Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g

Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons

Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient

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

A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

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

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

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

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

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

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

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

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The media frenzy

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

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

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

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

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

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

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

Non-CT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

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

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

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

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

--No lipoprotein(a)

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

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

I therefore asked Matt to:

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

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

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

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

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

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

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

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 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

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.

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.

It is the craziest thing.

The notion of vitamin D being easily and readily toxic has grabbed hold of many people, including my colleagues who were taught that vitamin D was toxic in medical school based on the skimpiest (and often misinterpreted) observations in a handful of unusual cases.

In my practice and in the Track Your Plaque program, we routinely use doses of 2000-10,000 units per day, occasionally more. We are guided by blood levels of 25(OH) vitamin D3. I have personally never witnessed vitamin D toxicity.

Here's an interesting graph from Dr. Reinhold Vieth. Those of you familiar with the vitamin D argument know that Dr. Vieth is among the few genuine gurus in the vitamin D world.

From Vieth R. Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations, and safety. Am J Clin Nutr 1999;69:842-856. (Full text is available without charge.)

In the graph, the X's represent toxicity; circles fall within the non-toxic range. (Toxicity is generally defined as a level sufficient to raise blood calcium levels, "hypercalcemia.") Note that the 25(OH) vitamin D3 levels are given in nmol/L; to convert to ng/ml units that are customary in the U.S., divide the nmol/L value by a factor of 2.5.

You will notice that toxicity is virtually unheard of until the dose exceeds 10,000 units per day. Beyond 10,000 units per day, the curve heads upward sharply and toxicity does become a possibility, though not an absolute (since there are circles above 10,000 units).

You may also notice that the curve is relatively flat from vitamin D doses between 200 units and 10,000 units (log scale on x axis; arithmetic scale on y), the range of most common doses for vitamin D supplementation.

Another perspective on vitamin D blood levels is to examine the blood levels of people who are young and obtain plentiful sun exposure. Lifeguards, for instance, have blood levels of 84 ng/ml (210 nmol/L) without ill-effect. (Sun exposure cannot generate vitamin D toxicity, because of a feedback safety mechanism in skin.) While this may not represent an ideal level since they represent an extreme, it does provide reassurance that such levels are non-toxic. I also point out these levels occur in the youthful since most people lose 75% or more of vitamin D activating capacity in the skin by their 70s. Most of us over 40 are kidding ourselves if we think that a suntan provides sufficient vitamin D.

Keep in mind that it is not necessarily the dose of vitamin D that is toxic, but the blood level it generates. I take 10,000 units of vitamin D as a gelcap per day to maintain my blood level between 50-60 ng/ml (125-150 nmol/L). This strategy helps me keep my HDL in the 70-80 mg/dl range, my blood sugar around 90 mg/dl, my blood pressure <120/80, and I no longer experience colds nor winter "blues."

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

For reasons unknown to me, I received a solicitation to invest in a company called Prescient Medical, with a slogan that caught my eye:

Detect and treat heart attacks before they occur.

The glossy brochure details their technology development strategy:

Predict(TM) Optical Catheter System--A catheter introduced into the coronary artery during a catheterization procedure to determine whether a specific plaque or vessel area is "vulnerable," i.e., prone to rupture in future.

Protect(TM) Luminal Shield--A stent-like metal device deployed into the coronary artery at the region of vulnerable plaque to prevent future plaque rupture.

The company anticipates FDA approval for their systems by 2009 and sales to begin by 2010. They predict sales of $7 billion.

Let's stop and think about this for a moment. It seems to me that, rather than pursuing the market of another stent for a "severe blockage," this company is going after the untapped procedural market of vulnerable plaque. In other words, their technology (an optical sensor technology that emits and analyzes light wavelengths to map specific plaque characteristics) identifies plaque that may rupture in months or years, followed by implantation of stent(s) that presumably prevent plaque rupture.

Thus, conceivably, many 20%, 30%, 40% etc. "blockages", atherosclerotic plaques that do not block flow and thereby pose no need for a conventional stent, will end up with this new type of stent. One patient could therefore receive multiple "Luminal Shields" in a single procedure.

When would these devices be employed? One pathway I could conceive of that my colleagues will be sure to exploit is 1) identify plaque by CT angiography, then 2) bring patient to the catheterization laboratory and perform this procedure for whatever hot, vulnerable plaques are identified. In other words, symptoms are no longer necessary. Reduced blood flow is no longer necessary. An abnormal stress test is no longer necessary. All that is required is that you have plaque. If the plaque is then determined to be vulnerable, then it is stented.

What bothers me about all this is the emerging effort to exploit this untapped market--a big one--of early heart disease as identified by coronary atherosclerotic plaque. As heart scans have demonstrated, there is an enormous amount of hidden heart disease in this world. This company has discovered a way to turn plaque into a profit opportunity, much as the statin drug industry found a way to "turn cholesterol into money."

The conventional stent market has plateaued and now has been, to some degree, battered by the drug-coated stent argument. Prescient has found a new and significant market for procedures and stents.

Is this really necessary? Why does plaque have to become a procedural disease? Doesn't it make more sense that, if vulnerable plaque is identified, that clinical trials are then designed to develop treatment strategies that modify vulnerable characteristics? Shockingly, this has not been done to any significant extent. Instead, the easiest path to a profit opportunity is to implant a "Luminal Shield."

You and I are able to inactivate, disempower, and essentially shut down plaque, while others are working furiously to convert it into a procedural profit opportunity. I personally find this so distasteful that I would sooner endorse a high-dose statin strategy than this approach.

You can view a video of my colleague, Dr. Martin Leon, on the Prescient Medical website, (or click here to go directly to the video), talking about how this technology will "change the treatment paradigm of the interventionalist from reactive to proactive." Scary stuff. Dr. Leon has made millions of dollars (probably more like tens of millions of dollars) from his support of technology companies for the interventional coronary device market.

My hope is that word of the sorts of techniques we use in the Track Your Plaque program disseminate before this sort of luminal coating idiocy gets off the ground.

(In actuality, a different version of this approach has been available for years using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), another procedure that involves threading a catheter down each coronary artery during a catheterization procedure. IVUS can also cross-sectionally map a plaque's anatomy and identify "vulnerable" features, like a thin cap overlying a collection of semi-liquid fat ("lipid pool"). There has been some discussion of using this approach to identify vulnerable plaque followed by stent implantation, but it has never gotten off the ground and has certainly not found validation in any clinical study. By the way, any stent prevents plaque rupture, since by their very nature, the plaque contents are compressed, modified, and excluded to the exterior of the stent. Plaque rupture within a stent is very rare in its few millimeters of length. It may therefore not require some new technology to prevent plaque rupture.)

Evan's first heart scan score in November, 2006 yielded a high score for a 56-year old male: 542.

So he put up little fuss when his doctor prescribed simvastatin at a high dose.

Evan's LDL cholesterol before simvastatin: 158 mg/dl

Evan's LDL cholesterol on simvastatin: 72 mg/dl.

By conventional standards, Evan has had an excellent response. The rest of his lipid (cholesterol) panel was unrevealing: HDL 62 mg/dl, triglycerides 78 mg/dl. Evan doesn't smoke, has a normal blood pressure, and he is not diabetic. That should do it, right?

So his doctor thought. So Evan asked if another heart scan was in order. In December, 2007, after one year of simvastatin, his second heart scan score: 705--a 30% increase over one year.

Recall that, with no effort at prevention whatsoever, the natural progression of heart scan scores is a 30% per year increase. Did simvastatin do nothing?

This is quite typical of people who do nothing more than take a statin drug. While some people do slow plaque growth (we say "decelerate") modestly on a statin drug, Evan's experience is not unusual: plaque continues to grow despite high-dose statin drug and an apparently favorable cholesterol panel.

In fact, I can count the number of people who reduced their heart scan scores taking a statin drug alone on one finger.

Statins do not represent a cure for heart disease. They cannot be used as sole therapy to reduce risk for heart attack. In fact, given sufficient time, the majority of people who do nothing more than follow this standard line of treatment (along with the equally lame low-fat diet, etc.) will have done nothing more than postpone their heart attack. Elimination of risk? Nope.

This is among the reasons we developed the Track Your Plaque approach. While not foolproof, I know of no better approach to seize control over plaque growth.

Additional conversations on clinical studies which, as with Evan's experience, demonstrated how statin drugs fail to slow plaque growth can be found in previous Heart Scan Blog posts:

Don't be satisfied with "deceleration"

Study review: Yet another Lipitor study

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Triglycerides are a potent trigger for coronary plaque growth.

Triglycerides in and of themselves probably do not cause plaque growth. Instead, triglycerides contribute to the formation of abnormal lipoproteins in the blood that, in turn, trigger coronary plaque, like VLDL, intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), and small LDL. Excess triglycerides also modify HDL structure and cause you to lose HDL in the urine.

I see plenty of people who begin with triglycerides of 200 mg/dl, 300, 700, even over 1000 mg/dl. It doesn't take long before you learn what works, what doesn't to reduce triglycerides. This is especially true in the Track Your Plaque approach, in which our target for triglycerides is 60 mg/dl or less.

Here's a list of things to consider if you are trying to gain control of your triglycerides:

--Fish oil--A mainstay of treatment. The omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil are the number one most potent treatment for high triglycerides.

--Reduction of high-glycemic index foods--Most notably wheat. Everybody knows that we shouldn't eat Snickers bars or bags of licorice. But many people eat plenty of wheat-containing breads, pastas, pretzels, crackers, breakfast cereals, etc., all in the name of increasing whole grains and fiber. In reality, they are causing triglycerides to skyrocket, dropping HDL, forming small LDL, increaaing blood sugar and blood pressure, and increasing obesity.

--Eliminating fructose and high-fructose corn syrup--This ubiquitous sweetener is now consumed in enormous quantities by the average American, nearly 80 lbs per year per person. You'll find it in soft drinks, ketchup, beer, breads, breakfast cereals, and many other processed foods. You'll find none in green peppers, cucumbers, and raw nuts. Fructose causes large rises in triglycerides, as well as diabetic patterns. Don't let "fat-free" claims fool you. Take a look at the ingredients in Kraft Fat-Free Caesar Italian salad dressing, for instance:

Kraft Fat-Free Caesar Italian

Ingredients:
Water, Vinegar, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Corn Syrup, Salt, Parmesan Cheese, Part-Skim Milk, Cheese Culture, Salt, Enzymes, Contains less than 2% of Garlic, Whey, Onion Juice, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Phosphoric Acid, Worcestershire Sauce, Vinegar, Molasses, Corn Syrup, Water, Salt, Caramel Color, Dried Garlic, Sugar ,Spices, Tamarind, Natural Flavors, Hydrolyzed Soy Protein, Xanthan Gum, Potassium Sorbate and Calcium Disodium EDTA as Preservatives, Dried Garlic, Buttermilk, Spice, Dried Parsley, Caramel Color, Sodium Phosphate, Oleoresin Paprika.

--Alcohol--While a couple of drinks a day raises HDL, exerts anti-inflammatory effects, and reduces blood pressure, more than this begins to raise triglycerides. Although I've come across no formal studies on this question, my gut sense is that beer, in particular, raises triglycerides more than wine or other alcoholic beverages. Could it be the wheat source of beer? Or its high-fructose corn syrup? I don't know, but beer is the least desirable form of alcohol of the choices we have.

Following these simple steps, it is unusual in my experience that you cannot achieve a triglyceride level <60 mg/dl. Rarely do we need to add fibrate drugs or other prescription agents to reduce triglycerides.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), is a problem area in coronary plaque reversal.

While our current Track Your Plaque record holder for largest percentage reduction in heart scan score has Lp(a), it remains among the more troublesome lipoprotein patterns.

One unique treatment for Lp(a) is high-dose omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil. While the data are relatively meager, there is one solid study from Lp(a) expert, Dr. Santica Marcovina of the University of Washington, called "The Lugalawa Study."

In this unique set of observations, 1300 members of a Bantu tribe living in Tanzania were studied. What made this population unusual is the fact that two groups of Bantus lived under different circumstances. One group lived on Nyasa Lake (3rd largest lake in Africa and reputed to have the greatest number of species of fish of any lake in the world) and ate large quantities of freshwater fish providing up to 500 mg of omega-3s, EPA and DHA, per day. Another Bantu group lived away from the lake as farmers, eating a pure vegetarian diet without fish.

Nyasa Lake

This situation among genetically similar stock provided a unique learning opportunity, a chance to assess whether different diets influenced Lp(a) levels.

The results: The fish-eating Bantus had an average Lp(a) level of 14.0 mg/dl. The farming, non-fish eating Bantus had an average Lp(a) of 27.0--a 48% difference. Curiously, a comparison of the apo(a) component of Lp(a) between the groups also showed that the fisherman expressed fewer dangerous small apo(a) forms, despite equal potential to express both.

The Lugalawa Study opens the question of whether similar results can be obtained not by moving to Tanzania and fishing Nyasa Lake, but by mimicking their experience by supplementing high doses of omega-3 fatty acids.

It's an intriguing question. In the Track Your Plaque program, we have no specific experience with this strategy, but it is certainly worth exploring further.

Watch for two upcoming Special Reports on the Track Your Plaque website in which we will be detailing 1)unique strategies for Lp(a) reduction, and 2) the usefulness of high-dose fish oil for coronary plaque reversal.

Interesting enough for a Virtual Clinical Trial?

Image courtesy Wikipedia.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Pam has an LDL cholesterol of 144 mg/dl.

To most people, this means that she has a mildly elevated LDL value. Many people would respond by cutting the saturated fat in their diet. Most physicians would concur and talk about prescribing a statin drug.

Let me tell you what an LDL cholesterol of 144 mg/dl means to me:

1) It could mean an LDL of all large particles (which is good) or an LDL of all small particles (which is very bad). Or, perhaps it's some combination of big and small. I can't tell which just by knowing that LDL is 144.

Small LDL responds to a diet reduced in processed carbohydrates and wheat flour; large LDL does not. Small LDL responds in an exagerrated way to niacin; large LDL does not. It makes a difference.

2) It could mean that, hidden within LDL, is lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a). Recall that Lp(a) is a high-risk genetic pattern that can provide the false appearance of high LDL cholesterol. If Pam were prescribed a statin drug, it would have little effect and little benefit. (See Red flags for Lipoprotein(a).)

Knowing that Pam has Lp(a) can point us in an entirely different direction than just LDL cholesterol. It might mean high-dose fish oil, a more serious approach to niacin, hormonal treatments like DHEA or testosterone. It might mean more attention to warning your children about the possibility that they, too, might share this genetic trait.

3) It could mean both small LDL and Lp(a) are present simultaneously, an especially dangerous combined pattern that is among the highest risks for heart disease known.

4) Because Pam's LDL of 144 mg/dl was not measured, but calculated, it means that it is subject to tremendous inaccuracy.

In my office, calculated LDL cholesterols can be inaccurate by 50 or 100 mg/dl--commonly. So Pam's LDL of 144 mg/dl could really be 70 mg/dl, or it could be 244 mg/dl. Once again, it's a big difference.

Just like The Three Faces of Eve, the 1957 film in which Joanne Woodward played the three wildly different sides of Eve's personality--the daytime Eve White, the fun-loving and daring Eve Black, and Jane--so can LDL assume several different faces, all with different personalities, different implications.

Accepting LDL cholesterol as LDL cholesterol is a fool's game. It is only a starting point, nothing more. Accepting a statin drug based on LDL is, likewise, a trap fraught with uncertainty, the potential for limited or ineffective results, the price being your heart and health.

Don had an angioplasty 6 months ago. When asked about the symptoms that prompted him to go to the hospital, he explained:

"I remember feeling really tired for about a week before I went. I'd read that fatigue can sometimes be a sign of heart disease. But then I had some trouble breathing. You know, like not being able to get a deep breath."

"My wife and I were planning on going on vacation. So I wanted to be certain something wasn't going on in my heart. That's when my wife insisted that she take me to the hospital.

"I kind of remember going there and arriving in the emergency room, but then I don't remember anything. Next thing I know, I'm waking up in a hospital bed. My wife and kids were there, looking all concerned. They said that I just got two stents and that the doctor just barely saved my life."

Happy story, happy ending? Not quite.

I reviewed the angiograms made during Don's hospital stay. They did, indeed, show some plaque, but not anywhere close to the amount necessary to account for symptoms like fatigue or breathlessness. For symptoms like this to occur without physical exertion, say, at your desk or relaxing at home, a critical >90% blockage would be required.

The worst "blockage" Don had was 50% at most. The leap was made to connect his relatively vague symptoms with these "blockages," leading to the implantation of two stents.

This is not as uncommon as you think. Yes, the practice of cardiology can be a life of acute procedures, urgent situations, and crises. Unfortunately, some people with questionable need for these procedures also get swept up in the wave. Sometimes it's due simply to the doctor's need to do "something," nervous family waiting in the wings. Sometiems it's intellectual laziness: putting in two stents seems to satisfy many patients' needs to have something "fixed," even when symptoms like fatigue could be due to anemia, sleep deprivation, a thyroid disorder, or any other myriad conditions that require a diagnostic effort (otherwise known as thinking). And sometimes it's simply done with financial motives, since angiplasty and related procedures pay well.

I call this "drive-by angioplasty," the impulsive, poorly considered coronary procedure that really should never have happened. How often does this happen? What percentage of heart procedures fall into this category? There are no clear-cut estimates. There are crude attempts by independent agencies that have put the number of unnecessary heart catheterizations up to 20% of the total number performed. The proportion of angioplasty procedures, stents, etc. that are not necessary is a tougher number to pinpoint, given the uncertainties surrounding the indications for these procedures, physician judgment that factors into the decision-making process, and the fact that many decisions are made on a qualitative basis, not precise quantification.

In real life, I would put the proportion of flagrant drive-by procedures at no more than 10%. However, that is 10% of an enormous number. The annual cardiovascular healthcare bill is $400 billion. 10% of that is $40 billion--an unimaginable sum. It also adds up to tens of thousands of people per year needlessly subjected to procedures. Consider that 10,000 heart procedures were performed today alone.

Should we push for legislation to control how and when heart procedures are performed? I don't think so. Despite my criticisms of the status quo in heart care, I still favor the freedom and rapid development of a free-market approach. However, you as a healthcare consumer need to be armed with information. You don't go to the car dealer unarmed with information on prices and comparative performance of the car you want. You should do the same with health. Information is your weapon, your defense against becoming the victim of the next drive-by heart procedure.

"Bankers believe liquidation has run its course and advise purchases."

New York Times headline, Oct 30, 1929, at the start of the Great Depression.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky."

Former President Bill Clinton at a Washington Press Conference, 1998.

"The third quarter is going to be great."

Enron CEO, Ken Lay, just before the company reported a $638 million third-quarter loss, triggering the company's collapse.

Should we add the following to the list?

Heart Healthy Bisquick

Heart Healthy snacks according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute:

Animal crackers, devil's food cookies, fig and other fruit bars, ginger snaps, graham crackers, vanilla or lemon wafers

Angel food cake or other lowfat cakes

Low fat frozen yogurt, ice milk, fruit ices, sorbet, sherbet

Pudding (make it with fat free or 1% milk), gelatin desserts

Popcorn without butter or oil; pretzels, baked tortilla chips

67% digestible carbohydrates/sugars from corn syrup, sugar, raisins, and honey. Oh, yes . . . and it contains plant sterols.

"Heartzels are a healthy snack alternative for anyone wanting to control fat intake and add fiber to their diet," said Tracy LaRosiliere, a Frito-Lay vice president of marketing. "What better time for Frito-Lay to launch its first heart-healthy snack than during American Heart Month and just in time for Valentine's Day."

The relationship with the American Heart Association and the launch of Rold Gold Heartzels Pretzels is the latest move by Frito-Lay to continue its commitment to offering a wide variety of low-fat and better-for-you snacks nationally, which like the company's assortment of regular chips can be enjoyed as part of a healthy diet and lifestyle.

Imagine that I'm planning to build a wall of bricks. I start by throwing cement at a pile of bricks, hoping that it forms a nice, orderly brick wall.

Fat chance, you say.

I believe that is what appears to be emerging as the situation with calcium supplementation.

A recent study from New Zealand reported an experience with 1,471 postmenopausal women, mean age of 74 years, who were randomized to treatment with either calcium supplements or placebo. Calcium was supplied as calcium citrate (Citrical) to provide 1000 mg of (elemental) calcium per day (400 mg morning, 600 mg evening).

(Bolland MJ, Barber PA, Doughty RN et al. Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium supplementation: randomised controlled trial. Brit Med J BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.39440.525752.BE; published 15 January 2008)

Over 5 years, women taking calcium had twice the risk of having a heart attack compared with women taking the placebo; women taking calcium had a 47 percent higher risk of having any one of three "events" (heart attack, stroke or sudden death) than women in the placebo group.

The findings of this study run counter to what we've been telling people all these years: Calcium supplementation, usually taken to halt deteriorating bone health and osteoporosis, modestly reduces blood pressure, reduces LDL and raises HDL cholesterol. At first blush, we might thereby presume that it also reduces cardiovascular events.

This study suggests that calcium supplementation does not result in reduction of cardiovascular events, perhaps even increases risk.

Certainly, this new finding will serve to confuse the public even more than it is already, particularly when it comes to strategies that modify risk for heart attack. However, this may make more sense once we stop and think for a moment.

Calcium supplementation inarguably slows, occasionally halts, calcium resorption from bone (through suppression of parathyroid hormone). Calcium also accumulates as part of atherosclerotic plaque in coronary and other arteries.

How does oral calcium know where to go--bones, not arteries or kidneys, in addition to serving all its other crucial functions?

Keep in mind that, in many roles, calcium is passive, something that responds to control exerted by some other factor. Vitamin D is that factor. Vitamin D controls the absorption of calcium in the intestinal tract (calcium aborption quadruples when vitamin D is restored to normal), it controls whether calcium is deposited in bone or extracted from arteries. It is the master control over the fate of calcium. Calcium just goes along for the ride.

Bone and arterial health do indeed intersect via calcium, but not through calcium supplementation. Instead, the control exerted by vitamin D (and vitamin K2, another conversation) connects the seemingly unrelated processes.

At what calcium dose threshold do the benefits stop and the adverse effects begin? That remains unanswered, particularly in light of this new study. However, this study calls into serious question the wisdom of supplementing calcium at a dose of 1000 mg, particularly when taken without normalization of vitamin D.

Calcium is therefore emerging as an important player in artery health. But just taking calcium makes no more sense than our brick wall and cement analogy. You might regard vitamin D as the mason that skillfully lays down both brick and cement in a neat, orderly way.

Lorenzo is an 81-year old retired manufacturing engineer whose intial heart scan score in late 2006 was an alarming 1102.

Recall that, despite feeling well and having a normal stress test, Lorenzo was facing a heart attack and death risk that was as high as 25% per year without preventive action.

Lorenzo was moderately interested in the Track Your Plaque concepts. While not exactly the most highly motivated, he did see the rationale in our approach. But he came to us mostly because his primary care doctor told him to.

Nonetheless, one year later, he underwent another heart scan. His score: 588--a 46.6% drop in score, nearly cutting his plaque in half. While Lorenzo didn't set any new records in terms of percentage drop in score, he has reduced his score in real numbers more than anybody else before: a 514 point drop in score.

Lorenzo joins the ranks of our current record holders, Amy, with a 63% drop in heart scan score, and Neal with a 51% drop in score. Both of these Track Your Plaque record holders, while achieving larger percentage reductions in score, achieved less when viewed on an absolute number basis.

Now, breaking records is not necessary to succeed in the Track Your Plaque program or at heart disease reversal. Even 1% reversal is still a big success, certainly more than is achieved in conventional practice.

No special commitment was necessary in Lorenzo's case. All he required was a little of the right kind of information. I can tell what he didn't do: Lorenzo did not follow a low-fat American Heart Association diet, he did not take high-dose statin drug, he did not deprive himself of food, he did not exercise to extremes. He just applied some simple strategies from the Track Your Plaque program.

I play these sorts of games just to make a point and to show just what is possible. While the world of hospital procedures and emergency management of coronary disease marches on, we are quietly reversing the disease. Sometimes, we achieve results that even surprise ourselves.

Lorenzo's full story will be detailed in the February 2008 Track Your Plaque newsletter. If you are not yet a subscriber, you can sign up (without cost)here.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Where do you find fructose?

Do heart scans cause cancer?

Goodbye, fructose

The statin-free life

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

Roger's near-miss CT angiogram experience

The Myth of Prevention: Letter to the Wall Street Journal

A victory for SHAPE, CT heart scans, and doing what is RIGHT

Sleep: A to Zzzzzzzzzz

Vitamin D toxicity

Turning plaque into profit

Statin mono-failure

Triglyceride traps

High-dose fish oil for Lp(a)

The many faces of LDL

Drive-by angioplasty

"Heart Healthy" and other lies

Calcium chaos

Another big Track Your Plaque success story