Where do you find fructose?

14. July 2009 William Davis (25)
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

Do heart scans cause cancer?

14. July 2009 William Davis (3)
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.

Goodbye, fructose

12. July 2009 William Davis (35)
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.

The statin-free life

8. July 2009 William Davis (20)
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.

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

5. July 2009 William Davis (29)
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.

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

2. July 2009 William Davis (19)
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.

Roger's near-miss CT angiogram experience

27. June 2009 William Davis (13)
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 Myth of Prevention: Letter to the Wall Street Journal

25. June 2009 William Davis (20)




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

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

24. June 2009 William Davis (7)
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.

Sleep: A to Zzzzzzzzzz

23. June 2009 William Davis (5)
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.
All posts by william-davis

Butter: Just because it's low-carb doesn't mean it's good

21. October 2010 William Davis (59)
The diet I advocate in the Track Your Plaque program to gain control over the factors that lead us to coronary plaque and heart attack is a low-carbohydrate diet. We begin with elimination of wheat, cornstarch, oats, and sugars in the context of an overall carbohydrate-reduced diet. We refine the program by monitoring postprandial (after-meal) glucoses.

But not everything low-carb is good for you. Fried sausages, for instance, are exceptionally unhealthy, despite having little to no carbohydrates.

An emerging but potentially very powerful issue is that of Advanced Glycation End-products, or AGEs. There are two general varieties of AGEs: endogenous (formed within the body) and exogenous (formed in food that is consumed).

Endogenous AGEs form in the body as a result of high blood glucose, i.e., glycation. When exposed to any blood glucose level of 100 mg/dl or greater, some measure of glycation will develop due to a reaction between glucose and various proteins, e.g., proteins in the lens of the eye, forming cataracts over time.

Exogenous AGEs form in food, generally as a result of heating to high-temperature. (AGEs is really a catch-all term; there are actually a number of reactions that occur in foods, not all of them involving sugars. However, the "AGE" label is used to signify all the various related compounds. The values quoted here are from Dr. Helen Vlassara's Mt. Sinai Hospital laboratory; reference below.)

Beef cooked to high-temperature yields plentiful AGEs. One gram of roast beef, for instance, contains 306,238 units. This means that an 8-oz serving yields 13.8 million units AGEs. Compare this to a boiled egg with 573 units per gram, raw tomato with 234 units per gram.

Butter contains an impressive 264,873 units AGEs per gram, the highest content per gram in the entire list of 250 foods tested in the Mt. Sinai study. A couple pats of butter (10 g) therefore contains 2.64 million units. A stick of butter that you might add to cake batter to make a cake therefore yields 30 million units of AGEs.

So there's nothing wrong with the fat of butter. It's AGEs that appear to be responsible for the endothelial dysfunction/artery-constricting, insulin-blocking, oxidation and inflammation reactions that are triggered. Among all of our food choices, butter is among the worst from this viewpoint.

Throw in the peculiar "insulinotrophic" effect of butter, and you have potent distortion of metabolic pathways, courtesy of the butter on your lobster.

(AGE data from Goldberg 2004. In this analysis, carboxymethyllysine was the marker used for AGE content.)

Incidentally, the new Track Your Plaque diet will soon be released as chapter 9 of the new Track Your Plaque book on the website.

Einkorn now in Whole Foods

16. October 2010 William Davis (19)
I just saw this at Whole Foods: einkorn pasta.

In my einkorn bread experience (In search of wheat: We bake einkorn bread), I was spared the high blood glucose and neurologic and gastrointestinal effects of conventional whole wheat grain (dwarf Triticum aestivum). I shared the einkorn bread  with four other people with histories of acute wheat sensitivities, only one of whom experienced a mild diffuse joint reaction, the other three not experiencing any symptoms.

Anyone wishing to try einkorn can now obtain commercial pasta from Jovial, an Italy-based manufacturer. It comes in spaghetti, linguine, rigatoni, fusilli, and penne rigate shapes.

Eli Rogosa, founder of The Heritage Wheat Conservancy, tells me that, in her experience, celiac suffers seem to not experience immunologic phenomena triggered by conventional wheat.

However, we've got to be careful here. The so-called ("diploid") "A" genome of einkorn shares many of the same genes as the ("hexaploid") "ABD" genomes of modern wheat, including overlap in the sequences coding for the 50-or so different glutens and glutenins. Most of the genes that code for the glutens that cause celiac and related illnesses reside in the "D" genome that are absent in the einkorn "A" genome. However, the "A" genome still codes for glutens. So there is potential for activating celiac disease in some people. Insufficient research has been devoted to this question. It is a question of extreme importance to people with celiac and other immune-mediated conditions, since re-exposure to the wrong form of gluten can increase risk of intestinal lymphoma 77-fold, as well as risk of other gastrointestinal cancers.

So einkorn should not be viewed as a cure-all for all things wheat, but as something to consider for a carbohydrate indulgence. Yes, indeed: It is a carbohydrate, with 61 grams ("net") carbs per 4 oz (uncooked) serving.
Should anyone give it a try, please be sure to report back your experience, especially if you have a history of wheat intolerance. If you have a glucose meter, pre- and 1-hour post values are the ones to measure to gauge the blood sugar effects of consumption. Because pasta tends to cause long sustained blood sugar rises, another value at 2-4 hours might be interesting.

Noodles without the headaches

14. October 2010 William Davis (26)
If you are looking for a wheat-free noodle or pasta, shirataki noodles are worth a try.

Shirataki noodles are low-carbohydrate (less than 3 g per 8 oz package) and, of course, do not trigger all the unhealthy effects of wheat--no blood sugar/insulin provocation, no addictive brain effects (exorphins), no gluten-mediated inflammatory effects.

(I advise avoiding gluten-free pasta alternatives made with rice flour and other common gluten alternatives, since they trigger blood sugar, small LDL, and growth of visceral fat just like wheat.)

I made a stir-fry using the shirataki-tofu noodles, shown below. (Tofu is added to make the noodles more noodly in consistency, as opposed to the chewier non-tofu variety.) The noodles were a lot like the ramen I used to eat as a kid. They were filling and tasted great in the sesame oil, soy sauce, tofu, and vegetables I used.


The noodles are easy to use. Just drain liquid out of package. (The noodles come in water.) Rinse in collander 30 seconds, then boil for 3 minutes. Add to your stir-fry or other dish. Some manufacturers, such as House Foods, also have angel hair and fettucine style noodles.

You're fried

13. October 2010 William Davis (26)
If I could invent a food that illustrates nearly all of the shortcomings of the American diet, it would be French fries, the familiar fixture of fast food.

What we have come to view as French fries contain just about every one of the unhealthy ingredients that lead us down the path of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc.

Let's take them one by one:

Potato starch--Potato starch exerts an effect on blood sugar similar to that of table sugar, only worse. (Glycemic index french fries 75; glycemic index sucrose 65.)

Advanced Glycation End-products (AGEs)--AGEs form when proteins and fats are subjected to high temperature cooking; the longer the high temperature, the more the food reaction creating AGEs proceeds. AGEs are the likely culprit in roasted and fried foods that made it appear that saturated fats were bad, when it was really AGEs all along. AGEs have been shown to block insulin's effects, increase blood sugar, cause endothelial dysfunction and high blood pressure.

Acrylamides--Acrylamides, like AGEs, are created through high-temperature heating. French fries are unusually rich in AGEs. Brewed coffee also contains a small quantity, while French fries contain 82-fold greater quantities, among the highest of all known sources of acrylamides.

Oxidized oils--The amount of oxidized oils will depend on what sort of oil was used for frying. As more restaurants are trying to get away from hydrogenated oils, many are turning back to polyunsaturates. Others are turning to commercial-grade oils that contain both hydrogenated and polyunsaturates. If oils are permitted to oxidize, then they will trigger oxidative phenomena in your body upon consumptions, e.g., LDL oxidation (Staprans 1994).

In other words, the innocent appearing French fry unavoidably triggers oxidation, all the phenomena triggered by high blood glucose (high insulin, glycation, visceral fat accumulation), along with the cascade of effects arising from AGEs and acrylamides.

Top your French fries with some ketchup made with high-fructose corn syrup that exagerrates AGE formation, visceral fat, and distorts postprandial (after-eating) effects.

Is it any wonder that we've lost control over diet?

Bosom buddies

9. October 2010 William Davis (22)
Male breast reduction surgery is a booming business. While most industries are in a downward tailspin, breast reduction surgery in men is growing at double-digit rates.

Other efforts, some legitimate, some not, are also cropping up, all intended to help men deal with this embarassing problem:

Exercise programs to reduce male breast size.

Liposuction--Not just for the belly!

Plastic surgery

Gynexin--a supplement that purportedly reduces male breast size.

Conventional medical treatment also includes estrogen blocking drugs, the same ones used to treat breast cancer, drugs like tamoxifen. There's even clothing intended to make breasts less obvious.


While male breast enlargement--"gynecomastia"--can occasionally occur due to rare endocrinologic problems, such as high prolactin hormone levels (hyperprolactinemia) or somewhat more commonly as failed testosterone production (hypogonadism), the vast majority of men who suffer with this problem simply have high estrogen levels.

Makes sense: Women develop larger breasts during development mostly due to increased levels of estrogen. A parallel situation in men likewise stimulates breast tissue.

So where does the excess estrogen come from?

Visceral fat converts testosterone to estrogen. Men with excess visceral fat therefore develop low levels of testosterone and high levels of estrogen. Estrogen levels can, in fact, be substantially higher compared to slender males.

So what foods cause the accumulation of visceral fat and, thereby, increased estrogen and decreased testosterone?

Foods that increase blood glucose and insulin to the greatest degree are the foods that begin this cascade. The common foods that increase blood sugar the most? Here's a list, starting with most blood glucose-insulin provoke at the top, least at the bottom:

Gluten-free foods (dried, pulverized cornstarch, rice starch, potato starch, tapioca starch)
Whole wheat bread
Sucrose
Milky Way bars
Snickers bars

So the whole wheat sandwiches you've been eating increase blood sugar and insulin, leading to visceral fat. (And, yes, whole wheat bread increases blood sugar higher than Milky Way bars and Snickers bars.) The more visceral fat grows, the more resistant to the effects of insulin you become, further escalating blood sugar. Estrogen increases, testosterone drops, mammary gland tissue grows, normal male breasts grow to B- or C-cup size.

Yet again, an entire industry is growing from the unintended consequence of conventional advice. In this instance, the advice to "eat more healthy whole grains" leads to this booming industry of male breast reduction efforts from surgery to medications to clothing. The REAL solution: Eliminate the foods that start the process in the first place.

Don't be a dipstick

3. October 2010 William Davis (32)
If I want to know how much oil is in my car's engine, I check the dipstick.

The dipstick provides a gauge of the amount of oil in my engine. If the dipstick registers "full" because there an oil mark at one inch, I understand that there's more than one inch of oil in my engine. The dipstick provides an indirect gauge of the amount of oil in my engine.

That's what cholesterol was meant to provide: A gauge, a "dipstick," for the kind of lipoproteins (lipid-carrying proteins) in the bloodstream.

Lipoproteins are a collection of particles that are larger than a single cholesterol molecule but much smaller than a red blood cell. Lipoproteins consist of many components: various proteins, phospholipids, lots of triglycerides, as well as cholesterol. In the 1960s, methods to characterize lipoproteins were not widely available, so the cholesterol in lipoproteins were used as a "dipstick" to assess low-density lipoproteins ("LDL cholesterol") and high-density lipoproteins ("HDL cholesterol"). (Actually, even "LDL cholesterol" was not measured, but was derived from "total cholesterol," the quantity of cholesterol in all lipoprotein fractions.)

Some other component of lipoproteins could have been measured instead of cholesterol, such as apoprotein B, apoprotein C, or others, all meant to act as the "dipstick" for various lipoproteins.

Relying on cholesterol to characterize lipoproteins provides a misleading picture. Imagine watching cars go by at high speed while standing on the side of the highway. You want to count how many people--not cars, but people--go by in a given amount of time. Because you cannot make out the detail of each and every car whizzing by, you count the number of cars and assume that each car carries two people. Whether it's rush hour, Sunday morning, late evening, rainy, sunny, or snowing, you make the same assumption: two people per car.

That's what cholesterol does: It is assuming that each and every lipoprotein particle (car) carries the same amount of cholesterol (people).

But that may, obviously, not be true. A bus goes by carrying 25 people. Plenty of cars may carry just the driver. People carpooling may be in cars carrying 3 or 4 people. Assuming just 2 people per car can send your estimates way off course.

That is precisely what happens when your doctor tries to use conventional cholesterol values (total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol) to gauge the lipoproteins in your bloodstream. Measuring cholesterol can also provide the false impression that cholesterol is the cause of heart disease, even though it was originally meant to simply serve as a "dipstick."

What we need to do is to characterize lipoproteins themselves. We can distinguish them by size, number, density, charge, and the type and form of proteins contained within. It provides greater insight into the composition of lipoproteins in the blood. It provides greater insight into the causes underlying coronary atherosclerotic plaque. It can also tell us what dietary changes trigger different particle patterns and how to correct them.

Until you have a full lipoprotein analysis, you can never know for certain 1) if you will have heart disease in your future, or 2) how your heart disease was caused.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of doctors are perfectly content to just count cars going by and assume two people per car, i.e., confine assessment of your heart disease risk using cholesterol . . . just as drug industry marketing has instructed them.

It's not your job to educate your doctor. If he or she refuses to provide access to lipoprotein testing to better determine your heart disease risk, then consider going out on your own. Many of our Track Your Plaque program followers have obtained lipoprotein testing on their own through Direct Labs.

The ultimate insurance company cost savings

29. September 2010 William Davis (48)
I had a very disturbing conversation with a physician who is employed by an insurance company last week.

I admitted a patient in the hospital for very clear-cut reasons. She is one of my few non-compliant patients, doing none of the strategies I advocate--no fish oil, no vitamin D, no correction of her substantial lipoprotein abnormalities, not even medication. Much of this was because of difficult finances, some of it is because she is from the generation (she is in her late 70s) that tends to ignore preventive health, some of it is because she is a kind of happy-go-lucky personality. So her disease has been progressive and, now, life-threatening, including an abdominal aneurysm near-bursting in size (well above the 5.5 cm cutoff). The patient is also a sweet, cuddly grandmother. I have a hard time bullying nice little old ladies.

While she was in the hospital, the social worker told me that her case was being reviewed by her insurer and would likely be denied. Their medical officer wanted to speak to me.

So the medical officer called me and started asking pointed questions. "Why did you do that test? You know that she's not been compliant. Are you sure you want to do that? I don't think that's a good idea." In other words, this was not just a review of the case. This was an opportunity for the insurance company to intervene in the actual care of the patient.

Then the kicker: "Have you considered not doing anything and . . . just letting nature take its course?"

At first, I was stunned. "You mean let the patient die?"

Expressed in such blatant terms, while he was trying to be diplomatic, made him back down. "Well, uh, no, but she is a high-risk patient."

Anyway, this was the first instance I've encountered in which the insurance company is not just in the business of reviewing a case, but actually trying to intervene during the hospital stay, to the point of making the ultimate healthcare cost savings: Letting the patient die.

Unfortunately, never having had an experience like this before, I did not think to record the conversation or take notes. I am wondering if this is an issue to be taken up by the Insurance Board . . . or is this a taste of things to come as the health insurers fall under increasing pressure with the legislative changes underway?

Salvation from halogenation

24. September 2010 William Davis (26)
Iodine is a halogen.

On the periodic table of elements (remember the big chart of the elements in science class?), the ingenious table that lays out all known atomic elements, elements with similar characteristics are listed in the same column. The elegant genius of the periodic table has even allowed prediction of new, undiscovered elements that conform to the "laws" of atomic behavior.

Column 17 (also called "group VIIa") contains all the halogens, of which iodine is one member. Other halogens include fluorine, chlorine, and bromine.

Odd phenomenon in biologic systems: One halogen can often not be distinguished from another. Thus, a chlorinated compound can cleverly disguise itself as an iodinated compound, a brominated compound can mimic an iodinated compound, etc.

What this means in thyroid health is that, should sufficient iodine be lacking in the body, i.e., iodine deficiency, other halogens can gain entry into the thyroid gland.

While a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) molecule may be recognized as an iodinated compound, it certainly doesn't act like an iodinated compound once it's in the thyroid's cells and can disrupt thyroid function (Porterfield 1998). Another group of chlorine-containing compounds, perchlorates, that contaminate groundwater and are found as pesticide residues in produce, are extremely potent thyroid-blockers (Greer 2002). Likewise, bromine-containing compounds, such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), widely used as flame retardants, also disrupt thyroid function (Zhou 2001). Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), found in Teflon non-stick cookware and stain-resistant products,  has been associated with thyroid dysfunction (Melzer 2010). PFOA, incidentally, can disrupt thyroid dysfunction that will not show up in the TSH test used by primary care physicians and endocrinologists to screen for thyroid dysfunction. (In fact, the presumed champions of thyroid health, the endocrinology community, have proven a miserable failure in translating and implementing the findings from  toxicological science findings to that of preserving or restoring thyroid health. They have largely chosen to ignore it.)

We therefore navigate through a world teeming with halogenated thyroid blocking compounds. We should all therefore avoid such exposures as perchlorates in produce by rinsing thoroughly or purchasing organic, avoid non-stick cookware, avoid use or exposure to pesticides and herbicides.

Another crucial means to block the entry of various halogenated compounds into your vulnerable thyroid: Be sure you are getting sufficient iodine. While it doesn't make your thyroid impervious to injury, iodine circulating in the blood in sufficient quantities and residing in sufficient stores in the thyroid gland provides at least partial protection from the halogenated impostors in your life.

I make this point in the context of heart disease prevention, since even the most subtle degrees of thyroid dysfunction can easily double, triple, or quadruple heart disease risk. See related posts, Is normal TSH too high? and Thyroid perspective update.

Lipitor-ologist

22. September 2010 William Davis (30)
One of the things I do in practice is consult in complex hyperlipidemias, the collection of lipoprotein disorders that usually, but not always, lead to atherosclerosis.

First order of business: Make the diagnosis--familial combined hyperlipidemia, hypoalphalipoproteinemia, lipoprotein(a), familial heterozygous hypercholesterolemia, familial hypertriglyceridemia, hyperapoprotein B with metabolic syndrome, etc. These are the disorders that start with a genetic variant, e.g., a missing or dysfunctional enzyme or signal protein, such as lipoprotein lipase or apo C3.

I then ask: What can be done that is easy and safe and preferably related to diet and lifestyle?

By following an effective diet, many of these abnormalities can be dramatically corrected, sometimes completely. Familial hypertriglyceridemia, for instance, an inherited disorder of lipoprotein lipase in which triglyceride levels can exceed 1000 mg/dl, high enough to cause pancreatic damage, responds incredibly well to carbohydrate restriction and over-the-counter fish oil. I have a number of these people who enjoy triglyceride levels below 100 mg/dl--unheard of in conventionally treated people with this disorder.

Then why is it that, time after time, I see these people in consult, often as second or third opinions from lipidologists (presumed lipid specialists) or cardiologists, when the only solutions offered are 1) Lipitor or other statin drug, and 2) a low-fat diet? Occasionally, an aggressive lipidologist might offer niacin, a fibrate drug (Tricor or fenofibrate), or Lovaza (prescription fish oil).

Sadly, the world of lipid disorders has been reduced to prescribing a statin drug and little else, 9 times out of 10.

I don't mean to rant, but I continue to be shocked at the incredible influence the drug industry has over not just prescribing patterns, but thinking patterns. Perhaps I should say non-thinking patterns. The drugs make it too easy to feel like the doctor is doing something when, in truth, they are doing the minimum (at best) and missing an opportunity to provide true health-empowering advice that is far more likely to yield maximum control over these patterns with little to no medication.

All in all, I am grateful that there is a growing discipline of "lipidology," a specialty devoted to diagnosing and treating hyperlipidemias. Unfortunately, much of the education of the lipidologist is too heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. Not surprisingly, the drug people favor "education" that highlights their high-revenue products.

Seeing a lipidologist is still better than seeing most primary care physicians or cardiologists. Just beware that you might be walking into the hands of someone who is simply the unwitting puppet of the pharmaceutical industry.

Robb Wolf's new Paleo Solution

20. September 2010 William Davis (16)
The Paleo Solution: The Original Human Diet


The Paleo Solution: The Original Human Diet

I have to say: I'm impressed. If you would like insight into why a "Paleo" nutritional approach works on a biochemical level--why you lose weight, burn fat, and gain overall better health--then Robb's book is worth devoting a few hours to, of not a reread or two.

Robb has a particular knack for organizing and presenting information in a way that makes it immediately accessible. You will gain an appreciation for how far American nutritional habits have veered off course.

Because Robb brings expertise from his academic biochemistry background, as well as personal trainer and educator running a successful gym in northern California, NorCal Strength and Conditioning, he delivers a book packed with information that is extremely easy to convert to immediate action in health and exercise. He seems to anticipate all the little problems and objections that people come up with along the way, dealing with them in his characteristic lighthearted way, providing practical, rational solutions.

Robb's book nicely complements what Dr. Loren Cordain has written in his The Paleo Diet: Lose Weight and Get Healthy by Eating the Food You Were Designed to Eat and The Paleo Diet for Athletes: A Nutritional Formula for Peak Athletic Performance. (My wife is now reading The Paleo Diet for Athletes and loves it. I'm going to add Robb's book to her reading list for her to read next.)

If nutrition has you stumped, if the USDA food pyramid still sounds like a reasonable path, or if you just would like to understand nutrition a little bitter, especially its biochemical ins and outs, Robb's book is a wonderful place to start.

You just THINK you're low-carb

27. February 2010 William Davis (72)
Systematically checking postprandial (after-eating) blood sugars is providing some great insights into crafting a better diet for many people.

I last discussed the concept of postprandial glucose checks in To get low-carb right, you need to check blood sugars.

Here are some important lessons that many people--NON-diabetic people, most with normal blood glucoses or just mildly increased--are learning:

Oatmeal yields high blood sugars. Even if your fasting blood sugar is 90 mg/dl, a bowl of oatmeal with skim milk, walnuts, and some berries will yield blood sugars of 150-200 mg/dl in many people.

Cheerios yields shocking blood sugars. 200+ mg/dl is not uncommon in non-diabetics. (Diabetics have 250-350 mg/dl.)

Fruits like apples and bananas increase blood sugar to 130 mg/dl or higher.

Odd symptoms, such as mental "fog," fatigue, and a fullness in the head, are often attributable to high blood sugars.

A subset of people with lipoprotein(a) can have wildly increased blood sugars despite their slender build and high aerobic exercise habits.


Once you identify the high blood sugar problem, you can do something about it. The best place to start is to reduce or eliminate the sugar-provoking food.

The LDL-Fructose Disconnect

26. February 2010 William Davis (8)
I believe that we can all agree that the commonly obtained Friedewald LDL cholesterol (what I call "fictitious" LDL cholesterol) is wildly inaccurate. 100%--yes, 100% inaccuracy--is not at all uncommon.

This flagrant inaccuracy, unacceptable in virtually every other discipline (imagine your airplane flight to New York lands in Pittsburgh--close enough, isn't it?), is highlighted in the University of California study by Stanhope et al I discussed previously.

32 participants consumed either a diet enriched with either fructose or glucose. Compared to the effect of glucose, after 10 weeks fructose:

Increased LDL cholesterol (calculated) by 7.6%

Increased Apoprotein B (a measure of the number of LDL particles) by 24%

Increased small dense LDL by 41%

Increased oxidized LDL by 12.6%


In other words, conventional calculated LDL substantially underestimates the undesirable effects of fructose. The divergence between calculated LDL and small LDL is especially dramatic. (By the way, this same divergence applies to the studies suggesting that calculated LDL cholesterol is reduced by low fat diets--While calculated LDL may indeed be reduced, small LDL goes way up, a striking divergence.)

This is yet another reason to not rely on this "fictitious" LDL cholesterol value that, inaccuracies notwithstanding, serves as the foundation for a $27 billion per year industry.

"I dream about bread"

25. February 2010 William Davis (14)
Marion sat in my office, sobbing.

It had been 4 weeks since the last piece of bread, bagel, or bun had passed her lips.

"I can't do it! I just can't do it! I've tried to eliminate wheat, but it's making me crazy. I'm having dreams about bread!"

Yes, Timmy, such dark corners of human behavior are truly unveiled by removing wheat from the diet. (See the previous Heart Scan Blog post, Wheat withdrawal.)

This is a real phenomenon: Wheat is the crack cocaine of the masses. Maybe you don't exchange $100 bills in dark corners of an inner city crack house, but I'll bet you paid $3.99 for your latest fix of French bread.

Just in the last 2 weeks, people in my office who have eliminated wheat have experienced:

14 lbs weight loss in 14 days

Increased mental clarity, reduced moodiness, deeper sleep

70% reductions in small LDL

More than 300 mg/dl reductions in triglycerides

Relief from chronic scalp rash


I could go on.

All the while, the USDA, the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association, the American Dietetic Association, the Surgeon General's Office all advise you to eat more "healthy whole grains."

70% of people (NOT 100%, but the majority) will experience unexpected health benefits by eliminating this corrupt, unphysiologic product called wheat from their diet.

You won't know until you try.

Prototypical Lipoprotein(a)

25. February 2010 William Davis (23)
Here's the prototypical male with lipoprotein(a):



Several features stand out in the majority of men with lipoprotein(a), Lp(a):

Slender--Sometimes absurdly so: BMIs of 21-23 are not uncommon. These are the people who claim they can't gain weight.

Intelligent--Above average to way above average intelligence is the rule.

Gravitate to technical work--Plenty of engineers, scientists, accountants, and other people who work with numbers and/or technical details are more likely to have Lp(a).

Enjoy high levels of aerobic performance--I tell my Lp(a) patients that, if they want to see a bunch of other people with Lp(a), go to a marathon or triathlon. They'll see plenty of people with the pattern among the aerobically-elite.

Are rabid fans of Star Trek.


Okay, I made the last one up. But the rest are uncannilly true, shared by the majority (though not all) men with Lp(a).

Why? I can only speculate that the gene(s) for Lp(a) are closely linked to gene(s) for intelligence of a quantitative kind and some factor that enhances aerobic performance or yields a desirable emotional state with exercise.

Oddly, the same patterns tend not to occur in women in Lp(a). I have yet to discern a personality or body configuration phenotype among the ladies.

Gastric emptying: When slower is better

20. February 2010 William Davis (18)
When it comes to the Internet and Nascar, speed is good: The faster the better.

But when it comes to gastric emptying (the rate at which food passes from the stomach and into the duodenum and small intestine), slower can be better.

Slower transit time for foods passing through the stomach leads to lower blood sugar, lower blood glucose area under-the-curve (AUC), i.e., reduced blood glucose levels over time. Lower postprandial (after-eating) blood sugars can reduce cardiovascular risk. It can lead to a reduction in net calorie intake and weight loss.

Strategies that can slow gastric emptying include:

--Minimizing fluids during a meal--Drinking a lot of fluids, e.g., water, accelerates gastric emptying by approximately 20%.

--Cinnamon--While the full reason to explain Cassia cinnamon's blood glucose-reducing effect has not been completely worked out, part of the effect is likely to due slowed gastric emptying. Thus, a 1/4-2 teaspoons of cinnamon per day can reduce postprandial blood sugar peaks by 10-25 mg/dl.

--Vinegar--Two teaspoons of vinegar in its various forms slows gastric emptying. The effect is likely due to acetic acid, the compound shared by apple cider vinegar, white vinegar, red wine vinegar, Balsamic vinegar, and other varieties.

--Increased fat content--Fat is digested more slowly and slows gastric emptying time, compared to the rapid transit of carbohydrates.

Not everybody should slow gastric emptying. Diabetics with a condition called diabetic gastroparesis should not use these methods, as they can further slow the abnormal gastric emptying that develops as part of their disease, making a bad situation worse.

However, in the rest of us with normal gastric emptying time, a delay in gastric emptying can reduce blood sugar and induce satiety, effects that can work in your favor in reducing cardiovascular risk.

Genetic vs. lifestyle small LDL

19. February 2010 William Davis (59)
Let me explain what I mean by "genetic small LDL." I think it helps to illustrate with two common examples.

Ollie is 50 years old, 5 ft 10 inches tall, and weighs 253 lbs. BMI = 36.4 (obese). Starting lipoproteins (NMR):

LDL particle number 2310 nmol/L
Small LDL: 1893 nmol/L (1893/2310 = 81.9% of total, a severe small LDL pattern)


Stan is 50 years old, also, 5 ft 10 inches tall, and weighs 148 lbs. BMI = 21.3. Starting lipoproteins:

LDL particle number 1424 nmol/L
Small LDL 1288 nmol/L (1288/1424 = 90.4% of total, also severe)


Both Ollie and Stan go on the New Track Your Plaque diet and eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, while increasing oils, meats and fish, unlimited raw nuts, and vegetables. They add fish oil and vitamin D and achieve perfect levels of both. Six months later, Ollie has lost 55 lbs, Stan has lost 4 lbs. A second round of lipoproteins:

Ollie:

LDL particle number 1810 nmol/L
Small LDL: 193 nmol/L (193/1810 = 10.6% of total)


Stan:

LDL particle number 1113 nmol/L
Small LDL 729 nmool/L (729/1113 = 65.4% of total)


Ollie has reduced, nearly eliminated, small LDL through elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, along with weight loss, fish oil, and vitamin D.

Stan, beginning at a much more favorable weight, reduced both total and small LDL with the same efforts, but retains a substantial proportion (65.4%) of small LDL.

Stan's pattern is what I call "genetic small LDL." Of course, this is a presumptive designation, since we've not identified the specific gene(s) that allow this (e.g., gene for variants of cholesteryl ester transfer protein, hepatic lipase, lipoprotein lipase, and others). But it is such a sharp distinction that I am convinced that people like Stan have this persistent pattern as a genetically-determined trait.

Carbohydrate sins of the past

17. February 2010 William Davis (15)
Fifty years ago, diabetes was a relatively uncommon disease. Today, the latest estimates are that 50% of Americans are now diabetic or pre-diabetic.

There are some obvious explanations: excess weight, inactivity, the proliferation of fructose in our diets. It is also my firm belief that the diets advocated by official agencies, like the USDA, the American Heart Association, the American Dietetic Association, and the American Diabetes Association, have also contributed with their advice to eat more “healthy whole grains.”

When I was a kid, I ate Lucky Charms® or Cocoa Puffs® for breakfast, carried Hoho’s® and Scooter Pies® in my lunchbox, along with a peanut butter sandwich on white bread. We ate TV dinners, biscuits, instant mashed potatoes for dinner. Back then, it was a matter of novelty, convenience, and, yes, taste.

What did we do to our pancreases eating such insulin-stimulating foods through childhood, teenage years, and into early adulthood? Did our eating habits as children and young adults create diabetes many years later? Could sugary breakfast cereals, snacks, and candy in virtually unlimited quantities have impaired our pancreas’ ability to produce insulin, leading to pre-diabetes and diabetes many years later?

A phenomenon called glucose toxicity underlies the development of diabetes and pre-diabetes. Glucose toxicity refers to the damaging effect that high blood sugars (glucose) have on the delicate beta cells of the pancreas, the cells that produce insulin. This damage isirreversible: once it occurs, it cannot be undone, and the beta cells stop producing insulin and die. The destructive effect of high glucose levels on pancreatic beta cells likely occurs through oxidative damage, with injury from toxic oxidative compounds like superoxide anion and peroxide. The pancreas is uniquely ill-equipped to resist oxidative injury, lacking little more than rudimentary anti-oxidative protection mechanisms.

Glucose toxicity that occurs over many years eventually leaves you with a pancreas that retains only 50% or less of its original insulin producing capacity. That’s when diabetes develops, when impaired pancreatic insulin production can no longer keep up with the demands put on it.

(Interesting but unanswered question: If oxidative injury leads to beta cell dysfunction and destruction, can antioxidants prevent such injury? Studies in cell preparations and animals suggest that anti-oxidative agents, such as astaxanthin and acetylcysteine, may block beta cell oxidative injury. However, no human studies have yet been performed. This may prove to be a fascinating area for future.)

Now that 50% of American have diabetes or pre-diabetes, how much should we blame on eating habits when we were younger? I would wager that eating habits of youth play a large part in determining potential for diabetes or pre-diabetes as an adult.

The lesson: Don’t allow children to repeat our mistakes. Letting them indulge in a lifestyle of soft drinks, candy, pretzels, and other processed junk carbohydrates has the potential to cause diabetes 20 or 30 years later, shortening their life by 10 years. Kids are not impervious to the effects of high sugar, including the cumulative damaging effects of glucose toxicity.

Saturated fat and large LDL

16. February 2010 William Davis (44)
Here's a half-truth I often encounter in low-carb discussions:

Saturated fat increases large LDL particles


For those of you unfamiliar with the argument, I advocate a low-carbohydrate approach, specifically elimination of all wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, to reduce expression of the small LDL pattern (not to mention reduction of triglycerides, relief from acid reflux and irritable bowel, weight loss, various rashes, diabetes, etc). Small LDL particles have become the most common cause for heart disease in the U.S., exploding on the scene ever since agencies like the USDA and American Heart Association have been advising the public to increase consumption of "healthy whole grains."

This has led some to make the pronouncement that saturated fat increases large LDL, thereby representing a benign effect.

Is this true?

It is true, but only partly. Let me explain.

There are two general categories of factors causing small LDL particles: lifestyle (overweight, excess carbohydrates) and genetics (e.g., variants of the gene coding for cholesteryl-ester transfer protein, or CETP).

If small LDL is purely driven by excess carbohydrates, then adding saturated fat will reduce small LDL and increase large LDL.

If, on the other hand, your small LDL is genetically programmed, then saturated fat will increase small LDL. In other words, saturated fat tends to increase the dominant or genetically-determined form of LDL. If your dominant genetically-determined form is small, then saturated fat increases small LDL particles.

So to say that saturated fat increases large LDL is an oversimplification, one that can have dire consequences in the wrong situation.

Is glycemic index irrelevant?

14. February 2010 William Davis (20)


University of Toronto nutrition scientist, Dr. David Jenkins, was the first to quantify the phenomenon of "glycemic index," describing how much blood sugar increased over 90 minutes compared to glucose. The graph is from their 1981 study, The glycemic index of foods: a physiologic basis for carbohydrate exchange. The research originated with an effort to characterize carbohydrates for diabetics to gain better control over blood sugar.

Since Dr. Jenkins’ original work, thousands of clinical studies have been performed by others exploring this concept. The food industry has also devoted plenty of effort exploiting it (e.g., low-glycemic index noodles, low-glycemic index cereals, etc.).

Most Americans are now familiar with the concept of glycemic index. You likely know that table sugar has a high glycemic index (60), increasing blood sugar to a similar degree as white bread (glycemic index 71). Oatmeal (slow-cooked) has a lower glycemic index (48), since it increases blood sugar less than white bread.

A number of studies have shown that when low glycemic index foods replace high glycemic index foods (e.g., whole wheat bread in place of cupcakes), people are healthier: less diabetes, less heart attack, less high blood pressure. Books have been written about glycemic index, touting its benefits for health and weight control. Health-conscious people will try to substitute low-glycemic index foods for high-glycemic index foods.

So what’s not to like here?

There are several fundamental flaws with the notion that low-glycemic index foods are good for you:

1) Check your blood sugar after a low-glycemic index food like oatmeal. Most non-diabetic adults will show blood sugars in the 140 to 200 mg/dl range. The more central (visceral) fat you have, the higher the value will be. In other words, an apparently “healthy” whole grain food like oatmeal can generate extravagantly high blood sugars. Repeated high blood sugars of 125 mg/dl or greater after eating increase heart disease risk by 50%.

2) Foods like whole wheat pasta have a low glycemic index because the blood sugar effect over the usual 90 minutes is increased to a lesser degree. The problem is that it remains increased for an extended period of up to several hours. In other words, the blood sugar-increasing effect of pasta, even whole grain, is long and sustained.

3) Low-glycemic index foods trigger other abnormalities, such as small LDL particles, triglycerides, and c-reactive protein (a measure of inflammation). While they are not as bad as high-glycemic index foods, they are still quite potent triggers.

Low-glycemic index foods trigger the very same responses as high-glycemic index foods—they’re just less bad. But less bad does not equate to good. Low-glycemic index foods cause weight gain, trigger appetite, increase blood pressure, and lead to the patterns that cause heart disease.

High-glycemic index foods are bad for you. This includes foods made with white flour (bagels, white bread, pretzels). Low-glycemic foods (whole grain bread, whole wheat crackers, whole wheat pasta) are less bad for you—but they are not necessarily good.

Don’t be falsely reassured by foods because they are billed as “low-glycemic index.” View low-glycemic index foods as indulgences, something you might have once in a while, since a slice of whole grain bread is really not that different from a icing-covered cupcake.
All posts by william-davis

Wheat hip

10. August 2010 William Davis (39)
You've heard of wheat belly. How about wheat hip?

Recall that the innocent appearing wheat belly is actually a hotbed of inflammatory activity beneath the surface. The visceral fat of the wheat belly, i.e., fat kidneys, fat liver, fat intestines, fat pancreas, produces abnormal inflammatory signals, such as various interleukins, tumor necrosis factor, and leptin. These are the inflammatory signals that create insulin resistance and diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and cancer.

These same inflammatory mediators are able to enter the joint spaces, such as those in your hips, knees, and hands. This leads to osteoarthritis, the exceptionally common form of arthritis that affects 1 in 7 Americans. In particular, the level of leptin in joints mirrors that in blood, a phenomenon that has been associated with joint destruction.

The previously widely-held notion that arthritis is simply a wear-and-tear phenomenon due to the mechanical stress of excess weight is proving to be an oversimplification. Arthritis is also part of the carbohydrate-driven, weight-increasing, inflammatory condition of insulin resistance or metabolic syndrome.

Throw into this cytokine storm the fact that glycation, i.e., glucose modification of proteins, also causes cartilage destruction. The cells of human cartilage lack the ability to divide, so the cartilage cells you had at age 18 are the cartilage cells that you will hopefully still have at age 80. However, high blood sugars (glucose) glycate the proteins in cartilage. (Wheat raises blood glucose higher than almost all other foods, higher than a Milky Way bar, higher than a Snickers bar.) The process is irreversible and cumulative. Because cartilage has next to no capacity for repair or regeneration, it becomes brittle. Over years, it essentially crumbles, leading to the "bone on bone" that prompts conversations about total hip and total knee replacement.

So that ciabatta or blueberry muffin in your mouth takes you a step or two closer to joint destruction via heightened inflammation arising from the visceral fat of the wheat belly, worsened by glycation of high blood sugars after carbohydrate consumption.

My solution: Lose the ciabatta.

Men's lingerie is on the second floor

7. August 2010 William Davis (33)
Consume wheat products, like poppyseed muffins, raisin bagels, and whole grain bread, and you trigger the 90- to 120-minute glucose-insulin cycle.

Blood glucose goes way up (more than almost any other known food), triggering insulin release from the pancreas. Glucose enters cells as a result, blood glucose plummets. You get hungry, shaky, and crabby, reach for another wheat or other sugar-generating food to start the roller coaster ride all over again.

Repetitive insulin triggering grows this thing I call a "wheat belly," the protuberant, hang-over-the-belt fat you see everywhere nowadays. Wheat belly fat is really visceral fat. Visceral fat means you have fat kidneys, fat intestines, fat pancreas, and fat liver, all causing the belly to protrude in the familiar way we've all come to recognize.

Visceral fat is special fat. Unlike the fat in the backside, thighs, or arms, visceral fat triggers inflammatory responses that are evident in such measures as tumor necrosis factor, interleukins, and leptin, as well as drops in the protective hormone, adiponectin.

Visceral fat also, oddly, triggers estrogen release. Estrogen triggers growth of breast tissue. That's why females with wheat bellies have up to four-fold (400%) greater likelihood of breast cancer.

Men also experience excess estrogen from the visceral fat wheat belly, causing "man boobs." This B-cup phenomenon means that inflammation is raging beneath the surface, all due to this thing you're wearing around your waist.

I wasn't aware until recently that male breast reduction surgery is a booming business growing at double-digit rates. So are special clothes to help men conceal their expansive breasts.

Perhaps the USDA is in cahoots with Playtex.

10,000 units of vitamin D

3. August 2010 William Davis (47)
Joanne started with a 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 23 ng/ml--severe deficiency.

What made this starting value even worse was that it was drawn in August after a moderately sunny summer spent outdoors. (Last summer, not this summer.) It therefore represented her high for the year, since vitamin D levels trend lower as fall and winter set in. This suggests that her winter level was likely in the teens or even single digits. In addition, note that, at age 43, Joanne has lost much of her ability to activate vitamin D in the skin.

So I advised that she take 6000 units of an oil-based gelcap per day, a dose likely to generate the desired blood level, which I believe is 60-70 ng/ml.

Four months later, her 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 39.9 ng/ml--still too low. So I advised her to increase her dose to 10,000 units per day. Several months later, her 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 63.8 ng/ml--perfect.

However, on hearing that she was taking 10,000 units vitamin D per day, Joanne's primary care physician was shocked: "What? Stop that immediately! You're taking a toxic dose!" So Joanne called me to find out if this was true.

No, of course it's not true. It's not the dose that's toxic, but the blood level it generates. Although it varies, vitamin D toxicity, as evidenced by increased blood calcium levels, generally does not even begin to get underway until at least 120-130 ng/ml, perhaps higher. Rarely, a dose of 2000 units per day will generate a level this high. In others, it may require 24,000 or more units per day to generate such a high level.

So it's not the dose that's toxic, but the blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D it generates.

Provided you and/or your doctor are monitoring 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood levels, the dose is immaterial. It's the blood level you're interested in.

No more Lovaza

30. July 2010 William Davis (45)
That's it: I will NEVER ever write another prescription for Lovaza.

I actually very rarely write a prescription for Lovaza, i.e., prescription fish oil. But this was the last straw.

I advised a patient that we've had good success using high-doses of fish oil to reduce lipoprotein(a), Lp(a). 6000 mg per day of the omega-3 component (EPA + DHA) from fish oil reduces Lp(a) in 60% of people after one year. (Recall that Lp(a) is the most aggressive known lipid-related cause of heart disease.)

The two preparations I generally suggest are either the very affordable Sam's Club Members Mark Triple-Strength Fish Oil with 900 mg EPA + DHA per capsule: 7 capsules per day. Another great product (my personal favorite because of its extreme purity--it doesn't even smell like fish oil): Pharmax Finest Pure Fish Oil with 1800 mg EPA + DHA per teaspoon: 3 to 3 1/2 teaspoons per day.

Both preparations work great and are quite affordable, given the high dose. For the Sam's Club preparation, it will cost around $30 per month, while the Pharmax liquid will run around $49 per month.

Well, the woman's husband insisted on a prescription for Lovaza. One Lovaza capsule contains 784 mg EPA + DHA per capsule: 7 to 8 capsules per day.

Here are some prices for Lovaza from online pharmacy discounters:
Prescription Giant: $78.99 for 30 capsules ($2.63 per capsule)
Planet Drugs Direct: $135 for 100 capsules ($1.35 per capsule)

These are lower than the prices I obtained in past by calling local pharmacies in my area, quite a bit lower, in fact.

Filling the Lovaza prescription at Prescription Giant will therefore cost $552.93 to $631.92 per month; at Planet Drugs Direct it will cost $283.50 to $324.00 per month. At local pharmacies, a similar 7 to 9 capsules Lovaza per day will cost upwards of $800 to $900 per month.

The patient's husband insisted on the Lovaza prescription because he knew that his insurance would cover it. When I pointed out that this was a large cost that would have to be borne by others in their healthcare premiums, he said that didn't matter to him.

I hesitated, but ended up writing the prescription for 7 Lovaza capsules per day. As soon as I handed to him, I regretted it. In fact, I am embarassed and angry at myself for having given in.

So I vowed: I will NEVER EVER write another prescription for Lovaza.

I do not believe that we should spread the excessive profiteering of the pharmaceutical industry around on the backs of people who pay their healthcare insurance premiums, just so that a few people, like this selfish couple, can save a few dollars a month.

This is your brain on wheat II

29. July 2010 William Davis (24)
In the original Heart Scan Blog post, This is your brain on wheat, I discussed how opioid peptides (i.e., small proteins that act like opiates such as heroine or morphine) that result from digestion of wheat cause unique effects on the human brain, particularly addictive behaviors. I also briefly reviewed how elimination of wheat has been shown to reduce auditory hallucinations and other psychotic behaviors in a subset of people with paranoid schizophrenia.

These two phenomena, addictions and schizophrenia, are most likely the result of exorphins that cross the blood-brain barrier. Exorphins--exogenous morphine-like compounds--can be blocked by opiate-blocking drugs like naloxone and naltrexone. Naloxone is used in hospitals to reverse morphine or heroine overdoses; naltrexone is being repackaged into a weight loss drug, since blocking wheat-derived exorphins reduces appetite. (Yes: The USDA tells us to eat more wheat, the drug industry sells us the antidote.)

There's another way that wheat can affect the brain and nervous system: immune-activated damage.

This is similar to the effect seen in celiac. There's even overlap with some of the antibody markers used to diagnose celiac, like the anti-gliadin antibodies and the anti-endomysium antibodies.

The most common immune neurological syndrome consequent to wheat consumption is cerebellar ataxia, a condition in which an immune response causes damage to the Purkinje cells of the cerebellum, the portion of the brain responsible for balance and coordination. This results in stumbling, incoordination, incontinence, and eventually leads to reliance on a cane or walker and wearing a diaper. Average age of onset: 53 years. A shrunken, atrophied cerebellum can be seen on an MRI of the brain.

Problem: Most people with central nervous system damage caused by wheat do not have any intestinal symptoms, like diarrhea and abdominal pain, the sort of symptoms usually associated with celiac disease. It means the first sign of wheat-induced brain damage may be bumping into walls and wetting your pants.

There's no such thing as a "no-carb" diet

27. July 2010 William Davis (24)
When I tell patients how I advise a wheat-free, cornstarch-free, sugar-free diet on the background of a low-carbohydrate diet, some people ask: "But can I live on a no-carb diet?"

Well, there's no such thing as a "no-carb" diet. Low-carb, yes. No-carb, no.

Here are the carbohydrate contents of various "low-carb" foods:

Gouda cheese--3 oz contains 1.65 grams carbohydrates
Mozzarella cheese--1 cup contains 2.89 grams carbohydrates
Walnuts--4 oz (56 nuts) contains 2.96 grams carbohydrates
Almonds--4 oz contains 1.38 grams carbohydrates
Sour cream--one-half cup contains 3.31 grams carbohydrates
Red wine--3.5 oz glass contains 2.69 grams carbohydrates
Eggplant--1 cup cooked contains 8.33 grams carbohydrates
Green pepper--1 medium-sized raw contains 5.52 grams carbohydrates
Cucumber--1 medium contains 4.34 grams carbohydrates
Tomato--1 medium contains 4.82 grams carbohydrates

(Nutrition data from USDA Nutrient Database)

In other words, foods thought to be "low-carb" actually contain a modest quantity of carbohydrates.

Such modest quantities of carbohydrates may not be enough to trip your blood sugar. But add up all the "low-carb" foods you consume over the course of a day and you can easily achieve 30 grams or more carbohydrates per day even without consuming any higher carbohydrate foods.

Why doesn't your doctor try to CURE diabetes?

21. July 2010 William Davis (88)
Imagine you have breast cancer. You go to your doctor and she says, "As your pain worsens, we'll help you with pain medication. We'll fit you with a special bra to accommodate the tumor as it grows. That's all we're going to do."

"What?" you ask. "You mean just deal with the disease and its complications, but you're not going to help me get rid of it . . . cure it?"

It would be incredibly shocking to receive such advice. Then why is that the sort of advice given when you are diagnosed with diabetes?

Say you go to the doctor. Lab values show a fasting blood sugar of 156 mg/dl, HbA1c (a reflection of your previous 60 days average glucose) of 7.1%. Both values show clear-cut diabetes.

Your doctor advises you to 1) start the drug metformin, then 2) talk to the diabetic teaching nurse or dietitian about an American Diabetes Association (ADA) diet.

The ADA diet prescribed encourages you to increase carbohydrates and cut fats at each meal and maintain a consistent intake so that you don't experience hypoglycemic (low blood sugar) episodes. You follow the diet, which causes you to gain 10-15 lbs per year, increasing your "need" for diabetes medication. You doctor adds Actos, then Januvia, then injections of Byetta.

Three years and 34 lbs later, you are not responding well to the drug combination with blood sugars rarely staying below 200 mg/dl. You've developed protein in your urine ("proteinuria"), lost 30% of your kidney function, and you are starting to lose sensation in your feet. So the doctor replaces some of your medication with several insulin injections per day.

This formula is followed millions of times per year in the U.S. So where along the way did your doctor mention anything about a "cure"?

Adult diabetes is the one chronic disease that nobody cares to cure. Treat it, maintain control over blood sugars, but cure it? Most physicians say it's impossible.

The tragedy is that diabetes is a curable condition. I've seen it happen many times. Physicians dedicated to curing diabetes like low-carb expert, Dr. Mary Vernon, have cured it countless times. Dr. Eric Westman and colleagues have been building the case for the carbohydrate-restricted cure for diabetes with studies such as this. In this last study, of the 8 participants on insulin + medications at the start of the study, 5 no longer required medications at the close of the study--they were essentially non-diabetic.

I tell patients that diabetes, in fact, is a disease you choose to have or not to have--provided you are provided the right diet and tools. Sadly, rarely are diabetics told about the right diet and tools.

That's why Cadbury Schweppes has been a major contributor to the American Diabetes Association, as are other processed food manufacturers and the drug industry, all who stand to profit from maintaining the status quo.

The cure? Eliminate or at least dramatically reduce carbohydrates, the foods that increase blood sugar.

Note: If you have diabetes and you are taking any prescription agents, such as glyburide, glipizide, insulin, and some others, you will need to discuss how to manage your medications if you reduce carbohydrates. The problem is finding a doctor or other resource to help you do this.

LDL pattern B

18. July 2010 William Davis (17)
Here's a Q&A I stumbled on in the Forum of MedHelp, where people obtain answers from presumed health "experts."

Question:

My VAP test results in July 07 identified an LDL Pattern B.
Overall results:
Total 150
HDL 75
LDL 61
Trig 60
HDL-2 17
LP(a) 6.0
LDL Pattern B

Medications:
Lipitor 10mg
Zetia 10mg
Altace 10mg
Atenolol 50mg
Plavix 75mg
Aspirin 81mg

I had several heart attacks which resulted in CABG performed May 2000. I am a 53 year old white male , 6'1", 190 pounds, exercise every day, watch my diet and feel great. Everything looks OK except my LDL Pattern B. Is there any therapy to improve the Patten B?

Answer from CCF, MD:
Your results indicate an LDL pattern B, which generally indicates small atherogenic LDL particles which may cause increased risk for CAD. However, there are several problems with LDL patterning: 1) its unreliability (of LDL pattern testing ), 2) unclear clinical evidence regarding regarding the usefulness of LDL patterns and particle size. The majority of evidence regarding the progression of atherosclerosis is with LDL lowering and to an smaller extent HDL raising.

All available clinical evidence shows that any particles in the VLDL, IDL, or LDL range are atherogenic, and there is no evidence that whether belonging to pattern A or B one is more atherogenic than others.

Subclass studies have proliferated over the last few years, but many of these studies were funded or subsidized either by suppliers of the assays as a method to expand their use and move them into mainstream practice, or by pharmaceutical companies in an attempt to claim some advantage over other therapeutic agents.
Thus, current data on LDL subclasses are at best incomplete and at worst misleading, suffering from publication bias, and now given the recent results of the Ensign et al. study, unreliable.

Your LDL, and HDL are at goal. The Lpa level is still not clearly linked as a modifiable risk factor for CAD, although elevated levels are now know to be linked to stroke.

Continue with your present treatments: aspirin, plavix, ateonol and altace are all essential medications.


Wow. The extent of ignorance that pervades the ranks of my colleagues is frightening.

Contrary to the response, LDL particle size assays are quite reliable and accurate. I've performed many thousands of lipoprotein assays and they yield reproducible and clinically believable results. For example, eliminate wheat, oats, cornstarch, and sugars and small LDL drops from 2400 nmol/L to 893 nmol/L (NMR)--huge drops. If repeated within a short period of time, the second measure will correspond quite closely.

The data are also quite clear: Small LDL particles (i.e., "pattern B") are a potent predictor of cardiovascular events. What we lack are the treatment trials that show that reduction of small LDL results in reduced cardiovascular events. The reason for this is that small LDL research is not well-funded, since there is no prescription drug to treat small LDL, only nutritional means. Niacin (as Niaspan) is as close as it comes for a "drug" to reduce small LDL. But diet is far more effective.

Given the questioner's fairly favorable BMI of 25.1 and his history of aggressive heart disease, it is virtually certain that he has what I call "genetic small LDL," i.e., small LDL that occur on a genetically-determined basis (likely due to variants of the cholesteryl-ester transfer protein, or CETP, or of hepatic lipase and others).

Ignoring this man's small LDL will, without a doubt, consign him to a future of more heart attacks, stents, and bypass. Maybe by that time the data supporting the treatment of small LDL will become available.

What increases blood sugar more than wheat?

15. July 2010 William Davis (38)
Take a look at these glycemic indexes (GI):


White bread 69
Whole wheat bread 72
Sucrose 59
Mars bar 68
White rice 72
Brown rice 66


I've made issue in past of whole wheat's high GI--higher than white bread. Roughly in the same glycemic league as bread are shredded wheat cereal, brown rice, and a Mars candy bar.

With few exceptions, wheat products have among the highest GIs compared to the majority of other foods. For instance:


Kidney beans 29
Chick peas 36
Apple 39
Ice cream 36
Snickers Bar 40


Yes, by the crazy logic of glycemic index, Snickers is a low-glycemic index food.

While I do not believe that low GI makes a food good or desirable, since low GI foods still provoke high blood sugars, small LDL particles, trigger glycation, and other abnormal phenomena, they are clearly less obnoxious than the items in the first list.

Take a look at this list:

Cornflakes 80
Rice cakes 80
Rice Krispies 82
Rice pasta, 92
Instant potatoes 83
Tapioca 81



Starches that are dried and/or pulverized, such as cornstarch, potato starch, rice starch, and tapioca starch (cassava root) will increase blood sugar even more than wheat. Foods with these starches have GI's of 80-100.

Cornstarch, potato starch, rice starch, and tapioca starch: Sound familiar? These are the main starches used in "gluten-free" foods. A hint of the high GI behavior of these dried starches is seen in the GI for cornflakes of 80.

So remember: Wheat-free is not the same as gluten-free. Gluten-free identifies junk carbohydrates masquerading as healthy because they don't contain one unhealthy ingredient, i.e. wheat.