Today's discussions at the Society for Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT) focused on atherosclerotic "plaque characterization".

As CT scanners get better and better at imaging the various components of plaque, some fascinating issues emerge:

--CT heart scans provide insights into what exactly is contained in an individual's atherosclerotic plaque that are not often provided even during heart catheterization. In other words, CT heart scanning is, in many instances, superior to heart catheterization, since it provides images of the artery wall, not just the internal contents.

--Progression (i.e., increase) in heart scan score is a powerful predicter of heart attack risk. Dr. Matthew Budoff of UCLA argued persuasively that the annual rate of increase in score is probably the most accurate measure of risk available, superior to cholesterol and calculated measures like the Framingham risk score.

--Coronary calcium scoring remains the best method to gauge total plaque throughout the entire coronary tree. In a person free of symptoms, the risk of a cardiac "event" (heart attack, death, procedures) is low and additional imaging (like CT angiography) is generally unnecessary.

Dr. Budoff, among the true thought leaders in CT heart scanning, also recounted his perspective on the history of heart scans. He noted that the questions asked through the years have evolved:

1995-2000 Should we do coronary calcium scans?

2000-2002 Do high or low risk patients benefit from coronary calcium scoring?

2003-2004 What is the better scanner, EBT or MDCT?

2006 How often should we perform coronary calcium imaging?

I believe that Dr. Budoff summarizes wonderfully where the Track Your Plaque programs fits into the overall scheme of things: Serial (repeated)CT heart scans to gauge progression or reversal is the wave of the future. We shouldn't just be interested in identifying persons at risk for heart attack. We should also be interested in showing the person at risk exactly how to reduce or eliminate that risk.

I'm presently attending the Society for Cardiovascular Computed Tomography meetings in Washington, DC, along with 500 of my colleagues. It's exciting to see how interest in CT scanning for heart disease has balloonned in the past couple of years.

Several trends are noticeable today, based on the content and tone of the discussions:

--CT scanning of the heart, and imaging in general, is just getting started. In other words, the capabilities for CT scanners and other devices to detect heart disease (coronary and otherwise) are where the gasoline engine was in the 19th century. Scanning is getting faster, easier, safer, and more precise. Just as few people in 1905 could have predicted that automobiles would be computer-enhanced, high-speed, ubiquitous devices with several per household, the potential for CT imaging for heart disease is truly in its infancy.

--CT coronary angiography (so-called "64-slice CT scans") are not screening tests for hidden coronary disease in people without symptoms. I was grateful that this point has been made and reiterated by several speakers, as this is consistent with our views. Simple CT heart scans for coronary calcium scoring, in contrast, are screening tests. When the radiation exposure of CT angiograms are reduced to tolerable levels, then they may be used as screening tests. We are probably 3-4 years away from this point.

--Both stress testing and heart catheterizations will be partially replaced by CT scanning. In particular, over the next decade, you will see a dramatic drop in unnecessary catheterizations, i.e,, far less people saying "I had a heart cath but they told me that it was normal."

There has been heavy focus on applications of CT scanning for acute settings, particularly the emergency room and hospitals.

What has surprised me is that there is virtually no conversation whatsoever about the preventive uses of CT heart scanning. So far, only Dr. Daniel Berman of UCLA has shown that he has "seen the light": CT scans are a crucial tool for identification of early coronary plaque, and this tells us whether prevention is necessary and with what intensity.

There has been, however, no discussion at all about quantification of plaque in a program of reversal. Perhaps that should come as no surprise, given the imaging-technology focus of this convention. For most of my colleagues, prevention is also not terribly interesting. Identification and treatment of acute disease like impending heart attack is.

Of course, applying the information from your CT heart scan to empower you in a program and reversal is what the Track Your Plaque program is all about. I hope you see the light. I admit that it's not always easy to follow what we are advocating here. Perhaps not too different than telling someone in his horse-drawn buggy that one day he'll be driving a sleek car with onboard computerized mapping, air-conditioning, and micro-chips to modulate engine performance. He's probably tell us we're nuts.

I'll continue to update if any news relevant to our interests crops up in these meetings.

I’d love to tell you that the Track Your Plaque program track record is of 100% success. It’s not.

It is very successful. But we’ve had some people who have failed and failed BIG. These are the people who've undergone bypass surgery, received one or more stents, or had heart attacks. Lesser failures are the people who’ve had large, undesirable increases in heart scan scores of >30% in one year. (The expected rate of increase in your heart scan score without preventive efforts is 30% per year, on average.)

What can we learn from those failures? There were several characteristics that stand out among this small group:

· Non-compliance--meaning they just didn’t stick with it. They started out right but then rapidly lost interest in maintaining all the pieces of the program and neglected their fish oil, niacin, gain weight, etc. Matthew did this and ended up with three stents to his left anterior descending. His slow start was due to skepticism that the program worked and just plain forgetfulness.

· Extreme stress--One of our earliest failures was a 38-year old man whose heart scan score doubled in one year, despite doing everything right. But three family members, all close to him, died within the space of six months, including his mother and a brother. I regard this as one of those instances in which we were powerless, unfortunately, though it is a graphic example of the power of unresolved stress and grief.

· Having a “better way”--These are the couple of people who were convinced that they had a better way to control their heart scan score. David firmly believed that his two dozen supplements and exercise program would drop his score. Instead, they permitted a 42% increase. Lee relied exclusively on chelation, along with several supplements of his own design. Lee had three-vessel bypass surgery.

· Starting too late--Gerome started with a score of 1179, but also was having chest pressure with emotional stress. His stress test was abnormal, with the entire upper half of his heart not receiving blood with exercise on a stress nuclear study (“anterior ischemia”). Gerome received four bypass grafts. Unfortunately, Gerome never really had a chance to engage in the Track Your Plaque program, since his health and safety were in jeopardy as soon as he started.

Have we had any big failures of people who did everything right, were compliant, were not subject to extreme stress (more than just job stress, or financial worries), didn’t neglect the basic requirements of the Track Your Plaque program, and had sufficient time (at least 6 months to 1 year)? No, thankfully, we have not.

No one who has stuck to the program has had a big failure.

“Do you need a stent?”

Sad to say, but that sentence condenses the wisdom of over 90% of practicing cardiologists.

Prevention of heart disease means take Lipitor or some other statin and cutting the saturated fat in your diet. That’s it. Maybe throw in exercise.

Regression of coronary plaque? That phrase has only entered the conversation since the AstraZeneca-supported trial of Crestor succeeded in achieving 8% regression of plaque (Track Your Plaque Members: See News) as demonstrated by intracoronary ultrasound.

In other words, in the minds of my colleagues, it can’t be true until a drug company tells them it’s true. It’s beyond me why this brainwashing of otherwise intelligent people has occurred, but it is blatantly evident in practice.

Fish oil is another example. The spectacular benefits of fish oil have been known for 20 years. But only recently has it become a “mainstream” practice to recommend fish oil, largely because a drug manufacturer has put a preparation through the rigors of FDA approval (Omacor) and is now marketing directly to physicians. All of a sudden, fish oil is a good thing? No, it’s just achieved legitimacy in the eyes of practitioners because it graces marketing literature.

If you’re reading this, you’re likely interested in coronary plaque regression using the only tool available for you to measure, track, and regress coronary plaque: CT heart scans. Intracoronary ultrasound will achieve the same goal, but it is an invasive procedure performed at heart catheterization, involves threading a wire and imaging probe all the way down the artery, involves real risk of tearing the inner lining of the artery, and is costly (around $14,000-$20,000 for the entire package). Do it every year? That’d be nuts.

If you’re thinking about coronary plaque regression, using fish oil, concerned about patterns like low HDL and small LDL, aware of the vitamin D deficiency issue as a coronary risk factor, etc., you are far more aware than the vast majority of practicing cardiologists. They are interested in what new brand of anti-coagulant to use during their heart catheterization (because the product representative gushes about the new agent—only $1200 a dose!). Or, they are interested in gaining the procedural skills to put in a new device like a biventricular pacemaker. Regress/reverse coronary plaque? What for?

You already know that a conversation about coronary plaque reversal will not be obtained in your cardiologist’s office. Your family practice doctor or internist? Fat chance! Knee arthritis, pap smears, pneumovax inoculations, sore throats, gout, back pain—they’re spread far too thin to know anything more than the most superficial amount about coronary plaque control. Most know nothing.

That’s where we come in. That’s our mission: Educate people about the extraordinary tools that you have available to you, all in the cause of control or reversal of coronary plaque.

Frank came to the office for an opinion, sent by his (proactive) family physician.

"I really don't know why I'm here, to be honest."

Two years earlier, Frank had a heart attack, survived and received two stents to his circumflex coronary artery. He now took Zocor and his LDL cholesterol was a reasonably favorable 89 mg, total cholesterol 183 mg.

"I walk with my wife every other day. I've been avoiding fish fries. You'll never see me eat fast food."

Frank was correct: If we were going to engage in the conventional approach to coronary disease, Frank was on the right track. We would have postponed his next heart attack or procedure by a couple of years. Stroke, aneurysm, and other atherosclerotic manifestations would be set back, likewise, a few years.

Would Frank have profound control over his disease? Absolutely not. In fact, his disease had probably advanced a huge amount just in the two years since his stents were placed and he was on his "prevention" program. Without his current effort, his coronary plaque would be expected to grow 30% per year. On Zocor and his modest lifestyle efforts, plaque growth was probably in the 14-28% per year range.

So I explained the unique Track Your Plaque approach to Frank. First, we start with a CT heart scan to establish where he was starting. Although he had two stents in his circumflex artery, we still had two other arteries (LAD, right coronary) to score and track.

We then attempt to identify all hidden causes of his heart disease and then correct them.

Of course, Frank had multiple hidden causes:

--HDL too low at 38 mg/dl
--Small LDL-severe, in fact, with 95% of all LDL particles in the small category
--Triglycerides too high
--Excesses of several triglyceride-containing particles (VLDL, IDL)
--Pre-diabetes--Frank had both a borderline high blood sugar and a high insulin level. This is a sure-fire stimulus to coronary plaque growth.
--A severe deficiency of vitamin D (<20 ng/ml)
--An excessivelyhigh blood pressure during exercise--With a blood pressure of 190/102 on the treadmill.

There were others(!), but that was the bulk of the causes behind Frank's coronary disease.

Once Frank recognized that there was indeed a huge panel of hidden causes for heart disease, not just too much fat in his diet and LDL cholesterol, he jumped into the program head first.

The message: The conventional approach is absurdly oversimplified, a certain path to failure for the majority of people. Even if you don't have known coronary disease like Frank, but just have a heart scan score >zero, the same principles apply to you.

Gary is an avid jogger. On an average day, he runs 5-6 miles at a good clip. On two occasions recently, however, Gary experienced an ache in his left shoulder at mile 4. It was a toothache-like feeling, but he kept on going without difficulty.

Gary also had a heart scan score of 370.

Upon hearing of Gary’s score and his shoulder sensation, the cardiologist who saw him advised a heart catheterization “to define coronary anatomy”. (This is a real incident.)

What exactly does that mean? Why would Gary’s cardiologist need to define it?

In my view, this is an absurd notion. No one needs to “define coronary anatomy”. This catch-all phrase is commonly used to justify heart procedures. I believe what the cardiologist is saying is that it’s the easiest (for the cardiologist) and perhaps most generously reimbursed method to determine whether Gary’s symptoms are warning of an impending heart attack or not.

The problem is that the question can also be answered quite well by doing a stress test. Though not perfect diagnostic tests, stress tests are useful when symptoms are present that are doubtful in nature. Gary’s left shoulder ache could have been related to his heart, but the likelihood was that it was not. A stress test would have answered the diagnostic question quite adequately.

Instead, this man was subjected to an invasive test that was likely unnecessary. This happens dozens, if not hundreds, of times per day just around here. Nationwide, it is an epidemic of malpractice.

There are, indeed, times when a person should proceed directly to a heart catheterization. This is commonly and appropriately performed when a person develops unstable heart symptoms, such as chest discomfort or breathlessness at rest while not doing anything physical, or if the frequency is increasing, or if a stress test shows an important abnormality. There is no question that heart procedures can be lifesaving at times.

The problem is that thousands of people every year are scared into these procedures inappropriately. Beware!

"How are your food choices?" I asked.

"What does it matter, doc? I take Lipitor. Doesn't that take care of it? I eat what I want!"

So declared Matthew. What he "wanted" was pretty much the diet of a teenager: pizza, cheeseburgers, soft drinks, snacks. His "beer belly" (visceral fat) gave it away. So did his blood work that showed flagrant lipoprotein abnormalities--small LDL, an HDL of 37 mg, and a severe after-eating flood of fat represented by increased "intermediate-density lipoprotein" (IDL).

Like many people, Matthew had been persuaded (or chose to believe) that LDL cholesterol was the sole cause for heart disease. Lipitor was therefore was all he needed. It must be great--how else could they afford all those slick TV commercials?

Well, it is definitely not true. In fact, with the persistence of Matthew's abnormal lipoprotein patterns, we should expect his heart scan score to continue to grow by 30%--the very same rate of increase as if he were taking nothing.

Specifically, Lipitor and drugs like it do not:

--Raise HDL.

--Correct or reduce the proportion of small LDL.

--Block after-eating flood of fat, nor do they accelerate clearance of unhealthy fats persisting in the bloodstream after eating.

Yes, what you eat does have real consequences, even if you take a statin drugs. In fact, the foods you ingest have a remarkably rapid and dramatic effect on what your blood contains. Any diabetic who checks his/her blood sugar knows this. They eat a slice of whole wheat toast and watch their blood sugar skyrocket.

Mind what you eat. Make it enjoyable, of course. But drugs do not provide impunity.

Sam is a 69-year retired physician. He was thoroughly enjoying retirement: golf, travelling, going out to dinner two or three times a week, spending weekends with his grandchildren. His lifestyle tended towards overindulgence, but he managed to stay fit and trim. At 6 ft 1 inch, he weighed 194 lbs and could still run 3 miles without too much difficulty. Not as good as his marathon-running days, but still not too bad for 69.

Sam's heart scan score in 2003 was a concerning 1983--extensive plaque. His doctor wasn't much help in interpreting the scan and so Sam simply chose to ignore it.

A chance conversation with a physician friend 18 months later made Sam think that perhaps this shouldn't be ignored. That's when he came to my office.

I find that sometimes the best way to motivate someone to take action is to demonstrate just how fast plaque grows if action isn't taken. So I advised Sam to get another scan first, since 18 months had passed. His score: 2441, or a 23% increase.

Sam was now starting to catch on. We made several changes in his prevention program (starting from virtually nothing). He did undergo a stress nuclear (thallium type) of test, which he passed without difficulty--normal blood flow in all heart territories despite the extensive plaque.

But, for some reason, Sam simply allowed himself to drift back to old habits: poor choices in food, overindulging in hard liquor, missing his fish oil and other supplements, and his medication, sometimes up to several days a week.

Sam started having unusual feelings in his chest. He described a sort of nervousness along with skipped heart beats. So we repeated a stress test. This time, a large area of reduced blood flow in the front of his heart ("anterior left ventricle") was detected. Sam ended up receiving three stents in a difficult procedure.

The moral: If you're starting out with a lower heart scan score of, say, 100 or 200, maybe you'll get by without trying too hard--maybe. But if your score is higher, say, several hundred or in the thousands, you got to try harder.

You're starting later in the process. Your disease will allow you very little slack. Let your guard down and it will get you. Control over your plaque is, indeed, very possible--we do it all the time. Score reduction is also possible. But your effort must be more serious and consistent.

Fallen Enron CEO, Kenneth Lay, was pronounced dead early this a.m. after suffering a heart attack.

Mr. Lay apparently had no history of heart disease and there's been no indication that symptoms provided any warning. His death was therefore classified as "sudden cardiac death".

Yet here's a man previously worth hundreds of millions of dollars with access to any test or medical system he desired--many times over. Even more recently, with his wealth reduced following his legal troubles, he and his wife managed to put away $4 million dollars to ensure an income from the interest through annuities, untouchable by the courts.

Detecting Mr. Lay's heart disease would have cost him around a few hundred dollars or whatever it costs for a CT heart scan in his city. This would have alerted his (hopefully knowledgeable) doctor that he was a time-bomb. Pile on all the stress he'd been suffering, whether deserved or no, and the diagnosis would have required little thought.

Instead, Mr. Lay has joined the thousands of Americans who will die this year because of failing to get a simple, 30-second test that costs one-tenth the cost of a stress test. Mr. Lay wasn't as lucky as former President Bill Clinton, whose doctors likewise blundered their way through and missed obvious levels of heart disease.

All Mr. Lay needed was better information: get a heart scan, then follow a program of prevention like the Track Your Plaque program. You may not have hundreds of millions of dollars, but you have the information on how to not follow in Ken Lay's footsteps. Track Your Plaque--and stay alive.

Sometimes it's hard to know what is really important in your plaque-control or plaque-reducing efforts.

There are, indeed, crucial make-it-or-break-it factors that are necessary to gain control over plaque. If you hope to stack the odds of reducing your heart scan score as much as possible in your favor, then fish oil, vitamin D, 60-60-60 in the way of standard lipids, elimination of small LDL, etc. -- all the elements of the Track Your Plaque program--are necessary.

But there's lots of things that sidetrack people. I spend much of my day fielding questions from patients about all the things that either provide very little benefit for plaque control, or provide none at all.

Among the things that we have found to be too weak or useless for plaque control, or are "non-issues", include:

--Caffeine--Go ahead and enjoy a couple cups a day (though not a pot). The effect is too trivial to make much difference.

--Hawthorne--Yes, it may dilate coronary arteries modestly, but not enough to make any difference.

--Garlic--with the possible exception of a specific preparation called Aged Garlic Extract (an acqueous, non-oil-based, extract from Kyolic), garlic's effects are too tiny to help, e.g., drop in blood pressure 1-2 points. Use it, but don't expect much. Aged Garlic Extract may be an exception, in that a single study from UCLA suggested specific effects on slowing coronary plaque growth. We await more info on this.

--Anti-oxidants--There is no shortage of extravagant claims about the benefits of anti-oxidants. Unfortunately, there's very little human exerience with pine bark extract, pycnogenol, grapeseed extract, and so on. Is the purported benefit from anti-oxidation or through some other means, e.g., enhancement of nitric oxide synthase? No data.

--Policosanol--If you've followed the Track Your Plaque Special Reports, you already know what a disappointment this agent has been, despite the too-good-to-be-true clinical data. It doesn't work.

--"No-flush niacin"--Unfortunately, no flush, no effect. This high-priced supplement is still sold widely in the U.S. despite its complete lack of efficacy. It does not work in humans. (It works great in rats!)

Track Your Plaque continues to try to be the arbiter of truth in what works, what doesn't in truly stopping or reversing your coronary plaque. The proof positive? Stopping or dropping your heart scan score.

If you'd like to reduce LDL cholesterol with nearly as much power as a statin drug, think thyroid.

When thyroid is corrected to ideal levels, LDL cholesterol drops 20, 30, 40 mg/dl or more, depending on how poor thyroid function and how high LDL are at the start. The poorer the thyroid function (the higher the TSH or the lower the T3 and T4) and the higher the LDL cholesterol, the more LDL drops with thyroid correction.

(For those of you minding LDL particle size, such as Track Your Plaque Members, the "dominant" LDL species will drop: If you are genetic small LDL, small LDL will drop. If you have mostly large LDL because of being wheat-free and sugar-free, then large LDL will drop.)

One of the problems is that many healthcare providers blindly follow what the laboratory says is "normal" or the "reference range," which is usually nothing more than a population average (actually the mean +/- 2 standard deviations, a common method of developing references ranges). In other words, a substantial degree of low thyroid function, or hypothyroidism, can be present when your doctor adheres to the reference range provided by the laboratory.

What does it mean to achieve ideal thyroid status? My list includes:

--Normal oral temperature of 97.3 F first upon arising. (The thyroid is the body's thermoregulatory organ.)
--TSH 1.0 mIU/L or less
--Free T3 upper half "normal" range
--Free T4 upper half "normal" range
--You feel good: mental clarity, energy, upbeat mood. You lose weight when you try.

Iodine replacement should be part of any thyroid health effort. Iodine is not an optional trace mineral, no more than vitamin C is optional (else your teeth fall out). The only dangers to iodine replacement are to those who have been starved of iodine for many years; increase iodine and the thyroid can over-respond. I've seen this happen in 2 of the last 300 people who have supplemented iodine.

In my view, neglecting T3 replacement is absurd. While it is not clear to me why many otherwise healthy people have low T3 at the low range of "normal" or even in the below-normal range, people feel better and have better health--faster weight loss, reduced LDL, reduced triglycerides, they are happier and enjoy more energy--when T3 is increased to the upper half of the reference range. (Crucial question: Why is the 5'-deiodinase enzyme that converts T4 to T3 inhibited, resulting in reduced free T3? What is in our diets or environment that is exerting this effect? I don't have answer, but we sorely need one.)

It pays to be a perfectionist when it comes to thyroid. Not only do you feel better, but LDL cholesterol can drop with a statin-like magnitude, but with none of the adverse effects.

If interested, Track Your Plaque offers fingerstick blood spot testing that you can perform in your own home. Each test kit will test for: TSH, free T3, free T4, along with a thyroid peroxidase antibody (a marker for Hashimoto's thyroiditis, an autoimmune inflammatory condition of the thyroid).

What do you think of these chains of logic?

Cyanide is a potent lethal poison; carbon monoxide is a less lethal poison.
Therefore: plenty of carbon monoxide is good.

Having uterine cancer is a bad thing. Having uterine fibroids is a less bad thing.
Therefore: plenty of uterine fibroids are good.

These are obvious examples of seriously flawed logic. Students of logic and philosophy will recognize the above erroneous sequences as examples of the twisted arguments often used to persuade an argumentative opponent of the logic of a premise. As long ago as 335 B.C., Greek philosopher, Aristotle, recognized the pitfalls of thinking in such arguments. You think we’d know better by now.

Try this one:

White enriched flour is a bad for health; whole grains are less bad for health.
Therefore: plenty of whole grains are good for health.

Ouch!

In the 1960s, we all ate hot dogs on white buns, white flour Wonder Bread® sandwiches, Mom made cookies and cupcakes with white flour. Then, during the 1970s and 1980s, clinical studies were performed demonstrating that whole wheat and whole grains reduced colon cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease compared to white flour. In other words, add back fiber and B vitamins and health benefits develop: No argument here.

Therefore: whole grains must be good for health. Further, lots of whole grains?unlimited quantities of whole grains many times per day, every day?must be even better. Even the USDA says so on their nutrition pyramid, with 8-11 servings of grains per day, 4 of which should be whole grains, at the widest portion of the pyramid.

But what happens when you follow this logic through and fill your diet with whole grains?

Look around you and it’s easy to see: Appetite increases, people become obese, blood sugar increases, diabetes develops, HDL cholesterol plummets, triglycerides skyrocket, inflammatory patterns (e.g., c-reactive protein, or CRP) increase, small LDL (the number one cause for heart disease in the obese U.S.!) shoots through the roof.

I would no more fill my diet with “healthy whole grains” than I would close my garage door with the car running.

Pomegranate juice, 8 oz:

Sugars, total 31.50 g

Sucrose 0.00 g

Glucose (dextrose) 15.64 g

Fructose 15.86 g

In your quest to increase the flavonoids in your diet, do you overexpose yourself to fructose?

Remember: Fructose increases LDL cholesterol, apoprotein B, small LDL, triglycerides, and substantially increases deposition of visceral fat (fructose belly?). How about a slice of whole grain bread with that glass of pomegranate juice? The Heart Association says it's all low-fat!

(Coming on the Track Your Plaque website: A full in-depth Special Report on fructose in all its glorious forms and whether this is truly an issue for your health. Fructose tables and the scientific data to establish a safe "threshold" value will be included.)

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Honeydew melon:

Sugars, total 51.97 g

Sucrose 15.87 g

Glucose 17.15 g

Fructose 18.94 g

Because sucrose is half fructose (the other half is glucose), there are approximately 26 grams of fructose per one-half honeydew melon.

Image courtesy Wikipedia

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.

Report from Washington II

Report from Washington

What about the Track Your Plaque failures?

Be smarter than your cardiologist

Why am I here?

Catheterization to “define coronary anatomy”

It doesn't matter what I eat!

People with higher scores need to try harder

Money can't buy health

What's important, what's not in your plaque-control program

Thyroid: Be a perfectionist

Nutrition Syllogism

Is pomegranate juice healthy?

Honeydew melon

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