All posts by william-davis

You know that cynical old saying:

It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

In other words, knowing the right person provides you strategic advantage in business, social advancement, etc.

In health, it was often true. Knowing who the better doctors were, for instance, in your city might provide you with access to better care.

Enter the Information Age. You now have access to medical information equal to that of your doctor. You now have access to patient discussions about doctors, their practices, their performance records. There is now a depth and breadth of information on health that was never available before.

I’d therefore turn the old saying into the new Health 2.0 version:

It’s not who you know, it’s what you know.

In health, information now reigns supreme, not knowing somebody else who has the right connections.

Positive: Everybody now theoretically has access to an equal amount of information, since you can access information on any topic just as easily as I can.

Negative: It puts more of the burden on you. If you screw up in health, perhaps you didn’t try to get the best information hard enough.

I love this new development, this emergence of empowerment in health. I call it self-directed health, the individual capacity to exert enormous influence over the quality of your healthcare.

This is obviously a work in progress. All the answers and tools for self-directed care, self-empowerment are not yet available, some haven’t even yet been imagined.

But they are coming.

“Do you really think I need a heart scan?” asked Terry.

“My doctor said that heart scans show too many false positives. He says that many people end up getting unnecessary heart catheterizations because of them.”

At age 56, Terry was becoming increasingly frightened. His father had suffered his first heart attack at age 53, Terry’s paternal uncle had a heart attack at age 56, his paternal grandfather a heart attack at age 50.

Is this true? Do heart scans yield too many false positives, meaning abnormal results when there really is no abnormality?

No, it is not. What Terry’s doctor is referring to is the fact that, in the decades-long process that leads to heart attack, heart scans have the ability to detect early phases of developing coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Let’s take Terry’s case, for example. Given his family history, it is quite likely that he does indeed have coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Will it be detectable by performing a stress test? Probably not. In fact, Terry jogs and feels well while doing so. While a stress test abnormality that fails to reach conscious perception is possible, it’s fairly unlikely given his exercise routine.

Will Terry’s coronary atherosclerotic plaque be detectable by heart catheterization? Very likely. But why perform an invasive hospital procedure just as a screening test? Should a woman wishing to undergo a screening test for breast cancer undergo breast removal? Of course not.

Is waiting for symptoms a rational way to approach diagnosis of heart disease? Well, when symptoms appear, it means that coronary blood flow is reduced. Stents and bypass surgery may be indicated. The risk of heart attack and death skyrocket. Sudden death becomes a real possibility.

In the 30 or so years required to establish sufficient coronary plaque to permit the appearance of symptoms or the development of an abnormality detectable by stress testing, there were many years when the disease was early--too early to generate symptoms, too early to be detectable by stress testing.

That’s when heart scans uncover evidence for silent coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Should we call this a “false positive” just because it doesn’t also correlate with “need” for a catheterization, stent, bypass operation or result in heart attack within the next few weeks?

The detection of early plaque is just that: early disease detection.

Imagine, for instance, that the breast cancer that will grow into a palpable nodule or mass detectable by mammogram is detectable by a special breast scan 15 years before it becomes a full-blown tumor, metastasizing to other organs. What if effective means to halt that earliest evidence of cancer could put a stop to this devastating disease decades ahead of danger? Is this a “false positive” too?

In my view, this is the knuckleheaded thinking of the conventional practitioner: “Don’t bother me until you’re really sick.” Prevention is a practice that has become fashionable only because of the push of the drug industry. Nutrition is an afterthought, a message conceived through consensus of “experts” with suspect motivations and allegiances.

So, no, heart scans do not uncover “false positives.” They uncover early disease--true positives--years before it is detectable by standard tests or by the appearance of catastrophe. But that is the whole point: Early detection means getting a head start on prevention.

Do heart scans lead to unnecessary heart catheterizations? Yes, sadly they do. But not because heart scans are false positive. It happens because of unscrupulous or ignorant cardiologists who use the information wrongly. In my view, heart scans should NEVER lead directly to heart catheterization in an asymptomatic patient. Heart scans, as helpful as they are, do not modify the standard reasons for performing heart procedures.

If a car mechanic is dishonest and fixes a carburetor that didn't need fixing, should we condemn all car mechanics? No, of course not. We only need to develop the means to weed out the bad apples. The same applies to heart scans.

Here's a bit of lipid tedium that might nonetheless help you one day decipher the meaning of shifts in your cholesterol panel.

Recall from prior discussions that conventional LDL cholesterol is a calculated value. Contrary to popular opinion, LDL is usually not measured, but calculated from the Friedewald equation:

LDL cholesterol = Total cholesterol - HDL cholesterol - triglycerides/5

For the sake of simplicity, let's call total cholesterol TC; HDL cholesterol HDL, and triglycerides TG.

We've also talked in past how a low HDL makes calculated LDL inaccurate, sometimes wildly so. (See Low HDL makes Dr. Friedewald a liar.)

Here's yet another source of inaccuracy of the Friedewald-calculated LDL: any increase in triglycerides.

Let's say, for instance, that starting lipid panel shows:

TC 170 mg/dl
LDL 100 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
TG 100 mg/dl

You're advised to follow a standard low-fat, whole grain-rich diet advocated by "official" agencies (the diet I bash as knuckleheaded). Another panel a few months later shows:

TC 230 mg/dl
LDL 140 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
TG 200 mg/dl

(Obviously, I've oversimplified the response for the sake of argument. HDL would likely go down, LDL would change more depending on body weight, small LDL tendencies, and other factors. You'd also likely get fat.)

Now your doctor declares that your LDL has gone up and you "need" a statin agent.

Nonsense, absolute nonsense.

What has really happened is that the increased dietary intake of wheat and other "healthy whole-grain foods" has caused triglycerides to skyrocket. LDL increases, in turn, by a factor of TG/5, or 40 mg/dl. Thus, LDL has been inflated by the triglyceride-raising effect of whole grains.

This is yet another reason why the standard lipid panel, full of hazards and landmines, needs to be abandoned. But calculated LDL in particular is an exercise in frustration.

Though the example used is hypothetical, I've witnessed this effect thousands of times. I've also seen many people placed on statin drugs unnecessarily, due to the appearance of a high LDL cholesterol that really represented increased TG/5, usually induced by an excessive carbohydrate intake, including those commonly misrepresented as healthy such as whole grains.

In the Heart Scan Blog, I am often guilty of speaking out loud of my varied thoughts on this crazy thing that we've created called the cardiovascular healthcare machine. But I discuss it in the context of asking "How could this be done better--better outcomes, more patient-friendly, more accessible . . . more do-it-yourself?

The last part is the part that throws most people. Do-it-yourself? My colleagues would claim I'm nuts, suggesting that coronary heart disease is something manageable by yourself. In the conventional pathway, after all, coronary disease is that unpredictable, poorly detected by standard tests, condition that then leads to heart catheterization, stents, bypass , and the like.

Several factors distinguish the readers of The Heart Scan Blog that surprised me:

--Nearly 60% are women
--There are a disproportionate number of Asian people. (Can someone explain this to me?)
--A great number have graduate degrees

I believe this tells me that The Heart Scan Blog appeals to a somewhat more sophisticated audience. This, to some degree, warms my heart, since it means that I've captured the attention of some people who may be more discriminating and thoughtful in their Internet surfing.

However, I also lament the fact that these conversations are not achieving the mainstream. After all,

Lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), can be a tough nut to crack.

Having struggled and wrestled with this genetic pattern for the last 12 years or so in hundreds of patients, I have gained great respect for this difficult to control pattern.

I regard lipoprotein(a) as the number one most aggressive cause for heart disease and coronary plaque known. It can account for heart attacks in men in their 40s, women in their 50s. It can cause heart disease and heart attacks in even the ultra-fit like marathon runners. It accounts for both excessive coronary risk and misleading cholesterol values in slender, healthy-appearing people.

Niacin is the number one treatment choice for Lp(a), followed by testosterone for men, estrogens (preferably human, not horse or other non-human mammal) for women. I then often resort to DHEA, along with adjunctive nutritional agents like raw almonds, ground flaxseed, and others.

Our most recent addition to the Lp(a) treatment list is high-dose fish oil, which appears to exert a significant effect in about 40% of people with Lp(a).

Even with this multi-agent approach, not everybody gains control over Lp(a).

That makes me wonder if someone has Lp(a) at a substantial level of, say, 200 nmol/L or 70 mg/dl (values can differ tremendously, depending on the method of measurement), should we throw everything but the kitchen sink at Lp(a) from the start? Right now, by adding an agent one at a time, it often takes two years to gain control over Lp(a) (if we are going to get it at all).

While many people might find this unpalatable and overwhelming from the starting gate of their program, I do believe it may be a strategy we should consider adopting for full and more immediate plaque control in the Track Your Plaque program. Something to chew on.

Clearly, we need better answers for Lp(a). A "kitchen sink," full-frontal assault might be a way to gain faster control, though not necessarily a superior approach with regards to efficacy and potency.

There are a number of unique, potentially effective therapies for Lp(a) that are worth examining. Given the difficulty of performing clinical trials with non-drug agents (largely a lack of financial support, since nobody gets a financial return with non-patent-protectable agents), I am anxious to put these potential treatments to a test in the Track Your Plaque program Virtual Clinical Trail (VCT). The VCT gives us a quick and relatively easy method to test various potential treatments, with feedback generated in months, rather than years.

Any suggestions on promising agents to test? Of course, they must be widely available nutritional agents, not drugs.

Colleen started with the usual discrepancy between conventional calculated LDL cholesterol of 121 mg/dl and the far more accurate LDL particle number (NMR) of 1927 nmol/L.

Those of you following this conversation or our many conversations on the Track Your Plaque Forum know that a useful and highly reliable rule-of-thumb for converting NMR LDL particle number to LDL is to drop the last digit: 1927 nmol/L becomes 192 mg/dl. (This is, admitttedly, arrived at empirically, not by design. However, it has held up through thousands of NMR analyses and plays out reasonably when you compare distributions of Friedewald LDL and LDL particle number on a population basis.)

In other words, by this simple manipulation, Colleen's Friedewald calculated LDL is off by 58%. This is very common, a phenomenon I witness several times every day.

By LDL particle size, 75% of all Colleen's LDL particle were abnormally small (small LDL particle number 1440 nmol/L). This is a moderately severe small LDL tendency.

So we took all the steps for reduction of small LDL/LDL, including elimination of wheat and cornstarch, exercise, weight loss (which happens inevitably when wheat and cornstarch are eliminated), fish oil, vitamin D, etc.

Another NMR lipoprotein panel showed an LDL particle number of 882 nmol/L and a Friedewald calculated LDL of 87 mg/dl. Using our rule-of-thumb, LDL by particle number is virtually the same as the calculated LDL. This time, small LDL numbered only 237 nmol/L, or 26.8% of the total, a marked reduction.

Isn't that interesting? As small LDL is corrected, the crude Friedwald calculated LDL approximates the more accurate LDL particle number.

It assumes that accuracy of the Friedewald calculation may be more likely to occur as LDL size approaches normal. However, when LDL size is abnormally small--a condition shared by at least 70% of people with coronary heart disease--then the Friedewald LDL becomes increasingly inaccurate.

The opposite can also happen: When all or nearly all LDL particles are large, Friedewald calculated LDL can markedly overestimate LDL particle number. Yesterday, for instance, a patient had a Friedewald calculated LDL of 183 mg/dl, but an NMR particle number of 1110 nmol/L--drop the zero . . . LDL 110 mg/dl. This woman was advised to take a statin drug by her primary care physician, based on the Friedewald LDL. Instead, she proved to have a far lower LDL. She would not have benefitted from taking a statin drug.

As I've warned many times before: Beware the Friedewald calculated LDL.

The last post on vitamin D raised a number of basic questions among readers. So let me discuss some of these questions one by one. All of them raise important issues surrounding the practical aspects of managing vitamin D in your health.

Anne said:

I think it is important to stress that vitamin D supplementation needs to be continued long term.

I have met too many people who have been prescribed 50,000 IU of D2 for 8-12 weeks and then told to stop because their 23(OH)D went over 30ng/ml. I know one person who's doctor stopped and started the D2 3 times.

Thanks for pointing that out, Anne. Excellent point. I also see doctors do this with statin drugs: start it, check a LDL level which is lower, then think that you're done and stop the drug. What the heck are they thinking?

If vitamin D is not being produced by sun exposure and not obtainable through diet, continued supplementation is necessary, essentially for life.

Twinb asked:

How often you think Vit. D levels should be tested after the initial test is done, especially if the levels are drastically low?

We have used every 6 months in the office. Ideally, levels are in mid-summer and mid- to-late winter in order to gauge the extremes of your seasonal fluctuations. While most adults over 40 fail to fluctuate more than 10 ng/ml in the Wisconsin climate (and this summer, after an initial rainy season early, has been flawlessly bright and sunny, in the high-70s and 80s every single day for months), an occasional person fluctuates more widely. The only way to judge is to check a blood level.

Rich said:

Vitamin D dosage effects appear to be quite idiosyncratic.

Yes, indeed it is. Despite using crude rules-of-thumb, like taking 1000 units of vitamin D per 10 ng/ml desired (a rule I learned from Dr. John Cannell, which he offered fully aware of its inaccuracy), many people will surprise you and have levels that make no sense. Testing is crucial to know your vitamin D level.

Richard asked: Where do we get enough vitamin D wihout worring about laboratory tests?

Well, the entire point of the post was that you absolutely, positively cannot just take vitamin D blindly at any dose and hope that your level is ideal, no more than you can blindly take a dose of thyroid and know you have achieved normal thyroid levels. In my view, vitamin D blood levels are an absolute.

Another simple issue: Don't be afraid of vitamin D. It is, in all practicality, no more dangerous than getting a dark tan. (But, as many of you realize, getting a tan is no assurance of raising vitamin D if you are over 40 years old.)

Wouldn't it be great if someone developed a do-it-yourself-at-home skin test for vitamin D? I know of no effort to develop this, but it would be a huge advantage for all of us.

It’s probably the number one most common question I get today:

“How much vitamin D should I take?”

Like asking for investing advice, there are no shortage of people willing to provide answers, most of them plain wrong.

The media are quick to offer advice like “Take the recommended daily allowance of 400 units per day,” or “Some experts say that intake of vitamin D should be higher, as high as 2000 units per day.” Or “Be sure to get your 15 minutes of midday sun.”

Utter nonsense.

The Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine has been struggling with this question, also. They have an impossible job: Draft broad pronouncements on requirements for various nutrients by recommending Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) for all Americans. The Food and Nutrition Board has tried to factor in individual variation by breaking vitamin D requirements down by age and sex, but what amounts to a one-size-fits-nearly-all approach.

Much of the uncertainty over dosing stems from the fact that vitamin D should not be called a “vitamin.” Vitamins are nutrients obtained from foods. But, outside of oily fish, you'll find very little naturally-occurring vitamin D in food. (Even in fish, there is generally no more than 400 units per 4 oz. serving.) Sure, there’s 20 units in an egg yolk and you can activate the vitamin D in a shiitake mushroom by exposing it to ultraviolet radiation. Dairy products like milk (usually) contain vitamin D because the USDA mandates it. But food sources hardly help at all unless you’re an infant or small child.

It all makes sense when vitamin D is viewed as a hormone, a steroid hormone, not a vitamin. Vitamin-no, steroid hormone-D exerts potent effects in tiny quantities with hormone-like action in cells, including activation of nuclear receptors.

It is the only hormone that is meant to be activated by sun exposure of the skin, not obtained through diet. But the ability to activate D is lost by the majority of us by age 40 and even a dark tan is no assurance that sufficient skin prohormone D activation has taken place.

As with any other hormone, such as thyroid, parathyroid, or growth hormones, dose needs to be individualized.

Imagine you developed a severely low thyroid condition that resulted in 30 lbs of weight gain, lose your hair, legs swell, and heart disease explodes. Would you accept that you should take the same dose of thyroid hormone as every other man or woman your age, regardless of your body size, proportion of body fat, metabolism, genetics, race, dietary habits, and other factors that influence thyroid hormone levels? Of course you wouldn’t.

Then why would anyone insist that vitamin D be applied in a one-size-fits-all fashion? (There’s another world in which a one-size-fits-all approach to hormone replacement has been widely applied, that of female estrogen replacement. In conventional practice, there’s no effort to identify need, estrogen-progesterone interactions, nor assess the adequacy of dose, not to mention the perverse non-human preparation used.)

With thyroid hormone, ideal replacement dose of hormone ranges widely from one person to another. Some people require 25 mcg per day of T4; others require 800% greater doses. Many require T3, but not everybody.

Likewise, vitamin D requirements can range widely. I have used anywhere from 1000 units per day, all the way up to 16,000 units per day before desirable blood levels were achieved.

Vitamin D dose needs to be individualized. Factors that influence vitamin D need include body size and percent body fat (both of which increase need substantially); sex (males require, on average, 1000 units per day more than females); age (older need more); skin color (darker-skinned races require more, fairer-skinned races less); and other factors that remain ill-defined.

But these are “rules” often broken. My office experience with vitamin D now numbers nearly 1000 patients. The average female dose is 4000-5000 units per day, average male dose 6000 units per day to achieve a blood level of 60-70 ng/ml, though there are frequent exceptions. I’ve had 98 lb women who require 12,000 units, 300 lb men who require 1000 units, 21-year olds who require 10,000 units. (Of course, this is a Wisconsin experience. However, regional differences in dosing needs diminish as we age, since less and less vitamin D activation occurs.)

Let me reiterate: Steroid hormone-vitamin D dose needs to be individualized.

There’s only one way to individualize your need for vitamin D and thereby determine your dose: Measure a blood level.

Nobody can gauge your vitamin D need by looking at you, by your skin color, size, or other simple measurement like weight or body fat. A vitamin D blood level needs to be measured specifically-period.

Unfortunately, many people balk at this, claiming either that it’s too much bother or that their doctor refused to measure it.

I would rank normalizing steroid hormone-vitamin D as among the most important things you can do for your health. It should never be too much bother. And if your doctor refuses to at least discuss why he/she won’t measure it, then it’s time for a new doctor.

If you’re worried about adding to rising healthcare costs by adding yet another blood test, think of the money saved by sparing you from a future of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, diabetes, etc. The cost of a vitamin D blood test is relatively trivial (around $40-50, a fraction of the cost of a one month supply of a drug for diabetes.)

So how much vitamin D should you take? Enough to raise your blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D to normal. (We aim for a normal level of 60-70 ng/ml.)

The results of the recent Heart Scan Blog survey in response to the question: MY DAILY DOSE OF EPA + DHA FROM FISH OIL IS revealed:

Zero--I don't take any
17 (7%) of respondents

Less than 1000 mg per day
24 (10%) of respondents

1000-2000 mg per day
91 (38%) of respondents

2000-3000 mg per day
44 (18%) of respondents

3000-4000 mg per day
40 (16%) of respondents

More than 4000 mg per day
20 (8%) of respondents

Based on the above results, I would say that only a minority of respondents are taking an ideal dose of omega-3 fatty acids. Nearly all of us should consider taking more.

Benefits of omega-3 fatty acids (EPA + DHA) from fish oil begin around a dose of 840 mg per day, according to the GISSI Prevenzione Trial of 1999, an 11,000-participant trial. This dose also corresponds to a quantity of omega-3s that have been shown to raise EPA + DHA blood levels and thereby reduce the notoriously high AA:EPA ratio of Americans.

But what dose is sufficient? What dose is ideal?

Well, the answer to a great degree depends on what you are taking the fish oil for. If being taken to reduce triglycerides and triglyceride-containing lipoproteins, like VLDL and the after-eating (postprandial) IDL, then a higher dose will be necessary. (Triglyceride reduction for the genetically-determined very high triglyceride level of familial hypertriglyceridemia is the FDA-approved indication for prescription Lovaza.)

If you are taking fish oil for treatment of ADHD, depression, or bipolar illness, very high doses are often necessary.

But how about maximal reduction of cardiovascular risk and for control or reversal of atherosclerotic plaque?

This conversation is still evolving. But we can learn some important lessons from three populations of the world that are vigorous consumers of fish:

--The Inuits (aka Eskimos) of Greenland and northern Canada
--The Japanese
--The Bantus of Tanzania who live along Nyasa Lake

All three indigenous populations have several-fold greater intakes of fish and omega-3 fatty acids, have higher blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids, and have enjoyed reduced cardiovascular events, reduced atherosclerotic plaque, or improvement in various surrogates of cardiovascular risk (e.g., Lp(a)).

The most recent addition to this conversation is the ERA JUMP Study, discussed in a previous Heart Scan Blog post. In ERA JUMP, despite being heavy smokers and having other markers for greater risk for heart disease, Japanese men living in Japan had markedly less carotid and coronary plaque, as compared to Caucasian men living in PIttsburgh or Hawaiian men of Japanese descent. The difference appeared to be attributable to serum levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

I believe that the trend is here is to increase the amount of omega-3 fatty acids that most of us take. In the Track Your Plaque program, we have been advocating a rock-bottom starting dose of EPA + DHA of 1200 mg per day. However, I believe that this is due for a change.

We will be increasing the minimum dose for plaque regression and control. Please attend our Webinar this evening for a full, in-depth discussion of the rationale behind this important change.

As always, let me remind you that I am not selling, nor ever have sold, fish oil supplements. If I advocate a specific dose, a higher dose, I do so based on my interpretation of the data and experience with patients, not because I am interested in selling brand X of fish oil.

Despite the paucity of scientific documentation of this phenomenon, I am continuing to witness extraordinary increases in HDL cholesterol levels with vitamin D supplementation.

I've touched on the interaction of vitamin D supplementation with HDL in The Heart Scan Blog previously:

Vitamin D: Treatment for metabolic syndrome?

HDL for Dummies

At first, I thought it was attributable to other factors. In real life, most people don't modify one factor at a time. They reduce
processed carbohydrates/eliminate wheat and cornstarch, lose weight, add or increase omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, begin niacin, increase exercise and physical activity. All these efforts also impact on HDL.

Among the many things I do, I consult on complex lipid (cholesterol) disorders (complex hyperlipidemias) in my office. A substantial number of these people carry a diagnosis of hypoalphalipoproteinemia, a mouthful that simply means these people are unable to manufacture much apoprotein A1, the principal protein of HDL cholesterol particles. As a result, people with hypoalphalipoproteinemia have HDL cholesterol levels in the neighborhood of 20-30 mg/dl--very low. They are also at high risk for heart disease and stroke.

Encourage these people to exercise, attain ideal weight, eliminate wheat and cornstarch: HDL increases 5 mg/dl or so.

Add niacin, HDL increases another 5-10 mg/dl.

Perhaps we're now sitting somewhere around an HDL of 35-40 mg/dl--better, but hardly great.

Add vitamin D to achieve our target serum level . . . HDL jumps to 50, 60, 70, even 90 mg/dl.

The first few times this occurred, I thought it was an error or fluke. But now that I've witnessed this effect many dozens of time, I am convinced that it is real. Just today, I saw a 40-year old man whose starting HDL was 25 mg/dl increase to 87 mg/dl.

Responses like this are supposed to be impossible. Before vitamin D, I had never witnessed increases of this magnitude.

Not all therapies for raising HDL raise the important large (also known as HDL2b) fraction. With lipoprotein analyses, it appears that is principally the large fraction of HDL that rises with vitamin D supplementation.

Why? How?

That I can't tell you. But for those of you struggling with low HDL cholesterols despite your best efforts, vitamin D can make a world of difference.

An interesting corollary: If super-high HDL cholesterols are associated with extreme longevity, as they are with centenarians, does raising HDL to extraordinary levels with vitamin D lead to longer, healthier life, all the way up to age 110 years?

Again, no answers, but an interesting thought. And one I'd bet on. (And I'm not selling vitamin D.)

The edgy nutrition advocate, Mike Adams, over at NewsTarget.com came up with this scary photo tour of a processed meat product from Oscar Mayer: Mystery Meat Macrophotography: A NewsTarget PhotoTour by Mike Adams

Along with increasingly close-up photographs of this meat-product, Adams lists the ingredients in Oscar Mayer's Cotto Salami:

Beef hearts
Pork
Water
Corn syrup
Beef

Contains less than 2% of:
Salt
Sodium lactate
Flavor
Sodium phosphates
Sodium diacetate
Sodium erythorbate
Dextrose
Sodium nitrite
Soy lecithin
Potassium phosphate
Potassium chloride
Sugar

As I reconsider the role of saturated fat in diet, given the startlingly insightful discussion by Gary Taubes of Good Calories, Bad Calories, I am reminded that not all meat is meat, not all saturated fat sources are equal.

I am concerned in particular about sodium nitrite content, a color-fixer added to cured meats that caused a stir in the 1970s when data suggesting a carcinogenic effect surfaced. The public's effort to remove sodium nitrite from the food supply was vigorously opposed by the meat council and it remains in cured meats like sausage, hot dogs, and processed meats like Cotto Salami. A 2006 meta-analysis (combined analysis of studies) of 63 studies did indeed suggest that sodium nitrite was related to increased risk of gastric cancer. This argument is plausible from animal models of cancer risk, as 40 animal models have likewise suggested the same carcinogenic association.

Also, fructose? This is most likely added for sweetness. Recall that fructose heightens appetite and raises triglycerides substantially.

I personally have a natural aversion to meat. I don't like the taste, the look, smell, and the thought of what the animal went through to make it to the supermarket. But, considered from the cold, carnivorous viewpoint of the question, "Is meat okay to eat?", among the issues to consider is whether the meat has been cured or processed, and does that process include addition of sodium nitrite.

Cotto Salami and similar products are not, of course, what carnivorous humans in the wild ate. This is a processed, modified product created from factory farm animals raised in cramped conditions and fed corn and other cheap, available foods. It is not created from free-ranging animals wandering their pastures or pens, eating diets nature intended. This results in modified fat composition, not to mention hormones and antibiotics added. These are not listed on the ingredients. Wild meat does not contain fructose or color-fixers, either.

So don't mistake "meat" in your grocery store for meat. It might look and smell the same--until you look a little closer.

Copyright 2007 William Davis, MD

After Merck's third go at FDA approval for over-the-counter (OTC) status for its statin cholesterol drug, Mevacor (lovastatin), the FDA advisory board suggested that its request be denied. They expressed concern that too many people would not understand how the drugs would be used and that misuse would be common.

Similar sentiments were echoed by Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen; the American Medical Association (though the AMA always fights anything that threatens to erode physician control over health); and the de facto spokesman for cardiologists, Dr. Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic.

Although I am a supporter for tools and legislation that yield greater self-empowerment in health care to the public, there is no need to lament the failed OTC status for Mevacor. For one, Merck had no plans to reduce the price on its OTC preparation. For many people, this would have meant an increase in cost, since health insurers would surely not cover a non-prescription agent.

Second, OTC status sends the implicit message that cholesterol is the most common cause of heart disease; it is not. (Small LDL particles are the number one cause, a pattern only partially addressed by any statin drug and a pattern largely responsible for the failure of statin drugs to "cure" heart disease despite pharmaceutical manufacturer's attempts to increase doses to take up any slack in effect.)

Thirdly, you can achieve the same effect--no, a superior effect--by incorporating several simple strategies into your life. These strategies are superior to Mevacor because they do more than just reduce LDL cholesterol. You can achieve similar LDL-reducing effect to Mevacor, 20 mg, just by adding:

--2 tablespoons oat bran or ground flaxseed per day (choose flaxseed if you have sugar problems or small LDL; flaxseed contains no digestible sugars, only protein and fiber)
--Raw almonds or walnuts--at least a handful, though more is fine and will not make you fat. (It's nuts like party mixes, mixed nuts roasted in unhealthy oils, and honey-roasted nuts that make us fat, not raw.)
--Soy protein sources--probably the weakest effect of all foods listed, but a contributor that can be obtained in a variety of forms, such as tofu, soy protein powders, and soy milk.
--Other foods that reduce LDL include pectin sources (e.g., citrus rind), flavonoids (e.g., green tea); stanol esters found in butter substitute Benecol (recall that sterol-containing products like Take Control and the flood of new products on the market like HeartWise orange juice might have potential for allowing sterol esters to enter the blood, so I do NOT recommend them); and, of course, niacin.

Many of these strategies also reduce small LDL, raise HDL, reduce triglycerides, and reduce blood sugar, effects that go beyond that achieved with Mevacor. Of course, a combination strategy is not as easy as popping one pill a day, it's better for you.

I will certainly not shed any tears for Merck and its relentless efforts to gain a stronger foothold in the "transform conditions into diseases" marketing strategy, the same strategy that classifies shyness, toe fungus, and sadness into medical conditions necessitating medication. While I do generally support efforts to increase public access to strategies that increase their health care power, this one was not necessarily all good.

Members of Track Your Plaque can read the complete report, Unique nutritional strategies to Reduce cholesterol naturally on the Track Your Plaque website.

Copyright 2007 William Davis, MD

Medical device manufacturer, Cordis, is launching a new marketing program to promote its Cypher drug-coated stent. You can view the details at www.CypherUSA.com , including the slick TV commercial that HeartHawk posted a blog about.

The campaign opens with:

When you open up your heart, you open up your life.

Lives hampered by angina. By shortness of breath. By restricted blood flow. These lives are changing. Because of a state-of-the-art advancement. One that can have a huge impact on arteries around your heart. The CYPHER® Stent. It can open up your arteries. Increase flow of blood and oxygen. And change your restricted life. To an active life worth living. Your new life is...

Life Wide Open

Direct-to-consumer drug advertising has been around for a few years. While it has increased awareness of drugs and the "conditions" they are supposed to treat, it has also highlighted the aggressive profit-motive of the drug industry. This is not health care for the needy and sick, but health care for profit.

So now we're beginning to see the emergence of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising for medical devices. There was also a brief, though unsuccessful, foray into DTC advertising for implantable defibrillators, of all things, by Medtronic a couple of years ago, also.

What is the purpose of Cordis' marketing effort? Is it to educate and inform the public who might unknowingly receive non-drug coated stents and be deprived of the restenosis-inhibiting advantage of a drug-coated device? Is it meant to right a systematic wrong, a failure of cardiologists to insert the technologically, biologically, and ethically superior coated stents?

I find that doubtful. A more likely motive is damage control. With some of the (both deserved and undeserved) negative press the drug-coated stents have received lately, Cordis, eager to protect their $20 billion (annual revenues, 2006) medical device franchise, came up with this DTC strategy. After viewing the smiling faces of people , elated because of their "wide open" arteries and lives, Cordis hopes to see people going to their doctors insisting on the stent that is "opening millions of lives," since, "when your arteries narrow, so does your life."

Cool, trendy, liberating. That's the message they wish to deliver. Cool music, beautiful people, flashy high-tech images. Who wouldn't want a Cypher stent?

Beyond damage control, it's a familiar marketing theme: You're slender, glamorous, and sexy if you drink Coke, you're a caring mother if you feed your children Jif peanut butter, you're health conscious and smart if you eat Total cereal . . . you're cool and know what you want from life if you insist on a Cypher stent.

I don't object to advertising. It's part of the capitalistic economic system. It drives awareness and grows businesses. I do get concerned when advertising is so slick and effective that the people who are not properly armed with information can be duped into thinking that they need something that they don't really need.

Or, for which there are powerful, viable alternatives. Even hear about "prevent the disease in the first place?"

The Framingham Risk Calculator is a standard method used by many physicians to predict risk for heart attack or death from heart disease over a 10-year period. Low-risk is defined as <10% risk of heart attack or cardiac death over 10 years; high-risk is defined as 20% or more over 10 years; intermediate-risk is in between.

Let's put it to the test:

Amy is a 53-year old businesswoman. She is 5 ft 4 inches, weighs 150 lbs. Her father had a heart attack in his early 50s followed by the usual list of hospital procedures including bypass surgery at age 60.

What is Amy's risk for heart attack or death from heart disease over the next 10 years? If we enter her data into the Framingham risk calculator, the following result is returned:

Information about your risk score:
Age: 53
Gender: female
Total Cholesterol: 198 mg/dL
HDL Cholesterol: 74 mg/dL
Smoker: No
Systolic Blood Pressure: 120 mm/Hg
On medication for HBP: No
Risk Score: 1% Means 1 of 100 people with this level of risk will have a heart attack in the next 10 years.

So, according to the Framingham calculation, Amy has <1% risk for heart attack or death from heart disease over the next 10 years. Most primary care physicians would, at most, prescribe a statin drug and talk about a reduction in saturated fat.

Thankfully, Amy didn't fall for that bit of conventional mis-information. She instead got a CT heart scan, principally because of her father's history. Her score: 117. At age 53, this put her into 90th percentile, in the worst 10% of scores for women in her age group (50-55). By heart scan criteria, her risk for heart attack is probably more like 4-5% per year, or approximately 40-50% over the next 10 years.

Let's do just a bit more math. If Amy hadn't known about her heart scan score and no preventive action was taken, the expected progression of her heart scan scores would likely be:

Start: 117
Year 1: 152
Year 2: 198
Year 3: 257
Year 4: 335
Year 5: 436
Year 6: 567
Year 7: 737
Year 8: 958
Year 9: 1245
Year 10: 1618

In fact, given Amy's starting heart scan score of 117, it is highly unlikely that she survives the next 10 years without heart attack or a fatal heart event. Yet the Framingham risk calculator puts Amy's risk at less than 1%. Could anything be more wrong?

The folly of the Framingham calculator was highlighted by a recent publication from the large Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), in which 3600 women (45-84 years), all of whom fell into the "low-risk" category by the Framingham calculator--just like Amy--were tracked over approximately 3 3/4 years. This study generated several observations:

1) 30% of the "low-risk" women had positive heart scan scores.
2) 5% of the "low-risk" women had scores of 300 or greater (very significant for a woman). 8.6% of these women experienced a cardiovascular event like heart attack or death over the period. Women with a heart scan score of 300 or greater had a 22-fold greater event risk compared to women with zero heart scan scores.
3) Women with heart scan scores of 1 to 299 had a cardiovascular event risk of approximately 5-fold greater risk over the period.

Across the U.S., 90% of women younger than 70 years old fall into the Framingham "low-risk" category. Yet this fiction is accepted as the prevailing standard, along with LDL and total cholesterol, for determination of risk in women and men.

In my view, using the Framingham risk calculator is a misguided, misleading path, one that will mis-classify a substantial number of women who could otherwise be spared from heart attack and catastrophe.

By the way, Amy is also the Track Your Plaque program record holder (by percentage drop), with a 63% drop in heart scan score over a 15 month period.

Niacin:

--Raises HDL and shifts HDL towards the healthier large (HDL2b) subclass.
--Reduces total LDL.
--Reduces small LDL particles.
--Reduces triglycerides and triglyceride-containing particles like VLDL and IDL (intermediate-density lipoprotein).
--Reduces fibrinogen.
--Reduces inflammatory responses.

Weight loss achieved through a low-carbohydrate (read "wheat-free") diet:

--Raises HDL and shifts HDL towards the healthier large (HDL2b) subclass.
--Reduces total LDL.
--Reduces small LDL particles.
--Reduces triglycerides and triglyceride-containing particles like VLDL and IDL (intermediate-density lipoprotein).
--Reduces fibrinogen.
--Reduces inflammatory responses.

Curious, isn't it? Niacin achieves virtually the same effect as weight loss achieved through a low-carbohydrate diet, particularly if free of wheat products. The only major difference is that niacin also reduces lipoprotein(a), though even that distinction shrinks if monounsaturated fat sources like almonds are included in a low-carbohydrate program.

So which should you do first if you have any of the above patterns? Well, it's a question of 1) severity, 2) how carbohydrate-rich your starting diet is, 3) how much weight you could stand to lose, and 4) how urgent your program is (determined largely by your heart scan score).

Niacin can also be very helpful if you've taken full advantage of weight loss through a carbohydrate-restricted program, yet still retain some of the abnormal lipoprotein patterns that could continue to grow coronary plaque. For instance, if HDL cholesterol rises from 28 to 40 mg/dl by eliminating wheat and reducing carbohydrates and losing weight, niacin could raise HDL to 50 mg/dl or higher.

As much as I love and use niacin for its broad array of plaque-controlling effects, a low-carbohydrate, wheat-free diet can achieve many of the same effects. Use this strategy to full advantage.

Every once in a while, we will see someone experience more-than-expected rate of coronary plaque growth, a sudden jump in heart scan scores. I'm talking about increases in score of 50%, even 100%, sometimes despite favorable lipid and lipoprotein patterns.

It's not always easy to pin this phenomenon down, since we often detect it after a year or more on a repeat heart scan. It would be wonderfully insightful to perform heart scans more frequently and track plaque growth more precisely, but of course, radiation exposure is the most important limiting factor, as is cost.

So this list is, admittedly, speculative. It is based on observation, on presumptive associations between events and heart scan scores. But, judging from what we do confidently know about coronary atherosclerotic plaque, I think these observations make physiologic sense.

These are the sorts of increases in heart scan score that can scare the heck out of you, silent yet explosive growth of coronary atherosclerotic plaque that can grow with no warning whatsoever.

Image courtesy Wikipedia and the United States Geological Survey.

Factors which I have observed to possibly be responsible for explosive plaque growth include:

--Overwhelming tragedy such as death of a loved one, financial ruin, divorce. One of my early and catastrophic failures was a young man in his early 40s who, in the space of just a few months, suffered the loss of his mother, a brother, and his mother-in-law, while working a high-stress job. His heart scan score doubled from around 100 to 200 in one year, despite perfect lipoproteins. He had a heart attack shortly after the second score, despite a normal stress test just months earlier. (Pessimism is tragedy's weak cousin, but one that still holds power to corrupt our otherwise best efforts at plaque reversal.)

--Substantial weight gain. In the early years of the Track Your Plaque program, before it was even called "Track Your Plaque," I witnessed a man more than double his score from 1100 to 2400 in 18 months just by allowing himself to gain 40 lbs. (I don't know what became of him. His life apparently suffered other disasters, as well, and we lost track of him.)

--Poorly-controlled diabetes. High blood sugars out of control have yielded explosive growth.

--Kidney disease--However, I am uncertain of how much this overlaps with a deficiency of vitamin D's active form, 1,25-OH-vitamin D3, the form that is often deficient in people with dysfunctional kidneys.

--An inflammatory disease that is out of control, e.g., rheumatoid arthritis.

--This is very speculative, but I've witnessed explosive growth after vaccine administration that yielded strange viral-like symptoms. In this one instance, the man was getting heart scans (on his own) every three to six months and described a severe illness following a vaccine administered in preparation for travel out of the U.S.

--Unrecognized low thyroid function--i.e., hypothyroidism. This is easily corrected with thyroid hormone replacement.

These factors can also be relative and they can be overcome. Look at our current Track Your Plaque reversal record-holder: a 53-year old woman who dropped her heart scan score an amazing 63% despite the loss of a loved one during the 15 months of her program. Despite an overwhelming tragedy, she overcame the potential adverse effects and set a record, probably a record for the entire world.

In his most recent Vitamin D Council Newsletter (reprinted in its entirety below, minus clickable links, as Dr. Cannell apparently lost his webmaster and this issue of the newsletter is therefore not posted on the Vitamin D Council website; if you would like to either donate money to the Vitamin D Council or pitch in with help with his website, go to www.vitamindcouncil.com), Dr. John Cannell once again enlightens us with some new insights into vitamin D and its enormous role in health. In this issue, he discusses the role of vitamin D in people diagnosed with cancer (treatment, not prevention).

While cancer is not our focus on the Heart Scan Blog, Dr. Cannell's always insightful comments provide some helpful thoughts for our management of vitamin D doses and blood levels.

Dr. Cannell cites a recent study from vitamin D research expert, Dr. Bruce Hollis:

In the first study of its kind, Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina gave all of us something to think about. He asked and answered a simple question: How much vitamin D do you have to take to normalize the metabolism of vitamin D?

Remember, unlike other steroid hormones, vitamin D has very unusual metabolism in most modern humans, called first-order, mass action, kinetics. All this means is that the more vitamin D you take, the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, and the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, the higher the levels of activated vitamin D in your tissues. No other steroid hormone in the body behaves like this. Think about it: would you like your estrogen level to be dependent on how much cholesterol you ate? Or your cortisol level? (I'd ask the same about testosterone levels but I know men well enough not to ask.) No, the body must tightly regulate powerful steroid hormones through substrate inhibition, that is, if an enzyme turns A into B, when the body has enough B, B inhibits the enzyme and so limits its own production.

Not so with vitamin D, at least at modern human vitamin D levels. Professor Reinhold Vieth was the first to write about this and Vieth's Chapter 61 in Feldman, Pike, and Glorieux's wonderful textbook, Vitamin D (Elsevier, 2005, second edition), is a great reason to buy the textbook or have your library do so. (I'm glad to see Amazon is out of stock of the new ones (someone must be reading about vitamin D) but you can still buy used editions.)

Why would the kinetics of vitamin D be different from all other steroids? Maybe they are not, Hollis reasoned, like Vieth before him. Maybe vitamin D levels are so low in modern humans that its metabolic system is on full blast all the time in an attempt to give the body all the vitamin D metabolites it craves. So Hollis asked, Is vitamin D's metabolism different in populations in the upper end of 25(OH)D levels (a population of sun-exposed people and a group of women prescribed 7,000 IU per day)? Note, the Hollis study is free on Medline, you can download the entire paper on the right hand of the PubMed page below.

Hollis BW, et al. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-634.

If you look at the two graphs, Figures 1 and 2 of Hollis' paper, you find vitamin D's kinetics can be normalized, made just like all other steroid hormones in the body, but you have to get enough sunshine or take enough vitamin D to get your 25(OH)D level above 50 ng/ml, and 60 ng/ml would be better. Then your body starts to store cholecalciferol in the body without much further increase in 25(OH)D levels. The reaction becomes saturable. This is a remarkable discovery and it implies levels of 30 and 40 ng/ml are usually not sufficient. It also implies actual vitamin D levels (cholecalciferol levels), not just 25(OH)D levels, may be useful in diagnosing and treating deficiency. Note, that not all of the sun-exposed individuals or women prescribed 7,000 IU/day achieved such levels. That's because the sun-exposed individuals were tested after an Hawaiian winter and because prescribing and taking are two different things.

In answer to the question, "How much vitamin D should someone with cancer take?," Dr. Cannell advises:
"Take enough to get your 25(OH)D level above 60 ng/ml, summer and winter." In doing so, you will have normalized the kinetics of vitamin D and stored the parent compound, cholecalciferol, in your tissues. In the absence of sunshine, you need to take about 1,000 IU/day per 30 pounds of body weight to do this. A 150 pound cancer patient may need to take 5,000 IU per day, a 210 pound cancer patient about 7,000 IU per day, all this in the absence of sunlight.

Dr. Cannell, no stranger to the resisitance among many practicing physicians unaware of the expanding and robust literature on vitamin D, advises people with cancer that:
In the end, if you have cancer and your physician won't do a risk/benefit analysis, do it yourself. The risk side of that equation is easy. Both Quest Diagnostics and Lab-Corp, the two largest reference labs in the USA, report the upper limit of 25(OH)D normal is 100 ng/ml and toxic is above 150 ng/ml, so 60 ng/ml is well below both. The reason levels up to 100 ng/ml are published normals is because there is no credible evidence in the literature that levels of 100 ng/ml do any harm and because sun worshipers often have such levels. (If you don't believe me, go to the beach in the summer for one month, sunbath every day for 30 minutes on each side in your bathing suit, and go home and have a 25(OH)D level.) By getting your level above 60 ng/ml, all you are doing is getting your levels into the mid to upper range of laboratory reference normals. Little or no risk.

For readers wishing to read the entire text of Dr. Cannell's newsletter, it is reprinted below:

The Vitamin D Newsletter
January, 2008

The January newsletter is coming early as I will be out of touch for awhile. If you remember, the last newsletter was on preventing cancer, not treating it. Below is a sampling of the tragic emails the last newsletter generated:

"Dr. Cannell, I was just diagnosed with breast cancer, how much vitamin D should I take?"

"My mother has colon cancer, how much vitamin D should she take?"

"I've had prostate cancer for four years, is there any reason to think vitamin D would help?"

"Dr. Cannell, my son has leukemia, should I give him vitamin D?"

It's one thing to talk about evidence vitamin D may prevent cancer but something quite different to discuss evidence vitamin D might help treat cancer. I used to think the answers to all the above questions were the same. Like anyone else, people with cancer should be screened for vitamin D deficiency and be treated if deficiency is present. Simple. However, it's not that simple. The real questions are, What are reasonable 25-hydroxy-vitamin D [25(OH)D] levels for someone with a life-threatening cancer? How much vitamin D do they need to take to obtain such levels? Is there any evidence, of any kind, that vitamin D will help treat cancer? The risk/benefit analysis of taking vitamin D is quite different if you are in perfect health than if your life, or your child's life, is on the line.

Remember, unlike cancer prevention, not one human randomized controlled trial exists showing vitamin D has a treatment effect on cancer. By treatment effect, I mean prolongs the lives of cancer patients. However, as I cited in my last newsletter, Dr. Philippe Autier of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and Dr. Sara Gandini of the European Institute of Oncology, performed a meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials showing even low doses of vitamin D extend life but they looked at all-cause mortality, not just cancer (Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(16):1730-1737). However, some epidemiological studies indirectly address the treatment issue and are quite remarkable. The first are a series of discoveries by Professor Johan Moan, Department of Physics at the University of Oslo, with Dr. Alina Porojnicu as the lead author on most of the papers.

Moan J, et al. Colon cancer: Prognosis for different latitudes, age groups and seasons in Norway. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2007 Sep 19

Lagunova Z, et al. Prostate cancer survival is dependent on season of diagnosis. Prostate. 2007 Sep 1;67(12):1362-70.

Porojnicu AC, et al. Changes in risk of death from breast cancer with season and latitude: sun exposure and breast cancer survival in Norway. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007 May;102(3):323-8.

Porojnicu A, et al. Season of diagnosis is a predictor of cancer survival. Sun-induced vitamin D may be involved: a possible role of sun-induced Vitamin D. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):675-8.

Porojnicu AC, et al. Season of diagnosis is a prognostic factor in Hodgkin's lymphoma: a possible role of sun-induced vitamin D. Br J Cancer. 2005 Sep 5;93(5):571-4.

Porojnicu AC, et al. Seasonal and geographical variations in lung cancer prognosis in Norway. Does Vitamin D from the sun play a role? Lung Cancer. 2007 Mar;55(3):263-70.

What Professor Moan's group discovered, repeatedly, is quite simple, whether it be cancer of the breast, colon, prostate, lung, or a lymphoma. You live longer if your cancer is diagnosed in the summer. And it is not just Moan's group who has found this. A huge English study recently confirmed Moan's discovery.

Lim HS, et al. Cancer survival is dependent on season of diagnosis and sunlight exposure. Int J Cancer. 2006 Oct 1;119(7):1530-6.

What do these studies mean? Something about summer has a treatment effect on cancer. Whatever it is, you live longer if you are diagnosed in the summer but die sooner if you are diagnosed in the winter. What could it be about summer? Exercise? Fresh air? Melatonin? Sunlight? Pretty girls? Remember, these patients already had cancer. Whatever it is about summer, it is not a preventative effect that Professor Moan discovered, it is a treatment effect. Something about summer prolongs the life of cancer patients.

Dr. Ying Zhou, a research fellow, working with Professor David Christiani at the Harvard School of Public Health, went one step further. The stuffy Harvard researchers assumed summer worked its magic, not by pretty girls, but by summer sunlight making vitamin D. So they looked at total vitamin D input, from both sun and diet, to see if high vitamin D input improved the survival of cancer patients. Yes, indeed, remarkably. They found that early stage lung cancer patients with the highest vitamin D input (from summer season and high intake from diet) lived almost three times longer than patients with the lowest input (winter season and low intake from diet). Three times longer is a huge treatment effect, a treatment effect that most conventional cancer treatment methods would die for.

Zhou W, Vitamin D is associated with improved survival in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005 Oct;14(10):2303-9.

And that's not all, Marianne Berwick and her colleagues, at the New Mexico Cancer Institute, found malignant melanoma patients with evidence of continued sun exposure had a 60% mortality reduction compared to patients who did not. That implies a robust treatment effect from sunlight.

Berwick M, et al. Sun exposure and mortality from melanoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Feb 2;97(3):195-9.

I will not list the thousands of animal studies that indicate vitamin D has a treatment effect on cancer as almost all of them studied activated vitamin D or its analogs, drugs that bypass normal regulatory mechanisms, cannot get autocrine quantities of the hormone into the cell, and that often cause hypercalcemia. However, Michael Holick's group found that simple vitamin D deficiency made cancers grow faster in mice. That is, vitamin D has a cancer treatment effect in vitamin D deficient mice. Professor Gary Schwartz, at Wake Forest, recently reviewed the reasons to think that vitamin D may have a treatment effect in cancer.

Tangpricha V, et al. Vitamin D deficiency enhances the growth of MC-26 colon cancer xenografts in Balb/c mice. J Nutr. 2005 Oct;135(10):2350-4.

Schwartz GG, Skinner HG. Vitamin D status and cancer: new insights. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2007 Jan;10(1):6-11.

Finally, one human interventional study exists. In 2005, in an open trial, Professor Reinhold Vieth and his colleagues found just 2,000 IU of vitamin D per day had a positive effect on PSA levels in men with prostate cancer.

Woo TC, et al. Pilot study: potential role of vitamin D (Cholecalciferol) in patients with PSA relapse after definitive therapy. Nutr Cancer. 2005;51(1):32-6.

So we come back to the crucial question. If you have cancer, how much vitamin D should you take, or, more precisely, what 25(OH)D level should you maintain? We don't know. You can correctly say that definitive studies have not been done and, incorrectly, conclude physicians treating cancer patients should do nothing. I say incorrectly because standards of medical practice have always demanded that doctors make reasonable decisions based on what is currently known, doing a risk/benefit analysis along the way to decide what is best for their patients based on what is known today. If a patient has a potentially fatal cancer, the doctor cannot dismiss a relatively benign potential treatment modality just because definitive studies have not been done, and passively watch his patient die. Standards of care require doctors consider what is known now, using information currently available, perform a risk/benefit analysis, and then act in the best interest of their patient.

Luckily, such doctors recently obtained some guidance. In the first study of its kind, Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina gave all of us something to think about. He asked and answered a simple question: How much vitamin D do you have to take to normalize the metabolism of vitamin D?

Remember, unlike other steroid hormones, vitamin D has very unusual metabolism in most modern humans, called first-order, mass action, kinetics. All this means is that the more vitamin D you take, the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, and the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, the higher the levels of activated vitamin D in your tissues. No other steroid hormone in the body behaves like this. Think about it, would you like your estrogen level to be dependent on how much cholesterol you ate? Or your cortisol level? (I'd ask the same about testosterone levels but I know men well enough not to ask.) No, the body must tightly regulate powerful steroid hormones through substrate inhibition, that is, if an enzyme turns A into B, when the body has enough B, B inhibits the enzyme and so limits its own production.

Not so with vitamin D, at least at modern human vitamin D levels. Professor Reinhold Vieth was the first to write about this and Vieth's Chapter 61 in Feldman, Pike, and Glorieux's wonderful textbook, Vitamin D (Elsevier, 2005, second edition), is a great reason to buy the textbook or have your library do so. [ I'm glad to see Amazon is out of stock of the new ones (someone must be reading about vitamin D) but you can still buy used editions.)

Why would the kinetics of vitamin D be different from all other steroids? Maybe they are not, Hollis reasoned, like Vieth before him. Maybe vitamin D levels are so low in modern humans that its metabolic system is on full blast all the time in an attempt to give the body all the vitamin D metabolites it craves. So Hollis asked, Is vitamin D's metabolism different in populations in the upper end of 25(OH)D levels (a population of sun-exposed people and a group of women prescribed 7,000 IU per day)? Note, the Hollis study is free on Medline, you can download the entire paper on the right hand of the PubMed page below.

Hollis BW, et al. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-4.

If you look at the two graphs, Figures 1 and 2 of Hollis' paper, you find vitamin D's kinetics can be normalized, made just like all other steroid hormones in the body, but you have to get enough sunshine or take enough vitamin D to get your 25(OH)D level above 50 ng/ml, and 60 ng/ml would be better. Then your body starts to store cholecalciferol in the body without much further increase in 25(OH)D levels. The reaction becomes saturable. This is a remarkable discovery and it implies levels of 30 and 40 ng/ml are usually not sufficient. It also implies actual vitamin D levels (cholecalciferol levels), not just 25(OH)D levels, may be useful in diagnosing and treating deficiency. Note, that not all of the sun-exposed individuals or women prescribed 7,000 IU/day achieved such levels. That's because the sun-exposed individuals were tested after an Hawaiian winter and because prescribing and taking are two different things.

So my answer to "How much should I take if I have cancer?" is "Take enough to get your 25(OH)D level above 60 ng/ml, summer and winter." In doing so, you will have normalized the kinetics of vitamin D and stored the parent compound, cholecalciferol, in your tissues. In the absence of sunshine, you need to take about 1,000 IU/day per 30 pounds of body weight to do this. A 150 pound cancer patient may need to take 5,000 IU per day, a 210 pound cancer patient about 7,000 IU per day, all this in the absence of sunlight. And this may not be enough; cancer patients may use it up faster (increased metabolic clearance) and children may do the same due to their young and vital enzymes. Or you may need less, because you get more sun than you think, more from your diet, or because you are taking a modern medicine that interferes with the metabolism of vitamin D. An even easier way to do it is go to a sun tanning booth every day and obtain and keep a dark, full-body, tan. Then you don't have to worry about blood levels but I'd get one anyway, just to be sure it was above 60 ng/ml.

Given what Hollis discovered, given the well-known potent anti-cancer properties of activated vitamin D, given epidemiological evidence that summer extends the life of cancer patients, given a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that vitamin D prolongs life, given animal data that simple vitamin D has a treatment effect on cancer, and given a patient with a life-threatening cancer, what would a reasonable physician do? Simply let their patient die while muttering something about the lack of randomized controlled trials?

No, they would simply check a 25(OH)D level every month and advise cancer patients to take enough vitamin D or frequent sun tanning parlors enough to keep their level above 60 ng/ml. Toxicity does not start until levels reach 150 ng/ml but if you take more than 2,000 IU per day have your doctor order a blood calcium every month or two along with the 25(OH)D. Both you and he will feel better and because if you have cancer, you are probably taking lots of other drugs and little is known about how modern drugs interact with vitamin D metabolism. By getting your level above 60 ng/ml, all you are doing is getting your level to where most lifeguards' levels are at the end of summer, to levels our ancestors had when they lived in the sun, to levels regular users of sun-tan parlors levels achieve, and most importantly, to levels where vitamin D's pharmacokinetics are normalized.

In the end, if you have cancer and your physician won't do a risk/benefit analysis, do it yourself. The risk side of that equation is easy. Both Quest Diagnostics and Lab-Corp, the two largest reference labs in the USA, report the upper limit of 25(OH)D normal is 100 ng/ml and toxic is above 150 ng/ml, so 60 ng/ml is well below both. The reason levels up to 100 ng/ml are published normals is because there is no credible evidence in the literature that levels of 100 ng/ml do any harm and because sun worshipers often have such levels. (If you don't believe me, go to the beach in the summer for one month, sunbath every day for 30 minutes on each side in your bathing suit, and go home and have a 25(OH)D level.) By getting your level above 60 ng/ml, all you are doing is getting your levels into the mid to upper range of laboratory reference normals. Little or no risk.

What are the potential benefits? It probably depends on a number of things. Did your cancer cells retain the enzyme that activates vitamin D? Many do. Did your cancer cells retain the vitamin D receptor? Many do. If your cancer cells get more substrate [25(OH)D], will that substrate induce the cancer cells to make more vitamin D receptors or more of the activating enzyme? Some cancer cells do both. In practical terms, vitamin D is theoretically more likely to help your cancer the earlier you start taking it. However, no one knows. Certainly there is no reason, other than bad medicine, for cancer patients to die vitamin D deficient. Unfortunately, most do.

Tangpricha V, et al. Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in patients attending an outpatient cancer care clinic in Boston. Endocr Pract. 2004 May-Jun;10(3):292-3.

Plant AS, Tisman G. Frequency of combined deficiencies of vitamin D and holotranscobalamin in cancer patients. Nutr Cancer. 2006;56(2):143-8.

It is very important that readers understand I am not suggesting vitamin D cures cancer or that it replace standard cancer treatment. Oncologists perform miracles every day. Do what they say. The only exception is vitamin D. If your oncologist tells you not to take vitamin D, ask him three questions. 1) How do you convert ng/mls to nmol/Ls? How many IU in a nonogram? 3) How do you spell "cholecalciferol?" If he doesn't know how to measure it, weigh it, or spell it, chances are he doesn't know much about it.

All of the epidemiological and animal studies in the literature suggest cancer patients will prolong their lives if they take vitamin D. I can't find any studies that indicate otherwise. However, none of the suggestive studies are randomized controlled interventional trials; they are all epidemiological or animal studies, or, in the case of Vieth's, an open human study. However, if you have cancer, or your child does, do you want to wait the decades it will take for the American Cancer Society to fund randomized controlled trials using the proper dose of vitamin D? Chances are you, or your child, will not be around to see the results.

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council
9100 San Gregorio Road
Atascadero, CA 93422

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you don't want to get the newsletter, please hit reply and let us know. This newsletter is not copyrighted. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. Remember, we are a non-profit and rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:

The Vitamin D Council
9100 San Gregorio Road
Atascadero, CA 93422

PS: The Vitamin D Council lost our webmaster. If you want to donate your time to a good cause, know all about maintaining websites, are interesting in keeping up with the latest press about vitamin D, and are willing to do so for free, please hit reply and let me know. We currently have $405.52 in our bank account so we cannot pay you now but may be able to pay you in the future.

Let me paint a picture:

A 78-year old woman, tired and bent. She's lost an inch and a half of her original height because of collapse of several vertebra in her spine over the years, leaving her with a "dowager's hump," a stooped position that many older women assume with advanced osteoporosis. It's also left her with chronic back pain.

(Image courtesy of National Library of Medicine)

This poor woman also has arthritis in her knees, hips, and spine. All three locations add to her pain.

She also has hypertension, a high blood sugar approaching diabetes, and distortions of cholesterol values, including a low HDL and high triglycerides.

Look inside: On a simple x-ray, we see that the bones of her body are unusually transparent, with just a thin rim of bone at the outer edges, depleted of calcium. Weight-bearing bones like the spine, hips, and knees have eroded and collapsed.

On an echocardiogram of her heart (ultrasound), she has dense calcium surrounding her mitral valve ("mitral anular calcium"), a finding that rarely impairs the valve itself but is a marker for heightened potential for heart attack and other adverse events. Her aortic valve, another of the four heart valves, is also loaded with calcium. In the aortic valve, unlike the mitral valve, the collection of calcium makes the valve struggle to open, causing a murmur. The valve is rigid and can barely open to less than half of its original opening width.

If a heart scan were performed, we'd see the coronary calcification, along with calcification of the aorta, and the mitral and aortic valves.

Obviously, it's not a pretty picture. It is, however, a typical snapshot of an average 78-year old woman, or any other elderly man or woman, for that matter.

This collection of arthritis, osteoporosis, coronary and valve calcification, high blood pressure, abnormal cholesterol patterns, and pain is not unusual by any stretch. Perhaps you even recognize someone you know in this description. Perhaps it's you.

Look at this list again. Does it seem familiar? I'd say that the common factor that ties these seemingly unrelated conditions together is chronic and severe deficiency of vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency leads to arthritis, osteoporosis, coronary and valve calcification, high blood pressure, abnormal cholesterol patterns, and pain.

Should we go so far as to proclaim that aging, or at least many of the undesirable phenomena of aging, are really just manifestations of vitamin D deficiency? I would propose that much of aging is really deficiency of vitamin D, chronic and severe, in its end stages.

My colleagues might propose a 30- or 40-year long randomized trial, one designed to test whether vitamin D or placebo makes any difference.

Can you wait?

Here's a fascinating e-mail we received recently. It came from a man in Hawaii who dropped his heart scan score a modest amount, but did it in two months using fasting. He also has the advantage of access to the Holistica Hawaii scan center with our friend, Dr. Roger White. His experience is so fascinating that we asked for his permission to reprint his story which he did enthusiastically.

So here is Don's story:

I am a 61 year old male with a history of heart disease in my family. My maternal grandfather, for instance, died at age 39 of a
heart attack and my mother died of a stroke. There are other instances in my family as well.

I, personally, before going to Holistica had had three heart procedures; one radio catheter ablation for WPW Syndrome, and two radio catheter ablations for atrial fibrilations. After suffering with WPW for over 30 years and A-Fibs for about a year, those issues seem to be behind me fortunately.

Three or four months back, however, I was suffering from shortness of breath and slight chest pains when doing the uphill part of a 5 mile walk that I do almost every day. My wife had had a coronary heart scan several years back at Holistica so that's how I knew about it.

I had a scan done on October 4th this year. The scan did show fairly
advanced plaque build up; my total coronary plague burden was
312.9. The day following the scan I felt absolutely terrible; lightheaded, weak, much like feeling you were at death's door.

I had read a book a number of years back about therapeutic fasting
(water only) called "Fasting and Eating for Health" by Dr. Joel
Furhman.

According to his book, one on the areas where he consistently has dramatic and quick results with fasting is with reducing arterial plaque. Based on how badly I was feeling at the time, I decided to start an immediate fast. Within just the first 24 hours, the relief was dramatic and amazing. I continued the water only fast for 3 weeks.

Yesterday, December 1st I went in for another cardio scan instead of the coronary angiogram that I had previously been scheduled for. I could tell they were a little confused why I was doing that but went ahead and did another coronary EBT scan.

When I went in for the doctor consultation, Dr. McGriff said, "OK, exactly what is it you've done since last time." In less than two months, my coronary plaque burden had dropped to 296.2. That's a 6% reduction in less than 2 months. Had I gone back in for the second scan right after my 3 week fast then it probably would have a 6%
reduction in less than a month.

Frankly, based on how good I've been feeling (I'm even thinking of
getting back into jogging instead of walking), I was surprised it was
only 6%. Based on the common experience, however, that it sometimes
takes a year or two to just stabilize your plaque increase, much less
actually start losing it, the doctor was truly startled and
surprised. He said he had never seen such a sudden reduction as that
before!

We are still going to proceed with the coronary angiogram and I
intend to apply what I find in your book but I thought you might be interested in these results since I've never heard or read of anyone actually measuring the effectiveness of a fast with before and after EBT Scans.

I admire your direction and work focusing on prevention instead of catastrophic management like most doctors. Dr. Fuhrman is very much the same with the greatest attention on prevention so if you haven't heard of his book you might be interested. Especially interesting regarding this particular issue is Chapter 5 entitled, "The Road Back to a Healthy Heart-the Natural Way."

I can personally verify everything he has said about the fasting procedure itself from start to finish. I consider his book the Bible about fasting. As I mentioned, given your similar direction in medicine, I thought I would bring my personal experience on the matter to your attention for your consideration. Maybe in a future edition of your book, you might want to include some information on fasting.

Anyhow, I hope you will find this helpful. Any other questions,
don't hesitate to e-mail back. Please keep up your good work and
thanks for what your doing!

Yours truly,

Don P.
Honolulu, Hawaii

Isn't that great?

Now, in all honesty, a change of 6% could conceivably be within the margin of error for heart scanning. (Although several studies from a number of years ago suggested that variation in heart scan scoring was about 10%, sometimes more, in my experience, on EBT devices like the one Don used, variation is <5% at this score range.) Genuine regression would probably be better documented by yet another scan down the road. If the trend is consistent, then it is probably real.

Nonetheless, Don's story may support we've been saying for some time: Fasting is a rapid method to gain control over plaque--but I didn't know it might be that quick! Perhaps Don is a living example of what I've called "instant" heart disease reversal.

Don is potentially off to a good start. But, unless he can periodically repeat his fast, he will still have to engage in a program that allows continuing control over coronary plaque in between fasts. Also, fasting cannot address issues like vitamin D deficiency, lipoprotein(a), and any residual lipid/lipoprotein issues. But I am continually impressed with the power of fasting to "jump start" a program of heart disease reversal.

It would be a fascinating study to perform, with serial heart scans within brief periods of weeks or months to gauge rapid response. However, we need to keep in mind that as wonderful as heart scans are, they do involve modest radiation exposure.

It might be interesting in future to add a fasting "arm" to the virtual clinical trial. That might yield some great insights.

Copyright 2007 William Davis,MD

This continues a series I've begun recently that discusses studies that have emerged over the past 10 years relevant to heart scan scoring and reversal of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

The St. Francis Heart Study from St. Francis Hospital, Roslyn, New York, was released in 2005. This was yet another study that set out to determine whether Lipitor exerted a slowing effect on coronary calcium scores. This time, Lipitor (atorvastatin), 20 mg per day, was combined with vitamin C 1 g daily, and vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) 1,000 U daily, vs. placebo. A total of 1,005 asymptomatic men and women, age 50 to 70 years, with coronary calcium scores 80th percentile or higher for age and gender
participated in the study.

After four years, heart scan scores in the placebo group increased 73%, compared to 81% in the treatment group. Statistically, the cocktail of drug, vitamins C and E had no effect on heart scan scores.

Other findings included:

--Participants experiencing heart attack and other events during the study showed greater progression of scores than those not experiencing heart attack: score increase of 256 vs. increase of 120.

--While treatment did not reduce the number of heart attacks and events overall, participants with starting heart scan scores >400 did show a benefit: 8.7% with events on treatment (20 of 229) vs. 15.0% with placebo (36 of 240).

(Note what is missing from the treatment regimen: efforts to raise HDL (starting average HDL 51 mg/dl); reduce triglycerides (starting average 140 mg/dl); identify those whose LDL was false elevated by lipoprotein(a); omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil; correction of other factors like vitamin D deficiency.)

Are we pretty in agreement that just taking Lipitor and following an American Heart Association low-fat diet is an unsatisfactory answer to gain control over coronary plaque growth? No slowing of heart scan score growth seen in the St. Francis Heart Study and similar studies is consistent with the 25-30% reductions in heart attack witnessed in large clinical trials. Yes, heart attack and related events are reduced, but not eliminated--not even close.

And when you think about it, it should come as no surprise that the simple strategy studied in the St. Francis Heart Study failed to completely control plaque growth. Lipitor and statin drugs exert no effect on small LDL particles, barely raise HDL cholesterol at all, and have no effect on Lp(a), factors that increase heart scan scores substantially.

Though these discussions have frightened some people because of the suggestion that increasing heart scan scores are inevitable and unavoidable, they shouldn't. It really should not be at all shocking to learn that taking one drug all by itself should cure coronary heart disease.

Instead, findings like those of the St. Francis study should cause us to ask: What could be done better? How can we better impact on heart scan scores and how can we further reduce heart attack, particularly in people with higher heart scan scores?

My answer has been the Track Your Plaque program, a comprehensive effort to 1) address all causes of coronary plaque, and then 2) correct all the causes.

Who knows what

“Too many false positives”

Triglycerides divided by five

Who reads The Heart Scan Blog?

Kitchen sink approach for Lp(a)

Making Dr. Friedewald an honest man

Some basic vitamin D issues

“How much vitamin D should I take?”

You probably don't take enough fish oil

Vitamin D and HDL

When meat is not just meat

Don't lament no OTC mevacor

Damage control

Low expectations

Niacin vs. low-carb weight loss

Explosive plaque growth

Dr. Cannell on "How much vitamin D?"

End-stage vitamin D deficiency

"Instant" reversal with fasting?

Study review: yet another Lipitor study