Grasscutting, fertilizer, and healthcare

25. August 2009 William Davis (23)
A guy named Jeff, a 60-something, taciturn, "How 'bout dem Brewers?" kind of guy, cuts my grass.

Once a week, Jeff drives over his rust-rimmed 1994 Chevy pickup and trailer, unloads his ride mower, and cuts the grass. For his 40 minutes of work, I pay him $35.

For $35, all he does is cut the grass--no trimming, no picking up debris, no working in the garden, no fertilizing, no weeding. Just cutting the grass. Occasionally, Jeff has proven to be a useful resource for peculiar problems. Last year, I had a drainage problem that he helped solve and two years ago he helped diagnose a tree disease that was killing a tree in the backyard; it's now recovered.

To save money, and because I like to work in the yard, I do the rest. I trim the edges, I fertilize the grass, plant new flowers and trees, fix damaged areas, trim wild branches.

In my view, my relationship with Jeff, a limited, as-needed relationship, in which I ask him to help with specific issues but I manage the rest myself, is how I believe that healthcare should also be conducted.

Your doctor should be like Jeff: Perhaps not taciturn, but an as-needed resource available while you do much of the work.

My simple relationship with Jeff is, I believe, the healthcare model of the future. You manage your own cholesterol issues, your own basic thyroid issues, supplement and monitor your vitamin D levels, use diet to suit your needs, order blood tests when necessary, even obtain basic imaging tests like heart scans, carotid ultrasound, bone density testing. Your doctor is a resource, near by when and if you need him or her: guidance when needed, an occasional review of what you are doing, someone to consult when you fracture an ankle.

What your doctor is NOT is a paternal, "do what I say, I'm the doctor," or a "You need these tests whether you like it or not" holder of your health fate.

It is a model of healthcare that will evolve over the next 20-30 years, only in its infancy now.

While we started Track Your Plaque as just a resource for in-depth information on prevention and reversal of coronary heart disease, I now see it as something much greater: a prototype for the emerging concept of self-directed health.

Enough for now. I've got some tomatoes to pick.

Iodine deficiency is REAL

21. August 2009 William Davis (30)
Like many health-conscious people, Kurt avoids salt. In fact, he has assiduously avoided salt ever since his heart attack back in 1995.

Lately, Kurt had become tired, often for little or no reason. His thyroid panel:

TSH 4.2 mIU/L (0.27-4.20)
Free T3 1.74 pg/ml (2.50-4.30)
Free T4 1.05 ng/dl (0.9-1.7)

Kurt's TSH of 4.2 mIU/L is sufficient to increase LDL cholesterol by 20-30% and increase the (relative) risk for heart attack 3-fold.

Kurt's thyroid was also palpably enlarged. While it was just barely visible--just a minor bulge in the neck (in the shape of a bowtie), it could be clearly felt when I examined him.

I asked Kurt to add 500 mcg of iodine every day. Three months later, another thyroid panel showed:

TSH 0.14 mIU/L (0.27-4.20)
Free T3 2.50 pg/ml (2.50-4.30)
Free T4 1.1 ng/dl (0.9-1.7)

Kurt's thyroid function normalized to nearly ideal levels just with iodine replacement. (The free T3, while improved, remains low; an issue for another day!)

I see this response with some frequency: low-grade goiter and apparent hypothyroidism (low thyroid function) that responds, at least partially, to iodine replacement. In Kurt's case, iodine replacement alone normalized his thyroid measures completely.

With improved thyroid measures, Kurt also felt better with renewed energy and a 22 mg/dl reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Make no mistake: Iodine deficiency is real. While most of my colleagues have dismissed iodine deficiency as a relic of the early 20th century and third world countries, you can also find it in your neighborhood.

Fish oil for $780 per bottle

19. August 2009 William Davis (16)
At prevailing pharmacy prices, one capsule of prescription Lovaza fish oil costs $4.33 each.

Yes, you heard right: $4.33 per capsule.

What do you get for $4.33 per capsule? By omega-3 fatty acid content, you get 842 mg EPA + DHA per capsule.

I can also go to Sam's Club and buy a bottle of their Triple-Strength fish oil with 900 mg omega-3 fatty acids per capsule at $18.99 per bottle of 180 capsules. That comes to 10.5 cents per capsule. That puts the price of fish oil from Sam's Club at 97.6% less cost compared to Lovaza for an equivalent quantity of omega-3 fatty acids.

What if we repriced Sam's Club's Triple-Strength and brought it "in line" with what we pay for Lovaza? That would put the value of one bottle of Sam's Club Triple-Strength fish oil at $780 per bottle.

I take patients off Lovaza every chance I get.

Organic really IS better

16. August 2009 William Davis (18)
If you have any doubts about the value of organic foods vs. conventionally-grown foods, then take a look at the findings from a USDA--Yes, USDA--sponsored study.

In this study, the nutritional content of organic vs. conventionally-grown blueberries were compared. Ironically, these observations come from the USDA's Genetic Improvement of Fruits and Vegetables Laboratory of the Produce Quality and Safety Laboratory.

Their findings (all values expressed as weight per 100 grams fresh weight blueberries, or a bit less than 1/4 cup):


Total phenol content (e.g, flavonoids):

Organic: 319.3 mg
Conventional: 190.3 mg

Organic blueberries had 68% greater phenol content.


Total anthocyanins (an important class of flavonoids):

Organic: 131.2 mg
Conventional: 82.4 mg

Organic blueberries had 59% greater anthocyanin content.


Antioxidant capacity (ORAC):

Organic: 46.14 mg
Conventional: 30.8

Organic blueberries had 50% greater antioxidant capacity.


Flavonoids suspected to carry unusually potent health effects--malvidin, delphinidin, myricetin, and quercetin--were all contained in greater proportions in the organically-grown blueberries, also. These flavonoids are demonstrating pharmacologic-level health effects in preliminary studies.

Why a genetics laboratory? After all , the study findings came out heavily in favor of non-genetic, organic farming methods of growing produce. It certainly must have at least given pause to the vocal group within agriculture and the USDA that have long argued that organic produce is no different. I suspect that the laboratory will now try to recreate the nutritional value of organic through genetic manipulation of cultivars grown using conventional methods.

Regardless of the motivations behind the study, we see that there is no comparison: organic blueberries are superior in nutritional value to those grown with conventional pesticides and herbicides. While the study addressed only blueberries, the dramatic difference makes it likely that similar differences exist in other fruits and vegetables.

Coming on the Track Your Plaque website: An in-depth Special Report on the health effects of anthocyanins.

Do you really need calcium?

12. August 2009 William Davis (0)
Why are we advised to take calcium supplements?

Men and women are advised to take calcium because it has been shown to reduce blood pressure modestly. Women, in particular, can stall the deterioration of bone strength (mineralization) by taking calcium supplements, 1200-1300 mg per day, and eating calcium-rich foods like dairy products.

Is that all true?

It is true insofar as we remain vitamin D deficient. A funny thing happens when you fully replete vitamin D: Intestinal absorption of calcium as much as quadruples. That means your body will efficiently absorb the calcium in broccoli and spinach.

Is it still necessary to force-feed your body megadoses of calcium once vitamin D has been repleted? I don’t think so.

While the evidence is indirect, several observations point towards the lack of necessity of calcium once vitamin D is addressed.
For instance:

Women who take calcium, 1200 mg per day, with vitamin D, 800 units per day, double their five-year risk for heart attack, according to a New Zealand study.

Men who take calcium, 1200 mg per day, with vitamin D, 800 units per day, also may substantially increase heart attack risk.

Bone density increases more with vitamin D than with calcium. Calcium may not even be necessary to increase bone mineralization, since there are data to suggest that vitamin D can accomplish this by itself.

Calcium suppresses parathyroid hormone, PTH. That is, in fact, how calcium stalls (usually does not reverse) bone mineral loss-not by adding calcium to bone, but by suppressing PTH release. (PTH causes bone demineralization.) Vitamin D suppresses PTH to a far greater degree than calcium.

What is needed is a broad reconsideration of the advice everyone is getting to take calcium. In an age when more and more people are appreciating the power of vitamin D supplementation to achieve normal blood levels, there may be danger ahead for those who fail to address their calcium overdosing.

The case against vitamin D2

11. August 2009 William Davis (40)
Why would vitamin D be prescribed when vitamin D3 is available over-the-counter?

Let's review the known differences between vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) and vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol):

--D3 is the human form; D2 is the non-human form found in plants.

--Dose for dose, D3 is more effective at raising blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D than D2. It requires roughly twice to 250% of the dose of D2 to match that of D3 (Trang H et al 1998).

--D2 blood levels don't yield long-term sustained levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D as does D3. When examined as a 28-day area under the curve (AUC--a superior measure of biologic exposure), D3 yields better than a 300% increased potency compared to D2. This means that it requires around 50,000 units D2 to match the effects of 15,000 units D3 (Armas LA et al 2004).

--D2 has lower binding affinity for vitamin D-binding protein, compared to D3

--Mitochondrial vitamin D 25-hydroxylase converts D3 to the 25-hydroxylated form five times more rapidly than D2.

--As we age, the ability to metabolize D2 is dramatically reduced, while D3 is not subject to this phenomenon (Harris SS et al 2002).




From Armas LA, Hollis BW, Heaney RP 2004


While there are dissenters on this view, the bulk of evidence suggests that D2 is an inferior form of D3.

Then why is D2 prescribed by many doctors when the natural, human, and superior D3 is available over-the-counter?

You already know the answer: Much of your doctor's education did not come from scientific lectures nor from reading scientific studies. It came from the pretty drug representative in the waiting room who hands the doctor reprints of the "studies" performed by the drug industry to support the use of their drugs. There is no such nutritional supplement representative in the waiting room. This preference for the "drug" D2 over the supplement D3 also stems from the inherent preference of physicians for things they can control, whether or not there is proof of superiority.

In my view, there is absolutely no reason to take vitamin D2 over D3 except to enrich the drug industry.

Honey: More fructose than high-fructose corn syrup

11. August 2009 William Davis (21)
Honey: It’s natural. Mom probably gave it to you, either straight or in tea for a sore throat when you were a kid. Even today, honey

Why an RDA for vitamin D?

24. Ocak 2009 William Davis (10)
The Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) of the Institute of Medicine is charged with setting the values for the Recommended Daily Allowances of various essential nutrients. However, when it comes to vitamin D, the FNB decided that "evidence is insufficient to develop an RDA and [an Adequate Intake, AI] is set at a level assumed to ensure nutritional adequacy."

The National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements lists the AI's for various groups of people:

14-18 years
Male 200 IU
Female 200 IU

19-50 years
Male 200 IU
Female 200 IU

51-70 years
Male 400 IU
Female 400 IU

71+ years
Male 600 IU
Female 600 IU


A reconsideration is apparently being planned in near-future that will (hopefully) incorporate the newest clinical data on vitamin D.

My question: Who cares what the FNB decides? Let me explain.

I monitor blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D to assess the 1) starting level of vitamin D without supplementation, and 2) levels while on supplementation, preferably every 6 months (during sunny weather, during cold weather). I have done for the past 3 years in over 1000 people.

The requirement for vitamin D dose in adults, in my experience, ranges from as low as 1000 units per day to as high as 20,000 units per day, rarely more. The vast majority of women require 5000 units per day, males 6000 units per day to maintain a blood level in the desirable range. (I aim for 60-70 ng/ml.) A graph of the distribution of vitamin D needs in my area (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) is a bell curve, a curve more heavily weighted towards the upper vitamin D dose range.

Need for vitamin D to achieve the same blood level is influenced by age, sex, body size, race, presence or absence of a gallbladder, as well as other factors. But needs vary, even among similar people. For instance, a 50-year old woman weighing 140 lbs might need 4000 units per day to achieve a blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D of 65 ng/ml. Another 50-year old woman weighing 140 lbs might need 8000 units to achieve the same level, and 4000 units might increase her level to only 38 ng/ml. Two similar women, very different vitamin D needs. The differences can be striking.

Being a hormone--not a vitamin, as it was incorrectly labeled--vitamin D needs to be tightly regulated. We should have neither too little nor too much. I would liken it to thyroid hormones, which need to be tightly regulated for ideal health.

Now the FNB, in light of new data, wants to set new AI's, or even RDA's, for vitamin D for the U.S. This is an impossible--impossible--task. There is no way a broad policy can be crafted that serves everyone. It is impossible to state that all men or women, categorized by age, require X units vitamin D. This is pure folly and it is misleading.

The only rational answer for the FNB to provide is to declare that:

It is not possible to establish the precise need for vitamin D in a specific individual because of the multiplicity of factors, only some of which are known, that determine vitamin D needs. Individual need can only be determined by assessing the blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D prior to initiation of replacement and periodically following replacement to assess the adequacy of replacement dose. Continuing reassessment is recommended (e.g., every 6-12 months), as needs change with weight, lifestyle, and age.

Sure, it adds around $100-150 per year per person for lab testing to assess vitamin D levels. But the health gains made--reduced fractures, reduced incidence of diabetes, reduced colon, breast, and prostate cancer, less depression, reduced heart attack and heart procedures--will more than compensate.

Bargains for Armour Thyroid

23. Ocak 2009 William Davis (10)
We use Armour thyroid almost exclusively. I take it myself.

I am thoroughly convinced that, for at least 70% of people requiring thyroid replacement, the added T3 component makes a world of difference compared to isolated T4: More energy, greater alertness, better mental clarity, better weight loss, larger effects on lipoprotein(a).

However, there are substantial price disparities in different pharmacies.

For instance, in Milwaukee, a one month supply of 1 grain (60 mg) tablets costs:

Walgreen's: $36.00

Walmart: $9.54


That's a considerable price difference of nearly 400%. It therefore always pays to do a little bit of shopping.

Heart scan mis-information on WebMD

22. Ocak 2009 William Davis (3)
If you want information on how prescription drugs fit into your life, then go to WebMD.

But, if you are looking for information that cuts through the bullcrap, is untainted by the heavy-handed tactics of the drug industry, or doesn't support the "a heart catheterization for everyone" mentality, then don't go there.

A Heart Scan Blog reader turned up this gem on the WebMD site:

Should I have a coronary calcium scan to check for heart disease?

In their report, they list some reasons why a heart scan should not be obtained:

Most of the time, a physical exam and other tests can give your doctor enough information about your risk for heart disease.

You've got to be kidding me. What tests are they talking about?

EKG? An EKG is a crude test that tells us virtually nothing about the coronary arteries or risk for heart attack. It is helpful for heart rhythm disorders and other abnormalities, but virtually useless for coronary disease unless a heart attack is underway or has already occurred.

Cholesterol? What level of cholesterol tells you whether you have heart disease? Tim Russert, for instance, had the same cholesterol values 5 years before his death as on the day of his death. How would cholesterol have told his doctor that heart disease was present? Does an LDL cholesterol of 180 mg/dl tell you that someone has heart disease, while a value of 130 mg/dl does not?

Stress test? You mean like the normal stress test Bill Clinton had 3 months before his near-fatal collapse? Stress tests are a gauge of coronary flow, not of coronary atherosclerosis. Huge amounts of coronary plaque can be present while a stress test--flow--remains normal.

No, a physical exam does not uncover hidden heart disease. The annual physical is, in fact, a miserable failure for detection of hidden heart disease.


You already know that your risk for heart disease is low or high. The test works best in people who are at medium risk but have no symptoms.

This bit of fiction comes from a compromise statement in the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association "consensus" document detailing the role of heart scans in heart disease detection. Because conventional thinkers don't like the idea of very early detection in seemingly "low risk" people, nor do they like the idea of diabetics and smokers getting a heart scan because it's "obvious" that they are already at high risk, the middle ground was taken: Scan only people at "intermediate risk."

What the heck is "intermediate risk"? Are you intermediate risk?

In real life, using standard criteria (e.g., Framingham scoring) to decide who is low-, intermediate-, or high-risk fails to identify over 1/3 of people with heart disease, while subjecting many without heart disease (plaque) to needless treatment (meaning statins, since that's the only real preventive treatment on most doc's armamentarium).

Another fact: Heart scans are quantitative, not just normal or abnormal. Your heart scan score could be 5, it could be 150, it could be 500, or 5000---it makes a world of difference. The risk of someone with a score of 5000 is at very different risk than someone with a score of 5. It also provides much greater precision in determining a specific individual's risk.



The test could give a high score even if your arteries aren't blocked. This might lead to extra tests that you don't need.

This is true--if you doctor has no idea what he's doing.

This is like saying that you should never take your car to the repair shop because all mechanics are crooks. If you have an unscrupulous cardiologist who tells you that your heart scan score of 25 means you are a "walking time bomb" and heart catheterization is necessary to determine whether you "need" a stent . . . well, this is no different than the shady mechanic who advises you that your car's engine needs to be rebuilt for $3000, when all you really needed was a few new spark plugs.

Coronary plaque is coronary plaque, and all coronary plaque has potential for rupture (heart attack)--even if it doesn't block flow. This is true at a score of 10, or 100, or 1000--all plaque is potentially rupture-prone, though the more plaque you have, the greater the likelihood.


Not all blocked arteries have calcium. So you could get a low calcium score and still be at risk.

They're missing the point: ANY calcium score carries risk, so a low score should not be interpreted as having no risk. But, just because a procedure like stenting or bypass surgery is not necessary to restore flow, it does not mean that risk for plaque rupture is not present--it is.

Any heart scan score should be taken seriously, meaning sufficient reason to engage in a program of heart disease prevention.

Although not perfect, coronary calcium scoring remains the easiest, most accessible, and least expensive means for identifying and quantifying coronary atherosclerosis--whether or not WebMD and drug industry money endorse them.

Heart disease prevention for the helpless, ignorant, or non-compliant

19. Ocak 2009 William Davis (9)
The media outlets are gushing with the "research"/marketing spinoff of the JUPITER trial, an analysis conducted by Dr. Erica Spatz of Yale University, that suggests that statin use should be expanded to many millions more Americans.

USA Today: Study: 11M more should get statins

MedPage: JUPITER Findings Could Boost Statin Use by 20%

Health Day: Millions More Americans Might Be Placed on Statins

WebMD: More May Benefit From Cholesterol Drugs: Study Shows More Would Qualify for Statin Treatment if Levels of C-Reactive Protein Are Considered


You may recall that the JUPITER trial (discussed previously in a Heart Scan Blog post) studied the cardiovascular event risk in people with "normal" LDL cholesterols (calculated, of course, not measured) of 130 mg/dl or less, along with increased c-reactive protein, a crude inflammatory measure, of 2.0 mg/dl or greater. A 54% (relative) reduction in cardiovascular events occured in the group taking Crestor 20 mg per day.

What I see is a confluence of events that have brought us to the "statin drugs are necessary for everybody" mentality:

--The low-fat diet advice of the last 40 years has increased non-fat or low-fat foods that increase LDL, since removing fat from the diet provokes small LDL particle production and increases the inflammatory measure, c-reactive protein (CRP).

--The proliferation of "healthy whole grains" in the diet have also caused an enormous boom in small LDL particles, which is interpreted to the uninformed as "high cholesterol." It has also provoked CRP substantially.

--The advice to reduce salt intake has brought a broad re-emergence of iodine deficiency. When thyroid hormone production flags due to lack of iodine, LDL cholesterol (both large and small) increase.

--Our lives, which are increasingly conducted indoors, have worsened the already substantial vitamin D deficiency. While deficiency of vitamin D primarily reduces HDL cholesterol and increases triglycerides, it can also cause an increase in small LDL and a large increase in CRP.


In other words, a collection of events have converged to provide the appearance of high LDL cholesterol and high CRP. This creates the appearance of a "need" for statin drugs. The JUPITER trial now exploits both the LDL-reducing and CRP-decreasing effects of statins.

I view the foisting of Crestor via the JUPITER argument on the public as taking full advantage of the helpless situation many Americans find themselves in: Reduce fat intake, eat more healthy whole grains and . . . cholesterol and CRP skyrocket! "You need Crestor! See, I told you it was genetic," says the doctor after attending the nice AstraZeneca-sponsored drug dinner.

The notion of using a drug like Crestor to suppress inflammatory patterns is absurd. There are far better, easier, cheaper ways to achieve this goal, along with dramatic reduction in cardiovascular risk. But, to the ignorant, the helpless, or non-compliant with real change in diet and lifestyle, then Crestor does serve a purpose.

I can only hope that the excessive pushing of statin drugs on the public will sooner or later trigger a revolt.