Where do you find fructose?

14. July 2009 William Davis (25)
Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g




Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons



Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient
Ingredients: High Fructose Corn Syrup, Vinegar, Concentrated Tomato Juice (Water, Tomato Paste), Water, Modified Food Starch, Salt, Honey, Contains Less Than 2% of Molasses, Natural Flavor, Paprika, Spice, Mustard Flour, Guar Gum, Red 40.



A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient
Ingredients: Tomato puree (water, tomato paste), high fructose corn syrup, vinegar, salt, water dried onions, contains less than 2% of black pepper, modified food starch, citric acid, dried parsley, dried garlic, xanthan gum, caramel color, potassium sorbate and calcium disodium EDTA as preservatives, molasses, corn syrup, sugar, spices, tamarind, natural flavor

Do heart scans cause cancer?

14. July 2009 William Davis (3)
Another in a series of data extrapolations that attempt to predict long-term cancer risk from medical radiation exposure was published in the July 13, 2009 Archives of Internal Medicine, viewable here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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




CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

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

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

Richard C. Semelka, MD
Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology
University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill



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

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

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

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


Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The media frenzy

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

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

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

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

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


Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

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


Non-CT

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

Goodbye, fructose

12. July 2009 William Davis (35)
A carefully-conducted study by a collaborative research group at University of California-Berkeley has finally closed the lid on the fuss over fructose vs. glucose and its purported adverse effects.

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

The statin-free life

8. July 2009 William Davis (20)
Matt came to me because his doctor couldn't reduce his LDL cholesterol.

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

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

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

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

--No lipoprotein(a)

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

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

I therefore asked Matt to:

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


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

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

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

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

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

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

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

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

5. July 2009 William Davis (29)
Even if you’re not interested in building big muscles like a bodybuilder, there are health benefits to increasing muscle mass: increased bone density, better balance, and fewer injuries. Greater muscle mass means higher metabolic rate, improved insulin responsiveness, lower blood sugar. The inevitable loss of muscle mass of aging can lead to frailty, an increasingly common situation for the elderly. Muscle loss be reversed, health improved as a result.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Prevention

While 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, MD
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Medical 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.

Biscuits and Gravy

19. October 2012 William Davis (5)


Biscuits and gravy: the ultimate comfort food . . . one you thought you’d never have again!

The familiar dish of breakfast and holiday meals is recreated here with a delicious gravy that you can pour over piping hot biscuits. Because it contains no wheat or other unhealthy thickeners like cornstarch made with “junk” carbohydrates, there should be no blood sugar or insulin problems with this dish, nor joint pain, edema, acid reflux, mind “fog,” or dandruff—life is good without wheat!

While the gravy is also dairy-free for those with dairy intolerances, the biscuits are not, as there are cheese and butter in the biscuits, both of which are optional, e.g., leave out the cheese and replace butter with coconut or other oil.

Makes 10 biscuits

Gravy:
2 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
1 pound loose sausage meat
2½ cups beef broth
¼ cup coconut flour
½ cup coconut milk (canned variety)
1 tablespoon onion powder
1 teaspoon garlic powder
½ teaspoon sea salt
Dash ground black pepper

Biscuits:
1 cup shredded cheddar (or other) cheese
2 cups almond meal/flour
¼ cup coconut flour
¾ teaspoon baking soda
½ teaspoon sea salt
2 large eggs
4 ounces butter, melted (or other oil, e.g., extra-light olive, coconut, walnut)

To make gravy:
In large skillet, heat oil over medium heat. Sauté sausage, breaking up as it browns. Cook until thoroughly cooked and no longer pink.

Turn heat up to medium to high and pour in beef broth. Heat just short of boiling, then turn down to low heat. Stir in coconut flour, little by little, over 3-5 minutes; stop adding when gravy obtains desired thickness. Pour in coconut milk and stir in well. Add onion powder, garlic powder, salt, and pepper and simmer over low heat for 5 minutes. Add additional salt and pepper to taste. Remove from heat and set aside.

To make biscuits:
Preheat oven to 325° F.

In food chopper or processor, pulse shredded cheese to finer, granular consistency.

Pour cheese into large bowl, then add almond meal, coconut flour, baking soda, and salt and mix thoroughly. Add the eggs and butter or oil and mix thoroughly to yield thick dough.

Spoon out dough into 10 or so ¾-inch thick mounds onto a parchment paper-lined baking pan. Bake for 20 minutes or until lightly browned and toothpick withdraws dry.

Ladle gravy onto biscuits just before serving.

The Perfect Carnivore

2. October 2012 William Davis (19)
People who carry the gene for lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), tend to be:

--Intelligent--The bell curve of IQ is shifted rightward by a substantial margin.
--Athletic--With unusual capacity for long-endurance effort, thus the many marathoners, triathletes, and long-distance bikers with Lp(a).
--Tolerant to dehydration
--Tolerant to starvation
--Resistant to tropical infections

In other words, people with Lp(a) have an evolutionary survival advantage. More than other people, they make clever, capable hunters who can run for hours to chase down prey, not requiring food or water, and less likely to succumb to the infections of the wild. In a primitive setting, people with Lp(a) are survivors. Evolution has likely served to select Lp(a) people for their superior survival characteristics.

But wait a minute: Isn't Lp(a) a risk for heart attack and stroke? Don't we call Lp(a) "the most aggressive known cause for heart disease and stroke that nobody gives a damn about"?

Yes. So what allows this evolutionary advantage for survival to become a survival disadvantage?

Carbohydrates, especially those from grains and sugars. Let me explain.

More so than other people, Lp(a) people express the small LDL pattern readily when they consume carbohydrates such as those from "healthy whole grains." Recall that the gene for Lp(a) is really the gene for apoprotein(a), the protein that, once produced by the liver and released into the bloodstream, binds to an available LDL particle to create the combination Lp(a) molecule. If the LDL particle component of Lp(a) is small, it confers greater atherogenicity (greater plaque-causing potential). Thus, carbohydrate consumption makes Lp(a) a more aggressive cause for atherosclerotic plaque. The situation can be made worse by exposure to vegetable oils, such as those from sunflower or corn, which increases production of apo(a).

Also, more than other people, Lp(a) people tend to show diabetic tendencies with consumption of carbohydrates. Eat "healthy whole grains," for instance, or if a marathoner carb-loads, he/she will show diabetic-range blood sugars. I have seen long-distance runners or triathletes, for instance, have a 6 ounce container of sugary yogurt and have blood sugars of 200 mg/dl or higher. The extreme exercise provides no protection from the diabetic potential.

Because carbohydrates are so destructive to the Lp(a) type, it means that people with this pattern do best by 1) absolutely minimizing exposure to carbohydrates and vegetable oils, ideally grain-free and sugar-free, and 2) rely on a diet rich in fats and proteins.

The perfect diet for the Lp(a) type? It would be a diet of feasting on the spoils of the hunt, devouring the wild boar captured and slaughtered and eating the snout, hindquarters, spleen, kidneys, heart, and bone marrow, then eating mushrooms, leaves, nuts, coconut, berries, small rodents, reptiles, fish, birds, and insects when the hunt is unproductive.

Capable hunter, survivor, consumer of muscle and organ meats: I call people with Lp(a) "The Perfect Carnivores."

Track Your Plaque in the news

19. September 2012 William Davis (6)
The NPR Health Blog contacted me, as they were interested in learning more about health strategies and tools that are being used by individuals without their doctors. The Track Your Plaque website and program came up in their quest, as it is the only program available for self-empowerment in heart disease.

Several Track Your Plaque Members spoke up to add their insights. The full text of the article can be viewed here.

How's Your Cholesterol? The Crowd Wants To Know
Mainstream medicine isn't in favor of self-analysis, or seeking advice from non-professionals, of course. And anyone who does so is running a risk.

But there are folks who want to change the course of their heart health with a combination of professional and peer support. Some are bent on tackling the plaque that forms in arteries that can lead to heart disease. They gather online at Track Your Plaque, or "TYP" to the initiates.

"We test, test, test ... and basically experiment on ourselves and have through trial and error came up with the TYP program, which is tailored to the individual," Patrick Theut, a veteran of the site who tells Shots he has watched his plaque slow, stop and regress.

The site was created in 2004 by Bill Davis, a preventive cardiologist in Milwaukee, Wisc. Davis is also the author of Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight and Find Your Path Back to Health, which argues that wheat is addictive and bad for most people's health. Davis recommends eliminating wheat from the diet to most new members of Track Your Plaque.

"The heart is one of the hardest things to self-manage but when you let people take the reins of control, you get far better results and far fewer catastrophes like heart attacks," Davis tells Shots.

Doctors typically give patients diagnosed with heart disease two options: take cholesterol-lowering statin drugs, or make lifestyle changes, like diet. It's usually far easier for both parties — the doctor and the patient — to go with the drugs than manage the much more difficult lifestyle changes, Davis says.

"Doctors say take the Lipitor, cut the fat and call me if you have chest pain," he explains. "But that's an awful way to manage care."

TYP has members submit their scores from heart CT scans, cholesterol values, lipoproteins and other heart health factors to a panel of doctors, nutritionists and exercise specialists. Then they receive advice in the form of an individualized plaque-control program. But the online forum, where users share their results with other members and exchange tips, is where most of the TYP action happens.

The community currently has about 2,400 members who pay $39.95 for a quarterly membership, or $89.75 for a yearly membership. Davis says all proceeds go towards maintaining the website.

Ilaine Upton is a 60-year-old bankruptcy lawyer from Fairfax, Va., and a TYP member. At a friend's suggestion, Upton decided to get a heart CT scan in July. Her score was higher than it should have been (22 instead of 0), so she decided to get her blood lipids and cholesterol tested, too, and sent a sample off to MyMedLabs.com.

She learned that her LDL particle count was over 2,000 ("crazy high," she says), and she posted her results on TYP. Davis advised her that a low-carb diet would reduce it, so she decided to try it.

Since July, she says she has had "excellent results" with the program, and her LDL counts are coming down.

"It would be nice to have a [personal] physician involved in this, but [my insurer] Blue Cross won't pay if you are not symptomatic, and I am trying to prevent becoming symptomatic," says Upton. "I feel very empowered by this knowledge and the ability to take better control of my health by getting feedback on the decisions I make."

Pecan Streusel Coffee Cake

5. September 2012 William Davis (1)

This is about as decadent as it gets around here!

Here’s a recreation of an old-fashioned coffee cake, a version with a delicious chewy-crunchy streusel topping.

I’ve specified xylitol as the sweetener in the topping, as it is the most compatible sweetener for the streusel “crumb” effect and browning.

Variations are easy. For example, for an apple pecan coffee cake, add a layer of finely-chopped or sliced apples to the cake batter and topping.

Additional potential carbohydrate exposure comes from the garbanzo bean flour and molasses. However, distributed into 10 slices, each slice provides 7.2 grams “net” carbs (total carbs minus fiber), a perfectly tolerable amount. Be careful not to exceed two slices!

Yield 10 slices

Cake:
2½ cups almond flour
½ cup garbanzo bean flour
1 tablespoon ground cinnamon
1 teaspoon baking soda
Sweetener equivalent to ¾ cup sugar
Dash sea salt

3 eggs separated
3/8 teaspoon cream of tartar
1 tablespoon vanilla extract
4 ounces butter, melted
Juice of ½ lemon

Topping:
½ cup almond flour
¼ cup pecans, finely chopped
1 tablespoon ground cinnamon
½ cup xylitol
1 tablespoon molasses
6 ounces butter, cut into ½-inch widths, at room temperature

Preheat oven to 325º F. Grease bread pan.

In bowl, combine almond flour, garbanzo flour, cinnamon, baking soda, sweetener, salt, and mix.

In small bowl, whip egg whites and cream of tartar until stiff peaks form. At low speed, blend in egg yolks, vanilla, melted butter, and lemon juice.

Pour liquid mixture into almond mixture and mix thoroughly. Pour into microwave-safe bread pan and microwave on high for 3 minutes. Remove and set aside.

To make topping, combine almond flour, pecans, cinnamon, xylitol, and molasses in small bowl and mix. Mix in butter

Spread topping on cake. Bake for 20 minutes or until toothpick withdraws dry.

Recipe: Peanut Butter and Jelly Macaroons

16. August 2012 William Davis (3)


If you miss peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, you’re going to absolutely love these peanut butter and jelly macaroons!

Not everybody loves the taste or texture of coconut. This issue is solved by the first step: toasting shredded coconut, then reducing them down to a granular consistency. This yields a macaroon consistency without the dominant coconut taste, replaced instead with the flavors of PB & J.

I’ve specified liquid stevia as the sweetener, but this is easily replaced by your choice of sweetener. Note that, regardless of which sweetener used, they vary in sweetness from brand to brand and the quantity required to equal the ½ cup of sugar equivalent can vary. It always helps to taste your batter and adjust sweetness.

Also, I used Swerve in this recipe, the erythritol-inulin mix that enhances texture, but its use is optional.

As written, each macaroon contains just over 3 grams “net” carbohydrates (total carbs minus fiber), meaning you can have several before doing any damage!

Makes 24 macaroons

3 cups shredded unsweetened coconut
2 tablespoons vanilla extract
1 teaspoon almond extract
¼ cup coconut flour
¼ cup dried unsweetened cherries (or other unsweetened berries)
2 tablespoons coconut oil
¼ cup natural peanut butter, room temperature
2 egg whites
½ teaspoon liquid stevia or sweetener equivalent to ½ cup sugar
2 tablespoons Swerve


Preheat oven to 300° F.

In large bowl, combine coconut, vanilla and almond extracts, and mix.

Spread mixture on baking sheet and bake for 10 minutes, stirring occasionally, until very lightly browned. Be careful not to burn. Remove and cool. (Leave oven at 300° F.)

When cooled, using food chopper, food processor, or coffee grinder, pulse coconut mixture until coconut reduced to consistency of coffee grounds. Pour back into bowl. Stir in coconut flour.

Place cherries or other berries in food chopper, food processor, or coffee grinder and pulse until reduced to small granules or paste. Remove with spatula and add to coconut mixture. Set aside.

Place egg whites in bowl and whip until frothy and stiff peaks form.

In small microwave-safe bowl, combine coconut oil and peanut butter and microwave in 10-second increments until warm (not hot) liquid. Stir in egg whites, followed by stevia and Swerve, and blend thoroughly.

Dispense dough onto a parchment paper-lined baking sheet using a 1 ½-inch cookie scooper or spoons.

Bake for 15 minutes or until lightly browned.

I Wish I Had Lipoprotein(a)!

8. August 2012 William Davis (33)
Why would I say such a thing? Well, a number of reasons. People with lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), are, with only occasional exceptions:

--Very intelligent. I know many people with this genetic pattern with IQs of 130, 140, even 160+.
--Good at math--This is true more for the male expression of the pattern, only occasionally female. It means that men with Lp(a) gravitate towards careers in math, accounting, financial analysis, physics, and engineering.
--Athletic--Many are marathon runners, triathletes, long-distance bicyclists, and other endurance athletes. I tell my patients that, if they want to meet other people with Lp(a), go to a triathlon.
--Poor at hydrating. People with Lp(a) have a defective thirst mechanism and often go for many hours without drinking water. This is why many Lp(a) people experience the pain of kidney stones: Prolonged and repeated dehydration causes crystals to form in the kidneys, leading to stone formation over time.
--Tolerant to dehydration--Related to the previous item, people with Lp(a) can go for extended periods without even thinking about water.
--Tolerant to periods of food deprivation or starvation--More so than other people, those with Lp(a) are uncommonly tolerant to days without food, as would occur in a wild setting.


In short, people with Lp(a) are intelligent, athletic, with many other favorable characteristics that provide a survival advantage . . . in a primitive world.

So when did Lp(a) become a problem? When an individual with Lp(a) is exposed to carbohydrates, especially those from grains. When an evolutionarily-advantaged Lp(a) individual is exposed to carbohydrates, more than other people they develop:

--Excess quantities of small LDL particles--Recall that Lp(a) is a two-part molecule. One part: an apo(a) made by the liver. 2nd part: an LDL particle. When the LDL particle within the Lp(a) molecule is small, its overall behavior is worse or more atherogenic (plaque-causing).
--Hyperglycemia/hyperinsulinemia--which then leads to diabetes. Unlike non-Lp(a) people, these phenomena can develop with far less visceral fat. A Lp(a) male, for instance, standing 5 ft 10 inches tall and weighing 150 pounds, can have as much insulin resistance/hyperglycemia as a non-Lp(a) male of similar height weighing 50+ pounds more.

Key to gaining control over Lp(a) is strict carbohydrate limitation. Another way to look at this is to say that Lp(a) people do best with unlimited fat and protein intake.

What WERE they thinking

1. August 2012 William Davis (0)
When the Dietary Guidelines for Americans were drafted and the USDA and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services charged with disseminating this information to us . . .

When the American Heart Association created its Total Lifestyle Change (TLC) diet to reduce cardiovascular risk and reduce cholesterol . . .

When the American Diabetes Association developed its diet to help diabetics manage their blood sugars and prevent hypoglycemia . . .


How did conditions like Familial Hypertriglyceridemia fit into this scheme?

Green Tea Ginger Orange Bread

11. July 2012 William Davis (4)
How about all the health benefits of green tea in wheat-free bread form, spiced up with the magical combined flavors of ginger and orange?

Frequent consumption of green tea accelerates loss of visceral (“wheat belly”) fat, increases HDL and reduces triglycerides, reduces blood pressure, and may provide cardiovascular benefits that go beyond these markers such as reduction of oxidative stress. In this Green Tea Ginger Orange Bread, we don’t just drink the tea—we eat it! This provides an even more powerful dose of the green tea catechins believed to be responsible for the health benefits of green tea.

You can grind your own green tea from dried bulk leaves or it can be purchased pre-ground. I’ve used sencha and matcha green tea varieties with good results. The Teavana tea store sells a Sencha preground green tea that works well. If starting with bulk tea leaves, pulse in your food chopper, food processor, or coffee grinder (cleaned thoroughly first!) to generate green tea powder. You will need only a bit, as a little goes a long way.

The entire loaf contains 26 grams “net” carbohydrates; if cut into 10 slices, each slice therefore yields 2.6 grams net carbs, a perfectly tolerable amount.


Bread:
1¼ cup almond meal/flour
½ cup coconut flour
2 tablespoons ground golden flaxseed
1 teaspoon baking powder
Sweetener equivalent to 1 cup sugar
1 tablespoon ground green tea
1½ teaspoons ground ginger
1½ teaspoons ground allspice
1½ ground cinnamon
2 large eggs, separated
¼ teaspoon cream of tartar
1 tablespoon vanilla extract
1 teaspoon almond extract
Grated zest from 1 orange + 2 tablespoons squeezed juice
1/2 cup coconut milk

Frosting:
4 ounces cream cheese, room temperature
1 teaspoon fresh lemon juice
Sweetener equivalent to 1 tablespoon sugar

Preheat oven to 350° F. Grease a 9” x 5” bread pan.

In large bowl, combine almond meal/flour, coconut flour, flaxseed, baking powder, sweetener, green tea, ginger, allspice, and cinnamon and mix.

In small bowl, whip egg whites and cream of tartar until stiff peaks form. At low mixer speed, blend in egg yolks, vanilla extract, almond extract, orange zest and juice, and coconut milk.

Pour egg mixture into almond meal/flour mixture and mix by hand thoroughly.

Pour dough into bread pan and place in oven. Bake for 40 minutes or until toothpick withdraws dry. Remove and cool.

For frosting, combine cream cheese, lemon juice, and sweetener and mix. When cooled, spread frosting over top of bread.

Chocolate Bomb Bars

10. July 2012 William Davis (4)
These healthy bars will blast you with chocolate from several directions!

Look for cacao nibs in health food stores, Whole Foods Market, or at nuts.com. If unavailable, the bars are still delicious without them.



These bars contain around 4-5 grams "net" carbs per bar, well within the tolerance for most people.

Yields approximately 10 bars

1 cup ground almonds
2 tablespoons coconut flour
1 tablespoon unsweetened cocoa powder
1/2 cup cacao nibs
1/2 cup unsweetened shredded coconut
2 ounces 85-90% cocoa chocolate, finely chopped
3/4 cup raw pumpkin or sunflower seeds
Sweetener equivalent to 3/4 cup sugar
2 tablespoons almond butter
1/4 cup coconut milk
2 tablespoons coconut oil or cocoa butter (food grade)

Preheat oven to 200 degrees F. Lay sheet of parchment paper on large baking pan.

In large bowl, combine ground almonds, coconut flour, cocoa powder, cacao nibs, coconut, chocolate bits, pumpkin seeds, and sweetener (if dry) and mix.

In microwave-safe bowl or in small sauce pan, add almond butter, coconut milk, and coconut oil and sweetener (if liquid) and heat for 15 second increments in microwave until liquid, but not hot. If using stove, heat at low-heat enough to make liquid easily mixed, but not hot.

Pour liquid into dry almond mixture and mix together thoroughly. If too stiff, add water one tablespoon at at time until the consistency of thick dough.

Spoon out approximately 1 1/2-inch balls, shaping with the spoon and/or your hands into bar shapes.

Bake for 35 minutes. Remove and cool.

An iodine primer

10. July 2012 William Davis (7)
What if your diet is perfect--no wheat, no junk carbohydrates like that from corn or sugars, you are physically active--yet you fail to lose weight? Or you hit a plateau after an initial loss?

First think iodine.

Iodine is an essential nutrient. It is no more optional than, say, celebrating your wedding anniversary or obtaining vitamin C. If you forget to do something nice for your wife on your wedding anniversary, I would fear for your life. If you develop open sores all over your body and your joints fall apart, you could undergo extensive plastic surgery reconstruction and joint replacement . . . or you could just treat the scurvy causing it from lack of vitamin C.

Likewise iodine: If you have an iodine deficiency, you experience lower thyroid hormone production, since T3 and T4 thyroid hormones require iodine (the "3" and "4" refer to the number of iodine atoms per thyroid hormone molecule). This leads to lower energy (since the thyroid controls metabolic rate), cold hands and feet (since the thyroid is thermoregulatory, i.e., temperature regulating), and failed weight loss. So iodine deficiency is one of the items on the list of issues to consider if you eliminate wheat with its appetite-stimulating opiate, gliadin, and high-glycemic carbohydrate, amylopectin A, and limit other carbohydrates, yet still fail to lose weight. A perfect diet will not fully overcome the metabolism-limiting effects of an underactive thyroid.

Given sufficient time, an enlarged thyroid gland, or goiter, develops, signaling longstanding iodine deficiency. (The treatment? Iodine, of course, not thyroid removal, as many endocrinologists advocate.) Your risk for heart attack, by the way, in the presence of a goiter is increased several-fold. Goiters are becoming increasingly common and I see several each week in my office.

Iodine is found in the ocean and thereby anything that comes from the ocean, such as seafood and seaweed. Iodine also leaches into the soil but only does so coastally. It means that crops and livestock grown along the coasts have some quantity of iodine. Humans hunting and foraging along the coast will be sufficient in iodine, while populations migrating inland will not.

It also means that foods grown inland do not have iodine. This odd distribution for us land dwelling primates means that goiters are exceptionally common unless iodine is supplemented. Up to 25% of the population can develop goiters without iodine supplementation, a larger percentage experiencing lesser degrees of iodine deficiency without goiter.

In 1924, the FDA became aware of the studies that linked goiters to lack of iodine, reversed with iodine supplementation. That's why they passed a regulation encouraging salt manufacturers to add iodine, thought to be an easy and effective means for an uneducated, rural populace to obtain this essential nutrient. Their message: "Use more iodized salt. Keep your family goiter free!" That was actually the slogan on the Morton's iodized salt label, too.

It worked. The rampant goiters of the first half of the 20th century disappeared. Iodized salt was declared an incredible public health success story. Use more salt, use more salt.

You know the rest. Overuse of salt led to other issues, such as hypertension in genetically susceptible people, water retention, and other conditions of sodium overexposure. The FDA then advises Americans to slash their intake of sodium and salt . . . but make no mention of iodine.

So what recurs? Iodine deficiency and goiters. Sure, you eat seafood once or twice per week, maybe even have the nori (sheet seaweed) on your sushi once in a while . . . but that won't do it for most. Maybe you even sneak some iodized salt into your diet, but occasional use is insufficient, especially since the canister of iodized salt only contains iodine for around 4 weeks, given iodine's volatile nature. (Iodized salt did work when everybody in the house salted their food liberally and Mom had to buy a new canister every few weeks.)

Iodine deficiency is common and increasing in prevalence, given the widespread avoidance of iodized salt. So what happens when you become iodine deficient? Here's a partial list:

--Weight loss is stalled or you gain weight despite your efforts.
--Heart disease risk is escalated
--Total and LDL cholesterol and triglyceride values increase
--Risk of fibrocystic breast disease and possibly breast cancer increase (breast tissue concentrates iodine)
--Gingivitis and poor oral health increase (salivary glands concentrate iodine)

(Naturopathic doctor Lyn Patrick, ND, has written a very nice summary available here.)

So how do you ensure that you obtain sufficient iodine every day? You could, of course, eat something from the ocean every day, such as coastal populations such as the Japanese do. Or you could take an inexpensive iodine supplement. You can get iodine in a multivitamin, multimineral, or iodine drops, tablets, or capsules.

What is the dose? Here's where we get very iffy. We know that the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA), the intake to not have a goiter, is 150 mcg per day for adults (220 mcg for pregnant females, 290 mcg for lactating females). Most supplements therefore contain this quantity.

But what if our question is what is the quantity of iodine required for ideal thyroid function and overall health? Ah, that's where the data are sketchy. We know, for instance, that the Japanese obtain somewhere between 3,500 and 13,000 mcg per day (varying widely due to different habits and locations). Are they healthier than us? Yes, quite a bit healthier, though there may be other effects to account for this, such as a culture of less sweet foods and more salty, less wheat consumption, etc. There are advocates in the U.S., such as Dr. David Brownstein in Michigan, who argues that some people benefit by taking doses in the 30,000 to 50,000 mcg per day range (monitored with urinary iodine levels).

As is often the case with nutrients, we lack data to help us decide where the truly ideal level of intake lies. So I have been using and advocating intakes of 500 to 1000 mcg per day from iodine capsules, tablets, or drops. A very easy way to get this dose of iodine is in the form of kelp tablets, i.e., dried seaweed, essentially mimicking the natural means of intake that also provides iodine in all its varied forms (iodide, sodium iodate, potassium iodide, potassium iodate, iodinated proteins, etc.) This has worked out well with no ill effects.

The only concern with iodine is in people with Hashimoto's thyroiditis or (rarely) an overactive thyroid nodule. Anyone with these conditions should only undertake iodine replacement carefully and under supervision (monitoring thyroid hormone levels).

Iodine is inexpensive, safe, and essential to health and weight management. If it were a drug, it would enjoy repeated expensive marketing and a price tag around $150 per month. But it is an essential nutrient that enjoys none of the attention-getting advantages of drugs, and therefore is unlikely to be mentioned by your doctor, yet carries great advantage for helping to maintain overall health.

Protecting the right to use bio-identical hormones in your heart disease prevention program

4. July 2006 William Davis (0)
If you've been following the Track Your Plaque program, you know that we are advocates of "bio-identical hormones", i.e., hormone replacement using forms that are identical to the naturally-occuring human form.

In other words, we find it criminal that pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to promote use of non-identical hormones despite a probable increased side-effect and complication profile (a la Premarin). This unhappy situation persists because bio-identical hormones cannot be patent protected, meaning profits cannot be protected. Synthetic hormones can be patented and profits protected, thus their popularity among drug companies.

If that's not bad enough, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals--maker of synthetic hormone preparations, Premarin and Prempro--has filed an FDA petition to disallow the use of bio-identical hormones as prepared and dispensed by "compounding pharmacies". These are specialty pharmacies that mix and dispense hormones like estrogens (human estradiol, estriol, and estrione) and testosterone. They do so only with a doctor's prescription. Most are members of the Professional Compounding Centers of America (www.pccarx.com), a professional organization devoted to promoting quality-control over compounding practices.

Compounding pharmacies are occasionally guilty of compounding some suspect preparations. Witness the Fentanyl lollipops of 2002 in which the pain medication, Fentanyl, was put into lollipops for patients with chronic pain. This posed obvious dangers to any children who unsuspectingly ate the lollipops.

But the majority of compounding pharmacies are not guilty of such exotic practices. Most are simply pharmacies who might, for instance, mix a specific dermatologic preparation according to the orders of a dermatologist. Likewise with bio-identical hormones.

We have extensive experience with such a pharmacy in Madison, Wisconsin, the Women's International Pharmacy. They have filled hundreds of hormone prescription for us. They are responsible in their dispensing practices, in our experience. In fact, they have been at least as good, if not better, than other pharmacies we've dealt with.

We believe in protecting our rights to prescribe and you to use the choice of hormone preparations you and your doctor desire. This should include bio-identical hormones. The transparent profit motive from Wyeth should raise the hairs on your neck.

If you would like to post your comment to the FDA, there's a little time left. The folks at Womens' International Pharmacy have made it easy by posting links on their website. Go to http://www.womensinternational.com and just follow the instructions.



Here's a sample of some of the objections citizens have raised to Wyeth's petition:


I have been taking bioidentical hormones for two years. Bioidentical Hormones have been a great relief to me without the risk. I consult with my Physician who prescribes bio-identical hormones specifically for me, and my pharmacist prepares them. Without this medication and I would not be able to sleep; I would not be able to work due to the constant hot flashes. Without this medication, I find that I have less tolerance and I am considerably disagreeable. I also have problem with my memory without them. I want the bioidentcial hormones for the health benefits they provide. I urge you to not be swayed by Wyeth's petition. The product Premarin made by Wyeth, is made from pregnant horses not natural sources. Wyeth's hormones have been shown to cause cancer. I would not expect my government and its officials to submit to the highly funded petitioning of a pharmaceutical company who product is threatened by bioidentcial hormones. I do not expect my government to approved Wyeth's petition and leave me no choice of bioidentcial hormones and only the choice of Wyeth's cancer causing drugs Preamrin and Prempro. I ask that the FDA reject Wyeth's petition Docket #2005P-0411.

Another petitioner writes:

As a woman I take exception to Wyeth accusing the Compounding Pharmacy industry of unsafe practices. As a citizen of the United States I expect the FDA to stand up for my rights and the rights of all women who have found or in the future may seek consistent, safe and effective treatment with bioidentical hormones. Eliminating options by bowing to a large pharmaceutical company like Wyeth is not in the public interest and would deprive hundreds of thousands of American women from access to bioidentical hormones. Synthetic hormone replacement has been proven unequivocally unsafe in a government sponsored study and should not be forced as the sole treatment option for women. I hereby request the FDA rule against Wyeth's request. The FDA should not close down the bioidentical option of healthcare. I welcome studies of bioidentical hormones even though they are already FDA-approved and have been working effectively for decades. We already have the proof - hundreds of thousands of women, who over the past two decades have chosen bioidentical hormones based on their physicians' assessments. They are living proof that bioidentical hormones are safer and more effective and reliable than synthetic hormone drugs.

A physician and user of bio-identical hormones writes:

Wyeth, the filer of this complaint, is trying to prevent women from being able to choose less expensive compounded options for hormone replacement. There is medical evidence that in modifying the structure of their drugs (such as Premarin and Prempro) so that they could be patented, they may have introduced factors that cause the health risks identified in the Women's Health Initiative. This complaint appears to be filed for commercial purposes because of the market share that has shifted from Wyeth's products to bio-identical products from compounding pharmacies. If the complaint were upheld, patients and their doctors would not have a choice in hormone treatments. Wythe's commercial strategy of trying to eliminate the 'competition' from compounding pharmacies is against the public interest and in the interest of its own corporate profits. Women and their doctors should be able to choose between patented formulations such as those offered by Wyeth, bioidentical formulas available from compounding pharmacies, and no hormone treatment. I have been taking bio-identical hormones for several years and have had excellent results in improving my symptoms. I have been unable to take other synthetic hormones in the past, and am very concerned that my best treatment option will be taken away.

If you get a 64-slice CT coronary angiogram

3. July 2006 William Davis (0)
With new 64-slice CT scanners popping up everywhere nowadays, be sure to get your heart scan with it.

The new scanners do indeed provide wonderful images of the coronary arteries. But, say you have a 20% blockage in one artery by a coronary angiogram generated on one of these devices. What will you do in 1, 2, or 3 years when you want to know if you have progressed? Should you have the CT angiogram repeated?

Well, if you did you'll be exposed to a large dose of radiation--appropriate for a diagnostic test, but not for a screening test. The radiation exposure is not that different from undergoing a full conventional cardiac catheterization, or up to 100 chest x-rays.

"20% blockage" is also, contrary to popular opinion, not a quantitative measure. It is just an estimate of the diameter reduction at one spot. That number says nothing about the lengthwise extent of plaque. It also says nothing about the potential for "remodeling", the phenomenon of artery enlargement that occurs as plaque grows. In other words, if you had another CT coronary angiogram a year later and was told that your blockag was still 20%, in reality you could have had substantial plaque growth but it would not be reflected in that value.

People will come to me after having a CT angiogram for an opinion. Unfortunately, I send them back to their scan center to get a simple coronary calcium score. That measure is easy, quantitative, precise, and can be repeated yearly if necessary to track progression. (Track Your Plaque--I hope most of you get this by now.) Some physicians poke fun at the heart scan, or calcium, score--it's old, boring, only a measure of hard plaque. None of that's true. The coronary calcium score is a measure of total plaque (hard and soft). And when you are empowered to learn how to control and reduce your score, then it's the most exciting number in your entire health program!

Don't fall for the hype. If you go to a scan center and they insist on a 64-slice CT scanner, or if your doctor orders one, you should insist on getting a calcium score out of the test. Just ask. If they refuse, go somewhere else. Centers that refuse to generate a score have one thing on their mind: identifying people with severe blockages sufficient to obtain the downstream financial bonanza--angioplasty, stents, and bypass surgery.

If you have hypertension, think Lp(a)

2. July 2006 William Davis (0)
Clair has coronary disease.

Clair first came to attention at age 57 when she suffered a large heart attack involving the front of her heart (the "anterior wall") two years ago. Her cardiologist implanted a drug-coated stent. Her doctors advised her to "cut the fat" in her diet, exercise, and take Lipitor.

One year later, she required a stent to another artery (circumflex). At this point, Clair was thoroughly demoralized and terrified for her future. Her first heart attack left her heart muscle with only 50% of normal strength.

She came to my office for another opinion. Of course, one of the first things we did was to identify all causes of her heart disease. No surprise, Clair had 7 new causes not previously identified, including low HDL (37 mg/dl), a severe small LDL particle pattern (75% of all particles were small), and Lp(a).

Her blood pressure was also 190/88, despite her relatively slender build and 3 medications that reduced blood pressure. That's a Lp(a) effect: Exagerrated coronary risk along with unexpected hypertension that often seems inappropriate.

In fact, I saw several patients just this week with lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), and exagerrated high blood pressure (hypertension). It's not that uncommon.

Though it has not been described in the medical literature, our experience is that hypertension is a prominent part of the entire Lp(a) "syndrome".

Lp(a) is responsible for much-increased potential for coronary disease (coronary plaque). It increases in importance as estrogen recedes in a woman (pre-menopause and menopause) and testosterone in a man, since both hormones powerful suppress Lp(a) expression (though why and how nobody knows).

I believe that Lp(a) is also responsible for hypertension that most commonly develops in a persons mid-50s and onwards, often with a vengeance. 3 or 4 anti-hypertensive medications and still not controlled.



Role of l-arginine

L-arginine may be more helpful in this situation than others. L-arginine, recall, is the supply for your body's nitric oxide, a powerful dilator of the body's arteries and thereby reduces blood pressure. We use 6000 mg twice a day, a large dose that requires use of powder preparations rather than capsules.

More reading about l-arginine and nitric oxide is available through Nobel laureate, Dr. Louis Ignarro's book, NO More Heart Disease : How Nitric Oxide Can Prevent--Even Reverse--Heart Disease and Stroke, available at Amazon.com ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312335814/104-1247258-6443909?v=glance&n=283155).




Will l-arginine truly reverse heart disease on its own? No, I don't believe so. Contrary to Dr. Ignarro's extravagant claims, I find l-arginine a facilitator of plaque regression, i.e, it helps other strategies achieve regression, but it does not achieve regression or reversal by itself. (Note that Dr. Ignarro is a lab researcher who studies rats and has never treated a human being.)

But l-arginine may have special application in the person with lp(a), particularly if hypertension is part of the syndrome.


Note: As always, please note that I talk frankly about l-arginine and other supplements and medications but have no hidden agenda: I am not selling anything, nor am I affiliated with any source/website/store etc. that sells these products. If I advocate something, I do so because I truly believe it, not because I'm trying to sell something. I make this point because so much nonsense is propagated in the media because of profit-motive. That's not true here.

Dr. Ornish: Get with the program!

30. June 2006 William Davis (2)

In the era up until the 1980s, most Americans indulged in excessive quantities of saturated fats: fried chickem, spare ribs, French fries, gravy, bacon, Crisco, butter, etc.

Along came people like Nathan Pritikin and Dr. Dean Ornish, both of whom were vocal advocates of a low-fat nutritional approach. In their programs, fat composed no more than 10% of calories. This represented a dramatic improvement--at the time.


In 2006, a low-fat diet is a perversion of health. It means over-reliance on breads, breakfast cereals, pasta, crackers, cookies, pretzels, etc., the foods that pack supermarket shelves and that now constitute 70-80% of most Americans' diet.

Dr. Ornish still carries great name recognition. As a result, his outdated concepts still gain media attention. The June, 2006 issue of Reader's Digest, in their RDHealth column, carried an interview with Dr. Ornish in which he reiterates his fat-phobia.

However, on this occasion he takes a different tack. This time he rails against the "dangers" of fish oil and omega-3 fatty acids. "I've recently learned that omega-3s are a double-edged sword...In some cases, omega-3s could be fatal."

He goes on to say that, while he believes that fish oil may prevent heart attacks, it has fatal effect if you already have heart disease.

Does this make sense to you?

He's basing his views on a single, obscure study published in 2003 conducted in rural England that showed an increase in death and heart attack on fish oil. Most authorities have not taken these findings seriously, since they are wildly contrary to all other observations and because the study had some design flaws.

Despite the fact that this isolated study runs counter to all other, better-conducted studies seems not to matter to Dr. Ornish.

Clinging to the low-fat concept is like hoping 8-track tapes will make a comeback. It's not going to happen. We enjoyed the benefits while they lasted, appropriate for the era. But now, they're woefully outdated.

The overwhelming evidence is that fish oil provides tremendous benefits with little or no downside. In the Track Your Plaque program, fish oil remains a crucial supplement to gain control over your coronary plaque and stop or reduce your heart scan score. Ignore the doomsday preachings of Dr. Ornish.

(Watch for an article I wrote updating the benefits of fish oil for Life Extension magazine.)

The cholesterol fallacy

29. June 2006 William Davis (0)
Evan spotted the kiosk set up in the middle of the local mall. "Free cholesterol screenings. Know your heart health!" the sign declared.

It was a free cholesterol screening being offered by a local hospital.

The friendly nurse behind the kiosk had Evan fill out a form, then pricked his finger. Five minutes later, she reported to him with a smile, "Sir, your cholesterol is 177--your heart's fine! We get concerned when cholesterol is over 200. So you're in a safe range."

What the nurse failed to recognize is that Evan's HDL was 30 mg, a low value that actually places him at high risk for heart disease. Low HDL also signifies high likelihood of the small LDL particle pattern, a marked predisposition towards pre-diabetes and diabetes, a probable over-reliance on processed carbohydrates in his diet, a dramatically increased probability of hidden inflammation (e.g., elevated C-reactive protein), increased tendency for high blood pressure. . .

In other words, Evan's "favorable" total cholesterol is, in truth, nonsense. It's misleading, falsely reassuring, and provided none of the insight that a real effort might have yielded. Like hippies, tie-dye, other relics of the 1960s, total cholesterol needs to be put to rest. It has served many people poorly and been responsible for countless deaths.

When you see a kiosk or other service like this, even if it's free, run the other way.

"Heart disease a growth business"

29. June 2006 William Davis (0)




So announced a Boston newspaper recently, featuring a story about new heart program at a local hospital.

They were announcing how a hospital had entered the cardiovasculare procedure game and how it would boost their bottom line. The article discussed how the hospital administration was anticipating "a surge in patients from the baby boom generation."

To justify this new program, the article quoted an administrator from another hospital: "Cardiovascular issues is [sic] the number one cause people sought treatment at our hospital."

The hospital featured in the story had spent $13.5 million dollars to develop their program.

Do you think they'll make it back?

You bet they will--many times over. Hospitals are businesses, complete with a bottom line, an expectation of profit and an eye towards growth.

The hospitals in the city where I live (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) are, as in Boston and elsewhere, very aggressive--expanding into new territories, hiring new "salesmen" (physicians), all to capture more marketshare and produce more "product" (your coronary angioplasty, stent, bypass surgery, defibrillator, etc.).

The equation for hospital profits is tried and true. Ignore your heart disese risk and you can help your local hospital grow its business. Neglect to get your heart scan and you can help your hospital pay down its debt. Get a heart scan, then do nothing about it, and you may even justify a pay raise for the hospital administrators for record revenue growth and profit.

Hospitals are a growth business because of the failure of most people and their doctors to 1) identify hidden coronary disease (CT heart scan to obtain your heart scan score), then 2) seize control over it (the Track Your Plaque program or, at least, your doctor's guidance along with your efforts at prevention).

Unless you do so, you are highly likely to help your hospital boost its annual goal for procedures.

The myth of small LDL

28. June 2006 William Davis (1)
Annie's doctor was puzzled.

Despite an HDL cholesterol of 76 mg (spectacular!) and LDL of 82 mg, her CT heart scan showed a score of 135. At age 51, this placed her in the 90th percentile.

Not as bad, perhaps, as her Dad might have had, since he died at age 54 of a heart attack.

So we submitted blood for lipoprotein testing. Surprise! over 90% of all her LDL particles were small. (By NMR, they're called "small". By gel electropheresis, or the Berkeley Lab test, or VAP (Atherotech) technique, they're called "HDL3".)

What gives? Traditional teaching in the lipid world is that if HDL equals or exceeds 40 mg/dl, then small LDL will simply not be present.

Well, as you can see from Annie's experience, this is plain wrong. Yes, there is a graded, population-based effect--the lower your HDL, the greater the likelihood of small LDL. But small LDL is remarkably persistent and prevalent--regardless of your HDL.

We've seen small LDL even with HDLs in the 90's! I call small LDL the "cockroach" of lipids. If you think you have it, you probably do. Getting rid of small LDL requires a specific bug killer. (Track Your Plaque Members: Read Dr. Tara Dall's interview on small LDL.)

Don't let anybody blow off your request for lipoprotein testing just because your HDL is high. That's just not acceptable. Loads can be wrong even with a favorable HDL.

My stress test was normal. I don't need a heart scan!

28. June 2006 William Davis (0)
Katy had undergone a stress test while being seen in an emergency room, where she'd gone one weekend because of a dull pain on the right side of her chest. After her stress test proved normal, she was diagnosed (I believe correctly) with esophageal reflux, or regurgitation of stomach acid up the esophagus. She was prescrbed an acid-suppressing medication with complete relief.

But Katy also had coronary plaque. Three years ago, her CT heart scan score was 157. She'd made efforts to correct the multiple causes, though she still struggled with keeping weight down to gain full control over her small LDL particle pattern.

I felt it was time for a reassessment: another heart scan. After three years, without any preventive efforts, Katy's score would be expected to have reached 345! (That's 30% per year plaque growth.) It's a good idea to get feedback on just how much slowing you've accomplished.

But Katy declared, "But I didn't think another heart scan was necessary. My stress test was normal!"

What Katy was struggling to understand was that even at the time of her first scan, a stress test would have been normal. Plaque can be present with a normal stress test.

Plaque can even show explosive growth all while stress tests remain normal. Just ask former President, Bill Clinton, how much he should have relied on stress tests. (Mr. Clinton underwent annual stress nuclear tests. All were normal and he had no symptoms--all the way up 'til the time he needed urgent bypass surgery!)

Of course, at some point even a crude stress test will reveal abnormal results. But that's years into your disease and a lot closer to needing procedures and experiencing heart attack.

So, yes, Katy would benefit from another heart scan despite her normal stress test.

The message: Don't rely on stress tests to gauge whether or not plaque has grown, stabilized, or reversed. Stress tests can be used to gauge the safety of exercise, blood pressure response, and the potential for abnormal heart rhythms. Stress tests can be used as a method to determine whether blood flow in your coronary arteries is normal through an area with plaque.

But a stress test cannot be used to gauge whether plaque has grown. It's as simple as that. Gauging plaque growth requires a heart scan.

Patient-napping: Yet another reason to stay clear of hospitals!

26. June 2006 William Davis (1)
When I started practicing medicine around 20 years ago, it was common practice to alert a physician when their patient was seen in an emergency room.

If John Smith, for example, went to the emergency room with chest pain, the physician who had an established relationship with the patient--knew their history, had managed their health and illnesses, etc.--was notified, even if the hospital ER had no relationship with the physician. It was not uncommon for the patient to then be transferred to the hospital where their own doctor practiced.

Though cumbersome at times, it preserved the relationship of the patient with their doctor.

Over the past few years, this practice has crumbled. Nowadays, hospitals and their employed physicians (and other unscrupulous physicians acting in the name of profit) "fail" to notify the physician with an established relationship.

Guess what happens? The patient all too often ends up being put through the gamut of testing and procedures.

Why? For hospital profit, of course. If failure to notify a doctor who's had a 10-year long relationship with the patient is "overlooked" or, even more commonly, it's "unsafe" to transfer the patient because the patient is too "unstable" to be transferred, then this patient becomes ripe for picking--heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery, etc. Ten's, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars can be reaped by this deception. I call it "patient-napping".

I see this at least several times every month. As hospitals are becoming increasingly competitive, and as they put pressure on their physicians to churn patients for revenues, you're going to see more and more of this.

As always, what is your protection from this expanding influence of hospitals and the doctors too meek to stand up to them? Education and information. Arm yourself with an understanding of what is accomplished in hospitals, when you truly need them, and when you don't.

Take it one step further. At least from a heart disease standpoint--the #1 profit-maker for hospitals--aim to 1)identify your coronary plaque, then 2) seize control over your coronary plaque and reduce your risk for heart attack and heart procedures as much as humanly possible. That's the goal of the Track Your Plaque program.

Don't believe the negative press on fish oil

25. June 2006 William Davis (0)


A British Medical Journal study released in March, 2006 has prompted a media flurry of reports on the worthlessness of fish oil. (Hooper L, Thompson RL, Harrison RA et al. Risks and benefits of omega 3 fats for mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: a systematic review. BMJ March,2006)

Don't believe it for a second.

First of all, the study was a re-analysis of the existing published scientific literature. It was not a new study. It included a wild conglomeration of different clinical observations, as the studies examining fish oil over the years have been extraordinarily heterogeneous--in populations examined, omega-3 supplement (e.g., fish vs. capsule), period of observation, endpoints measured.

The results were skewed by inclusion of a moderate-sized British study by Burr et al in men with angina. In this study, no benefit was demonstrated and, in fact, a negative effect--more heart attack and death--was observed with fish oil. This was not news, since the study was published in 2003. It's results have been a mystery to everyone, since its unexpected negative result for fish oil was so starkly different from virtually every other study that preceded it (suggesting a study flaw or statistical fluke).

Nonetheless, the Burr study served to throw off the overall analysis. It diluted the dramatic and persuasive outcome of the GISSI-Prevenzione Study of 11,000 people in which a 28% reduction in heart attack and 45% reduction in cardiovascular death was observed. Note that the substantial numbers of the GISSI make the study's outcome nearly unassailable.

Another important fact: fish oil is among the most powerful tools available to correct elevated triglycerides. Drops of 50% are common. Recall that triglycerides are a necessary ingredient to create the nasty LDL, as well as VLDL, Intermediate-density lipoprotein, and an undesirable shift from large to ineffective small HDL. Reducing triglycerides is therefore crucial for your plaque control program.

This re-analysis serves to prove nothing. Such analyses can only pose questions for further study in a real study like GISSI: a randomized (random participant assignment), controlled (treatment vs. placebo or other treatment) study.

The weight of evidence remains heavily in favor of fish oil, not only as helpful, but fabulously beneficial, particularly for anyone aiming to reduce coronary plaque.

Plaquology

13. October 2008 William Davis (3)
Plaquology: A new term.

Plaquology: def: (plaque-: atherosclerotic plaque; -ology: study of.) The study of atherosclerotic plaque, originating in the early 21st century during the time period when the material underlying atherosclerosis gained recognition as a measure superior to "risk factors" for cardiovascular disease. Previous to the plaque concept, blood measures of cholesterol and adverse lifestyle habits, such as smoking and sedentary lifestyle, alone had been used to predict potential for cardiovascular events. With acceptance of the concept of plaque measurement, the concept of risk factors was abandoned.


Look it up in the current Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, or Webster's Dictionary, and I'm afraid that you still won't find plaquology . . . but you should.

I'm currently rewriting many parts of the Track Your Plaque book. The rewriting process has caused me to review just how much we've learned these past few years. One of the phenomena that fascinates me is that we now have non-medical people--teachers, software people, engineers, bankers, bed and breakfast owners, retired businesspeople, etc.--all discussing the finer points of coronary atherosclerotic plaque--plaquology--what constitutes plaque, what triggers plaque inflammation, how to quantify potential for plaque rupture or plaque quiescence, what effect various treatments have on plaque composition and behavior, etc.

We now have a legion of Plaquologists!

I'm very proud of our Plaquologists. Having devoted themselves to the study of plaque, their level of knowledge now exceeds that of 99% of practicing physicians, including my colleagues, the cardiologists. While cardiologists spend their day squashing/cutting/vaporizing plaque, they are no more experts in plaquology than a carpenter is an expert in trees. More often than not, cardiologists view plaque as just something that gets in their way, rather than the quantifiable, modifiable, reversible material that we can exert control over.

One of the software tools currently in the works for the Track Your Plaque website is a certification process. Members will be able to gain a "certification" in various topics relevant to plaquology, such as plaque quantification, lipoprotein testing, and nutritional supplements.

How about a Doctor of Plaquology?

Thyroid perspective update

10. October 2008 William Davis (18)
Since the publication of the extraordinary HUNT Study relating the entire spectrum of thyroid function and heart issues, I have been vigorously and systematically examining thyroid function in numerous patients.

While there's no news in relating flagrant low thyroid function with triggering heart disease in several forms, the cut-off between low thyroid and normal thyroid has been a matter of dispute for decades.

In the early 20th century, low thyroid function wasn't diagnosed until someone gained 40 lbs, displayed extravagant amounts of edema (water retention) in the legs and huge bags under the eyes, hair fell out in clumps, and often eventually proved fatal. At autopsy, these unfortunates also showed advanced and extensive quantities of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Low thyroid is usually diagnosed on the basis of the blood test, thyroid stimulating hormone, or TSH. TSH is a pituitary gland hormone responsible for stimulation of thyroid function. When thyroid function flags, the pituitary increases TSH release. Thus, a high TSH signals lower thyroid hormone levels.

The difficulty is in distinguishing normal thyroid function from low thyroid function judged by TSH levels. As the years have passed, in fact, the cut-off for "normal" TSH has drifted lower and lower.

The HUNT Study, I believe, clinches the argument: A TSH of 1.5 or lower, perhaps even 1.0 or lower, is desirable to eliminate the excess cardiovascular risk provided by an underactive thyroid, not to mention feel better: more energetic, clearer thinking, greater well-being.

Having now applied this renewed appreciation for thyroid, I have come to believe that:

--Low thyroid function, even subtle levels, are rampant and far more common than ever previously thought. In my office practice, the case could be made that several people per day are marginally or mildly hypothyroid (low in thyroid).
--Restoration of optimal thyroid levels facilitates correction of lipid measures, especially LDL cholesterol and, to a lesser degree, lipoprotein patterns dependent on the insulin axis such as triglycerides and small LDL. It's a lot happier way to correct lipids than statins.

I don't discount the value of feeling better. People who feel better--more energetic, more upbeat, clearer thinking--tend to do better in health overall. If thyroid restoration is a part of that equation, then greater attention should be paid to this facet of health on our way to optimal heart health.

Though I sometimes feel like an endocrinologist dispensing desiccated thyroid (rarely the synthetic T4), I believe that this has been a previously neglected and important part of our effort to achieve coronary plaque stabilization and reversal.

Accidental Health

9. October 2008 William Davis (2)

"I shall never have smallpox for I have had cowpox; I shall never
have an ugly pockmarked face."

Such was the idle comment made by a milkmaid to Edward Jenner in 1768 when Jenner was 19, a remark that later prompted his investigations into using isolates of cowpox injected into humans as the first vaccination against the devastations of the European epidemic of smallpox.

(A caricature of Jenner administering cowpox vaccine to people, causing them to sprout bovine appendages. Image courtesy Wikipedia and the Library of Congress.)

When I look back, something similar has happened here.

Although the Track Your Plaque program is intended to stop and reverse coronary plaque using the only available means of tracking coronary plaque, i.e., heart scans, an unintended panel of benefits follow:

--People lose weight, often dramatically
--People gain greater energy
--Thinking is clearer, emotions more stable
--Sleep is deeper
--Bone density increases
--Physical strength and coordination improve
--Winter blues dissipate
--Blood sugar drops dramatically
--Blood pressure drops

Cholesterol (lipid) panels also settle to values that most physicians deem impossible or impractical, given our target of 60:60:60, i.e., LDL 60 mg/dl or less, HDL 60 mg/dl or higher, triglycerides 60 mg/dl or less. And medications are not always necessary to achieve these values. (When I show these values to my colleagues, they declare them flukes, unobtainable only in select people with high doses of medications.)

I didn’t set out to find the next weight loss solution, nor the key to boundless energy. My goal was "simpler": create a program of heart health. I am, after all, a cardiologist.

I was so intently focused on achieving incremental improvements over the steps leading to heart disease prevention that I failed to recognize the profound phenomena that accompanied it: people were quicker, smarter, thinner, and healthier.

In other words, I believe that we have inadvertently created a program of super health and performance.

Ironically, most people don't want to talk about heart disease, let alone reversal of heart disease. They do want to talk about getting thinner, feeling more energetic, living longer, better cholesterol values, etc.

Perhaps there's a lesson in this.

Livin' La Vida Low Carb interview

7. October 2008 William Davis (5)

I recently provided an interview for Livin' La Vida Low Carb's irrepressible Jimmy Moore.

Jimmy runs a fun set of blogs, webcasts, and the like to broadcast this message of reducing carbohydrates in the diet. He credits his 210 lb weight loss to a strict low-carbohydrate and exercise program.

For the interview, just go to The Livin' the Vida Low Carb Show, Episode 185, or click here.

And click here for Part 2


For more of Jimmy Moore's spin on the entire low-carbohydrate diet experience, he maintains several popular blogs, including Carb Wire and The Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Blog.

Wheat withdrawal: How common?

5. October 2008 William Davis (11)
In response to the recent Heart Scan Blog poll,

Have you experienced fatigue and mental fogginess with stopping wheat, i.e., "wheat withdrawal"?

the 104 respondents said:


Yes, I have experienced it: 26 (25%)

No, I stopped wheat and did not experience it: 65 (62%)

I'm not sure: 3 (2%)

I haven't tried it but plan to: 7 (6%)

I haven't tried it and don't plan to: 3 (2%)


So 25% of respondents reported experiencing the fatigue and mental fogginess of wheat withdrawal. This is similar to what I observe in my practice.

I counsel many patients to consider the elimination of wheat, as well as cornstarch products, in an effort to regain control over:

--Weight
--Appetite
--Low HDL
--High triglycerides
--Small LDL
--High blood sugar
--High blood pressure

All of these issues respond--often dramatically--to elimination of wheat and cornstarch.

Why would there be undesirable effects of eliminating wheat?

One clear issue is that elimination of wheat and other sugar-equivalents deprives your body of glucose. Your body then needs to resort to fatty acid metabolism to generate energy. Apparently, some people are inefficient at this conversion, having subsisted on carbohydrates for the last few decades of their lives. However, as fatty acid metabolism kicks in, energy generation improves. That is my (over-)simplified way of reasoning it through.

However, are there other explanations behind the mental fogginess, drop in energy, and overwhelming sleepiness? Some readers of this blog have suggested that, since opioid-like sequences (i.e., amino acide sequences that activate opiate receptors) are present in wheat, perhaps withdrawal from wheat represents a lesser form of opiate withdrawal. I find this a fascinating possibility, though I know of no literature devoted to establishing a cause-effect relationship.

Whatever the mechanism, I find it very peculiar that this food widely touted by the USDA, American Heart Association, and other agencies actually triggers a withdrawal syndrome in approximately 25% of people. Spinach does not trigger withdrawal. Nor does flaxseed, olive oil, almonds, and countless other healthy foods.

Then why would whole wheat grains be lumped with other healthy foods?

Treat the patient, not the test

5. October 2008 William Davis (0)
"Treat the patient, not the test."

That is a common "pearl" of medical wisdom often passed on during medical training.

It refers to the fact that we should always view any laboratory or imaging test in the context of the live, human patient and not just treat any unexpected value that doesn't seem to make sense.

I raise this issue because it recently came up on a discussion on the Track Your Plaque Forum. A Member with a high heart scan score of around 1100 was advised by his doctor that it should be ignored, because he'd prefer to treat the patient, not the test. The patient is apparently slender, physically active, and entirely without symptoms, with favorable cholesterol values as well. The high heart scan score didn't seem to jive with the appearance of the patient, as viewed by this doctor.

This common phrase is meant to impart wisdom. It is a reminder that we treat real people, not just a jumble of laboratory values.

But the unspoken part of the equation is that judgment needs to be applied. A well looking person who shows an unexpected rise in white blood cell count could just have a screwy result, or could have leukemia. Liver tests (AST, ALT) that top 400 could represent a fluke, or dehydration incurred during a long workout, or hepatitis from a long ago blood transfusion.

Yes, treat the patient. But don't be an idiot and entirely dismiss the signficance of an unexpected laboratory or imaging test. A heart scan score of 1100 should be as readily dismissed as discovering a white blood cell count of 90,000 (normal is less than 12,000), or a 5 cm mass in the lung. The absence of symptoms or the failure of conventional risk factors to suggest causation is insufficient reason to dismiss the concrete findings of a test.

In this particular person, dismissing the significance of the heart scan finding by suggesting that the doctor should treat the patient, not the test, is tantamount to:

--Colossal ignorance
--Malpractice
--A certain sentencing of the hapless patient to future major heart procedures, heart attack or death (20-25% likelihood every year, or a virtual certainty over the next 5 years).

There is an ounce of wisdom in this old medical pearl. But there's also plenty of room for a knuckleheaded doctor to misconstrue and abuse its meaning for the sake of covering up his/her ignorance, laziness, or lack of caring.

Does high cholesterol cause heart disease?

3. October 2008 William Davis (15)
How often does someone develop coronary heart disease from high cholesterol alone?

Believe drug industry propaganda and you'd think that everyone does. Physicians have bought into this concept also, driving the $27 billion annual sales in statin cholesterol drugs.

In my experience, I can count the number of people who develop coronary disease from high cholesterol alone on one hand. It happens--but rarely.

That's not to say that cholesterol is not an issue. That rant populates many of the kook websites and conversations on the internet that argue that high cholesterol is a surrogate for some other health issue, or that it is part of a medical conspiracy.

The problem with conventional measurement of cholesterol is that it ignores the particle size issue: whether particles are large or small. Small LDL are flagrant causes of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Large LDL is a rather meager cause. Simple cholesterol measurement also ignores the presence of other factors that lead to heart disease, like lipoprotein(a) and vitamin D deficiency.

Conventional total and LDL cholesterol do not distinguish between large and small particles, nor reveal the presence of other hidden patterns. An LDL cholesterol of 150 mg/dl, for instance, may contain 100% large LDL--a relatively good situation that by itself is unlikely to cause heart disease, or it might contain 100% small LDL--a very bad situation that is likely to cause heart disease. Just knowing that LDL is 150 mg/dl tells you almost nothing. In 2008, most people have some mixture of the two, particularly with the proliferation of "healthy whole grains" in the American diet, foods that trigger formation of small LDL.

The imprecision and uncertainty of conventional total and LDL cholesterol has provided ammunition for some to discount the entire cholesterol concept. And they are right to a degree: cholesterol by itself is indeed a lousy predictor of heart disease. But small LDL is a very reliable predictor of potential for heart disease. Dismissing the entire concept because the standard measurement stinks is not right, either.

It is therefore an unfortunate oversimplification to say that high cholesterol causes heart disease or that it doesn't. It can--but not always, depending on size and other factors. In my view, it is therefore irreponsible to treat total or LDL cholesterol without knowledge of particle size. I've seen this play out many times: Someone with an LDL cholesterol of 150 mg/dl but all large still gets prescribed a statin drug by his/her doctor. Or someone with an LDL of 100 mg/dl--generally "favorable" by most standards--is not treated but it is all small and the person is truly at high risk. (Also, knowledge that all LDL particles are small does not mean that statins are the preferred agent. In my view, they are not.)

Are humans meant to be omnivores?

28. September 2008 William Davis (24)
Are humans meant to be omnivores?

Does the ideal human diet include animal products like meat, fish, cheese, eggs, and dairy products?

Or should the ideal diet be devoid of all animal products?a vegetarian diet?

Though the argument is distorted by modern food processing methods (e.g., factory farming, long-term administration of antibiotics), convenience foods, and pseudo-foods crafted by food manufacturers, there are, obviously, proponents of both extremes.

The Atkins’ diet, for instance, advocates unrestricted intake of animal products, regardless of production methods or curing (sausage and bacon). At the opposite extreme are diets like Ornish (Dr. Dean Ornish’s Program for Reversal of Heart Disease) and the experiences of Dr. Colin Campbell, articulated in his studies and book, The China Study, in which he lambasts animal products, including dairy, as triggers for cancer and heart disease.

So which end of the spectrum is correct? Or ideal?

For the sake of argument, let's put aside philosophical questions (like not wanting eat animal products because of aversion to killing any living being) or ethical concerns (inhumane treatment of farm animals, cruel slaughtering practices, etc.). Does the inclusion of animal products provide advantage? Disadvantage?

The traditional argument against animal products has been saturated fat. If we accept that we’ve demoted the saturated fat question to a place far down the list of importance (though this is yet another argument to discuss another time), several questions emerge:

• If humans were meant to be vegetarian, why do omega-3 fatty acids (mostly from wild game and fish) yield such substantial health benefits, including dramatic reduction in sudden death from heart disease?

• Why would vitamin K2 (from meats and milk, as well as fermented foods like natto and cheese), obtainable in only the tiniest amounts on a vegetarian diet, provide such significant benefits on bone and cardiovascular health?

• Why would vitamin B12 (from meats) be necessary to maintain a normal blood count, prevent anemia, keep homocysteine at bay, and lead to profound neurologic dysfunction when deficient?


Omega-3 fatty acids and vitamins K2 and B12 cannot be obtained in satisfactory quantities from a pure vegetarian diet. The consequences of deficiency are not measured in decades, but in a few years. The conclusion is unavoidable: Evolutionarily, humans are meant to consume at least some foods from animal sources.

That's not to say that we should gorge ourselves on animal products. Gout (excessive uric acid) and kidney stones are among the unhealthy consequences of excessive quantities of meats in our diets.

It pains me to say this, since I’ve always favored a vegetarian lifestyle, mostly because of philosophical concerns, as well as worries about the safety of our factory farm-raised livestock and rampant inhumane practices.

But, stepping back and objectively examining what nutritional approach appears to stack the odds in favor of optimal health, I believe that only one conclusion is possible: Humans are meant to be omnivorous, meant to consume some quantity of animal products in addition to vegetables, fruits, nuts, and other non-animal products.

The question is how much?

Are you wheat-free?

24. September 2008 William Davis (25)
According to the recent Heart Scan Blog poll, Are you wheat-free?, the 173 respondents said:

Yes, I am free of wheat products.
87 (50%)

No, I include wheat products in my diet.
73 (42%)

I'm not sure.
1 (0%)

I think you're nuts.
12 (6%)


That's kind of what I expected.

There are people who have eliminated wheat and experienced nothing except a feeling of deprivation. These people are in the minority. Though the poll was not set up to reflect this (i.e., asked who tried it and experienced no perceptible benefit), in my experience, this applies to about 20% of people. Little happens with elimination of wheat beyond modest weight loss. Those are the people who generally think I'm nuts.

Or, these people may have been brainwashed by "official" agencies like the USDA, the American Diabetes Association, and American Heart Association and the constant marketing of (high markup) grain products like Cheerios and Shredded Wheat . Some people are really uncomfortable going against the "grain" of popular public opinion.

Then there are the people who try to eliminate wheat and fail. They can't deal with the overwhelming fatigue, mental fog, and moodiness that comes with withdrawal from wheat, the phenomenon of converting from a sugar-burning metabolism to a fat-burning metabolism. Although wheat withdrawal usually runs its course in 2-5 days, some people find it intolerable. (That would be another fun poll to run: Have you experienced wheat-withdrawal?) Occasionally, the withdrawal is replaced by endless cravings, a phenomenon that applies to only about 10% of people. These are the true "wheat addicts." These are the people who eliminate wheat, lose 40 lbs, then regain it when they have one cracker and the floodgates of impulse control crumble.

Then there are the majority, 50% in the poll, though more like 70% in my face-to-face experience. Why is my experience skewed? Well, the people I deal with every day come because of coronary disease in some form (abnormal heart scan score, for instance) or because of lipid or lipoprotein abnormalities. So my experienced is skewed towards people who are likely to have something abnormal, such as high triglycerides or small LDL particles, both of which are created by including wheat in the diet.

This last group also shows unexpected effects of wheat elimination: substantial weight loss, dramatic reductions in blood sugar and triglycerides, increase in HDL, reductions in small LDL, reduction in c-reactive protein and other inflammatory measures. Appetite shrinks considerably. Not uncommonly, improved well-being, reduction in bowel complaints like cramping or "irritable bowel syndrome" is experienced, some rashes clear, occasionally arthritis will improve. See below for some of the testimonials to this experience.

When I first set out to advise people to eliminate wheat, I did it because I reasoned that it would be a quick and simple way to get people to reduce blood sugars and help correct the ubiquitous metabolic syndrome that afflicts nearly 50 million Americans now. And it did indeed accomplish that simple goal. But I did not expect all the other benefits to develop, the dramatic weight loss, improved well-being, reduction in hunger, etc.

I view wheat elimination as an easy-to-remember, digestible way to obtain enormous health benefits in a coronary plaque-control program, one that works for most--but not all--people. And I relate this experience not to sell you something, but to simply relate what I see as the truth, a way that is contrary to conventional advice yet works enormously well.



Unsolicited testimonials of people who have successfully been wheat-free:

Barbara W said:

It's true! We've done it. My husband and I stopped eating all grains and sugar in February. At this point, we really don't miss them any more. It was a huge change, but it's worth the effort. I've lost over 20 pounds (10 to go)and my husband has lost 45 pounds (20 to go). On top of it, our body shapes have changed drastically. It is really amazing. I've got my waist back (and a whole wardrobe of clothes) - I'm thrilled.

I'm also very happy to be eating foods that I always loved like eggs, avocados, and meats - without feeling guilty that they're not good for me.

With the extremely hot weather this week in our area, we thought we'd "treat" ourselves to small ice cream cones. To our surprise, it wasn't that much of a treat. Didn't even taste as good as we'd anticipated. I know I would have been much more satisfied with a snack of smoked salmon with fresh dill, capers, chopped onion and drizzled with lemon juice.

Aside from weight changes, we both feel so much better in general - feel much more alert and move around with much greater flexibility, sleep well, never have any indigestion. We're really enjoying this. It's like feeling younger.

It's not a diet for us. This will be the way we eat from now on. Actually, we think our food has become more interesting and varied since giving up all the "white stuff". I guess we felt compelled to get a little more creative.

Eating out (or at other peoples' places) has probably been the hardest part of this adjustment. But now we're getting pretty comfortable saying what we won't eat. I'm starting to enjoy the reactions it produces.


Weight loss, increased energy, less abdominal bloating, better sleep--I've seen it many times, as well.


Dotslady said:

I was a victim of the '80s lowfat diet craze - doc told me I was obese, gave me the Standard American Diet and said to watch my fat (I'm not a big meat eater, didn't like mayo ... couldn't figure out where my fat was coming from! maybe the fries - I will admit I liked fries). I looked to the USDA food pyramid and to increase my fiber for the constipation I was experiencing. Bread with 3 grams of fiber wasn't good enough; I turned to Kashi cereals for 11 years. My constipation turned to steattorrhea and a celiac disease diagnosis! *No gut pains!* My PCP sent me to the gastroenterologist for a colonscopy because my ferritin was a 5 (20 is low range). Good thing I googled around and asked him to do an endoscopy or I'd be a zombie by now.

My symptoms were depression & anxiety, eczema, GERD, hypothyroidism, mild dizziness, tripping, Alzheimer's-like memory problems, insomnia, heart palpitations, fibromyalgia, worsening eyesight, mild cardiomyopathy, to name a few.

After six months gluten-free, I asked my gastroenterologist about feeling full early ... he said he didn't know what I was talking about! *shrug*

But *I* knew -- it was the gluten/starches! My satiety level has totally changed, and for the first time in my life I feel NORMAL!


Feeling satisfied with less is a prominent effect in my experience, too. You need to eat less, you're driven to snack less, less likely to give in to those evil little bedtime or middle-of-the-night impulses that make you feel ashamed and guilty.



An anonymous (female) commenter said:

My life changed when I cut not only all wheat, but all grains from my diet.

For the first time in my life, I was no longer hungry -no hunger pangs between meals; no overwhelming desire to snack. Now I eat at mealtimes without even thinking about food in between.

I've dropped 70 pounds, effortlessly, come off high blood pressure meds and control my blood sugar without medication.

I don't know whether it was just the elimination of grain, especially wheat, or whether it was a combination of grain elimnation along with a number of other changes, but I do know that mere reduction of grain consumption still left me hungry. It wasn't until I elimnated it that the overwhelming redution in appetite kicked in.

As a former wheat-addicted vegetarian, who thought she was eating healthily according to all the expert advice out there at the time, I can only shake my head at how mistaken I was.



Stan said:

It's worth it and you won't look back!

Many things will improve, not just weight reduction: you will think clearer, your reflexes will improve, your breathing rate will go down, your blood pressure will normalize. You will never or rarely have a fever or viral infections like cold or flu. You will become more resistant to cold temperature and you will rarely feel tired, ever!


Ortcloud said:

Whenever I go out to breakfast I look around and I am in shock at what people eat for breakfast. Big stack of pancakes, fruit, fruit juice syrup, just like you said. This is not breakfast, this is dessert ! It has the same sugar and nutrition as a birthday cake, would anyone think cake is ok for breakfast ? No, but that is exactly the equivalent of what they are eating. Somehow we have been duped to think this is ok. For me, I typically eat an omelette when I go out, low carb and no sugar. I dont eat wheat but invariably it comes with the meal and I try to tell the waitress no thanks, they are stunned. They try to push some other type of wheat or sugar product on me instead, finally I have to tell them I dont eat wheat and they are doubly stunned. They cant comprehend it. We have a long way to go in terms of re-education.

Yes. Don't be surprised at the incomprehension, the rolled eyes, even the anger that can sometimes result. Imagine that told you that the food you've come to rely on and love is killing you!


Anne said:

I was overweight by only about 15lbs and I was having pitting edema in my legs and shortness of breath. My cardiologist and I were discussing the possible need of an angiogram. I was three years out from heart bypass surgery.

Before we could schedule the procedure, I tested positive for gluten sensitivity through www.enterolab.com. I eliminated not only wheat but also barley and rye and oats(very contaminated with wheat) from my diet. Within a few weeks my edema was gone, my energy was up and I was no longer short of breath. I lost about 10 lbs. The main reason I gave up gluten was to see if I could stop the progression of my peripheral neuropathy. Getting off wheat and other gluten grains has given me back my life. I have been gluten free for 4 years and feel younger than I have in many years.

There are many gluten free processed foods, but I have found I feel my best when I stick with whole foods.


Ann has a different reason (gluten enteropathy, or celiac disease) for wanting to be wheat-free. But I've seen similar improvements that go beyond just relief of the symptoms attributable to the inflammatory intestinal effects of gluten elimination.



Wccaguy said:

I have relatively successfully cut carbs and grains from my diet thus far.

Because I've got some weight to lose, I have tried to keep the carb count low and I've lost 15 pounds since then.

I have also been very surprised at the significant reduction in my appetite. I've read about the experience of others with regard to appetite reduction and couldn't really imagine that it could happen for me too. But it has.

A few weeks ago, I attended a party catered by one of my favorite italian restaurants and got myself offtrack for two days. Then it took me a couple of days to get back on track because my appetite returned.

Check out Jimmy Moore's website for lots of ideas about variations of foods to try. The latest thing I picked up from Jimmy is the good old-fashioned hard boiled egg. Two or three eggs with some spicy hot sauce for breakfast and a handful of almonds mid-morning plus a couple glasses of water and I'm good for the morning no problem.

I find myself thinking about lunch not because I'm really hungry but out of habit.

The cool thing too now is that the more I do this, the more I'm just not tempted much to do anything but this diet.

No more canned foods

21. September 2008 William Davis (12)
If you haven't already caught the news, it's time to eliminate canned foods and exposure to plastics that contain the chemical, bisphenol A (BPA). A worrisome and unexpected association with heart disease and diabetes has been found.

This issue has been debated for some years ever since scientists at the NIH detected BPA in the blood samples of 93-95% of Americans, with consumer protection advocates calling for more research or even the outright banning of BPA , while industry representatives have argued that the data fail to conclusively prove adverse health effects.

Well, the argument has been tilted heavily in favor of increased consumer protection with the publication of a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dr. Iain Lang and associates at the University of Exeter, UK, and the University of Iowa. Their study, released Sept. 17, 2008, Association of urinary bisphenol A concentration with medical disorders and laboratory abnormalities in adults, persuasively demonstrated a 40% increased incidence of coronary heart disease, heart attack, and diabetes with increasing exposure to BPA (as judged by urine levels) among the nearly 1500 adults aged 18-74 years. People with coronary heart disease had double the blood level of BPA compared to those without.

In addition, higher urine levels of BPA were associated with abnormalities of two liver tests, GGT and alkaline phosphatase.

Interestingly, although much of the debate over adverse health effects of BPA have centered around concern over cancer and reproductive risks, an association with cancer did not hold. (No analysis for reproductive issues was conducted in these adults, since most of the concern is for children exposed through polycarbonate baby bottle use. Some BPA critics have raised questions like low birth weight developing from exposure.) No relationship to thyroid disease was identified, also.

The editorial accompanying the study added some sharp commentary:

"Subsequent to an unexpected observation in 1997, numerous laboratory animal studies have identified low-dose drug-like effects of BPA at levels less than the dose used by the US Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to estimate the current human acceptable daily intake dose (ADI) deemed safe for humans. These studies have shown adverse effects of BPA on the brain, reproductive system, and--most relevant to the findings of Lang et al--metabolic processes, including alterations in insulin homeostasis and liver enzymes. . . For example, when adults rats were fed a 0.2 microgram/kg per day dose of BPA for 1 month (a dose 250 times lower than the current ADI), BPA significantly decreased the activities of antioxidant enzymes and increased lipid peroxidation, thereby increasing oxidative stress. When adult mice were administered a 10 microgram/kg dose of BPA once a day for 2 days ( a dose 5 times lower than the ADI), BPA stimulated pancreatic beta cells to release insulin."

This study, piled on top of the worrisome literature that precede it, are enough for me: No more tin cans (which are lined with BPA), no more hard plastics labeled with recycling code #7 or #3, no more polycarbonate water bottles (the hard ones, often brightly colored). Microwaveable-safe may also mean human-unsafe, as highlighted by this damning assurance from the Tupperware people that BPA is not a health hazard.

The National Toxicology Program also issued these advice in response to the Lang study to reduce BPA exposure (reported by the Washington Post) :

· Don't microwave polycarbonate plastic food containers. Polycarbonate may break down from overuse at high temperatures and release BPA. (Manufacturers are not required to disclose whether an item contains BPA, but polycarbonate containers that do usually have a No. 7 on the bottom.)

· Reduce use of canned foods, especially acidic foods such as tomatoes that can accelerate leaching of BPA from plastic can linings. Opt for soups, vegetables and other items packaged in cardboard "brick" cartons, made of safer layers of aluminum and polyethylene plastic (labeled No. 2).

· Switch to glass, porcelain or stainless-steel containers, particularly for hot food or liquids.

· Use baby bottles that are BPA-free; in the past year, most major manufacturers have developed bottles made without BPA.
  • Newer posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • ...
  • 53

  • Kitchen sink approach for Lp(a)

    29. August 2008 William Davis (12)

    Lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), can be a tough nut to crack.

    Having struggled and wrestled with this genetic pattern for the last 12 years or so in hundreds of patients, I have gained great respect for this difficult to control pattern.

    I regard lipoprotein(a) as the number one most aggressive cause for heart disease and coronary plaque known. It can account for heart attacks in men in their 40s, women in their 50s. It can cause heart disease and heart attacks in even the ultra-fit like marathon runners. It accounts for both excessive coronary risk and misleading cholesterol values in slender, healthy-appearing people.

    Niacin is the number one treatment choice for Lp(a), followed by testosterone for men, estrogens (preferably human, not horse or other non-human mammal) for women. I then often resort to DHEA, along with adjunctive nutritional agents like raw almonds, ground flaxseed, and others.

    Our most recent addition to the Lp(a) treatment list is high-dose fish oil, which appears to exert a significant effect in about 40% of people with Lp(a).

    Even with this multi-agent approach, not everybody gains control over Lp(a).

    That makes me wonder if someone has Lp(a) at a substantial level of, say, 200 nmol/L or 70 mg/dl (values can differ tremendously, depending on the method of measurement), should we throw everything but the kitchen sink at Lp(a) from the start? Right now, by adding an agent one at a time, it often takes two years to gain control over Lp(a) (if we are going to get it at all).

    While many people might find this unpalatable and overwhelming from the starting gate of their program, I do believe it may be a strategy we should consider adopting for full and more immediate plaque control in the Track Your Plaque program. Something to chew on.

    Clearly, we need better answers for Lp(a). A "kitchen sink," full-frontal assault might be a way to gain faster control, though not necessarily a superior approach with regards to efficacy and potency.

    There are a number of unique, potentially effective therapies for Lp(a) that are worth examining. Given the difficulty of performing clinical trials with non-drug agents (largely a lack of financial support, since nobody gets a financial return with non-patent-protectable agents), I am anxious to put these potential treatments to a test in the Track Your Plaque program Virtual Clinical Trail (VCT). The VCT gives us a quick and relatively easy method to test various potential treatments, with feedback generated in months, rather than years.

    Any suggestions on promising agents to test? Of course, they must be widely available nutritional agents, not drugs.

    Making Dr. Friedewald an honest man

    28. August 2008 William Davis (3)
    Colleen started with the usual discrepancy between conventional calculated LDL cholesterol of 121 mg/dl and the far more accurate LDL particle number (NMR) of 1927 nmol/L.

    Those of you following this conversation or our many conversations on the Track Your Plaque Forum know that a useful and highly reliable rule-of-thumb for converting NMR LDL particle number to LDL is to drop the last digit: 1927 nmol/L becomes 192 mg/dl. (This is, admitttedly, arrived at empirically, not by design. However, it has held up through thousands of NMR analyses and plays out reasonably when you compare distributions of Friedewald LDL and LDL particle number on a population basis.)

    In other words, by this simple manipulation, Colleen's Friedewald calculated LDL is off by 58%. This is very common, a phenomenon I witness several times every day.

    By LDL particle size, 75% of all Colleen's LDL particle were abnormally small (small LDL particle number 1440 nmol/L). This is a moderately severe small LDL tendency.

    So we took all the steps for reduction of small LDL/LDL, including elimination of wheat and cornstarch, exercise, weight loss (which happens inevitably when wheat and cornstarch are eliminated), fish oil, vitamin D, etc.

    Another NMR lipoprotein panel showed an LDL particle number of 882 nmol/L and a Friedewald calculated LDL of 87 mg/dl. Using our rule-of-thumb, LDL by particle number is virtually the same as the calculated LDL. This time, small LDL numbered only 237 nmol/L, or 26.8% of the total, a marked reduction.

    Isn't that interesting? As small LDL is corrected, the crude Friedwald calculated LDL approximates the more accurate LDL particle number.

    It assumes that accuracy of the Friedewald calculation may be more likely to occur as LDL size approaches normal. However, when LDL size is abnormally small--a condition shared by at least 70% of people with coronary heart disease--then the Friedewald LDL becomes increasingly inaccurate.

    The opposite can also happen: When all or nearly all LDL particles are large, Friedewald calculated LDL can markedly overestimate LDL particle number. Yesterday, for instance, a patient had a Friedewald calculated LDL of 183 mg/dl, but an NMR particle number of 1110 nmol/L--drop the zero . . . LDL 110 mg/dl. This woman was advised to take a statin drug by her primary care physician, based on the Friedewald LDL. Instead, she proved to have a far lower LDL. She would not have benefitted from taking a statin drug.

    As I've warned many times before: Beware the Friedewald calculated LDL.

    Some basic vitamin D issues

    24. August 2008 William Davis (7)
    The last post on vitamin D raised a number of basic questions among readers. So let me discuss some of these questions one by one. All of them raise important issues surrounding the practical aspects of managing vitamin D in your health.

    Anne said:

    I think it is important to stress that vitamin D supplementation needs to be continued long term.

    I have met too many people who have been prescribed 50,000 IU of D2 for 8-12 weeks and then told to stop because their 23(OH)D went over 30ng/ml. I know one person who's doctor stopped and started the D2 3 times.

    Thanks for pointing that out, Anne. Excellent point. I also see doctors do this with statin drugs: start it, check a LDL level which is lower, then think that you're done and stop the drug. What the heck are they thinking?

    If vitamin D is not being produced by sun exposure and not obtainable through diet, continued supplementation is necessary, essentially for life.


    Twinb asked:

    How often you think Vit. D levels should be tested after the initial test is done, especially if the levels are drastically low?

    We have used every 6 months in the office. Ideally, levels are in mid-summer and mid- to-late winter in order to gauge the extremes of your seasonal fluctuations. While most adults over 40 fail to fluctuate more than 10 ng/ml in the Wisconsin climate (and this summer, after an initial rainy season early, has been flawlessly bright and sunny, in the high-70s and 80s every single day for months), an occasional person fluctuates more widely. The only way to judge is to check a blood level.


    Rich said:

    Vitamin D dosage effects appear to be quite idiosyncratic.

    Yes, indeed it is. Despite using crude rules-of-thumb, like taking 1000 units of vitamin D per 10 ng/ml desired (a rule I learned from Dr. John Cannell, which he offered fully aware of its inaccuracy), many people will surprise you and have levels that make no sense. Testing is crucial to know your vitamin D level.


    Richard asked: Where do we get enough vitamin D wihout worring about laboratory tests?

    Well, the entire point of the post was that you absolutely, positively cannot just take vitamin D blindly at any dose and hope that your level is ideal, no more than you can blindly take a dose of thyroid and know you have achieved normal thyroid levels. In my view, vitamin D blood levels are an absolute.


    Another simple issue: Don't be afraid of vitamin D. It is, in all practicality, no more dangerous than getting a dark tan. (But, as many of you realize, getting a tan is no assurance of raising vitamin D if you are over 40 years old.)

    Wouldn't it be great if someone developed a do-it-yourself-at-home skin test for vitamin D? I know of no effort to develop this, but it would be a huge advantage for all of us.

    “How much vitamin D should I take?”

    22. August 2008 William Davis (17)
    It’s probably the number one most common question I get today:

    “How much vitamin D should I take?”

    Like asking for investing advice, there are no shortage of people willing to provide answers, most of them plain wrong.

    The media are quick to offer advice like “Take the recommended daily allowance of 400 units per day,” or “Some experts say that intake of vitamin D should be higher, as high as 2000 units per day.” Or “Be sure to get your 15 minutes of midday sun.”

    Utter nonsense.

    The Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine has been struggling with this question, also. They have an impossible job: Draft broad pronouncements on requirements for various nutrients by recommending Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) for all Americans. The Food and Nutrition Board has tried to factor in individual variation by breaking vitamin D requirements down by age and sex, but what amounts to a one-size-fits-nearly-all approach.

    Much of the uncertainty over dosing stems from the fact that vitamin D should not be called a “vitamin.” Vitamins are nutrients obtained from foods. But, outside of oily fish, you'll find very little naturally-occurring vitamin D in food. (Even in fish, there is generally no more than 400 units per 4 oz. serving.) Sure, there’s 20 units in an egg yolk and you can activate the vitamin D in a shiitake mushroom by exposing it to ultraviolet radiation. Dairy products like milk (usually) contain vitamin D because the USDA mandates it. But food sources hardly help at all unless you’re an infant or small child.

    It all makes sense when vitamin D is viewed as a hormone, a steroid hormone, not a vitamin. Vitamin-no, steroid hormone-D exerts potent effects in tiny quantities with hormone-like action in cells, including activation of nuclear receptors.

    It is the only hormone that is meant to be activated by sun exposure of the skin, not obtained through diet. But the ability to activate D is lost by the majority of us by age 40 and even a dark tan is no assurance that sufficient skin prohormone D activation has taken place.

    As with any other hormone, such as thyroid, parathyroid, or growth hormones, dose needs to be individualized.

    Imagine you developed a severely low thyroid condition that resulted in 30 lbs of weight gain, lose your hair, legs swell, and heart disease explodes. Would you accept that you should take the same dose of thyroid hormone as every other man or woman your age, regardless of your body size, proportion of body fat, metabolism, genetics, race, dietary habits, and other factors that influence thyroid hormone levels? Of course you wouldn’t.

    Then why would anyone insist that vitamin D be applied in a one-size-fits-all fashion? (There’s another world in which a one-size-fits-all approach to hormone replacement has been widely applied, that of female estrogen replacement. In conventional practice, there’s no effort to identify need, estrogen-progesterone interactions, nor assess the adequacy of dose, not to mention the perverse non-human preparation used.)

    With thyroid hormone, ideal replacement dose of hormone ranges widely from one person to another. Some people require 25 mcg per day of T4; others require 800% greater doses. Many require T3, but not everybody.

    Likewise, vitamin D requirements can range widely. I have used anywhere from 1000 units per day, all the way up to 16,000 units per day before desirable blood levels were achieved.

    Vitamin D dose needs to be individualized. Factors that influence vitamin D need include body size and percent body fat (both of which increase need substantially); sex (males require, on average, 1000 units per day more than females); age (older need more); skin color (darker-skinned races require more, fairer-skinned races less); and other factors that remain ill-defined.

    But these are “rules” often broken. My office experience with vitamin D now numbers nearly 1000 patients. The average female dose is 4000-5000 units per day, average male dose 6000 units per day to achieve a blood level of 60-70 ng/ml, though there are frequent exceptions. I’ve had 98 lb women who require 12,000 units, 300 lb men who require 1000 units, 21-year olds who require 10,000 units. (Of course, this is a Wisconsin experience. However, regional differences in dosing needs diminish as we age, since less and less vitamin D activation occurs.)

    Let me reiterate: Steroid hormone-vitamin D dose needs to be individualized.

    There’s only one way to individualize your need for vitamin D and thereby determine your dose: Measure a blood level.

    Nobody can gauge your vitamin D need by looking at you, by your skin color, size, or other simple measurement like weight or body fat. A vitamin D blood level needs to be measured specifically-period.

    Unfortunately, many people balk at this, claiming either that it’s too much bother or that their doctor refused to measure it.

    I would rank normalizing steroid hormone-vitamin D as among the most important things you can do for your health. It should never be too much bother. And if your doctor refuses to at least discuss why he/she won’t measure it, then it’s time for a new doctor.

    If you’re worried about adding to rising healthcare costs by adding yet another blood test, think of the money saved by sparing you from a future of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, diabetes, etc. The cost of a vitamin D blood test is relatively trivial (around $40-50, a fraction of the cost of a one month supply of a drug for diabetes.)

    So how much vitamin D should you take? Enough to raise your blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D to normal. (We aim for a normal level of 60-70 ng/ml.)

    You probably don't take enough fish oil

    20. August 2008 William Davis (17)
    The results of the recent Heart Scan Blog survey in response to the question: MY DAILY DOSE OF EPA + DHA FROM FISH OIL IS revealed:


    Zero--I don't take any
    17 (7%) of respondents

    Less than 1000 mg per day
    24 (10%) of respondents

    1000-2000 mg per day
    91 (38%) of respondents

    2000-3000 mg per day
    44 (18%) of respondents

    3000-4000 mg per day
    40 (16%) of respondents

    More than 4000 mg per day
    20 (8%) of respondents



    Based on the above results, I would say that only a minority of respondents are taking an ideal dose of omega-3 fatty acids. Nearly all of us should consider taking more.

    Benefits of omega-3 fatty acids (EPA + DHA) from fish oil begin around a dose of 840 mg per day, according to the GISSI Prevenzione Trial of 1999, an 11,000-participant trial. This dose also corresponds to a quantity of omega-3s that have been shown to raise EPA + DHA blood levels and thereby reduce the notoriously high AA:EPA ratio of Americans.

    But what dose is sufficient? What dose is ideal?

    Well, the answer to a great degree depends on what you are taking the fish oil for. If being taken to reduce triglycerides and triglyceride-containing lipoproteins, like VLDL and the after-eating (postprandial) IDL, then a higher dose will be necessary. (Triglyceride reduction for the genetically-determined very high triglyceride level of familial hypertriglyceridemia is the FDA-approved indication for prescription Lovaza.)

    If you are taking fish oil for treatment of ADHD, depression, or bipolar illness, very high doses are often necessary.

    But how about maximal reduction of cardiovascular risk and for control or reversal of atherosclerotic plaque?

    This conversation is still evolving. But we can learn some important lessons from three populations of the world that are vigorous consumers of fish:

    --The Inuits (aka Eskimos) of Greenland and northern Canada
    --The Japanese
    --The Bantus of Tanzania who live along Nyasa Lake

    All three indigenous populations have several-fold greater intakes of fish and omega-3 fatty acids, have higher blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids, and have enjoyed reduced cardiovascular events, reduced atherosclerotic plaque, or improvement in various surrogates of cardiovascular risk (e.g., Lp(a)).

    The most recent addition to this conversation is the ERA JUMP Study, discussed in a previous Heart Scan Blog post. In ERA JUMP, despite being heavy smokers and having other markers for greater risk for heart disease, Japanese men living in Japan had markedly less carotid and coronary plaque, as compared to Caucasian men living in PIttsburgh or Hawaiian men of Japanese descent. The difference appeared to be attributable to serum levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

    I believe that the trend is here is to increase the amount of omega-3 fatty acids that most of us take. In the Track Your Plaque program, we have been advocating a rock-bottom starting dose of EPA + DHA of 1200 mg per day. However, I believe that this is due for a change.

    We will be increasing the minimum dose for plaque regression and control. Please attend our Webinar this evening for a full, in-depth discussion of the rationale behind this important change.

    As always, let me remind you that I am not selling, nor ever have sold, fish oil supplements. If I advocate a specific dose, a higher dose, I do so based on my interpretation of the data and experience with patients, not because I am interested in selling brand X of fish oil.

    Vitamin D and HDL

    19. August 2008 William Davis (23)
    Despite the paucity of scientific documentation of this phenomenon, I am continuing to witness extraordinary increases in HDL cholesterol levels with vitamin D supplementation.

    I've touched on the interaction of vitamin D supplementation with HDL in The Heart Scan Blog previously:

    Vitamin D: Treatment for metabolic syndrome?

    HDL for Dummies


    At first, I thought it was attributable to other factors. In real life, most people don't modify one factor at a time. They reduce
    processed carbohydrates/eliminate wheat and cornstarch, lose weight, add or increase omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, begin niacin, increase exercise and physical activity. All these efforts also impact on HDL.

    Among the many things I do, I consult on complex lipid (cholesterol) disorders (complex hyperlipidemias) in my office. A substantial number of these people carry a diagnosis of hypoalphalipoproteinemia, a mouthful that simply means these people are unable to manufacture much apoprotein A1, the principal protein of HDL cholesterol particles. As a result, people with hypoalphalipoproteinemia have HDL cholesterol levels in the neighborhood of 20-30 mg/dl--very low. They are also at high risk for heart disease and stroke.

    Encourage these people to exercise, attain ideal weight, eliminate wheat and cornstarch: HDL increases 5 mg/dl or so.

    Add niacin, HDL increases another 5-10 mg/dl.

    Perhaps we're now sitting somewhere around an HDL of 35-40 mg/dl--better, but hardly great.

    Add vitamin D to achieve our target serum level . . . HDL jumps to 50, 60, 70, even 90 mg/dl.

    The first few times this occurred, I thought it was an error or fluke. But now that I've witnessed this effect many dozens of time, I am convinced that it is real. Just today, I saw a 40-year old man whose starting HDL was 25 mg/dl increase to 87 mg/dl.

    Responses like this are supposed to be impossible. Before vitamin D, I had never witnessed increases of this magnitude.

    Not all therapies for raising HDL raise the important large (also known as HDL2b) fraction. With lipoprotein analyses, it appears that is principally the large fraction of HDL that rises with vitamin D supplementation.

    Why? How?

    That I can't tell you. But for those of you struggling with low HDL cholesterols despite your best efforts, vitamin D can make a world of difference.

    An interesting corollary: If super-high HDL cholesterols are associated with extreme longevity, as they are with centenarians, does raising HDL to extraordinary levels with vitamin D lead to longer, healthier life, all the way up to age 110 years?

    Again, no answers, but an interesting thought. And one I'd bet on. (And I'm not selling vitamin D.)

    Weight loss and blood pressure

    15. August 2008 William Davis (6)
    Here's another thought with regards to time issues with weight loss: reductions in blood pressure (BP).

    The previous post talked about how triglycerides initially go up, sometimes way up, when weight drops, only to be followed months later by substantial drops. HDL initially drops in response to the triglyceride fluctuations, only to be followed by a rise.

    Blood pressure also shows a curious pattern that is largely dependent on age.

    Say someone in their 20s or 30s, for instance, loses 30 lbs (through elimination of wheat and cornstarch, say). BP usually drops within a few weeks, perhaps a month or two at most.

    How about someone in their 70s? Say a substantial amount of weight is lost, say 50 lbs over 6 months. BP does indeed drop, but it may require 6 months or longer after weight plateaus for the full effects of BP-reduction to be fully expressed. But it will eventually drop.

    Why the age-dependent difference?

    It relates to the capacity of arteries to remain flexible and distensible. Over the years, cross-linking of collagen (a structural protein), glycation (glucose molecules attaching to proteins), loss of endothelial responsiveness to generate artery-dilating substances like nitric oxide, and arterial atherosclerotic plaque all all up to making older arteries less able to "relax" and BP to drop.

    But given time and the proper effort, BP will eventually drop. Awareness of this time effect can help most people decide better when medications are necessary or if weight loss alone is sufficient to reach BP goals.

    "I lost 30 lbs and my triglycerides went . . . up?"

    13. August 2008 William Davis (6)
    Brad needed to lose weight.

    At 6 ft tall, he began the program at 291 lbs, easily 80 lbs overweight. He wore virtually all of it in his belly.

    He had laboratory numbers to match: HDL 33 mg/dl, triglycerides 225 mg/dl, LDL (calculated) 144 mg/dl, blood sugar 122 mg/dl (fasting--clearly "pre-diabetic"), c-reactive protein 3.0 mg/dl. Among his lipoprotein abnormalities: small LDL representing 80% of all LDL (no surprise).

    Readers of The Heart Scan Blog know that these are the patterns of the carbohydrate-indulgent. I asked Brad to eliminate all wheat flour products, all foods made with cornstarch, and follow a diet rich in healthy oils, raw nuts, vegetables, and lean meats.

    Brad returned for a discussion about follow-up basic lipids (cholesterol) values four months later--31 lbs lighter, most of it clearly lost from his abdomen. He claimed he felt more energetic and clear-headed than he had in years.

    His lipid panel: HDL 34 mg/dl, LDL 122 mg/dl, triglycerides 295 mg/dl. Brad's smile dissolved. "How could that happen? You said losing weight would make my HDL go up and my triglycerides go down!"

    Yes, I had said that. But I was oversimplifying.

    The truth is that, when there is weight loss, especially profound weight loss like Brad experienced eliminating wheat and cornstarch products, there is mobilization of fat stores. Fat is stored energy. Energy is stored as . . . triglycerides.

    So when there is substantial weight loss, there is a flood of triglycerides in the blood, and triglyceride levels in the midst of weight loss can commonly jump up, not uncommonly to the 200-300+ mg/dl range. When triglycerides go up, there is also a drop in HDL (triglycerides interact with HDL particles, modify their structure and make them more readily destroyed, thereby dropping blood levels). Occasionally, substantial weight loss like Brad experienced will drop HDL really low, as low as the 20's.

    Once weight stabilizes, this effect can last up to 2 months before correcting. Only then will triglycerides drop and HDL rise. The rise in HDL occurs even more slowly, requiring several more months to plateau.

    In other words, weight loss like Brad's causes triglycerides to increase and HDL to decrease, to be followed later by a drop in triglycerides and a rise in HDL.

    I know of no way to block this phenomenon. And perhaps we shouldn't, since this is how fat stores are mobilized and "burned off." Fish oil does blunt the triglyceride rise (perhaps through activation of lipoprotein lipase, an enzyme responsible for clearance of triglycerides), but doesn't eliminate it.

    I call these changes "transitional" changes in lipids.

    Patience pays. A few more months from now, Brad's numbers will be much happier, as will Brad.

    Divorce court for the doctor-patient relationship?

    10. August 2008 William Davis (4)
    The doctor-patient relationship has gone sour.

    This probably comes as no surprise to most of you, particularly if you've been following conversations here in The Heart Scan Blog:

    Who is your doctor? discussing the emergence of the physician-as-hospital-employee phenomenon that causes your doctor to become the de facto portal (seller?) of hospital services to you, a model fraught with conflicts of interest.

    Exploitation of trust, my observation that the enormous gap in heart disease prevention between the woefully ignorant (by necessity) level of sophistication of the primary care physician and the procedure-obsessed cardiologist leads to an exploitation of humans-for-heart-procedures because of the failure to institute genuine preventive efforts.

    Bait and switch , a description of how a minor test or symptom can reap a bonanza of medical testing; a $20 "screening" test yields $10's of thousands in hospital procedures. If it were entirely due to the imprecision of medical testing and detection of disease, that might be forgivable. But it often is not: It has become utterly distorted by the profit model.



    Lest you think that I am a kook ranting off in some backwoods corner (Milwaukee), here are the comments of New York Times' Health Editor Tara Parker-Pope in a series called Doctor and Patient, Now at Odds:

    Lately I've been hearing a lot from patients who are frustrated, angry, and distrustful of doctors. Their feelings speak to a growing disconnect between doctors and patients and worries that drug companies, insurance rules, and hospital cost-cutting are influencing the care and advice that doctors provide.

    Research shows that even among patients who like their personal physicians, there is a simmering distrust of the medical system and the doctors who work inside it.


    (There's also a series of candid video interviews with people who echo these sentiments.)

    There are a number of reasons for this increasing "disconnect," some of them articulated by Ms. Parker-Pope, others detailed in my blog posts.

    The solutions, however, will not be found by advancing technology: the newest robotic surgery, a better defibrillator, a new statin drug, the next best chemotherapeutic agent. It will not be found by adding a new wing to the hospital. It will not be found by the reorganization of healthcare delivery achieved by converting primary care and specialty practice into an arm of hospital care. It will not be improved by employing "hospitalists." It will not emerge from legislation controlling insurance company practices. It certainly will not come from increasing marketing dollars spent by drug companies (who make $4 for every $1 spent on direct-to-consumer marketing).

    The solutions will come from shifting the idea of care from a paternalistic, "I'm the doctor and I'll tell you what to do" approach, to the doctor-as-advocate-and-supporter of the patient. The physician should act as someone with a particular sort of expertise that can advise a patient.

    But a caveat: The patient MUST be informed.

    Proper information will not originate with the doctor. It will originate with internet-based information portals and tools that help you understand the issues, often with far greater depth than your doctor could ever provide. The physician needs to accept this role, one of advocate, adviser, but not of being in charge, not of viewing the patient as profit-center, not as an opponent in a power struggle.

    Sadly, the last few years in online information portals has been dominated by the drug company-dominated websites like WebMD, nothing more than a deliverer of the conventional wisdom with nothing whatsoever aimed towards empowering patients in a self-directed healthcare model.

    Some people call the emerging new empowered and information-armed patient Medicine 2.0. Unfortunately, Medicine 2.0 will first benefit the intellectual upper crust of Americans, the web-savvy and motivated to engage in health issues. But, give it 10 years, and we will witness the effects on an unprecedented broad scale. Part of the Information Age is acceleration of information dissemination. Imagine your children, facile with a computer mouse, posting comments on FaceBook, doing homework with Google and Wikipedia, now turning their attentions to health.

    It will be a startling change.

    In the meantime, be wary. Be empowered. Think increasingly about self-direction in your health.


    In a comment to the Bait and switch post, Jennytoo offered an insightful response:

    You are getting to the essence of the problem, and it's not just cardiology that is rife with what is, at bottom, malpractice.

    There is little incentive for the profession as a whole to know anything about or promote prevention, and many incentives from hospitals, drug and insurance companies to stick with the status quo or to change it in their corporate favor. The formulaic, conventional statements purporting to be guidelines for prevention that are put out by various interest groups and in such publications as hospital-sponsored newsletters ("eat a 'balanced diet', avoid stress, etc.") are useless sops to the concept of prevention.

    It is, and I fear is going to remain, up to motivated individuals, both physicians and patients, to reshape the system, and it's going to be a long frustrating struggle.

    It's my personal conviction that if just 4 things were promoted to the public, and people actually practiced them, we could change the health profiles of the majority of people in this country for the better within two years or less. They are:

    (1) education on and promotion of a true low-carbohydrate, whole foods, diet,
    (2) measurement and supplementation of Vitamin D3,
    (3) supplementation with DHA/EPA (found in Fish Oils), and
    (4) measurement and supplementation of intracellular magnesium.

    I am not a health professional, and others may want to add to this list, but I don't think any strong case can be made against any of the items. The wonderful and hopeful thing is that each of us can implement them ON OUR OWN, and thereby take charge of our own well-being. (The Life Extension Foundation is one organization which provides access to lab tests you can request on your own.)

    If you have a physician who is willing and capable of being your partner, you are richly blessed, and that is the ideal we all should hope for. But in the more likely event that you do not have such a physician, and if your physician demonstrates little potential for becoming one, think about firing the one you have and finding another.

    Sometimes we are forced by circumstances, particularly urgent ones, to deal with physicians who are not ideal, but the main impetus for change will come from us, the patients, and the expectations we communicate to our individual doctors. In the meantime, we can be self-reliant in our own prevention practices.

    Wow. A woman after my own heart.

    How much fish oil is enough?

    9. August 2008 William Davis (7)

    This post just furthers this line of thinking out loud: How much fish oil is "enough"?

    Observations over the last 30 years followed this path: If a little bit of omega-3 fatty acids from fish are beneficial in reducing cardiovascular events, and a moderate intake is even better, is even more better? When have we reached a plateau? When do adverse effects outweigh the benefits?

    Some insight can be gained through studies that examined blood levels of omega-3s. Let's take a look at some data from 2002, a comparison of men dying from heart disease vs. controls in the Physicians' Health Study, Blood Levels of Long-Chain n–3 Fatty Acids and the Risk of Sudden Death.

    This is a table that shows the blood levels of various fatty acids Group with sudden death vs Control Group:




    Several observations jump out:

    --The total omega-3 blood content differed significantly, 4.82 vs 5.24% ("Total long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated")
    --Total omega-6 content did not differ
    --Arachidonic acid (AA) content did not differ
    --Linolenic acid content did not differ (i.e., plant sourced omega-3)

    The fact that neither omega-6 nor arachidonic acid content differed counters the argument that Simopoulos has made that the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio (intake, not blood levels) is what counts. It also argues against the EPA to AA ratio (and similar manipulations) that some have argued is important. In this study, only the omega-3 level itself made a difference; no ratio was necessary to distinguish sudden death victims vs controls.

    Further, quartiles of omega-3 blood levels showed graded reductions of risk:




    An omega-3 blood level of 6.87% conferred greatest risk reduction. Depending on the model of statistical analysis, risk reductions of up to 81-90% were observed. Wow.

    Taken at face value, this study would argue that:

    --An omega-3 fatty acid blood level of 6.87% (or greater?) is ideal
    --The omega-3 fatty acid blood level stands alone as a predictor without resorting to any further manipulation of numbers, such as relating EPA and/or DHA to AA levels.

    Of course, this is just one study, though an important one. It is also not a study based on any intervention, just an observational effort. But it does add to our understanding.


    We will develop these issues further in our upcoming Track Your Plaque Webinar on Wednesday, August 20th, 2008.

    Copyright © 2026 Cureality.com