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.
Menopause unleashes lipoprotein(a) 16. March 2007 William Davis (0) Faye was clearly frustrated. At age 52, she was having chest pains every day. A CT heart scan showed a score of zero. A CT coronary angiogram showed no plaque whatsoever. "Everything went downhill when my menopause started. I gained weight, I started to have chest pains, my blood pressure went up, my cholesterol shot up."She saw three physicians, none of whom shed much light on the situation. They ran through the predictable sequence of (horse, not human) estrogens, anti-depressants, suggestions for psychological counseling. But we checked Faye for lipoprotein(a), which she proved to have at a high level of 182 nmol/l. This explained a lot.A curious and predictable set of phenomenon occur to females with Lp(a) proceeding through the menopause. As estrogen recedes:--Lp(a) levels rise dramatically.--Blood pressure goes up, sometimes creating severe hypertension by mid- to late-50s. --Chest pain can develop, presumably due to "endothelial dysfunction" or "microvascular angina", both representing abnormal coronary artery constriction facilitated by worsening expression of Lp(a). All too often, these phenomena get dismissed as simply part of the menopausal package, when they are, in fact, important facets of this very important genetic pattern that confers high risk for heart disease. If any of this rings familiar for you or a loved one, think Lp(a). Though Faye hadn't yet developed any measurable coronary plaque by her CT heart scan score, it was likely on its way, given the surge in Lp(a) expression as menopause unfolded--unless its recognized and appropriate preventive action taken.
Vitamin D must be oil-based 15. March 2007 William Davis (0) I've talked about this before, but I need to periodically remind everybody:Vitamin D must be an oil-based capsule, a gel-cap, not a tablet. Lisa is one of early success stories: a heart scan score of 447 in her early 40's, modest reduction of CT heart scan score three years ago. However, Lisa had a difficult time locating oil-based vitamin D. There has, in fact, been a national run on vitamin D and I'm told that even manufacturers are scrambling to keep up with the booming demand. So, she bought tablets instead and was taking 3000 units per day. She came in for a routine check. Lisa's 25-OH-vitamin D3: 17 ng/ml, signifying severe deficiency, the same as if she were taking nothing at all. (Recall that we aim for 50 ng/ml.) In other words, vitamin D tablets do not work. It is shameful. I see numerous women taking calcium tablets with D--the vitamin D does not work. I've actually seen blood levels of zero on these preparations. You may have to look, but if you want to enjoy the extraordinary benefits of vitamin D replacement, it must be an oil-based capsule. Carlson's and Vitamin Shoppe have excellent prepartions. They raise blood levels substantially and consistently, and they're inexpensive. We pay $5.99 for a bottle of 120 capsules.
Vitamin D for $200? 13. March 2007 William Davis (2) What if vitamin D cost $200 rather than $2? In other words, what if cholecalciferol, or vitamin D3, was a patent-protectable agent that would sell for an extravagant price, just like a drug? Vitamin D would be the hot topic. There would be TV ads run during Oprah, slick magazine two-page spreads with experts touting its outsized benefits, insurance companies would battle over how much your copay should be. The manufacturer would host large fancy symposia to educate physicians on how wonderful vitamin D is for treatment of numerous conditions, complete with dinner, a show, and gifts. They would hire expert speakers to speak, scientists to have articles ghost-written, give out knick knacks with the brand label inscribed--just like Lipitor, Actos, Vytorin, ReoPro, Plavix . . .After all, what other "drug" substantially increases bone density (up to 20% in adult females), enhances insulin responses 30% (equivalent to the TZD drugs, Actos and Avandia), and slashes colon cancer risk?But it's not a drug. That is both vitamin D's strength and its weakness. It's a strong point because it's natural, phenomenally helpful across a variety of conditions, and inexpensive. It is also a weakness because, at $2 a month, no one is raking in the $12 billion annually that Pfizer makes for Lipitor that allows it to fund an enormous marketing campaign. Vitamin D is a "discovery" of huge importance for health, including making reductions of CT heart scan scores far more likely for more people. And it comes without a prescription.
What's up with garlic? 13. March 2007 William Davis (0) Fanatic Cook has posted an excellent summary on the recent negative attention cast on garlic preparations, at least for LDL cholesterol reduction. Go to http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com to view. I think Fanatic Cook is right--despite the lack of LDL reducing effects, it doesn't necessarily mean no benefit whatsoever. Anti-coagulation and anti-inflammatory effects, in particular, are well proven. I do think, however, that it argues more in favor of sticking to whole cloves, rather than supplements. The benefits are also likely small. I would view garlic as a soft advantage for your plaque control program. You can do fine without it. You might do slightly better with it.
Drop the pretense 12. March 2007 William Davis (1) Most hospitals maintain the "Saint _____" in their names, despite many having little or nothing to do with the church. Out of 15 hospitals in my area, 13 are named after saints. In my view, a more honest name would be something like "ABC Medical Enterprises, Inc." The profit motive, aggressive marketing tactics, and high CEO salaries would make better sense then. The trend to convert practicing physicians from professionals acting on behalf of patient welfare into paid employees would also be clearer.Imagine Walmart were to change its name to "St. Mary's Emporium" Would it modify your perception of their business? I think it would. It would cause many people to believe that maybe their work was, at least in part, charitable and being done for the public welfare. But Walmart makes such pretense--they are in business for profit, just like all businesses. It's time for the pretense to be dropped. Hospitals are cut-throat profit-seeking operations, operating under the guise of charitable, tax-free institutions. It's the farthest thing from the truth.
John Cannell on Vitamin D 11. March 2007 William Davis (2) You can always count on Dr. John Cannell for unique perspectives on vitamin D. I reprint here his unfailingly entertaining and informative Vitamin D Newsletter on whether vitamin D replacement enhances physical performance. The whole vitamin D "discovery" sometimes worries me. Vitamin D has proven to be an unbelievable, remarkable, dramatic boon to health, including facilitation in dropping CT heart scan scores. Yet the answer was always right in front of us. It worries me that you and I might have the answer to important questions right within our grasp all along--but don't know it. What if the same were true, say, for cancer? That is, a profound answer is right there, but our eyes just pass right over it. Anyway, we should all keep our eyes open and perhaps you and I will continue to identify the most powerful tools available that return control over heart disease to us and take it away from the perverse, procedural hospital formula that still reigns. If you haven't done so already, be sure to visit Dr. Cannell's website, www.vitamindcouncil.com. The Vitamin D NewsletterMarch, 2007 Peak Athletic Performance and Vitamin D "No way doc." I had just finished telling my patient about the benefits of vitamin D, telling him he should take 4,000 IU per day, using all the techniques I had learned in 30 years of medical practice to convince someone proper treatment is important. But, he knew the U.S. government said he only needed 200 IU per day, not 4,000. He also knew the official Upper Limit was 2,000 IU a day. "What are you trying to do doc, kill me?" I told him his 25(OH)-vitamin D blood test was low, only 13 ng/ml. He had read about that too, in a medical textbook, where it said normal levels are between 10 and 40 ng/ml. "I'm fine doc;" adding "Are you in the vitamin business?" I explained I was not; that the government used outdated values; that recent studies indicate ideal 25(OH)D levels are about 50 ng/ml; and that they indicated that he needed about 4,000 IU per day to get his level up to 50. "No thanks doc, I'm fine." So I tried a different tact. I brought him copies of recent press articles. "Look," I said, "look at these." Science News called vitamin D the Antibiotic Vitamin. The Independent in England says vitamin D explains why people die from influenza in the winter, and not the summer. U.S. News and World Report says almost everyone needs more. Newsweek says it prevents cancer and helps fight infection. In four different recent reports, United Press International says that: it reduces falls in the elderly, many pregnant women are deficient , it reduces stress fractures, and that it helps heals wounds. He glanced at the articles, showing a little interest in stress fractures. Then he told me what he was really thinking. "Look doc, all this stuff may be important to old guys like you. I'm 22. All I care about are girls and sports. When I get older, maybe I'll think about it. I'm too young to worry about it. I'm in great condition." I couldn't argue. He was in good health and a very good basketball player, playing several hours every day, always on indoor courts. What could I do to open his eyes? As an African American, his risk of early death was very high, although the risk for blacks doesn't start to dramatically increase until their 40's and 50's. Like all young people, he saw himself as forever young. The U.S. government was no help, relying on a ten-year-old report from the Institute of Medicine that is full of misinformation. I tired to tell him that the 200 IU per day the U.S. government recommends for 20-year-olds is to prevent bone disease, not to treat low vitamin D levels like his. I pointed out the U.S. government's offido the vitamin D 17. December 2006 William Davis (1) As time passes and I advise more and more people to supplement vitamin D, I gain increasing respect for this powerful "vitamin". I am convinced that vitamin D replacement is the reason for a recent surge in our success rates in dropping CT heart scan scores. I believe it is also explains the larger drops we've been witnessing lately--20-30%. But vitamin D can be overdone, too. Too much of a good thing . . .Despite being labeled a "vitamin", cholecalciferol is actually a hormone. Vitamins are obtained from food and you can thereby develop deficiencies because of poor intake. Deficiency of vitamin C, for instance, arises from a lack of vegetables and fruits. Vitamin D, on the other hand, is nearly absent from food. The only naturally-occuring source is oily fish like salmon and sardines. Milk usually has a little (100 units per 8 oz) because milk producers have been required by law to put it there to reduce the incidence of childhood rickets. A woman came to me with a heart scan score of nearly 3800, the highest score I've every seen in a woman. (Record for a male >8,000!) She was taking vitamin D by prescription from her family doctor but at a dose of 150,000 units per week, or approximately 21,000 units per day. This had gone on for about 3-4 years. This may explain her excessive coronary calcium score. Interestingly, she had virtually no lipoprotein abnormalities identified, which by itself is curious, since most people have some degree of abnormality like small LDL. Obviously, I asked her to stop the vitamin D. Should you be afraid of vitamin D? Of course not. If your neighbor is an alcoholic and has advanced cirrhosis, does that mean you shouldn't have a glass or two of Merlot for health and enjoyment? It's a matter of quantity. Too little vitamin D and you encourage coronary plaque growth. Too much vitamin D and you trigger "pathologic calcification", or the deposition of calcium in inappropriate places and sometimes to extreme degrees, as in this unfortunate woman.Ideally, you should have your doctor check your 25-OH-vitamin D3 blood levels twice a year in summar and in winter. We aim for a level of 50 ng/ml, the level at which the phenemena of deficiency dissipate.
"It must have been the statin" 13. December 2006 William Davis (0) After four years of trying, Randy finally reduced her heart scan score. It not only dropped, it plummeted. After four previous scans that showed 25% or more increases, she'd finally dropped her score 23%. (I Blogged about Randy's case a few weeks ago.)Randy also works for a cardiologist. When she told him that she had reversed her coronary plaque and reduced her heart scan score by 23%, he said, "It must have been the statin agent."Randy was indeed on a statin drug at a low dose. But she also had taken great efforts in exercise, food choices, fish oil, and vitamin D. In fact, her score had progressed dramatically while she was taking the drug. Put simply, it was not the statin. But that is the mindset of the conventionally thinking cardiologist. Stent, bypass, or statin drug--what else is there? Even with crystal clear evidence for coronary plaque regression, they refuse to acknowledge that tools that are not in their everyday consciousness could have achieved so spectacular a result. Given a choice, 9 out of 10 cardiologists would rather put a stent in and walk away $2000 richer for an hour of work. Don't allow them to have this choice. Take control now.
12. December 2006 William Davis (0) Statin Drugs May Help the Healthy:Cholesterol-Lowering Statin Drugs May Benefit People Without Heart Disease That's the headline on WebMD, reporting the findings of a recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. In reality, it wasn't really a study at all, but a re-analysis of previously published data, a so-called meta-analysis. Nonetheless, the University of Toronto group re-analyzed the results of several studies, pooling data on 28,000 people, none of whom had known coronary disease. The results were similar to the results of the studies that were reported individually: a 29% reduction in heart attack and other "events" in people taking statin drugs. What's surprising to me is this notion that statins, or any other treatment for that matter, prevent heart attack in people without heart disease. This is idiotic. Of course they had coronary heart disease. You can't have a heart attack in the absence of coronary disease. (There are very rare exceptions, like cocaine users, who experience coronary spasm from the drug). What the study shows is that people with unrecognized heart disease experienced a reduction in heart attack. What it also means is that many, many people truly without heart disease were unnecessarily treated. As you'd predict, the drug manufacturers love this sort of broad, untargeted use of their drugs. It's an approach that brings in billions of dollars of revenues. The article on WebMD, in fact, was accompanied by three ads for various cholesterol drugs on this single page story.What if only people with heart disease, as identified by CT heart scan scores, were treated? You would indeed witness an even larger reduction in heart attack risk, because the group receiving treatment both has the disease and is thereby at greater risk. Treatment should yield even greater risk reduction than treating broad groups who superficially appear to not have heart disease. Ignore this nonsense about statin drugs reducing heart attack risk in people without heart disease. If you don't look for it, you won't know you have it. Once again, you can be lots smarter than the media. Get a heart scan and find out if your risk is worth reducing.
Heart attack guaranteed 10. December 2006 William Davis (0) What if you knew for a fact that your risk for heart attack was 100% by, say, age 58? This is indeed true for many people, though at age 60, 65, 70--or 45.In other words, unless something were done about the causes of heart disease, you would inevitably suffer a heart attack at 58.What sort of action could you take at age 45?Obviously, not smoking is an absolute requirement. Continue and you may as well start getting your affairs together.How about exercising and eating a generally healthy diet? Will your risk be reduced to zero? No. It might be reduced 20-30%, depending on genetic factors.How about a statin drug? Watch TV ads during Oprah, and you might think it's a cure. But in reality, while it is a financial bonanza for the drug manufacturers, it will reduce risk for heart attack by 30%.(Note that risk reduction by following multiple strategies is not necessarily additive. In other words, if you have a healthy lifestyle and take a statin agent, is risk reduced 60% (30 + 30)? No, because the effects may overlap.)So, eating healthy, exercising, and taking a statin drug might reduce risk 35-40%, maybe 50% in the best case scenario. Would you be satisfied? Most would not.Add fish oil at a truly therapeutic dose. Risk reduction by itself: 28%.Add niacin or other strategies for correction of your individual, specific causes of heart disease: Now we're up to 90% reduction.Throw in a tracking process to prove whether or not atherosclerotic plaque has progressed or reversed. Now we're approaching 100% if plaque reverses. The only way I know how to track plaque is through CT heart scans. What other test is readily available to you with low radiation exposure, yet is relatively inexpensive and precise? It certainly is not stress testing, heart catheterization, CT angiograms, or other techniques. Cholesterol won't tell you. Besides CT heart scans, there's nothing else I know of.Let's fact it: For many people, uncorrected risk for heart attack is truly 100% at some age. Take action while you can.That, in a nutshell, is the Track Your Plaque program.
Heart scan curiosities 3 10. December 2006 William Davis (7) This is a sample image from the heart scan of a 54-year old, 212 lb, 5 ft 2 inch woman. The heart is the whitish-gray in the center; lungs are the dark (air-filled) areas on either side of the heart. Note the massive amount of surrounding gray tissues that encircles the heart and lungs. This is fat. At this weight, the diameter of total fat exceeds the combined diameter of the heart and lungs. If we were to show the abdomen, there would be even more fat. (The image shows the body not well centered because the technologist centers the heart, since this is, after all, a heart scan.)This is a 55-year old, 151 lb, 5 ft 4 inch woman. Note the contrast in the quantity of fat tissue surrounding the chest, a much more normal appearance. Note that this woman is still around 25 lb over ideal weight, but not to the extreme degree of the woman above.Another curious observation: Note the more whitish streaking in the heavier woman's lungs. Heart scans are performed while holding a deep inspiration (a deep breath inwards), mostly to eliminate lung respiratory motion during image acquisition. Nonetheless, the heavier woman's lungs are not as fully expanded as the more slender woman. In other words, the heavier woman cannot inflate her lungs as effectively as the thinner woman. Ever notice how breathless heavy people are? Some of this effect is just being out of shape. But there's also the added effect of the abdominal fat exerting upwards compression on the lung tissues, and the constrictive effect of the encircling fat mass. At the beginning of inspiration, the chest fat exerts the resistance of inertia to inspiration that is absent, or less, in a slender person. With each breath, the heavy woman must move 50 lbs or so of surrounding fat mass just to inhale. The heavier woman is, in effect, suffocating herself in fat. The distortions to the human body incurred by extreme weight gain are both fascinating and shocking. I hope you're breathing easily.
The shameful "standard of care" 10. December 2006 William Davis (1) John's initial heart scan four years ago showed a score of 329. His physician prescribed Zocor for a somewhat high LDL cholesterol. One year later, John asked for another scan. His score: 385, a 17% increase. John exercised harder and cut his fat intake. This past fall--3 years after his last scan--John had yet another heart scan. Score: 641, a 66% increase over the last scan, all the while on Zocor. John sought an opinion from a reputable cardiologist. He concurred with the prescription of Zocor and advised annual stress tests. That's it. Followers of the Track Your Plaque approach know that the expected uncorrected rate of increase in heart scan score is 30% per year. On Zocor or other cholesterol reducing statin agent, a common rate of growth is between 18-24% per year--better but not great. Plaque growth is certainly not stopped. But that is the full extent of interest and responsibility of your cardiologist. Prescribe a statin drug, perform a stress test, and the full extent of his obligation has been fulfilled. In legal terms, your physician has met the prevailing"standard of care". No more, no less.In other words, the prevailing standard of care falls shamefully short of what is truly possible. For the majority of the motivated and interested, coronary plaque reversal--reduction of your heart scan score--should be the standard aimed for. It's not always achievable, but it is so vastly superior to the prescribe statin, wait for heart attack approach endorsed by most cardiologists.
Heart scan curiosities 2 9. December 2006 William Davis (2) This is an example of a so-called "hiatal hernia", meaning the stomach has migrated through the diaphragmatic hiatus into the chest--the stomach is literally in the chest. This example is an unusually large one. Hiatal hernias can cause chest pain, indigestion, and a variety of other gastrointestinal complaints. Heart scans are reasonably useful to screen for this disorder, though very small ones could escape detection by this method. Sometimes, you can actually hear the gurgling of stomach contents (the common "growling" stomach) by listening to the chest. Large ones like this actually crowd your heart (the gray structure above the circled hernia), irritating it and even causing abnormal rhythm disorders. The dense dark material within the hernia represents lunch.I would not advocate CT heart scans as a principal method to make a diagnosis, but sometimes it just pops up during a heart scan and we pass it on to the person scanned.
Vitamin D: New Miracle Drug 6. December 2006 William Davis (0) At the meetings of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, Dr. Bruce Troen of the University of Miami detailed his views on the extraordinary benefits of vitamin D replacement. He also talked about the enormous problem of unrecognized vitamin deficiency.“There’s a huge epidemic of hypovitaminosis D, and the real key here is not just that it’ll benefit you from a bone and neuromuscular standpoint, but if you correct hypovitaminosis D and the corresponding secondary hyperparathyroidism, then you’re going to decrease prostate cancer, colon cancer—actually “up to 17 different cancers, breast cancer included.”Unfortunately, Dr. Troen did not talk much about the heart benefits of vitamin D, likely since the data is scant, nearly non-existent. However, if the Track Your Plaque experience means anything, I predict that vitamin D replacement will become among the most powerful tools you can use to gain control over coronary plaque. Read the text of a report from the Internal Medicine World Report to read more of Dr. Troen's comments. http://www.imwr.com/article.php?s=IMWR/2006/11&p=40
Heart disease "reversal" by stress test 5. December 2006 William Davis (3) Here's an interesting example of a 71-year old man who achieved "reversal" of an abnormality by a nuclear stress test. This man underwent bypass surgery around 10 years ago, two stents three years ago. A nuclear stress test in April, 2005 showed an area of poor blood flow in the front of the heart. On the images, normal blood flow is shown by the yellow/orange areas. poor or absent blood flow is shown by the blue/purple areas within the white outline. Now, I can tell you that this man is no paragon of health. He's only accepted limited changes in his otherwise conventional program--in other words, someone who I'd be shocked achieved true reversal of his heart disease. (I didn't have him undergo any CT heart scans because of the difficulties in scoring someone who has undergone bypass surgery and stents, and because of limited motivation. True plaque reversal is for the motivated.)This patient did, however, accept adding fish oil and niacin to his program.Nonetheless, stress testing can be helpful as a "safety check". Here's the follow-up stress test: You'll notice that the blue/purple areas of poor blood flow have just about disappeared. This occurred without procedures. Does this represent "reversal"? No, it does not. It does represent reversal of this phenomenon of poor flow. It does not represent reversal of the plaque lining the artery wall. That's because improvement of flow, as in this man, can be achieved with relatively easy efforts, e.g., improvement in diet, statin drugs, blood pressure control, etc. True reversal or reduction of coronary plaque, however, is tougher. If blood flow is improved, who cares whether plaque shrinks? Does it still matter? It does. That's because the "event" that gets us in trouble is not progressive reduction in blood flow, but "rupture" of a plaque. A reduction in plaque--genuine reversal--is what slashes risk of plaque rupture.