhibited, resulting in reduced free T3? What is in our diets or environment that is exerting this effect? I don't have answer, but we sorely need one.)

It pays to be a perfectionist when it comes to thyroid. Not only do you feel better, but LDL cholesterol can drop with a statin-like magnitude, but with none of the adverse effects.

If interested, Track Your Plaque offers fingerstick blood spot testing that you can perform in your own home. Each test kit will test for: TSH, free T3, free T4, along with a thyroid peroxidase antibody (a marker for Hashimoto's thyroiditis, an autoimmune inflammatory condition of the thyroid).

What do you think of these chains of logic?

Cyanide is a potent lethal poison; carbon monoxide is a less lethal poison.
Therefore: plenty of carbon monoxide is good.

Having uterine cancer is a bad thing. Having uterine fibroids is a less bad thing.
Therefore: plenty of uterine fibroids are good.

These are obvious examples of seriously flawed logic. Students of logic and philosophy will recognize the above erroneous sequences as examples of the twisted arguments often used to persuade an argumentative opponent of the logic of a premise. As long ago as 335 B.C., Greek philosopher, Aristotle, recognized the pitfalls of thinking in such arguments. You think we’d know better by now.

Try this one:

White enriched flour is a bad for health; whole grains are less bad for health.
Therefore: plenty of whole grains are good for health.

Ouch!

In the 1960s, we all ate hot dogs on white buns, white flour Wonder Bread® sandwiches, Mom made cookies and cupcakes with white flour. Then, during the 1970s and 1980s, clinical studies were performed demonstrating that whole wheat and whole grains reduced colon cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease compared to white flour. In other words, add back fiber and B vitamins and health benefits develop: No argument here.

Therefore: whole grains must be good for health. Further, lots of whole grains?unlimited quantities of whole grains many times per day, every day?must be even better. Even the USDA says so on their nutrition pyramid, with 8-11 servings of grains per day, 4 of which should be whole grains, at the widest portion of the pyramid.

But what happens when you follow this logic through and fill your diet with whole grains?

Look around you and it’s easy to see: Appetite increases, people become obese, blood sugar increases, diabetes develops, HDL cholesterol plummets, triglycerides skyrocket, inflammatory patterns (e.g., c-reactive protein, or CRP) increase, small LDL (the number one cause for heart disease in the obese U.S.!) shoots through the roof.

I would no more fill my diet with “healthy whole grains” than I would close my garage door with the car running.

Pomegranate juice, 8 oz:

Sugars, total 31.50 g

Sucrose 0.00 g

Glucose (dextrose) 15.64 g

Fructose 15.86 g

In your quest to increase the flavonoids in your diet, do you overexpose yourself to fructose?

Remember: Fructose increases LDL cholesterol, apoprotein B, small LDL, triglycerides, and substantially increases deposition of visceral fat (fructose belly?). How about a slice of whole grain bread with that glass of pomegranate juice? The Heart Association says it's all low-fat!

(Coming on the Track Your Plaque website: A full in-depth Special Report on fructose in all its glorious forms and whether this is truly an issue for your health. Fructose tables and the scientific data to establish a safe "threshold" value will be included.)

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Honeydew melon:

Sugars, total 51.97 g

Sucrose 15.87 g

Glucose 17.15 g

Fructose 18.94 g

Because sucrose is half fructose (the other half is glucose), there are approximately 26 grams of fructose per one-half honeydew melon.

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g

Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons

Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient

Ingredients: High Fructose Corn Syrup, Vinegar, Concentrated Tomato Juice (Water, Tomato Paste), Water, Modified Food Starch, Salt, Honey, Contains Less Than 2% of Molasses, Natural Flavor, Paprika, Spice, Mustard Flour, Guar Gum, Red 40.

A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient

Ingredients: Tomato puree (water, tomato paste), high fructose corn syrup, vinegar, salt, water dried onions, contains less than 2% of black pepper, modified food starch, citric acid, dried parsley, dried garlic, xanthan gum, caramel color, potassium sorbate and calcium disodium EDTA as preservatives, molasses, corn syrup, sugar, spices, tamarind, natural flavor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

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

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

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

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

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

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

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

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The media frenzy

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

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

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

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

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

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

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

Non-CT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

A carefully-conducted study by a collaborative research group at University of California-Berkeley has finally closed the lid on the fuss over fructose vs. glucose and its purported adverse effects.

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation--3% increased intra-abdominal fat with glucose; 14.4% with fructose. (Intraabdominal fat is the variety that blocks insulin responses and causes diabetes and inflammation.)

2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol but double the increase for Apoprotein B (an index of the number of LDL particles, similar to NMR LDL particle number).

3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, compared to 13.3% with glucose.

4) While glucose (curiously) reduced the net postprandial (after-eating) triglyceride response (area under the curve, AUC), fructose increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.

The authors propose that fructose specifically increases liver VLDL production, the lipoprotein particle that yields abnormal after-eating particles, increased LDL, and provides building blocks to manufacture small LDL particles. The authors also persuasively propose that fructose metabolism, unlike glucose, is not inhibited (via feedback loop) by energy intake, i.e., it's as if you are always starving.

Add to this the data that show that fructose increases uric acid (that causes gout and may act as a coronary risk factor), induces leptin resistance, causes metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes), and increases appetite, and it is clear that fructose is yet another common food additive that, along with wheat, is likely a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic.

Fructose is concentrated, of course, in high-fructose corn syrup, comprising anywhere from 42-90% of total weight. Fructose also composes 50% of sucrose (table sugar). Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose).

Also, beware of low-fat or non-fat salad dressings (rich with high-fructose corn syrup), ketchup, beer, fruit drinks, fruit juices, all of which are rich sources of this exceptionally fattening, metabolism-bypassing, LDL cholesterol/small LDL/ApoB increasing compound. Ironically, this means that many low-fat foods meant to reduce cholesterol actually increase it when they contain fructose in any form.

When you hear or say "fructose," run the other way, regardless of what the Corn Refiners Association says.

Matt came to me because his doctor couldn't reduce his LDL cholesterol.

His doctor had prescribed Zocor (simvastatin), Lipitor, Crestor, even pravastatin, all of which resulted in incapacitating muscle aches and weakness within a week of starting. No surprise, Matt had a jaundiced view of statin drugs.

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

--72% of LDL was small LDL, a moderately severe pattern. (This means that small LDL comprised 112 mg/dl of the total 155 mg/dl LDL; large LDL comprised 43 mg/dl--small LDL was the problem.)

--HDL 42 mg/dl --Triglycerides 133 mg/dl

--No lipoprotein(a)

Beyond lipoproteins, Matt proved severely deficient in vitamin D with a starting level of 18 ng/ml.

Matt's doctor had advised that he avoid salt, as his blood pressure had been borderline high. His thyroid assessment disclosed a TSH of 3.89 mIU/ml with thyroid hormones free T3 and free T4 in the lower half of the normal range.

I therefore asked Matt to:

--Eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars to reduce small LDL
--Add iodine
--Supplement 6000 units of an oil-based vitamin D preparation
--Take fish oil to provide at least 1800 mg EPA + DHA per day
--Take Armour Thyroid 1 grain per day

Several months later on this program, Matt had a repeat basic lipid panel:

--LDL 82 mg/dl--a 47% reduction

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

--Triglycerides 60 mg/dl--a 55% decrease

In addition, vitamin D was 66 ng/ml, TSH was <1.0 mIU/ml with free T3 and free T4 in the upper half of the "reference range." Matt also felt great.

While the numbers could be slightly better, Matt had made tremendous progress towards achieving perfect values.

There you have it: Marked correction of cholesterol values, no statin drugs involved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite previous concerns about kidney toxicity with prolonged use, another study showed that athletes taking creatine for up to 21 months have shown no adverse effects on kidney function, lipid (cholesterol) values, or other basic health measures.

Having healthy muscle mass doesn't make you bulge like a bodybuilder. With modest efforts at strength training, augmented with creatine supplementation, you have a wonderful tool to feel better, reduce injury, increase bone density, and combat abnormal insulin resistance, not to mention accelerate weight loss, since lean muscle mass consumes energy.

There has been a lot of debate over whether or not “bio-identical” hormones, i.e., hormones identical to the human form, are superior to non-human forms dispensed by the drug industry.

The FDA is currently taking steps to clamp down on availability of bioidentical hormones and their claims of superiority, despite a groundswell of grassroot support for them. The argument has pitted anti-aging practitioners and the public, as well as the likes of Oprah and Suzanne Somers, against Big Pharma and the FDA, the two forces trying to squash the bioidentical hormone movement.

Regardless of what heavy-handed approach the FDA takes, we already have access to hormones identical to the original human form. It requires no prescription and yields downstream hormones that the human body recognizes as human.

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

Pregnenolone is the first biochemical step in the conversion of dietary cholesterol (yes-cholesterol!) to numerous other hormones. Pregnenolone is the source of the hormones that lie at the center of the bioidentical hormone controversy: estrogens, progesterone, and testosterone. We therefore already have our own over-the-counter, non-prescription form of bioidentical hormones.

Supplemental pregnenolone increases estrogens (mildly), progesterone, and testosterone. Prenenonlone supplementation simply provide more of the basic substrate for hormone production. The increase in hormones is usually modest, not as vigorous as direct hormone replacement like, say, testosterone or progesterone topical creams. But pregnenolone can be useful when small to moderate increases are desired, such as for reduction of Lp(a). A theoretical downside is that pregnenonlone can also convert to cortisol, the adrenal gland hormone that regulates fluid and blood pressure. However, I've not seen any measurable increase in cortisol with low doses of pregnenonlone and limited data suggest that it does not. Pregnenolone also converts to the other adrenal gland hormone, DHEA; I call DHEA "the hormone of assertiveness," since some people who take too much pregnenolone (or direct DHEA) acquire excessive assertiveness.

The key to pregnenolone supplementation is to proceed gradually and begin with a small dose, e.g., 5 mg every morning. Hormonal assessment is best conducted periodically to assess the effects and to determine whether a dose adjustment is in order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Initial laboratory results:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

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

This enormous trial followed a simple design:

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

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

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

There are several features that make the JELIS trial interesting:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Several studies over the years have demonstrated a curious paradox:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It makes you wonder if the disordered metabolism of calcium through vitamin D deficiency allows transport of calcium away from bone and into coronaries. This has, however, been shown to not be the case. Instead, they are separate processes, each under local control, but sharing a common pathophysiology (causative factors).

An intriguing question: Would the 79-year old still look like the 46-year old had he begun increasing his vitamin D intake at, say, age 30?

Just a brief word about my responses to reader comments:

I appreciate the many often insightful and interesting reader comments I receive to the Heart Scan Blog. However, managing them and responding to them has simply become impossible, due to time demands.

I'm afraid that I am unable to answer questions seeking medical advice; this is for your doctor, who knows you and can diagnose and prescribe. I cannot.

I'm also unable to engage in lengthy debates; I've had commenters become very angry when I was unable to engage in lengthy conversations on some topic. Nor am I able to do Google or literature searches for commenters, or review studies, papers, or other materials.

I would urge any readers who wish to engage in in-depth discussions about these issues, talk about lipoproteins, heart disease reversal, etc. to do so on the Track Your Plaque Forums. Yes, it is a fee-for-membership website, a model that has become necessary to pay for the services we provide (not pay me).

I wish that I could answer all the concerns and questions that come my way, but it's simply physically impossible doing so while maintaining a full-time very busy cardiology practice, developing the Track Your Plaque website (which is becoming an enormous responsibility), publishing scientific data, maintaining hospital responsibilities, and spending time with my wife and family. We're all busy and I'm no different. I'm afraid that it's my responses to blog comments that I will have to sacrifice.

I invite commenters to continue to comment on these posts, as I've learned many new things by reading them and find them helpful feedback. And I do read them. Should an especially helpful comment be made, I will feature it in a new blog post, rather than respond directly.

I received this wonderful response to The Heart Scan Blog post Hammers and Nails:

I am 65 years old. I had a stent inserted in the "widow-maker" artery (80% blockage) a year ago. I had passed out a couple of times (heart rate dangerously low - 30s). I rode to the hospital in an ambulance. Tests revealed short LBBB episodes; mild mitral regurgitation, mild tricuspid regurgitation. Catherization showed 3 vessel CAD. I was told that a medicated stent was absolutely necessary given the situation; regardless, I have to accept that. A pacemaker was installed to prevent bradycardia and keeps heart rate from dropping below 60. I have 20% L distal main blockage and 90% lesion of the high first obtuse marginal at the takeoff. The right coronary had 60% posterior lateral branch stenosis.

Since then I have reduced TG from 360 to 60, LDL from 89 to 82 (although a few months ago it was in the mid-70s), and increased HDL from 30 to 46. I went from 265lbs to 190lbs and hope to eventually get to 180lb this Spring. I did it by progressing from walking to trotting (slow run) and dietstyle changes (low-GI veggies, fruits, etc.) .

On a recent visit the cardiologist said the the LDL needs to be 70 or below to "freeze" the 90% blockage and gave me a prescription for Lipitor. I asked if there were alternatives, like diet, supplements, etc. He admitted that he did not know about those alternative but did know Lipitor. When the only tool you have is a hammer then everything is a nail. I understand that the 90% blockage is important but will not take the Lipitor to achieve the 12 points reduction. Seems like an overkill.

I asked him if there was a way to evaluate my current condition. I was told there was no way. Basically, if I have no symptoms, good. If I have symptoms then it will have to be evaluated. Death could be the only symptom. I swear he was about to say bypass surgery ($$$$$$!) was inevitable. Something is wrong with this "fly-in-the-fog-and-hope-you-don't- hit-a-mountain" approach. Hope is not a strategy!

I am confident that I can reduce LDL to below 70 based on eliminating wheat-products in my diet plus increasing oat bran in my diet. I also take fish oil daily (EPA/DHA-2g). I am looking for a new cardiologist. I just recently purchased your book and find it very instructive. In the meantime I have an appointment with my primary care physician to discuss implementing the Track Your Plaque program. I realize that the one stent will skew the scan numbers but can be used as a baseline number.

Phenomenal weight loss! That alone has likely cut this man's risk in half. But is that it? Is the cardiologist correct--take Lipitor and hope for the best?

Of course not. There are many additional strategies to employ. Eliminating wheat from the diet is an excellent idea: HDL will skyrocket, triglycerides drop even further, small LDL will drop like a stone, blood sugar and blood pressure will drop. He will have more energy, get rid of afternoon energy slumps, sleep better.

He has already added fish oil. If his cardiologist did not mention this, I would say he was guilty of malpractice. The data supporting the addition of fish oil to the treatment program of anyone with heart disease is overhwelming. GISSI Prevenzione: 11,000 participants--28% reduction in heart attack, 45% reduction in death from heart attack. The Japanese JELIS trial of 18,645 participants--19% reduction in dangerous heart events. It's also clear that omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil also compound the benefits of statin agents, should this man choose to begin Lipitor.

Vitamin D brought to normal blood levels is his next "secret weapon" that will further boost his lipids and lipoproteins further into not just "normal" territory, but beyond belief. Even though we aim for 60-60-60 for LDL-HDL-triglycerides in the Track Your Plaque program, adding vitamin D can yield numbers you've never seen before. It's not uncommon, for instance, to see a 10 or 20 mg/dl jump in HDL.

Identify all other hidden causes of coronary plaque. If all the causes have not been fully identified, how can anyone hope to gain full control over coronary plaque growth?

Re: LDL cholesterol of 89 mg/dl at the start. Of course, this is a calculated value, not measured. Because HDL was low and triglycerides high at the start of his program, this means that true LDL--if actually measured--was probably more like 180 to 250 mg/dl, and it was probably nearly all small. So his cardiologist might have advised a helpful treatment, though for the wrong reasons.

Our reader has gone a long way on his own in creating his own prevention program. But there's yet more to do, particularly if the goal is reversal. It is shocking to me that a man like our reader, clearly articulate and motivated, gets virtually no advice beyond "take Lipitor" after all the procedural benefits have been reaped.

Even though one artery can no longer be "scored" due to the presence of the metallic stent, a heart scan would still be invaluable for long-term tracking purposes, just as we advocate in the Track Your Plaque program.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

HeartWire, the news service of www.theheart.org, posted the following report:

Pfizer pulls Lipitor ads featuring Dr Robert Jarvik in HeartWire

New York, NY - After a series of questions and attacks over its choice of Dr Robert Jarvik to endorse Lipitor in a series of TV commercials, Pfizer has announced that it is withdrawing the ads. As previously reported by heartwire, Jarvik invented the first artificial heart, but he is not a cardiologist, nor does he hold a medical license—factors that drew criticism from detractors and made him and Pfizer a target of a US House Committee on Energy and Commerce investigation into celebrity endorsements in direct-to-consumer advertisements.

In a January 2008 statement, committee chair Rep John D Dingell (D-MI) observed: "Dr Jarvik's appearance in the ads could influence consumers into taking the medical advice of someone who may not be licensed to practice medicine in the United States. Americans with heart disease should make medical decisions based on consultations with their doctors, not on paid advertisements during a commercial break."

Complaints about Jarvik went up a notch this month when the latest ad in the series depicted the inventor rowing a racing scull across a lake, despite the fact that Jarvik himself does not row and the commercial used a body double.

This is typical pharmaceutical industry sleight-of-hand, now you see it, now you don't, that has come to define their policies. And this is just the stuff that comes to light because of some obvious blunders. We can only begin to imagine what sorts of other shenanigans have been swept under the rug, especially adverse effects of drugs that never made it to the light of publication.

Is this just another example of how direct-to-consumer advertising has backfired? I now have patient after patient tell me that they have been so overwhelmed and fed up with TV and magazine ads for drugs that they

Other media outlets have reported that Jarvik was guaranteed $1.35 million for the ads and that Pfizer spent $258 million on Lipitor advertisements between January 2006 and September 2007.

I'm sure you've heard the old saying that,

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

It couldn't be truer than in heart procedures (the man with the hammer) and heart disease (the nail).

What does it take in 2008 to become an interventional cardiologist trained in all the techniques of angioplasty, stenting, intracoronary ultrasound, etc.? Start with your undergraduate degree (4 years), then medical school (another 4 years), then training in internal medicine (3 years), then general cardiology taining (3 years), then an additional year in interventional cardiology. Each step along the way also involves competing for these spaces, a process that requires much time, money, and sweat.

The total time investment is 15 years after high school. Many if not most college students graduate with debt. Pile on the substantial cost of medical school. Training after medical school pays a modest salary, enough for a single person. Many trainees by then have spouses and a family, would like to buy a house, have bills to pay. (I managed to buy my first house for $69,000 in Columbus, Ohio and paid my mortgage by sleeping only every other night and moonlighting on my off nights.)

By the time the interventional cardiologist-in-training finishes his/her 15 years, they are hungry for a hefty increase in income. After such a time and money investment, I do believe that there is at least some justification for generous income for the years of work involved.

Back to our hammer and nail metaphor. Not only do we now have a man or woman with a hammer, but a really expensive hammer that required a substantial amount of effort to obtain. Now, our hapless hammer-bearer is desperate to see everything in sight as a nail.

You're seen in consultation by this fresh interventional cardiologist in practice for only a few years. Guess what he/she advises? Go straight to the catheterization laboratory, of course. Throw in the fact that insurance reimbursement is most generous for heart procedures, far more than for consulting in the office, doing a stress test, or other simpler, non-invasive tests, and the incentives are clear.

The system, you see, is set up to follow such a path. The path to the cath lab is heavily incentivized, paths in the other direction discouraged, disparaged, or just ignored.

My message: Don't get nailed.

What is abnormal?

You'd think that the answer would be easy and straightforward.

However, consider these instances of medical findings that I have witnessed fall repeatedly into the "normal" category:

Diameter of the thoracic aorta: 4.5 cm

Mild coronary plaque by heart catheterization

Carotid plaque of 30-50%

Why isn't a thoracic aorta (the big artery in your chest) of 4.5 cm normal? Because it can be expected to increase in diameter by about 2.5 mm (0.25 cm) per year. Even at its current diameter, it means that stroke risk is greater, since enlarged aortas are diseased aortas that commonly accumulate atherosclerotic plaque with potential to fragment and shower debris to the brain. It means that high blood pressure and/or cholesterol/lipoprotein abnormalities have been uncorrected for years that have allowed the aorta to enlarge.

How about "mild coronary plaque"? Followers of the Track Your Plaque program already know the answer to this one. Mild plaque does not mean mild risk. In fact, most plaques that cause heart attack are mild plaques, not severe blockages. While severe blockages can provide symptom warning and are detected by stress tests, it's the mild blockages that rupture without symptom warning and cause heart attack. So "mild coronary plaque" is no less dangerous than severe coronary plaque.

Likewise, carotid plaque of 30-50%, while it doesn't justify surgery, can grow within just a few years to a severity that allows it to fragment and shower debris to the brain, i.e., a stroke. As with the enlarged aorta, it means that multiple causes of carotid plaque are likely active, including high blood pressure and cholesterol or lipoprotein abnormalities.

Then why would any of these findings be labeled "normal"?

Simple. In the minds of many physicians, if a condition doesn't pose immediate risk, or if it doesn't qualify for surgical "correction," then it is labeled "normal" or "mild."

Thus, an aorta of 4.5 cm cannot justify surgical replacement until it achieves a diameter of 5.5 cm. It is therefore labeled "normal."

"Mild coronary plaque" does not justify insertion of stents or performance of bypass surgery. It must therefore be "normal."

Carotid plaque over 70% is surgically removed, but not 30-50%. 30-50% is therefore "normal."

The tragedy is that many "normal" or "mild" findings, if cast in the proper light, could lead to corrective strategies that could prevent danger long-term or keep surgery from becoming necessary.

The enlarged aorta, for instance, could be stopped and an aneurysm (defined as 5.5 cm or greater) could be prevented, along with dramatically reducing risk for stroke. Carotid plaque, more so than coronary plaque, is a controllable and manipulable condition that should trigger a program of prevention and reversal. Instead, it usually generates advice to have another ultrasound in a year to see if it has yet achieved severity sufficient to justify surgery.

Of course, "mild coronary plaque" is the reason for the Track Your Plaque approach, a chance to seize control over this disease years or decades before procedures are necessary and reduce danger now, not years from now.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Many people know about niacin's curious effect of the "hot flush," a feeling of warmth that covers the chest and neck, occasionally the entire body.

However, many people are unaware of the fact that hydration can block this effect. In fact, many people who were not advised of this will come to the office describing miserable experiences with niacin--hot flushes that last for hours, intolerable itching, etc.--only to experience little or none of these effects with generous hydration.

The vast majority of the time, two 8-12 oz glasses of water when the hot flush occurs will eliminate the flush within a few minutes.

Sometimes, the hot flush will occur many hours after taking niacin. Nine times out of ten, this delayed effect is also due to poor hydration. For instance, you might be engrossed in your work and forget to keep up with fluid demands. Or, it may be warm and you've lost fluids through sweating. That's when you begin to feel the hot flush creep up on you.

The cure: Lots of water. In this situation, in which you have allowed dehydration to develop, it may require more than two big glasses. Relief from the flush may also take more time, but it still works nearly every time.

On those rare occasions when water by itself is insufficient, then an adult (325 mg), uncoated aspirin or 200 mg ibuprofen can also be used to accelerate relief.

Why go to some much bother? Well, niacin remains the best agent we have for reduction of small LDL, raising HDL (although vitamin D is proving to be a powerful competitor in this arena), and reducing lipoprotein(a). How much do statin drugs contribute to these effects? Very little, if at all.

Several drug manufacturers are also working on "antidotes" to the hot flush effect of niacin that will be packaged within the niacin tablet. Naturally, it will also boost the cost up many times higher.

In the meantime, if or when you experience the niacin hot flush, just think: Put out the "fire" with plenty of water.

Thyroid: Be a perfectionist

Nutrition Syllogism

Is pomegranate juice healthy?

Honeydew melon

Where do you find fructose?

Do heart scans cause cancer?

Goodbye, fructose

The statin-free life

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

Conventional therapy vs. alternative therapy

The JELIS Trial

Omega-3 MUST be from fish oil

Osteoporosis and coronary calcium

About comment responses and moderation

"Flying in the fog"

Goodbye, Dr. Jarvik

Hammers and nails

What is abnormal?

Niacin and hydration