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

You may remember Jimmy as the irrepressible host of the Livin' La Vida Low Carb Show who lost around 200 lbs, dropping from 410 to 230 lbs on a low-carbohydrate diet.

In this hour-long interview, we discussed some of the dietary strategies that we use in the Track Your Plaque program.

Jimmy's website is definitely worth exploring. It's loaded with great interviews, including with Good Calories, Bad Calories author, Gary Taubes.

"Millions of needless deaths" is the title of an editorial by Life Extension Magazine's Bill Faloon.

". . . If vitamin D’s only benefit was to reduce coronary heart attack rates by 142%, the net savings (after deducting the cost of the vitamin D) if every American supplemented properly would be around $84 billion each year. That’s enough to put a major dent in the health care cost crisis that is forecast to bankrupt Medicare and many private insurance plans."

Although I don't agree with all the over-the-top commentary that issues from Mr. Faloon or Life Extension (although I sit on their Medical Advisory Board), I agree with virtually all of the issues he raises with vitamin D.

Despite the enormously compelling observations of vitamin D potential effects in populations, the medical community's reluctance comes from the lack of treatment data. In other words, what we lack are long-term data on vitamin D supplementation vs. placebo on rate of heart attack, vitamin D vs. placebo on risk of colon cancer, etc.

The data that exists connecting vitamin D levels with cardiovascular risk originate from three population observations:

1) The NHANES data in 16,000 participants showed 20% increased risk of cardiovascular events in those with vitamin D levels <20>20 ng/ml after factoring in all standard risk factors.

Another NHANES analysis showed the high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in those with cardiovascular disease.

2) A German study of 2500 participants that showed showed the lowest quartile of vitamin D levels (<13.3>28.4 ng/ml.

3) The Health Professionals' Follow-Up Study of 18,000 males showed a 2.4-fold increase in cardiovascular events in those with vitamin D levels <15>30 ng/ml.

While we lack treatment data (vitamin D vs. placebo) in a large population, we do have data that Suzie Rockway, Mary Kwasny (both from Rush University, Chicago) and I generated on the effect of vitamin D as a part of a broader treatment program on coronary calcium scores:

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. Amer J Ther 2008 (Dec 15).

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.

I also summed up the data as of early 2008 in a Life Extension article:

Vitamin D's Crucial Role in Cardiovascular Protection

I do agree with Mr. Faloon: It's time to take the vitamin D issue very seriously. Personally, I think it is foolhardy to not correct vitamin D deficiency, even in the absence of long-term treatment data.

Should we subject people living in tropical climates with vitamin D blood levels of 90 ng/ml to long-term observation? Though that has not yet been done, it has been done--in effect--through observations on the prevalence of diabetes, heart disease, and various cancers by latitude: the farther away from the equator, the greater the prevalence of these diseases.

That's more than good enough for me.

Thiazide diuretics are a popular first-line treatment for hypertension among the primary care set.

This practice became especially well-established with the 2002 publication of the ALLHAT Study (Major Outcomes in High-Risk Hypertensive Patients Randomized to Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor or Calcium Channel Blocker vs Diuretic:The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT)).

ALLHAT showed that an inexpensive diuretic like chlorthalidone (a weak diuretic in the thiazide class, similar to hydrochlorothiazide) as first-line treatment for hypertension achieved equivalent reductions in cardiovascular events (cardiovasular death and heart attack) as non-thiazide antihypertensives, lisinopril (an ACE inhibitor) and amlodipine (a calcium channel blocker, better known as Norvasc).

After 7 years of treatment, there was 14% death or heart attack among all three groups--no difference.

This was interpreted to mean that inexpensive thiazide diuretics like chlorthalidone offer as much benefit as other blood pressure medications at reduced cost.

On the surface, that's great. Anything that detracts from the ubiquitous pharmaceutical industry propaganda of bigger, better, more expensive drugs to replace old, inexpensive, generic drugs is fine by me.

But you knew there'd be more to this issue! If we accept that thiazides are equivalent to other single-drug treatments for high blood pressure, what do we do with the following issues:

--Thiazides deplete body potassium-This effect can be profound. In fact, built into the ALLHAT mortality rate is an expected death rate from potassium depletion. When potassium in the body and blood go low, the heart becomes electrically unstable and dangerous rhythms develop.

--Thiazides deplete magnesium--Similar in implication to the potassium loss, magnesium loss also creates electrical instability in the heart, not to mention exaggeration of insulin resistance, rise in triglycerides, reduction in HDL.

--Thiazides reduce HDL cholesterol

--Thiazides increase triglycerides

--Thiazides increase small LDL particles--You know, the number one cause for heart disease in the U.S.

--Thiazides increase uric acid--Uric acid is increasingly looking like a coronary risk factor: The higher the uric acid blood level, the greater the risk for heart attack. Thiazides have long been known to increase uric acid, occasionally sufficient to trigger attacks of gout (uric acid crystals that precipitate in joints, like rock candy). (Fully detailed Special Report on uric acid coming this week on the Track Your Plaque website.)

What about the advice we commonly give people to hydrate themselves generously? Yet we give them diuretics? Which is it: More hydration or less hydration? You can't have both.

Do thiazides exert an apparent cardiovascular risk reduction in a society due to its flagrant sodium obsession?

Thus, there are a number of inconsistencies in the thinking surrounding thiazides. In my experience, I have seen more harm done than good using these agents. While I cannot fully reconcile the reported benefit seen in ALLHAT with what I see in real life, all too often I see people having to take another drug to make up for a side-effect of a thiazide diuretic (e.g., high-dose prescription potassium to replace lost potassium, allopurinol to reduce uric acid, etc.). I have seen many people get hospitalized, even suffer near-fatal or fatal events from extremely low potassium or magnesium levels.

My personal view: ALLHAT or no, avoid thiazide diuretics like the plague. Sure, it might save money on a population basis, but I suspect that the ALLHAT data are deeply misleading.

What's better than a thiazide, calcium blocker, or ACE inhibitor? How about vitamin D restoration, thyroid normalization, wheat elimination?

I stumbled on one of the growing number of local media stories on the power of vitamin D.

In one story, a purported "expert" was talking about the benefits of "high-dose" vitamin D, meaning up to 1000, even 2000 units per day.

I regard this as high-dose---for an infant.

Judging by my experiences, now numbering well over 1000 patients over three years time, I'd regard this dose range not as "high dose," nor moderate dose, perhaps not even low dose. I'd regard it as barely adequate.

Though needs vary widely, the majority of men require 6000 units per day, women 5000 units per day. Only then do most men and women achieve what I'd define as desirable: 60-70 ng/ml 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level.

I base this target level by extrapolating from several simple observations:

--In epidemiologic studies, a blood level of 52 ng/ml seems to be an eerily consistent value: >52 ng/ml and cancer of the colon, breast, and prostate become far less common; <52 ng/ml and cancers are far more likely. I don't know about you, but I'd like to have a little larger margin of safety than just achieving 52.1 ng/ml.

--Young people (not older people >40 years old, who have lost most of the capacity to activate vitamin D in the skin) who obtain several days to weeks of tropical sun typically have 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood levels of 80-100 ng/ml without adverse effect.

More recently, having achieved this target blood level in many people, I can tell you confidently that achieving this blood level of vitamin D achieves:

--Virtual elimination of "winter blues" and seasonal affective disorder in the great majority
--Dramatic increases in HDL cholesterol (though full effect can require a year to develop)
--Reduction in triglycerides
--Modest reduction in blood pressure
--Dramatic reduction in c-reactive protein (far greater than achieved with Crestor, JUPITER trial or no)
--Increased bone density (improved osteoporosis/osteopenia)
--Halting or reversal of aortic valve disease

(I don't see enough cancer in my cardiology practice to gauge whether or not there has been an impact on cancer incidence.)

My colleagues who have bothered to participate in the vitamin D conversation have issued warnings about not going "overboard" with vitamin D, generally meaning a level of >30 ng/ml.

I know of no rational basis for these cautions. If hypercalcemia (increased blood calcium) is the concern, then calcium levels can be monitored. I can reassure them that calcium levels virtually never go up in people (without rare diseases like sarcoid or hyperparathyroidism). Then why any hesitation in recreating blood levels that are enjoyed by tropical inhabitants exposed to plentiful sun that achieve these extraordinary health effects?

For the present, I have applied the target level of 60-70 ng/ml without apparent ill-effect. In fact, I have witnessed nothing but hugely positive effects.

The ever-resourceful Dr. John Cannell of the Vitamin D Council has announced the availability of an at-home, self-ordered vitamin D test kit for $65. The Vitamin D Council newsletter is reprinted below.

(However, please note that, as wonderful as the advice Dr. Cannell provides, I don't agree on several small points, such as the lack of need for vitamin D if you use a tanning bed or obtain "sufficient" sun; I have seen many people with dark tans, virtually all over 40 years old, who are still severely deficient. I attribute this to the lost capacity for vitamin D activation as we age.)

I have not used this service. Should anyone choose to try it, please let us know how it goes.

The Vitamin D Newsletter
December 28, 2008

The Vitamin D Council is happy to announce that we have partnered with ZRT Laboratory to provide an inexpensive, $65.00, in-home, accurate, vitamin D [25(OH)D] test. The usual cost for this test is between $100.00 and $200.00.

If you read this newsletter, you know about our interest in accurate vitamin D testing. In the next few weeks, you may read about the Vitamin D Council's quest for accurate vitamin D blood tests in the national media. Before we partnered with ZRT, we verified, repeatedly, that ZRT provides accurate and reliable vitamin D tests and that their method corresponds very well to the gold standard of vitamin D blood tests, the DiaSorin RIA.

Our ZRT service is not just inexpensive, it means no more worrying about your doctor ordering the right test or interpreting it correctly. You buy the test kit on the internet or by phone, a few days later the kit comes in the mail, you or a nurse friend do a finger stick, collect a few drops of blood, and send the blotter paper back to ZRT in the postage paid envelope provided with the kit. A week later you get results back in the mail and know accurate 25-hydroxy-vitamin D levels of you and your family.

For every test you order, ZRT will donate $10.00 to the Vitamin D Council. Please read the new page hyperlinked below on our website as it both explains the procedure and how to order the test.

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/deficiency/am-i-vitamin-d-deficient.shtml

Executive summary: keep your family's 25-hydroxy-vitamin D blood test above 50 ng/ml, year around. Most adults need at least 5,000 IU per day, especially this time of year. Most children need at least 1,000 IU per day per every 25 pounds of body weight. Bio Tech Pharmacal provides high quality and inexpensive vitamin D. Currently Bio Tech Pharmacal is providing vitamin D for numerous scientific studies. To see their prices and for ordering, click the hyperlink below.

http://www.bio-tech-pharm.com/catalog.aspx?cat_id=2

As a gift to our readers for the New Year, Thorne publications have provided a free download to a basic paper about vitamin D. I wrote it earlier this year for educated lay people as well as health care practitioners. Please read this paper carefully, your family's well-being, even lives, may depend on you understanding it.

http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/.fulltext/13/1/6.pdf

Seasons Greetings
John Cannell, MD
vitamindcouncil.org

People pay about $90 per year to become Members on the Track Your Plaque website. This provide access to our in-depth Special Reports, guides, webinars, and our proprietary software data tracking tools. Members can also participate in online discussions, such as those in the Track Your Plaque Forum and chats.

Why is there a charge for membership in the program and where does the money go?

Money raised from membership fees goes towards:

1) The costs of doing business, e.g., server fees, software purchases, legal fees. Hosting webinars, for instance, costs us about $99 per month for the GoToWebinar software service.

2) Software development--Our most recent round of software data tracking tools, for instance, cost us nearly $30,000. That may not be a lot from big business standards, but it is onerous enough that obtaining membership dues really helps.

3) Graphics development--A website without graphics would be awfully dull, regardless of the quality of the textual content. Some of the newest tools on the Track Your Plaque website require photography and graphics work, which can add up very quickly.

Where membership fees do NOT go:

1) In our pockets--In fact, except for the various contractors who are paid for their services (e.g., software developers), NOBODY on the Track Your Plaque staff are paid: not me, nor any of the behind-the-scenes staff. Some of the staff overlap with my office staff, but they are paid purely out of the office revenues, not out of Track Your Plaque membership dues.

2) Towards overhead costs beyond those listed above--For example, membership fees do not pay for office lease, utilities, phones, etc.

We rely on membership fees because we have chosen to remain as free of commercial bias as possible. We host no advertising, we have no behind-the-scenes corporate or institutional agendas, we show no favoritism to any business or commercial operation. We believe this permits editorial freedom that few other health websites can enjoy. (In fact, I know of no other that is so free of commercial bias, outside of small blogs or narrow-interest websites.)

If you want to see what damage commercial bias can create, just go to a health website like WebMD. I challenge you to find information that is not flagrantly biased by commercial influence, namely that of the drug industry. (According to the WebMD SEC filings, in fact, the great majority--approximately 80%--of their $331 million revenues (2007) were derived directly or indirectly from the drug industry.) This commercial bias reaches into all of WebMD's related businesses, including MedicineNet.com, RxList.com, Medscape.com, and several others.

Preventing heart disease is not a money maker, sad to say. It is, from the perspective of conventional heart care, a big money loser. Undergo a heart catheterization, hospitalization, stent or bypass for anywhere from $14,000 to well over $100,000---or pay $90 for in-depth health information that dramatically reduces the potential need for the hospital and its procedures, minimizes need for prescription medication (statins alone, of course, are a $27 billion annual revenue phenomenon), and achieves all this by maximizing nutrition, self-purchased nutritional supplements, and inexpensive heart scans. Nobody is going to make a bundle off of this approach.

So that is why we charge a membership fee. I often get a laugh from some of the comments of people on this blog or even in my office who believe that we are rolling in money from the website from membership dues. The opposite is true: We don't pay ourselves. Virtually every penny is reinvested back into the website to better serve the Members.

Confusion often stems from the simplest of calculations: dose of fish oil.

Actually, you and I don't take fish oil for fish oil. We take fish oil for its content of omega-3 fatty acids, the dominant ones being EPA and DHA. The contents of fish oil outside of its EPA + DHA content likely exert little or no benefit (beyond that of other dietary oils).

To determine what you are currently taking, simply examine the back of your fish oil bottle and look for the EPA + DHA composition. This should be clearly and prominently labeled. If not, don't buy that brand again. Add up the EPA + DHA content per capsule, then multiply by the number of capsules you take per day. That yields your daily EPA + DHA intake.

The only other substantial source of omega-3 fatty acids is fish. Other food sources, such as non-fish meats, eggs, etc., contribute little or none. Processed foods that bear health claims of "contains heart healthy omega-3" often contain linolenic acid or flaxseed oil, which contributes very little to total EPA + DHA, or contain relatively trivial quantities of DHA. What are you doing eating processed foods, anyway?

What should the total daily dose of EPA + DHA dose be? That depends on what your goals are.

If your goal is to modestly reduce the risk of dying from heart attack, then just eating fish a couple of times per month will begin to exert an effect, or just taking a dose of 300 mg EPA + DHA per day from a low-potency capsule will do it. However, that's an awfully unambitious goal.

Our starting omega-3 dose in the Track Your Plaque program has, over the years, increased and now stands at 1800 mg EPA + DHA per day. However, the dose for 1) full reduction of triglycerides and/or triglyceride-containing abnormal lipoproteins, 2) reduction of Lp(a), and 3) the ideal dose for coronary and carotid plaque control are substantially higher.

But once you know your desired daily target of total EPA + DHA, you can easily determine the quantity of capsules to take by doing the above arithemetic, totaling the EPA + DHA per capsule. For example, if you have been instructed to take 6000 mg per day EPA + DHA, and your capsule contains 750 mg EPA + DHA, then you will need to take 8 capsules per day (6000/750).

When I go to the hospital, I am continually amazed at some of the hospital staff: 5 ft 4 inch nurses weighing over 200 lbs, etc.

But what I find particularly bothersome are some (not all) hospital dietitans--presumably experts at the day-to-day of healthy eating--who waddle through the halls, easily 40, 50, or more pounds overweight. It is, to say the least, credibility-challenging for an obese dietitian to be providing nutritional advice to men or women recovering after bypass or stent while clearly not in command of nutritional health herself.

What's behind this perverse situation? How can a person charged to dispense "healthy" nutritional information clearly display such clear-cut evidence of poor nutrition?

How would you view a success coach dressed in rags? Or a reading coach who can barely read a sentence?

Easy: She follows her own advice.

Hospital dietitians are essentially forced to adhere to nutritional guidelines of "official" organizations, such as the American Heart Association and the USDA. There is some reason behind this. Imagine a rogue dietitian decides to advocate some crazy diet that yields dangerous effects, e.g., high-potassium diets in people with kidney disease. There is a role for oversite on the information any hospital staff member dispenses.

The problem, of course, doesn't lie with the dietitian, but with the organizations drafting the guidelines. For years, the mantra of hospital diets was "low-fat." More recently, this dated message has begun--only begun--to falter, but now replaced with the "healthy, whole grain" mantra. And that is the advice the hapless dietitian follows herself, unwittingly indulging in foods that make us fat.

Sadly, the "healthy, whole grain" message also contributes to heart disease via drop in HDL, increased triglycerides, a huge surge in small LDL, rise in blood sugar, increased resistance to insulin, tummy fat, and diabetes. Yes, the diet provided to survivors of heart attack increases risk.

The "healthy, whole grain" message also enjoys apparent "validation" through the enormous proliferation of commercial products cleverly disguised as healthy: Cheerios, Raisin Bran, whole grain bread, whole wheat pasta, etc. The "healthy, whole grain" message, while a health disaster, is undoubtedly a commercial success.

I'll bet that our fat dietitian friend enjoys a breakfast of healthy, whole grains in skim milk, followed by a lunch of low-fat chicken breast on two slices of whole grain bread, and ends her day with a healthy meal of whole wheat pasta. She then ascribes her continually climbing weight and size 16 figure to slow metabolism, lack of exercise, or the once-a-week piece of chocolate.

Wheat has no role in the Track Your Plaque program for coronary plaque control and reversal. In fact, my personal view is that wheat has no role in the human diet whatsoever.

More on this concept can be found at:

What's worse than sugar?

The Wheat-Deficiency Syndrome

Nutritional approaches: Large vs. Small LDL

Are you wheat-free?

I sense a growing revolt against the intrusion of statin drugs into our lives.

No doubt, the statin drug industry is, at least from an economic perspective, a huge success: $27 billion annual revenues at last accounting. The latest big plug for more and more statins was the JUPITER trial that showed reduced cardiovascular events on Crestor in people with "normal" LDL cholesterol levels and increased c-reactive protein.

It seems that not one day passes that doesn't include some news story about the "benefits" of statin drugs: reduction in heart attack, stroke, colon cancer, osteoporosis, heart failure, etc.

Ironically, the overwhelming economic success of the statin drug industry also seems to be encouraging a grassroots revolt.

More and more people are coming to the office, more people commenting on the web over how they want to avoid statin drugs, stop a drug they are already taking, or at least reduce the dose of an ongoing drug.

My day-to-day experience with coronary plaque control and reversal is that, while statin drugs are helpful tools, they are not necessary tools for full benefit of a prevention program. "Need" for statin drugs can differ by the patterns measured, though not the usual patterns suggested by the drug industry. For instance, using C-reactive protein, a la JUPITER, as justification for statin prescription is, in my view, totally absurd and makes no sense whatsoever, since inflammatory responses can be effective reduced with plenty of other strategies besides statin drugs. Conventional LDL, likewise, is a fictitious number that often bear little or no resemblance to the true and genuine measured value (apoprotein B or LDL particle number).

So here are a number of strategies that can help reduce or eliminate the "need" for a statin drug:

--Elimination of wheat and cornstarch--This is no namby-pamby dietary strategy, as low-fat diets were. This is a powerful, enormously effective strategy, particularly if LDL is in the small category. Small LDL drops like a stone when these foods are eliminated. This means no breads, pasta, breakfast cereals, pretzels, crackers, chips, tacos, wraps, etc.
--Non-wheat fibers--Especially raw nuts, ground flaxseed, and oat bran.
--Vitamin D restoration
--Fish oil
--Weight loss
--Niacin

There are additional strategies that focus on specific subsets of LDL cholesterol (e.g., Lp(a) masquerading as LDL). But the above list can reduce LDL cholesterol substantially, reducing the apparent "need" for a statin drug.

You will notice that there are few money makers in the above list, compared to the billions of dollars reaped by the statin drug industry. There is therefore little incentive to allow a pretty sales rep to go to your doctor and pitch the use of over-the-counter vitamin D or make changes in diet.

Statin drugs in my view need to be shoved back into their more limited role as drugs to be used on occasion when necessary (e.g., heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia with LDL cholesterol values of 250 mg/dl in a person with measurable coronary plaque). These should never have achieved the "celebrity" status they enjoy, complete with gushing endorsements by TV personalities, daily news stories, and back-to-back TV commercials.

Join the revolt!

Lovaza is GlaxoSmithKline's prescription fish oil, an ethyl ester modification to allow higher concentration of omega-3 fatty acids, EPA + DHA, per capsule. Each capsule contains 840 mg EPA + DHA.

It is FDA-approved for treatment of high triglycerides (>500 mg/dl). In their marketing, they claim "Unlike LOVAZA, dietary supplements are not FDA approved to treat any disease." They also highlight the "patented five-step" purification process that eliminates any concerns over mercury or pesticide residues.

What does Lovaza cost? In Milwaukee, it costs about $70 per capsule per month (PCPM). Most people are taking four capsules per day: $280 per month, or $3360 per year to obtain 3360 mg of EPA + DHA per day. (Funny coincidence with the numbers.)

Did you catch that? $3360 per year, just for one person to take Lovaza.

What if I instead went to Costco and bought their high-potency fish oil. This is also an ethyl ester form. It costs $14.99 for 180 capsules, or $2.50 PCPM; each capsule contains 684 mg EPA + DHA. I would therefore have to take five capsules per day to obtain the same 3360 mg EPA + DHA per day. This would cost me 5 x $2.50 = $12.50 per month, or $150 per year.

$3360 per year vs. $150 per year to obtain the same dose of omega-3 fatty acids, or a 22.4-fold difference.

Lovaza is FDA-approved for treatment of high triglycerides. But I am seeing more and more people take it for other reasons at this four-capsule-per-day dose. Regardless, this "drug" is adding $3360 per year costs to our healthcare. A school teacher, for instance, recently commented to me that she didn't care about the costs, since her insurance (in Milwaukee county, teachers have unbelievably generous healthcare coverage) covers Lovaza. I've heard this from others: insurance covers it, so they don't care how much it costs.

Guess who eventually has to pay the $3360 per year per person costs? Yup, you and me. We all bitch and moan about the costs of healthcare and health insurance, but many of us are more than willing to shift the costs to our friends and neighbors to save a few bucks. You think Lipitor makes a bundle of money for Pfizer at about $120 per month? Lovaza is making a bundle of money for GlaxoSmithKline, and all because people are cheap and willing to selfishly shift costs to other people.

Keep in mind that $3360 per year is just for fish oil. It's not for surgery, it's not for hospital care, it's just for stinking fish oil.

If you'd like to reduce LDL cholesterol with nearly as much power as a statin drug, think thyroid.

When thyroid is corrected to ideal levels, LDL cholesterol drops 20, 30, 40 mg/dl or more, depending on how poor thyroid function and how high LDL are at the start. The poorer the thyroid function (the higher the TSH or the lower the T3 and T4) and the higher the LDL cholesterol, the more LDL drops with thyroid correction.

(For those of you minding LDL particle size, such as Track Your Plaque Members, the "dominant" LDL species will drop: If you are genetic small LDL, small LDL will drop. If you have mostly large LDL because of being wheat-free and sugar-free, then large LDL will drop.)

One of the problems is that many healthcare providers blindly follow what the laboratory says is "normal" or the "reference range," which is usually nothing more than a population average (actually the mean +/- 2 standard deviations, a common method of developing references ranges). In other words, a substantial degree of low thyroid function, or hypothyroidism, can be present when your doctor adheres to the reference range provided by the laboratory.

What does it mean to achieve ideal thyroid status? My list includes:

--Normal oral temperature of 97.3 F first upon arising. (The thyroid is the body's thermoregulatory organ.)
--TSH 1.0 mIU/L or less
--Free T3 upper half "normal" range
--Free T4 upper half "normal" range
--You feel good: mental clarity, energy, upbeat mood. You lose weight when you try.

Iodine replacement should be part of any thyroid health effort. Iodine is not an optional trace mineral, no more than vitamin C is optional (else your teeth fall out). The only dangers to iodine replacement are to those who have been starved of iodine for many years; increase iodine and the thyroid can over-respond. I've seen this happen in 2 of the last 300 people who have supplemented iodine.

In my view, neglecting T3 replacement is absurd. While it is not clear to me why many otherwise healthy people have low T3 at the low range of "normal" or even in the below-normal range, people feel better and have better health--faster weight loss, reduced LDL, reduced triglycerides, they are happier and enjoy more energy--when T3 is increased to the upper half of the reference range. (Crucial question: Why is the 5'-deiodinase enzyme that converts T4 to T3 inhibited, resulting in reduced free T3? What is in our diets or environment that is exerting this effect? I don't have answer, but we sorely need one.)

It pays to be a perfectionist when it comes to thyroid. Not only do you feel better, but LDL cholesterol can drop with a statin-like magnitude, but with none of the adverse effects.

If interested, Track Your Plaque offers fingerstick blood spot testing that you can perform in your own home. Each test kit will test for: TSH, free T3, free T4, along with a thyroid peroxidase antibody (a marker for Hashimoto's thyroiditis, an autoimmune inflammatory condition of the thyroid).

What do you think of these chains of logic?

Cyanide is a potent lethal poison; carbon monoxide is a less lethal poison.
Therefore: plenty of carbon monoxide is good.

Having uterine cancer is a bad thing. Having uterine fibroids is a less bad thing.
Therefore: plenty of uterine fibroids are good.

These are obvious examples of seriously flawed logic. Students of logic and philosophy will recognize the above erroneous sequences as examples of the twisted arguments often used to persuade an argumentative opponent of the logic of a premise. As long ago as 335 B.C., Greek philosopher, Aristotle, recognized the pitfalls of thinking in such arguments. You think we’d know better by now.

Try this one:

White enriched flour is a bad for health; whole grains are less bad for health.
Therefore: plenty of whole grains are good for health.

Ouch!

In the 1960s, we all ate hot dogs on white buns, white flour Wonder Bread® sandwiches, Mom made cookies and cupcakes with white flour. Then, during the 1970s and 1980s, clinical studies were performed demonstrating that whole wheat and whole grains reduced colon cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease compared to white flour. In other words, add back fiber and B vitamins and health benefits develop: No argument here.

Therefore: whole grains must be good for health. Further, lots of whole grains?unlimited quantities of whole grains many times per day, every day?must be even better. Even the USDA says so on their nutrition pyramid, with 8-11 servings of grains per day, 4 of which should be whole grains, at the widest portion of the pyramid.

But what happens when you follow this logic through and fill your diet with whole grains?

Look around you and it’s easy to see: Appetite increases, people become obese, blood sugar increases, diabetes develops, HDL cholesterol plummets, triglycerides skyrocket, inflammatory patterns (e.g., c-reactive protein, or CRP) increase, small LDL (the number one cause for heart disease in the obese U.S.!) shoots through the roof.

I would no more fill my diet with “healthy whole grains” than I would close my garage door with the car running.

Pomegranate juice, 8 oz:

Sugars, total 31.50 g

Sucrose 0.00 g

Glucose (dextrose) 15.64 g

Fructose 15.86 g

In your quest to increase the flavonoids in your diet, do you overexpose yourself to fructose?

Remember: Fructose increases LDL cholesterol, apoprotein B, small LDL, triglycerides, and substantially increases deposition of visceral fat (fructose belly?). How about a slice of whole grain bread with that glass of pomegranate juice? The Heart Association says it's all low-fat!

(Coming on the Track Your Plaque website: A full in-depth Special Report on fructose in all its glorious forms and whether this is truly an issue for your health. Fructose tables and the scientific data to establish a safe "threshold" value will be included.)

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Honeydew melon:

Sugars, total 51.97 g

Sucrose 15.87 g

Glucose 17.15 g

Fructose 18.94 g

Because sucrose is half fructose (the other half is glucose), there are approximately 26 grams of fructose per one-half honeydew melon.

Image courtesy Wikipedia

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.

Another interview with Livin' La Vida Low Carb's Jimmy Moore

"Millions of needless deaths"

Thiazide diuretics: Treatment of choice for high blood pressure?

"High-dose" Vitamin D

Vitamin D Home Test

Where do Track Your Plaque membership revenues go?

Getting your dose of fish oil right

Flat tummy . . . or, Why your dietitian is fat

Statin drug revolt

Lovaza Rip-off

Thyroid: Be a perfectionist

Nutrition Syllogism

Is pomegranate juice healthy?

Honeydew melon

Where do you find fructose?

Do heart scans cause cancer?

Goodbye, fructose

The statin-free life

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone