All posts by william-davis

Let me explain what I mean by "genetic small LDL." I think it helps to illustrate with two common examples.

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

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

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

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

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

Ollie:

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

Stan:

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

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

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

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

Fifty years ago, diabetes was a relatively uncommon disease. Today, the latest estimates are that 50% of Americans are now diabetic or pre-diabetic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a half-truth I often encounter in low-carb discussions:

Saturated fat increases large LDL particles

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

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

Is this true?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what’s not to like here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've likely already heard that former President Bill Clinton underwent a heart catheterization today during which one of the bypass grafts to his coronary arteries was found to be occluded. The original coronary artery was therefore stented.

Dr. Alan Schwartz, Mr. Clinton's cardiologist, announced to the gathered press that Mr. Clinton had followed a good diet, had adopted a regular exercise program, but that his condition is a "chronic disease" like hypertension that is not cured by these efforts.

Needing a stent just 6 years after four bypass grafts are inserted is awfully soon. I would propose that it has less to do with having a "chronic disease" and more to do with all the things that Mr. Clinton likely is NOT doing. (In addition to all the other things that Mr. Clinton did not do.) In other words, in the Track Your Plaque world, procedures are a rarity, heart attacks virtually unheard of. I would wager that Mr. Clinton has been doing none of the following:

--Taking fish oil. Or, if his doctor was "advanced" enough to have advised him to take fish oil, not taking enough.
--Vitamin D--Followers of the Heart Scan Blog already know that vitamin D is the most incredible health find of the last 50 years, including its effects on reducing heart disease risk. Unless Mr. Clinton runs naked in a tropical sun, he is vitamin D deficient. A typical dose for a man his size is 8000 units per day (gelcap only!).
--Eating a true heart healthy diet. I'll bet Mr. Clinton's doctor, trying to do the "right" thing, follows the prudent course of advising a "balanced diet" that is low in fat--you know, the diet that causes heart disease. Judging by Mr. Clinton's body shape (central body fat), it is a virtual certainty that he conceals a severe small LDL pattern, the sort that is worsened by grains, improved with their elimination.
--Making sure that hidden causes are addressed--In addition to the "hidden" small LDL, lipoprotein(a) is another biggie. Lp(a) tends to be the province of people with greater than average intelligence. I believe Mr. Clinton qualifies in this regard. I would not be at all surprised if Mr. Clinton conceals a substantial lipoprotein(a) pattern, worsened in the presence of small LDL.
--Controlling after-meal blood sugars--Postprandial (after-eating) blood sugars are a major trigger for atherosclerotic plaque growth. There are easy-to-follow methods to blunt the after-meal rise of blood sugar. (This will be the subject of an in-depth upcoming Track Your Plaque Special Report.)
--Thyroid normalization--It might be as simple as taking iodine; it might involve a little more effort, such as supplemental T3. Regardless, thyroid normalization is an easy means to substantially reduce coronary risk and slow or stop coronary plaque growth.

It's not that tough to take a few steps to avoid bypass surgery in the first place. Or, if you've already had a procedure, a few additional steps (of the sort your doctor will likely not tell you about) and you can make your first bypass your only bypass.

Because magnesium is removed during municipal water treatment and is absent from most bottled water, deficiency of this crucial mineral is a growing problem.

Magnesium deficiency can manifest itself in a wide variety of ways, from muscle cramps (usually calves, toes, and fingers), erratic blood sugars, higher blood pressure, to heart rhythm problems. The abnormal heart rhythms that can arise due to magnesium deficiency include premature atrial contractions, premature ventricular contractions, multifocal atrial tachycardia, atrial fibrillation, and even ventricular tachycardia, fibrillation, and Torsade de Pointes (all potentially fatal). Magnesium is important!

Magnesium supplementation is therefore necessary for just about everybody to maintain normal tissue levels. (The exception is people with kidney disorders, who should not take magnesium without supervision, since they retain magnesium.)

Here is a Heart Scan Blog reader's dramatic rhythm-correcting response to magnesium supplementation:

Dr. Davis,

A few months ago, I contacted you inquiring if you had written any articles on arrhythmia. You were generous enough to answer and guide me to an LEF article you'd written in which you stressed fish oil and magnesium. I had been suffering with bad PVCs [premature ventricular contractions] for over 20 years, and they had gotten so bad recently that I was told my next options were ablation or pacemaker!

I was already on fish oil and had not seen any difference, and so I researched the magnesium you suggested more thoroughly and found a huge body of studies supportng its effect on arrhythmia. I also read many posts on heart forums with people having success with it. After getting advice from various bloggers, I tried magnesium taurate in the morning and Natural Calm (an ionized form of mag citrate) in the afternoon and evening. Within three days the PVCs were quite diminished and by 2 weeks totally gone! As long as I keep taking it, they never return---not even one irregular blip---even when I drink strong coffee! The magnesium also cleared up my restless leg syndrome, my eye twitching, and insomnia. (Apparently, I was the poster-girl for magnesium deficiency.)

I am so angry that after all these years of suffering, trying various medications, and seeing at least 4 different cardiologists that NOT ONE ever even mentioned trying magnesium. The generosity of the few minutes you took to answer my email and steer me in a helpful direction brought me total relief.

Thank you SO MUCH!

Warmly,
Catherine C.

Dr. Davis is available for personal

one-on-one video teleconferencing

to discuss your heart health issues.

You can obtain Dr. Davis' expertise on issues important to your health, including:

Lipoprotein assessment

Heart scans and coronary calcium scores

Diet and nutrition

Weight loss

Vitamin D supplementation for optimal health

Proper use of omega-3 fatty acids/fish oil

Each personalized session is 30 minutes long and by appointment only. To arrange for a Video Teleconference, go to our Contact Page and specify Video Teleconference in your e-mail. We will contact you as soon as possible on how to arrange the teleconference.

The cost for each 30-minute session is $375, payable in advance. 30-minute follow-up sessions are $275.

(Track Your Plaque Members: Our Member cost is $300 for a 30-minute session; 30-minute follow-up sessions are $200.)

After the completion of your Video Teleconference session, a summary of the important issues discussed will be sent to you.

The Video Teleconference is not meant to replace the opinion of your doctor, nor diagnose or treat any condition. It is simply meant to provide additional discussion about your health issues that should be discussed further with your healthcare provider. Prescriptions cannot be provided.

Note: For an optimal experience, you will need a computer equipped with a microphone and video camera. (Video camera is optional; you will be able to see Dr. Davis, but he will not be able to see you if you lack a camera.)

We use Skype for video teleconferencing. If you do not have Skype or are unfamiliar with this service, our staff will walk you through the few steps required.

You want to lose a few pounds . . . Okay, maybe 50 or 75.

Should you exercise? Lengthen you workout? Push the plate away, deny yourself seconds, use a smaller plate?

Of all the weight loss strategies I've tried in patients, there's only one that stands out as a means of obtaining immediate--meaning within 3 days--weight reduction.

Wheat elimination.

We've previously considered the question:

What is an ideal level of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood?

Recall that omega-3 levels in red blood cells (RBCs), a measure called the "omega-3 index," have been associated with risk for sudden cardiac death:

In a recent analysis, 265 people experiencing sudden death during a heart attack (ventricular fibrillation, successfully resuscitated) showed an omega-3 index of 4.88%, while 185 people not experiencing sudden death during a heart attack showed an omega-3 index of 6.08%.

We have more ambitious goals than just avoiding sudden death, of course! How about the omega-3 index associated with reduced risk for heart attack? A recent analysis of females from the Harvard School of Public Health suggested that RBC omega-3 levels as high as 8.99% were still associated with non-fatal heart attack (myocardial infarction), compared to 9.36% in those without heart attacks, suggesting that even higher levels are necessary to prevent non-fatal events.

Most recently, another study comparing 50 people after heart attack with 50 controls showed that people with heart attack had an omega-3 index of 9.57% vs 11.81% in controls--even higher. (This study was in a Korean population with higher fish consumption. There was also a powerful contribution to risk from trans fat RBC levels.) The investigators concluded: "The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of fatty acid profiles was larger than that for traditional risk factors, suggesting that fatty acid profiles make a higher contribution to the discrimination of MI cases from controls compared with modified Framingham risk factors."

The data suggest that, while an omega-3 index of 7.3% is associated with reduced risk for sudden cardiac death, a higher level of 10% or greater is associated with less risk for heart attack. Surprisingly, fish consumption and fish oil intake account for only 47% of the variation in omega-3 index.

I believe the emerging data are becoming increasingly clear: If you desire maximal control over heart health, know your omega-3 index and keep it 10% or higher.

If you don't think that charging drug prices for fish oil is wrong, take a look at a letter from an angry Heart Scan Blog reader:

Hello Dr. Davis,

My 44 year old brother had an MI [myocardial infarction, or heart attack] in June. He got pushed around due to "bad government insurance," a state-run program for the "uninsured": government pays 1/3, job pays 1/3, and individual pays 1/3.

What they didn't tell him is that there is no major medical coverage and little to no prescription coverage. We fought for 4 months to get him open heart surgery that the insurance was not going to pay for.

Now, with no assistance, terrible insurance, and no disability he has little to no income. He is a heavy equipment mechanic and is trying to be the "good American"-- take care of his bills, not file bankruptcy, etc.

Anyway, the doctors never seem to pay attention to what they prescribe. Lipitor was not working for him, due to side effects. Now they want to give him Zetia and Lovaza....Zetia at $114, and Lovoza is $169.85! Wow! For dead fish???? I think this is a little fishy! I looked up Lovaza, gee how nice, they will give you a $20 coupon....

Forget it, he can't afford this stuff. So I am enrolling in the Zetia program for him. And trying to get him OTC [over-the-counter] fish oil. The most prevalent fish oil around here (that I take myself is) Omega 3 Fish Oil that has EPA 410mg, DHA 274.

Thanks for your blog. It made me feel better that I wasn't the only one outraged by this stuff. I 've been a nurse for 20 years and it just never seems to get better. Thank you for your wisdom.

Sincerely JP, Tennessee

Had this reader not been aware that her brother could take fish oil as a nutritional supplement, he likely would have been denied the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids in slashing the risk for recurrent cardiovascular events. You and I can buy wonderfully safe and effective fish oil as a nutritional supplement, but there won't be a sexy drug representative to sell it, nor an expensive dinner and payment for a trip to Orlando to hear about it.

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.

Genetic vs. lifestyle small LDL

Carbohydrate sins of the past

Saturated fat and large LDL

Is glycemic index irrelevant?

What Mr. Clinton did NOT do

Magnesium and arrhythmia

Video teleconference with Dr. Davis

Thinner by Thursday

Omega-3 Index: 10% or greater?

Let's soak 'em with fish oil

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