Estrogens and CT heart scan scores 2. July 2007 William Davis (1) A recent study from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), the large study that originally showed no reduction in heart attack with use of estrogens in postmenopausal females, has just published a new study.In this new effort, women who took Premarin (horse estogens) had up to 61% lower CT heart scan scores. This new study was confined to the women from the original WHI study who had entered the study between the ages of 50-59 years (average 55 years old), since this was the significant subgroup of women who actually showed a reduction in heart attack risk, whereas other groups showed no benefit or a slightly increased risk. For a full discussion of this fascinating result, see the Track Your Plaque report, Can estrogen reduce CT heart scan scores? at http://cureality.com/library/fl_06-017estrogen.asp. (This report is open to both Track Your Plaque Members and non-Members.) I truly wish that the issues surrounding female hormone replacement were clearer. This new perspective adds just another interesting twist on a strategy that too many people, in my view, dismissed too readily with the initial WHI results. To add to an already confusing situation, the WHI study was sponsored by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Premarin, and many of the investigators participating in the study obtained financial compensation from Wyeth. On the one hand, we have to give credit to the company and the investigators for publishing the initial study that panned the effects of Premarin. On the other hand, it makes any positive data somewhat suspect, particularly since there is a far less costly and probably superior preparation called human estrogens. Incidentally, Wyeth is also behind the maddening FDA petition to prevent "compounding" pharmacies from dispensing human hormones like estrogen unless made by a drug manufacturer. They hide behind claims of concerns over safety. Nonsense. This is pure profiteering and protection of their enormously profitable franchise and has nothing to do with public safety. If there were genuine concerns that the compounding pharmacies, around for decades with an excellent reputation, pose safety issues, why not just lobby for improved oversite? If only we had data like WHI that used human estrogens and human progesterone. I suspect that we'd see bigger, better effects with less of the ill effects peculiar to the cross-species use of Premarin and the synethetic progestin, Provera.
The wheat-free life 30. June 2007 William Davis (10) "There's nothing else I can do with my diet," declared Whitney, a 53-year old university faculty member. "I don't eat meat. I never eat fried foods. I can't remember the last time I used butter. My idea of having a treat is a handful of blueberries. What else can I do?"Whitney was clearly frustrated. With a CT heart scan score of 264, she was worried that trouble was just around the corner. Her lipoprotein panel had demonstrated a severe small LDL pattern, with 70% of all LDL particles in the small category. HDL was also low at 41 mg/dl."What did you eat for breakfast?" I asked. "Same as always: Either Fiber One cereal or Shredded Wheat. No sugar, just skim milk. Sometimes I have some orange juice, fresh-squeezed of course.""How about lunch?" "If I brown-bag it, I'll usually have a reduced-fat turkey breast sandwich on whole grain bread. About once a week, I'll have a whole wheat bagel--no cream cheese, of course.""Dinner?""Sometimes I have chicken--skinless--with a vegetable, corn, or salad. I love pasta, but I always use whole wheat.""How about snacks?""I try not to snack. But, when I'm desperate, I usually grab some Triscuits or pretzels."The problem with Whitney's diet was clear: Too many sugar-equivalents, otherwise known as wheat. I suggested that her diet was far too heavily laden with wheat products. She seemed skeptical. "But this is as low-fat as I can get! Now you're going to take away wheat?"What happens when you eliminate wheat from your diet?Several predictable, consistent changes can be observed:--HDL cholesterol goes up.--Triglycerides go down.--Small LDL particles are reduced.--LDL cholesterol drops (the amount dropped depends on the proportion of small LDL pattern)--Blood sugar drops. --Blood pressure drops. --C-reactive protein (an index of imperceptible inflammation) drops.In addition to these measurable changes, several perceptible improvements often develop: more energy, less afternoon "slump," better sleep, sometimes less rashes. Since Whitney was skeptical, I suggested a simple 4 week "experiment": Eliminate wheat products entirely for 4 weeks and see for herself what happens. I also warned her that, while I believe that elimination of wheat is a great strategy, she could negate the benefits by indulging in candy, soft drinks, and other junk products. It would therefore be necessary to maintain an otherwise healthy diet. So Whitney gave it a try for 4 weeks. To make up for the dropped calories, she increased her reliance on vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, nuts, seeds, and healthy oils. After losing 6 lbs over the 4 weeks without otherwise trying, she was convinced. She was further convinced when we reassessed her laboratory work: HDL went up 10 mg/dl; triglycerides down 120 mg/dl; blood sugar dropped from 112 mg/dl (pre-diabetic) to 95 mg/dl (normal). Several months later, we checked her lipoproteins. Small LDL had dropped to around 30% of total LDL--a big improvement. It's contrary to conventional wisdom. It's counter to the USDA Food Pyramid. It's certainly not what the American Heart Association says. It could potentially disrupt the economics and politics of the enormously powerful food industry. But, more often than not, the results are impressive to phenomenal.
Death of a $7 billion industry 28. June 2007 William Davis (8) Vitamin D has taken its place as a crucial ingredient for coronary plaque control and control of CT heart scan scores. Vitamin D replacement is also crucial for bone health, particularly the prevention of osteoporosis. But conversations about vitamin D replacement to true healthy levels is notably absent from the conversation on treatment and prevention of osteoporosis. Yes, you will find a small dose of vitamin D in calcium tablets and in multivitamins. Those of us who check blood levels of 25-OH-vitamin D3 in patients will tell you: They don't work. These are unabsorbable forms of vitamin D and at trivial doses. There was an attempt to give this issue a little cursory attention when a small dose of vitamin D was added to Fosamax (Fosamax D). There are an estimated 50 million Americans with various degrees of osteoporosis. It's numbers like this that make the drug manufacturers salivate. Osteoporosis treatment is also chronic. This is among the holy grails of the drug industry: developing agents for widespread ailments that require long-term treatment that extends over years. That's a lot more profitable than 10 days of antibiotics that are over and done with in one treament course.The osteoporosis market now stands at $7 billion per year and is expected to grow 6-7% per year, according to industry analysts. Drugs like Fosamax, Evista, and Actonel will eventually be replaced by Boniva, Eclasta, and bazedoxifene, and later by AMG-172 and balicatib. Monthly costs for these drugs can be $70 or more per month, sometimes several hundred dollars. (Experience has shown that the introduction of new drugs does not necessarily mean that other drugs will drop in price.) Here's a clinical trial I'd like to see performed: Vitamin D restored to healthy levels of 50-100 ng/ml over an extended period and compared to a group treated with placebo. My prediction is that there will be dramatic differences in bone density. (Small studies have been performed, but no large, long-term trials of the sort that would yield real firepower.) Or, how about vitamin D to true therapeutic levels over 5 years compared head-to-head with one of the drugs. My prediction: little difference. Vitamin D also provides an enormous panel of health benefits beyond restoration of bone density, like rise in HDL, drop in triglycerides, facilitation of control over CT heart scan scores, drop in fracture risk, drop in blood pressure and C-reactive protein, reduction in risk for colon, prostate, and breast cancer. None of the drugs can hope to provide any of these effects, except a drop in fracture risk. Vitamin D usually costs around $2 per month. I doubt that such trials will be performed. If I were a manufacturer of osteoporosis drugs and my career success was dependent on the increasing revenues of these drugs, I would be quaking in my shoes, hoping that the public does not learn what a powerful tool good old vitamin D is. But if you are an individual just looking for health tools, vitamin D is, in my view, amongst the most powerful natural, nutritional tools you have available with outsized health benefits.
Lose weight and HDL goes . . . down 27. June 2007 William Davis (2) Steve started with a miserable HDL cholesterol of 27 mg/dl. As expected, the low HDL was associated with all its evil friends: small LDL, deficiency of healthy, large HDL, high triglycerides, VLDL, and a pre-diabetic blood sugar. Steve committed to a strict diet of reduced processed carbohydrates like wheat products, reduced meat and saturated fats. He relied on vegetables, fruit, lean proteins, and healthy oils. Over a 6 month period, he lost an impressive 39 lbs. He proclaimed that he hadn't felt this good in 30 years. We rechecked his HDL: 25 mg/dl. "I don't get it!" Steve declared, understandably. There's a curious phenomenon with HDL. If you lose weight, HDL goes up--but not right away. Steve had lost a substantial quantity of weight and was continuing to lose weight when the blood work was obtained. While HDL does indeed rise with weight loss, it doesn't do so immediately. In fact, in the first two or so months after significant weight lost, HDL goes down. Why? I don't really have an explanation, but it is a very consistent effect. Losing weight towards ideal weight is truly an effective strategy for raising HDL. But we need to be patient. If you've lost many pounds like Steve did, then waiting at least two months after weight has stabilized may be necessary to fully gauge the effect on raising HDL.
Addictive Foods 25. June 2007 William Davis (3) Kraft Foods, Inc. is manufacturer of Kool Aid, Oscar Mayer, Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, Velveeta, Honey Maid Grahams, and hundreds of other processed food products. Post cereals also falls under the umbrella of Kraft with products like Raisin Bran, Post Toasties, and Fruity Pebbles. Annual revenues in 2006 for Kraft: $34.4 billion. A big operation with enormous influence over our eating habits. Nabisco is manufacturer of Oreos, Ritz Crackers, Chips Ahoy and many others. Like Kraft/Post, it is also a big player. While Nabisco was owned for several years by tobacco giant RJ Reynolds, in 2000 it was acquired by Philip Morris, another big tobacco manufacturer. More recently in Spring, 2007, Philip Morris (now called Altria--you'd change your name, too, if it was synonymous with dirt) spun off its Kraft subsidiary for a big profit. However, the management structures remain intertwined. In other words, despite the shuffling of shares, the two industries, big tobacco and big food, are in many respects one and the same. Is it any surprise that the same industry that made billions of dollars pushing addictive nicotine products responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is now intimately involved with addictive products produced and marketed by the processed food industry? If you believe that food manufacturers are innocently and honestly conducting their businesses, simply think back to the testimony provided in front of Congress during the tobacco industry hearings. Broad deception, concealed truths, and outright lies were commonplace. There was no conscience involved. This was about money--and lots of it. Why should the processed food industry, intimate with the tobacco industry, be any different? If you want control over heart disease and your heart scan score, buy produce and buy local. Spend your time in the produce aisle, not the cereal or chip aisle. Unprocessed food, unadorned by bright labels, cartoon animals, American Heart Association endorsements, that's what we should seek.
Heart Scan Curiosities #7 25. June 2007 William Davis (1) Here's a situation that crops up once in a while, occurring in perhaps 2% of heart scans. The white within the circled area represents calcium, and thereby atherosclerotic plaque, situated immediately at the "mouth", or opening, of the the right coronary artery. What is somewhat unusual is that this plaque is not principally coronary, but aortic. That is, the plaque is mostly situated in the large vessel called the aorta. The three coronary arteries arise from the aorta. In this instance, the aortic plaque involves the mouth of the right coronary artery. (In views not shown, the plaque also extends into the artery as well.) I call this a "double whammy" because the same plaque can post risk for heart attack and stroke.Generally, aortic plaques pose risk for stroke. When aortic plaque fragments, little bits and pieces can travel upward to the brain and block an artery, thus a stroke. In the coronaries, disrupted ("ruptured") plaques don't generally shower debris, but permit blood clot formation, resulting in heart attack. This plaque, however, poses the theoretical risk of both heart attack and stroke because of its strategic location. Should a plaque like this be handled any differently? I don't think so. But it does provide another reason to take atherosclerotic plaque in any artery seriously.
The nutrition counterculture 23. June 2007 William Davis (2) When we look back over our American nutritional history over the last 50 years, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that much of the innovation in nutrition did not come from official agencies like the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, the FDA, the USDA, or the AMA. Instead, it came from the popular culture. It came from bold, extravagant claims made by maverick figures like Ancel Keys, Nathan Pritikin, Dean Ornish, and Robert Atkins. Of course, some ideas have now fallen by the wayside, dismissed in a broad American "experiment" as ineffective, impractical, or kooky. But it permitted experimentation on an extraordinary scale with millions of people following a particular strategy at a time.The advice of the official agencies tended to be reactionary. When nutritional deficiencies (remember those?) of the early 1900s were prevalent, they issued advice on food choices to help alleviate deficiencies. When deficiency transformed into excess after World War II, "smart" food choices from food groups and "sensible eating" became the theme. Unfortunately, the advice was always adulterated by the enormous influence of various special interests, anxious to protect their national franchise. Powerful groups like the meat industry, wheat producers, and the dairy industry all made sure they had a big hand in crafting and influencing what was told to the American people. The result: the advice offered by official groups has always represented the compromise of what some agency wished to convey to the people and the very powerful input of industry. What if the government decided to advise us what automobile to buy? Imagine the uproar in the auto industry when Washington tells us to buy Toyota for fuel economy and reliability. How long would that advice last?That's why almost no knowledgeable adult follows the advice of the USDA, the National Academy of Sciences, or the Food Pyramid. I believe that we all intuitively recognize that the advice is watered-down, sometimes silly, sometimes downright unhealthy. Nonetheless, the national experiment in diet that has taken place since 1950 has led to a collective wisdom of what is good and what is bad. The most productive conversations on nutrition therefore take place outside of the USDA and Washington. It occurs, instead, in places like bookstores, websites, and the media. Of course, there's lots of misinformation and profiteering in these sectors, as well. But like the enormous force unleashed by the collective wisdom of those contributing to the Wikipedia phemonenon, we've zig-zagged to something closer to the truth than ever uttered by an official agency.
Prescription vitamin D 23. June 2007 William Davis (32) Niacin:Over-the-counter: $2-5 per monthPrescription: $120 per monthFish oil:Over-the-counter: $3-6 per monthPrescription: $120 per monthVitamin D:Over-the-counter: $2 per monthPrescription: $70 per monthWith vitamin D in particular, the prescription form is vastly inferior to the over-the-counter preparation. This is because the prescription form is ergocalciferol, or vitamin D2, not the effective human form, vitamin D3 or cholecalciferol. When you're exposed to sun, what form of vitamin D is activated in the skin? It's all vitamin D3, no vitamin D2 whatsoever. Vitamin D3 is also far more effective than D2. People taking D3 (as long as it's oil-based) easily obtain healthy levels of vitamin D in the blood. People taking 50,000 units per day of D2 (the recommended quantity) remain miserably deficient, with minor increases in vitamin D blood levels. In short, D2 barely works at all. D3 works easily and effectively.Moreover, D2 is the plant-based form. It is a form not found naturally in humans. D3 is the mammalian form, the same found in humans that exerts all its biologic benefits. Then why is the prescription form of vitamin D2 (brand names Driscol and Calciferol) more expensive? It's the same old pharmaceutical industry scam: Look for something patent protectable, regardless of whether it's superior to the non-patent protectable product, then sell it for exagerated profits. Though it is inferior and the science and clinical experience prove that it's inferior, you can still fool lots of people, including prescribing physicians. So what if you only make $50 or $100 million?Don't fall for it. Prescription doesn't necessarily mean superior. In fact, the prescription form may be significantly inferior, as with vitamin D2. But the pharmaceutical industry carries such power and persuasion, who's going to know?
Nutrition activist Mike Adams 20. June 2007 William Davis (1) I borrowed the above comic from the website of nutritionist, more properly nutrition activist and author, Mike Adams. His website, www.newstarget.com, was a pleasant surprise. I was actually looking for some thoughts on pharmaceutical advertising and its pervasive and destructive effects and came across one of Adam's reports, Pharmaceutical television advertising is a grand hoax at http://www.newstarget.com/021526.html. The piece is a rant against the pharmaceutical industry's constant bombardment of the media, who have also been co-opted into their service, enticed by the enormous advertising revenues the drug industry brings. But I was surprised to find an insightful, informative website on health issues, particularly healthy eating that rejects the manufactured food industry's intensive effort to persuade us to eat their products. While I don't agree with everything Adams has to say, his website provides some great food for thought. He also provides lots of downloadable information.There's also some great laughs at his poke at the pharmaceutical industry with his Disease Mongering Engine at http://www.newstarget.com/disease-mongering-engine.asp, in which you get to create your own diseases. I got a real kick out of this.
CT scans and radiation exposure 19. June 2007 William Davis (8) The NY Times ran an article called With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/health/19cons.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1182254102-vQpytpx6W/Z9gvAaNPDZvA “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.”Where do CT heart scans fall?Let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:Typical effective radiation dose valuesComputed tomography Milliseverts (mSv)Head CT 1 – 2 mSvPelvis CT 3 – 4 mSvChest CT 5 – 7 mSvAbdomen CT 5 – 7 mSvAbdomen/pelvis CT 8 – 11 mSvCoronary CT angiography 5 – 12 mSvNon-CT Milliseverts (mSv)Hand radiograph Less than 0.1 mSvChest radiograph Less than 0.1 mSvMammogram 0.3 – 0.6 mSvBarium enema exam 3 – 6 mSvCoronary angiogram 5 – 10 mSvSestamibi myocardial perfusion (per injection) 6 – 9 mSvThallium myocardial perfusion (per injection) 26 – 35 mSvSource: Cynthia H. McCullough, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MNIf 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. A heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, your exposure is 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 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 legimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year. 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. Detail on radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms on multidetector devices can be found at 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, one of several studies on this issue.