I had a heart attack--and I don't know why!

25. October 2006 William Davis (0)
Kevin came to my office for another opinion.

A husband and father of two teenagers, Kevin had his first heart attack at age 39. Kevin received two stents to his right coronary artery. The entire process took place in a flurry with little explanation over 48 hours, start to finish.

He smoked a pack of cigarettes a day, but the only history of heart disease in his family was his father, who, also a smoker, had his heart disease uncovered in his late 70s.

His internist subsequently prescribed Zocor even though Kevin's LDL cholesterol was a relatively unimpressive 128 mg/dl.

Kevin subsequently asked his cardiologist, "Where did I get the heart disease from?"

"Cigarettes. And genetics. You can quit the first. There's nothing you can do about the second." End of explanation.

This left Kevin frightened and demoralized. If much of the cause of his heart disease couldn't be identified, why bother quitting smoking? Why not enjoy what time he had left?

Kevin was understandably shocked when I told him that genetic causes were 1)identifiable, 2)quantifiable, and 3) correctable.

Kevin's full lipoprotein analysis subsequently showed the most dire combination that commonly accounts for coronary disease in young people: Lp(a) with small LDL particles. This, along with smoking, fully accounted for this young father of two's heart disease.

Along with starting Kevin on a new program for correction of his patterns, I also persuaded him to get a heart scan. What usefulness is a heart scan after the fact? Plenty. Even though Kevin's right coronary was no longer "scorable" because the steel in the stent obscured our measurements, the two remaining unstented arteries would still yield a score. This provides a baseline for future comparison. Even after a stent, Kevin could "track his plaque".

Butter basics

24. October 2006 William Davis (3)
There’s lot of confusion about butter, margarines, and their substitutes. Butter/margarine substitutes that avoid the negative aspects and provide modest health benefits are available, but I find that people confuse what's what. So here’s a brief primer.


Butter--Avoid it. Plain and simple. Butter is a rich source of saturated fat. Of 11.5 grams total fat per tablespoon, 7.3 grams are saturated. It is not better than margarine, contrary to simple-minded reports from some media sources. Butter raises LDL cholesterol, raises blood pressure, and has been related to various cancers.

Margarine--Not better than butter, arguably worse. Some argue that the trans-fatty acids, or hydrogenated oils, used to solidify vegetable oils to make margarine solid are worse than butter. In addition to the ill-effects of butter, margarine reduces HDL and raises cancer risk, perhaps even more than saturated fats. Hydrogenation yields a very unnatural structure that modifies cellular behavior of the sort that may promote the appearance of cancer cells. More recently, however, some of the major manufacturers, like Blue Bonnet, have produced soft spread products without hydrogenation. These are reasonable substitutes when used sparingly.

Smart Balance--This is a product made with canola oil, a source of monounsaturates (the best oil source after omega-3s), but manufactured without hydrogenation and therefore has no trans-fats. It does have, in my view, a bit too much saturated fat (1.5 gm per tbsp. in the 37% Light Spread; 2.5 gm per tbsp in the 67% regular spread). This is a reasonable product to use in small quantities.

There is also a Smart Balance Omega PLUS product that contains added flaxseed oil and sterol esters. I do not recommend this product because of the sterol content (see below). I also object to the manufacturers who label their products “rich in omega-3s” when they mean linolenic acid (in flaxseed), which is converted to a trivial quantity of omega-3s. Linolenic acid may pose unique benefits of its own, but it should not be listed as an omega-3 source.

Benecol--This is a butter substitute that contains stanol esters, a substance that reduces total and LDL cholesterol. Two tablespoons a day reduces LDL around 20 mg/dl, more or less depending on your starting cholesterol.
There’s a light and regular spread. The light contains 20 calories less per tablespoon but somewhat less monounsaturates, but the same LDL-reducing stanol esters. The manufacturer does hydrogenate the oils, yielding 0.5 mg trans-fats per tablespoon--a small drawback.

Take Control--Similar to Benecol, but made with sterol esters. Take Control also reduces LDL cholesterol. However, data from several high-quality studies from Finland suggest that sterol esters may, in some people, be absorbed into the blood. This is potentially concerning. There is a rare disease called sitosterolemia that results in coronary disease in teenagers and young adults in their 20s from increased absorption of sterol esters. While you can’t acquire this genetic disease, some people have the capacity to absorb sterol esters from their intestines very efficiently. I find it very disturbing and I suggest that you stay away this product and other sterol-containing products like HeartWise orange juice and Smart Balance Omega PLUS until the issue is clarified and safety assured.

Brummel and Brown--A blend of vegetable oils (soybean and partially hydrogenated soybean) with calories and fats reduced by blending in yogurt. This is an okay product. The hydrogenation yields trans-fats below the FDA required declaration limit of 1.0 mg.
There’s also 1.0 mg each of saturated and monounsaturated fats. The calories are relatively low as a consequence of the added yogurt, only 45 calories per tablespoon. This makes the Brummel and Brown a reasonable choice.


Other products are making their way out to supermarkets. Look for the type of oil used. Canola, olive, and flaxseed are the best. Also look for trans-fats and saturated fat content; both should be low, preferably <1.0 mg per tablespoon, ideally none.

The best choice among the above products in my view is Benecol, though it’s also the most expensive. It will yield substantial drops in LDL cholesterol. All the products in our informal tastings taste a lot like butter, or at least as well as we can remember what butter tasted like! The key with all of these products is use in moderation, since they all provide between 45?80 calories per tablespoon.

Let Dr. Friedewald rest in peace

24. October 2006 William Davis (1)
In the 1960s, doctors struggled with the concept of cholesterol and its relationship to heart disease. It was becoming clear that higher levels of cholesterol were predictive of heart disease. It was also becoming clear that the low-density fraction of cholesterol, or LDL, was somewhat better than total cholesterol in predicting heart attack.

Cholesterol was easily measurable in the 1960s. LDL was not. So, Dr. Friedewald, a noted lipid researcher at the National Institutes of Health, proposed an easy method to calculate LDL cholesterol from total choleseterol, HDL, and triglycerides:

LDL cholesterol = Total cholesterol – HDL cholesterol – triglycerides/5

This simple manipulation would put LDL cholesterols into the hands of the practicing physician and the American public. Dr. Friedewald recognized that this calculation only represented an approximation of LDL cholesterol and that it was thrown off, sometimes substantially, by any abnormal rise in triglycerides or reduction in HDL. But it served its purpose at an age when most doctors hadn’t even heard of cholesterol and the public was still sold on whole milk and “farm-fresh” butter, and Chesterfields were the cigarette choice of most doctors.



The world has since changed. Most doctors have heard about cholesterol and, along with the public, have been drowned in drug company marketing for cholesterol-reducing drugs. Most people with some level of common sense and health awareness no longer use butter or whole milk, and no longer believe that the brand of cigarette you choose can be healthy. But we’re still using Dr. Friedewald’s original calculation for LDL cholesterol. When you get an LDL cholesterol from your clinic, doctor, or hospital, >99% of the time it is obtained using Dr. Friedewald’s calculation.

Is it because there’s nothing better available? No, it’s not. There’s two reasons why your neighborhood primary care physician or cardiologist is still using this dinosaur of testing called LDL:

1) The lag in science to practice is 20 years. Accept that most primary care doctors are 20 years behind the times on many issues, LDL cholesterol included.

2) Insurance companies vigorously discourage testing beyond conventional lipids. The array of objections we get from insurance companies is mind-boggling. It would be funny if human life and finances weren’t at stake. These “new” tests are “experimental”, “unproven”, not endorsed by standard guidelines, not approved by some internal committee, or simply “We don’t know what this test is” ?we’ve heard them all.

What are the tests that are superior to Dr. Friendewald’s calculated LDL? There are several, listed here in order of best to worst:

1) LDL particle number--the value generated by NMR lipoprotein testing. This is the gold standard, most reliable test available, and the one I recommend.

2) Apoprotein B--More widely available even from conventional laboratories in hospitals. Not as accurate as NMR LDL particle number, but a pretty good choice. Apo B is the principal protein in LDL, VLDL, and IDL particles, and so it’s a better reflector of risk from all of these lipoprotein fractions, not just LDL.

3) “Direct” LDL--This is LDL that is actually measured. Unfortunately, it ignores the issues of LDL size and has some other pitfalls, but it’s still better than calculated LDL

4) Non-HDL cholesterol--So-called because it incorporates all undesirable cholesterol-containing lipids except good HDL, thus “non-HDL”. This is another calculation, though better than LDL (because it sums up the risk from other apoprotein B-containing lipoproteins). Non-HDL is calculated from Total cholesterol – HDL. It’s therefore available from any standard lipid panel. It’s little used in everyday practice, however, because most people and their physicians find it confusing.

5) Friedewald calculated LDL--You can see that calculated LDL is last on a list of choices. Yet this is the measure that doctors use day in, day out. It’s the measure that drug companies base billions of dollars of revenue and profits on.

It’s an everyday occurrence in my office that calculated LDL is 89 mg/dl, but the real value is somewhere between 160 and 200 mg/dl. That’s a big difference. Imagine your realtor tells you your house’s estimated value is $200,000 and that’s what you sell it for to an eager buyer. After closing, you find out your house was really worth $300,000. You’d be upset. But that’s what you’re often getting with LDL cholesterol?a bum deal.

It’s part of the reason people will say, “My doctor said my cholesterol was fine and that no cause for my heart disease can be found. He said it was genetic.” In reality, they could have sky-high LDL cholesterol revealed by LDL particle number or apoprotein B.

Use LDL cholesterol in a pinch when you’ve got nothing else. It’s also helpful to gauge any treatment effect of diet, functional foods, drugs, etc. But it is a seriously flawed tool to diagnose your initial level of risk.

The key to losing weight

23. October 2006 William Davis (0)
I saw three people this past week, all of whom set off on an effort to lose substantial quantities of weight. And all seriously needed to.

All three started with at least 70 lbs. excess weight; all showed substantial weight-sensitive lipoprotein patterns like low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, VLDL, and pre-diabetic levels of blood sugar. They also all shared high blood pressure.

All three also had high heart scan scores. Kate’s score was just over 1200. Tom, a 58-year old real estate developer, had a score of nearly 600. Susan, the youngest of the three at 52, had a heart scan score of 377¾99th percentile at this age. Losing weight was an absolute requirement for their plaque control program. Because their lipoprotein abnormalities and pre-diabetic patterns were triggered by weight, weight loss would provide powerful correction. Each and every one of them would need to lose much of their excess weight¾at least 50 lbs¾if they hoped to halt the relentless progression of their heart scan scores.

All three of them returned after 6-8 weeks, and all had lost between 17-24 lbs: spectacular results.

There’s no secret to weight loss. Each of them achieved their weight loss in slightly different ways. But they also shared several critical ingredients in their weight-loss efforts:

1) All three dramatically slashed their intake of wheat flour-containing foods and other processed carbohydrates and did so consistently. All also avoided the usual high-fat, high caloric-density foods like butter, margarine, fried foods, greasy foods, nuts roasted in oil, etc. They concentrated on vegetables, salads, raw nuts, lean proteins (inc. turkey, chicken, fish, lean red meats, low-fat cottage cheese and yogurt).

2) They stopped using food as a reward or as a consolation tool.

3) Exercise for one hour a day at least 5 days a week. The exercise in 2 of 3 of these people was just walking. It wasn’t strenuous, it wasn’t expensive. The women both liked walking with friends or their spouse. Tom followed a more common male path of more strenuous work on his treadmill, elliptical, and biking at the fitness club. But they all did it religiously and missed rare sessions.

4) They refrained from any and all alcoholic beverages. Yes, there are some advantages to 1-2 glasses of wine per day, but it stalls weight loss efforts.

5) They didn’t allow themselves any major indiscretions. There were no binges, major pig-outs at weddings, barbecues, or all-you-can-eat buffets. They did allow themselves an occasional “treat” but did so in small portions.

That’s it. But for most people, that’s simply too much. Adhering to an effort to lose dramatic weight requires day-after-day consistency. Nobody can lose the equivalent of 70,000 calories (20 lbs.) just by skipping a meal, a 20-minute walk, skipping the mashed potatoes at dinner.

It can be done. You’ve just got to be consistent about it.

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 witon-calendar">20. October 2006 William Davis (0)
This question came up on our recent online chat session and comes up frequently in phone calls and e-mails.

If lipoprotein testing is the best way to uncover hidden causes of coronary heart disease, but your doctor is unable, unknowledgeable, or unwilling to help you, then what can you do?

There are several options:

1) Get the names of physicians who will obtain and interpret the test for you. Go to the websites for the three labs that actually perform the lipoprotein tests: www.liposcience.com (NMR); www.berkeleyheartlab.com (electropheresis or GGE); www.atherotech.com (VAP or centrifugation). None of them will provide you with the names of actual physicians. They will provide you with the name of a local representative who will know who the doctors in your area who are well-acquainted with their technology. I prefer this route to just having a representative identify a laboratory in your area where the blood sample can be drawn, because you will still need a physician to interpret the results¾this is crucial. The test is of no use to you unless someone interprets it intelligently and understands the range of treatment possibilities available. Don’t be persuaded by your doctor if he/she agrees to have the blood drawn but has never seen the test before. This will be a waste of your time. That’s like hoping the kid next door can fix your car just because he says he fixed his Mom’s car once. Interpretation of lipoproteins takes time, education, and experience.
2) Seek out a lipidologist. Lipidologists are the new breed of physician who has sought out additional training and certification in lipid and lipoprotein disorders. Sometimes they’re listed in the yellow pages, or you can search online in your area.
3) Contact us. I frankly don’t like doing this because I feel that I can only provide limited information through this method. I provide a written discussion of the implications and choices for treatment with the caveat to discuss them with your doctor, since I can’t provide medical advice without a formal medical relationship. We also charge $75 for the interpretation. But it’s a lot better than nothing.
4) Make do with basic testing. Basic lipids along with a lipoprotein(a), C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, and homocysteine would provide a reasonable facsimile of lipoprotein testing. You’ll still lack small LDL and postprandial (after-eating) information, but you can still do reasonably well if you try to achieve the Track Your Plaque targets of 60-60-60.

In 20 years, this will be a lot easier. But for now, you can still obtain reasonably good results choosing one of the above alternatives.

What do you think about those heart scans?

20. October 2006 William Davis (1)
52-year old Jerry came in for a stress test. He displayed the usual apprehension: fidgeting while he sat on the bed, examining his surroundings, asking lots of questions.

“Your doctor asked you have have a stress test?” I asked.

“All the males in my family have had heart attacks by age 56, so my doctor suggested I have a stress test,” Jerry explained.

Jerry went on to tell me that he had exercised vigorously this morning for 45 minutes without symptoms. He had, in fact, gone surfing just several weeks earlier and described how aerobically challenging it was keeping up with the 20 year olds. “But I did it!” he proudly declared.

As he neared the end of his brisk walk on the treadmill, Jerry asked, “What do you think about those heart scans?”

Jerry had asked his primary care physician the same question. His doctor had apparently told him that they were just a gimmick. “We’ll get you a real test.”

Of course, Jerry’s stress test proved entirely normal. The likelihood of an abnormal stress test with his history of vigorous exercise was <2%. I explained to Jerry that not getting heart scan would be a mistake. In fact, a heart scan was the only easily obtainable test that would uncover hidden heart disease. In truth, the stress test was a waste of time—and an unneeded exposure to radiation.

If Jerry’s heart scan score turned out to be zero, great! He was probably spared the genes from the other males in his family, and his risk of heart attack in the next decade was nearly zero.

If his heart scan turned out be 1000, then an urgent scramble to uncover the causes and correct them to create a truly effective prevention program would be crucial for his long term health. Or, perhaps his score lies somewhere in between, but Jerry would then know how far along he stood on his way to heart disease.

Don’t be a victim of the ignorance of your doctor. Despite all the attention heart scans have received, the majority of doctors remain miserably, inexcusably in the dark. I say inexcusable because CT heart scans can uncover the number one killer of Americans, the number one cause of all deaths in any primary care physician’s practices, and it’s laughably easy. How can a physician not advise patients on the value of heart scans?

If given a choice and you’re without symptoms, a heart scan is far and away the superior test.

Olive oil for gourmets

19. October 2006 William Davis (0)
"The finest extra-virgin olive oils should not be used as a medium for hot cooking, but rather as a condiment or a finisher on top of your favorite savory foods. They are expensive, but if stored properly they will last for up to a year..."

You all know that olive oil is among the preferred oils to use: rich in monounsaturates, low in saturates, high in polyphenols.




For a fascinating perspective for the olive oil gourmet, go to www.npr.org, the website for National Public Radio. (Scroll down to the article or enter olive oil into their site search.) Their article, "Like fine wines, fine olive oils boast subtle joys" provides an insightful discussion on squeezing maximum enjoyment out of this wonderful "functional food".

As we emerge from the mis-directed low-fat craze of the past 20 years, we're re-discovering the joys of healthy oils. You'll find some great thoughts here

Vitamin D must be oil-based

18. October 2006 William Davis (10)
As part of the Track Your Plaque coronary plaque reversal program, we advocate vitamin D supplementation. Vitamin D has been shown to reduce blood sugar and reduce pre-diabetic tendencies, reduce blood pressure (it's a renin antagonist, a blood pressure hormone), it's far more important for bone health than calcium, and it may help prevent colon cancer, prostate cancer, and multiple sclerosis.

And, oh yes, it may facilitate coronary plaque regression.

One lesson I've learned is that vitamin D MUST be taken as a oil-based capsule or gelcap. You'll recognize it as a transparent or translucent, sometimes opaque, capsule. The list of ingredients may say something like "cholecalciferol [vitamin D] in a base of soybean oil", indicating that the active ingredient is oil-based. Oil-based vitamin D3 skyrockets blood levels of 25-OH-vitamin D3 in to the normal range reliably and easily.


Tablets are a different story. These are generally white powdery tablets. The rise in blood levels of vitamin D3 are minimal, sometimes none. Women will often say "I get vitamin D with my calcium tablets."


People taking this form almost always have blood levels of vitamin D that are low, as if they were taking nothing.
If you're going to take vitamin D, the oil-based tablets are the way to go. They're not necessarily any more expensive. We've had good experiences with the Nature's Life 2000 unit capsule, as well as preparations from Life Extension. We have had negative experiences with the preparations from GNC, Sam's Club, and Walgreen's, all tablets and non-oil-based.

When is LDL cholesterol NOT LDL cholesterol?

18. October 2006 William Davis (0)
Darlene had a high LDL cholesterol, at times as high as 200 mg/dl. Her primary care doctor first tried Mevacor, then Pravachol, then Zocor, then Lipitor. Every statin drug failed to reduce Darlene's LDL below 160 mg/dl, even when maximum doses were used. The higher doses also resulted in nearly intolerable muscle aches and weakness.

When we sent Darlene's blood sample off for lipoprotein analysis, a surprise came back: she had a high lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a). This explained a lot.

LDL cholesterol is not always just LDL cholesterol. One of the particles that can masquerade as LDL is Lp(a). Darlene's story is typical of many people who've had high cholesterol levels poorly responsive to the statin drugs. That's because their LDL conceals Lp(a), which does not respond to these agents. LDL cholesterol does drop some because there's also some real LDL mixed in.

A poor response to statin agents or to nutritional strategies to reduce LDL is a tip-off that Lp(a) may be hidden. The answer: just measure Lp(a)! If you and your doctor don't measure it, you won't know whether or not you have it. Rather than a statin drug, we put Darlen on niacin. Not only did her Lp(a) drop, but her LDL also plummeted.

What is a desirable triglyceride level?

17. October 2006 William Davis (0)

Though well-intended, the National Cholesterol Education Panel's Adult Treatment Panel, or ATP-III, (whew!) guidelines for cholesterol have been responsible for loads of misinformation.

The intention was to educate the internist or family doctor who treats sore throats, performs Pap smears, administers pneumovax vaccine, treats arthritic knees---and dabbles in heart disease prevention. The ATP-III guidelines are the "Cholesterol for Dummies" approach.

What standard guidelines definitely do not represent are the ideal values to achieve. They do not ensure protection from heart disease. This is particularly true of the ATP-III advice /16139129?ordinalpos=36&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum">Prospective Army Coronary Calcium (PACC) project (men average age 43 years):

"In these men, coronary calcium was associated with an 11.8-fold increased risk for incident coronary heart disease (CHD) (p = 0.002) in a Cox model controlling for the Framingham risk score. Among those with coronary artery calcification, the risk of coronary events increased incrementally across tertiles of coronary calcium severity (hazard ratio 4.3 per tertile)."

Calcium score provided additional information even after factoring in the Framingham risk score.

That's just a sample of the studies. There are a number more.

Add to these conversations the fact that, unlike reducing blood pressure or LDL cholesterol, the heart scan score is a quantification of the disease itself. It can also be tracked over time to gauge the success or failure of prevention efforts. To believe that blood pressure reduction or LDL cholesterol reduction is sufficient to eliminate risk is something only a fool would believe.



Contary to the above statements, the data are clear:

--The higher the heart scan score, the greater the risk. This has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt in at least a dozen published studies. In fact, heart scan scores outshine lipid/cholesterol values several-fold.

--A person with a zero score has a nearly zero risk for cardiovascular events over a 5-year timeline.

--Heart scans are the only quantitative test available of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. This means that they can be repeated to gauge progression or regression. Cholesterol does not do that. Stress tests do not do that.

--Heart scans are not the same as CT coronary angiography.

--The lack of "need" for a procedure does not equate to the absence of disease.

The power of heart scans is that they can uncover evidence for coronary atherosclerotic plaque 10 years before a cardiac disaster strikes. Witness Tim Russert's heart scan score of 210 in 1998 at age 48. 10 years later, you know what happened.

Beware the camipaign of misinformation and ignorance that continues that is hell-bent on maintaining the procedural status quo or locking us into a "drugs for all" mentality.

What's worse than sugar?

16. September 2008 William Davis (11)
There are a number of ways to view the blood sugar-raising or insulin-provoking effect of foods.

One way is glycemic index (GI), simply a measure of how high blood sugar is raised by a standard quantity of a food compared to table sugar. Another is glycemic load (GL), a combination (multiplied) of glycemic index and carbohydrate content per serving.

Table sugar has a GI of 65, a GL of 65.

Obviously, table sugar is not good for you. The content of white table sugar in the American diet has exploded over the last 100 years, totaling over 150 lb per year for the average person. (Humans are not meant to consume any.)

What is the GI of Rice Krispies cereal, organic or not? GI = 82-- higher than table sugar. GL is 72, also higher than table sugar.

How about Corn Flakes? GI 81, GL 70--also both higher than sugar.

How about those rice cakes that many dieters will use to quell hunger? GI 78, GL 64.

How about Shredded Wheat cereal? GI 75, GL 62.

All of the above foods with GI's and GL's that match or exceed that of table sugar are made of wheat and cornstarch. Some, like Shredded Wheat cereal and rice cakes, don't even have any added sugar.

Stay clear of these foods if you have low HDL, high triglycerides, high blood sugar, or small LDL. Or, for that matter, if you are human.

Keep the eloquent words of New York University nutritionist, Marion Nestle, author of the book, Food Politics, in mind:

“Food companies—just like companies that sell cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, or any other commodity—routinely place the needs of stock holders over considerations of public health. Food companies will make and market any product that sells, regardless of its nutritional value or its effect on health. In this regard, food companies hardly differ from cigarette companies. They lobby Congress to eliminate regulations perceived as unfavorable; they press federal regulatory agencies not to enforce such regulations; and when they don’t like regulatory decisions, they file lawsuits. Like cigarette companies, food companies co-opt food and nutrition experts by supporting professional organizations and research, and they expand sales by marketing directly to children, members of minority groups, and people in develop countries—whether or not the products are likely to improve people’s diets.” ??

Are sterols the new trans fat?

13. September 2008 William Davis (16)
By now, I'm sure you're well-acquainted with the hydrogenated, trans fat issue.

Hydrogenation of polyunsaturated oils was a popular practice (and still is) since the 1960s, as food manufacturers sought a substitute for saturated fat. Bubbling high-pressure hydrogen through oils like cottonseed, soybean, and corn generates trans fatty acids. These man-made fatty acids, while safe in initial safety testing, proved to be among the biggest nutritional mistakes of the 20th century.

Trans fatty acids have been associated with increased LDL cholesterol, reduction in HDL, oxidative reactions, abnormal rigidity when incorporated into cell membranes, and cancer. Trans fats still dominate many processed foods like chips, cookies, non-dairy creamers, food mixes, and thousands of others. They're also found prominently in fast foods.

Fast forward to today, and most Americans have become aware of the dangers of trans fats and many try to avoid them.

But I worry there is yet another substance that has worked its way into the American processed food cornucopia that has some potential for repeating the trans fat debacle: sterol esters.


Sterols are naturally-occurring oils found in vegetables, nuts, and numerous other foods in small quantities. Most of us take in 200-400 milligrams per day just by eating plant-sourced foods.

Curiously, the chemical structure of sterols are very similar to human cholesterol (differing at one carbon atom). Sterols, by not fully understood means, block the intestinal absorption of cholesterol. Thus, sterol esters, as well as the similar stanol esters, have been used to reduce blood levels of total and LDL cholesterol.

So far, so good.

The initial commercial products, released in the late 1990s, were Take Control (sterol) and Benecol (stanol), both of which were marketed to reduce cholesterol when 2-3 tbsp are used daily, providing 3400 – 5100 mg of sterol or stanol esters, about 10- to 20-fold more than we normally obtain from foods. Several clinical trials have conclusively confirmed that these products reduce cholesterol levels.

They do indeed perform as advertised. Add either product to your daily diet and LDL cholesterol is reduced by about 10-15%. In fact, in the original Track Your Plaque book, these products were advocated as a supplemental means of reducing LDL when other methods fell short.

In 2008, there are now hundreds of products that have additional quantities of sterol esters in them, such as orange juice, mayonnaise, yogurt, breakfast cereals, even nutritional supplements. Most of these products proudly bear claims like "heart healthy." Stanol esters have not enjoyed the same widespread application. (I believe there may be patent issues or other considerations. However, it's the sterols that are the principal topic here, not stanols.)

Now, here's where it gets a bit tricky. There is a rare (1 per million) disease called sitosterolemia, a genetic disorder that permits the afflicted to absorb more than the usual quantity of sterols from the intestine. While you and I obtain some amount of sterols from plant-based foods, absorption is poor, and we absorb <10% of sterols ingested. However, people with sitosterolemia absorb sterols far more efficiently, resulting in high blood levels of sterols that result in coronary disease and aortic valve disease, with heart attacks occurring as young as late teens or 20s. Treatment to block sterol absorption are used to treat these people.

There are also a larger number, though still uncommon (1/500) of people who have only one of the two genes that young people with sitosterolemia have. These people may have an intermediate capacity for sterol absorption.

Okay, so what does this have to do with you? Well, if you and I now take in 10-20 times greater amounts of sterol esters, do our blood levels of sterols increase?

Several studies now suggest that, yes, sterol blood levels increase with sterol ingestion. One study from Finland, the STRIP Study, showed that children who had double usual sterol intake increased blood levels by around 50%.

Similarly, a Johns Hopkins study in adults with only one of the genes ("heterozygotes") for sitosterolemia increased sterol blood levels by between 54-116% by ingesting 2200 mg of sterols added per day, despite reduction of LDL cholesterol levels.

Even people with neither gene for sitosterol hyperabsorption can increase their blood levels of sterols. But the crucial question: Do the blood levels of sterols that occur in unaffected people or in heterozygotes increase the risk of coronary heart disease? The answer is not known.

Despite the several clinical trials performed with sterol esters, all of them have examined LDL and total cholesterol reduction as endpoints, not cardiovascular events. It is conceivable that, while sterol esters reduce cholesterol, risk for heart disease is increased due to higher blood levels of sterols.

The question is not settled. For now, it is just a suspicion. But that's enough for me to steer clear of processed foods supplemented with these uncertain sterol esters. My previous recommendations for sterol ester products will be removed with the next edition of Track Your Plaque. Until we have solid evidence that there are no adverse cardiovascular effects of sterol esters, in my view they should not be part of anyone's heart-disease prevention program.

(The same argument does not seem to apply to stanol esters, such as that contained in butter-substitute Benecol, since stanol esters are not absorbed at all and remain confined to the intestine.)

The Diabetes Gold Rush

11. September 2008 William Davis (9)
Lou came into the office. Clearly, his program had gone sour.

Lou had initially obtained wonderful control over his heart scan score of 1114, having reversed modestly in his first three years of effort through correction of his multiple causes (including low HDL, severe small LDL, Lp(a), and a diabetic tendency).

But Lou now came into the office red-faced and sporting a big bulging abdomen. Blood sugar? Now in the overtly diabetic range. Lou said that his primary care doctor had suggested that he start on three new medications (glucophage, injectable Byetta, and Actos) to control his blood sugar. His doctor also told him to increase his intake of fibers by eating more "healthy" breakfast cereals like Cheerios.

Lou had apparently done just that (added "healthy" fiber-rich foods) even before his doctor had suggested it. (Lou failed to remember the several conversations we'd had about healthy eating.) Unfortunately, Lou also failed to connect his increased intake of "healthy fiber-rich foods" and his growing abdominal girth (his "wheat belly").

Here's the dirty little secret: Much of the world wants you to be diabetic. It is the health gold rush of this century. "Go West, young man!"




To find out what I mean, you need only ask: Who profits when people become diabetic? That's easy:

The pharmaceutical industry--Diabetes is a booming growth industry, a source of tens of billions of dollars of revenue, poised for enormous growth as the population ages and gets fatter. It is common for a newly-diagnosed diabetic to be given new prescriptions for two or three drugs with a monthly cost of $300. Of course, the chronic nature of the disease make this far more profitable than, say, a two week course of antibiotics. Presently, 70 new drugs are under development.

Diabetes drug maker Novo Nordisk reported a 25% increase in revenues in 2007 from diabetic agents in the North American market, along with near $2 billion increase in profit for the year. Merck's recently-released DPP-4 inhibitor, Januvia, has already sold $668 million in 2007 and is growing rapidly.

The medical device and supply industry. Take a look at the Medtronic quarterly earnings report, detailing the breakdown of their record-setting quarterly revenue of $3.7 billion:

Diabetes revenue of $269 million grew 12 percent driven by sales
of consumables, the accessories required by insulin pump users, and
continuous glucose monitoring products. Revenue from international
sales grew 31 percent over the same quarter last year.

That's what I call a growth industry.

The processed food industry. The food industry is as big or bigger than the drug industry. ADM, Kraft, General Mills all have annual revenues in the $12-50 billion range. There are plenty of others.

When we're told, for instance, that Cheerios reduces cholesterol, we're not told that it skyrockets blood sugar or triggers small LDL. When we're sold whole wheat crackers, Cocoa Puffs (which the American Heart Asscociation says is heart-healthy), or granola bars, hunger is stimulated, impulse to eat more grows, blood sugar escalates, we get fat, we get diabetic. It's a simple formula.

So be aware that there is little incentive among corporate giants in the food, medical device, or drug industries to encourage behaviors that decrease the incidence of diabetes. In fact, there is enormous financial incentive to make sure that diabetes continues to grow at the startling rate it has over the last decade.

To be sure, the drug and medical device industry will also develop better tools to deal with diabetes and its complications. But the very best way to deal with diabetes is to not develop it in the first place.

What else is there?

7. September 2008 William Davis (11)
This question comes up frequently:

Aren't there any alternatives to heart scans performed on a CT or EBT device?

Yes, there are.

First of all, heart scans are performed best on an electron-beam CT device (EBT) or a 64-slice multi-detector CT (MDCT) device. (While they are also obtainable through less-than-64 slice CT devices (e.g., 16 slices and less), I would advise against it because of the excessive radiation exposure and poor accuracy.) CT heart scans are not to be confused with now more popular CT coronary angiograms, which are performed on the same devices but require intravenous x-ray dye and many times more radiation.(See CT scans and radiation exposure and Heart scan frustration.) Heart scans currently form the basis for the Track Your Plaque program, a program of tracking plaque in the hopes of stopping or reversing the otherwise inevitable 30% per year increase.

Let's confine our discussion to people without symptoms, meaning people like you and me sitting at home, not in an emergency room having chest pain or other similar acute symptomatic presentation.

Among the other ways to uncover hidden coronary plaque:

--Heart catheterization--to yield a coronary angiogram. Yes, this does tell us whether coronary plaque is present. However, it is invasive, expensive, and crude. (I've performed 5000 over my career; they are crude, though useful, tools in acute settings like unstable symptoms or heart attack, a different situation.) Coronary angiography is also non-quantitative. While they provide a value like "40% blockage mid-way in right coronary" or "90% blockage in left anterior descending" they do not provide a trackable lengthwise index of total plaque volume. Identifying severe blockages in people with symptoms leads to stents, bypass surgery and the like, but it is not practical nor of long-term usefulness in apparently, healthy people without symptoms.

--Carotid ultrasound--Here's is where a lot of confusion comes from. Standard carotid ultrasound (U/S) performed in virtually every hospital and many clinics will yield crude qualitative results, e.g., "16-49% stenosis (blockage) in right internal carotid artery". The crude value range is because much of carotid U/S is based on flow velocities, not just direct visualization of the plaque itself ("2-D imaging). However, if carotid stenosis of any degree is identified, the likelihood of silent coronary plaque is much greater.

Limitations: The qualitative, non-quantitative nature of carotid U/S make it difficult to follow long-term in a precise way. Also, this is carotid plaque, not coronary plaque. It makes it very difficult to follow carotid plaque as an indirect means of tracking coronary plaque. The two arterial territories, carotid and coronary, do not track together: there are divergences in many people, with carotid plaque absent in some people with advanced coronary plaque, carotid plaque more susceptible to different risk factors than coronary. So carotid U/S is helpful for its own purposes, but not terribly helpful for coronary tracking.

How about carotid intimal-medial thickness (CIMT) obtained also with carotid U/S? CIMT is a useful index of bodywide atherosclerosis. CIMT is simply a measure not of plaque (and is measured in regions of the carotid artery away from plaque), but of the thickness of the lining of the carotid arteries. Everybody has a measurable CIMT, but it thickens as atherosclerosis grows. CIMT is a radiation-free test that takes several minutes.

Limitations: Hardly anybody does it outside of research protocols. I know of no hospital or clinic in my area that performs CIMT, though it is slowly being adopted in some centers. It is also difficult to rely on repeated tests, because there is substantial variation when one technologist or another performs it. CIMT is also a flawed index of coronary plaque. When CIMT is compared to heart scan scores, CT coronary angiography, or conventional coronary angiography, CIMT correlates about 60-70% with the degree of coronary atherosclerosis.

CIMT is therefore a useful test for research, but a distant 2nd choice--if you can obtain it.

--Ankle-brachial index (ABI)--ABI is a crude measure, simply a comparison of the blood pressure (obtained with a blood pressure cuff) in the legs divided by blood pressure in the arms. The ratio is called ABI. Any ABI <1.0, meaning less pressure in the legs compared to the arms, is indirectly indicative of advanced coronary disease. ABI is, in fact, a very powerful predictor of cardiovascular events. If ABI is <1.0, your future risk for heart attack is very high, even in the absence of symptoms.

Limitations: The vast majority of people with heart disease, even those having undergone stents or bypass surgery, have normal ABI's. Virtually all people with high heart scan scores have normal ABI's. In other words, ABI is a measure of very advanced atherosclerosis only.

--Stress tests--I lump all stress tests together in their various forms, e.g., stress thallium, stress Cardiolite, stress Myoview, persantine/adenosine Cardiolite, dobutamine echocardiography, etc. Stress tests are tests of coronary blood flow, not of plaque. Stress tests are useful in people with symptoms, like chest pain or breathlessness, since stress tests are provocative tests that can help determine whether reduced coronary blood flow is the cause behind a symptom, or whether hiatal hernia, esophagitis, gallstones, pleurisy, musculoskeletal causes, or some other process is behind symptoms.

Limitations: Stress test are virtually useless in people without symptoms. This is why people like Tim Russert and Bill Clinton, both without symptoms, underwent several (Russert 3, Clinton 5) nuclear stress tests---all normal. You know what happened to them. Stress tests do not reliably uncover hidden coronary plaque in people without symptoms. Stress tests are, like coronary angiograms, non-quantitative. They are normal or abnormal.


Outside of experimental settings, that's it.

You can probably see why I advocate CT heart scans for tracking plaque. I do not advocate heart scans because I sell them (I don't), because scan centers pay me to say these things (they don't, and in fact my relationship with my usual heart scan centers has become deeply contentious, though I still endorse the technology). I say that heart scans are superior because they are, in 2008, the only way to 1) identify and 2) track coronary plaque that is easy, safe, low-radiation, and reasonably priced (<$200 in Milwaukee at 5 centers).

The need for a technology that allows tracking of plaque, not just initial identification, is also an important distinction. People who've had some measure of atherosclerosis all catch on to this eventually. "Can I reverse it?" is an inevitable question once the disease is identified in some way. So a tool for tracking over time to gauge the success or failure of a program of prevention can be assessed.

Perhaps in 10 years, another technology will emerge as the preferred means to do the same, but better. If that proves true, we will convert to that technology. But today heart scans performed on CT heart scans are the only rational way to both detect, then track, coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Let's gamble with your health

5. September 2008 William Davis (4)
Let's play a game.

I'm going to list some lipid patterns and you tell me whether or not the person with these values has heart disease.

Patient 1

Total cholesterol 150 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 75 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
Triglycerides 125 mg/dl


Patient 2

Total cholesterol 300 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 200 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 35 mg/dl
Triglycerides 325


Patient 3

Total cholesterol 300 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 100 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 25 mg/dl
Triglycerides 875 mg/dl



Let's say that any one of these profiles is yours. Should you be getting your affairs in order, preparing for your cardiac catastrophe? Should you demand a stress test from your doctor, hoping that it will shed some light on your dilemma? Should you go ahead and go to the all-you-can-eat rib restaurant, content that you will be attending your granddaughger's wedding in 2020 in full health?

If you can tell, you're a lot better at this than I am.

I provide consultation to other physicians and patients on complex hyperlipidemias in my area. In other words, if someone has a difficulty to manage lipid disorder, the doctor sends the patient to me.

Managing these wildly variable values is the easy part. Deciding whether or not heart disease is concealed within the patient . . . well, that's the hard part.

Let's take it a step further: Suppose all three profiles also have 50% of all LDL particles as the abnormal small particles. And they all have a lipoprotein(a) level of 50 mg/dl, an abnormally high level.

How about now: Can you tell whether any or all of these people have hidden heart disease?

What if they are 20 years old? Does that make a difference?

What if they are all females over 65 years--how about now?

If the only tool you have to divine the presence of hidden heart disease is a lipid panel, or even a lipoprotein panel, then the best you can manage is to hazard a guess based on statistical probability. You also assume that this "snapshot" represents the sorts of values someone has had for their entire lives. You cannot factor in the fact that the first person gained 60 lbs in the last three years since completing menopause. You can't factor in that patient 2 smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 25 years, but quit 10 years ago.

It's also foolhardy to believe that every known cause of heart disease is currently identifiable and revealed by modern-day blood testing.

A heart scan is simply a means to quantify the sum-total of risk factors--causes--that have exerted an effect up until the moment of your scan. It will reveal the quantity of coronary atherosclerotic plaque present, regardless of whether you stopped smoking 20 years ago or lost 30 lbs last year.

For these reasons, nothing can replace the value of quantifying plaque: not cholesterol, not the Framingham risk calculation, not measures of small LDL or lipoprotein(a), not the presence or absence of symptoms. In 2008, the method of choice for measuring plaque All posts by william-davis

Take a walking vacation

20. May 2006 William Davis (1)
If you're planning a vacation, why not consider a walking vacation?

The concept is really taking off. All you need is a pair of comfortable shoes and an interesting locale. More and more services are popping up to help you plan fun and interesting destinations and itineraries. One such catalog can be found at http://walking.about.com/od/tours/a/walkingvacation_3.htm

Lengthier walks may require some advance planning and toting some supplies. Don't forget the water!

From a health viewpoint, a walking vacation sure beats the heck out of a cruise that packs on 12 pounds of extra weight from the 24-hour a day buffet. If you're in the midst of a weight loss effort, several hours of walking through interesting locales and scenery can make it effortless.

There's loads of neat places to visit from a walker's perspective. One interesting website is www.waterfallwalks.com that lists trails that provide spectacular views of waterfalls.

Another variation on this theme is biking vacations. My wife and I are trying to set the time aside for a biking tour of wineries in the French countryside. That's our kind of multi-tasking!

"Expanded indications for implantable defibrillators"

19. May 2006 William Davis (0)
So reads the headline on a magazine I received recently (along with thousands of my colleagues) from a major hospital system.

It goes on to say: "In January 2005, indications for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) were substantially broadened [emphasis ours] to include most patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. This change translates into a 2- to 3-fold increase in the number of Medicare beneficiariries eligible for ICDs."

Ka-ching!!! Hear the money piling up in the bank?

The device manufacturers are constantly churning data and lobbying for reimbursement to expand the use of their devices to more and more people. Defibrillators in particularly are generally a $25,000 to $50,000 opportunity for the device manufacturer alone, not counting the costs incurred at the hospital for implantation.

Beware. As reimbursement for stents and other procedures diminishes, expect a sudden "demand" for more and more people to get implantable defibrillators. Better yet, stay away from the whole issue by preventing your heart attack.

Get a heart scan--but then don't delay taking action!

19. May 2006 William Davis (2)
I just came from one of the local hospitals after having performed a heart catheterization on a patient I met earlier this week.

Jack had gotten a heart scan a year ago with a score of 246, placing him in the 76th percentile. The "event" rate with this percentile rank is around 3% per year--not very high but enough to pose risk over a long period.

Jack chose to ignore his score. After all, the pressures of work at the University, maintaining his home and yard, etc. consumed all his energies. He came to my office--now one year after his scan--and told me about the chest pressure he was getting. Initially, his chest pains occurred with extended walking. In the past week, however, Jack was experiencing chest pressure with just walking 30 feet.

This pattern of increasing symptoms is called "accelerated angina", meaning that Jack was rapidly heading towards a heart attack. So I advised a heart catheterization in near future.

Jack's catheterization showed extensive plaque including a 50% blockage in the mainstem artery and 90% in the artery to the front of the heart (left anterior descending artery). Jack is going to have a bypass operation tomorrow.

What if Jack hadn't ignored his heart scan from a year ago? Well, I'd be very confident in saying that he would not be undergoing bypass surgery tomorrow.

The lesson: Don't dilly-dally on taking action to keep your plaque from growing. While it's not an emergency, it can easily become one if you choose to ignore your scan.

Feel that nudge in your back?

17. May 2006 William Davis (0)
You feel that nudge in your back? That's your local hospitals competing for your bypass surgery business.

Just this morning while watching a morning news show, I saw three advertisements for hospital bypass surgery programs. One ad featured a man in his 50s telling his story:"The cardiologist determined immediately that I needed a triple bypass operation. My family and I are very grateful to _____ hospital!"

In what other field is failure celebrated so prominently? When I see these ads, I hear "My doctors failed to provide early detection and then prevent what became a life-threatening condition, even though heart disease is a chronic process that requires decades to develop." What if our man said instead,"I had a heart scan and my score was high. So I was shown why I had so much plaque. They then showed me how to control and even reduce the amount of plaque I had. I'm living safely and symptom-free without need for surgery or procedures."

Of course, the hospital is out $60,000-100,000 for the surgery. How else could they afford ad campaigns costing several million dollars a year? See these advertisements for what they are: Marketing generated by profit-seeking businesses competing for your dollars--lots of them.

Throw away total cholesterol!

17. May 2006 William Davis (1)
Richard's total cholesterol without treatment was 186 mg/dl. "That's great!" his doctor declared, referring to the conventional dictum that total cholesterols less than 200 carry low risk. Several fingersticks in a mall kiosk set up by a local hospital to check total cholesterols confirmed Richard's low number.

But after Richard's unexpected hospitalization and two stents for severe coronary blockages, he demanded better answers.

Tragically, the answer was there all along: Despite a "favorable" total cholesterol, his HDL ("good") cholesterol was a miserable 32 mg (ideal >60 mg).

Total cholesterol is actually the sum total of HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, with a contribution from triglycerides. That's why a low total cholesterol can conceal a low HDL.

This situation is quite common. And low HDL is accompanied by a constellation of other undesirable causes of heart disease, most notably small LDL.

Don't accept total cholesterol as your sole measure of risk. It's nearly worthless. If you live in Bangladesh or a third world country, well perhaps that's the best you can get. But if you live in the U.S. or developed world, it's absurd to rely on total cholesterol.

Smart Start not so smart

15. May 2006 William Davis (2)



Kellogg's has crafted a campaign to support the American Heart Association featuring acress Sela Ward. Her attractive face, familiar to many TV and movie viewers, does add a comforting face to their efforts.

What's in this cereal made by the manufacturers of Pop-Tarts, Cheez-It, Rice Krispies, and Chips Deluxe cookies?

There are, indeed, some healthy ingredients: oat bran, potassium; you can even get a version made with soy protein. But there's sugar listed as the second ingredient. High-fructose corn syrup is also listed prominently. (Remember this issue? High-fructose corn syrup causes overwhelming sugar cravings, causes your triglycerides to skyrocket, and is probably among the principal food ingredients that make you obese.)

Upon detailed questioning of my patients struggling to lose weight, this and products like it are often among the "healthy" foods they've gravitated towards. We spend a great deal of time dissuading them of this idea.

A one-cup serving of Smart Start is low in fat (1 gram) but contains 43 grams of carbohydates, of which there are 14 grams of sugar. There are a meager 3 grams of fiber. To me, this sounds like a cupcake.

The Kellogg's people are exceptionally clever marketers. Partner with the American Heart Association and movie stars? Brilliant!

You should trust food manufacturer advertising about as much as you trust drug manufacturer advertising, which is to say not at all.

Kellogg's sold $10 billion dollars of food products last year. They are the world's leading producer of breakfast cereals. They are a leading producer of convenience foods: cookies, crackers, cereal bars, and frozen waffles under the brands Keebler, Pop-Tarts, Eggo, Cheez-It, Nutri-Grain, Rice Krispies, Famous Amos, and Kashi.

Can they cash in on healthy trends? They'll certainly try.

Does anybody have a normal vitamin D level?

15. May 2006 William Davis (0)
We now routinely check everyone's vitamin D blood level at the start of the program. (The measure to obtain is 25-OH-Vitamin D3. This is not to be confused with 1,25-OH2-vitamin D3, which is a kidney function measure.)

Of the 10 people with levels drawn today, none were even close to normal levels (which we define as 50 ng/ml)--not a single one.

The majority were in the range of severe deficiency (<20 ng/ml). Only two had levels in the 30s. None had higher. (Remember: I'm talking about people in Wisconsin, a terribly sunlight-deprived area much of the year. This might not apply quite as vigorously to Florida residents or others in sun-exposed regions.)

Curiously, I've also seen several people this week who had extraordinary quantities of coronary plaque on their heart scans (scores >1000), all of whom had extremely low vitamin D levels. One of these people had fairly unimpressive lipoproteins, with very minimal abnormalities identified. (This is quite unusual, by the way.) It makes you wonder if a profound deficiency of vitamin D is sufficient to act on its own as an instigator of coronary plaque.

The more we examine the issue of vitamin D deficiency, the more fascinating it gets. I suspect we've just scratched the surface and there's a lot more to learn about this tremendously interesting nutrient. Nonetheless, with what we're seeing in our experience, I'm urging everyone to get a blood vitamin D level.

Don't believe your LDL cholesterol!

14. May 2006 William Davis (0)
Harry's case is typical. For years, his doctor told him his LDL cholesterol of 123 mg was okay. But a heart scan score of 490 (90th percentile at age 52) made him question just where his coronary plaque came from.

Lipoprotein analysis told a very different story: His LDL particle number was 2400 nmol, meaning his trueLDL was more like 240 mg, nearly double the value of LDL obtained through his doctor. Harry had other sources of risk, too, but the LDL particle number was a clear stand-out.

Why does this happen? How can LDL cholesterol be so terribly inaccurate?

LDL cholesterols obtained in virtually all labs are not measured, they're calculated. The calculation was developed in the 1960s by Dr. Friedewald at the National Institutes of Health and therefore goes by his name (the Friedewald calculation). Dr. Friedewald derived this simple calculation to permit doctors across the U.S. to obtain LDL cholesterols, which were technically difficult to measure in those days by using measured HDL, total cholesterol and triglycerides.

Doctors were told that the only time that the Friedewald calculated LDL was inaccurate was when triglycerides exceeded 400 mg. So most family practitioners and internists still believe that calculated LDL's are, for the most part, quite accurate.

Nothing could be further from the truth. When LDL's are actually meaured, you find that LDL is rarely accurate. In fact, in our experience, inaccuracy of 30-50% is the rule, sometimes 100%. The one telltale hint that calculated LDL is wrong is when HDL is <50 mg--that's nearly everybody.

So what's your LDL? You won't really know unless it's measured. Our preferred method is NMR (LipoScience) LDL particle number, probably the most accurate of all. Second best: apoprotein B, direct measured LDL, and non-HDL. (We'll cover this issue much more extensively in an upcoming report on the www.cureality.com website in an extensive Special Report.)

Are you the exception?

14. May 2006 William Davis (0)

I read about 40 heart scans this morning. In the stack was a 41-year old man with a heart scan score of 841.

That's terribly high for anyone, let alone a 41-year old person. He's lucky to find out about this before catastrophe strikes.

People like this worry me. In general, we advise men to consider a heart scan age 40 and older; women 50 and older. If there's anything exceptional about your family history or your own history, then you might notch these numbers down another 5-10 years. For instance, if your Dad had a heart attack at age 43, you might consider a scan at age 35. Or, if you've had diabetes for several years and you're a 42-year old woman, you might think about a scan. (Men tend to develop measurable plaque by heart scans 10 years before women.)

There are no hard and fast rules. It's unusual for a male to have a score >0 before age 40. Likewise, it's very uncommon for a woman to have a score >0 before age 50. But there are occasional exceptions--but they can be very important exceptions.

Our 41-year old man with the score of 841, for instance, probably had a high score since his mid-30s. I've seen several women without any obvious risk factors with scores in the several hundred range in their early 40s.

My rule: When in doubt, opt for safety. Every day, I still read about people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s dying of heart attacks. It shouldn't happen.

When in doubt, get the heart scan. The most you'll lose is the cost of the scan and a modest exposure to radiation. If your score is zero, you know you're safe for the next 5 or more years. But if you have an exceptional score at a young age, take preventive action.

Self-empowerment in health: The new wave in health care

12. May 2006 William Davis (0)
Track Your Plaque is just one facet of the broad and powerful emerging wave of self-empowerment in health.

Hospitals, drug and device manufacturers, and the medical establishment don't like this idea. People managing their own health? That's ridiculous! Dangerous! But mostly unprofitable.

Self-empowerment means having easy access to simple, safe, and inexpensive diagnostic tests like heart scans, carotid scans, bone densitometry (for osteoporosis), cholesterol tests, abdominal ultrasound, even brain scans (e.g., CT or MRI) for people with a family history of brain aneurysm.

Opponents of this idea worry about the "false-positives" that come about with broad testing, i.e, detection of abnormalities that are artifactual. Our experience is that false-positives are only an occasional problem with any test. Instead, we find that most people have many true-positives. In CT heart scanning, for example, we find many unsuspected enlarged aortas (potential future aneurysms), valve disorders, and aortic calcium. These are all important in a preventive program. Unfortunately, your doctor's definition of false-positive often means that no corrective procedure or operation is required.

Other evidence that self-empowerment in health is growing:

--The nutritional supplement movement. What better example of power in managing your own health is there than the fabulous array of nutritional supplements available?

--Medications moving to over-the-counter status. Gradually, more and more medications are trickling into availability for you to obtain without a doctor's prescription.

--What I call "retail imaging", i.e. screening ultrasound, heart scans, full body scans, etc. that are available in most states without a doctor's order.

--The Internet. The rapidity and depth of information available on the Internet today is mind-boggling. It will fuel the self-empowerment movement by providing sophisticated information to the health care consumer previously available only through your physician.

--High-deductible health insurance plans. If health care consumers will bear more and more of the costs of health care, they will seize greater responsibility for early identification and prevention to minimize long-term costs.

There are more. But the movement is powerful and broad--and unstoppable. Let the establishment with vested interests in preserving the status quo fuss and complain, just like horse and buggy manufacturers did in the early 1900's when the autmobile came along.

Copyright © 2026 Cureality.com

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.

Copyright © 2026 Cureality.com