Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g

Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons

Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient

Ingredients: High Fructose Corn Syrup, Vinegar, Concentrated Tomato Juice (Water, Tomato Paste), Water, Modified Food Starch, Salt, Honey, Contains Less Than 2% of Molasses, Natural Flavor, Paprika, Spice, Mustard Flour, Guar Gum, Red 40.

A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient

Ingredients: Tomato puree (water, tomato paste), high fructose corn syrup, vinegar, salt, water dried onions, contains less than 2% of black pepper, modified food starch, citric acid, dried parsley, dried garlic, xanthan gum, caramel color, potassium sorbate and calcium disodium EDTA as preservatives, molasses, corn syrup, sugar, spices, tamarind, natural flavor

Another in a series of data extrapolations that attempt to predict long-term cancer risk from medical radiation exposure was published in the July 13, 2009 Archives of Internal Medicine, viewable here.

Over the years, I've fussed about the radiation dose used by some centers for CT heart scans. (Note: I'm talking about CT heart scans, not CT coronary angiograms, an entirely different test with different radiation exposure.) In the "old" days, when electron-beam devices (EBT) were the best on the block, the old single-slice CT scanners (the predecessor of the current 64-slice MDCT scanners) exposed patients to ungodly quantities of radiation, while the EBT devices required very small quantities (0.5 mSv or about the equivalent of 4 standard chest x-rays or one mammogram).

But CT technology has advanced considerably. While EBT has been phased out (although it was an exceptional technology, GE acquired the small California manufacturer, then promptly scrapped the operation; you can guess why), multi-detector CT (MDCT) technology has improved in speed, image quality, and radiation exposure.

While it has improved, radiation exposure still remains an issue. The authors of the study applied the scanning protocols used at three hospitals and those in several CT heart scan studies, then calculated radiation exposure. They found a more than ten-fold range of exposure, from 0.8 mSv to 10.5 mSv. (All scanners were MDCT, none EBT.)

That's precisely what I've been worrying about: In the rapid rush to develop new devices, radiation exposure has often been a neglected issue. While some scan centers do an excellent job and take steps to minimize exposure, others barely lift a finger and consequently expose their patients to unnecessary radiation.

However, it's not as bad as it sounds. For one, the study included 16-slice MDCT scanners, a scanner type that I warned people to not use because of radiation. On the current most popular 64-slice devices, much lower radiation exposure is possible, on the order of 0.8-1.2 mSv routinely--if the center takes the effort.

This study, while eye-opening, will achieve some good: CT heart scans are here to stay. But the day-to-day practice of heart scanning should be:

1) standardized
2) conducted with radiation exposure as low as possible, preferably <0.8 mSv

To read more about this issue, below I've reprinted a 2007 full Track Your Plaque Special Report, CT Heart Scans and Radiation: The Real Story.

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

“My personal opinion is that many patients today who are receiving multiple CT scans may well be getting at least comparable doses to subjects that have now developed malignancies from x-ray radiation received in the 1930s and '40s. And, similar to those days when the doses were unknown, the dose that patients receive today over a course of years of multiple CT scans is also completely unknown . . .

“I recommend that all healthcare providers become familiar with the concept that 1 in 1000 CT studies of the chest, abdomen, or pelvis may result in cancer.”

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

Is this just hype to generate headlines? Or is the truth buried in the enormous marketing clout of the medical device industry, among which the imaging device manufacturers reign supreme?

It’s been over 110 years since radiation was first used for medical imaging. Over those years, it has had its share of misadventures.

In the 1930s and 1940s, before the dangers of radiation were recognized, shoe shoppers had shoes fitted using an x-ray device of the foot to assess fit. High doses of radiation were used to shrink enlarged tonsils and extinguish overactive thyroid glands. Attitudes towards radiation were so lax that doctors commonly permitted themselves to be exposed without protection day after day, year after year, until an unexpected rise in blood cancers like leukemia was observed. As recently as the 1970s and 1980s, cancers like Hodgkins’ disease were treated with high doses of radiation, also leading to radiation-induced diseases decades later.

Not all radiation is bad. Radiation can also be used as a therapeutic tool and even today remains a useful and reasonably effective method to reduce the size, sometimes eliminate, certain types of cancer. Forty percent of people with cancer now receive some form of radiation as part of their treatment (Ron E 2003).

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

Estimates vary, but most experts estimate that medical imaging provides approximately 15% of total lifetime exposure. In other words, radiation exposure from medical imaging is simply a small portion of total exposure that develops over the years of life. Exposure can be much higher, however, in a specific individual who undergoes repeated radiation imaging or treatment of one sort or another.

For all of us, exposure to medical radiation is part of lifetime exposure from multiple sources, added to the radiation we receive from the world around us. Just by living on earth, we are exposed to radiation from space and naturally-occurring radioactive compounds, and receive somewhere around 3.0 mSv per year (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). (Doses for radiation exposure are commonly expressed in milliSieverts, mSv, a measure that reflects whole-body radiation exposure.) People living in high-altitude locales like Colorado get exposed to an additional 30–50% ambient radiation (1.0–1.5 mSv more per year).

Much of the information on radiation exposure comes from studies like the Life Span Study that, since 1961, has tracked 120,000 Japanese exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs dropped in 1945 (Preston DL et al 2003). Although regarded as a high-dose exposure study for obvious reasons, there are actually thousands of people in this study who were exposed to lesser quantities of radiation (because of distance from the bomb sites) who still display a “dose-response” increased risk for cancer many years later in life. Radiation exposures of as little as 5–20 mSv showed a slight increase in lifetime risk.

Occupational and excessive medical exposure to radiation also provides a “laboratory” to examine radiation risk. Miners exposed to radon gas; patients exposed to the imaging agent, Thorotrast, containing radioactive isotope thorium dioxide and used as an x-ray contrast agent in the 1930s and 1940s and possesses the curious property of lingering in the body for over 30 years after administration; radium injections administered between 1945 and 1955 to treat diseases like ankylosing spondylitis and tuberculosis, all provide researchers an opportunity to study the long-term effects of various types of radiation exposure over many years (Harrison JD et al 2003).

The excess exposure of workers and several hundred thousand nearby residents to the Mayak nuclear plant in Russia has also revealed a “dose-response” relationship, with increasing exposure leading to more cancers, including leukemia and solid cancers of the bone, liver, and lung (Shilnikova NS et al 2003). Nuclear waste released into the Techa river between 1948 and 1956 contaminated drinking water used by over 100,000 Russians. A plant explosion in 1957 also released an excess of radiation into the atmosphere, yielding exposure via inhalation. Some sources estimate that at least 272,000 people have been affected by radiation from the Mayak plant. This unfortunate situation has, however, yielded plenty of data on radiation exposure and its long-term effects.

It’s also been known for several decades that people who receive therapeutic radiation for treatment of cancer, even with the reduced doses now employed, are subject to increased risk of a second cancer consequent to the radiation treatment.

From experiences like this, radiation experts estimate that an exposure of 10 mSv increases a population’s risk for cancer by 1 in 1000 (Semelka RC et al 2007).

This question was recently thrust into the spotlight with publication of a study from Columbia University in New York suggesting that a 20-year old woman would be exposed to a lifetime risk of cancer as high as 1 in 143 consequent to the radiation received during a CT coronary angiogram. (Important note: This was estimated risk from a CT coronary angiogram, not a simple heart scan that we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program.) The risk at the low end of the spectrum would be in an 80-year old man (because of the shorter period of time to develop cancer), with a risk of 1 in 5017. If “gating” to the EKG is added (which many scan centers do indeed perform nowadays), risk for a 60-year old woman is estimated at 1 in 715; risk for a 60-year old male, 1 in 1911 (Einstein AJ et al 2007). This study generated some criticism, since it did not directly involve human subjects, but used “phantoms” or x-ray dummies to simulate x-ray exposure. Nonetheless, the point was made: CT coronary angiograms in current practice do indeed expose the patient to substantial quantities of radiation, sufficient to pose a lifetime risk of cancer.

The media frenzy

The NY Times ran an article called With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests in which they stated:

"According to a new study, the per-capita dose of ionizing radiation from clinical imaging exams in the United States increased almost 600 percent from 1980 to 2006. In the past, natural background radiation was the leading source of human exposure; that has been displaced by diagnostic imaging procedures, the authors said."

“This is an absolutely sentinel event, a wake-up call,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., principal investigator for the study, by the National Council on Radiation Protection. “Medical exposure now dwarfs that of all other sources.”

Radiation is a widely used imaging tool in medicine. Although CT scans of the brain, bones, chest, abdomen, and pelvis account for only 5% of all medical radiation procedures, they are responsible for nearly 50% of medical radiation used. It’s been known for years that increasing radiation exposure increases cancer risk over many years, but the boom of newer, faster devices that provide more detailed images has opened the floodgates to expanded use of CT scanners.

But before we join in the hysteria, let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

Head CT 1 – 2 mSv
Pelvis CT 3 – 4 mSv
Chest CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen/pelvis CT 8 – 11 mSv
Coronary CT angiography 5 – 12 mSv

Non-CT

Hand radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Chest radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Mammogram 0.3 – 0.6 mSv
Barium enema exam 3 – 6 mSv
Coronary angiogram 5 – 10 mSv
Sestamibi myocardial perfusion (per injection) 6 – 9 mSv
Thallium myocardial perfusion (per injection) 26 – 35 mSv

Source: Cynthia H. McCullough, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

A plain, everyday chest x-ray, providing less than 0.1 mSv exposure, provides about the same quantity of radiation exposure as flying in an airplane for four hours, or the same amount of radiation from exposure to our surroundings for 11–12 days. Similar exposure arises from dental x-rays.

If you have a heart scan on an EBT device, then your exposure is 0.5-0.6 mSv, roughly the same as a mammogram or several standard chest x-rays.

With a heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, exposure is ideally around 1.0-2.0 mSv, about the same as 2-3 mammograms, though dose can vary with this technology depending on how it is performed (gated to the EKG, device settings, etc.)

CT coronary angiography presents a different story. This is where radiation really escalates and puts the radiation exposure issue in the spotlight. As Dr. Cynthia McCullough's chart shows above, the radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms is 5-12 mSv, the equivalent of 100 or more chest x-rays or 20 mammograms. Now, that's a problem.

The exposure is about the same for a pelvic or abdominal CT. The problem is that some centers are using CT coronary angiograms as screening procedures and even advocating their use annually. This is where the alarm needs to be sounded. These tests, as wonderful as the information and image quality can be, are not screening tests. Just like a pelvic CT, they are diagnostic tests done for legitimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

It’s also worth giving second thought to any full body scan you might be considering. These screening studies include scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. These scans, performed for screening, expose the recipient to approximately 10 mSv of radiation (Radiological Society of North American, 2007). Debate continues on whether the radiation exposure is justified, given the generally asymptomatic people who generally undergo these tests.

Always be mindful of your radiation exposure, as the NY Times article rightly advises. However, don't be so frightened that you are kept from obtaining truly useful information from, for instance, a CT heart scan (not angiography) at a modest radiation cost.

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

Unfortunately, practicing physicians and those involved in providing CT scans are generally unconcerned with radiation exposure. The majority, in fact, are entirely unaware of the dose of radiation required for most CT scan studies and unaware of the cancer risk involved. It is therefore up to the individual to insist on a discussion of the type of scanner being used, the radiation dose delivered (at least in general terms), the necessity of the test, alternative methods to obtain the same diagnostic information, all in the context of lifetime radiation exposure.

Our concerns about radiation exposure all boil down to concern over lifetime risk for cancer, a disease that strikes approximately 20% of all Americans. Many factors contribute to cancer risk, including obesity, excessive saturated fat intake, low fiber intake, lack of vitamin D, repeated sunburns, excessive alcohol use, smoking, exposure to pesticides and other organochemicals, asbestos and other industrial exposures, electromagnetic wave exposure, and genetics. Radiation is just one source of risk, though to some degree a controllable one.

Some people, on hearing this somewhat disturbing discussion, refuse to ever have another medical test requiring radiation. That’s the wrong attitude. It makes no more sense than wearing lead shielding on your body 24 hours a day to reduce exposure from the atmosphere. Taken in the larger context of life, radiation exposure is just one item on a list of potentially harmful factors.

It is, however, worth some effort to minimize radiation exposure over your lifetime, particularly before age 60, and by submitting to high-dose testing only when truly necessary, or when the potential benefits outweigh the risks. Thus, with heart scans and CT coronary angiography, some thought to the potential benefits of knowing your score or the information gained from the CT angiogram need to be considered before undergoing the test. Often the practical difficulty, of course, is that your risk for heart disease simply cannot be known until after the test.

In our view, in the vast majority of instances a simple CT heart scan can serve the simple but crucial role of quantifying risk for heart attack and atherosclerotic plaque. CT heart scans yield this information with less than a tenth of the radiation exposure of a CT coronary angiogram. In people without symptoms and a normal stress test, there is rarely a need for CT coronary angiography with present day levels of radiation exposure. Perhaps as technology advances and the radiation required to generate images is reduced, then we should reconsider.

Early experiences are suggesting that the newest 256-slice scanners, now being developed but not yet available, will cut the dose exposure of 64-slice CT angiograms in half (from 27.8 mSv to 14.1 mSv in a recent Japanese study). The 256-slice scanners will allow scanning that is faster over a larger area in a given period of time.

Thankfully, the scanner manufacturers are increasingly sensitive to the radiation issue and have been working on methods to reduce radiation exposure. However, it still remains substantial.

References:
Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007 Jul 18;298(3):317–323.

Harrison JD, Muirhead CR. Quantitative comparisons of cancer induction in humans by internally deposited radionuclides and external radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 2003 Jan;79(1):1–13.

Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzyky M et al. Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. Circulation 2006;113:1305–1310.

Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard J, Saini S. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619–628.

Mayo JR, Aldrich J, Müller NL. Radiation exposure at chest CT: A statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2003; 228:15–21.

Mori S, Nishizawa K, Kondo C, Ohno M, Akahane K, Endo M. Effective doses in subjects undergoing computed tomography cardiac imaging with the 256-multislice CT scanner. Eur J Radiol 2007 Jul 10; [Epub ahead of print].

Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Ron E, Mabuchi K. Dose response and temporal patterns of radiation-associated solid cancer risks. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):43–46.

Ron E. Cancer risks from medical radiation. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):47–59.

Shilnikova NS, Preston DL, Ron E et al. Cancer mortality risk among workers at the Mayak nuclear complex. Radiation Res 2003 Jun;159(6):787–798.

Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, Huda W. Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007 May;25(5):900–9090.

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

A carefully-conducted study by a collaborative research group at University of California-Berkeley has finally closed the lid on the fuss over fructose vs. glucose and its purported adverse effects.

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation--3% increased intra-abdominal fat with glucose; 14.4% with fructose. (Intraabdominal fat is the variety that blocks insulin responses and causes diabetes and inflammation.)

2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol but double the increase for Apoprotein B (an index of the number of LDL particles, similar to NMR LDL particle number).

3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, compared to 13.3% with glucose.

4) While glucose (curiously) reduced the net postprandial (after-eating) triglyceride response (area under the curve, AUC), fructose increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.

The authors propose that fructose specifically increases liver VLDL production, the lipoprotein particle that yields abnormal after-eating particles, increased LDL, and provides building blocks to manufacture small LDL particles. The authors also persuasively propose that fructose metabolism, unlike glucose, is not inhibited (via feedback loop) by energy intake, i.e., it's as if you are always starving.

Add to this the data that show that fructose increases uric acid (that causes gout and may act as a coronary risk factor), induces leptin resistance, causes metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes), and increases appetite, and it is clear that fructose is yet another common food additive that, along with wheat, is likely a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic.

Fructose is concentrated, of course, in high-fructose corn syrup, comprising anywhere from 42-90% of total weight. Fructose also composes 50% of sucrose (table sugar). Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose).

Also, beware of low-fat or non-fat salad dressings (rich with high-fructose corn syrup), ketchup, beer, fruit drinks, fruit juices, all of which are rich sources of this exceptionally fattening, metabolism-bypassing, LDL cholesterol/small LDL/ApoB increasing compound. Ironically, this means that many low-fat foods meant to reduce cholesterol actually increase it when they contain fructose in any form.

When you hear or say "fructose," run the other way, regardless of what the Corn Refiners Association says.

Matt came to me because his doctor couldn't reduce his LDL cholesterol.

His doctor had prescribed Zocor (simvastatin), Lipitor, Crestor, even pravastatin, all of which resulted in incapacitating muscle aches and weakness within a week of starting. No surprise, Matt had a jaundiced view of statin drugs.

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

--72% of LDL was small LDL, a moderately severe pattern. (This means that small LDL comprised 112 mg/dl of the total 155 mg/dl LDL; large LDL comprised 43 mg/dl--small LDL was the problem.)

--HDL 42 mg/dl --Triglycerides 133 mg/dl

--No lipoprotein(a)

Beyond lipoproteins, Matt proved severely deficient in vitamin D with a starting level of 18 ng/ml.

Matt's doctor had advised that he avoid salt, as his blood pressure had been borderline high. His thyroid assessment disclosed a TSH of 3.89 mIU/ml with thyroid hormones free T3 and free T4 in the lower half of the normal range.

I therefore asked Matt to:

--Eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars to reduce small LDL
--Add iodine
--Supplement 6000 units of an oil-based vitamin D preparation
--Take fish oil to provide at least 1800 mg EPA + DHA per day
--Take Armour Thyroid 1 grain per day

Several months later on this program, Matt had a repeat basic lipid panel:

--LDL 82 mg/dl--a 47% reduction

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

--Triglycerides 60 mg/dl--a 55% decrease

In addition, vitamin D was 66 ng/ml, TSH was <1.0 mIU/ml with free T3 and free T4 in the upper half of the "reference range." Matt also felt great.

While the numbers could be slightly better, Matt had made tremendous progress towards achieving perfect values.

There you have it: Marked correction of cholesterol values, no statin drugs involved.

Even if you’re not interested in building big muscles like a bodybuilder, there are health benefits to increasing muscle mass: increased bone density, better balance, and fewer injuries. Greater muscle mass means higher metabolic rate, improved insulin responsiveness, lower blood sugar. The inevitable loss of muscle mass of aging can lead to frailty, an increasingly common situation for the elderly. Muscle loss be reversed, health improved as a result.

Since its introduction in 1994, creatine has exploded in popularity, particularly among bodybuilders and athletes interested in gaining muscle mass and strength. But creatine is not just for young weight lifters. If you are just interested in increasing muscle mass for its health benefits, then creatine is something to consider.

A study of creatine supplementation in men, average age 70 years, demonstrated that, when creatine was combined with strength training, it increased muscle mass 250% better than placebo (7.26 lb muscle vs 2.86 lb muscle), along with improved leg strength and endurance. The same group also demonstrated 3.2% increased bone density (measured using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) after 12 weeks in participants taking creatine with strength training, while the control (no strength training, no creatine) group decreased by 1.0%.

Benefits are not confined to men. Similar results were observed in another study that included women (age 65 and older), with outcomes in females comparable to males. This is especially important for females, given the common development of osteopenia and osteoporosis in postmenopausal females.

Other studies have shown that benefits are maintained after stopping creatine supplementation.

The most popular form of creatine is the monohydrate, generally taken as a “loading” phase of 15-20 grams per day (generally split into 3-4 doses of 5 grams) for 5-7 days, followed by weeks to months of 2-5 grams per day.

An alternative form, polyethylene glycosylated creatine (PEG-creatine) provides similar effects at one-fourth to one-half the dose of creatine, i.e., 1.25-2.5 grams per day.

Despite previous concerns about kidney toxicity with prolonged use, another study showed that athletes taking creatine for up to 21 months have shown no adverse effects on kidney function, lipid (cholesterol) values, or other basic health measures.

Having healthy muscle mass doesn't make you bulge like a bodybuilder. With modest efforts at strength training, augmented with creatine supplementation, you have a wonderful tool to feel better, reduce injury, increase bone density, and combat abnormal insulin resistance, not to mention accelerate weight loss, since lean muscle mass consumes energy.

There has been a lot of debate over whether or not “bio-identical” hormones, i.e., hormones identical to the human form, are superior to non-human forms dispensed by the drug industry.

The FDA is currently taking steps to clamp down on availability of bioidentical hormones and their claims of superiority, despite a groundswell of grassroot support for them. The argument has pitted anti-aging practitioners and the public, as well as the likes of Oprah and Suzanne Somers, against Big Pharma and the FDA, the two forces trying to squash the bioidentical hormone movement.

Regardless of what heavy-handed approach the FDA takes, we already have access to hormones identical to the original human form. It requires no prescription and yields downstream hormones that the human body recognizes as human.

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

Pregnenolone is the first biochemical step in the conversion of dietary cholesterol (yes-cholesterol!) to numerous other hormones. Pregnenolone is the source of the hormones that lie at the center of the bioidentical hormone controversy: estrogens, progesterone, and testosterone. We therefore already have our own over-the-counter, non-prescription form of bioidentical hormones.

Supplemental pregnenolone increases estrogens (mildly), progesterone, and testosterone. Prenenonlone supplementation simply provide more of the basic substrate for hormone production. The increase in hormones is usually modest, not as vigorous as direct hormone replacement like, say, testosterone or progesterone topical creams. But pregnenolone can be useful when small to moderate increases are desired, such as for reduction of Lp(a). A theoretical downside is that pregnenonlone can also convert to cortisol, the adrenal gland hormone that regulates fluid and blood pressure. However, I've not seen any measurable increase in cortisol with low doses of pregnenonlone and limited data suggest that it does not. Pregnenolone also converts to the other adrenal gland hormone, DHEA; I call DHEA "the hormone of assertiveness," since some people who take too much pregnenolone (or direct DHEA) acquire excessive assertiveness.

The key to pregnenolone supplementation is to proceed gradually and begin with a small dose, e.g., 5 mg every morning. Hormonal assessment is best conducted periodically to assess the effects and to determine whether a dose adjustment is in order.

Heart Scan Blog reader, Roger, described his near-miss experience with CT coronary angiograms.

Hoping to obtain just a simple CT heart scan, he was bullied to get a CT coronary angiogram instead. Roger held strong and just asked for the test that we all should be having, a CT heart scan.

I posted yesterday that I was about to have my first CT heart scan...well, it was an interesting experience for reasons I coudn't possibly have anticipated. Dr. Davis has commented in the past on the confusion in the media about the difference between a CT calcium score scan, and a CT angiography, the latter requiring a far higher dose of radiation. I assumed this was a source of confusion only among patients and lay folks, but, lo and behold, I discovered today that doctors--or at least their helpers--can be just as confused.

Here's my story:

After checking in, I asked the receptionist to see if she had any information on whether my medical insurance was covering the scan. She called someone, and I heard her say over the phone, "He's here for a CT angiogram." At that point my ears perked up. I explained I wasn't here for a CT angiogram, only a regular CT scan. "Well, do you want to call your doctor and talk about this?" she asked. No, I said, I would like to ask one of their folks to verify exactly what test my doctor had ordered. As luck would have it, the technician was walking by at that point. "Is this a CT angiogram?" the receptionist asked. "No, it's just a CT calcium score scan" was the reply. But apparently the technician had been unclear herself, and had called my doctor just to verify. In other words, the "default" procedure they were accustomed to doing at this august Houston vascular clinic was a CT angiogram.

In fact, my appointment was even listed on their calendar as a "CT angiogram." For all I know, my insurance will be billed for the same. Later, during the procedure, the technician acted surprised I wasn't doing the "full test." I explained I had minimal risk factors (actually only one, an HDL of 34 a couple of years ago, which has since been raised to 50 partly as a result of taking advice from this site), but that my doctor was progressive (he is an MD for the Houston Astros) and thought it was a good idea since there is heart disease in my immediate family. My doctor did indeed prescribe only a CT calcium score scan, but it seems to have been an order that this clinic, at least, wasn't all that used to seeing.

So, I guess the message is: we have a lot of educating to do. Had I not been a faithful reader of these pages, I certainly wouldn't have known what kind of test I was about to get, or what questions to ask!

As for the heart scan itself, a piece of cake. If you can hold your breath, you can take this test. Just be sure it is the right one!

Why the "push" towards CT coronary angiograms and not "just" a CT heart scan? Well, I know it's shocking but it's . . . money!

CT coronary angiograms yield around $1800-$4000 per test. CT heart scans yield somewhere around $200. Though the scan center support staff might not care too much about the money themselves, their administrators likely make the cost distinctions clear to them.

Another reason: Most scan center staff, ironically, don't understand what a heart scan means, nor do they understand how it might serve to launch a program of prevention. They do understand that severe blockage by CT angiogram "needs" to be stented or bypassed. So they push patients towards things they understand.

Nobody makes money from CT heart scans, just as nobody makes money from a mammogram. Heart scans also don't lead to heroic, "lifesaving" procedures. They just lead to this sleepy, unexciting, inexpensive thing called prevention.

The June 20-21, 2009 Wall Street Journal Weekend Journal featured a provocative front page article written by physician, Dr. Abraham Verghese:

The Myth of Prevention

While eloquently written, I took issue with a few crucial points. Here is the letter I sent to the Editor at Wall Street Journal:

Dear Wall Street Journal Editor,

Re: Dr. Abraham Verghese’s article, The Myth of Prevention in the June 20-21, 2009 Weekend Journal.

I believe a more suitable title for Dr. Verghese’s article would be: “The Myth of What Passes as Prevention.”

As a practicing cardiologist, I, too, have witnessed firsthand the systemic “corruption” described by Dr. Verghese, the doing things “to” people rather than “for” them. Heart care, in particular, is rife with this form of profit-driven health delivery.

There is a fundamental flaw in Dr. Verghese’s otherwise admirable analysis: He assumes that what is called “prevention” in mainstream medicine is truly preventive.

Dr. Verghese makes issue of the apparent minor differences between preventing a condition and just allowing a condition to run its course. Prostate cancer screening is one example: Men subjected to repeated screenings have little length-of-life advantage over men who just allow their prostate to suffer the expected course of disease.

What if, instead, “prevention” as practiced today is nothing more than a solution that has been adopted in mainstream practice to suit yet another doing “to” strategy than doing “for”? In the prostate cancer example, PSA and prostate exam screenings often serve as little more than a means of harvesting procedures for the local urologist.

That’s not prevention. It is a prototypical example of “prevention” being subverted into the cause of revenue-generating procedures.

I submit that Dr. Verghese has fallen victim to the very same system he criticizes. His views have unwittingly been corrupted by the corrupt profit-driven system he describes.

What if, instead, prevention were just that: prevention or elimination of the condition. What if “prevention” of prostate cancer eliminated prostate cancer? What if heart disease “prevention” prevented all heart disease? What if this all proceeded without regard for profit or revenue-generating procedures, but just on results?

Dr. Verghese specifically targets heart scans or coronary calcium scoring, a test he likens to “miracle glow-in-the-dark minnow lures,” calling them “moneymakers.” Yes, when subverted into a corrupt algorithm of stress test, heart catheterization, stent, or bypass, heart scans are indeed a test used wrongly to “prevent” heart disease.

But what if the risk insights provided by heart scans prompt the start of a benign yet effective “prevention” program that inexpensively, safely, and assuredly prevents--in the true sense of the word--or eliminates heart disease? Then I believe the differences in mortality, quality of life, and costs would be substantial. Such strategies exist, yet do not necessarily include prescription drugs and certainly do not include the aftermath of heart catheterization and bypass surgery. Yet such programs fail to seize the limelight of media attention with no new high-tech lifesaving headline nor a big marketing budget to broadcast its message.

The problem in medicine is not prevention and its failure to yield cost- and life-saving results. It is the pervasively profit-driven mindset that keeps true preventive strategies from entering mainstream conversation. It is a repeat of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis’ late 19th-century pleads for physicians to wash their hands before delivering babies to reduce puerperal sepsis, ignominious advice that earned him life and death in an asylum. We are essentially continuing to deliver children with unwashed hands because there is no revenue-generating procedure to clean them.

No, Dr. Verghese, the economic and medical failings of preventive strategies are not at fault. The failure of the medical system, in which everyone is bent on seizing a piece of the financial action for himself, has resulted in the failure to support the propagation of true preventive strategies that could genuinely save money and lives.

President Obama’s goal of cultivating preventive practices in medicine can work, but only if the profit-motive for “prevention” does not serve as the primary determinant of practice. Results-driven practices that are applied without regard to profit have the potential to yield the sorts of cost-saving and life-saving results that can reduce healthcare costs.

William Davis, MD
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Medical Director, The Track Your Plaque Program (www.cureality.com)
Blog: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com

The efforts of Texas House of Representatives Rep. Rene Oliveira and the SHAPE Guidelines committee have paid off: The Texas legislature passed a bill that requires health insurers to cover CT heart scans.

(NOTE: Don't make the same mistake that the media often makes and confuse CT heart scans with CT coronary angiography: two different tests, two different results, two different levels of radiation exposure. The difference is discussed here.)

Track Your Plaque previously reported the release of the SHAPE Guidelines, an ambitious effort to open CT heart scanning to people who would benefit from a simple screening test for coronary disease. Rep. Rene Oliveira initially introduced the bill in 2006, after having a heart scan uncovered extensive coronary plaque that resulted in coronary bypass surgery.

The bill requires that health-benefit providers cover the cost of CT heart scans (and carotid ultrasound) in men between the ages of 45-76, women 55-76, as well as anyone with diabetes or at "intermediate-risk" or higher for coronary disease by Framingham risk score.

The usual panel of cardiology knuckleheads stepped to the media podium, expressing their incredulity that something as "unvalidated" as heart scans could gain the backing of legislative mandate. Heartwire carried this comment:

"Contacted by heartwire, Dr Amit Khera (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas) confirmed there are still no comprehensive, adequately powered studies showing that these screening tests lead to better outcomes. In a phone interview, Khera said he has major concerns about how physicians will use these tests, particularly primary-care physicians. "I gave a talk last week to primary-care doctors, and there were probably 250 people in the room, and when I asked how many people had ordered a calcium scan, just one person raised a hand. . . . Most people don't even know what to do with the Framingham risk score, so they're going to follow an algorithm that they don't know how to follow to order a test result that they don't know what to do with."

It's the same criticisms hurled at heart scans over the years despite literally thousands of studies validating their application.

Studies have conclusively shown that:

--Coronary calcium scores generated by a CT heart scan outperform any other risk measure for coronary disease, including LDL cholesterol, c-reactive protein, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure.
--Coronary calcium scores yield a graded, trackable index of coronary risk. Scores that increase correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular events; scores that remain unchanged correlate with much reduced risk.
--A coronary calcium score of zero--no detectable calcium--correlates with extremely low 5-year risk for cardiovascular events.
--Coronary calcium scores correlate with other measures of coronary disease. Heart scans correlate with coronary angiography, quantitative coronary angiography, carotid ultrasound (intimal-medial thickness and plaque severity), ankle-brachial index, and stress tests, including radionuclide (nuclear) perfusion imaging.

The reluctance of my colleagues to embrace heart scans stems from two issues, for the most part:

1) No study has yet been performed showing that knowing what the score is vs. not knowing what the score is changes prognosis. That's true. But it is also true of the great majority of practices in medicine. While many wrongs don't make a right, the miserable and widespread failure of other coronary risk measures, like LDL cholesterol or c-reactive protein, to readily and reliably detect hidden coronary disease creates a gaping void for improved efforts at early detection. If your LDL cholesterol is 140 mg/dl, do you or don't you have coronary disease? If your doctor's response is "Just take a statin drug anyway" you've been done a great disservice. (If and when this sort of study gets done, its huge cost--outcome studies have to be large and last many years--it will likely be a statin study. It is unlikely it will include such Track Your Plaque strategies that help reduce heart scan scores, like vitamin D and correction of small LDL particles.)

2) Fears over overuse of hospital procedures triggered by heart scans. This is a legitimate concern--if the information provided by a heart scan is misused. Heart scans should never--NEVER--lead directly to heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery. Heart scans do not change the indications for performing revascularization (angioplasty, stents, bypass). Just because 20% of my cardiology colleagues are more concerned with profit rather than patient welfare does not invalidate the value of the test. Just because the mechanic at the local garage gouged you by replacing a carburetor for $800 when all you need was a new spark plug does not mean that we should outlaw all auto mechanics. Abuse is the fault of the abuser, not of the tool used to exercise the abuse.

All in all, while I am not a fan of legislating behavior in healthcare, the blatant and extreme ignorance of this simple tool for uncovering hidden heart disease makes the Texas action a huge success for heart disease prevention. I hope that this success will raise awareness, not just in Texas, but in other states and cities in which similar systemic neglect is the rule.

Remember: CT heart scans are tools for prevention, not to uncover "need" for procedures. They serve as a starting point to decide whether or not an intensive program of prevention is in order, and I don't mean statin vs. no statin.

Though not a multi-million dollar statin drug study, I have NEVER seen a heart attack or "need" for procedure in any person who has stopped progression or reduced their heart scan score. A small cohort from my practice was reported:

Effect of a Combined Therapeutic Approach of Intensive Lipid Management, Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation, and Increased Serum 25 (OH) Vitamin D on Coronary Calcium Scores in Asymptomatic Adults.

Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M.

The impact of intensive lipid management, omega-3 fatty acid, and vitamin D3 supplementation on atherosclerotic plaque was assessed through serial computed tomography coronary calcium scoring (CCS). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with statin therapy has not been shown to reduce or slow progression of serial CCS in several recent studies, casting doubt on the usefulness of this approach for tracking atherosclerotic progression. In an open-label study, 45 male and female subjects with CCS of >/= 50 without symptoms of heart disease were treated with statin therapy, niacin, and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides /=60 mg/dL; and vitamin D3 supplementation to achieve serum levels of >/=50 ng/mL 25(OH) vitamin D, in addition to diet advice. Lipid profiles of subjects were significantly changed as follows: total cholesterol -24%, low-density lipoprotein -41%; triglycerides -42%, high-density lipoprotein +19%, and mean serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels +83%. After a mean of 18 months, 20 subjects experienced decrease in CCS with mean change of -14.5% (range 0% to -64%); 22 subjects experienced no change or slow annual rate of CCS increase of +12% (range 1%-29%). Only 3 subjects experienced annual CCS progression exceeding 29% (44%-71%). Despite wide variation in response, substantial reduction of CCS was achieved in 44% of subjects and slowed plaque growth in 49% of the subjects applying a broad treatment program.

Take a look at the results from the Heart Scan Blog's most recent reader poll (399 respondents):

How many hours do you sleep per night (on average)?

9 or more hours per night
15 (3.7%)

8-9 hours per night
72 (18%)

7-8 hours per night
152 (38.1%)

6-7 hours per night
111 (27.8%)

5-6 hours per night
38 (9.5%)

Less than 5 hours per night
11 (2.8%)

Like many issues in health, too much or too little of a good thing can present undesirable consequences.

Too much sleep: While psychologists and sleep researchers advise us that at least 9 hours are required to fully eliminate sleep "debt" and achieve optimal vigilance and mental performance, epidemiologic studies have shown increased mortality with this quantity of sleep.

Too little sleep: Getting less than 7 hours habituallly increases blood sugar, appetite, inflammatory measures, and encourages weight gain. Mortality is also increased, just as with sleeping too much. It is also associated with increased likelihood of a positive heart scan score.

7-8 hours per night from a health viewpoint is that Goldlilocks "just right" value: just enough to not erode mental performance substantially, but not so little that inflammatory, insulin-disrupting, and appetite-increasing effects develop.

Of our 399 respondents in the poll, 56.1% (38% + 18%) slept what appears to be an optimal amount for health. While only 3.7% slept too much (9 hours or more), the remaining 40.1% slept too little.

Our informal poll confirms what most of us observe in everyday life: The majority of people shortchange sleep in order to meet the demands of their high-pressure, squeeze-as-much-as-possible-into-every-day lives. But not paying off your sleep "debt" is like not paying the mortgage for a couple of months. You wouldn't expect your friendly neighborhood bank to say, "Oh, you forgot to pay your mortgage? Forget about it. Just pay next month's." Sure, fat chance. But if you don't pay off your sleep "debt," you will pay it back with health.

If you want to make foie gras, you feed ducks and geese copious quantities of grains, such as corn and wheat.

The carbohydrate-rich diet causes fat deposition in the liver via processes such as de novo lipogenesis, the conversion of carbohydrates to triglycerides. Ducks and geese are particularly good at this, since they store plentiful fats in the liver to draw from during sustained periods of not eating during annual migration.

Modern humans are trying awfully hard to create their own version of foie gras-yielding livers. While nobody is shoving a tube down our gullets, the modern lifestyle of grotesque carbohydrate overconsumption, like soft drinks, chips, pretzels, crackers, and--yes--"healthy whole grains" causes fat accumulation in the human liver.

Over the past few years, there has been an explosion of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatosis, two forms of liver disease that result from excess fat deposition. The situation gets so bad in some people that it progresses to cirrhosis, i.e., a hard, poorly-functioning liver that paints a very ugly health picture. The end-result is identical to that experienced by longstanding alcoholics.

While Hannibal Lecter might celebrate the proliferation of human fatty livers with a glass of claret, fatty liver disease is an entirely preventable condition. All it requires is not eating the foods that create it in the first place.

When is fat not just fat?

When it's visceral fat. Visceral fat is the fat that infiltrates the intestinal lining, the liver, kidneys, even your heart. It's the stuff of love handles, the flabby fat that hangs over your belt, or what I call "wheat belly."

Unlike visceral fat, the fat in your thighs or bottom is metabolically quiescent. Thigh and bottom fat may prevent you from fitting into your "skinny jeans," but its mainly a passive repository for excess calories.

Visceral fat, on the other hand, is metabolically active. It produces large quantities of inflammatory signals ("cytokines"), such as various interleukins, leptin, and tumor necrosis factor, that can trigger inflammatory responses in other parts of the body. Visceral fat also oddly fails to produce the protective cytokine, adiponectin, that protects us from diabetes, cancer, and heart disease.

Visceral fat also allows free fatty acids to leave and enter fat cells, resulting in a flood of fatty acids and triglycerides (= 3 fatty acids on a glycerol "backbone") in the bloodstream. This worsens insulin responses ("insulin resistance") and contributes to fatty liver. The situation is worsened when the very powerful process of de novo lipogenesis is triggered, the liver's conversion of sugar to triglycerides.

Visceral fat is also itself inflamed. Biopsies of visceral fat show plenty of inflammatory white blood cells (macrophages) infiltrating its structure.

So what causes visceral fat? Anything that triggers abnormal increases in blood glucose, followed by insulin, will cause visceral fat to grow.

It follows logically that foods that increase blood glucose the most will thereby trigger the greatest increase in visceral fat. Eggs don't lead to visceral fat, nor do salmon, olive oil, beef, broccoli, or almonds. But wheat, cornstarch, potato starch, rice starch, tapioca starch, and sugars will all trigger glucose-insulin that leads to visceral fat accumulation.

Fructose is also an extravagant trigger of visceral fat. Fructose is found in sucrose (50% fructose), high-fructose corn syrup, agave syrup, maple syrup, and honey.

Increased visceral fat can be suggested by increased waist circumference. The inflammatory hotbed created by excess visceral fat has therefore been associated with increased likelihood of heart attack, cardiovascular mortality, diabetes, cancer, and total mortality.

So I'm not so worried that you can't squeeze your bottom into your size 8 jeans. I am worried, however, when you need to let your belt out a notch . . . or two or three.

Gwen came to me 5 years ago. In her late 60s, she'd been having feelings of chest pressure for the past 4 weeks with small physical efforts, such as climbing a flight of stairs or lifting her grandchildren.

She sat in my office, heaving small sobs, accompanied by her daughter.

Gwen had already undergone a heart catheterization at a hospital near home by a cardiologist who I knew to be honest and competent. She'd been told that she had a 90% stenosis ("blockage") of her proximal left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery. He called it a "widow maker," since closure of the artery at this point can be fatal within minutes. He advised bypass surgery as soon as possible. Though a stent could be placed at this location, he felt that its proximity to the left main stem (i.e., the "trunk" that divides into the LAD and circumflex arteries) might be jeopardized by expanding a stent in this bulky plaque, what I felt was a reasonable concern.

I reviewed the images that she brought with her. Yes, indeed: a widow maker. The portion of the left ventricle (heart muscle) fed by the LAD was also impaired ("hypokinetic"), reflecting reduced flow through the artery.

I advised Gwen that her first cardiologist's advice was sound: This was a potentially dangerous and severe condition. Either a bypass or stent should be performed near-future, the less delay the better.

But Gwen and her daughter would have no talk of any more procedures. She'd come to me because she heard about the (then rudimentary) effort I'd been making at reversing coronary plaque. "I admire your commitment, Gwen, but I am concerned that there may not be sufficient time to implement a program of prevention or reversal. Prevention is very powerful, but very slow. When symptoms like yours are active, also, it can mean that we won't have full control over the plaque causing the symptoms. This risks closure of the vessel, since flow characteristics in the plaque are abnormal. I think that you should go through a stent or bypass. We can then start your prevention/reversal program once we know you're safe."

Gwen would still have none of it. I asked her to return in a few days after thinking it over. In the meantime, we drew her lipoprotein blood samples while she added fish oil, l-arginine (back then I used a lot of l-arginine for its endothelial health effects), and began the Track Your Plaque diet a la 2004. This was in addition to the aspirin, beta blocker, and statin prescribed by the first cardiologist.

Several days later, Gwen and her daughter returned, as committed as ever to not having a procedure and proceeding with our prevention/reversal efforts.

So off we went. I was nervous about Gwen's safety, but she had clearly made her mind made up. Gwen's lipoprotein analysis revealed a severe small LDL pattern along with markers for prediabetes (high insulin, high blood glucose, hypertension, along with the loose tummy of visceral fat). So I counseled her intensively in diet and added niacin.

Within 2 weeks, Gwen no longer had chest pain. Whether this was due to her efforts or to some resolution of an intraplaque phenomenon (e.g., resorption of internal plaque hemorrhage), I don't know. But her symptoms did not return.

As the program evolved, we added the new strategies along the way--vitamin D supplementation; elimination of all wheat along with other changes in diet; iodine and thyroid normalization; as well as discontinuing l-arginine after the initial two years. She also got rid of the statin drug after losing around 20 lbs on the diet.

It's now been six years with her "widow maker" and Gwen has been fine: no recurrence of her symptoms, all stress tests performed have been normal, reflecting normal blood flow in her coronary arteries.

Should ALL people with symptomatic widow makers undergo such an effort and avoid procedures? No, not yet. Prevention and reversal efforts are indeed powerful, but slow. Some people just may not have sufficient time to accomplish what Gwen did. The fact that Gwen showed evidence for reduced flow in the LAD worried me in particular. There is no question that mortality benefits for stenting or bypass of this location are not as large as previously thought (see here, for instance), but each case needs to be viewed individually, factoring in flow characteristics in the artery, appearance of "stability" or "instability" of the plaque itself, not to mention commitment of the person.

But it can be done.

I just had a workout with personal trainer and fitness expert, Fred Hahn. After a workout that quickly taught me that I had a lot to learn about exercise and strength training, Fred and I had a nice low-carbohydrate dinner at a Manhattan restaurant and shared ideas.

Fred is coauthor of Slow Burn Fitness Revolution: The slow motion exercise that will change your body in 30 minutes a week, written in collaboration with the Drs. Eades, Michael and Mary Dan. Fred also blogs here.

I had heard about Fred's "slow-burn" concept in past, but made little of it. I then met Fred on Jimmy Moore's low-carb cruise this past year, where I gave a talk on how carbohydrate-reduced diets reduce small LDL particles. Fred provided a group demonstration on his slow-burn techniques. I watched the demonstration, even tried it a few times back home in the gym, but never really applied them, losing patience most of the time and just going back to my usual routine.

Well, Fred showed me today how to do his slow-burn. In a nutshell, it is the slow, methodical use of weight resistance until the muscle is exhausted. It involves slow movement--e.g., 5 seconds for a lat pulldown from top to bottom--repeated until exhaustion using a weight that allows, perhaps, 6 repetitions over a 60-second effort.

I've been strength training since I was a teenager. I've seen lots of bad training techniques, injuries, and hocum when it comes to how to use resistance training techniques. But I believe that Fred Hahn's slow-burn technique really provides something unique that I hadn't experienced before.

For one, the burn is nothing like I've felt before. Two, there appears to be nearly zero risk for injury, since the usual momentum-driven, herky-jerky motion often employed with weight machines is entirely gone. Three, if what Fred is seeing is true--enhanced visceral (abdominal) fat loss, reduced blood glucose, increased HDL, decreased LDL/total cholesterol--then there's something really interesting going on here.

I also discovered that Fred is no ordinary personal trainer. He has insights into metabolism that I found truly impressive. After all, he's been hanging around with Mike Eades, who's a pretty sharp guy. What Mike Eades is to metabolic insights is what Fred Hahn is to exercise physiology.

I'm going to take Fred's slow burn training insights home with me. I'll let you know how it goes. Some aspects I'd like to explore: Will strength, muscle mass, and blood sugar responses change?

Fred Hahn's latest book, adapting slow burn techniques for kids.

Here I go again.

While I will try to keep this blog on topic, i.e., coronary heart disease prevention and reversal using nutritional and other natural strategies, I believe that a "critical mass" of frequently asked, though off topic, questions keep cropping up.

One such question revolves around Coumadin, or warfarin.

Somehow, my Nattokinase scam blog post draws traffic about Coumadin. I tried to make the point that a conventional blood thinning agent like Coumadin that undoubtedly has undesirable side-effects cannot be replaced by an agent that has an uncertain track record. In the case of nattokinase, no track record.

To illustrate how far wrong the "nattokinase as replacement for Coumadin" idea can go, here is a question from Anna:

I came across your blog while perusing.

I am a bit bummed because I have been on Coumadin (warfarin) for around 22 years since I was 6 years old. I have a mechanical heart valve (St. Jude's), as I have heart-related issues, including hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy.

Well, it is just that the warfarin seems to interact with nearly everything. I feel like I can not get the nutrients my body requires. I desire to consume more raw foods and vegan foods, though I do not want anything to damage my heart valve or risk a stroke/heart attack or internal bleeding.

I have been underweight the majority of my life, malnourished , currently am still somewhat underweight, though enjoying food again, as I had what mimicked Crohn's Disease for several years (horrendous pain), from which I am in remission now. I was diagnosed with osteoporosis, which may or may not be caused from consuming warfarin.

Is it possible to get off of warfarin and effectively keep my blood thinned ? I currently take 1.5 mg to 2 mg dosage. Does the warfarin destroy Vitamin K and if so does that mean while on warfarin I never get the Vitamin K nutrients even if I did consume foods with it in it?

Thank you
Anna

No, sorry, Anna. Stopping Coumadin with your unique issues, i.e., a prosthetic mechanical heart valve (likely mitral, judging by your history of hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy, in which the patterns of blood flow ejected from the heart disrupt the natural mitral valve function) and cardiomyopathy, can be fatal. Without blood thinning, the mechanical heart valve can trigger blood clot formation, since it is a foreign object implanted into the bloodstream.

There are no natural alternatives available with track records confident enough to bet your life on. Aspirin nor Plavix are blood thinners, but platelet inhibitors. These two agents, while they work for other forms of arterial (but not venous) blood clot inhibition, will not work for your unique situation.

Likewise, a purported oral lytic agent like nattokinase should not be substituted for Coumadin. Even if there was plausible science behind it, you should demand substantial evidence that it provides at least blood thinning equivalent to Coumadin. Should a blood clot, even a small one, form in or around the prosthetic valve, the valve can stop working within seconds. This can lead to death within minutes.

I believe it would be foolhardy to bet your life based on the marketing--let me repeat: MARKETING--of a "nutritional supplement" by supplement manufacturers eager to make a buck.

Nor are there any other nutritional supplements that can safely replace the Coumadin. I wish that were NOT true, as I am no stranger to the long-term dangers of Coumadin and I am a big believer, in general, in nutritional supplements. I am a BIGGER believer, however, in the truth. Weighing the options available to us today, there really is no rational choice but to remain on Coumadin.

By the way, I tell my patients to eat a substantial amount of green vegetables while they take Coumadin. I know that conventional advice is to reduce or eliminate green vegetables due to their content of Coumadin-antagonizing vitamin K. I think this is wrong, also. Green vegetables are the best foods on earth. They reduce risk for cancer, diabetes, bone disease, and coronary heart disease.

To obtain the benefits of green vegetables without mucking up your blood thinning (your "protime" or International Normalized Ratio, INR), I advise my patients who take Coumadin to eat green vegetables--but do so every day in relatively consistent quantities, so that the protime or INR is not disrupted and remains reasonably constant. It may mean that your total dose of Coumadin may be somewhat higher, e.g., 3 or 4 mg instead of 2 mg, but the dose is immaterial outside of blood thinning. That way, you obtain all the wonderful health benefits of green vegetables while maintaining fairly consistent blood thinning/protime/INR. Coumadin does not block all the health benefits of vegetables, only those related to vitamins K1 and K2.

With regards to protecting yourself from the osteoporosis promoting effects of Coumadin, I would be sure to follow a program of natural bone health, such as the one I discussed in Homegrown osteoporosis prevention and reversal. You will have to be extra careful, however, with the vitamin K2. Ideally, you have a doctor knowledgeable about vitamin K2 who can assist you in managing K2 intake while on Coumadin. This is something you can definitely NOT manage on your own. (I am a big believer in self-managed care, but this is way beyond the limit.)

Lastly, it is my belief that anyone with an inflammatory bowel condition, such as Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis, should absolutely, positively, and meticulously AVOID WHEAT and all other gluten sources (such as rye, barley, and oats). Even if you test negative for celiac markers (e.g., anti-gliadin antibodies, emdomysium and transglutaminase antibodies), the enhanced intestinal permeability will allow wheat proteins, such as gluten, to gain ready entry into the bloodstream. Not to mention that wheat should have no place in the human diet anyway, in my view.

I don't like to stray too far off course from discussions of heart disease and related issues in this blog. But the question of bone health comes up so often that I thought I'd discuss the strategies available to everybody to stop, even reverse, osteoporosis.

Coronary atherosclerotic plaque and bone health are intimately interwoven. People who have coronary plaque usually have osteoporosis; people who have osteoporosis usually have coronary plaque. (The association is strongest in females.) The worse the osteoporosis, the greater the quantity of coronary plaque, and vice versa. The two seemingly unconnected conditions share common causes and thereby respond to similar treatments.

Incredibly, rarely will your doctor tell you about these strategies. Your doctor orders a bone density test, the value shows osteopenia or osteoporosis, and a drug like Fosamax or Boniva is prescribed. As many people are learning, drugs like this can be associated with severe side-effects, such as jaw necrosis (death of the jaw bone), a dangerous and disfiguring condition that leads to loss of teeth and disfigurement, followed by reconstructive surgery of the jaw and face. These are not trivial effects.

Note that drugs are approved by the FDA based on assessment of efficacy and safety, NOT proven equivalence or superiority to natural treatments.

In order of importance (greatest to least), here are strategies that I believe are important to regain or maintain bone health. Indeed, I have seen many women increase bone density using these strategies . . . without drugs of any sort.

1) Vitamin D restoration--Vitamin D is the most important control factor over bone calcium metabolism, as well as parathyroid function. As readers of this blog already know, gelcap forms of vitamin D work best, aiming for a 25-hydroxy vitamin level of 60-70 ng/ml. This usually requires 6000 units per day, though there is great individual variation in need.

2) Vitamin K2--If you lived in Japan, you would be prescribed vitamin K2. While it's odd that K2 is a "drug" in Japan, it means that it enjoys the validation required for approval through their FDA-equivalent. Prescription K2 (as MK-4 or menatetranone) at doses of 15,000-45,000 mcg per day (15-45 mg), improves bone architecture, even when administered by itself. However, K2 works best when part of a broader program of bone health. I advise 1000 mcg per day, preferably a mixture of the short-acting MK-4 and long-acting MK-7. (Emerging data measuring bone resorption markers suggest that lower doses may work nearly as well as the high-dose prescription.)

3) Magnesium--I generally advise supplementation with the well-absorbed forms, magnesium glycinate (400 mg twice per day) or magnesium malate (1200 mg twice per day). Because they are well-absorbed, they are least likely to lead to diarrhea (as magnesium oxide commonly does).

4) Alkaline potassium salts--Potassium as the bicarbonate or the citrate, i.e., alkalinizing forms, are wonderfully effective for preservation or reversal of bone density. Because potassium in large doses is potentially fatal, over-the-counter supplements contain only 99 mg potassium per capsule. I have patients take two capsules twice per day, provided kidney function is normal and there is no history of high potassium.

5) An alkalinizing diet--Animal products are acidic, vegetables and fruits are alkaline. Put them together and you should obtain a slightly net alkaline body pH that preserves bone health. Throw grains like wheat, carbonated soft drinks, or other acids into the mix and you shift the pH balance towards net acid. This powerfully erodes bone. Therefore, avoid grains and never consume carbonated soft drinks. (Readers of this blog know that "healthy, whole grains" should be included in the list of Scams of the Century, along with Bernie Madoff and mortgage-backed securities.)

6) Strength training--Bone density follows muscle mass. Restoring youthful muscle mass with strength training can increase bone density over time. The time and energy needs are modest, e.g., 20 minutes twice per week.

Note that calcium may or may not be on the list. If on the list at all, it is dead last. When vitamin D has been restored, intestinal absorption of calcium is as much as quadrupled. The era of force-feeding high-doses of calcium are long-gone. In fact, calcium supplementation in the age of vitamin D can lead to abnormal high calcium blood levels and increased heart attack risk.

These are benign and easily incorporated strategies. They are also inexpensive. I challenge any drug to match or exceed the benefits of this combination of strategies. Keep in mind that strategies like vitamin D restoration provide an extensive panel of health benefits that range far beyond bone health, an effect definitely NOT shared by prescription drugs.

The thoracic aorta lives happily within the chest.

The aorta is the main artery of the body that emerges from the heart, located just under the sternum. It is the "tree trunk" from which all the major arteries branch off to the rest of the body: the arms, brain, abdominal organs, pelvis, and legs. The aorta receives the high-pressure blood ejected directly out of the heart muscle.

However, there are evil forces in the body that work to weaken the aorta. When the aorta is weakened, it enlarges. Enlarged aortas also tend to grow atherosclerotic plaque. Plaque in the aorta poses long-term risk for stroke and and mini-strokes ("transient ischemic attacks," or TIAs), due to fragmentation.

There are many enlarged aortas in this world. I see at least several every week. It is fairly common, particularly in people with high blood pressure and cholesterol abnormalities, as well as those who are overweight. Smokers get it really bad.

Conventional thinking is that, once an aorta enlarges, it will inevitably continue to enlarge at the average rate of 2.0 mm per year (resulting in 1.0 cm enlargement over 5 years). For this reason, conventional discussions on the topic of thoracic aortic aneurysms all say something like "Enlarged aortas should be monitored yearly. Surgical replacement should proceed when the aorta reaches a diameter of 5.5 cm."

This is because an aortic diameter of 5.5 cm is associated with much greater likelihood that the aorta will rupture (fatal within minutes) or the internal lining will tear, a "dissection." The surgery is a major undertaking that involves opening the chest and usually replacing the aortic valve and inserting a synthetic aorta. The procedure is high-risk, especially if any branch arteries are involved.

So putting a stop to any further aortic enlargement is a worthwhile goal. Unfortunately, conventional thought is that there is nothing you can do to stop the inevitable growth of the thoracic aorta.

Nonsense. There are a number of efforts you can make to halt further increase in aortic diameter. (My experience in this is anecdotal and unpublished, but now numbers several hundred patients.)

There are two categories of factors that cause the aorta to increase in diameter:

1) Internal pressure--Think of blood pressure as the internal inflating pressure on this "balloon." Keeping the "inflating pressure," i.e., blood pressure, low exerts substantial effect on slowing growth of aortic diameter. I aim for normal BP or lowish BP (less than 130/80, preferably 100/70).

2) Factors that weaken the aortic wall--Processes like inflammation, glycation, lipoprotein deposition, and nutritional deficiencies will serve to weaken the supportive tissue of the aorta. For that reason, correction of lipoprotein abnormalities (e.g., small LDL and lipoprotein(a)), reductions in carbohydrate intake and thereby blood glucose/glycation, and "normalization" of vitamin D, vitamin C supplementation (for collagen crosslinking), and omega-3 fatty acids all play a role.

To push even farther, there may be additional advantage to following strategies that impair the production and activity of a crucial enzyme that lives within the aortic wall: matrix metalloproteinase, or MMP. MMP degrades the collagen and other supportive tissues within the aorta, weakening it and permitting expansion. Blocking MMP may prove to be among the most powerful new strategies to halt aortic expansion.

Compounds that have potential MMP-inhibiting effects include:
--Vitamin D--A substantial effect
--Resveratrol--One of the polyphenols from red wine
--Doxycycline--This old antibiotic often used for acne treatment has, in preliminary studies, shown important MMP-blocking effects and slowed aortic expansion.

Anyway, there you have it. A bit complicated, but a "recipe" that has failed me only rarely.

Here's an interesting example of what you might call "extreme carbohydrate intolerance."

May is a 44-year woman who has now had her 7th stent placed in her coronary arteries. She lives on a diet dominated by breads, breakfast cereals, muffins, rice, corn products, along with some real foods.

Her conventional lipid panel and other lab values:

Total cholesterol 346 mg/dl
Triglycerides: 877 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol: 22 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol: incalculable
(Recall that LDL cholesterol is usually a calculated, not a measured value. The excessively high triglycerides make the standard calculation invalid--more invalid than usual.)

Fasting blood glucose: 210 mg/dl
HbA1c (a reflection of previous 60-90 days average glucose): 7.2% (desirable 4.5% or less)
ALT (a "liver enzyme"): 438 (about five-fold normal)

At 5 ft even and 138 lbs (BMI 27.0), May appears small. But the modest excess weight is all concentrated in her abdomen, i.e., in visceral fat.

By lipoprotein analysis via NMR (Liposcience), May's LDL particle number was 2912 nmol/L, or what I would call a "true" LDL of 291 mg/dl. (Drop the last digit.) Of the 2912 nmol/L LDL particles, 2678 nmol/L, or 92%, were small.

The bad news: This pattern of extremely high triglycerides, extremely high LDL particle number, low HDL, predominant small LDL, and diabetes poses high-risk for heart disease--no surprise. It earned her 7 stents so far. (Unfortunately, she has made no effort whatsoever to correct these patterns, despite repeated advice to do so.)

The good news: This collection is wonderfully responsive to diet. LDL particle number, small LDL, triglycerides, blood glucose, and HbA1c drop dramatically, while HDL increases. Heart disease will at least slow, if not stop.

It's amazing how far off human metabolism can go while indulging in carbohydrates, particularly a genetically carbohydrate-intolerance person. (Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if May's diet, as bad as it seems to you and me, still fits within the dictates of the USDA food pyramid.) The crucial step in diet to correct this smorgasbord of disaster is elimination of carbohydrates, especially that from wheat, cornstarch, and sugars.

Heart Scan Blog reader and dietitian, Lisa Grudzielanek, provided this recipe in response to the post, What's for breakfast?

Lisa, by the way, is one of the rare dietitians who understands that organizations like the American Dietetic Association have made themselves irrelevant. She therefore advocates diet principles that work, not just echoing the idiocy that emanates from such organizations, often driven by economics more than science. Lisa works in the Milwaukee area and has proven a useful resource person for my patients who have required extra coaching in the Track Your Plaque diet principles.

Egg Bake
My favorite breakfast is what I call an "egg bake." Others may refer to it as a "quiche."

Take a variety of fresh vegetables. This time of year is great for farmers' markets.

I typically use fresh chopped organic spinach, bell peppers, red & white onions, scallions, broccoli, mushrooms, cherry tomatoes halved and, if desired, meat (nitrite-free ham or leftover chicken breasts).

1) Chop veggies and place in casserole dish.
2) Add meat and handful of cheese of your choice.
3) Scramble 8 eggs & little bit of milk & pepper.
4) Add to casserole dish and mix/coat veggies with egg mixture.
5) Put in oven at 450 degress for 30 minutes.

Yummy, ready to eat breakfast that is so easy for the work week.

If you eliminate wheat from breakfast and otherwise adhere to a low-carbohydrate dietary approach, what is there to eat for breakfast?

If you take out English muffins, bagels, all breakfast cereals, pancakes, waffles, and toast, what's left to eat?

Actually, there's plenty left to eat. It just may not look like the traditional American notion of "breakfast." (The traditional idea of breakfast was is, in part, due to the legacy of Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, who, in the latter part of the 19th century, ran a sanitarium in Battle Creek Michigan. He and his brother, Will Keith Kellogg, discovered the idea of turning grains into flakes, the birth of the breakfast cereal. Subscribe to the idea of breakfast cereal for breakfast and you subscribe to the ideas of a man who would administer four enemas for you today to cure your cancer or rheumatism.)

Here are a few ideas. By no means is this meant to be a comprehensive list, just a starting point for a few new breakfast food ideas.

--Eggs--Of course, eat the yolk. Eat three yolks. Scrambled, "fried," (not really deep-fried, of course), hard-boiled, poached, as an omelette. Add pesto, olive oil, vegetables, mushrooms, salsa.

--Ground flaxseed--As a hot cereal with your choice of water, milk (not my favorite because of insulin effects; the fat is immaterial), full-fat soy milk (yeah, yeah, I know), unsweetened almond milk. Add walnuts, blueberries, etc. Ground flaxseed is the only grain I know of that contains no digestible carbohydrates.

--Lunch and dinner--Yes, if you cannot have breakfast foods for breakfast, then have lunch and dinner, meaning incorporating foods you ordinarily regard as lunch and dinner foods into your day's first meal. This means salads, leftover chicken from last night, soup, raw vegetables dipped in hummus or guacamole, stir fry, etc.

--Cheese--For something quick, grab a chunk of gouda or emmentaler along with a handful of raw almonds, walnuts, or pecans. Because of the excess acidity of cheese (along with meats, among the most acidifying of foods), I usually try to include something like a raw pepper or avocado, foods that are net alkaline.

--Avocados--Cut in half, scoop out contents. They're quick and delicious, when available.

I hesitate to mention it, but I sometimes will have tofu, cubed and flavored with whatever is available--soy sauce, miso, pickled vegetables. My mother was Japanese, so I'm comfortable with this, though many people are not.

Anyway, that's a partial list that nonetheless can get you started on a wheat-free, low-carb breakfast.

If you are just starting out, you will notice a number of fundamental changes. You may first experience the characteristic "withdrawal" effect: mental fog and fatigue that lasts about a week. Energy then picks up, often substantially. This is followed by gradually reduced appetite: You will be far less hungry. You will require less food, less often, since appetite will be driven by physiologic need, not the appetite-stimulating properties of wheat (and cornstarch, high-fructose cornsyrup and sucrose).

By the way, do not skip breakfast unless it's part of an occasional fasting effort. Skip breakfast, wind down metabolism, get fat. I am impressed at how consistent skipping breakfast backfires in those who think that it helps you control weight.

I also welcome any suggestions on what you eat as part of your wheat-free, low-carb breakfast. (Thanks for the great suggestions on the last blog post, Anna.)

Where do you find fructose?

Do heart scans cause cancer?

Goodbye, fructose

The statin-free life

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

Roger's near-miss CT angiogram experience

The Myth of Prevention: Letter to the Wall Street Journal

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

Sleep: A to Zzzzzzzzzz

Human foie gras

Let go of my love handles

Surviving a widow maker

Fred Hahn's Slow Burn

Can I stop my Coumadin?

Homegrown osteoporosis prevention and reversal

Your enlarged aorta

Extreme carbohydrate intolerance

What's for breakfast? Egg bake

What's for breakfast?