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.

Heart Scan Blog reader, Eric, related his blood pressure success story to me:

I'm 34 and have been battling chronic hypertension (systolic 150-200, depending on my anxiety levels) even with multiple prescriptions for over a decade now. I've seen four different cardiologists, all stumped as to what is causing my hypertension. First, they suspected coarctation of my aorta [a constriction in the aorta], but an angiogram determined blood pressure readings were the same on both sides of the narrowing.

The second angiogram performed last year to determine if my coarct had worsened determined that it had not, but that my aorta had calcium build up. The cardiologist was stumped because he told me he hasn't seen calcium in a patient so young. Needless to say, this scared me to death, with my wife being pregnant with our first child. I asked if it could be reversed and he didn't know so he sent me to get a Berkeley lab.

The Berkeley came back with LDL 91, HDL 41, Triglycerides 73, CRP 4.1, vit D 26. The doctors weren't very knowledgeable about explaining to me what these meant and how I could correct the low vit D and high CRP. They told me to follow the low-fat diet recommended by Berkeley. Well I've already tried the DASH diet and didn't like how I felt or my energy levels, so I didn't transition.

I was at a loss until I encountered your blog and it was truly a gift. It was a refreshing feeling to meet a knowledgeable Dr. who knew what I was going through and seems to truly care about reversing calcium in the heart (something I never got from my any of my cardiologists). With your blog I have an appointment to get a heart scan here in CO and take that number along with my Berkeley results and join Track Your Plaque.

For the past 2 weeks I've been following your advice by taking a D3+K2 supplement with Omega3 Fish oil and avoiding all grain, wheat, sugar and I'm already down 4lbs to 223.5lbs at 6'5" tall and my blood pressure readings have been 128/54 and 129/60 the past 2 days! With your help I may not have the dark future my father had: dead at 48 with a massive heart attack.

Stay on the look out because I look forward to telling you how I'm one of your top calcium losers!

Eric, Colorado

Conventional medical care fails at so many levels for so many people. While Eric's doctors were busy contemplating the next angiogram, they were neglecting several crucial aspects of his health.

It's really not that tough. But it can mean doing the opposite of what conventional "wisdom" tell us.

DHEA supplementation is among my favorite ways to deal with the often-difficult lipoprotein(a), Lp(a).

DHEA is a testosterone-like adrenal hormone that declines with age, such that a typical 70-year old has blood levels around 10% that of a youthful person. DHEA is responsible for physical vigor, strength, libido, and stamina. It also keeps a lid on Lp(a).

While the effect is modest, DHEA is among the most consistent for obtaining reductions in Lp(a). A typical response would be a drop in Lp(a) from 200 nmol/L to 180 nmol/L, or 50 mg/dl to 42 mg/dl--not big responses, but very consistent responses. While there are plenty of non-responders to, say, testosterone (males), DHEA somehow escapes this inconsistency.

Rarely will DHEA be sufficient as a sole treatment for increased Lp(a), however. It is more helpful as an adjunct, e.g., to high-dose fish oil (now our number one strategy for Lp(a) control in the Track Your Plaque program), or niacin.

Because the "usual" 50 mg dose makes a lot of people bossy and aggressive, I now advise people to start with 10 mg. We then increase gradually over time to higher doses, provided the edginess and bossiness don't creep out.

The data documenting the Lp(a)-reducing effect of DHEA are limited, such as this University of Pennsylvania study, but in my real life experience in over 300 people with Lp(a), I can tell you it works.

And don't be scared by the horror stories of 10+ years ago when DHEA was thought to be a "fountain of youth," prompting some to take megadose DHEA of 1000-3000 mg per day. Like any hormone taken in supraphysiologic doses, weird stuff happens. In the case of DHEA, people become hyperaggressive, women grow mustaches and develop deep voices. DHEA doses used for Lp(a) are physiologic doses within the range ordinarily experienced by youthful humans.

Jeanne enjoyed her Christmas holidays. She especially liked sharing the cookies she made for her grandchildren, sneaking 2 or 3 every day over a couple of weeks. On top of this, she enjoyed the Christmas candy, egg nog, leftover stuffing and cranberry sauce, topped off with a night of nutritional debauchery on New Year's Eve.

Lipid panel in October:

Total cholesterol 146 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 72 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 64 mg/dl
Triglycerides 49 mg/dl

Lipid panel in early January:

Total cholesterol 229 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 141 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 59 mg/dl
Triglycerides 147 mg/dl

I call the holidays The Annual Wheat and Sugar Frenzy. It's the carbohydrates, especially those from products made of wheat and sucrose, that caused the marked shifts in Jeanne's lipid patterns. Let's take each parameter apart:

--Triglycerides go up due to de novo lipogenesis, liver conversion of carbohydrates into triglycerides. Triglycerides enter the bloodstream as VLDL particles which, in turn, interact with LDL and HDL.

--LDL goes up because carbohydrate exposure increases VLDL, followed by conversion to LDL. The triglyceride-rich LDL created is converted to small LDL particles. Had we measured small LDL changes in Jeanne, we likely would have measured something like an increase (by NMR) from 800 nmol/L to 1600 nmol/L, a carbohydrate effect.

--The increased VLDL also makes HDL triglyceride-rich, cause more rapid degradation of HDL particles. (It also makes them smaller, like LDL.) Given sufficient time (a few more months), HDL would drop into the 40's.

--Total cholesterol changes reflect the composite of the above numbers. (Total cholesterol = LDL cholesterol + HDL cholesterol + Trig/5) (Note that, as HDL drops, so will total cholesterol; that's why this value is worthless and should be ignored.)

So don't be surprised by the above distortions after a period of carbohydrate indulgence. Although your unwitting primary care doc will see such changes as opportunity for Lipitor, it is nothing more than the cascade of effects from a carbohydrate-driven distortion of lipoproteins.

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.

There is no remaining question that fructose is among the worst possible things humans can consume.

Followers of the Heart Scan Blog already know this, from conversations like The LDL-Fructose Disconnect, Where do you find fructose?, and Goodbye, fructose.

But fructose, usually as either high-fructose corn syrup (44%, 55%, occasionally higher percentage fructose) or sucrose (50% fructose), is ubiquitous. I've seen it in the most improbable places, including cole slaw, mustard, and dill pickles.

It's reasonably straightforward to avoid or minimize fructose exposure while eating at home, provided you check labels and focus on foods that don't require labels (like green peppers, salmon, and olive oil, i.e., unprocessed foods). But when you choose to eat at a restaurant, then all hell can break loose and fructose exposure can explode.

So what are some common and unsuspected fructose sources when eating at a restaurant?

Salad dressings--Dressings in all stripes and flavors are now made with high-fructose corn syrup and/or sucrose. This is especially true of low-fat, non-fat, or "lite" dressings, meaning oils have been replaced by high-fructose corn syrup. It can also be true of traditional non-low-fat dressings, too, since high-fructose corn syrup is just plain cheap.

Olive oil and vinegar are still your safest bets. I will often use salsa as a dressing, which works well.

Sauces and gravies--Not only can sauces be thickened with cornstarch, many pre-mixed sauces are also made with high-fructose corn syrup or sweetened with sucrose. Barbecue sauce is a particular landmine, since it is now a rare barbecue sauce not made with high-fructose corn syrup as the first or second ingredient. Sauces for dipping are nearly always high-fructose corn syrup-based.

Ketchup--Yup. Good old ketchup even is now made with high-fructose corn syrup. In fact, you should be suspicious of any condiment.

Highball, Bloody Mary, Margarita, Daiquiri, beer--Even the before-dinner or dinner drink can have plenty of fructose, particularly if a mix is used to make it. While Blood Marys seem the most benign of all, adorned with celery, pickle, and olive, just take a look at the ingredient label on the mix used: high-fructose corn syrup.

Fructose is a stealth poison: It doesn't immediately increase blood sugar; it doesn't trigger any perceptible effect like increased energy or sleepiness. But it is responsible for an incredible amount of the health struggles in the U.S., from obesity, to diabetes, to hyperlipidemias and heart disease, to arthritis, to cataracts.

Advanced Glycation End-products, or AGEs, the stuff of aging that mucks up brains, kidneys, and arteries, develop via two different routes: endogenous (from within the body) and exogenous (from outside the body).

Endogenous AGEs develop via glycation. Glycation of proteins in the body occurs when there are glucose excursions above normal. For instance, a blood glucose of 150 mg/dl after your bowl of stone-ground oatmeal causes glycation of proteins left and right, from the proteins in the lens of your eyes (cataracts), to the proteins in your kidneys (proteinuria and kidney dysfunction), to skin cells (wrinkles), to cartilage (brittle cartilage followed by arthritis), to LDL particles, especially small LDL particles (atherosclerosis).

At what blood sugar level does glycation occur? It occurs even at "normal" glucose levels below 100 mg/dl (with measurable long-term cardiovascular effects as low as 83 mg/dl). In other words, some level of glycation proceeds even at blood glucose levels regarded as normal.

There's nothing we can do about the low-level of glycation that occurs at low blood sugar levels of, say, 90 mg/dl or less. However, we can indeed do a lot to not allow glycation to proceed more rapidly, as it inevitably will at blood sugar levels higher than 90 mg/dl.

How do you keep blood sugars below 90 mg/dl to prevent excessive glycation? Avoid or minimize the foods that cause such rises in blood sugar: carbohydrates.

What food increases blood sugar higher than nearly all other known foods? Wheat.

People ask: "What if I would like a piece of bread or other baked product just once in a while? What is safe?"

Eli Rogosa, Director of The Heritage Wheat Conservancy, believes that a return to the wheat of our ancestors in the Fertile Crescent, circa 10,000 years ago, is the answer.

Former science teacher, now organic farmer, farm researcher, and advocate of sustainable agriculture, Eli has been reviving "heritage" crops farmed under organic conditions, some of her research USDA-funded.

In particular, Eli has been cultivating original 14-chromosome ("diploid") einkorn wheat. Although einkorn contains gluten (in lesser quantities despite the higher total protein content), the group of proteins that trigger the immune abnormalities of celiac disease and other immune phenomena, Eli tells me that she has witnessed many people with a variety of wheat intolerances, including celiac disease, tolerate foods made with einkorn wheat. (The variety of glutens in einkorn differ from the glutens of the dwarf mutant that now dominate supermarket shelves.)

Eli travels to Israel every year, returning with "heritage" seeds for wheat and other crops. She formerly worked in the Israel GenBank as Director of the Ancient Wheat Program. She has written a brochure that describes her einkorn wheat.

Eli sent me 2 lb of her einkorn grain that nutritionist, Margaret Pfeiffer, and I ground into bread. Our experience is detailed here. My subsequent blood sugar misadventure, comparing einkorn bread to conventional organic whole wheat bread is detailed here, followed by the odd neurologic effects I experienced here.

Anyone else wishing to try this little ancient wheat experiment with einkorn can also obtain either the unground grain or ground flour through Eli's website, www.growseed.org. Most recently, einkorn pasta is being retailed under the Jovial brand at Whole Foods Market.

If anyone else makes bread or any other food with Eli's einkorn wheat, please let me know:

1) Your blood sugar response (before and 1 hour after consumption)
2) Whether you experienced any evidence of wheat intolerance similar to what you experienced with conventional wheat, e.g., rash, acid reflux, gas and cramping, moodiness, asthma, etc.

But remember: Wheat effects or no, einkorn is still a grain. My belief is that humans do best with little or no grain. The einkorn experience is an effort to identify reasonable compromises so that you and I can have a piece of birthday cake once a year without getting sick.

Peter has lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), a genetic pattern shared by 11% of Americans.

It means that Peter inherited a gene that codes for a protein, called apoprotein(a), that attaches to LDL particles, forming the combined particle Lp(a). It also means that his overall pattern responds well to a high-fat, high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet: The small LDL particles that accompany Lp(a) over 90% of the time are reduced, Lp(a) itself is modestly reduced, other abnormalities like high triglycerides (that facilitate Lp(a)'s adverse effects) are corrected. Small LDL particles are, by the way, part of the genetic "package" of Lp(a) in most carriers.

Peter also has another gene for Apo E4, another genetically-determined pattern shared by 19% of Americans. (Another 2% of Americans have two "doses" of Apo E4, i.e., they are homozygotes for E4.) This means that the Apo E protein, normally responsible for liver uptake and disposal of lipoproteins (especially VLDL), is defective. In people with Apo E4, the higher the fat intake, the more LDL particles accumulate. (The explanation for this effect is not entirely clear, but it may represent excessive defective Apo E-enriched VLDL that competes with LDL for liver uptake.) People with Apo E4 therefore drop LDL (and LDL particle number and apoprotein B) with reductions in fat intake.

This is a genetic rock-and-a-hard-place, or what I call a genetic incompatibility. If Peter increases fat and reduces carbohydrates to reduce Lp(a)/small LDL, then LDL measures like LDL particle number, apoprotein B, and LDL cholesterol will increase. Paradoxically, sometimes small LDL particles will even increase in some genetically predisposed people.

If Peter decreases fat and increases carbohydrates, LDL particle number, apoprotein B, and LDL cholesterol will decrease, but the proportion of small LDL will increase and Lp(a) may increase.

Thankfully, such "genetic incompatibilities" are uncommon. In my large practice, for instance, I have about 5 such people.

The message: If you witness paradoxic responses that don't make sense or follow the usual pattern, e.g., reductions in LDL particle number, apoprotein B, and small LDL with reductions in their dietary triggers (i.e., carbohydrates, especially wheat), then consider a competing genetic trait such as Apo E4.

Tom is a 50-year old, 198-lb white male. At the start, his 25-hydroxy vitamin D level was 28.8 ng/ml in July. Tom supplements vitamin D, 2000 units per day, in gelcap form. Six months later in January (winter), Tom's 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 67.4 ng/ml.

Jerry is another 50-year old white male with similar build and weight. Jerry's starting summer 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 26.4 ng/ml. Jerry takes 12,000 units vitamin D per day, also in gelcap form. In winter, six months later, Jerry's 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 63.2 ng/ml.

Two men, similar builds, similar body weight, both Caucasian, similar starting levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D. Yet they have markedly different needs for vitamin D dose to achieve a similar level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D. Why?

It's unlikely to be due to variation in vitamin D supplement preparations, since I monitor vitamin D levels at least every 6 months and, even with changes in preparations, dose needs remain fairly constant.

The differences in this situation are likely genetically-determined. To my knowledge, however, the precise means by which genetic variation accounts for it has not been worked out.

This highlights the folly of specifying a one-size-fits-all Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for vitamin D. The variation in need can be incredible. While needs are partly determined by body size and proportion body fat (the bigger you are, the more you need), I've also seen 105 lb women require 14,000 units and 320-lb men require 1000 units to achieve the same level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D.

An RDA for everyone? Ridiculous. Vitamin D is an individual issue that must be addressed on a person-by-person basis.

If coronary disease is easy to detect by measuring coronary calcium, shouldn't this represent the standard of care?

In other words, if you've been seeing your doctor and he/she has been monitoring cholesterol levels and, inevitably, talks about statin drugs, then you have a heart attack, unstable angina, or die--yet never knew you had heart disease--isn't this negligence?

Coronary calcium, and thereby coronary atherosclerotic plaque, are markers for the disease itself. Unlike cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc., that represent risk factors for coronary atherosclerotic plaque, coronary calcium is a measure of total plaque: "soft" elements like lipid collections, necrotic tissue, fibrous tissue, as well as "hard" elements like calcium. Because calcium occupies 20% of total atherosclerotic plaque volume, it can be used as an indirect "dipstick" for total plaque.

So why isn't an unexpected heart attack, hospitalization for unstable heart symptions, emergency bypass, etc., not regarded as potential malpractice? These are not benign events, but potentially life-threatening.

Where do you find fructose?

Do heart scans cause cancer?

Goodbye, fructose

The statin-free life

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

Roger's near-miss CT angiogram experience

The Myth of Prevention: Letter to the Wall Street Journal

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

Sleep: A to Zzzzzzzzzz

High blood pressure vanquished

DHEA and Lp(a)

No more cookies

How to become diabetic in 5 easy steps

Restaurant eating: A fructose landmine

A glycation rock and a hard place

Is einkorn the answer?

Genetic incompatibility

The folly of an RDA for vitamin D

Heart scan: Standard of care?