Where do you find fructose? 14. July 2009 William Davis (25) Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 gHoney: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoonsBarbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredientIngredients: 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 ingredientIngredients: 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 Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Arkiv Join Now Regular Site Log in The Track Your Plaque guide to getting grotesquely overweight 15. augusti 2006 William Davis (0) If you'd like to gain huge quantities of weight, here's a number of helpful tips:1) Follow the advice of food manufacturers and eat the products they label "healthy", or "heart healthy", or "part of a nutritious breakfast" etc., like Shredded Wheat cereal, pretzels ("a low-fat snack"!), low- or non-fat salad dressings. 2) Cut your morning calorie intake by skipping breakfast.3) Hang around with other heavy people. They will confirm that it's okay to be overweight. 4) Call walking your dog "exercise". 5) Get a sedentary desk job. Use your swivel desk chair to scoot about whenever possible, rather than getting up to do things. 6) Say "I've worked hard all week long. Weekends are for relaxing, not for physical activities. I deserve a rest."7) Eat foods without thinking about it: Eat chips while watching football, eat while on the phone, daydream over the sink.8) Eat to provide comfort when stressed.9) Eat foods that have sentimental value, whether or not they're good for you: Freshly-baked cakes that remind you of Mom, Pop Tarts that you used to carry in your lunchbox when you were a kid, hot dogs just like Dad would buy at the baseball stadium. 10) Cut back on sleep and generate insatiable starch cravings.11) Stack your shelves at home with great variety. That way, you'll always have something to suit your mood. 12) Say to your spouse: "It's none of your damn business what I eat! I'm a grown man/woman!" Prove it by over-indulging in obviously unhealthy foods. 13) Tell yourself that you're just too busy to pay attention to food choices. Just grab whatever you can out of a convenience store or vending machine. See, it's easy! And that just a start.Of course, I don't really want you to do any of these things. But if you see yourself in any of the above, and you're struggling with weight, you should seriously rethink your approach. Your heart scan is just a "false positive" 15. augusti 2006 William Davis (0) I've seen this happen many times. Despite the great media exposure and the growing acceptance of my colleagues, heart scans still trigger wrong advice. I had another example in the office today.Henry got a CT heart scan in 2004. His score: 574. In his mid-50s, this placed him in the 90th percentile, with a heart attack risk of 4% per year. Henry was advised to see a cardiologist. The cardiologist advised Henry, "Oh, that's just a 'false positive'. It's not true. You don't have any heart disease. Sometimes calcium just accumulates on the outside of the arteries and gives you these misleading tests. I wish they'd stop doing them." He then proceeded to advise Henry that he needed a nuclear stress test every two years ($4000 each time, by the way). No attempt was made to question why his heart scan score was high, since the entire process was outright dismissed as nonsense. I'm still shocked when I hear this, despite having heard these inane responses for the past decade. Of course, Henry's heart scan was not a false positive, it was a completely true positive. I'm grateful that nothing bad happened to Henry through two years of negligence, though his heart scan score is likely around 970, given the expected, untreated rate of increase of 30%. The cardiologist did a grave disservice to Henry: He misled him due to his ignorance and lack of understanding. I wish Henry had asked the cardiologist whether he had read any of the thousands of studies now available validating CT heart scans. I doubt he's bothered to read more than the title. The cardiologist is lucky (as is Henry) that nothing bad happened in those two years.Do false positives occur as the cardiologist suggested? They do, but they're very rare. There's a rare phenomenon of "medial calcification" that occurs in smokers and others, but it is quite unusual. >99% of the time, coronary calcium means you have coronary plaque--even if the doctor is too poorly informed to recognize it. What's better than a heart scan? 13. augusti 2006 William Davis (0) Do you know what's better than a heart scan?Two heart scans. No other method can provide better feedback on the results of your program. Say you've made efforts to correct high LDL; lost weight to raise HDL and reduce small LDL; added soluble fibers, nuts, and dramatically reduced wheat products; take fish oil, vitamin D, and follow a flavonoid-rich diet. Has it worked? After a year or so of your program, that's when another heart scan can give you invaluable feedback on whether it's been successful. I tell my patients that it's relatively easy to correct lipid and lipoprotein abnormalities. The difficult part is to know when it's good enough. Is your LDL of 67 mg/dl and HDL of 50 mg/dl good enough? Another heart scan score is the best way I know of to find out. Variation in plaque growth differs hugely from one person to another, even at equivalent lipoprotein values. Why? Lots of reasons. Humans are inconsistent day to day. Lipoproteins, being a snapshot in time and not a cumulative value, change somewhat from day to day. There's also the possibility of unmeasured, unrecognized factors that influence coronary plaque growth. We may not be smart enough to identify these hidden factors yet. But your heart scan score will incorporate the effects of these hidden factors.Ideally, we aim for zero growth in plaque (no change in score) or a reduction. But, particularly in the first year, 10% or less plaque growth is still a good result that predicts much reduced risk of heart attack. More than 20% per year and your program needs more work--or else you know what's ahead. Lipids are snapshots in time; heart scans are cumulative 12. augusti 2006 William Davis (0) Let me paint a picture. It's fictional, though a very real portrait of how things truly happen in life. Michael is an unsuspecting 40-year old man. He hasn't undergone any testing: no heart scan, no lipids or lipoproteins. But we have x-ray vision, and we can see what's going on inside of him. (We can't, of course, but we're just pretending.) Average build, average lifestyle habits, nothing extraordinary about him. His lipids/lipoproteins at age 40:--LDL cholesterol 150 mg/dl--HDL cholesterol 38 mg/dl--Triglycerides 160 mg/dl--Small LDL 70% of all LDLAt age 40, with this panel, his heart scan score is 100. That's high for a 40-year old male. Fast forward 10 years. Michael is now 50 years old. Michael prides himself on the fact that, over the past 10 years, he's felt fine, hasn't gained a single pound, and remains as active at 50 as he did in 40. In other words, nothing has changed except that he's 10 years older. His lipids and lipoproteins:--LDL cholesterol 150 mg/dl--HDL cholesterol 38 mg/dl--Triglycerides 160 mg/dl--Small LDL 70% of all LDLSome of you might correctly point out that just simple aging can cause some deterioration in lipids and lipoproteins, but we're going to ignore these relatively modest issues for now.)Lipids and lipoproteins are, therefore, unchanged. Michael's heart scan score: 1380, or an approximate 30% annual increase in score. (Since Michael didn't know about his score, he took no corrective/preventive action.)My point: If we were to make our judgment about Michael's heart disease risk by looking at lipids or lipoproteins, they would'nt tell us where he stood with regards to heart disease risk. His lipids and lipoproteins were, in fact, the same at age 50 as they were at age 40. That's because measures of risk like this are snapshots in time. In contrast, the heart scan score reflects the cumulative effects of life and lipids/lipoproteins up until the day you got your scan. Which measure do you think is a better gauge of heart attack risk? I think the answer's obvious. 11. augusti 2006 William Davis (0) The recognition of the metabolic syndrome as a distinct collection of factors that raise heart disease risk has been a great step forward in helping us understand many of the causes behind heart disease. Curiously, there's not complete agreement on precisely how to define metabolic syndrome. The American Heart Association and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute issued a concensus statement in 2005 that "defined" metabolic syndrome as anyone having any 3 of the 5 following signs:Waist size 40 inches or greater in men; 35 inches or greater in women Triglycerides 150 mg/dL or greater (or treatment for high triglycerides) HDL-C <40 mg/dL in men; <50 mg/dL in women (or treatment for reduced HDL-C) Blood Pressure >130 mmHg systolic; or >85 mmHg diastolic (or drug treatment for hypertension) Glucose (fasting) >100 mg/dL (or drug treatment for elevated glucose) Using this definition, it has become clear that meeting these criteria triple your risk of heart attack. But can you have the risk of metabolic syndrome even without meeting the criteria? What if your waste size (male) is, 36 inches, not the 40 inches required to meet that criterion; and your triglycerides are 160, but you meet none of the other requirements? In our experience, you certainly can carry the same risk. Why? The crude criteria developed for the primary practitioner tries to employ pedestrian, everyday measures. We see people every day who do not meet the criteria of the metabolic syndrome yet have hidden factors that still confer the same risk. This includes small LDL; a lack of healthy large HDL despite a normal total HDL; postprandial IDL; exercise-induced high blood pressure; and inflammation. These are all associated with the metabolic syndrome, too, but they are not part of the standard definition. I take issue in particular with the waist requirement. This one measure has, in fact, gotten lots of press lately. Some people have even claimed that waist size is the only requirement necessary to diagnose metabolic syndrome. Our experience is that features of the metabolic syndrome can occur at any waist size, though it increases in likelihood and severity the larger the waist size. I have seen hundreds of instances in which waist size was 32-38 inches in a male, far less than 35 inches in a female, yet small LDL is wildly out of control, IDL is sky high, and C-reactive protein is markedly increased. These people obtain substantial risk from these patterns, though they don't meet the standard definition. To me, having to meet the waist requirement for recogition of metabolic syndrome is like finally accepting that you have breast cancer when you feel the two-inch mass in your breast--it's too late. Recognize that the standard definition when you seen it is a crude tool meant for broad consumption. You and I can do far better. What role DHEA? 9. augusti 2006 William Davis (2) DHEA, the adrenal gland hormone, has suffered its share of ups and downs over the years. Initially, DHEA was held up as the fountain of youth with hopes of turning back the clock 20 years. Such extravagant dreams have not held up. But DHEA can still be helpful for your program. All of us had oodles of DHEA in our bodies when we were in our 20s and 30s. Gradually diminishing levels usually reach nearly blood levels of around zero by age 70. In our heart disease prevention program, of course, we aim to stop or reduce your CT heart scan score. Does DHEA reduce your score? No, it most certainly does not. But it can be helpful for gaining control over some of the causes behind coronary plaque. For instance, DHEA can:--Help reduce abdominal fat and increase muscle mass (slightly)--Provide more physical stamina. --Boost mood.--It may modestly reduce some of the phenomena associated with the metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high blood sugar, high insulin, low HDL, small LDL, etc.)In my experience, people who feel better do better on their overall program. If you're always tired and run down and run out of steam by 3 pm, I won't see you riding your bicycle outdoors or at the aerobics class. But if you're bursting with energy until you put your head on the pillow, you're more inclined to walk, bike, dance, play with the kids, dance, take Tai Chi, etc. Some downsides to DHEA: Some people experience aggression. Backing off on the dose usually relieves it. Also, sleeply 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. The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone 2. July 2009 William Davis (19) 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. Roger's near-miss CT angiogram experience 27. June 2009 William Davis (13) Heart Scan Blog reader, Roger, described his near-miss experience with CT coronary angiograms. Hoping to obtain just a simple CT heart scan, he was bullied to get a CT coronary angiogram instead. Roger held strong and just asked for the test that we all should be having, a CT heart scan. I posted yesterday that I was about to have my first CT heart scan...well, it was an interesting experience for reasons I coudn't possibly have anticipated. Dr. Davis has commented in the past on the confusion in the media about the difference between a CT calcium score scan, and a CT angiography, the latter requiring a far higher dose of radiation. I assumed this was a source of confusion only among patients and lay folks, but, lo and behold, I discovered today that doctors--or at least their helpers--can be just as confused. Here's my story:After checking in, I asked the receptionist to see if she had any information on whether my medical insurance was covering the scan. She called someone, and I heard her say over the phone, "He's here for a CT angiogram." At that point my ears perked up. I explained I wasn't here for a CT angiogram, only a regular CT scan. "Well, do you want to call your doctor and talk about this?" she asked. No, I said, I would like to ask one of their folks to verify exactly what test my doctor had ordered. As luck would have it, the technician was walking by at that point. "Is this a CT angiogram?" the receptionist asked. "No, it's just a CT calcium score scan" was the reply. But apparently the technician had been unclear herself, and had called my doctor just to verify. In other words, the "default" procedure they were accustomed to doing at this august Houston vascular clinic was a CT angiogram. In fact, my appointment was even listed on their calendar as a "CT angiogram." For all I know, my insurance will be billed for the same. Later, during the procedure, the technician acted surprised I wasn't doing the "full test." I explained I had minimal risk factors (actually only one, an HDL of 34 a couple of years ago, which has since been raised to 50 partly as a result of taking advice from this site), but that my doctor was progressive (he is an MD for the Houston Astros) and thought it was a good idea since there is heart disease in my immediate family. My doctor did indeed prescribe only a CT calcium score scan, but it seems to have been an order that this clinic, at least, wasn't all that used to seeing.So, I guess the message is: we have a lot of educating to do. Had I not been a faithful reader of these pages, I certainly wouldn't have known what kind of test I was about to get, or what questions to ask!As for the heart scan itself, a piece of cake. If you can hold your breath, you can take this test. Just be sure it is the right one!Why the "push" towards CT coronary angiograms and not "just" a CT heart scan? Well, I know it's shocking but it's . . . money! CT coronary angiograms yield around $1800-$4000 per test. CT heart scans yield somewhere around $200. Though the scan center support staff might not care too much about the money themselves, their administrators likely make the cost distinctions clear to them. Another reason: Most scan center staff, ironically, don't understand what a heart scan means, nor do they understand how it might serve to launch a program of prevention. They do understand that severe blockage by CT angiogram "needs" to be stented or bypassed. So they push patients towards things they understand. Nobody makes money from CT heart scans, just as nobody makes money from a mammogram. Heart scans also don't lead to heroic, "lifesaving" procedures. They just lead to this sleepy, unexciting, inexpensive thing called prevention. The Myth of Prevention: Letter to the Wall Street Journal 25. June 2009 William Davis (20) The June 20-21, 2009 Wall Street Journal Weekend Journal featured a provocative front page article written by physician, Dr. Abraham Verghese:The Myth of PreventionWhile eloquently written, I took issue with a few crucial points. Here is the letter I sent to the Editor at Wall Street Journal: Dear Wall Street Journal Editor,Re: Dr. Abraham Verghese’s article, The Myth of Prevention in the June 20-21, 2009 Weekend Journal. I believe a more suitable title for Dr. Verghese’s article would be: “The Myth of What Passes as Prevention.” As a practicing cardiologist, I, too, have witnessed firsthand the systemic “corruption” described by Dr. Verghese, the doing things “to” people rather than “for” them. Heart care, in particular, is rife with this form of profit-driven health delivery. There is a fundamental flaw in Dr. Verghese’s otherwise admirable analysis: He assumes that what is called “prevention” in mainstream medicine is truly preventive. Dr. Verghese makes issue of the apparent minor differences between preventing a condition and just allowing a condition to run its course. Prostate cancer screening is one example: Men subjected to repeated screenings have little length-of-life advantage over men who just allow their prostate to suffer the expected course of disease. What if, instead, “prevention” as practiced today is nothing more than a solution that has been adopted in mainstream practice to suit yet another doing “to” strategy than doing “for”? In the prostate cancer example, PSA and prostate exam screenings often serve as little more than a means of harvesting procedures for the local urologist. That’s not prevention. It is a prototypical example of “prevention” being subverted into the cause of revenue-generating procedures. I submit that Dr. Verghese has fallen victim to the very same system he criticizes. His views have unwittingly been corrupted by the corrupt profit-driven system he describes. What if, instead, prevention were just that: prevention or elimination of the condition. What if “prevention” of prostate cancer eliminated prostate cancer? What if heart disease “prevention” prevented all heart disease? What if this all proceeded without regard for profit or revenue-generating procedures, but just on results? Dr. Verghese specifically targets heart scans or coronary calcium scoring, a test he likens to “miracle glow-in-the-dark minnow lures,” calling them “moneymakers.” Yes, when subverted into a corrupt algorithm of stress test, heart catheterization, stent, or bypass, heart scans are indeed a test used wrongly to “prevent” heart disease. But what if the risk insights provided by heart scans prompt the start of a benign yet effective “prevention” program that inexpensively, safely, and assuredly prevents--in the true sense of the word--or eliminates heart disease? Then I believe the differences in mortality, quality of life, and costs would be substantial. Such strategies exist, yet do not necessarily include prescription drugs and certainly do not include the aftermath of heart catheterization and bypass surgery. Yet such programs fail to seize the limelight of media attention with no new high-tech lifesaving headline nor a big marketing budget to broadcast its message. The problem in medicine is not prevention and its failure to yield cost- and life-saving results. It is the pervasively profit-driven mindset that keeps true preventive strategies from entering mainstream conversation. It is a repeat of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis’ late 19th-century pleads for physicians to wash their hands before delivering babies to reduce puerperal sepsis, ignominious advice that earned him life and death in an asylum. We are essentially continuing to deliver children with unwashed hands because there is no revenue-generating procedure to clean them. No, Dr. Verghese, the economic and medical failings of preventive strategies are not at fault. The failure of the medical system, in which everyone is bent on seizing a piece of the financial action for himself, has resulted in the failure to support the propagation of true preventive strategies that could genuinely save money and lives. President Obama’s goal of cultivating preventive practices in medicine can work, but only if the profit-motive for “prevention” does not serve as the primary determinant of practice. Results-driven practices that are applied without regard to profit have the potential to yield the sorts of cost-saving and life-saving results that can reduce healthcare costs. William Davis, MDMilwaukee, WisconsinMedical Director, The Track Your Plaque Program (www.cureality.com)Blog: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com A victory for SHAPE, CT heart scans, and doing what is RIGHT 24. June 2009 William Davis (7) The efforts of Texas House of Representatives Rep. Rene Oliveira and the SHAPE Guidelines committee have paid off: The Texas legislature passed a bill that requires health insurers to cover CT heart scans. (NOTE: Don't make the same mistake that the media often makes and confuse CT heart scans with CT coronary angiography: two different tests, two different results, two different levels of radiation exposure. The difference is discussed here.)Track Your Plaque previously reported the release of the SHAPE Guidelines, an ambitious effort to open CT heart scanning to people who would benefit from a simple screening test for coronary disease. Rep. Rene Oliveira initially introduced the bill in 2006, after having a heart scan uncovered extensive coronary plaque that resulted in coronary bypass surgery. The bill requires that health-benefit providers cover the cost of CT heart scans (and carotid ultrasound) in men between the ages of 45-76, women 55-76, as well as anyone with diabetes or at "intermediate-risk" or higher for coronary disease by Framingham risk score.The usual panel of cardiology knuckleheads stepped to the media podium, expressing their incredulity that something as "unvalidated" as heart scans could gain the backing of legislative mandate. Heartwire carried this comment:"Contacted by heartwire, Dr Amit Khera (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas) confirmed there are still no comprehensive, adequately powered studies showing that these screening tests lead to better outcomes. In a phone interview, Khera said he has major concerns about how physicians will use these tests, particularly primary-care physicians. "I gave a talk last week to primary-care doctors, and there were probably 250 people in the room, and when I asked how many people had ordered a calcium scan, just one person raised a hand. . . . Most people don't even know what to do with the Framingham risk score, so they're going to follow an algorithm that they don't know how to follow to order a test result that they don't know what to do with."It's the same criticisms hurled at heart scans over the years despite literally thousands of studies validating their application. Studies have conclusively shown that: --Coronary calcium scores generated by a CT heart scan outperform any other risk measure for coronary disease, including LDL cholesterol, c-reactive protein, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure. --Coronary calcium scores yield a graded, trackable index of coronary risk. Scores that increase correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular events; scores that remain unchanged correlate with much reduced risk. --A coronary calcium score of zero--no detectable calcium--correlates with extremely low 5-year risk for cardiovascular events. --Coronary calcium scores correlate with other measures of coronary disease. Heart scans correlate with coronary angiography, quantitative coronary angiography, carotid ultrasound (intimal-medial thickness and plaque severity), ankle-brachial index, and stress tests, including radionuclide (nuclear) perfusion imaging. The reluctance of my colleagues to embrace heart scans stems from two issues, for the most part: 1) No study has yet been performed showing that knowing what the score is vs. not knowing what the score is changes prognosis. That's true. But it is also true of the great majority of practices in medicine. While many wrongs don't make a right, the miserable and widespread failure of other coronary risk measures, like LDL cholesterol or c-reactive protein, to readily and reliably detect hidden coronary disease creates a gaping void for improved efforts at early detection. If your LDL cholesterol is 140 mg/dl, do you or don't you have coronary disease? If your doctor's response is "Just take a statin drug anyway" you've been done a great disservice. (If and when this sort of study gets done, its huge cost--outcome studies have to be large and last many years--it will likely be a statin study. It is unlikely it will include such Track Your Plaque strategies that help reduce heart scan scores, like vitamin D and correction of small LDL particles.)2) Fears over overuse of hospital procedures triggered by heart scans. This is a legitimate concern--if the information provided by a heart scan is misused. Heart scans should never--NEVER--lead directly to heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery. Heart scans do not change the indications for performing revascularization (angioplasty, stents, bypass). Just because 20% of my cardiology colleagues are more concerned with profit rather than patient welfare does not invalidate the value of the test. Just because the mechanic at the local garage gouged you by replacing a carburetor for $800 when all you need was a new spark plug does not mean that we should outlaw all auto mechanics. Abuse is the fault of the abuser, not of the tool used to exercise the abuse. All in all, while I am not a fan of legislating behavior in healthcare, the blatant and extreme ignorance of this simple tool for uncovering hidden heart disease makes the Texas action a huge success for heart disease prevention. I hope that this success will raise awareness, not just in Texas, but in other states and cities in which similar systemic neglect is the rule. Remember: CT heart scans are tools for prevention, not to uncover "need" for procedures. They serve as a starting point to decide whether or not an intensive program of prevention is in order, and I don't mean statin vs. no statin.Though not a multi-million dollar statin drug study, I have NEVER seen a heart attack or "need" for procedure in any person who has stopped progression or reduced their heart scan score. A small cohort from my practice was reported:Effect of a Combined Therapeutic Approach of Intensive Lipid Management, Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation, and Increased Serum 25 (OH) Vitamin D on Coronary Calcium Scores in Asymptomatic Adults.Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M.The impact of intensive lipid management, omega-3 fatty acid, and vitamin D3 supplementation on atherosclerotic plaque was assessed through serial computed tomography coronary calcium scoring (CCS). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with statin therapy has not been shown to reduce or slow progression of serial CCS in several recent studies, casting doubt on the usefulness of this approach for tracking atherosclerotic progression. In an open-label study, 45 male and female subjects with CCS of >/= 50 without symptoms of heart disease were treated with statin therapy, niacin, and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides /=60 mg/dL; and vitamin D3 supplementation to achieve serum levels of >/=50 ng/mL 25(OH) vitamin D, in addition to diet advice. Lipid profiles of subjects were significantly changed as follows: total cholesterol -24%, low-density lipoprotein -41%; triglycerides -42%, high-density lipoprotein +19%, and mean serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels +83%. After a mean of 18 months, 20 subjects experienced decrease in CCS with mean change of -14.5% (range 0% to -64%); 22 subjects experienced no change or slow annual rate of CCS increase of +12% (range 1%-29%). Only 3 subjects experienced annual CCS progression exceeding 29% (44%-71%). Despite wide variation in response, substantial reduction of CCS was achieved in 44% of subjects and slowed plaque growth in 49% of the subjects applying a broad treatment program. Sleep: A to Zzzzzzzzzz 23. June 2009 William Davis (5) Take a look at the results from the Heart Scan Blog's most recent reader poll (399 respondents):How many hours do you sleep per night (on average)? 9 or more hours per night 15 (3.7%) 8-9 hours per night 72 (18%) 7-8 hours per night 152 (38.1%) 6-7 hours per night 111 (27.8%) 5-6 hours per night 38 (9.5%) Less than 5 hours per night 11 (2.8%)Like many issues in health, too much or too little of a good thing can present undesirable consequences. Too much sleep: While psychologists and sleep researchers advise us that at least 9 hours are required to fully eliminate sleep "debt" and achieve optimal vigilance and mental performance, epidemiologic studies have shown increased mortality with this quantity of sleep. Too little sleep: Getting less than 7 hours habituallly increases blood sugar, appetite, inflammatory measures, and encourages weight gain. Mortality is also increased, just as with sleeping too much. It is also associated with increased likelihood of a positive heart scan score. 7-8 hours per night from a health viewpoint is that Goldlilocks "just right" value: just enough to not erode mental performance substantially, but not so little that inflammatory, insulin-disrupting, and appetite-increasing effects develop. Of our 399 respondents in the poll, 56.1% (38% + 18%) slept what appears to be an optimal amount for health. While only 3.7% slept too much (9 hours or more), the remaining 40.1% slept too little. Our informal poll confirms what most of us observe in everyday life: The majority of people shortchange sleep in order to meet the demands of their high-pressure, squeeze-as-much-as-possible-into-every-day lives. But not paying off your sleep "debt" is like not paying the mortgage for a couple of months. You wouldn't expect your friendly neighborhood bank to say, "Oh, you forgot to pay your mortgage? Forget about it. Just pay next month's." Sure, fat chance. But if you don't pay off your sleep "debt," you will pay it back with health. << Older posts Newer posts >> Newer posts12...394041424344454647...123124Older posts
The Track Your Plaque guide to getting grotesquely overweight 15. augusti 2006 William Davis (0) If you'd like to gain huge quantities of weight, here's a number of helpful tips:1) Follow the advice of food manufacturers and eat the products they label "healthy", or "heart healthy", or "part of a nutritious breakfast" etc., like Shredded Wheat cereal, pretzels ("a low-fat snack"!), low- or non-fat salad dressings. 2) Cut your morning calorie intake by skipping breakfast.3) Hang around with other heavy people. They will confirm that it's okay to be overweight. 4) Call walking your dog "exercise". 5) Get a sedentary desk job. Use your swivel desk chair to scoot about whenever possible, rather than getting up to do things. 6) Say "I've worked hard all week long. Weekends are for relaxing, not for physical activities. I deserve a rest."7) Eat foods without thinking about it: Eat chips while watching football, eat while on the phone, daydream over the sink.8) Eat to provide comfort when stressed.9) Eat foods that have sentimental value, whether or not they're good for you: Freshly-baked cakes that remind you of Mom, Pop Tarts that you used to carry in your lunchbox when you were a kid, hot dogs just like Dad would buy at the baseball stadium. 10) Cut back on sleep and generate insatiable starch cravings.11) Stack your shelves at home with great variety. That way, you'll always have something to suit your mood. 12) Say to your spouse: "It's none of your damn business what I eat! I'm a grown man/woman!" Prove it by over-indulging in obviously unhealthy foods. 13) Tell yourself that you're just too busy to pay attention to food choices. Just grab whatever you can out of a convenience store or vending machine. See, it's easy! And that just a start.Of course, I don't really want you to do any of these things. But if you see yourself in any of the above, and you're struggling with weight, you should seriously rethink your approach.
Your heart scan is just a "false positive" 15. augusti 2006 William Davis (0) I've seen this happen many times. Despite the great media exposure and the growing acceptance of my colleagues, heart scans still trigger wrong advice. I had another example in the office today.Henry got a CT heart scan in 2004. His score: 574. In his mid-50s, this placed him in the 90th percentile, with a heart attack risk of 4% per year. Henry was advised to see a cardiologist. The cardiologist advised Henry, "Oh, that's just a 'false positive'. It's not true. You don't have any heart disease. Sometimes calcium just accumulates on the outside of the arteries and gives you these misleading tests. I wish they'd stop doing them." He then proceeded to advise Henry that he needed a nuclear stress test every two years ($4000 each time, by the way). No attempt was made to question why his heart scan score was high, since the entire process was outright dismissed as nonsense. I'm still shocked when I hear this, despite having heard these inane responses for the past decade. Of course, Henry's heart scan was not a false positive, it was a completely true positive. I'm grateful that nothing bad happened to Henry through two years of negligence, though his heart scan score is likely around 970, given the expected, untreated rate of increase of 30%. The cardiologist did a grave disservice to Henry: He misled him due to his ignorance and lack of understanding. I wish Henry had asked the cardiologist whether he had read any of the thousands of studies now available validating CT heart scans. I doubt he's bothered to read more than the title. The cardiologist is lucky (as is Henry) that nothing bad happened in those two years.Do false positives occur as the cardiologist suggested? They do, but they're very rare. There's a rare phenomenon of "medial calcification" that occurs in smokers and others, but it is quite unusual. >99% of the time, coronary calcium means you have coronary plaque--even if the doctor is too poorly informed to recognize it.
What's better than a heart scan? 13. augusti 2006 William Davis (0) Do you know what's better than a heart scan?Two heart scans. No other method can provide better feedback on the results of your program. Say you've made efforts to correct high LDL; lost weight to raise HDL and reduce small LDL; added soluble fibers, nuts, and dramatically reduced wheat products; take fish oil, vitamin D, and follow a flavonoid-rich diet. Has it worked? After a year or so of your program, that's when another heart scan can give you invaluable feedback on whether it's been successful. I tell my patients that it's relatively easy to correct lipid and lipoprotein abnormalities. The difficult part is to know when it's good enough. Is your LDL of 67 mg/dl and HDL of 50 mg/dl good enough? Another heart scan score is the best way I know of to find out. Variation in plaque growth differs hugely from one person to another, even at equivalent lipoprotein values. Why? Lots of reasons. Humans are inconsistent day to day. Lipoproteins, being a snapshot in time and not a cumulative value, change somewhat from day to day. There's also the possibility of unmeasured, unrecognized factors that influence coronary plaque growth. We may not be smart enough to identify these hidden factors yet. But your heart scan score will incorporate the effects of these hidden factors.Ideally, we aim for zero growth in plaque (no change in score) or a reduction. But, particularly in the first year, 10% or less plaque growth is still a good result that predicts much reduced risk of heart attack. More than 20% per year and your program needs more work--or else you know what's ahead.
Lipids are snapshots in time; heart scans are cumulative 12. augusti 2006 William Davis (0) Let me paint a picture. It's fictional, though a very real portrait of how things truly happen in life. Michael is an unsuspecting 40-year old man. He hasn't undergone any testing: no heart scan, no lipids or lipoproteins. But we have x-ray vision, and we can see what's going on inside of him. (We can't, of course, but we're just pretending.) Average build, average lifestyle habits, nothing extraordinary about him. His lipids/lipoproteins at age 40:--LDL cholesterol 150 mg/dl--HDL cholesterol 38 mg/dl--Triglycerides 160 mg/dl--Small LDL 70% of all LDLAt age 40, with this panel, his heart scan score is 100. That's high for a 40-year old male. Fast forward 10 years. Michael is now 50 years old. Michael prides himself on the fact that, over the past 10 years, he's felt fine, hasn't gained a single pound, and remains as active at 50 as he did in 40. In other words, nothing has changed except that he's 10 years older. His lipids and lipoproteins:--LDL cholesterol 150 mg/dl--HDL cholesterol 38 mg/dl--Triglycerides 160 mg/dl--Small LDL 70% of all LDLSome of you might correctly point out that just simple aging can cause some deterioration in lipids and lipoproteins, but we're going to ignore these relatively modest issues for now.)Lipids and lipoproteins are, therefore, unchanged. Michael's heart scan score: 1380, or an approximate 30% annual increase in score. (Since Michael didn't know about his score, he took no corrective/preventive action.)My point: If we were to make our judgment about Michael's heart disease risk by looking at lipids or lipoproteins, they would'nt tell us where he stood with regards to heart disease risk. His lipids and lipoproteins were, in fact, the same at age 50 as they were at age 40. That's because measures of risk like this are snapshots in time. In contrast, the heart scan score reflects the cumulative effects of life and lipids/lipoproteins up until the day you got your scan. Which measure do you think is a better gauge of heart attack risk? I think the answer's obvious.
11. augusti 2006 William Davis (0) The recognition of the metabolic syndrome as a distinct collection of factors that raise heart disease risk has been a great step forward in helping us understand many of the causes behind heart disease. Curiously, there's not complete agreement on precisely how to define metabolic syndrome. The American Heart Association and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute issued a concensus statement in 2005 that "defined" metabolic syndrome as anyone having any 3 of the 5 following signs:Waist size 40 inches or greater in men; 35 inches or greater in women Triglycerides 150 mg/dL or greater (or treatment for high triglycerides) HDL-C <40 mg/dL in men; <50 mg/dL in women (or treatment for reduced HDL-C) Blood Pressure >130 mmHg systolic; or >85 mmHg diastolic (or drug treatment for hypertension) Glucose (fasting) >100 mg/dL (or drug treatment for elevated glucose) Using this definition, it has become clear that meeting these criteria triple your risk of heart attack. But can you have the risk of metabolic syndrome even without meeting the criteria? What if your waste size (male) is, 36 inches, not the 40 inches required to meet that criterion; and your triglycerides are 160, but you meet none of the other requirements? In our experience, you certainly can carry the same risk. Why? The crude criteria developed for the primary practitioner tries to employ pedestrian, everyday measures. We see people every day who do not meet the criteria of the metabolic syndrome yet have hidden factors that still confer the same risk. This includes small LDL; a lack of healthy large HDL despite a normal total HDL; postprandial IDL; exercise-induced high blood pressure; and inflammation. These are all associated with the metabolic syndrome, too, but they are not part of the standard definition. I take issue in particular with the waist requirement. This one measure has, in fact, gotten lots of press lately. Some people have even claimed that waist size is the only requirement necessary to diagnose metabolic syndrome. Our experience is that features of the metabolic syndrome can occur at any waist size, though it increases in likelihood and severity the larger the waist size. I have seen hundreds of instances in which waist size was 32-38 inches in a male, far less than 35 inches in a female, yet small LDL is wildly out of control, IDL is sky high, and C-reactive protein is markedly increased. These people obtain substantial risk from these patterns, though they don't meet the standard definition. To me, having to meet the waist requirement for recogition of metabolic syndrome is like finally accepting that you have breast cancer when you feel the two-inch mass in your breast--it's too late. Recognize that the standard definition when you seen it is a crude tool meant for broad consumption. You and I can do far better.
What role DHEA? 9. augusti 2006 William Davis (2) DHEA, the adrenal gland hormone, has suffered its share of ups and downs over the years. Initially, DHEA was held up as the fountain of youth with hopes of turning back the clock 20 years. Such extravagant dreams have not held up. But DHEA can still be helpful for your program. All of us had oodles of DHEA in our bodies when we were in our 20s and 30s. Gradually diminishing levels usually reach nearly blood levels of around zero by age 70. In our heart disease prevention program, of course, we aim to stop or reduce your CT heart scan score. Does DHEA reduce your score? No, it most certainly does not. But it can be helpful for gaining control over some of the causes behind coronary plaque. For instance, DHEA can:--Help reduce abdominal fat and increase muscle mass (slightly)--Provide more physical stamina. --Boost mood.--It may modestly reduce some of the phenomena associated with the metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high blood sugar, high insulin, low HDL, small LDL, etc.)In my experience, people who feel better do better on their overall program. If you're always tired and run down and run out of steam by 3 pm, I won't see you riding your bicycle outdoors or at the aerobics class. But if you're bursting with energy until you put your head on the pillow, you're more inclined to walk, bike, dance, play with the kids, dance, take Tai Chi, etc. Some downsides to DHEA: Some people experience aggression. Backing off on the dose usually relieves it. Also, sleeply 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.
The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone 2. July 2009 William Davis (19) 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.
Roger's near-miss CT angiogram experience 27. June 2009 William Davis (13) Heart Scan Blog reader, Roger, described his near-miss experience with CT coronary angiograms. Hoping to obtain just a simple CT heart scan, he was bullied to get a CT coronary angiogram instead. Roger held strong and just asked for the test that we all should be having, a CT heart scan. I posted yesterday that I was about to have my first CT heart scan...well, it was an interesting experience for reasons I coudn't possibly have anticipated. Dr. Davis has commented in the past on the confusion in the media about the difference between a CT calcium score scan, and a CT angiography, the latter requiring a far higher dose of radiation. I assumed this was a source of confusion only among patients and lay folks, but, lo and behold, I discovered today that doctors--or at least their helpers--can be just as confused. Here's my story:After checking in, I asked the receptionist to see if she had any information on whether my medical insurance was covering the scan. She called someone, and I heard her say over the phone, "He's here for a CT angiogram." At that point my ears perked up. I explained I wasn't here for a CT angiogram, only a regular CT scan. "Well, do you want to call your doctor and talk about this?" she asked. No, I said, I would like to ask one of their folks to verify exactly what test my doctor had ordered. As luck would have it, the technician was walking by at that point. "Is this a CT angiogram?" the receptionist asked. "No, it's just a CT calcium score scan" was the reply. But apparently the technician had been unclear herself, and had called my doctor just to verify. In other words, the "default" procedure they were accustomed to doing at this august Houston vascular clinic was a CT angiogram. In fact, my appointment was even listed on their calendar as a "CT angiogram." For all I know, my insurance will be billed for the same. Later, during the procedure, the technician acted surprised I wasn't doing the "full test." I explained I had minimal risk factors (actually only one, an HDL of 34 a couple of years ago, which has since been raised to 50 partly as a result of taking advice from this site), but that my doctor was progressive (he is an MD for the Houston Astros) and thought it was a good idea since there is heart disease in my immediate family. My doctor did indeed prescribe only a CT calcium score scan, but it seems to have been an order that this clinic, at least, wasn't all that used to seeing.So, I guess the message is: we have a lot of educating to do. Had I not been a faithful reader of these pages, I certainly wouldn't have known what kind of test I was about to get, or what questions to ask!As for the heart scan itself, a piece of cake. If you can hold your breath, you can take this test. Just be sure it is the right one!Why the "push" towards CT coronary angiograms and not "just" a CT heart scan? Well, I know it's shocking but it's . . . money! CT coronary angiograms yield around $1800-$4000 per test. CT heart scans yield somewhere around $200. Though the scan center support staff might not care too much about the money themselves, their administrators likely make the cost distinctions clear to them. Another reason: Most scan center staff, ironically, don't understand what a heart scan means, nor do they understand how it might serve to launch a program of prevention. They do understand that severe blockage by CT angiogram "needs" to be stented or bypassed. So they push patients towards things they understand. Nobody makes money from CT heart scans, just as nobody makes money from a mammogram. Heart scans also don't lead to heroic, "lifesaving" procedures. They just lead to this sleepy, unexciting, inexpensive thing called prevention.
The Myth of Prevention: Letter to the Wall Street Journal 25. June 2009 William Davis (20) The June 20-21, 2009 Wall Street Journal Weekend Journal featured a provocative front page article written by physician, Dr. Abraham Verghese:The Myth of PreventionWhile eloquently written, I took issue with a few crucial points. Here is the letter I sent to the Editor at Wall Street Journal: Dear Wall Street Journal Editor,Re: Dr. Abraham Verghese’s article, The Myth of Prevention in the June 20-21, 2009 Weekend Journal. I believe a more suitable title for Dr. Verghese’s article would be: “The Myth of What Passes as Prevention.” As a practicing cardiologist, I, too, have witnessed firsthand the systemic “corruption” described by Dr. Verghese, the doing things “to” people rather than “for” them. Heart care, in particular, is rife with this form of profit-driven health delivery. There is a fundamental flaw in Dr. Verghese’s otherwise admirable analysis: He assumes that what is called “prevention” in mainstream medicine is truly preventive. Dr. Verghese makes issue of the apparent minor differences between preventing a condition and just allowing a condition to run its course. Prostate cancer screening is one example: Men subjected to repeated screenings have little length-of-life advantage over men who just allow their prostate to suffer the expected course of disease. What if, instead, “prevention” as practiced today is nothing more than a solution that has been adopted in mainstream practice to suit yet another doing “to” strategy than doing “for”? In the prostate cancer example, PSA and prostate exam screenings often serve as little more than a means of harvesting procedures for the local urologist. That’s not prevention. It is a prototypical example of “prevention” being subverted into the cause of revenue-generating procedures. I submit that Dr. Verghese has fallen victim to the very same system he criticizes. His views have unwittingly been corrupted by the corrupt profit-driven system he describes. What if, instead, prevention were just that: prevention or elimination of the condition. What if “prevention” of prostate cancer eliminated prostate cancer? What if heart disease “prevention” prevented all heart disease? What if this all proceeded without regard for profit or revenue-generating procedures, but just on results? Dr. Verghese specifically targets heart scans or coronary calcium scoring, a test he likens to “miracle glow-in-the-dark minnow lures,” calling them “moneymakers.” Yes, when subverted into a corrupt algorithm of stress test, heart catheterization, stent, or bypass, heart scans are indeed a test used wrongly to “prevent” heart disease. But what if the risk insights provided by heart scans prompt the start of a benign yet effective “prevention” program that inexpensively, safely, and assuredly prevents--in the true sense of the word--or eliminates heart disease? Then I believe the differences in mortality, quality of life, and costs would be substantial. Such strategies exist, yet do not necessarily include prescription drugs and certainly do not include the aftermath of heart catheterization and bypass surgery. Yet such programs fail to seize the limelight of media attention with no new high-tech lifesaving headline nor a big marketing budget to broadcast its message. The problem in medicine is not prevention and its failure to yield cost- and life-saving results. It is the pervasively profit-driven mindset that keeps true preventive strategies from entering mainstream conversation. It is a repeat of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis’ late 19th-century pleads for physicians to wash their hands before delivering babies to reduce puerperal sepsis, ignominious advice that earned him life and death in an asylum. We are essentially continuing to deliver children with unwashed hands because there is no revenue-generating procedure to clean them. No, Dr. Verghese, the economic and medical failings of preventive strategies are not at fault. The failure of the medical system, in which everyone is bent on seizing a piece of the financial action for himself, has resulted in the failure to support the propagation of true preventive strategies that could genuinely save money and lives. President Obama’s goal of cultivating preventive practices in medicine can work, but only if the profit-motive for “prevention” does not serve as the primary determinant of practice. Results-driven practices that are applied without regard to profit have the potential to yield the sorts of cost-saving and life-saving results that can reduce healthcare costs. William Davis, MDMilwaukee, WisconsinMedical Director, The Track Your Plaque Program (www.cureality.com)Blog: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com
A victory for SHAPE, CT heart scans, and doing what is RIGHT 24. June 2009 William Davis (7) The efforts of Texas House of Representatives Rep. Rene Oliveira and the SHAPE Guidelines committee have paid off: The Texas legislature passed a bill that requires health insurers to cover CT heart scans. (NOTE: Don't make the same mistake that the media often makes and confuse CT heart scans with CT coronary angiography: two different tests, two different results, two different levels of radiation exposure. The difference is discussed here.)Track Your Plaque previously reported the release of the SHAPE Guidelines, an ambitious effort to open CT heart scanning to people who would benefit from a simple screening test for coronary disease. Rep. Rene Oliveira initially introduced the bill in 2006, after having a heart scan uncovered extensive coronary plaque that resulted in coronary bypass surgery. The bill requires that health-benefit providers cover the cost of CT heart scans (and carotid ultrasound) in men between the ages of 45-76, women 55-76, as well as anyone with diabetes or at "intermediate-risk" or higher for coronary disease by Framingham risk score.The usual panel of cardiology knuckleheads stepped to the media podium, expressing their incredulity that something as "unvalidated" as heart scans could gain the backing of legislative mandate. Heartwire carried this comment:"Contacted by heartwire, Dr Amit Khera (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas) confirmed there are still no comprehensive, adequately powered studies showing that these screening tests lead to better outcomes. In a phone interview, Khera said he has major concerns about how physicians will use these tests, particularly primary-care physicians. "I gave a talk last week to primary-care doctors, and there were probably 250 people in the room, and when I asked how many people had ordered a calcium scan, just one person raised a hand. . . . Most people don't even know what to do with the Framingham risk score, so they're going to follow an algorithm that they don't know how to follow to order a test result that they don't know what to do with."It's the same criticisms hurled at heart scans over the years despite literally thousands of studies validating their application. Studies have conclusively shown that: --Coronary calcium scores generated by a CT heart scan outperform any other risk measure for coronary disease, including LDL cholesterol, c-reactive protein, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure. --Coronary calcium scores yield a graded, trackable index of coronary risk. Scores that increase correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular events; scores that remain unchanged correlate with much reduced risk. --A coronary calcium score of zero--no detectable calcium--correlates with extremely low 5-year risk for cardiovascular events. --Coronary calcium scores correlate with other measures of coronary disease. Heart scans correlate with coronary angiography, quantitative coronary angiography, carotid ultrasound (intimal-medial thickness and plaque severity), ankle-brachial index, and stress tests, including radionuclide (nuclear) perfusion imaging. The reluctance of my colleagues to embrace heart scans stems from two issues, for the most part: 1) No study has yet been performed showing that knowing what the score is vs. not knowing what the score is changes prognosis. That's true. But it is also true of the great majority of practices in medicine. While many wrongs don't make a right, the miserable and widespread failure of other coronary risk measures, like LDL cholesterol or c-reactive protein, to readily and reliably detect hidden coronary disease creates a gaping void for improved efforts at early detection. If your LDL cholesterol is 140 mg/dl, do you or don't you have coronary disease? If your doctor's response is "Just take a statin drug anyway" you've been done a great disservice. (If and when this sort of study gets done, its huge cost--outcome studies have to be large and last many years--it will likely be a statin study. It is unlikely it will include such Track Your Plaque strategies that help reduce heart scan scores, like vitamin D and correction of small LDL particles.)2) Fears over overuse of hospital procedures triggered by heart scans. This is a legitimate concern--if the information provided by a heart scan is misused. Heart scans should never--NEVER--lead directly to heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery. Heart scans do not change the indications for performing revascularization (angioplasty, stents, bypass). Just because 20% of my cardiology colleagues are more concerned with profit rather than patient welfare does not invalidate the value of the test. Just because the mechanic at the local garage gouged you by replacing a carburetor for $800 when all you need was a new spark plug does not mean that we should outlaw all auto mechanics. Abuse is the fault of the abuser, not of the tool used to exercise the abuse. All in all, while I am not a fan of legislating behavior in healthcare, the blatant and extreme ignorance of this simple tool for uncovering hidden heart disease makes the Texas action a huge success for heart disease prevention. I hope that this success will raise awareness, not just in Texas, but in other states and cities in which similar systemic neglect is the rule. Remember: CT heart scans are tools for prevention, not to uncover "need" for procedures. They serve as a starting point to decide whether or not an intensive program of prevention is in order, and I don't mean statin vs. no statin.Though not a multi-million dollar statin drug study, I have NEVER seen a heart attack or "need" for procedure in any person who has stopped progression or reduced their heart scan score. A small cohort from my practice was reported:Effect of a Combined Therapeutic Approach of Intensive Lipid Management, Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation, and Increased Serum 25 (OH) Vitamin D on Coronary Calcium Scores in Asymptomatic Adults.Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M.The impact of intensive lipid management, omega-3 fatty acid, and vitamin D3 supplementation on atherosclerotic plaque was assessed through serial computed tomography coronary calcium scoring (CCS). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with statin therapy has not been shown to reduce or slow progression of serial CCS in several recent studies, casting doubt on the usefulness of this approach for tracking atherosclerotic progression. In an open-label study, 45 male and female subjects with CCS of >/= 50 without symptoms of heart disease were treated with statin therapy, niacin, and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides /=60 mg/dL; and vitamin D3 supplementation to achieve serum levels of >/=50 ng/mL 25(OH) vitamin D, in addition to diet advice. Lipid profiles of subjects were significantly changed as follows: total cholesterol -24%, low-density lipoprotein -41%; triglycerides -42%, high-density lipoprotein +19%, and mean serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels +83%. After a mean of 18 months, 20 subjects experienced decrease in CCS with mean change of -14.5% (range 0% to -64%); 22 subjects experienced no change or slow annual rate of CCS increase of +12% (range 1%-29%). Only 3 subjects experienced annual CCS progression exceeding 29% (44%-71%). Despite wide variation in response, substantial reduction of CCS was achieved in 44% of subjects and slowed plaque growth in 49% of the subjects applying a broad treatment program.
Sleep: A to Zzzzzzzzzz 23. June 2009 William Davis (5) Take a look at the results from the Heart Scan Blog's most recent reader poll (399 respondents):How many hours do you sleep per night (on average)? 9 or more hours per night 15 (3.7%) 8-9 hours per night 72 (18%) 7-8 hours per night 152 (38.1%) 6-7 hours per night 111 (27.8%) 5-6 hours per night 38 (9.5%) Less than 5 hours per night 11 (2.8%)Like many issues in health, too much or too little of a good thing can present undesirable consequences. Too much sleep: While psychologists and sleep researchers advise us that at least 9 hours are required to fully eliminate sleep "debt" and achieve optimal vigilance and mental performance, epidemiologic studies have shown increased mortality with this quantity of sleep. Too little sleep: Getting less than 7 hours habituallly increases blood sugar, appetite, inflammatory measures, and encourages weight gain. Mortality is also increased, just as with sleeping too much. It is also associated with increased likelihood of a positive heart scan score. 7-8 hours per night from a health viewpoint is that Goldlilocks "just right" value: just enough to not erode mental performance substantially, but not so little that inflammatory, insulin-disrupting, and appetite-increasing effects develop. Of our 399 respondents in the poll, 56.1% (38% + 18%) slept what appears to be an optimal amount for health. While only 3.7% slept too much (9 hours or more), the remaining 40.1% slept too little. Our informal poll confirms what most of us observe in everyday life: The majority of people shortchange sleep in order to meet the demands of their high-pressure, squeeze-as-much-as-possible-into-every-day lives. But not paying off your sleep "debt" is like not paying the mortgage for a couple of months. You wouldn't expect your friendly neighborhood bank to say, "Oh, you forgot to pay your mortgage? Forget about it. Just pay next month's." Sure, fat chance. But if you don't pay off your sleep "debt," you will pay it back with health.