Weight loss and blood pressure

15. August 2008 William Davis (6)
Here's another thought with regards to time issues with weight loss: reductions in blood pressure (BP).

The previous post talked about how triglycerides initially go up, sometimes way up, when weight drops, only to be followed months later by substantial drops. HDL initially drops in response to the triglyceride fluctuations, only to be followed by a rise.

Blood pressure also shows a curious pattern that is largely dependent on age.

Say someone in their 20s or 30s, for instance, loses 30 lbs (through elimination of wheat and cornstarch, say). BP usually drops within a few weeks, perhaps a month or two at most.

How about someone in their 70s? Say a substantial amount of weight is lost, say 50 lbs over 6 months. BP does indeed drop, but it may require 6 months or longer after weight plateaus for the full effects of BP-reduction to be fully expressed. But it will eventually drop.

Why the age-dependent difference?

It relates to the capacity of arteries to remain flexible and distensible. Over the years, cross-linking of collagen (a structural protein), glycation (glucose molecules attaching to proteins), loss of endothelial responsiveness to generate artery-dilating substances like nitric oxide, and arterial atherosclerotic plaque all all up to making older arteries less able to "relax" and BP to drop.

But given time and the proper effort, BP will eventually drop. Awareness of this time effect can help most people decide better when medications are necessary or if weight loss alone is sufficient to reach BP goals.

"I lost 30 lbs and my triglycerides went . . . up?"

13. August 2008 William Davis (6)
Brad needed to lose weight.

At 6 ft tall, he began the program at 291 lbs, easily 80 lbs overweight. He wore virtually all of it in his belly.

He had laboratory numbers to match: HDL 33 mg/dl, triglycerides 225 mg/dl, LDL (calculated) 144 mg/dl, blood sugar 122 mg/dl (fasting--clearly "pre-diabetic"), c-reactive protein 3.0 mg/dl. Among his lipoprotein abnormalities: small LDL representing 80% of all LDL (no surprise).

Readers of The Heart Scan Blog know that these are the patterns of the carbohydrate-indulgent. I asked Brad to eliminate all wheat flour products, all foods made with cornstarch, and follow a diet rich in healthy oils, raw nuts, vegetables, and lean meats.

Brad returned for a discussion about follow-up basic lipids (cholesterol) values four months later--31 lbs lighter, most of it clearly lost from his abdomen. He claimed he felt more energetic and clear-headed than he had in years.

His lipid panel: HDL 34 mg/dl, LDL 122 mg/dl, triglycerides 295 mg/dl. Brad's smile dissolved. "How could that happen? You said losing weight would make my HDL go up and my triglycerides go down!"

Yes, I had said that. But I was oversimplifying.

The truth is that, when there is weight loss, especially profound weight loss like Brad experienced eliminating wheat and cornstarch products, there is mobilization of fat stores. Fat is stored energy. Energy is stored as . . . triglycerides.

So when there is substantial weight loss, there is a flood of triglycerides in the blood, and triglyceride levels in the midst of weight loss can commonly jump up, not uncommonly to the 200-300+ mg/dl range. When triglycerides go up, there is also a drop in HDL (triglycerides interact with HDL particles, modify their structure and make them more readily destroyed, thereby dropping blood levels). Occasionally, substantial weight loss like Brad experienced will drop HDL really low, as low as the 20's.

Once weight stabilizes, this effect can last up to 2 months before correcting. Only then will triglycerides drop and HDL rise. The rise in HDL occurs even more slowly, requiring several more months to plateau.

In other words, weight loss like Brad's causes triglycerides to increase and HDL to decrease, to be followed later by a drop in triglycerides and a rise in HDL.

I know of no way to block this phenomenon. And perhaps we shouldn't, since this is how fat stores are mobilized and "burned off." Fish oil does blunt the triglyceride rise (perhaps through activation of lipoprotein lipase, an enzyme responsible for clearance of triglycerides), but doesn't eliminate it.

I call these changes "transitional" changes in lipids.

Patience pays. A few more months from now, Brad's numbers will be much happier, as will Brad.

Divorce court for the doctor-patient relationship?

10. August 2008 William Davis (4)
The doctor-patient relationship has gone sour.

This probably comes as no surprise to most of you, particularly if you've been following conversations here in The Heart Scan Blog:

Who is your doctor? discussing the emergence of the physician-as-hospital-employee phenomenon that causes your doctor to become the de facto portal (seller?) of hospital services to you, a model fraught with conflicts of interest.

Exploitation of trust, my observation that the enormous gap in heart disease prevention between the woefully ignorant (by necessity) level of sophistication of the primary care physician and the procedure-obsessed cardiologist leads to an exploitation of humans-for-heart-procedures because of the failure to institute genuine preventive efforts.

Bait and switch , a description of how a minor test or symptom can reap a bonanza of medical testing; a $20 "screening" test yields $10's of thousands in hospital procedures. If it were entirely due to the imprecision of medical testing and detection of disease, that might be forgivable. But it often is not: It has become utterly distorted by the profit model.



Lest you think that I am a kook ranting off in some backwoods corner (Milwaukee), here are the comments of New York Times' Health Editor Tara Parker-Pope in a series called Doctor and Patient, Now at Odds:

Lately I've been hearing a lot from patients who are frustrated, angry, and distrustful of doctors. Their feelings speak to a growing disconnect between doctors and patients and worries that drug companies, insurance rules, and hospital cost-cutting are influencing the care and advice that doctors provide.

Research shows that even among patients who like their personal physicians, there is a simmering distrust of the medical system and the doctors who work inside it.


(There's also a series of candid video interviews with people who echo these sentiments.)

There are a number of reasons for this increasing "disconnect," some of them articulated by Ms. Parker-Pope, others detailed in my blog posts.

The solutions, however, will not be found by advancing technology: the newest robotic surgery, a better defibrillator, a new statin drug, the next best chemotherapeutic agent. It will not be found by adding a new wing to the hospital. It will not be found by the reorganization of healthcare delivery achieved by converting primary care and specialty practice into an arm of hospital care. It will not be improved by employing "hospitalists." It will not emerge from legislation controlling insurance company practices. It certainly will not come from increasing marketing dollars spent by drug companies (who make $4 for every $1 spent on direct-to-consumer marketing).

The solutions will come from shifting the idea of care from a paternalistic, "I'm the doctor and I'll tell you what to do" approach, to the doctor-as-advocate-and-supporter of the patient. The physician should act as someone with a particular sort of expertise that can advise a patient.

But a caveat: The patient MUST be informed.

Proper information will not originate with the doctor. It will originate with internet-based information portals and tools that help you understand the issues, often with far greater depth than your doctor could ever provide. The physician needs to accept this role, one of advocate, adviser, but not of being in charge, not of viewing the patient as profit-center, not as an opponent in a power struggle.

Sadly, the last few years in online information portals has been dominated by the drug company-dominated websites like WebMD, nothing more than a deliverer of the conventional wisdom with nothing whatsoever aimed towards empowering patients in a self-directed healthcare model.

Some people call the emerging new empowered and information-armed patient Medicine 2.0. Unfortunately, Medicine 2.0 will first benefit the intellectual upper crust of Americans, the web-savvy and motivated to engage in health issues. But, give it 10 years, and we will witness the effects on an unprecedented broad scale. Part of the Information Age is acceleration of information dissemination. Imagine your children, facile with a computer mouse, posting comments on FaceBook, doing homework with Google and Wikipedia, now turning their attentions to health.

It will be a startling change.

In the meantime, be wary. Be empowered. Think increasingly about self-direction in your health.


In a comment to the Bait and switch post, Jennytoo offered an insightful response:

You are getting to the essence of the problem, and it's not just cardiology that is rife with what is, at bottom, malpractice.

There is little incentive for the profession as a whole to know anything about or promote prevention, and many incentives from hospitals, drug and insurance companies to stick with the status quo or to change it in their corporate favor. The formulaic, conventional statements purporting to be guidelines for prevention that are put out by various interest groups and in such publications as hospital-sponsored newsletters ("eat a 'balanced diet', avoid stress, etc.") are useless sops to the concept of prevention.

It is, and I fear is going to remain, up to motivated individuals, both physicians and patients, to reshape the system, and it's going to be a long frustrating struggle.

It's my personal conviction that if just 4 things were promoted to the public, and people actually practiced them, we could change the health profiles of the majority of people in this country for the better within two years or less. They are:

(1) education on and promotion of a true low-carbohydrate, whole foods, diet,
(2) measurement and supplementation of Vitamin D3,
(3) supplementation with DHA/EPA (found in Fish Oils), and
(4) measurement and supplementation of intracellular magnesium.

I am not a health professional, and others may want to add to this list, but I don't think any strong case can be made against any of the items. The wonderful and hopeful thing is that each of us can implement them ON OUR OWN, and thereby take charge of our own well-being. (The Life Extension Foundation is one organization which provides access to lab tests you can request on your own.)

If you have a physician who is willing and capable of being your partner, you are richly blessed, and that is the ideal we all should hope for. But in the more likely event that you do not have such a physician, and if your physician demonstrates little potential for becoming one, think about firing the one you have and finding another.

Sometimes we are forced by circumstances, particularly urgent ones, to deal with physicians who are not ideal, but the main impetus for change will come from us, the patients, and the expectations we communicate to our individual doctors. In the meantime, we can be self-reliant in our own prevention practices.

Wow. A woman after my own heart.

How much fish oil is enough?

9. August 2008 William Davis (7)

This post just furthers this line of thinking out loud: How much fish oil is "enough"?

Observations over the last 30 years followed this path: If a little bit of omega-3 fatty acids from fish are beneficial in reducing cardiovascular events, and a moderate intake is even better, is even more better? When have we reached a plateau? When do adverse effects outweigh the benefits?

Some insight can be gained through studies that examined blood levels of omega-3s. Let's take a look at some data from 2002, a comparison of men dying from heart disease vs. controls in the Physicians' Health Study, Blood Levels of Long-Chain n–3 Fatty Acids and the Risk of Sudden Death.

This is a table that shows the blood levels of various fatty acids Group with sudden death vs Control Group:




Several observations jump out:

--The total omega-3 blood content differed significantly, 4.82 vs 5.24% ("Total long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated")
--Total omega-6 content did not differ
--Arachidonic acid (AA) content did not differ
--Linolenic acid content did not differ (i.e., plant sourced omega-3)

The fact that neither omega-6 nor arachidonic acid content differed counters the argument that Simopoulos has made that the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio (intake, not blood levels) is what counts. It also argues against the EPA to AA ratio (and similar manipulations) that some have argued is important. In this study, only the omega-3 level itself made a difference; no ratio was necessary to distinguish sudden death victims vs controls.

Further, quartiles of omega-3 blood levels showed graded reductions of risk:




An omega-3 blood level of 6.87% conferred greatest risk reduction. Depending on the model of statistical analysis, risk reductions of up to 81-90% were observed. Wow.

Taken at face value, this study would argue that:

--An omega-3 fatty acid blood level of 6.87% (or greater?) is ideal
--The omega-3 fatty acid blood level stands alone as a predictor without resorting to any further manipulation of numbers, such as relating EPA and/or DHA to AA levels.

Of course, this is just one study, though an important one. It is also not a study based on any intervention, just an observational effort. But it does add to our understanding.


We will develop these issues further in our upcoming Track Your Plaque Webinar on Wednesday, August 20th, 2008.

Omega-6 / omega-3 ratio

7. August 2008 William Davis (11)
Most of us already know that the intake of omega-6 fatty acids in the American diet has gone overboard, much at the expense of the omega-3 fraction. This occurred as a result of the misguided advice of the 1970s and 1980s to eat polyunsaturated oils like corn, sunflower, and safflower, because of their presumed cholesterol-reducing properties compared to saturated fats. However, more recent examinations of this advice have suggested that the omega-6 fraction of oils present in polyunsaturated oils may amplify arachidonic acid and other inflammatory patterns despite the reduction in cholesterol (total and LDL).

Dr. Artemis Simopoulos of the Center for Genetics, Nutrition and Health in Washington, D.C. has written extensively on the role of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids in diet.

In a review entitled The Importance of the Omega-6/Omega-3 Fatty Acid Ratio in Cadiovacular Disease and Other Chronic Disease , Dr. Simopoulos collects the following comparison of omega-6 to omega-3 ratios from various populations:


Paleolithic humans 0.79
Greece (prior to 1960) 1.00-2.00
Current Japan 4.00
Current India, rural 5-6.1
Current United Kindom and northern Europe 15.00
Current United States 16.74
Current India, urban 38-50

(The numbers refer to the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 intake.)


If we believe the observations of Dr. Loren Cordain and others, while paleolithic man died of trauma and infectious diseases, they did not die of heart disease. Paleolithic human intake of omega-3 exceeded that of omega-6.

Likewise, the traditionally low cardiac event regions of the world like Japan and Greece have less omega-3 intake than Paleolithic man, but still many times more than the U.S. and U.K.

Worst of all with an enormous preponderance of omega-6 over omega-3 are urban Indians, who experience among the highest rates of heart disease in the world.

Just for perspective, let's assume you eat an 1800 calorie per day diet, of which 30% of calories come from fat. This would amount to 540 calories per day from fat. With 9 calories per gram of fat, this means that there are 60 grams, or 60,000 mg, of fat in your diet per day.

Paleolithic man has been found to have existed on a diet consisting of 21% of calories from fats. Again assuming an 1800 calorie per day diet, that comes to 42 grams of fat per day (42,000 mg).

If we were to try to recreate the Paleolithic fat composition of diet, we would ingest 21,000 mg of omega-3 fatty acids (EPA, DHA, linolenic acid) per day. Even recreating a Japanese experience with a 4:1 ratio, it would mean 8400 mg of omega-3 per day. (Curiously, this does not agree with all estimates of Japanese intake of omega-3s.)

No matter how you look at it, cultures with lower rates of cardiovascular disease take in greater--much greater--quantities of omega-3 fatty acids.

So don't complain about your six fish oil capsules (usually containing 6000 mg of total oil, 1800 mg omega-3s)!

Dr. Bernadine Healy on heart scans

5. August 2008 William Davis (1)

A Heart Scan Blog reader brought the following tidbit to my attention.

Cardiologist and now writer for U.S. News and World Report, Dr. Bernadine Healy, wrote this editorial, a glowing endorsement of heart scans:

The approach is beautifully simple. Calcium accumulates in advanced plaques, so calcium visible in the heart's arteries indicates atherosclerosis. An exploding number of studies in the past few years have unequivocally shown that the calcium score predicts both heart attack and sudden death. As a generalization, patients with scores between 100 and 400 face three to four times the risk of a heart attack or death compared with others at the same age with a zero score. Over 400, that elevated risk more than doubles.

Most doctors rely instead on the Framingham calculator, which estimates a symptom-free person's risk of a heart attack in the next 10 years based on smoking history, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, sex, and age. It's available free online from the National Institutes of Health. Most people taking the test will have minimal or no coronary disease, though risk estimates over 9 percent should inspire vigorous preventive efforts. For some, however, coronary heart disease is sneaky, and Framingham will underestimate what lies ahead. Roughly half of those who suffer a major heart attack or sudden coronary death are symptom free. Calcium scores are additive to Framingham; they pick up the individual surprises by using X-ray vision to look inside the heart. No wonder insurance companies are scrambling to use coronary calcium scores—life insurers, that is.


Dr. Bernadine Healy is no small-time player. In addition to her academic credentials, she is former chief of the National Institutes of Health (the first woman to hold the influential post), former head of the American Red Cross, and former deputy director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under the Reagan administration. An endorsement of CT heart scans, though written under the guise of a probing editorial, will do an enormous amount of good to overcome the hurdles in gaining wider acceptance of heart scans.

Those of us applying heart scans in everyday practice have long appreciated their enormous power to detect and track coronary plaque. Framingham scoring can't even touch the certainty and quantification provided by heart scans in day-to-day life. Hundreds of studies have validated their use, but they still suffer from lying in the shadows of the procedural bullies aiming to boost the number of heart catheterizations, angioplasties, stents, bypass surgeries.

Dr. Healy, a voice with great weight, not just a political figure but also a cardiologist and scientist, has done a great service to broadcast the message of heart scanning.

Mercury and fish oil

2. August 2008 William Davis (9)
As time passes, the dose of fish oil advocated in the Track Your Plaque program is going upward.

While epidemiologic studies, like the Chicago Western Electric Study and the Nurses' Health Study suggest that decreases in mortality from heart disease begin by just eating fish a couple times per month, there are newer data that suggest greater quantities confer greater benefits.

In the last Heart Scan Blog post, I discussed the recently-released ERA JUMP Study that demonstrated a relationship between higher omega-3 fatty acid blood content and reduced quantities of carotid and coronary plaque. The JELIS Study demonstrated a 19% reduction in cardiovascular events when fish-consuming Japanese added 1800 mg of EPA (only).

However, the suggestion that increased quantities of fish oil potentially yield greater protection from heart attack and facilitate coronary plaque regression is also stirring up worries about mercury exposure. So I dug up a Heart Scan Blog post from a year ago that discussed this issue and reprint it here.


I often get questions about the mercury content in fish oil. I've even had patients come to the office saying their primary care doctor told them to stop fish oil to avoid mercury poisoning.

Manufacturers of fish oil also make claims that this product or that ("super-concentrated", "pharmaceutical grade", "purified", etc.) is purer or less contaminated than competitors' products. The manufacturers of the "drug" Omacor [now Lovaza], or prescription fish oil, have added to the confusion by suggesting that their product is the most pure of all, since it is the most concentrated of any fish oil preparation (900 mg EPA+DHA per capsule). They claim that "OMACOR is naturally derived through a unique, patented process that creates a highly concentrated, highly purified prescription medicine. By prescribing OMACOR® (omega-3-acid ethyl esters), a prescription omega-3, your doctor is giving you a concentrated and reliable omega-3. Each OMACOR capsule contains 90% omega-3 acids (84% EPA/DHA*). Nonprescription omega-3 dietary supplements typically contain only 13%-63% EPA/DHA."

How much truth is there in these concerns?

Let's go to the data published by the USDA, FDA, and several independent studies. Let's add to that the independent (and therefore presumably unbiased) analyses provided by Consumer Reports and Consumer Labs (www.consumerlab.com). How much mercury has been found in fish oil supplements?

None.

This is different from the mercury content of whole fish that you eat. Predatory fish that are at the top of the food chain and consume other fish and thereby concentrate organic methyl mercury, the toxic form of mercury. Thus, shark, swordfish, and King mackerel are higher in mercury than sardines, herring, and salmon.

The mercury content of fish oil capsules have little to do with the method of processing and much more with the animal source of oil. Fish oil is generally obtained from sardines, salmon, and cod, all low in mercury. Fish oil capsules are not prepared from swordfish or shark.

Thus, concerns about mercury from fish oil--regardless of brand--are generally unfounded, according to the best information we have. Eating whole fish--now that's another story for another time. But you and I can take our fish oil to reduce triglycerides, VLDL, IDL, small LDL, and heart attack risk without worrying about mercury.


I am not advocating ad libitum eating of fish. Sadly, this may be related to excessive accumulation of contaminants. I am suggesting that greater quantities of omega-3 fatty acids from relatively contaminant- and mercury-free fish oil capsules.

More on this in an upcoming webinar on the Track Your Plaque website: Fish Oil and the Track Your Plaque Program - Is More Better?

ERA JUMP: Omega-3 fatty acids and plaque

1. August 2008 William Davis (5)

The results of the uniquely-constructed ERA JUMP Study were just released, a fascinating study of the relationship of omega-3 fatty acids to coronary and carotid plaque.

The study adds insight into why the Japanese experience only one third of the heart attacks of Americans, and why Japan occupies the bottom of the list for least heart attacks among all developed countries.

The Electron-Beam Tomography, Risk Factor Assessment Among Japanese and U.S. Men in the Post-World War II Birth Cohort Study (ERA JUMP), a collaborative U.S.-Japanese effort, compared three groups of men:

-- 281 Japanese men living in Japan
-- 306 non-Japanese men living in the U.S. (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
-- 303 Japanese Americans (having both parents Japanese without “ethnic admixture”) living in Hawaii.

The last group represents a group that is genetically similar to the group in Japan, but exposed to an American diet and lifestyle.

Three main measures were compared:

-- Blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA)
-- Carotid intimal-medial thickness (CIMT, the thickness of the carotid artery lining that can serve as an index of body-wide atherosclerosis)
-- Coronary calcium (heart scan) scores.

Interestingly, at the start of the study, the Japanese men possessed an overall cardiovascular risk profile worse than the Americans: Though more slender (BMI 23.6), Japanese men were more likely to be smokers, alcohol drinkers, had more high blood pressure, and were less likely to take cholesterol medications. The Americans, conversely, although heavier (BMI 27.9), were less likely to be smokers and drinkers, and had a four-fold greater use of cholesterol medications.

The Japanese Americans were the most likely to be hypertensive, diabetic, with a similar proportion of overweight as the non-Japanese Americans.

Despite the overall greater heart disease risk for profile for Japanese men, compared to non-Japanese Americans they had 10% less CIMT. In addition, only 9.3% of Japanese men had abnormal coronary calcium scores vs. 26.1% of non-Japanese Americans. Japanese-Americans were the worst, however, with nearly 10% more CIMT than non-Japanese Americans and 31.4% with abnormal calcium scores.

The most intriguing finding of all was the fact that, of all the various groups and degrees of atherosclerosis, whether gauged via CIMT or coronary calcium scores, the blood level of omega-3 fatty acids was inversely related, i.e., the greater the omega-3 blood level, the less plaque by either measure was detected.

Japanese men had the highest omega-3 blood levels: twice that of the non-Japanese Americans. The Japanese-Americans had levels only slightly greater than non-Japanese Americans.

While other studies, like the GISSI Prevenzione study, have persuasively demonstrated that omega-3 fatty acids substantially reduce heart attack, a weak link in the omega-3 argument has been a study that links greater omega-3 intake with less atherosclerosis. The unique construction of the ERA JUMP Study, employing two groups with sharply different omega-3 intakes, very powerfully argues for the plaque-inhibiting effects of this fraction of fats.

How much omega-3 fatty acids do Japanese people eat? Estimates vary, depending on part of the country, coastal vs. inland, age, etc., but Japanese tend to ingest anywhere from 5 to 15-times more omega-3 fatty acids than Americans. The actual intake of omega-3 fatty acids (EPA +DHA) in Japanese ranges from 850 to 3100 mg per day.

Mediterranean diet and blood sugar

31. July 2008 William Davis (6)

Data such as that from the Lyon Heart Study have demonstrated that a so-called Mediterranean diet substantially reduces risk for heart attack.

But there are aspects of the Mediterranean diet and lifestyle that are not entirely sorted out.

For instance, what specific component(s) of the diet provide the benefit? Is it olive oil and linolenic acid? Is it red wine? Is it the reduced exposure to processed snack foods that Americans are indundated with? Is it their more slender builds and greater tendency to walk? How about exposure to the Mediterranean sun? What about the inclusion of breads, since in the Track Your Plaque program I advocate elimination of wheat products for many abnormalities?

Anyway, here's a wonderfully thoughtful set of observations from Anna about her experiences traveling Italy, trying to understand the details of the Mediterranean diet while also trying to keep blood sugar under control.


I just returned from a two week stay in Italy, doing a bit of my own "Mediterranean Diet" experiments. When practical, we sought out food sources and places to eat that were typical for the local area, and tried as much as possible/practical to stay away from establishments that mostly catered to tourist tastes. I was really curious to see how the mythical "Mediterranean Diet" we Americans are urged to follow compared to the foods really consumed in Italy.

The first week, we stayed in a rural Tuscan farmhouse apartment (agriturismo), so many, if not most of our meals were prepared by me with ingredients I bought at the local grocery store (Coop) or the outdoor market in Siena. In addition, I purchased really fantastic free-range eggs from the farm where we were staying. (Between some language issues and seasonality, eggs and wine were what we could buy from them - though I was tantalized by the not-quite-ripe figs heavy on many trees). Mostly, our meals consisted of simple and easily prepared fresh fruits and vegetables, rustic cured meats (salami, proscuitto, pancetta, etc.) hand-sliced at the deli down the road, fresh sausages, various Italian cheeses, plus plenty of espresso. It was a bit disappointing to find underripe fruit & tomatoes as well as old green beans in the grocery stores, not to mention too many low fat and highly processed foods, but all over Europe the food supply is becoming more industrialized, more centralized, and homogenous, so I'm not too surprised that it happens even in Italy. But even with the smaller grocery store size, the amount of in-season produce was abundant, yet one still was better off shipping from the perimeter of the store, venturing into the aisles only for spices, olive oil, vinegar, coffee, etc. Without the knowledge of where to go and the language to really talk in depth about food with people, I wasn't able to find truly direct and local sources for as many foods as I would have liked, but still, we ate well enough!

The first week I maintained blood sugar levels very similar to those I get at home, because except for the Italian specialties, we ate much like we always do. A few rare exceptions to my normal BG tests were after indulging in locally made gelato or a evening limoncello cordial, but even then, the BG rise was relatively modest and to me, acceptable under the circumstance. Even with the gelato indulgences, it felt like I might have even lost a few pounds by the end of the first week and my FBG didn't rise much over 100.

The second week we stayed in two cities (Florence & Rome), and I didn't prepare any of my own food because I didn't have a kitchen/fridge. I found it impossible to get eggs anywhere for breakfast, and the tickets our hotels provided for a "continental" breakfast at a nearby café/bar was always for a coffee or hot chocolate drink and some sort of bread or roll (croissant, brioche, danish, etc.). At first I just paid extra for a plate of salami and cheese if that was available - or went to a small grocery store for some plain yogurt, but then I decided to go off low-carb and conduct a short term experiment, though I didn't consume nearly as many carbs as a typical Italian or tourist would.

So I breakfasted with a brioche roll or plain croissant for breakfast with my cappuccino, but unfortunately no additional butter was available. I didn't feel "full" enough with such a breakfast and I was usually starving an hour or two later. Additionally, when I ate the "continental" breakfast, I noticed immediate water retention - my ankles, lower legs, and knees looked like someone else's at the end of a day walking and sightseeing, swollen heavy. Exercising my feet and lower legs while waiting in lines or sitting didn't seem to help.

Food is much more expensive in Europe than in the US, and the declining US$ made everything especially expensive (not to mention the higher cost of dining out rather than cooking at home), so we tried to manage food costs by eating simple lunches at local take-away places, avoiding the corporate fast food chains. I was getting tired of salami/proscuitto & cheese plates, but the typical "quick" option was usually a panini (sandwich). At first I tried to find alternatives to paninis, but the available salads were designed for side dishes, not main meals and rarely had any protein, and the fillings of the expensive sandwiches were too skimpy to just eat without the bread. So I started to eat panini, although I sometimes removed as much as half of the bread (though it was nearly always very excellent quality pan toasted flatbreads or crusty baguette rolls, not sliced America bread). So of course, my post-prandial BGs rose, as did my FBG. I also found my hunger tended to come back much too soon and I think overall I ate more than usual in terms of volume.

Then we deviated from the "Italian" lunch foods and found a better midday meal option (quick, cheaper, and easier to customize for LC) - stopping at one of the numerous kebab shops and ordering a kebab plate with salad, hold the bread (not Italian, but still Mediterranean, I guess). I felt much better fueled on kebab plates (more filling and enough protein) than paninis, though I must say I still appreciated the taste of caprese paninis (slices of fresh mozzerella and tomato, basil leaves, mustard dressing on crusty, pan-toasted flat bread). If I followed my appetite, I could have eaten two caprese paninis.

We had some great evening dinners, at places also frequented by locals. This often was a fixed price dinner of several courses ("we feed you what we want you to eat"). Multi-course meals included house wine, and invariably consisted of antipasta (usually LC, such as a cold meat and cheese plate), pasta course (much smaller servings than typical US pasta dishes), main course plus some side vegetables, and dessert/coffee. These were often the best meals we experienced, full of local flavor and tradition (sometimes with a grandmotherly type doing the cooking), and definitely of very good quality, though we noticed the saltiness overall tended to be on the high side. I ate from every course, including some of the excellent bread (dipped in plenty of olive oil) and usually about half of the pasta served (2 oz dry?), plus about half of the dessert. After these meals I always ran BGs higher than usual, varying from moderately high (120-160 - at home I would consider this very high for me) to very high (over 180). By late in the week, my FBG was into the 115 range every morning (usually I can keep it 90-100 on LC food). Nearly everything that week was delicious, well-prepared food, but the high carb items definitely were not good for my BG control in the long run.

And most days I was doing plenty of walking, sprinting for the Metro subway trains, stair climbing (4th and 5/6th floor hotel rooms!), etc. but since I didn't have my usual housework to do, it probably wasn't too different from my usual exertion level.

So it was very interesting to experience the "Mediterranean Diet" first hand. Meats and cheeses were plentiful, fruits and vegetables played a much more minor role (main courses didn't come with vegetables other than what was in the sauce, but had to be ordered as additional items), but the overall carbs were decidedly too many. As I expected, it wasn't nearly as pasta-heavy as is portrayed in the US media/health press, but it is still full of too much grain and sugar, IMO. Low fat has become the norm in many dairy products, sadly, and if the grocery stores are any indication, modern families are gravitating towards highly processed, industrial foods. Sugar seems to be in everything (I quickly learned to order my caffe freddo con panno or latte sensa zuccero - iced coffee with cream or milk without sugar) after realizing that adding lots of sugar was the norm).

And, after several days of breakfasting at the café near our Rome hotel (where carbs were the only option in the morning), I learned that our very buff, muscular, very flat-stomached, café owner doesn't eat pasta (said as he proudly patted his 6 pack abs). I probably could have stuck closer to the carb intake I know works better for my BG control, but I figured if I was going to go off my LC way of eating and experiment, this was the time and place.

And yes, there were far fewer really obese people than in the US and lots of very slender people, but I could still see there were *plenty* of overweight, probably pre-diabetic and diabetic Italians (very visible problems with lower extremities, ranging from what looked like diabetic skin issues, walking problems, acanthosis nigricans, etc.). Older people do seem to be generally more fit than in the US (fit from everyday life, not exercise regimes), but there were plenty of "wheat bellies" on men old and young, even more young women with "muffin tops", and simply too many overweight children (very worrisome trend). So it may well be more the relaxed Italian way of living life (or a combination of other factors such as less air conditioning, strong family bonds, lots of sun, etc?) that keeps Italian CVD rates lower than the American rates, more than the mythical "Mediterranean diet".

Who is your doctor?

27. July 2008 William Davis (7)

Primary care physicians are the initial entry point for healthcare for the majority of Americans.

Develop pneumonia; go to your family or internal medicine physician (internist) to be prescribed an antibiotic. Need your blood pressure or cholesterol checked? Develop a sore knee or swelling in your leg? Once again, go to your primary care physician.

Image courtesy Dedde'


Primary care physicians are a patient’s guide to a bewildering array of technology and specialists. If you require a specific diagnostic test or consultation with a specialist, your primary care physician will help you navigate through the maze, choosing the path that is best for you. He or she will order a chest x-ray for a cough and fever, provide vaccines to prevent flu or pneumococcal pneumonia, perform an annual physical. If you require hospitalization, your primary care physician will admit you. He or she will order diagnostic tests like MRI’s, ultrasounds, x-rays, and blood testing, usually performed in the hospital or a hospital-owned facility. If you require the services of a gastroenterologist, orthopedist, general surgeon, or neurologist, your primary care physician will refer you to the appropriate specialist.

That’s how it’s supposed to work, at least in principle. In fact, during the first eight decades of the 20th century, it did work that work way for the most part. Your primary care physician acted not just as a provider of healthcare, but as your advocate, someone who knew you and worked to protect your welfare. Your family doctor often knew your parents, maybe even delivered you at birth, and cared for your children. His children often went to the same schools as your children. He and his family lived in the same town and sometimes went to the same church.

That hardly happens any more. It’s more likely you got the name of your primary care physician from a doctor referral service provided by a hospital. Or you picked a name off a list provided by your health insurer. It’s also common to see one doctor, only to see another a year later. Two, three, or more different primary care physicians over a five-year period are common. Doctors come and go, since physician turnover in clinics and practices has been on the increase for years. Insurance companies frequently force policyholders to change doctors, requiring you to choose from a list.

The end result of this shuffling of primary care is increasing impersonality of the relationship. You probably don’t know your primary care physician outside of the 10-minute interaction you had six months ago. She probably never met your mother and will likely not care for your children. Two years from now, she will likely not be your doctor any more, replaced by someone else who obtains the details of your health from a chart. Your chart is more likely to be electronic, with the details of your health history listed in a checklist. There’s little room to detail the idiosyncrasies and quirks of your unique personality or health profile. Throw into this impersonal equation the fact that many doctors have become scared of patients because of potential for lawsuits, often over the most trivial of issues, or because of an error of oversight or misdiagnosis.

This flawed and impersonal system, though emotionally unsatisfying, can still work if each doctor who assumes a patient’s care maintains the ethic of putting health and welfare above all.

But what if your primary care physician is not just an advocate for your welfare, but is a representative of the hospital? What if there are hidden, unspoken financial incentives paid to your doctor to direct you to the hospital for diagnostic testing, hospitalization, and referral to specialists? If a headache becomes a $4800 MRI, or chest pain becomes a $4200 nuclear stress test, then a $14,000 heart catheterization, your primary care physician becomes the purveyor of far greater financial opportunity for the hospital. The entire interaction, founded on the proposition that your doctor actually cares about you, collapses in a heap of financially motivated testing and procedures. It appears to work, and you and your family can still obtain access to healthcare. The problem is that you’re likely to get too much of it.

This message has not been lost on the shrewd administrators at hospitals. Take a look at the ranks of primary care physicians who refer patients to some of your local hospitals. It is typical that a hospital system maintains several hundred primary care physicians on their payroll, all of whom are expected to refer patients to the hospital, cardiologists, and other proceduralists. Why so many?

Most primary care physicians today have signed contracts with a hospital. In other words, they are employees of the hospital. This practice is not unusual: the American Medical Association reported that 4 of 5 primary care physicians are now bound by such employment arrangements across the U.S. In effect, 80% of primary care physicians are legally bound by contract to direct patients to cardiologists who work at hospitals.

On top of contractual obligations, there are financial incentives for the volume of procedures that are generated as a result of referrals. The more procedures generated from an internist’s or family practitioner’s practice, the greater the end-of-year productivity bonus will be, not uncommonly totaling tens of thousands of dollars. Dr. Ted Phillips (not his real name, since he declined to allow me to use it) received a bonus check of $9,437 this year for his “productivity,” defined murkily as the return on specialist referrals. While the bonus may have helped him pay for his son’s college tuition, it clearly was a situation that made him acutely uncomfortable when asked.

Several primary care physicians are also quietly dismissed every year from the ranks of employed physicians for not maintaining a minimum flow of patients into the system.

Another hazardous point of entry: Many patients enter the hospital through the emergency room (ER). A patient in the emergency room is at his or her most vulnerable, seeking help for an urgent complaint and usually willing to accept whatever the ER physician advises. Hospitals know this. That’s why many systems insist that the ER physicians be employees of the hospital, with their practice habits subject to control. A patient goes to the ER with chest pain or breathlessness. The worst thing that can happen from a financial standpoint is for the patient to be evaluated and discharged. For this reason, a growing number of hospitals employ ER physicians, then proceed to legislate practice patterns. Consulting a cardiologist is strongly encouraged, since they generally provide access to the downstream revenue-producing procedures offered in the hospital. That way, what might have been a four hour, $2500 ER visit is converted into a $10,000 to $40,000 hospital stay, even when nothing was wrong in the first place. There are millions of people nationwide who have the hospital bills to prove it after being discharged with a diagnosis of indigestion.

Caveat emptor: Buyer beware.
All posts by william-davis

Does high cholesterol cause heart disease?

3. October 2008 William Davis (15)
How often does someone develop coronary heart disease from high cholesterol alone?

Believe drug industry propaganda and you'd think that everyone does. Physicians have bought into this concept also, driving the $27 billion annual sales in statin cholesterol drugs.

In my experience, I can count the number of people who develop coronary disease from high cholesterol alone on one hand. It happens--but rarely.

That's not to say that cholesterol is not an issue. That rant populates many of the kook websites and conversations on the internet that argue that high cholesterol is a surrogate for some other health issue, or that it is part of a medical conspiracy.

The problem with conventional measurement of cholesterol is that it ignores the particle size issue: whether particles are large or small. Small LDL are flagrant causes of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Large LDL is a rather meager cause. Simple cholesterol measurement also ignores the presence of other factors that lead to heart disease, like lipoprotein(a) and vitamin D deficiency.

Conventional total and LDL cholesterol do not distinguish between large and small particles, nor reveal the presence of other hidden patterns. An LDL cholesterol of 150 mg/dl, for instance, may contain 100% large LDL--a relatively good situation that by itself is unlikely to cause heart disease, or it might contain 100% small LDL--a very bad situation that is likely to cause heart disease. Just knowing that LDL is 150 mg/dl tells you almost nothing. In 2008, most people have some mixture of the two, particularly with the proliferation of "healthy whole grains" in the American diet, foods that trigger formation of small LDL.

The imprecision and uncertainty of conventional total and LDL cholesterol has provided ammunition for some to discount the entire cholesterol concept. And they are right to a degree: cholesterol by itself is indeed a lousy predictor of heart disease. But small LDL is a very reliable predictor of potential for heart disease. Dismissing the entire concept because the standard measurement stinks is not right, either.

It is therefore an unfortunate oversimplification to say that high cholesterol causes heart disease or that it doesn't. It can--but not always, depending on size and other factors. In my view, it is therefore irreponsible to treat total or LDL cholesterol without knowledge of particle size. I've seen this play out many times: Someone with an LDL cholesterol of 150 mg/dl but all large still gets prescribed a statin drug by his/her doctor. Or someone with an LDL of 100 mg/dl--generally "favorable" by most standards--is not treated but it is all small and the person is truly at high risk. (Also, knowledge that all LDL particles are small does not mean that statins are the preferred agent. In my view, they are not.)

Are humans meant to be omnivores?

28. September 2008 William Davis (24)
Are humans meant to be omnivores?

Does the ideal human diet include animal products like meat, fish, cheese, eggs, and dairy products?

Or should the ideal diet be devoid of all animal products?a vegetarian diet?

Though the argument is distorted by modern food processing methods (e.g., factory farming, long-term administration of antibiotics), convenience foods, and pseudo-foods crafted by food manufacturers, there are, obviously, proponents of both extremes.

The Atkins’ diet, for instance, advocates unrestricted intake of animal products, regardless of production methods or curing (sausage and bacon). At the opposite extreme are diets like Ornish (Dr. Dean Ornish’s Program for Reversal of Heart Disease) and the experiences of Dr. Colin Campbell, articulated in his studies and book, The China Study, in which he lambasts animal products, including dairy, as triggers for cancer and heart disease.

So which end of the spectrum is correct? Or ideal?

For the sake of argument, let's put aside philosophical questions (like not wanting eat animal products because of aversion to killing any living being) or ethical concerns (inhumane treatment of farm animals, cruel slaughtering practices, etc.). Does the inclusion of animal products provide advantage? Disadvantage?

The traditional argument against animal products has been saturated fat. If we accept that we’ve demoted the saturated fat question to a place far down the list of importance (though this is yet another argument to discuss another time), several questions emerge:

• If humans were meant to be vegetarian, why do omega-3 fatty acids (mostly from wild game and fish) yield such substantial health benefits, including dramatic reduction in sudden death from heart disease?

• Why would vitamin K2 (from meats and milk, as well as fermented foods like natto and cheese), obtainable in only the tiniest amounts on a vegetarian diet, provide such significant benefits on bone and cardiovascular health?

• Why would vitamin B12 (from meats) be necessary to maintain a normal blood count, prevent anemia, keep homocysteine at bay, and lead to profound neurologic dysfunction when deficient?


Omega-3 fatty acids and vitamins K2 and B12 cannot be obtained in satisfactory quantities from a pure vegetarian diet. The consequences of deficiency are not measured in decades, but in a few years. The conclusion is unavoidable: Evolutionarily, humans are meant to consume at least some foods from animal sources.

That's not to say that we should gorge ourselves on animal products. Gout (excessive uric acid) and kidney stones are among the unhealthy consequences of excessive quantities of meats in our diets.

It pains me to say this, since I’ve always favored a vegetarian lifestyle, mostly because of philosophical concerns, as well as worries about the safety of our factory farm-raised livestock and rampant inhumane practices.

But, stepping back and objectively examining what nutritional approach appears to stack the odds in favor of optimal health, I believe that only one conclusion is possible: Humans are meant to be omnivorous, meant to consume some quantity of animal products in addition to vegetables, fruits, nuts, and other non-animal products.

The question is how much?

Are you wheat-free?

24. September 2008 William Davis (25)
According to the recent Heart Scan Blog poll, Are you wheat-free?, the 173 respondents said:

Yes, I am free of wheat products.
87 (50%)

No, I include wheat products in my diet.
73 (42%)

I'm not sure.
1 (0%)

I think you're nuts.
12 (6%)


That's kind of what I expected.

There are people who have eliminated wheat and experienced nothing except a feeling of deprivation. These people are in the minority. Though the poll was not set up to reflect this (i.e., asked who tried it and experienced no perceptible benefit), in my experience, this applies to about 20% of people. Little happens with elimination of wheat beyond modest weight loss. Those are the people who generally think I'm nuts.

Or, these people may have been brainwashed by "official" agencies like the USDA, the American Diabetes Association, and American Heart Association and the constant marketing of (high markup) grain products like Cheerios and Shredded Wheat . Some people are really uncomfortable going against the "grain" of popular public opinion.

Then there are the people who try to eliminate wheat and fail. They can't deal with the overwhelming fatigue, mental fog, and moodiness that comes with withdrawal from wheat, the phenomenon of converting from a sugar-burning metabolism to a fat-burning metabolism. Although wheat withdrawal usually runs its course in 2-5 days, some people find it intolerable. (That would be another fun poll to run: Have you experienced wheat-withdrawal?) Occasionally, the withdrawal is replaced by endless cravings, a phenomenon that applies to only about 10% of people. These are the true "wheat addicts." These are the people who eliminate wheat, lose 40 lbs, then regain it when they have one cracker and the floodgates of impulse control crumble.

Then there are the majority, 50% in the poll, though more like 70% in my face-to-face experience. Why is my experience skewed? Well, the people I deal with every day come because of coronary disease in some form (abnormal heart scan score, for instance) or because of lipid or lipoprotein abnormalities. So my experienced is skewed towards people who are likely to have something abnormal, such as high triglycerides or small LDL particles, both of which are created by including wheat in the diet.

This last group also shows unexpected effects of wheat elimination: substantial weight loss, dramatic reductions in blood sugar and triglycerides, increase in HDL, reductions in small LDL, reduction in c-reactive protein and other inflammatory measures. Appetite shrinks considerably. Not uncommonly, improved well-being, reduction in bowel complaints like cramping or "irritable bowel syndrome" is experienced, some rashes clear, occasionally arthritis will improve. See below for some of the testimonials to this experience.

When I first set out to advise people to eliminate wheat, I did it because I reasoned that it would be a quick and simple way to get people to reduce blood sugars and help correct the ubiquitous metabolic syndrome that afflicts nearly 50 million Americans now. And it did indeed accomplish that simple goal. But I did not expect all the other benefits to develop, the dramatic weight loss, improved well-being, reduction in hunger, etc.

I view wheat elimination as an easy-to-remember, digestible way to obtain enormous health benefits in a coronary plaque-control program, one that works for most--but not all--people. And I relate this experience not to sell you something, but to simply relate what I see as the truth, a way that is contrary to conventional advice yet works enormously well.



Unsolicited testimonials of people who have successfully been wheat-free:

Barbara W said:

It's true! We've done it. My husband and I stopped eating all grains and sugar in February. At this point, we really don't miss them any more. It was a huge change, but it's worth the effort. I've lost over 20 pounds (10 to go)and my husband has lost 45 pounds (20 to go). On top of it, our body shapes have changed drastically. It is really amazing. I've got my waist back (and a whole wardrobe of clothes) - I'm thrilled.

I'm also very happy to be eating foods that I always loved like eggs, avocados, and meats - without feeling guilty that they're not good for me.

With the extremely hot weather this week in our area, we thought we'd "treat" ourselves to small ice cream cones. To our surprise, it wasn't that much of a treat. Didn't even taste as good as we'd anticipated. I know I would have been much more satisfied with a snack of smoked salmon with fresh dill, capers, chopped onion and drizzled with lemon juice.

Aside from weight changes, we both feel so much better in general - feel much more alert and move around with much greater flexibility, sleep well, never have any indigestion. We're really enjoying this. It's like feeling younger.

It's not a diet for us. This will be the way we eat from now on. Actually, we think our food has become more interesting and varied since giving up all the "white stuff". I guess we felt compelled to get a little more creative.

Eating out (or at other peoples' places) has probably been the hardest part of this adjustment. But now we're getting pretty comfortable saying what we won't eat. I'm starting to enjoy the reactions it produces.


Weight loss, increased energy, less abdominal bloating, better sleep--I've seen it many times, as well.


Dotslady said:

I was a victim of the '80s lowfat diet craze - doc told me I was obese, gave me the Standard American Diet and said to watch my fat (I'm not a big meat eater, didn't like mayo ... couldn't figure out where my fat was coming from! maybe the fries - I will admit I liked fries). I looked to the USDA food pyramid and to increase my fiber for the constipation I was experiencing. Bread with 3 grams of fiber wasn't good enough; I turned to Kashi cereals for 11 years. My constipation turned to steattorrhea and a celiac disease diagnosis! *No gut pains!* My PCP sent me to the gastroenterologist for a colonscopy because my ferritin was a 5 (20 is low range). Good thing I googled around and asked him to do an endoscopy or I'd be a zombie by now.

My symptoms were depression & anxiety, eczema, GERD, hypothyroidism, mild dizziness, tripping, Alzheimer's-like memory problems, insomnia, heart palpitations, fibromyalgia, worsening eyesight, mild cardiomyopathy, to name a few.

After six months gluten-free, I asked my gastroenterologist about feeling full early ... he said he didn't know what I was talking about! *shrug*

But *I* knew -- it was the gluten/starches! My satiety level has totally changed, and for the first time in my life I feel NORMAL!


Feeling satisfied with less is a prominent effect in my experience, too. You need to eat less, you're driven to snack less, less likely to give in to those evil little bedtime or middle-of-the-night impulses that make you feel ashamed and guilty.



An anonymous (female) commenter said:

My life changed when I cut not only all wheat, but all grains from my diet.

For the first time in my life, I was no longer hungry -no hunger pangs between meals; no overwhelming desire to snack. Now I eat at mealtimes without even thinking about food in between.

I've dropped 70 pounds, effortlessly, come off high blood pressure meds and control my blood sugar without medication.

I don't know whether it was just the elimination of grain, especially wheat, or whether it was a combination of grain elimnation along with a number of other changes, but I do know that mere reduction of grain consumption still left me hungry. It wasn't until I elimnated it that the overwhelming redution in appetite kicked in.

As a former wheat-addicted vegetarian, who thought she was eating healthily according to all the expert advice out there at the time, I can only shake my head at how mistaken I was.



Stan said:

It's worth it and you won't look back!

Many things will improve, not just weight reduction: you will think clearer, your reflexes will improve, your breathing rate will go down, your blood pressure will normalize. You will never or rarely have a fever or viral infections like cold or flu. You will become more resistant to cold temperature and you will rarely feel tired, ever!


Ortcloud said:

Whenever I go out to breakfast I look around and I am in shock at what people eat for breakfast. Big stack of pancakes, fruit, fruit juice syrup, just like you said. This is not breakfast, this is dessert ! It has the same sugar and nutrition as a birthday cake, would anyone think cake is ok for breakfast ? No, but that is exactly the equivalent of what they are eating. Somehow we have been duped to think this is ok. For me, I typically eat an omelette when I go out, low carb and no sugar. I dont eat wheat but invariably it comes with the meal and I try to tell the waitress no thanks, they are stunned. They try to push some other type of wheat or sugar product on me instead, finally I have to tell them I dont eat wheat and they are doubly stunned. They cant comprehend it. We have a long way to go in terms of re-education.

Yes. Don't be surprised at the incomprehension, the rolled eyes, even the anger that can sometimes result. Imagine that told you that the food you've come to rely on and love is killing you!


Anne said:

I was overweight by only about 15lbs and I was having pitting edema in my legs and shortness of breath. My cardiologist and I were discussing the possible need of an angiogram. I was three years out from heart bypass surgery.

Before we could schedule the procedure, I tested positive for gluten sensitivity through www.enterolab.com. I eliminated not only wheat but also barley and rye and oats(very contaminated with wheat) from my diet. Within a few weeks my edema was gone, my energy was up and I was no longer short of breath. I lost about 10 lbs. The main reason I gave up gluten was to see if I could stop the progression of my peripheral neuropathy. Getting off wheat and other gluten grains has given me back my life. I have been gluten free for 4 years and feel younger than I have in many years.

There are many gluten free processed foods, but I have found I feel my best when I stick with whole foods.


Ann has a different reason (gluten enteropathy, or celiac disease) for wanting to be wheat-free. But I've seen similar improvements that go beyond just relief of the symptoms attributable to the inflammatory intestinal effects of gluten elimination.



Wccaguy said:

I have relatively successfully cut carbs and grains from my diet thus far.

Because I've got some weight to lose, I have tried to keep the carb count low and I've lost 15 pounds since then.

I have also been very surprised at the significant reduction in my appetite. I've read about the experience of others with regard to appetite reduction and couldn't really imagine that it could happen for me too. But it has.

A few weeks ago, I attended a party catered by one of my favorite italian restaurants and got myself offtrack for two days. Then it took me a couple of days to get back on track because my appetite returned.

Check out Jimmy Moore's website for lots of ideas about variations of foods to try. The latest thing I picked up from Jimmy is the good old-fashioned hard boiled egg. Two or three eggs with some spicy hot sauce for breakfast and a handful of almonds mid-morning plus a couple glasses of water and I'm good for the morning no problem.

I find myself thinking about lunch not because I'm really hungry but out of habit.

The cool thing too now is that the more I do this, the more I'm just not tempted much to do anything but this diet.

No more canned foods

21. September 2008 William Davis (12)
If you haven't already caught the news, it's time to eliminate canned foods and exposure to plastics that contain the chemical, bisphenol A (BPA). A worrisome and unexpected association with heart disease and diabetes has been found.

This issue has been debated for some years ever since scientists at the NIH detected BPA in the blood samples of 93-95% of Americans, with consumer protection advocates calling for more research or even the outright banning of BPA , while industry representatives have argued that the data fail to conclusively prove adverse health effects.

Well, the argument has been tilted heavily in favor of increased consumer protection with the publication of a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dr. Iain Lang and associates at the University of Exeter, UK, and the University of Iowa. Their study, released Sept. 17, 2008, Association of urinary bisphenol A concentration with medical disorders and laboratory abnormalities in adults, persuasively demonstrated a 40% increased incidence of coronary heart disease, heart attack, and diabetes with increasing exposure to BPA (as judged by urine levels) among the nearly 1500 adults aged 18-74 years. People with coronary heart disease had double the blood level of BPA compared to those without.

In addition, higher urine levels of BPA were associated with abnormalities of two liver tests, GGT and alkaline phosphatase.

Interestingly, although much of the debate over adverse health effects of BPA have centered around concern over cancer and reproductive risks, an association with cancer did not hold. (No analysis for reproductive issues was conducted in these adults, since most of the concern is for children exposed through polycarbonate baby bottle use. Some BPA critics have raised questions like low birth weight developing from exposure.) No relationship to thyroid disease was identified, also.

The editorial accompanying the study added some sharp commentary:

"Subsequent to an unexpected observation in 1997, numerous laboratory animal studies have identified low-dose drug-like effects of BPA at levels less than the dose used by the US Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to estimate the current human acceptable daily intake dose (ADI) deemed safe for humans. These studies have shown adverse effects of BPA on the brain, reproductive system, and--most relevant to the findings of Lang et al--metabolic processes, including alterations in insulin homeostasis and liver enzymes. . . For example, when adults rats were fed a 0.2 microgram/kg per day dose of BPA for 1 month (a dose 250 times lower than the current ADI), BPA significantly decreased the activities of antioxidant enzymes and increased lipid peroxidation, thereby increasing oxidative stress. When adult mice were administered a 10 microgram/kg dose of BPA once a day for 2 days ( a dose 5 times lower than the ADI), BPA stimulated pancreatic beta cells to release insulin."

This study, piled on top of the worrisome literature that precede it, are enough for me: No more tin cans (which are lined with BPA), no more hard plastics labeled with recycling code #7 or #3, no more polycarbonate water bottles (the hard ones, often brightly colored). Microwaveable-safe may also mean human-unsafe, as highlighted by this damning assurance from the Tupperware people that BPA is not a health hazard.

The National Toxicology Program also issued these advice in response to the Lang study to reduce BPA exposure (reported by the Washington Post) :

· Don't microwave polycarbonate plastic food containers. Polycarbonate may break down from overuse at high temperatures and release BPA. (Manufacturers are not required to disclose whether an item contains BPA, but polycarbonate containers that do usually have a No. 7 on the bottom.)

· Reduce use of canned foods, especially acidic foods such as tomatoes that can accelerate leaching of BPA from plastic can linings. Opt for soups, vegetables and other items packaged in cardboard "brick" cartons, made of safer layers of aluminum and polyethylene plastic (labeled No. 2).

· Switch to glass, porcelain or stainless-steel containers, particularly for hot food or liquids.

· Use baby bottles that are BPA-free; in the past year, most major manufacturers have developed bottles made without BPA.

Add Boston Globe to the list of heart scan blunders

17. September 2008 William Davis (15)
Yet another piece of mass media misinformation hit the airwaves today. This time it's not from the New York Times or the LA Times, both of which have previously mangled the issues surrounding heart scans. This time it's from the Boston Globe.

In an article titled What is a calcium scan for heart disease, and who should undergo the test?, the report states:

". . . calcium scans may not be a good idea, or prove terribly useful, for most people. For one thing, the scans expose a patient to significant radiation - equivalent to roughly 50 chest X-rays" said Dr. Warren Manning, chief of noninvasive cardiac imaging at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center."

As many before him, Dr. Manning is confusing two tests: CT coronary angiography and CT heart scanning. Perhaps we can't blame him: This technology has had its weakest following in the northeast, for reasons not entirely clear to me. (In fact, Track Your Plaque followers have had the greatest struggle obtaining heart scans in that part of the country.) Nonetheless, you'd think he'd have his simple facts straight before talking to the press. Unfortunately, hospital public relations departments will usually just grab whoever they can willing to talk to the press--regardless of their expertise or lack of.


The story goes on to say:

. . ." it's not clear what to do with the results from a calcium scan. If you have diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or a family history of heart disease, you already know - or should know - that you are at increased risk of heart problems and should lower these risk factors. So, a calcium scan provides little additional information," Manning said.

"Moreover, even a high score doesn't necessarily mean that the calcified plaque in your arteries is obstructing blood flow, said Dr. Adolph Hutter, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital."

"The vast majority of people with high calcium tests don't have obstructions and they do fine long-term. So you'd have to test lots and lots of people to prevent one heart attack or sudden death," said Manning.

And if you get a low calcium score, a sign of little or no calcification of plaques, that's not very useful, either, because it could be wrong, or it could be right but lull you into believing you do not have to exercise and watch your diet, cholesterol, and blood pressure levels. "You can still be at risk even if your calcium test is negative," Hutter said.


It is truly shocking how little many (not all, thank goodness) of my colleagues really know about 1) heart scans, 2) coronary disease prevention, and 3) prevention in general. These same "experts" likely advocate high-dose statin drugs and low-fat diets for people at risk. They likely refer patients to the American Heart Association for diet advice and themselves obtain a lot of information from the pharmaceutical industry. The notion of identification, tracking, and purposeful reversal of coronary plaque is entirely foreign to this bunch.

"The vast majority of people with high calcium tests don't have obstructions and they do fine long-term. So you'd have to test lots and lots of people to prevent one heart attack or sudden death." Well, take a look at a graph from a database of 25,000 people undergoing heart scans then observed for several years afterwards:




You can see quite clearly from the curves that heart scan scores very clearly predict your future (if no preventive action is taken). The higher the score, the greater the likelihood of heart attack and death. How much clearer can it get?

The most recent addition to this literature is the PREDICT study which concluded:

Hazard ratios relative to CACS [coronary artery calcium scores] in the range 0-10 Agatston units (AU) were: CACS 11-100 AU, 5.4 (P = 0.02); 101-400 AU 10.5 (P = 0.001); 401-1000 AU, 11.9 (P = 0.001), and >1000 AU, 19.8 (P < 0.001).

In other words, a heart scan score of >1000 is associated with a 20-fold increased risk of cardiovascular events (without preventive efforts). That kind of predictive power and quantitative confidence simply cannot be squeezed out of blood pressure and cholesterol values.

How about the 2008 University of California-Irvine study from the New England Journal of Medicine (do the northeast docs even pay attention to something that is published in their own neighborhood?) that reported:

There were 162 coronary events, of which 89 were major events (myocardial infarction or death from coronary heart disease). In comparison with participants with no coronary calcium, the adjusted risk of a coronary event was increased by a factor of 7.73 among participants with coronary calcium scores between 101 and 300 and by a factor of 9.67 among participants with scores above 300 (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Among the four racial and ethnic groups, a doubling of the calcium score increased the risk of a major coronary event by 15 to 35% and the risk of any coronary event by 18 to 39%.

How about the Prospective Army Coronary Calcium (PACC) project (men average age 43 years):

"In these men, coronary calcium was associated with an 11.8-fold increased risk for incident coronary heart disease (CHD) (p = 0.002) in a Cox model controlling for the Framingham risk score. Among those with coronary artery calcification, the risk of coronary events increased incrementally across tertiles of coronary calcium severity (hazard ratio 4.3 per tertile)."

Calcium score provided additional information even after factoring in the Framingham risk score.

That's just a sample of the studies. There are a number more.

Add to these conversations the fact that, unlike reducing blood pressure or LDL cholesterol, the heart scan score is a quantification of the disease itself. It can also be tracked over time to gauge the success or failure of prevention efforts. To believe that blood pressure reduction or LDL cholesterol reduction is sufficient to eliminate risk is something only a fool would believe.



Contary to the above statements, the data are clear:

--The higher the heart scan score, the greater the risk. This has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt in at least a dozen published studies. In fact, heart scan scores outshine lipid/cholesterol values several-fold.

--A person with a zero score has a nearly zero risk for cardiovascular events over a 5-year timeline.

--Heart scans are the only quantitative test available of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. This means that they can be repeated to gauge progression or regression. Cholesterol does not do that. Stress tests do not do that.

--Heart scans are not the same as CT coronary angiography.

--The lack of "need" for a procedure does not equate to the absence of disease.

The power of heart scans is that they can uncover evidence for coronary atherosclerotic plaque 10 years before a cardiac disaster strikes. Witness Tim Russert's heart scan score of 210 in 1998 at age 48. 10 years later, you know what happened.

Beware the camipaign of misinformation and ignorance that continues that is hell-bent on maintaining the procedural status quo or locking us into a "drugs for all" mentality.

What's worse than sugar?

16. September 2008 William Davis (11)
There are a number of ways to view the blood sugar-raising or insulin-provoking effect of foods.

One way is glycemic index (GI), simply a measure of how high blood sugar is raised by a standard quantity of a food compared to table sugar. Another is glycemic load (GL), a combination (multiplied) of glycemic index and carbohydrate content per serving.

Table sugar has a GI of 65, a GL of 65.

Obviously, table sugar is not good for you. The content of white table sugar in the American diet has exploded over the last 100 years, totaling over 150 lb per year for the average person. (Humans are not meant to consume any.)

What is the GI of Rice Krispies cereal, organic or not? GI = 82-- higher than table sugar. GL is 72, also higher than table sugar.

How about Corn Flakes? GI 81, GL 70--also both higher than sugar.

How about those rice cakes that many dieters will use to quell hunger? GI 78, GL 64.

How about Shredded Wheat cereal? GI 75, GL 62.

All of the above foods with GI's and GL's that match or exceed that of table sugar are made of wheat and cornstarch. Some, like Shredded Wheat cereal and rice cakes, don't even have any added sugar.

Stay clear of these foods if you have low HDL, high triglycerides, high blood sugar, or small LDL. Or, for that matter, if you are human.

Keep the eloquent words of New York University nutritionist, Marion Nestle, author of the book, Food Politics, in mind:

“Food companies—just like companies that sell cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, or any other commodity—routinely place the needs of stock holders over considerations of public health. Food companies will make and market any product that sells, regardless of its nutritional value or its effect on health. In this regard, food companies hardly differ from cigarette companies. They lobby Congress to eliminate regulations perceived as unfavorable; they press federal regulatory agencies not to enforce such regulations; and when they don’t like regulatory decisions, they file lawsuits. Like cigarette companies, food companies co-opt food and nutrition experts by supporting professional organizations and research, and they expand sales by marketing directly to children, members of minority groups, and people in develop countries—whether or not the products are likely to improve people’s diets.” ??

Are sterols the new trans fat?

13. September 2008 William Davis (16)
By now, I'm sure you're well-acquainted with the hydrogenated, trans fat issue.

Hydrogenation of polyunsaturated oils was a popular practice (and still is) since the 1960s, as food manufacturers sought a substitute for saturated fat. Bubbling high-pressure hydrogen through oils like cottonseed, soybean, and corn generates trans fatty acids. These man-made fatty acids, while safe in initial safety testing, proved to be among the biggest nutritional mistakes of the 20th century.

Trans fatty acids have been associated with increased LDL cholesterol, reduction in HDL, oxidative reactions, abnormal rigidity when incorporated into cell membranes, and cancer. Trans fats still dominate many processed foods like chips, cookies, non-dairy creamers, food mixes, and thousands of others. They're also found prominently in fast foods.

Fast forward to today, and most Americans have become aware of the dangers of trans fats and many try to avoid them.

But I worry there is yet another substance that has worked its way into the American processed food cornucopia that has some potential for repeating the trans fat debacle: sterol esters.


Sterols are naturally-occurring oils found in vegetables, nuts, and numerous other foods in small quantities. Most of us take in 200-400 milligrams per day just by eating plant-sourced foods.

Curiously, the chemical structure of sterols are very similar to human cholesterol (differing at one carbon atom). Sterols, by not fully understood means, block the intestinal absorption of cholesterol. Thus, sterol esters, as well as the similar stanol esters, have been used to reduce blood levels of total and LDL cholesterol.

So far, so good.

The initial commercial products, released in the late 1990s, were Take Control (sterol) and Benecol (stanol), both of which were marketed to reduce cholesterol when 2-3 tbsp are used daily, providing 3400 – 5100 mg of sterol or stanol esters, about 10- to 20-fold more than we normally obtain from foods. Several clinical trials have conclusively confirmed that these products reduce cholesterol levels.

They do indeed perform as advertised. Add either product to your daily diet and LDL cholesterol is reduced by about 10-15%. In fact, in the original Track Your Plaque book, these products were advocated as a supplemental means of reducing LDL when other methods fell short.

In 2008, there are now hundreds of products that have additional quantities of sterol esters in them, such as orange juice, mayonnaise, yogurt, breakfast cereals, even nutritional supplements. Most of these products proudly bear claims like "heart healthy." Stanol esters have not enjoyed the same widespread application. (I believe there may be patent issues or other considerations. However, it's the sterols that are the principal topic here, not stanols.)

Now, here's where it gets a bit tricky. There is a rare (1 per million) disease called sitosterolemia, a genetic disorder that permits the afflicted to absorb more than the usual quantity of sterols from the intestine. While you and I obtain some amount of sterols from plant-based foods, absorption is poor, and we absorb <10% of sterols ingested. However, people with sitosterolemia absorb sterols far more efficiently, resulting in high blood levels of sterols that result in coronary disease and aortic valve disease, with heart attacks occurring as young as late teens or 20s. Treatment to block sterol absorption are used to treat these people.

There are also a larger number, though still uncommon (1/500) of people who have only one of the two genes that young people with sitosterolemia have. These people may have an intermediate capacity for sterol absorption.

Okay, so what does this have to do with you? Well, if you and I now take in 10-20 times greater amounts of sterol esters, do our blood levels of sterols increase?

Several studies now suggest that, yes, sterol blood levels increase with sterol ingestion. One study from Finland, the STRIP Study, showed that children who had double usual sterol intake increased blood levels by around 50%.

Similarly, a Johns Hopkins study in adults with only one of the genes ("heterozygotes") for sitosterolemia increased sterol blood levels by between 54-116% by ingesting 2200 mg of sterols added per day, despite reduction of LDL cholesterol levels.

Even people with neither gene for sitosterol hyperabsorption can increase their blood levels of sterols. But the crucial question: Do the blood levels of sterols that occur in unaffected people or in heterozygotes increase the risk of coronary heart disease? The answer is not known.

Despite the several clinical trials performed with sterol esters, all of them have examined LDL and total cholesterol reduction as endpoints, not cardiovascular events. It is conceivable that, while sterol esters reduce cholesterol, risk for heart disease is increased due to higher blood levels of sterols.

The question is not settled. For now, it is just a suspicion. But that's enough for me to steer clear of processed foods supplemented with these uncertain sterol esters. My previous recommendations for sterol ester products will be removed with the next edition of Track Your Plaque. Until we have solid evidence that there are no adverse cardiovascular effects of sterol esters, in my view they should not be part of anyone's heart-disease prevention program.

(The same argument does not seem to apply to stanol esters, such as that contained in butter-substitute Benecol, since stanol esters are not absorbed at all and remain confined to the intestine.)

The Diabetes Gold Rush

11. September 2008 William Davis (9)
Lou came into the office. Clearly, his program had gone sour.

Lou had initially obtained wonderful control over his heart scan score of 1114, having reversed modestly in his first three years of effort through correction of his multiple causes (including low HDL, severe small LDL, Lp(a), and a diabetic tendency).

But Lou now came into the office red-faced and sporting a big bulging abdomen. Blood sugar? Now in the overtly diabetic range. Lou said that his primary care doctor had suggested that he start on three new medications (glucophage, injectable Byetta, and Actos) to control his blood sugar. His doctor also told him to increase his intake of fibers by eating more "healthy" breakfast cereals like Cheerios.

Lou had apparently done just that (added "healthy" fiber-rich foods) even before his doctor had suggested it. (Lou failed to remember the several conversations we'd had about healthy eating.) Unfortunately, Lou also failed to connect his increased intake of "healthy fiber-rich foods" and his growing abdominal girth (his "wheat belly").

Here's the dirty little secret: Much of the world wants you to be diabetic. It is the health gold rush of this century. "Go West, young man!"




To find out what I mean, you need only ask: Who profits when people become diabetic? That's easy:

The pharmaceutical industry--Diabetes is a booming growth industry, a source of tens of billions of dollars of revenue, poised for enormous growth as the population ages and gets fatter. It is common for a newly-diagnosed diabetic to be given new prescriptions for two or three drugs with a monthly cost of $300. Of course, the chronic nature of the disease make this far more profitable than, say, a two week course of antibiotics. Presently, 70 new drugs are under development.

Diabetes drug maker Novo Nordisk reported a 25% increase in revenues in 2007 from diabetic agents in the North American market, along with near $2 billion increase in profit for the year. Merck's recently-released DPP-4 inhibitor, Januvia, has already sold $668 million in 2007 and is growing rapidly.

The medical device and supply industry. Take a look at the Medtronic quarterly earnings report, detailing the breakdown of their record-setting quarterly revenue of $3.7 billion:

Diabetes revenue of $269 million grew 12 percent driven by sales
of consumables, the accessories required by insulin pump users, and
continuous glucose monitoring products. Revenue from international
sales grew 31 percent over the same quarter last year.

That's what I call a growth industry.

The processed food industry. The food industry is as big or bigger than the drug industry. ADM, Kraft, General Mills all have annual revenues in the $12-50 billion range. There are plenty of others.

When we're told, for instance, that Cheerios reduces cholesterol, we're not told that it skyrockets blood sugar or triggers small LDL. When we're sold whole wheat crackers, Cocoa Puffs (which the American Heart Asscociation says is heart-healthy), or granola bars, hunger is stimulated, impulse to eat more grows, blood sugar escalates, we get fat, we get diabetic. It's a simple formula.

So be aware that there is little incentive among corporate giants in the food, medical device, or drug industries to encourage behaviors that decrease the incidence of diabetes. In fact, there is enormous financial incentive to make sure that diabetes continues to grow at the startling rate it has over the last decade.

To be sure, the drug and medical device industry will also develop better tools to deal with diabetes and its complications. But the very best way to deal with diabetes is to not develop it in the first place.

What else is there?

7. September 2008 William Davis (11)
This question comes up frequently:

Aren't there any alternatives to heart scans performed on a CT or EBT device?

Yes, there are.

First of all, heart scans are performed best on an electron-beam CT device (EBT) or a 64-slice multi-detector CT (MDCT) device. (While they are also obtainable through less-than-64 slice CT devices (e.g., 16 slices and less), I would advise against it because of the excessive radiation exposure and poor accuracy.) CT heart scans are not to be confused with now more popular CT coronary angiograms, which are performed on the same devices but require intravenous x-ray dye and many times more radiation.(See CT scans and radiation exposure and Heart scan frustration.) Heart scans currently form the basis for the Track Your Plaque program, a program of tracking plaque in the hopes of stopping or reversing the otherwise inevitable 30% per year increase.

Let's confine our discussion to people without symptoms, meaning people like you and me sitting at home, not in an emergency room having chest pain or other similar acute symptomatic presentation.

Among the other ways to uncover hidden coronary plaque:

--Heart catheterization--to yield a coronary angiogram. Yes, this does tell us whether coronary plaque is present. However, it is invasive, expensive, and crude. (I've performed 5000 over my career; they are crude, though useful, tools in acute settings like unstable symptoms or heart attack, a different situation.) Coronary angiography is also non-quantitative. While they provide a value like "40% blockage mid-way in right coronary" or "90% blockage in left anterior descending" they do not provide a trackable lengthwise index of total plaque volume. Identifying severe blockages in people with symptoms leads to stents, bypass surgery and the like, but it is not practical nor of long-term usefulness in apparently, healthy people without symptoms.

--Carotid ultrasound--Here's is where a lot of confusion comes from. Standard carotid ultrasound (U/S) performed in virtually every hospital and many clinics will yield crude qualitative results, e.g., "16-49% stenosis (blockage) in right internal carotid artery". The crude value range is because much of carotid U/S is based on flow velocities, not just direct visualization of the plaque itself ("2-D imaging). However, if carotid stenosis of any degree is identified, the likelihood of silent coronary plaque is much greater.

Limitations: The qualitative, non-quantitative nature of carotid U/S make it difficult to follow long-term in a precise way. Also, this is carotid plaque, not coronary plaque. It makes it very difficult to follow carotid plaque as an indirect means of tracking coronary plaque. The two arterial territories, carotid and coronary, do not track together: there are divergences in many people, with carotid plaque absent in some people with advanced coronary plaque, carotid plaque more susceptible to different risk factors than coronary. So carotid U/S is helpful for its own purposes, but not terribly helpful for coronary tracking.

How about carotid intimal-medial thickness (CIMT) obtained also with carotid U/S? CIMT is a useful index of bodywide atherosclerosis. CIMT is simply a measure not of plaque (and is measured in regions of the carotid artery away from plaque), but of the thickness of the lining of the carotid arteries. Everybody has a measurable CIMT, but it thickens as atherosclerosis grows. CIMT is a radiation-free test that takes several minutes.

Limitations: Hardly anybody does it outside of research protocols. I know of no hospital or clinic in my area that performs CIMT, though it is slowly being adopted in some centers. It is also difficult to rely on repeated tests, because there is substantial variation when one technologist or another performs it. CIMT is also a flawed index of coronary plaque. When CIMT is compared to heart scan scores, CT coronary angiography, or conventional coronary angiography, CIMT correlates about 60-70% with the degree of coronary atherosclerosis.

CIMT is therefore a useful test for research, but a distant 2nd choice--if you can obtain it.

--Ankle-brachial index (ABI)--ABI is a crude measure, simply a comparison of the blood pressure (obtained with a blood pressure cuff) in the legs divided by blood pressure in the arms. The ratio is called ABI. Any ABI <1.0, meaning less pressure in the legs compared to the arms, is indirectly indicative of advanced coronary disease. ABI is, in fact, a very powerful predictor of cardiovascular events. If ABI is <1.0, your future risk for heart attack is very high, even in the absence of symptoms.

Limitations: The vast majority of people with heart disease, even those having undergone stents or bypass surgery, have normal ABI's. Virtually all people with high heart scan scores have normal ABI's. In other words, ABI is a measure of very advanced atherosclerosis only.

--Stress tests--I lump all stress tests together in their various forms, e.g., stress thallium, stress Cardiolite, stress Myoview, persantine/adenosine Cardiolite, dobutamine echocardiography, etc. Stress tests are tests of coronary blood flow, not of plaque. Stress tests are useful in people with symptoms, like chest pain or breathlessness, since stress tests are provocative tests that can help determine whether reduced coronary blood flow is the cause behind a symptom, or whether hiatal hernia, esophagitis, gallstones, pleurisy, musculoskeletal causes, or some other process is behind symptoms.

Limitations: Stress test are virtually useless in people without symptoms. This is why people like Tim Russert and Bill Clinton, both without symptoms, underwent several (Russert 3, Clinton 5) nuclear stress tests---all normal. You know what happened to them. Stress tests do not reliably uncover hidden coronary plaque in people without symptoms. Stress tests are, like coronary angiograms, non-quantitative. They are normal or abnormal.


Outside of experimental settings, that's it.

You can probably see why I advocate CT heart scans for tracking plaque. I do not advocate heart scans because I sell them (I don't), because scan centers pay me to say these things (they don't, and in fact my relationship with my usual heart scan centers has become deeply contentious, though I still endorse the technology). I say that heart scans are superior because they are, in 2008, the only way to 1) identify and 2) track coronary plaque that is easy, safe, low-radiation, and reasonably priced (<$200 in Milwaukee at 5 centers).

The need for a technology that allows tracking of plaque, not just initial identification, is also an important distinction. People who've had some measure of atherosclerosis all catch on to this eventually. "Can I reverse it?" is an inevitable question once the disease is identified in some way. So a tool for tracking over time to gauge the success or failure of a program of prevention can be assessed.

Perhaps in 10 years, another technology will emerge as the preferred means to do the same, but better. If that proves true, we will convert to that technology. But today heart scans performed on CT heart scans are the only rational way to both detect, then track, coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Let's gamble with your health

5. September 2008 William Davis (4)
Let's play a game.

I'm going to list some lipid patterns and you tell me whether or not the person with these values has heart disease.

Patient 1

Total cholesterol 150 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 75 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
Triglycerides 125 mg/dl


Patient 2

Total cholesterol 300 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 200 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 35 mg/dl
Triglycerides 325


Patient 3

Total cholesterol 300 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 100 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 25 mg/dl
Triglycerides 875 mg/dl



Let's say that any one of these profiles is yours. Should you be getting your affairs in order, preparing for your cardiac catastrophe? Should you demand a stress test from your doctor, hoping that it will shed some light on your dilemma? Should you go ahead and go to the all-you-can-eat rib restaurant, content that you will be attending your granddaughger's wedding in 2020 in full health?

If you can tell, you're a lot better at this than I am.

I provide consultation to other physicians and patients on complex hyperlipidemias in my area. In other words, if someone has a difficulty to manage lipid disorder, the doctor sends the patient to me.

Managing these wildly variable values is the easy part. Deciding whether or not heart disease is concealed within the patient . . . well, that's the hard part.

Let's take it a step further: Suppose all three profiles also have 50% of all LDL particles as the abnormal small particles. And they all have a lipoprotein(a) level of 50 mg/dl, an abnormally high level.

How about now: Can you tell whether any or all of these people have hidden heart disease?

What if they are 20 years old? Does that make a difference?

What if they are all females over 65 years--how about now?

If the only tool you have to divine the presence of hidden heart disease is a lipid panel, or even a lipoprotein panel, then the best you can manage is to hazard a guess based on statistical probability. You also assume that this "snapshot" represents the sorts of values someone has had for their entire lives. You cannot factor in the fact that the first person gained 60 lbs in the last three years since completing menopause. You can't factor in that patient 2 smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 25 years, but quit 10 years ago.

It's also foolhardy to believe that every known cause of heart disease is currently identifiable and revealed by modern-day blood testing.

A heart scan is simply a means to quantify the sum-total of risk factors--causes--that have exerted an effect up until the moment of your scan. It will reveal the quantity of coronary atherosclerotic plaque present, regardless of whether you stopped smoking 20 years ago or lost 30 lbs last year.

For these reasons, nothing can replace the value of quantifying plaque: not cholesterol, not the Framingham risk calculation, not measures of small LDL or lipoprotein(a), not the presence or absence of symptoms. In 2008, the method of choice for measuring plaque remains a CT heart scan. Perhaps in 10 years it will be some other method.

As always, let me remind Heart Scan Blog viewers that I make this point NOT to sell heart scans, which I have no reason whatsoever to do. I say this because we require a tool to track this potentially fatal disease. We require a yardstick for tracking progression or regression. The only tool that suits these purposes in 2008 is a CT heart scan.