Letter from the insurance company 18. March 2011 William Davis (24) Claudia got this letter from her health insurance company:Dear Ms. ------,Based on a recent review of your cholesterol panel of January 12, 2011, we feel that you should strongly consider speaking to your doctor about cholesterol treatment.Reducing cholesterol values to healthy levels has been shown to reduce heart attack risk . . . Okay. So the health insurer wants Claudia to take a cholesterol drug in the hopes that it will reduce their exposure to the costs for her future heart catheterization, angioplasty and stent, or bypass surgery. This is understandable, given the extraordinary costs of such hospital services, typically running from $40,000 for a several hour-long outpatient catheterization procedure, to as much as $200,000 for a several day long stay for coronary bypass surgery.So what's the problem? Here are Claudia's most recent lipid values:LDL cholesterol 196 mg/dlHDL 88 mg/dlTriglycerides 37 mg/dlTotal cholesterol 291 mg/dlBy the criteria followed by her health insurer, both total and LDL cholesterol are much too high. Note, of course, that LDL cholesterol was a calculated value, not measured. Here are Claudia's lipoproteins, drawn simultaneously with her lipids:LDL particle number 898 nmol/LSmall LDL particle number less than 90 nmol/L (Values less than 90 are not reported by Liposcience)LDL particle number is, by far and away, the best measure of LDL particles, an actual count of particles, rather than a guesstimate of LDL particles gauged by measuring cholesterol in the low-density fraction of lipoproteins (i.e., LDL cholesterol). It is also measured and is highly reproducible. To convert LDL particle number in nmol/L to an LDL cholesterol-like value in mg/dl, divide by ten (or just drop the last digit). Claudia's measured LDL is therefore 89 mg/dl--54% lower than the crude calculated LDL suggests. This is because virtually all of Claudia's LDL particles are large, with little or no small. This situation throws off the crude assumptions built into the LDL calculation, making it appear that she has very high LDL cholesterol. Do you think that Big Pharma advertises this phenomenon?
Healthy smoothies 15. March 2011 William Davis (51) I've now seen several people who have either caused themselves to be diabetic or to have other phenomena associated with excessive consumption of carbohydrates, all by innocently indulging in a carbohydrate-packed smoothie every morning. Kay, for instance, has a smoothie of a half-pint blueberries, a banana, a scoop of whey, low-fat yogurt, a cup of milk every morning. The rest of her diet was fairly healthy: salads with oil-based dressing for lunch, salmon and asparagus for dinner, only an occasional carbohydrate indulgence outside of her morning smoothie ritual. Yet she had a HbA1c (a reflection of prior 60 to 90 days average blood sugar) at the near-diabetic range of 5.9%. The mistake most people make when making smoothies is relying too heavily on carbohydrates like fruit. A smoothie like the one made by Kay can easily top 50, 60, or 70 grams carbohydrates per serving, more than sufficient to send blood sugars up to 150 mg/dl or more. So what can you put in your smoothie and not send you over the edge to diabetes, small LDL, and all the other undesirable phenomena of excessive carbohydrates? Here's a list:--coconut milk, unsweetened almond milk. Less desirable: milk, full-fat soymilk--ground flaxseed--oils: flaxseed oil, coconut oil (melted), extra-light olive oil, walnut oil--dried coconut--extracts: vanilla, almond, coconut, cherry, hazelnut--spices: cinnamon, nutmeg, ginger--herbs: mint leaves, cilantro--cocoa powder (unsweetened)--nut or seed butters (peanut butter, almond butter, sunflower seed butter)--tofu--exotic ingredients (ingredients you wouldn't expect in a smoothie): spinach, kale, cucumberHow do you sweeten a smoothie? This is what trips up most people. If you resort to fruit like bananas, pineapple, or apple, you will readily send your blood sugar skyward. Honey, agave syrup, and sugar, of course, all increase blood sugar and/or have the adverse effects of fructose. Be careful of yogurt, also, for similar reasons. Therefore, to sweeten your smoothie, consider:--Small servings of berries, e.g., 8-10 blueberries, 2 strawberries, a few wedges of apple, half a kiwi--Non-nutritive sweeteners like stevia, Truvia, sucralose, xylitol, erythritol. Also, sugar-free (sucralose-based) syrups like those from DaVinci and Torani are useful. (Just be aware that non-nutritive sweeteners can increase appetite--use sparingly.)Also, note that, if you have divorced yourself from wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, your desire for sweet should be much reduced. Foods other people find just right will taste sickeningly sweet to you. You might therefore find that foods like peanut butter or coconut milk have a mild natural sweetness; added sweetness is only minimally necessary. Coming next: I'll share a smoothie recipe or two of mine. Anyone want to share a recipe?
Insulin secretagogue 14. March 2011 William Davis (34) Dairy products have the peculiar property of triggering pancreatic release of insulin. The research group at Lund University in Sweden have contributed the most to documenting this phenomenon:Mean (±SEM) incremental changes (?) in serum insulin in response to equal amounts of carbohydrate from a white-wheat-bread reference meal (x) and test meals of whey (?), milk (?), cheese (?), cod (?), gluten-low (?), and gluten-high (?) meals. From Nilsson 2004.Note that it is the area under the curve (AUC), not the peak value, that assumes greatest importance. Dairy products, especially milk, whey, and yogurt, are insulin secretagogues: they stimulate pancreatic release of insulin. The effect is likely due to amino acids and/or polypeptides in dairy products. (The effect is less prominent with cheese. Also see this study.)By conventional wisdom, this may be a good thing, since the excess insulin will blunt the glucose rise after consumption. However, in my book, this is not such a good thing, since most of us have tired, beaten, overworked pancreatic beta cells from our decades of carbohydrate overconsumption. I fear that the effect of dairy products just take us a bit closer to beta cell failure: diabetes. Good news: The effect is least with cheese.
Be gluten-free without "gluten-free" 9. March 2011 William Davis (23) While I've discussed this before, it is such a confusing issue that I'd like to discuss it again.I advocate wheat elimination because consumption of products made from modern dwarf Triticum aestivum:--Triggers formation of extravagant quantities of small LDL and LDL particle number (or apoprotein B)--Triggers inflammatory phenomena like c-reactive protein, increases leptin resistance, and reduction of the protective adipocytokine, adiponectin.--Encourages accumulation of deep visceral fat ("wheat belly") that is inflammatory and causes resistance to insulin--Increases blood sugar more than nearly all other foods--higher than a Milky Way bar, higher than a Snickers bar, higher than table sugar. --Is being linked to a growing number of immune-mediated diseases, including celiac disease (quadrupled over past 50 years), type 1 diabetes in children, and cerebellar ataxia and peripheral neuropathies. This last group of wheat-related phenomena are primarily due to gluten, the collection of 50+ proteins found in each wheat plant. For this reason, people diagnosed with celiac disease are advised to eliminate gluten from wheat and other sources (barley, rye, triticale, bulgur) and to eat gluten-free foods. Gluten-free has therefore come to be viewed as wheat-free and problem-free. It ain't so. Among the few foods that increase blood glucose higher than wheat: cornstarch, rice starch, potato starch, and tapioca starch--Yup: the ingredients commonly used to replace wheat in gluten-free foods. They are also flagrant triggers of the small LDL pattern, along with increased triglycerides, reduced HDL, increased visceral fat, increased blood pressure. In short, gluten-free foods lack the immune and brain effects of wheat gluten, but still make you fat, hypertensive, and diabetic. I tell patients to view gluten-free foods like jelly beans: Gluten-free pancakes, muffins, breads, etc. are indulgences, not healthy replacements for wheat. It's okay to have a few jelly beans now and then. But they should not be part of a frequent or daily routine. Same with gluten-free foods.
Diabetes: Better than hedge funds 7. March 2011 William Davis (23) Diabetes is where the action is. While, for virtually all of history, type 2 diabetes was an uncommon condition of adults, the disease has spread so much to all levels of American society that even kids are now developing the adult form. Researchers from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention predict that, by 2050, one in three adults will be diabetic. The diabetes market is booming, handily surpassing growth of the oil industry, the housing market, even technology. It makes Bernie Madoff’s billions look like small potatoes. In health, few markets are growing as fast as diabetes—-not osteoporosis, not heart disease, not cancer. Americans are getting fat from carbohydrate consumption, becoming diabetic along with it. While kids hanging around the convenience store gulp down 26 teaspoons of sugar in 32-ounce sodas and 56-grams-of-sugar in 16-ounce frozen ices, health-minded adults are more likely eating two slices of 6-teaspoons sugar-equivalent “healthy whole grain” bread, wondering why last year’s jeans are too tight. The U.S. is not the only nation affected. Globally, 2.8% of the world’s population are diabetic, a number expected to double over the next 20 years. Pharmaceutical companies boast double-digit growth for diabetes drugs, growth rates that keep profit-hungry investors happy. Merck’s Januvia, for instance, introduced in 2006, recently catalogued 30% growth in sales, with annual sales approaching $1 billion. Recently FDA-approved Victoza, requiring once-a-day injection, is expected to reap $4 billion in sales per year for manufacturer Novo Nordisk. Such numbers can only warm a drug company CEO’s heart. Most diabetics don’t just take one medication, but several. A typical regimen for an adult diabetic after a couple of years of treatment and following the dietary advice of the American Diabetes Association includes metformin, Januvia, and Actos, a triple-drug treatment that costs around $420 per month. Two forms of insulin (slow- and fast-acting), along with two or three oral medications, is not at all uncommon. “Collateral” revenues from the other health conditions that develop from a diet rich in “healthy whole grains,” such as drugs for hypertension, drugs to slow the progression of kidney disease in diabetes, drugs for “high cholesterol,” and drugs for high triglycerides, and you have a pharmaceutical drug bonanza. You, too, would throw all-expenses-paid, fly-the-entire-sales-force-to-the-Caribbean sales meetings. The global diabetes market has already topped $25 billion and is growing at double-digit rates. Forget the Internet, gold stocks, or solar energy—-diabetes is where the money is. This fact has not been lost on the very market-savvy pharmaceutical industry. As with any successful business, they have devoted substantial resources to develop and grow this booming business.
270 lb man in diapers 5. March 2011 William Davis (20) Alex is a big guy: 6 ft 4 inches, 273 lbs. On 10,000 units per day of vitamin D in gelcap form, his 25-hydroxy vitamin D level was 38.4 ng/ml. One year earlier, his 25-hydroxy vitamin D level, prior to any vitamin D supplementation was 9.8 ng/ml. According to the latest assessment offered by the Institute of Medicine (IOM):Vitamin D need for a 13-month old infant: 600 units per dayVitamin D need for a 6 ft 4 in, 273 lb male: 600 units per dayI paint this picture to highlight some of the absurdity built into the smug assumptions of the IOM's report. It would be like trying to fit a large, full-grown man into the diapers of a 13-month old. Few nutrients or hormones (in fact, I can't think of a single one) are required in similar quantity by an infant or toddler and a full grown adult. However, according to the IOM's logic, their vitamin D needs are identical, regardless of age, body size, skin color, genetics, etc. One size fits all.Just as the original RDA assessment by the Institute of Medicine kept thinking about vitamin D somewhere in the Stone Age, so does this most recent assessment.
90% small LDL: Good news, bad news 4. March 2011 William Davis (11) Chris has 90% small LDL particles. On his (NMR) lipoprotein panel, of the total 2432 nmol/L LDL particles ("LDL particle number"), 2157 nmol/L are small, approximately 90% (2157/2432).Bad news: Having this severe excess of small LDL particles virtually guarantees heart attack and stroke in Chris' future.Good news: It means that Chris potentially has spectacular control over his lipoprotein and lipid values, achieving statin-like values without statin drugs.Typically, extravagant quantities of small LDL particles are accompanied by low HDL, high triglycerides, and pre-diabetes or diabetes. Chris' HDL is 26 mg/dl, triglycerides 204 mg/dl; HbA1c 5.9% (a reflection of prior 60-90 days average blood glucose; desirable 4.8% or less), fitting neatly into the expected pattern.Chris' pattern tells me several things:1) He overconsumes carbohydrates, since carbohydrates trigger this pattern.2) He likely has a genetic susceptibility to this effect (e.g., a variant of the gene for cholesteryl ester transfer protein, perhaps hepatic lipase). Only the most gluttonous and overweight carbohydrate consumers can generate this high a percentage small LDL without an underlying genetic susceptibility. 3) Provided he follows the diet advised, i.e., elimination of all wheat, cornstarch, oats, and sugars, he is likely to have an extavagant drop in LDL particle number. Should he achieve the goal I set of small LDL of 300 nmol/L or less, his LDL particle number will likely be around 500 nmol/L. This translates to an LDL cholesterol of 50 mg/dl . . . 50 mg/dl. In many people, this notion of taking statin drugs for "high cholesterol" is an absurd oversimplification. But it is a situation that, for many, is wonderfully controllable with the right diet.
The American Heart Association has a PR problem 2. March 2011 William Davis (17) The results of the latest Heart Scan Blog poll are in. The poll was prompted by yet another observation that the American Heart Association diet is a destructive diet that, in this case, made a monkey fat. Because I am skeptical of "official" organizations that purport to provide health advice, particularly nutritional advice, I thought this poll might provide some interesting feedback. I asked:The American Heart Association is an organization that:The responses:Tries to maintain the procedural and medication status quo to benefit the medical system and pharmaceutical industry for money240 (64%)Doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground121 (32%)Is generally helpful but is misguided in some of its advice79 (21%)Accomplishes tremendous good and you people are nuts6 (1%)Worrisome. Now, perhaps the people reading this blog are a skeptical bunch. Or perhaps they are better informed. Nonetheless, one thing is clear: The American Heart Association (and possibly other organizations like the American Diabetes Association and USDA) have a serious PR problem. They are facing an increasingly critical and skeptical public. Just telling people to "cut the fat and cholesterol" is beginning to fall on deaf ears. After all, the advice to cut fat, cut saturated fat, cut cholesterol and increase consumption of "healthy whole grains" in 1985 began the upward ascent of body weight and diabetes in the American public.Believe it or not, my vote would be for something between choices 1 and 3. I believe that the American Heart Association achieves a lot of good. But I also believe that there are forces within organizations that are there to serve their own agendas. In this case, I believe there is a substantial push to maintain the procedural and medication status quo, the "treatments" that generate the most generous revenues. I believe that I will forward these poll results to the marketing people at the American Heart Association. That'll be interesting!
The formula for aortic valve disease? 28. February 2011 William Davis (60) I've discussed this question before:Can aortic valve stenosis be stopped or reversed using a regimen of nutritional supplements?I had a striking experience this past week. Don has coronary plaque and began the Track Your Plaque program. However, discovery of a murmur led to an echocardiogram that measured his effective aortic valve area at 1.5 cm2. (Normal is between 2.5-3.0 cm2.) Because of his aortic valve issue, I suggested that, in addition to the 10,000 units of vitamin D required to increase his 25-hydroxy vitamin D level to 70 ng/ml, he also add vitamin K2, 1000 mcg per day, along with elimination of all calcium supplements. (I asked Don to use a K2 supplement that contained both forms, short-acting MK-4 and long-acting MK-7.) One year later, another echocardiogram: aortic valve area 2.6 cm2--an incredible increase. This is not supposed to happen. By conventional thinking, aortic valve stenosis can only get worse, never get better. But I've now witnessed this in approximately 10% of the people with aortic valve stenosis. The majority just stop getting worse, an occasional person gets worse, while a few, like Don, get better. Aortic valve stenosis is to the aortic valve as degenerative arthritis is to your knees: A form of wear-and-tear that leads to progressive dysfunction. When the aortic valve becomes stiff enough (i.e., "stenotic"), then it leads to chest pains, lightheadedness or losing consciousness, heart failure, and, eventually, death. Bad problem. Aortic stenosis typically starts in your 50s with calcification of the valve, getting worse and worse until the calcium makes the valve "leaflets" unable to move. The treatment: a new valve, a major undertaking involving an open heart procedure. What if taking vitamins D and K2 and avoiding calcium do not just reverse or stop aortic valve stenosis once established, but prevents it in the first place? Tantalizing possibility.Pressures on my time being what they are, I've not had the freedom to put together a prospective study to further examine this fascinating question. But it is definitely worth pursuing.
Blood glucose 160 26. February 2011 William Davis (28) What happens when blood glucose hits 160 mg/dl? A blood glucose at this level is typical after, say, a bowl of slow-cooked oatmeal with no added sugar, a small serving of Cheerios, or even an apple in the ultra carb-sensitive. Normal blood sugar with an empty stomach, i.e., fasting; high blood sugars after eating. Conventional wisdom is that a blood sugar of 160 mg/dl is okay, since your friendly primary care doctor says that any postprandial glucose of 200 mg/dl or less is fine because you don't "need" medication. But what sort of phenomena occur when blood sugars are in this range? Here's a list:--Glycation (i.e., glucose modification of proteins) of various tissues, including the lens of your eyes (cataracts), kidney tissue leading to kidney disease, skin leading to wrinkles, cartilage leading to stiffness, degeneration, and arthritis. --Glycation of LDL particles. Glycated LDL particles are more prone to oxidation. --VLDL and triglyceride production by the liver, i.e., de novo lipogenesis.--Small LDL particle formation--The increased VLDL/triglyceride production leads to the CETP-mediated reaction that creates small LDL particles which are, in turn, more glycation- and oxidation-prone. --Glucotoxicity--i.e., a direct toxic effect of high blood glucose. This is especially an issue for the vulnerable beta cells of the pancreas that produce insulin. Repeated glucotoxic poundings by high glucose levels lead to fewer functional beta cells. A blood glucose of 160 mg/dl is definitely not okay. While it is not an immediate threat to your health, repeated exposures will lead you down the same path that diabetics tread with all of its health problems.
More Omnivore's Dilemma 11. February 2007 William Davis (2) Another irresistible quote from Michael Pollan’s book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma:“In many ways breakfast cereal is the prototypical processed food: four cents’ worth of commodity corn (or some other equally cheap grain) transformed into four dollars’ worth of processed food. What an alchemy! Yet it is performed straightforwardly enough: by taking several of the output streams issuing from a wet mill (corn meal, corn starch, corn sweetener, as well as a handful of tinier chemical fractions) and then assembling them into an attractively novel form. Further value is added in the form of color and taste, then branding and packaging. Oh yes, and vitamins and minerals, which are added to give the product a sheen of healthfulness and to replace the nutrients that are lost whenever whole foods are processed. On the strength of this alchemy the cereals group generates higher profits for General Mills than any other division. Since the raw materials in processed foods are so abundant and cheap (ADM and Cargill will gladly sell them to all comers) protecting whatever is special about the value you add to them is imperative.”A food manufacturer’s nightmare is when you and your family shop in the produce aisle in the grocery store. Produce is unmodified (aside from the pesticide and genetic-engineering issues), not added to, and therefore of no interest to the food manufacturer, since no additional profit can be squeezed out of it. If you pay 45 cents for a cucumber, there’s no room for a processor to multiply it’s return.Vegetables and fruits have imperfections, no doubt, particularly pesticide residues and the “dumbing-down” of some foods to increase their desirability (e.g., green grapes, what I call “grape candy”). But vegetables and fruits are the closest you can get to foods that are essentially unmodified by a food manufacturer. Due to the absence of processing, they are not calorie-dense like a bag of chips; they include all the naturally-occurring healthy factors like flavonoids that food scientists have, thus far, struggled and failed to identify, quantify, and control; and they lack all the unhealthy additives that processed foods require for extended shelf life, palatability, and reconstitution (anti-separating agents, emulsifiers, sweeteners, etc.) Vegetables, in particular, should be the cornerstone of your plaque control program. Not breakfast cereals, breads, bacon, sausage, mayonnaise, fruit drinks and soda, all the foods that worsen the causes of coronary plaque and raise your heart scan score. If you would like to understand how the current perverted state of affairs in food have come about, Pollan’s book is must reading.
Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma 11. February 2007 William Davis (0) “ ‘You are what you eat’ is a truism hard to argue with, and yet it is, as a visit to a feedlot suggests, incomplete, for you are what what you eat eats, too. And what we are, or have become, is not just meat but number 2 corn and oil.”Author Michael Pollan offers unique, enlightening, and entertaining insights into the food we eat in his new book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A natural history of four meals. Pollan draws parallels between the dilemma of the primitive human living in the wild, having to stumble through the choices of animals and plants that could nourish or kill, and the ironically modern return of this phenomenon in present-day supermarkets. While the dangers of food choices aren’t as immediate as in the wild (eat the wrong mushroom or herb, for instance, and you die), they can nonetheless be life-threatening, or at least health-threatening. Hydrogenated oils, high-fructose corn syrup, carageenan, guar gum. . .“What is all this stuff anyway, and where in the world did it come from?”Among the issues Pollan discusses is that of modern cattle raising practices: the rush to fatten a cow from an 80 lb calf to a 1200-pound, bloated cow over a period of 14 months. Nature created this animal to mature over a 4 to 5 year period through grazing, thus it’s beautifully “engineered” ruminant system that allows it to digest cellulose in grasses, a process that humans and other mammals are incapable of. The pressures to bring greater quantities of beef to market at a reduced price and make more money have resulted in a farming industry that encourages the incorporation of unnatural, often inhumane practices like corn feeding (rather than grass grazing), refeeding of bovine body parts (thus “mad cow disease”), and widespread and chronic administration of hormones and antibiotics. (I can't help but think that the rapid and perverse fattening of cattle by industrial "farming" is paralleled by the fattening of the eating American. After all, we are the hapless recipients of this flood of cheap, unhealthy, plasticized food.) The industrialization of food has de-personalized the act of eating. You no longer have any connection with the green pepper in your salad (unless you grew it yourself), nor do you have any appreciation for the suffering of the cow in your hamburger. Worse, the distortion of livestock raising practices has modified the food composition of meat. Range-fed animals, leaner and richer in omega-3 fatty acids, have been replaced by the marbled, saturated fat-rich modern grocery bought meats. This is a theme that Pollan reiterates time and again: how food processing adds value to the manufacturer, often starting with a healthy ingredient but modifying it, adding ingredients, taking out others, until it’s something decidedly unhealthy. Yet the manufacturer will trumpet the fact that a healthy ingredient is included. Breakfast cereals are the most blatant example of this. What the heck are Cheerios but an over-processed attempt to make more money out of the simple oat?Pollan’s eloquent and unique insights into food are definitely worth reading. As always, per our Track Your Plaque policy, I recommend Mr. Pollan’s book strictly on its merits. We obtain no “cut”, commission, or other financial gain by recommending his book. Track Your Plaque members pay their modest membership fee for truth. They do not pay for us to advertise something that provides hidden advantage to us. We do not advertise, editorialize to steer you towards a specific product or service. What we say, we truly believe.
The most frequently asked question of all 8. February 2007 William Davis (0) The most frequently asked question on the Track Your Plaque website:"Can you recommend a doctor in my area who can help me follow the Track Your Plaque program?"This is a problem. Unfortunately, I wish I could tell everyone that we have hundreds or thousands of physicians nationwide who have been thoroughly educated and adhere to the principles I believe are crucial in heart disease:1) Identify and quantify the amount of coronary atherosclerotic plaque present. In 2007, the best technique remains CT heart scans. 2) Identify all hidden causes of plaque. This includes Lp(a), post-prandial disorders, small LDL, and vitamin D deficiency. 3) Correct all patterns. But we don't.You'd think that this simple formula, as straightforward and rational as it sounds, would be easily followed by many if not most physicians. But Track Your Plaque followers know that it simply is not true. My colleagues, the cardiologists, are hell-bent on implanting the next new device, providing a lot more excitement to them as well as considerably more revenue. The primary care physician is already swamped in a sea of new information, going from osteoporosis drugs, to arthritis, to gynecologic issues, to skin rashes and flu. Heart disease prevention? Oh yeah, that too. They can only dabble in heart disease prevention a la prescription for Lipitor. That's quick and easy. Nonetheless, I believe we should work towards identifying the occasional physician who is indeed willing to help people follow a program like Track Your Plaque. As we grow, we will need to identify some mechanism of professional education and we will maintain a record of these practitioners. But right now, we're simply already stretched to the limit just doing what we are doing. If you come across a physician who practices in this fashion and you've had a positive relationship, we'd like to hear about it.
Do stents kill? 6. February 2007 William Davis (5) There's apparently a lively conversation going on at the HeartHawk Blog (www.hearthawk.blogspot.com). Among the hot topics raised was just how bad it is to have a stent. I think that my comments some time back may have started this controversy. I've lately noticed that having a stent screws up your heart scan scoring in the vicinity of the stent. I was referring to the fact that I've now seen several people in the Track Your Plaque program do everything right and then show what I call "regional reversal": unstented arteries show dramatic drops in score of 18-30%, but the artery with a stent shows significant increase in score. This is consistent with what we observe in the world outside Track Your Plaque when stents are inserted. Someone will get a stent, for instance, in the left anterior descending artery. A year later, there will be a "new" plaque at the mouth of the stent or just beyond the far end. This is generally treated by inserting another stent. Use of a drug-coated stent seems to have no effect on this issue. Now, my smart friends in the Track Your Plaque program would immediately ask, "Does this mean you continually end up chasing these plaques that arise as a result of stents? Do you create an endless loop of procedures?"Thankfully, the majority of times you do not. Rarely, this does happen and can lead to need for bypass surgery to circumvent the response. But it is unusual. The tissue that grows above and below stents does seem to be unusually impervious to the preventive efforts we institute. Perhaps there's some new supplement, medication, or other strategy that will address this curious new brand of plaque growth. Until then, you and I can only take advantage of what is known. If it's any consolation, the plaque that seems to grow because of a previously inserted stent seems to lack the plaque "rupture" capacity of "naturally-occuring" plaque. It is, indeed, somehow different. It is more benign, less likely to cause heart attack. It's always been my feeling that this tissue behaves more like the "scar" tissue that grows within stents, causing "re-stenosis", a more benign, less rupture-prone kind of tissue.
Dr. Reinhold Vieth on vitamin D 5. February 2007 William Davis (4) A Track Your Plaque member brough the following webcast to our attention: Prospects for Vitamin D Nutrition which can be found at http://tinyurl.com/f93vlDespite the painfully dull title, the webcast is the best summary of data on the health benefits on vitamin D that I've seen. The presenter is Dr. Reinhold Vieth, who is among the handful of worldwide authorities on vitamin D. In 1999, Dr. Vieth authored the first review to concisely and persuasively argue that vitamin D nutrition was woefully neglected and that its potential for health was enormous. (See Vieth R, Am J Clin Nutr 1999 May;69(5):842-856 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10232622&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum.) I predict that, after viewing Dr. Vieth's hour-long discussion, you will be as convinced as I am that vitamin D is crucial for health. Unfortunately, Dr. Vieth doesn't delve into the conversation about the potential effects on heart disease, since his audience was primary interested in multiple sclerosis, a disease for which vitamin D replacement promises to have enormous possibilities. Even in 2007, the data suggesting that vitamin D has heart benefits is circumstantial. Nonetheless, from our experience, I am thoroughly convinced that, with replacement to blood levels of vitamin D to 50 ng/ml, heart scan scores drop more readily and faster. If you view Dr. Vieth's wonderful webcast, keep in mind that when he discusses vitamin D blood levels, he's using units of nmol/l, rather than ng/ml. To convert nmol/l to ng/ml, divided by 2.5. For example, 125 nmol/l is the same as 50 ng/ml (125/2.5 = 50).
Vitamin D on Good Morning America 1. February 2007 William Davis (9) Positive comments about vitamin D made it to a discussion on Good Morning America today about the new and exciting developments in nutrition and "functional foods".I'm thrilled that the media is conducting these conversations. It sure is making my job easier, not having to persuade patients that taking vitamin D is truly and hugely beneficial for health. I still have to struggle with my colleagues, who tell patients to stop the "poisonous" doses we use.But I worry that many of the details behind vitamin D don't quite make it to the media conversation. These are crucial, make-it-or-break-it issues, such as:--Vitamin D must be vitamin D3 or cholecalciferol, not D2 or ergocalciferol. D2 is virtually worthless. Little or none is converted to the active D3, despite the fact that D2 is the form often added to some foods. --Vitamin D3 supplements must be oil-based capsules, or gelcaps. Tablets are so poorly or erratically absorbed that it's simply not worth the effort. (We get ours from the Vitamin Shoppe.)--The dose should be sufficient to eliminate the phenemena of deficiency, which is around 50 ng/ml. I take 6000 units per day. Dr. John Cannell of www.vitamindcouncil.com takes 5000 units per day. I give my wife 2000 units per day (she's not as deficient as I was), each of my kids 1000 units per day, except for my 180 lb. 15 year old who takes 2000 units. I fear that, when people hear that vitamin D packs fabulous effects for health, they will take a 400 unit tablet--nothing will happen. They will not obtain the benefits such as reduction of blood pressure and blood sugar; increased bone density, reduction of arthritis, dramatic reduction in risk for fractures; reduction in risk for colon, prostate, and breast cancer; reduction in risk for multiple sclerosis; reduction in inflammatory processes such as those evidenced by C-reactive protein; and facilitation of reduction of heart scan score.
Would you bet your life on chelation? 31. January 2007 William Davis (1) Hugh's heart scan score was 1751, an awful score. Recall that, at this level of scoring, Hugh's heart attack and death risk is 25% per year. Obviously, serious efforts need to be taken. In this situation, much as I despise drug companies and what they represent and their heavy-handed ways, I'm more inclined to resort directly to prescription agents, as well as our nutritional supplements and other strategies. The price of dilly-dallying could be his death. Hugh and his wife asked about chelation. Now, there are five studies I'm aware of that have tried to examine the value of chelation. None showed any measurable benefit, though all were rather weak in design and small in number of participants. One study, for instance, looked at whether anginal chest pains were provoked any later after chelation. Another looked at whether calf claudication, or calf cramping while walking due to artery blockages in the leg arteries, was delayed on treadmill testing after chelation. No benefit was observed: no delay in provocation of angina, no delay in provocation of claudication. However, the adherents of chelation have been vehement enough that the NIH has funded a large, multi-center study to settle the question once and for all. Best I can tell, the study has not been contaminated by any drug company involvement. It is meant to be an unbiased, objective study of whether chelation has any value. My personal experience in patients who underwent chelation is that, despite spending hundreds or thousands of dollars, plaque grew at the expected rate--no effect at all. None of this constitutes proof of efficacy nor proof of lack of efficacy. We will need to await the NIH trial to have better information. Should Hugh bet his life on chelation? I advised him strongly against it. At this point, the only reason I can see to pursue chelation would be faith--that is, expectation based not on fact, but on hope.
The powerful forces preserving the status quo 31. January 2007 William Davis (1) An interesting quote from the book, Critical Condition: How health care in American became big business--and bad medicine: Politics and ProfitsTo protect its interests and expand its influence, the health care industrial complex has done what all successful special interests do: It's become a big donor and a high-powered lobby in Washington. In the last fifteen years, HMOs, insurers, pharmacuetical companies, hospital corporations, physicians, and other segments of the industry contributed $479 million to political campaigns--more than the energy industry ($315 million), commercial banks ($133 million), and big tobacco ($52 million). More telling is how much the health care industry spends on lobbying. It invests more than any other industry except one, according to the nonpartiisan Center for Responsive Politics. From 1997 to 2000, the most recent year for which complete data is available, the industry spent $734 million lobbying Congress and the executive branch. Only the finance, insurance, and real estate lobby exceeded that amount in the same period, with a ttoal of $823 million. In contrast, the defense industry spent $211 million--less than one-third of the health care expenditure. These telling statistics indicate just how vigorously profit-seeking forces in heart care are trying to preserve the status quo. Hospitals want to protect their valuable procedure-driven enterprise, the pharmaceutical industry wants to protect its enormous though little-known niche of procedure-based medications (like $1200 a dose ReoPro), and the medical device industry wants to maintain the multi-billion dollar-generating machine aided and abetted by the FDA's 501k rule (that makes entry to market a breeze). The current procedure based formula for heart disease profits so many and they are desperate to preserve it. Resistance to the deep-pocketed efforts of industry and hospitals will come from people like you and me, trying to propagate a better way. Remember: hospital procedures for coronary disease represent the failure of prevention. They are not--any longer--successes in and of themselves. Read a scathing insight into some of these practices by reading investigative journalists' Donald Barlett and James Steele's book, Critical Condition. I found their descriptions painfully accurate. (But don't get too angry! Remember: only optimists reverse their plaque! We need to turn the conversation in a positive direction, not just in this Blog or the Track Your Plaque website, but nationwide.) One of the new missions for the www.cureality.com website is to help you understand just how powerful, insidious, shrewd, and pervasive the efforts to maintain the current system truly are.