Here's another great clip from Tom Naughton's documentary, Fat Head, describing the colossal mistakes made in "official" dietary advice, starting with the blunders of Dr. Ancel Keyes :

I'd be crying if Tom Naughton didn't make me laugh so hard.

I just got back from Jimmy Moore's low-carb cruise to the Bahamas.

Among the many interesting people I met on the cruise was the creator of the documentary film, Fat Head, Tom Naughton.

Tom brings both creative insights into low-carbohydrate eating as well as humor. Low-carb eating can be a pretty contentious issue, but Tom made it fun. He will make you laugh about many of the odd notions we have about diet.

Among the best parts of Fat Head is Tom's portrayal of the effects of carbohydrates on insulin and fat metabolism:

Fat Head joins the ranks of films like Food, Inc, that make nutrition information entertaining. For anyone interested in a unvarnished look at diet, weight loss, along with a few laughs along the way, Tom Naughton's Fat Head is worth viewing.

You've heard it before: oatmeal reduces cholesterol. Oatmeal producers have obtained permission from the FDA to use a cholesterol-reducing claim. The American Heart Association provides a (paid) endorsement of Quaker Oats.

I've lost count of the times I've asked someone whether they ate a healthy breakfast and the answer was "Sure. I had oatmeal."

Is this true? Is oatmeal heart healthy because it reduces LDL cholesterol?

I don't think so. Try this: Have a serving of slow-cooked (e.g., steel-cut, Irish, etc.) oatmeal. Most people will consume oatmeal with skim or 1% milk and some dried or fresh fruit. Wait an hour, then check your blood sugar.

If you are not diabetic and have a fasting blood sugar in the "normal" range (<100 mg/dl), you will typically have a 1-hour blood glucose of 150-180 mg/dl--very high. If you have mildly increased fasting blood sugars between 100 and 126 mg/dl, postprandial (after-eating) blood sugars will easily exceed 180 mg/dl. If you have diabetes, hold onto your hat because, even if you take medications, blood sugar one hour after oatmeal will usually be between 200 and 300 mg/dl.

This is because oatmeal is converted rapidly to sugar, and a lot of it. Even if you were to repeat the experiment with no dried or fresh fruit, you will still witness high blood sugars in these ranges. Do like some people and pile on the raisins, dried cranberries, or brown sugar, and you will see blood sugars go even higher.

Blood sugars this high, experienced repetitively, will damage the delicate insulin-producing beta cells of your pancreas (glucose toxicity). It also glycates proteins of the eyes and vascular walls. The blood glucose effects of oatmeal really don't differ much from a large Snickers bar or bowl of jelly beans.

If you are like most people, you too will show high blood sugars after oatmeal. It's easy to find out . . . check your postprandial blood sugar.

In past, I recommended oat products, specifically oat bran, to reduce LDL, especially small LDL. I've changed my mind: I now no longer recommend any oat product due to its blood sugar-increasing effects.

Better choices: eggs, ground flaxseed as a hot cereal, cheese (the one dairy product that does not excessively trigger insulin), raw nuts, salads, leftovers from last evening's dinner.

Could mustard--yes, the yellow condiment you smear on hot dogs--be a super heart healthy food in disguise?

Consider that mustard contains:

Vinegar

Turmeric

No appreciable sugar

The vinegar slows gastric emptying, resulting in slower absorption of any carbohydrates and a reduced glucose area-under-the-curve. Of the little fats contained (about 3 grams per 1/4 cup), most are desirable monounsaturates. Mustards are relatively rich in selenium, with 20 mcg per 1/4 cup, helpful for protection against cancer and thyroid disease, and magnesium, 31 mg per 1/4 cup.

Turmeric is added to most mustards. One of the constituents of turmeric, curcumin, the substance that confers the bright yellow color, has been a focus of interest for its anti-inflammatory effects. Curcumin has been documented to reduce activity of the inflammatory enzymes cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), lipoxygenase, and reduce activity of inflammatory signal molecules, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a), interleukin (IL)-1,2,6,8, and 12, and monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP). Curcumin also has been shown to reduce LDL oxidation, a potentially important step in atherosclerotic plaque formation. Turmeric is used as a tea by Okinawans. (Hmmmm . . . )

Turmeric content of mustard can vary, of course. Likewise, sugar content. Look for mustards that are not sweetened, so avoid honey mustard in particular. Look for hot, brown, horseradish, Dijon, etc. If there is a downside to mustard, it's sodium content, though the 709 mg per 1/4 cup should only be a problem for those who are sodium-sensitive (African Americans, in particular).

So perhaps mustard isn't exactly a super health food. But it may have some bona fide health effects and should be used generously especially if you are concerned about blood sugar and inflammatory phenomena.

There is no doubt that exercise yields benefits across a spectrum of health: reduced blood pressure, reduced inflammation, reduced blood coagulation, better weight control, stronger bones, less depression, reduced risk for heart attack.

Exercise also influences blood sugar. Diabetics understand this best: Exercise reduces blood sugar 20, 30, 50 or more milligrams. A starting blood sugar, for instance, of 160 mg/dl can be reduced to 80 mg/dl by jogging or riding a bicycle. (I recently had brunch at an Indian restaurant with my family. Blood sugar one-hour postprandial: 134 mg/dl. I was sleepy and foggy. I got on my stationary bike and pedalled at a moderate clip for 60 minutes. Blood sugar: 90 mg/dl.)

Could the reduction of blood sugar with exercise be THE reason that exercise and physical activity provide such substantial benefits?

Think about it. Reduced blood sugar:

1) Reduces risk for future cardiovascular events.
2) Reduces glycation of proteins, i.e., reduced glucose binding to proteins like the ones in artery walls and the lenses of your eyes.
3) Reduces blood coagulation
4) Reduces endothelial dysfunction (abnormal artery constriction that leads to atherosclerosis)

This might explain why it doesn't require high levels of aerobic activity to derive benefit from exercise, since even modest efforts (e.g., a 15-minute walk after eating) reduce blood sugar substantially.

The incredible 33-year, 18,000-participant Whitehall study tells us that a postprandial (after-eating) blood sugar of an impossibly-difficult 83 mg/dl is required to erase the excess cardiovascular risk of blood sugar. Could this simply be telling us that physical activity or exercise is required to suppress blood sugars to these low levels?

It makes me wonder if an index of the adequacy of exercise is your post-exercise blood glucose.

Question: What is the most effective tool available to help you lose weight?

A pedometer (walk 10,000 steps, etc.)?

A treadmill?

A bicycle?

No. None of the above.

The most important tool you can use to achieve weight loss is your glucose monitor:

Because different foods generate different blood sugar (glucose) responses, the timing of your blood sugar is an important factor to consider.

This question has come up a number of times. Commenters have asked whether the one-hour postprandial glucose is timed with the start of the meal or the conclusion of the meal.

In my view, if we simply ignored all aspects of meal composition, then blood glucose should be obtained one hour after the conclusion of a meal. This is because most mixed meals (i.e., mixed in composition among proteins, fats, and carbohydrates) yield peak blood glucose levels at 60-90 minutes after consumption. Timing blood glucose to 60 minutes after the conclusion of a meal puts the sample right about at the peak.

But this is an oversimplification. For instance, here is the blood glucose behavior after so-called "complex" carbohydrates wheat bread, rye bread, rye made with beta glucan, and whole wheat pasta (50 grams carbohydrates each) in slender, healthy volunteers, mean age 29 years:

From Juntunen et al 2002

Note that blood glucose peaks at 35 minutes postprandial. (To convert glucose in mmol/L to mg/dl, multiple by 18. Thus, whole wheat bread increased blood glucose from 94 mg/dl to 122 mg/dl. Also note the lower peak glucose for pasta, but sustained higher glucose levels hours later.)

In another study, older (mean age 64 years), overweight (BMI 27.9) females with diabetes were given 50 grams carbohydrate, 50 grams carbohydrate with olive oil, or 50 grams carbohydrate with butter:

From Thomsen et al 2003. Control meal of soup plus 50 g carbohydrates ( {blacktriangledown}

), the control meal plus 80 g olive oil ( {circ}

), and the control meal plus 100 g butter (•).

In this experience, note that postprandial glucose peaks 60-120 minutes after the meals (consumed within 10 minutes), delayed more when either oil is included. Blood glucose started at 144 mg/dl and peaked as high as 230 mg/dl with carbohydrates only; peaks were reduced (along with AUC) when oil was included. (Note the differential effect, olive oil vs. butter.)

These two sets of observations give you a range of blood glucose behavior. One side lesson: Carbohydrates should never consumed by themselves, else you will pay with a high blood sugar (not to mention the hypoglycemic response later for many).

You non-diabetics who check your postprandial blood sugars already know: There are hidden sources of sugar in so many foods.

By now, everybody should know that foods like breakfast cereals, breads, bagels, pretzels, and crackers cause blood sugar to skyrocket after you eat them. But sometimes you eat something you thought was safe only to find you're showing blood sugars of 120, 130, 150+ mg/dl.

Where can you find such "stealth" sources of sugars that can screw up your postprandial blood sugars, small LDL, inflammation, blood pressure, and cause you to grow visceral fat? Here's a few:

Balsamic vinaigrette
Many commercially-prepared balsamic vinaigrettes, especially the "light" varieties, have 3 or more grams carbohydrates per tablespoon. Generous use of a sugar-added vinaigrette can therefore provide 12+ grams carbs. (Some, like Emeril's and Wish Bone, also contain high-fructose corn syrup.)

Hamburgers
I learned this lesson the hard way by taking my blood sugar after having a hamburger, turkey burger, or vegetarian burger (without bun): blood sugar would go way up. The effect is due to bread crumbs added to the meat or soy.

Tomato soup
If it were just tomatoes, it would still be somewhat high in sugars. But commercially-prepared tomato soup often contains added high-fructose corn syrup, sucrose, and wheat flour, bringing sugar totals to 12 to 20+ grams per half-cup. A typical 2-cup bowl of tomato soup can have upwards of 80 grams of sugar.

Granola
Sure, granola contains a lot of fiber. But most granolas come packed with sugars in various forms. One cup of Kellogg's Low-fat Granola with Raisins contains an incredible 72 grams (net) carbohydrates, of which 25 grams are sugar.

Given modern appetites and serving sizes, you can see that it is very easy to get carried away and, before you know it, get exposed to extraordinary amounts of sugar and carbohydrates eating foods you thought were healthy.

And don't be fooled by claims of "natural" sugar. Sugar is sugar--Just check your blood sugar and you'll see. So raw cane sugar, beet sugar, and brown sugar have the same impact as white table sugar. Honey, maple syrup, and agave? They're worse (due to fructose).

What should your blood sugar (glucose) be after eating?

Take a look at the data from the Whitehall study reported in 2006. The Whitehall Study stands apart from other studies in that it was very large (over 18,000 participants) who were observed for an unusually long time (33 years). All participants were administered a 50 gram glucose "challenge" at the start with glucose levels checked after the glucose challenge.

Here's what they found:

From Brunner et al 2006.

If you would like to become diabetic in as short a time as possible, or if you have someone you don't like--ex-spouse, nasty neighbor, cranky mother-in-law--whose health you'd like to booby trap, then here's an easy-to-follow 5-step plan to make you or your target diabetic.

1) Cut your fat and eat healthy, whole grains--Yes, reduce satiety-inducing foods and replace the calories with appetite-increasing foods, such as whole grain bread, that skyrocket blood sugar higher than a candy bar.

2) Consume one or more servings of juice or soda per day--The fructose from the sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup will grow visceral fat and cultivate resistance to insulin.

3) Follow the Institute of Medicine's advice on vitamin D--Take no more than 600 units vitamin D per day. This will allow abnormal levels of insulin resistance to persist, driving up blood sugar, grow visceral fat, and allow abnormal inflammatory phenomena to persist.

4) Have a bowl of oatmeal or oat cereal every morning--Because oat products skyrocket blood sugar, the repeated high sugars will damage the pancreatic beta cells ("glucose toxicity"), eventually impairing pancreatic insulin production. (Entice your target even further: "Would you like a little honey with your oatmeal?") To make your diabetes-creating breakfast concoction even more effective, make the oatmeal using bottled water. Many popular bottled waters, like Coca Cola's Dasani or Pepsi's Aquafina, are filtered waters. This means they are devoid of magnesium, a mineral important for regulating insulin responses.

5) Take a diuretic (like hydrochlorothiazide, or HCTZ) or beta blocker (like metoprolol or atenolol) for blood pressure--Likelihood of diabetes increases 30% with these common blood pressure agents.

There you have it! Perhaps we should assemble a convenient do-it-yourself-at-home diabetes kit to help, complete with several servings of whole grain bread, a big bottle of cranberry juice, some 600 unit vitamin D tablets, a container of Irish oatmeal, and some nice bottled water.

Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g

Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons

Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient

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

A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

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

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

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

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

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

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

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

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The media frenzy

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

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

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

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

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

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

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

Non-CT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

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

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

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

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

--No lipoprotein(a)

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

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

I therefore asked Matt to:

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

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

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

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

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

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

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

Heart Scan Blog reader, Roger, described his near-miss experience with CT coronary angiograms.

Hoping to obtain just a simple CT heart scan, he was bullied to get a CT coronary angiogram instead. Roger held strong and just asked for the test that we all should be having, a CT heart scan.

I posted yesterday that I was about to have my first CT heart scan...well, it was an interesting experience for reasons I coudn't possibly have anticipated. Dr. Davis has commented in the past on the confusion in the media about the difference between a CT calcium score scan, and a CT angiography, the latter requiring a far higher dose of radiation. I assumed this was a source of confusion only among patients and lay folks, but, lo and behold, I discovered today that doctors--or at least their helpers--can be just as confused.

Here's my story:

After checking in, I asked the receptionist to see if she had any information on whether my medical insurance was covering the scan. She called someone, and I heard her say over the phone, "He's here for a CT angiogram." At that point my ears perked up. I explained I wasn't here for a CT angiogram, only a regular CT scan. "Well, do you want to call your doctor and talk about this?" she asked. No, I said, I would like to ask one of their folks to verify exactly what test my doctor had ordered. As luck would have it, the technician was walking by at that point. "Is this a CT angiogram?" the receptionist asked. "No, it's just a CT calcium score scan" was the reply. But apparently the technician had been unclear herself, and had called my doctor just to verify. In other words, the "default" procedure they were accustomed to doing at this august Houston vascular clinic was a CT angiogram.

In fact, my appointment was even listed on their calendar as a "CT angiogram." For all I know, my insurance will be billed for the same. Later, during the procedure, the technician acted surprised I wasn't doing the "full test." I explained I had minimal risk factors (actually only one, an HDL of 34 a couple of years ago, which has since been raised to 50 partly as a result of taking advice from this site), but that my doctor was progressive (he is an MD for the Houston Astros) and thought it was a good idea since there is heart disease in my immediate family. My doctor did indeed prescribe only a CT calcium score scan, but it seems to have been an order that this clinic, at least, wasn't all that used to seeing.

So, I guess the message is: we have a lot of educating to do. Had I not been a faithful reader of these pages, I certainly wouldn't have known what kind of test I was about to get, or what questions to ask!

As for the heart scan itself, a piece of cake. If you can hold your breath, you can take this test. Just be sure it is the right one!

Why the "push" towards CT coronary angiograms and not "just" a CT heart scan? Well, I know it's shocking but it's . . . money!

CT coronary angiograms yield around $1800-$4000 per test. CT heart scans yield somewhere around $200. Though the scan center support staff might not care too much about the money themselves, their administrators likely make the cost distinctions clear to them.

Another reason: Most scan center staff, ironically, don't understand what a heart scan means, nor do they understand how it might serve to launch a program of prevention. They do understand that severe blockage by CT angiogram "needs" to be stented or bypassed. So they push patients towards things they understand.

Nobody makes money from CT heart scans, just as nobody makes money from a mammogram. Heart scans also don't lead to heroic, "lifesaving" procedures. They just lead to this sleepy, unexciting, inexpensive thing called prevention.

The June 20-21, 2009 Wall Street Journal Weekend Journal featured a provocative front page article written by physician, Dr. Abraham Verghese:

The Myth of Prevention

While eloquently written, I took issue with a few crucial points. Here is the letter I sent to the Editor at Wall Street Journal:

Dear Wall Street Journal Editor,

Re: Dr. Abraham Verghese’s article, The Myth of Prevention in the June 20-21, 2009 Weekend Journal.

I believe a more suitable title for Dr. Verghese’s article would be: “The Myth of What Passes as Prevention.”

As a practicing cardiologist, I, too, have witnessed firsthand the systemic “corruption” described by Dr. Verghese, the doing things “to” people rather than “for” them. Heart care, in particular, is rife with this form of profit-driven health delivery.

There is a fundamental flaw in Dr. Verghese’s otherwise admirable analysis: He assumes that what is called “prevention” in mainstream medicine is truly preventive.

Dr. Verghese makes issue of the apparent minor differences between preventing a condition and just allowing a condition to run its course. Prostate cancer screening is one example: Men subjected to repeated screenings have little length-of-life advantage over men who just allow their prostate to suffer the expected course of disease.

What if, instead, “prevention” as practiced today is nothing more than a solution that has been adopted in mainstream practice to suit yet another doing “to” strategy than doing “for”? In the prostate cancer example, PSA and prostate exam screenings often serve as little more than a means of harvesting procedures for the local urologist.

That’s not prevention. It is a prototypical example of “prevention” being subverted into the cause of revenue-generating procedures.

I submit that Dr. Verghese has fallen victim to the very same system he criticizes. His views have unwittingly been corrupted by the corrupt profit-driven system he describes.

What if, instead, prevention were just that: prevention or elimination of the condition. What if “prevention” of prostate cancer eliminated prostate cancer? What if heart disease “prevention” prevented all heart disease? What if this all proceeded without regard for profit or revenue-generating procedures, but just on results?

Dr. Verghese specifically targets heart scans or coronary calcium scoring, a test he likens to “miracle glow-in-the-dark minnow lures,” calling them “moneymakers.” Yes, when subverted into a corrupt algorithm of stress test, heart catheterization, stent, or bypass, heart scans are indeed a test used wrongly to “prevent” heart disease.

But what if the risk insights provided by heart scans prompt the start of a benign yet effective “prevention” program that inexpensively, safely, and assuredly prevents--in the true sense of the word--or eliminates heart disease? Then I believe the differences in mortality, quality of life, and costs would be substantial. Such strategies exist, yet do not necessarily include prescription drugs and certainly do not include the aftermath of heart catheterization and bypass surgery. Yet such programs fail to seize the limelight of media attention with no new high-tech lifesaving headline nor a big marketing budget to broadcast its message.

The problem in medicine is not prevention and its failure to yield cost- and life-saving results. It is the pervasively profit-driven mindset that keeps true preventive strategies from entering mainstream conversation. It is a repeat of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis’ late 19th-century pleads for physicians to wash their hands before delivering babies to reduce puerperal sepsis, ignominious advice that earned him life and death in an asylum. We are essentially continuing to deliver children with unwashed hands because there is no revenue-generating procedure to clean them.

No, Dr. Verghese, the economic and medical failings of preventive strategies are not at fault. The failure of the medical system, in which everyone is bent on seizing a piece of the financial action for himself, has resulted in the failure to support the propagation of true preventive strategies that could genuinely save money and lives.

President Obama’s goal of cultivating preventive practices in medicine can work, but only if the profit-motive for “prevention” does not serve as the primary determinant of practice. Results-driven practices that are applied without regard to profit have the potential to yield the sorts of cost-saving and life-saving results that can reduce healthcare costs.

William Davis, MD
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Medical Director, The Track Your Plaque Program (www.cureality.com)
Blog: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com

The efforts of Texas House of Representatives Rep. Rene Oliveira and the SHAPE Guidelines committee have paid off: The Texas legislature passed a bill that requires health insurers to cover CT heart scans.

(NOTE: Don't make the same mistake that the media often makes and confuse CT heart scans with CT coronary angiography: two different tests, two different results, two different levels of radiation exposure. The difference is discussed here.)

Track Your Plaque previously reported the release of the SHAPE Guidelines, an ambitious effort to open CT heart scanning to people who would benefit from a simple screening test for coronary disease. Rep. Rene Oliveira initially introduced the bill in 2006, after having a heart scan uncovered extensive coronary plaque that resulted in coronary bypass surgery.

The bill requires that health-benefit providers cover the cost of CT heart scans (and carotid ultrasound) in men between the ages of 45-76, women 55-76, as well as anyone with diabetes or at "intermediate-risk" or higher for coronary disease by Framingham risk score.

The usual panel of cardiology knuckleheads stepped to the media podium, expressing their incredulity that something as "unvalidated" as heart scans could gain the backing of legislative mandate. Heartwire carried this comment:

"Contacted by heartwire, Dr Amit Khera (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas) confirmed there are still no comprehensive, adequately powered studies showing that these screening tests lead to better outcomes. In a phone interview, Khera said he has major concerns about how physicians will use these tests, particularly primary-care physicians. "I gave a talk last week to primary-care doctors, and there were probably 250 people in the room, and when I asked how many people had ordered a calcium scan, just one person raised a hand. . . . Most people don't even know what to do with the Framingham risk score, so they're going to follow an algorithm that they don't know how to follow to order a test result that they don't know what to do with."

It's the same criticisms hurled at heart scans over the years despite literally thousands of studies validating their application.

Studies have conclusively shown that:

--Coronary calcium scores generated by a CT heart scan outperform any other risk measure for coronary disease, including LDL cholesterol, c-reactive protein, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure.
--Coronary calcium scores yield a graded, trackable index of coronary risk. Scores that increase correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular events; scores that remain unchanged correlate with much reduced risk.
--A coronary calcium score of zero--no detectable calcium--correlates with extremely low 5-year risk for cardiovascular events.
--Coronary calcium scores correlate with other measures of coronary disease. Heart scans correlate with coronary angiography, quantitative coronary angiography, carotid ultrasound (intimal-medial thickness and plaque severity), ankle-brachial index, and stress tests, including radionuclide (nuclear) perfusion imaging.

The reluctance of my colleagues to embrace heart scans stems from two issues, for the most part:

1) No study has yet been performed showing that knowing what the score is vs. not knowing what the score is changes prognosis. That's true. But it is also true of the great majority of practices in medicine. While many wrongs don't make a right, the miserable and widespread failure of other coronary risk measures, like LDL cholesterol or c-reactive protein, to readily and reliably detect hidden coronary disease creates a gaping void for improved efforts at early detection. If your LDL cholesterol is 140 mg/dl, do you or don't you have coronary disease? If your doctor's response is "Just take a statin drug anyway" you've been done a great disservice. (If and when this sort of study gets done, its huge cost--outcome studies have to be large and last many years--it will likely be a statin study. It is unlikely it will include such Track Your Plaque strategies that help reduce heart scan scores, like vitamin D and correction of small LDL particles.)

2) Fears over overuse of hospital procedures triggered by heart scans. This is a legitimate concern--if the information provided by a heart scan is misused. Heart scans should never--NEVER--lead directly to heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery. Heart scans do not change the indications for performing revascularization (angioplasty, stents, bypass). Just because 20% of my cardiology colleagues are more concerned with profit rather than patient welfare does not invalidate the value of the test. Just because the mechanic at the local garage gouged you by replacing a carburetor for $800 when all you need was a new spark plug does not mean that we should outlaw all auto mechanics. Abuse is the fault of the abuser, not of the tool used to exercise the abuse.

All in all, while I am not a fan of legislating behavior in healthcare, the blatant and extreme ignorance of this simple tool for uncovering hidden heart disease makes the Texas action a huge success for heart disease prevention. I hope that this success will raise awareness, not just in Texas, but in other states and cities in which similar systemic neglect is the rule.

Remember: CT heart scans are tools for prevention, not to uncover "need" for procedures. They serve as a starting point to decide whether or not an intensive program of prevention is in order, and I don't mean statin vs. no statin.

Though not a multi-million dollar statin drug study, I have NEVER seen a heart attack or "need" for procedure in any person who has stopped progression or reduced their heart scan score. A small cohort from my practice was reported:

Effect of a Combined Therapeutic Approach of Intensive Lipid Management, Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation, and Increased Serum 25 (OH) Vitamin D on Coronary Calcium Scores in Asymptomatic Adults.

Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M.

The impact of intensive lipid management, omega-3 fatty acid, and vitamin D3 supplementation on atherosclerotic plaque was assessed through serial computed tomography coronary calcium scoring (CCS). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with statin therapy has not been shown to reduce or slow progression of serial CCS in several recent studies, casting doubt on the usefulness of this approach for tracking atherosclerotic progression. In an open-label study, 45 male and female subjects with CCS of >/= 50 without symptoms of heart disease were treated with statin therapy, niacin, and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides /=60 mg/dL; and vitamin D3 supplementation to achieve serum levels of >/=50 ng/mL 25(OH) vitamin D, in addition to diet advice. Lipid profiles of subjects were significantly changed as follows: total cholesterol -24%, low-density lipoprotein -41%; triglycerides -42%, high-density lipoprotein +19%, and mean serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels +83%. After a mean of 18 months, 20 subjects experienced decrease in CCS with mean change of -14.5% (range 0% to -64%); 22 subjects experienced no change or slow annual rate of CCS increase of +12% (range 1%-29%). Only 3 subjects experienced annual CCS progression exceeding 29% (44%-71%). Despite wide variation in response, substantial reduction of CCS was achieved in 44% of subjects and slowed plaque growth in 49% of the subjects applying a broad treatment program.

Take a look at the results from the Heart Scan Blog's most recent reader poll (399 respondents):

How many hours do you sleep per night (on average)?

9 or more hours per night
15 (3.7%)

8-9 hours per night
72 (18%)

7-8 hours per night
152 (38.1%)

6-7 hours per night
111 (27.8%)

5-6 hours per night
38 (9.5%)

Less than 5 hours per night
11 (2.8%)

Like many issues in health, too much or too little of a good thing can present undesirable consequences.

Too much sleep: While psychologists and sleep researchers advise us that at least 9 hours are required to fully eliminate sleep "debt" and achieve optimal vigilance and mental performance, epidemiologic studies have shown increased mortality with this quantity of sleep.

Too little sleep: Getting less than 7 hours habituallly increases blood sugar, appetite, inflammatory measures, and encourages weight gain. Mortality is also increased, just as with sleeping too much. It is also associated with increased likelihood of a positive heart scan score.

7-8 hours per night from a health viewpoint is that Goldlilocks "just right" value: just enough to not erode mental performance substantially, but not so little that inflammatory, insulin-disrupting, and appetite-increasing effects develop.

Of our 399 respondents in the poll, 56.1% (38% + 18%) slept what appears to be an optimal amount for health. While only 3.7% slept too much (9 hours or more), the remaining 40.1% slept too little.

Our informal poll confirms what most of us observe in everyday life: The majority of people shortchange sleep in order to meet the demands of their high-pressure, squeeze-as-much-as-possible-into-every-day lives. But not paying off your sleep "debt" is like not paying the mortgage for a couple of months. You wouldn't expect your friendly neighborhood bank to say, "Oh, you forgot to pay your mortgage? Forget about it. Just pay next month's." Sure, fat chance. But if you don't pay off your sleep "debt," you will pay it back with health.

Anonymous
1/14/2011 12:26:58 PM |

When someone dies suspiciously, and someone else benefits, (e.g. big insurance payoff) that "someone" is the first suspect.
But not if you've been known to promote a heart healthy diet for the deceased...

Jeanne

Anonymous
1/14/2011 12:44:34 PM |

You've recommended oat bran in the past for other reasons. Is cooked oat bran a suitable breakfast food?

Matt Stone
1/14/2011 1:16:59 PM |

This list is way off. To become a type 2 the most important things that you do are:

1) Get insufficient sleep
2) Subject yourself to maximal levels of stress
3) Do insane amounts of endurance exercise punctuated by long periods of total sedantarism
4) Eat a low-carb diet punctuated by repeated bouts of carbohydrate bingeing, or a low-fat diet punctuated by bouts of high-fat bingeing
5) And most importantly, cycle your weight up and down by restricting calories followed by bingeing followed by restricting calories followed by bingeing

Those are the most effective ways to increase visceral fat, although the soda does help. You got that one right at least. Off to eat oatmeal for breakfast and have my blood glucose spike all the way to a ghastly 80 mg/dl afterward.

Anonymous
1/14/2011 1:55:46 PM |

Dasani has minerals added back in.

allison
1/14/2011 3:23:27 PM |

I hope the Good Doctor is including saturated fat in his tongue-in-cheek recommendation.

Dream_Puppy
1/14/2011 4:37:37 PM |

I have eat low carb, am thin, lift weights and do HIIT but have high blood pressure due to genetics (140/100)- I take 12mg of atenolol a day....is there anything else you would recommend to do instead? I have to take something : /

Eric
1/14/2011 5:45:17 PM |

I've been following Dr. Davis' advise to improve heart health as I'm 34 years old and dealing with calcification of my aorta and chronic hypertension.

In 2 weeks without grain and oatmeal and taking D3+K2 w/ Fish Oil and my BP has been normal 128/54 and I've already lost 4lbs.

Some of us follow the advise to save our lives and not over eat the oatmeal to get the pretty beach muscles.

Thanks Dr. Davis

vic
1/14/2011 5:51:29 PM |

New to the blog.. the only thing that  I'm a bit surprised about is the no grain thing.

Aren't whole grains good for insoluble fiber and don't raise your blood sugar like processed (white) flour?   I suppose if you are gluten sensitive you should avoid wheat, but for blood sugar?

Similarly, doesn't oatmeals' soluble fiber slow down the insulin spike?

For about 7 years I've been eating the same wheat/oatmeal cereal that has 7g of sugar, 6g of insoluble fiber, and 6g of soluble fiber  (12g of dietary fiber).    I work at a desk so I don't get much (if any) exercise.

I don't take supplements (vit. d or otherwise) and drink a soda or two occasionally.

I could probably stand to lose a few pounds but I have normal blood sugar levels.

Why am I not diabetic if I'm following the 5 easy steps?

Nigel Kinbrum
1/14/2011 6:02:51 PM |

vic said...
"New to the blog.." Try reading the blog before posting.

"Why am I not diabetic if I'm following the 5 easy steps?" Luck? Genes? Who knows?

Eric
1/14/2011 6:10:35 PM |

Also, Dr. Davis could you expound upon how taking HCTZ and Metropolol affects blood sugar- I currently take both of these to treat (not well) my hypertension?

Thanks again!

Eric

revelo
1/14/2011 6:24:47 PM |

I have a hard time accepting this theory of the pancreas beta cells "wearing out" like the tires on a car because they are asked to produce a little insulin now and then. The problem, IMO, is not asking the pancreas to do what it is designed to do (produce insulin) but rather insulin resistance in the muscles, and that comes from being obese and not exercising. If you maintain a proper weight and get enough exercise to maintain your insulin sensitivity, you shouldn't develop insulin resistance, which means you can eat carbs without problems. When you eat carbs, blood sugar will begin to rise, the pancreas will produce a small amount of insulin, this small amount of insulin will push the blood sugar into the muscles, and blood sugar will stop rising.

People have been eating wheat and other grains and living long healthy lives, without diabetes, in much of the world. The key is that they don't overeat and they get exercise, and hence they don't develop insulin resistance. The traditional people of Sardinia and Crete, for example, were extraordinarily healthy and long-lived, despite eating a huge amount of wheat products. By contrast, modern Mediterranean peoples are developing diabetes at a phenomenal rate, due to overeating and insufficient exercise.

Peter
1/14/2011 7:01:49 PM |

Re: oat bran question. I used to eat tons of oat bran back when Dr. Davis said it was the best cholesterol lower around. Then I became anemic. Then I read somehere that oat bran blocks iron absorption, so I quit the oat bran, and the anemia went away immediately. Of course, that might not have been why, you never know.

Re: the Institute of Medicine didn't say "limit yourself to 600 iu of Vitamin D", that was a minimum not a maximum.

Onschedule
1/14/2011 8:27:51 PM |

@Peter re Institute of Medicine Vitamin D guidelines

The chart on the Institute of Medicine's website lists 600 IU/day as the "Recommended Dietary Allowance" and 4000 IU/day as the "Upper Level Intake" for almost all age categories 9 years old and older.

The way I read this, 600 IU/day is their recommendation, and 4000 IU/day is their upper limit caution. As such, I think Dr. Davis's characterization of 600 IU/day as the Institute of Medicine's recommendation is accurate. While the IoM is not saying "don't intake more than 600 IU/day," they are implying that their 600 IU dietary recommendation is adequate.

David
1/14/2011 10:20:22 PM |

@Eric- These antihypertensive drugs impair glucose metabolism. See this study here: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/31/5/982.long

c
1/15/2011 4:00:42 AM |

Matt Stone....let see some proof of your 80mg/dl postprandial oatmeal reading....I seriously doubt it.

LynP
1/15/2011 4:32:12 AM |

I'm obese & still losing (low carb), take Maxzide for lower leg edema. Every time I stop taking it, I gain 2-3#s (yeah fluid) and get short of breath. With apnea, I don't need anything else making me anxious about breathing. Any other diuretics reduce lower leg edema and don't mess with glucose control? I drink low-sodium V8 & eat a lot of parsley to keep my potassium levels in the normal range. Suggestions? I exercise, take mag citrate, take 15,000 IU D3/day to keep levels 60+, 1500 mg metformin XR/day, 88 mg levothyroxin.

revelo
1/15/2011 5:49:03 AM |

Per Dr Davis recommendation to test blood sugar (I have no reason to believe I'm diabetic, but I am interested in longevity so I'm following many of his recommendations), I ordered and today received a blood glucose monitoring system. Included in the package was a free sample of a Slim-Fast bar, whose ingredients are as follows:

sugar, corn syrup, dry roasted peanuts, milk chocolate coating (sugar, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil ...

Perfect diet for a diabetic, eh?

Anton
1/15/2011 1:56:09 PM |

Suggesting we stay away from wheat and other cereals is interesting, and following such a diet would certainly a radical departure for a species that has had bread and other grain products as a dietary staple for over 3,000 years.

Dr. William Davis
1/15/2011 3:06:27 PM |

Several commenters--

Diuretics and beta blockers (metoprolol, atenolol, etc.) can be replaced in many people by other agents that do not provoke diabetes. However, some people do indeed require these agents for specific problems, e.g., water retention, atrial fibrillation, other abnormal rhythm issues.

Elimination of wheat on the background of a low-carbohydrate diet is, however, a marvelously effective way to reduce BP (though it requires many months to work).

PaleoMom
1/15/2011 6:57:33 PM |

@Anton: Mankind, at least SOME of it, has eaten grains for centuries BUT not nearly in the quantity we eat it in the Western world. When baked into breads, wheat was frequently soaked or sprouted, either on purpose or incidentally through more time in the fields before silage or drier silage, which deactivates the phytates in grains and seeds (and nuts) and makes them more digestible. Bread dough was raised more slowly before fast-acting yeast, giving the moisture in the dough time to do the same with the wheat flour; sourdough serves a similar function today. In some parts of the world today we still see grains treated in what we would consider primitive ways, like soaking and fermenting grains and treating corn with lime - pellagra, anyone? - while we Westerners eat copious amounts of industrially processed grain products without a second thought. This is not the way early agrarian man consumed grains, and not the way most humans did until the last few decades in our evolution.

What do you suppose man primarily subsisted on for the millennia (not centuries, but millennia!) before becoming agrarian and growing grains? Yep - meat, vegetables, greens, nuts, seeds, and fruits. Maybe the odd serving of grain here and there if enough could be gathered to be mealworthy. Oh, and no dairy, either. It might be suggested that grains themselves are the "radical departure" from a much longer evolutionary background of a very different diet for mankind.

I would like to know more about the sugar-spiking effect of oats compared to other grains. We do sometimes have them soaked and sprouted first, as porridge or in bread or the odd pancakes, but I've seen my daughter's behavior go crazy on oats before we knew about that practice and that part of this entry rang a bell there.

Might-o'chondri-AL
1/15/2011 7:26:24 PM |

Oats were a boon crop for the rural Scottish and Irish. The people relished warm belly food in the morning.

Then everybody got up and went to perform physical work/chores. They used the glucose for available energy until they were fortunate enough to eat again.

Moderns get up from the table and lead sedentary lives. Athletes training hard can still get up from breakfast and "feel their oats".

Anonymous
1/15/2011 11:16:03 PM |

What about oats groats?

Helen
1/16/2011 12:30:37 AM |

I wrote a long response to this yesterday that didn't go through the system.  Perhaps I'll try again tomorrow.  For now, suffice it to say that I am mildly diabetic and have found, through trial and error, that oatmeal at breakfast does NOT spike my blood sugar.  At one hour it may be 110-135, and at two hours I've had readings from 75 to 100.  (I take no meds.) It does not give me higher readings as the day wears on, either.  This is if I eat very little fat (about 8 grams total) as part of my breakfast.

After 9 months on a low-carb (about 60 carbs a day, usually) diet, following my diagnosis in May, I found, thanks to dietary changes to address gallbladder trouble, that I am a diabetic whose blood sugars are messed up by fat, not carbs.

I respect Dr. Davis' work, but diabetes - high blood glucose and poor glycemic control - is more than one disease.  You can come to the same "diagnosis" through different genetic routes.  The part of your system that is malfunctioning may be very different from the part malfunctioning in the person sitting next to you at the endocrinologist's.  Your best bet is to check your meter after meals.  Many diabetics cannot deal with carbs.  Some cannot deal with fat.

@ Concerns about anemia: phytic acid in oatmeal, which blocks mineral absorption, is a real concern.  I soak mine overnight with yogurt and buckwheat flour to break down the phytic acid.  I eat gluten-free oatmeal, as I have celiac disease.

@ Wearing out the pancreas:  The reality is that chronic high blood sugars (not carbs per se - you have to be hampered in your ability to deal with an influx of glucose to begin with) can and do destroy insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas, creating a terrible feedback loop and diabetic progression.  People susceptible to diabetes generally have less capacity to produce more and/or larger beta cells in response to greater insulin demands.  This is why most obese people, while not healthy, actually do not develop diabetes, while others can become diabetic when slim.

Sandy
1/16/2011 5:19:13 AM |

Hi @PaleoMom, in reference to your daughter's behavior after eating the occasional oats, I can totally relate. I have experienced severe brain fog, ADD-like symptoms, and lethargy whenever I've eaten any high carb meal-whether it's whole grain or not.

Off the top of my head, I'd suspect 2 things:

1. Does your brand of oats specifically say "gluten free?" There is usually cross-contamination with wheat via containers and equipment. This is where I would look first. Bob's Red Mill has Gluten Free oats.

2. It is also possible that your daughter could be particularly sensitive to the effects of carbs. Try adding butter, cream, coconut milk, or some other fat to the oatmeal (+ a dash of cinnamon).

Hope this helps!

Anonymous
1/17/2011 6:19:43 PM |

I'd certainly like to read a response to Helen's post. I've never heard of fat driving up BG levels unless it was consumed with plenty of carbs. Helen, can you give personal/specific examples?

Anonymous
1/18/2011 4:45:55 AM |

Here's a 51-year-old gal who's lost 90 lbs over a 3 year period on a moderate low-carb diet. Her family history is full of diabetes and heart disease.

She has never been able to control her weight by eating carb-rich low-fat diets.

Ok, maybe some people can do fine on high-carb diets, but not everyone can, that's for sure.

Helen
1/18/2011 2:34:32 PM |

Response to Anonymous, Part I:

Anonymous -

I'll give a snapshot here of my evidence, though I can't include everything.

One point:  It's not the fat that drives up my glucose per se (although I believe it drives up my fasting glucose).  It's that fat impairs my ability either secrete insulin or for my cells to accept glucose, or both.

So carbs in the presence of a high-fat diet spike me more, *even small amounts of carbs.*

First example:  When I had gestational diabetes three years ago, toward the end of my pregnancy, there was a possibility I was developing intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy.  I adopted a low-fat diet, which is thought to help mitigate the risks.  I was on insulin and checking my blood sugar about eight times a day.  I found my insulin requirements over the last several weeks of my pregnancy plummeting, until I required none on the day I delivered.

Although I had had that experience, when I was diagnosed with diabetes last spring, I discounted that and adopted a low-carb diet.  I saw no improvements in my glucose control.  From May to November, I saw my A1C drop from only 6.4 to 6.0, despite increased exercise, a 25-pound weight loss (I'd been only 10 pounds over my ideal weight range at diagnosis), and watching carbs very carefully.  In contrast, my father-in-law saw a drop in his A1C from 11 to 5.7 basically just taking Metformin!  (I think he's particularly lucky.)  Metformin didn't work for me.

Second example:  I have a log of a day on which I'd had a fasting glucose of 126, had a breakfast of cottage cheese with olive oil, consuming about 7 g carbs total, and ended up with my glucose spiking to 183 at 1/2 hour, with it coming down to 148 at one hour and 122 at two.

Helen
1/18/2011 2:35:18 PM |

Response to Anonymous, Part II:

In the interest of full disclosure, I found something similar happened yesterday, when I checked my glucose a little earlier than at one hour.  It went up to about 183, but then came down to 110 by 90 minutes or so post-prandial.  But I'd eaten at least 60 grams of carbohydrates.

I think that my glucose may be spiking higher at 30 minutes, but is pretty darn good at 1 hour pp, whether I'm on a low-fat diet or a low-carb diet.  The difference may be that it comes down faster and goes and stays lower on low-fat.  For a few days I was on an almost no-fat diet (though I heard that was actually bad for my gallbladder and stopped).  I had trouble keeping my blood glucose UP.  That's when I saw two-hour readings of 75 after a hearty bowl of oatmeal.  My readings aren't as wonderful now that I'm eating low-fat, not no fat, but they're still much better than high-fat.  I'm certain that on average, it's  at least a 10 point difference, possibly 15.  And I no longer have to live with the insanity of having ever more vanishing quantities of carbs spike me.

I'm not and have never been an anti-fat person.  When I was diagnosed I had been following a WAPF-type diet, was gluten-free and nearly grain-free, trending toward Paleo.  I'd been telling everyone I knew not to be afraid of fat, especially saturated fat.  The irony!

Jenny Ruhl at Blood Sugar 101/Diabetes Update has heard of others like me, though she says it's quite rare.

Peter at Hyperlipid hypothesized that there may be people like me, since there are some rodents that respond to fat this way.  As you probably know, he's pro-fat, but open-minded.

I do think I have something other than a "typical" Type II diabetes. I had a genetic test for monogenic glucokinase-deficient diabetes (MODY 2), but didn't have that.  My insurance is not going to pay for another specialized test.  I'm not sure what I'd ask to be tested for, anyway.

Dana Seilhan
1/22/2011 12:07:32 AM |

According to the Weston A. Price Foundation, oats are the grain with the highest phytate content.  Eating them without proper preparation not only spikes your blood sugar but chelates the minerals your body needs to stave off diabetes before you've even had a chance to absorb them.

If you follow the typical "healthy" advice to cut fats out of your diet, you'll eat the oatmeal made with water instead of milk or cream, exacerbating the problem.

Studiously ignoring Matt's claim about low-carb diets.  Eating low-carb for part of the year and higher-carb for part of the year would approximate the prehistoric European experience of having mostly meats available for food in the winter but lots of plant foods in the summer.  Amazing that type 2 diabetes in particular has never been a problem in Europe up to modern times, despite their long history (post-agricultural revolution) with famines.

Anyone following a low-fat diet is at increased risk of diabetes because they lack the fat-soluble vitamins and the minerals necessary to sustain endocrine health.  Why anyone still endorses low-fat as healthy for, well, anyone really is beyond my comprehension.  If you can tolerate a higher carb intake that's one thing (and if I were you I would favor starchy tubers over grains and beans), but no human being should have to do without dietary fat, and it's unhealthy to attempt it.  Even people who are missing their gallbladders or who suffer from gallstones can eat certain types of fats without too much worry.

Gallbladder Gone
1/22/2011 5:06:59 AM |

@Dana Seilhan:

I'm 51 years old, and I just had my gallbladder removed due to rather severe gallstone problems (I tried to avoid the surgery, but it became an emergency, and I had no choice).

Can you provide links to good materials on what kinds of fats to avoid, and why? My wife and I eat a moderate low-carb, high protein diet and don't shy away from fats.

I'm concerned about long-term health issues, but I've not found good educational materials on the what, how, and why of post-gallbladder removal fat-related health problems, short or long term.

Thanks for any guidance you can provide.

Helen
1/22/2011 3:09:04 PM |

@Dana -

Actually, without a gallbladder, most people don't have to follow a low-fat diet at all.  It's when you have gallstones or a sludgy gallbladder that fat can exacerbate symptoms.  This doesn't mean that it causes gallbladder trouble, but that it causes pain from stimulating gallbladder contractions, which it's supposed to do.  When you have sludge or gallstones in there, though, that can hurt.

I'm going to work at making sure I have the fat-soluble vitamins I need, and I'm pretty educated about this.  But my experience has shown me that the WAPF and Dr. Davis' points of view, though they may be helpful to many people, unfortunately don't apply to me.  I realize that lot of people who have found that a certain approach works best for them will think it will work for everyone, and that I'm just ignorant, but I've studied this all pretty deeply for a layperson, tried different approaches, and have finally had to follow the evidence of my own glucose meter and other health indicators.  My diabetes couldn't have been caused by a low-fat diet because I'd not been on one until recently.

Agreed about properly preparing oatmeal.

I think a problem with so much of the health advice I see, whether it's low-fat or pro-fat or low-carb, is that it makes blanket recommendations.  Different people whose physiologies are malfunctioning may have them malfunctioning for different reasons.

You can find somewhere a "traditional" diet to support just about any claims you want.  I think the common denominators in healthy traditional diets are really not high-fat vs. low-fat, but lack of industrial vegetable oils, refined sugars, and refined carbohydrates.  I do think improperly prepared grains and gluten (however prepared) are nearly universally problematic.

If you look Stephan Guyenet's Whole Health Source, he has examples of populations on high-carb diets that do not have poor glucose tolerance or elevated incidence of diabetes.  You also have to look at the possibility that traditional peoples had more homogeneous gene pools, and perhaps therefore their diets and genes meshed more than peoples' today.

They also had less exposure to toxic chemicals in the modern environment, and other factors like social isolation and disrupted circadian rhythms, all of which can wreak havoc with endocrine function.

Anonymous
1/23/2011 10:24:09 PM |

I eat oatmeal and I only spike to 120 or less, so that doesn't seem too bad to me. I think it's only bad if it spikes too high. Fruit is a problem for me, however. I would imagine if I ate fruit mixed with protein I might be able to handle it.

Sophie
1/29/2011 3:06:01 AM |

Diabetes is one of the leading cause of death listed on U.S. I am afraid that this will increase if people will not be aware of the factors that leads to diabetes. Information dissemination is a must. People need to be active and learn to know the foods to be avoided as well.

jodi
5/2/2011 6:52:07 PM |

you may not be diabetic, YET, but you are headed down that path. give it time.

Gary Snow
7/15/2012 8:07:43 PM |

Helen..Excessive carbs DID cause my T2 Diabetes..and yes, oatmeal DID spike your BG..9Damage begins at 140) Take it down to less than 30 carbs @ day and you will reap the benefits!

Related posts

Comments (35) -

Anonymous

Anonymous

Matt Stone

Anonymous

allison

Dream_Puppy

Eric

vic

Nigel Kinbrum

Eric

revelo

Peter

Onschedule

David

c

LynP

revelo

Anton

Dr. William Davis

PaleoMom

Might-o'chondri-AL

Anonymous

Helen

Sandy

Anonymous

Anonymous

Helen

Helen

Dana Seilhan

Gallbladder Gone

Helen

Anonymous

Sophie

jodi

Add comment