All posts by william-davis

The basic dose we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program is 1200 mg per day of EPA + DHA, the essential omega-3 fatty acids.

1200 mg EPA+DHA is generally obtainable by taking 4 capsules of 1000 mg of fish oil, since the majority of preparations contain 180 mg EPA and 120 mg DHA per capsule.

But how will you know if a higher dose wouldn't be even better?

The principal parameter to look at is triglycerides. If triglycerides remain above 60 mg/dl, we usually consider increasing fish oil.

Another measure that's very important is intermediate-density lipoprotein, or IDL, also called "remnant lipoproteins" on a VAP panel. Persistence of any IDL or remnant lipoproteins is reason to consider more fish oil. Most commonly, if there is some persistence of either, we increase fish oil to 6000 mg per day of a standard preparation, or 1800 mg/day of EPA+DHA.

The only time we see persistence of IDL or remnant lipoproteins with this higher dose is when triglycerides are really high. If starting triglycerides are, for instance, 500 mg/dl, then even this higher dose may be insufficient. This is when more highly concentrated preparations of fish oil may be necessary, occasionally even the prescription form, Omacor. (We currently use Omacor only when high doses of EPA+DHA are required, most because of its outrageous cost. Two capsules per day costs around $120 per month; three capsules per day to provide 1800 mg/day of EPA+DHA costs $180 per month. I think this is outrageous and so we use it only when absolutely necessary.)

You might even argue that a higher dose of 1800 mg EPA+DHA, or 6000 mg of a standard capsule, might be preferable for more assured reduction of heart attack risk--even when triglycerides and IDL are perfectly under control. I wouldn't argue with you. But you won't observe any measurable feedback that tells you that a heightened effect is being obtained. I take that dose myself, in fact, despite the fact that elimination of wheat products and weight loss was sufficient to drop my triglycerides to the target level. I figure it's a small additional effort for added peace of mind.

If you are new to the Track Your Plaque program and would like to jump start your effort, or if you are struggling with losing weight and excess weight is a part of the situation that created your CT heart scan score, then don't forget about fasting.

Fasting is the cessation of eating. However, recall from the Track Your Plaque Special Report, Fasting: Fast Track to Control Plaque at http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_04-012fasting.asp, there are many variations on fasting that permit some intake of healthy foods. (Thus, they are not, in the strict sense, "fasting". Accurate or no, there are variations that may be more palatable or do-able in the real world by real people.)

My personal favorite method to fast is to use a low-sugar, low-fat soy milk such as Light Silk, available at most major grocery stores. This high-protein, low-fat, low-sugar soy milk takes the edge off hunger and provides a minimal quantity of calories. A minimum of 72 hours is required for substantial results. (My one reservation about this brand of soy milk is that the Fanatic Cook claims that the manufacturer, Dean Foods, is a factory farm operation that abuses livestock--a discussion for another day.)

Fasting yields more than weight loss. It refreshes your appreciation for food. It reawakens you to the amount and quality of food you've been putting in your body. Fasting also allows you to recognize just how bad you might feel from the diet you were eating.

You also emerge from a fast with a reduced appetite and a renewed sense of appreciation for food. It makes the discipline of healthy eating a lot easier when you break your fast.

I tell people that fasting is not punishment. It is a form of enlightenment, of re-experiencing food and life. Fasting allows you to "catch up" on all the indiscretions you've been guilty of over the years.

It also provides enormous advantage in gaining control over coronary plaque.

If you haven't already done so, I'd urge you to peruse the wonderfully insightful, sophisticated, and biting commentary provided by the Fanatic Cook Blog at http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com.

She (I assume it's a she) has been discussing the proposed Safe Food Act recently, an effort to address all the dangers in foods that have come to attention lately, like melamine in pet food and E. coli in bagged spinach. Her most recent post is:

Nebraska Farm Bureau Thinks Food Safety Act Bad Idea, the latest in a series of posts exploring this issue.

I'd like to know who the Fanatic Cook is, or "Bix" as she calls herself. (I assume it's a "she" but I don't really know that for a fact.) I've corresponded with her and she prefers to remain anonymous for unspecified reasons. I'd like to know who this person is both for a more secure sense of credibility, as well as I'd simply like to know who can write so intelligently and why. I suspect that she's a professional nutrition scientist or something along those lines, since the level of insight into many scientific issues is quite impressive. Her Blogs will make great material for a book, if compiled and organized. Watch out for this one.

Erectile dysfunction (ED), previously known as "impotence," and coronary atherosclerotic plaque go hand in hand.

A recent study in men with advanced coronary disease showed that 93% experienced ED. The participants in the Track Your Plaque program, for the most part, do not have advanced coronary atherosclerosis, but have an earlier form detected by a CT heart scan.

What proportion of men with asymptomatic coronary plaque as measured by a CT heart scan have ED? Around 50%. In other words, it's not a rare occurrence.

The conversation about ED (and even its renaming from impotence) really gained momentum with the development of ED-drugs like Viagra and Cialis. The drugs are reasonably effective and safe. However, you will hear little about all the strategies that can either precede your need for these drugs and/or enhance your response to these drugs if the response is partial. That part of the conversation, of course, doesn't yield loads of drug company revenues.

One of the most helpful and specific nutritional supplements available that can partially restore the nitric oxide-deficiency of ED is l-arginine. L-arginine is the body's source of nitric oxide (NO), the master dilator (relaxing agent) for all arteries of the body. NO dilates penile arteries, it dilates coronary arteries. Lack of NO disables the penile capacity for erection and encourages growth of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Track Your Plaque Members are already familiar with l-arginine as a facilitator of coronary plaque regression.

We will detail the supplements that you can use safely in your Track Your Plaque program to both enhance erectile function if you suffer ED, as well as impact positively on coronary health, in an upcoming and detailed Special Report on the www.cureality.com website.

Followers of the Track Your Plaque program already know that maintaining an optimistic viewpoint is important in gaining control over coronary plaque.

In fact, I believe that, in many cases, a sense of optimism may make or break your CT heart scan score-reducing efforts. Pessimists rarely drop their score, while optimists do so all the time.

This week posed a challenge to my optimism. I spent the last week on jury duty hearing the details of a murder case. For four days, I listened to blow-by-blow testimony about the totally pointless, unprovoked death of a young man by a drug-dealing thug. Much of the witness testimony was from people who shared the hopeless, violent world of the defendant.

I was, however, completely impressed by the dedication of the prosecuting attorney, a 50-some year old man who was clearly deeply dedicated to his mission and didn't once provide any indication that he was grandstanding or looking for some personal glory. He was doing his job and trying to obtain justice for the fallen victim. I was equally impressed by the judge, who seemed unfazed by the events but carefully explained why the system worked the way it did. After the trial, he provided some further insights to us jury members and I saw him as a human being who, like the prosecutor, was trying to make a small contribution to making the world better.

Though many of the witnesses who testified against the defendant shared his world, I was impressed with their courage in coming forward. They face the threat of reprisals, I'm sure, for coming forward to the law and testifying against a known career criminal. Several of them said that they were not after any reward, but simply wished to do the right thing and provide testimony that proved damning against the defendant.

I acted as the jury foreman and I was proud of how the jury members listened carefully, asked intelligent and probing questions, and then helped us render a confident and expeditious sentence: guilty.

If anything, despite the tragic circumstances, I was much heartened at how all the participants in this process played their part and justice (at least in the legal sense) was served.

Let optimism prevail, even in dire circumstances.

I seem to be repeating myself lately, but I think this does bear repeating:

There's no need to re-invent the wheel when it comes to gaining control over your heart scan score.

The Track Your Plaque program is the most powerful approach known to help you gain control over your coronary atherosclerotic plaque and CT heart scan score, bar none. While 100% of people do not drop their score, more and more people every week are doing so. (One of the admitted weaknesses of the Track Your Plaque website is our failure to list more success stories; we're working on it.)

The basic program is quite simple:

--The Rule of 60 for lipids (LDL 60 mg/dl; HDL 60 mg/dl or greater; triglycerides 60 mg/dl or less)

--Identify hidden causes of plaque, esp. small LDL, Lp(a), and IDL, followed by specific corrective action

--Fish oil--minimum 1200 mg per day of EPA + DHA

--Normal vitamin D3 blood levels (We aim for 25-OH-vitamin D3 of 50-60 ng/ml)

--Normal blood sugar (<100 mg/dl)

--Normal blood pressure (<130/80)

--An optimistic attitude

Much of the other stuff--vitamin K, matrix metalloproteinase reducing strategies, flavonoid strategies, exercise-induced hypertension, etc.--are, for the majority, fluff. Their real role is in people who may have failed in stopping the rise of their heart scan score just doing the basics of the program.

If you neglect the basics, hoping to find some magic potion, I'm afraid the overwhelming likelihood is that you will fail. I've seen it happen time and again. Someone will come to my office with an extraordinary list of supplements--hawthorne, dozens of anti-oxidants, EDTA, concentrated flavonoid preparations, and on and on. Not only is it shockingly expensive to do this, it's also unnecessary and foolhardy. This kind of unfocused, hocus-pocus in the hopes of getting it right fail time after time.

The Track Your Plaque program, while not foolproof, is the best I know of. Stick to the basics and wander off when the basics fail. But there's extraordinary power in just achieving the basics.

I was shocked recently when someone accused me and the Track Your Plaque website of being nothing more than a front for the drug industry, that we are promoting concepts with the hidden pharmacuetical agenda behind us.

Don't make me laugh. How in the world that kind of impression could be gotten from either the Heart Scan Blog or the Track Your Plaque website is beyond me.

But I occasionally do need to state explicity: We do not promote drugs, neither this Blog nor the Track Your Plaque website has ever sought nor been backed by pharmaceutical money. The only money that supports this website is our own and that from paying Track Your Plaque members.

In fact, I am quite proud of the unbiased content and commentary on both venues. I challenge anyone to point out how and where there is any suggested relationship to a hidden source of commercial backing. I assure you, there is none.

If I say a drug is worth you and your doctor considering, then I say so with a true belief in it, not because somebody or some company paid me to say so. If I say a drug stinks, I believe that too. If we use a specific supplement in the program, it's because we believe it truly adds value to a plaque-reversal program. We receive no money from drug, supplement, or other commercial interests to promote their products. Period.

When it comes to laboratory values and medical testing, a common dilemma is knowing what is "normal." Let me explain.

First of all, when you receive a laboratory result for a test, a "reference range" or "normal range" is usually provided. Where did that range come from?

It varies from test to test. For instance, a low potassium is easy, because low potassium levels can lead to life threatening consequences, e.g., dangerous heart rhythms. High potassium likewise, because dangerous phenomena develop when potassium generally exceeds 5.5 mg/dl or so.

But what about something like HDL or LDL. Here's where confusion reigns. Often, "normal" is obtained by taking the average and saying that any value plus or minus two standard deviations (remember that painful class?) represents normal or reference range.

If that were true, what if we applied that principle to body weight. If we weighed several thousand adult women, the average would be in the neighborhood of 172 lbs (no kidding). Does that mean that 172 lbs plus or minus two standard deviations is normal? No, of course not.

There is therefore a distinction between "normal" and "desirable". For HDL cholesterol, your laboratory report might say that an HDL cholesterol of 40-60 mg/dl is normal. But is it desirable? I don't think so. The most frequent HDL level for a male with a heart attack is 42 mg/dl--hardly desirable.

Let's take triglycerides. The average triglyceride level in the U.S. is somewhere around 140 mg/dl. For those of us who do a lot of lipoprotein testing, we can tell you that triglycerides at this level, though generally regarded as being within the normal range, are associated with flagrant and obvious excesses of several abnormal lipoprotein particles that contribute to coronary plaque growth (VLDL and often IDL; small LDL; drop in HDL and shift towards small HDL).

So, always take the so-called "normal" or "reference" values on a lab report as crude guidelines that often have little or nothing to do with health or desirability. Unfortunately, many physicians are not aware of this and will declare any value within the normal or reference range as okay. An HDL of 40 mg is not okay. A triglyceride level of 140 mg is also not okay.

What is okay? What is desirable? That depends on the parameter being examined. From a basic lipid standpoint, of course, we regard desirable as 60-60-60. Desirability from a lipoprotein standpoint we will cover in a more thorough Track Your Plaque Special Report in future.

My sister sent me these quotes:

"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."

Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962

"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau."

Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."

Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, France

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."

Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Office of Patents, 1899

No doubt, conventional wisdom can often be laughably (tragically?) wrong. The problem is that, as absurd as all the above sentiments seem to us now and in retrospect, they represented the view of many people years ago. These views were held by many, including many people in positions of power and decision-making responsibility.

A more relevant but nonetheless laughable and widely held belief in 2007: coronary heart disease should be treated with hospital procedures.

Why is a disease that requires 30 years to develop treated only at the final moments with a procedure? Do you only change your car's oil when the engine is on its last legs? Or, do periodic, relatively effortless oil changes during the life of the car make better sense?

I witness just how brainwashed the public has become with this crazed notion when I meet someone socially at, say a fundraiser or cocktail party. When they ask what I do, I tell them I'm a cardiologist. The invariable response: "Oh, what hospital do you work out of?"

I tell them I don't, that I take care of the majority of heart disease right from the office. 99% of the time I get a puzzled look. If we had comic bubbles above our heads revealing our internal thoughts, it would read "Yeah, right. What a kook."

The notion that coronary heart disease is something that is manageable with simple tools for the majority of us in the early stages is entirely foreign to almost everybody. The hospitals and the medical industry have so succeeded in dazzling the public with images of staff in scrubs, rushing from emergency to emergency, lights flashing, scalpels flying. . . how can you possibly accomplish this at home or anywhere outside of the high-tech world of the hospital?

Well, I'm a cardiologist and I do it every day. We all need a figurative dose of electroshock therapy to shake ourselves of this crazy notion.

Perhaps more than any other supplement, l-arginine causes frustration and confusion. It’s difficult to find, sometimes quite expensive, and some preparations cause loose stools.

Just how necessary is it?

L-arginine, you’ll recall, is a source of nitric oxide, or NO. Though it’s the same stuff as in car exhaust, NO provides a critical signaling role in your body’s cells that regulate a multitude of functions. Among the important roles of NO is to powerfully dilate, or relax, arteries. A constant flow of NO is required for health, particularly since each molecule persists only a few seconds.

L-arginine is the body’s source of nitric oxide. In addition, a peculiar but very effective blocker of l-arginine called asymmetric dimethylarginine, or ASDM, has recently been discovered to prevent the production of NO. Varied conditions like hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, excessive saturated fat or processed carbohydrate intake all lead to heightened levels of ASDM, often several-fold greater levels, and thereby effectively blocking NO production.

The “Arginine Paradox” is the name that some researchers in this field have given to the unusual property of l-arginine supplementation to “overpower” the blocking effects of ASDM. This is somewhat unusual in biologic systems in that an agent that blocks a receptor cannot usually be outmuscled by providing excess material for a reaction. Kind of like hoping that your car runs faster simply by topping up the gas tank.

Concrete observable benefits have been made for l-arginine in clinical trials, such as arterial relaxation that results in arterial enlargement (which can actually be seen in the cath lab); anti-inflammatory effects; reduction of blood pressure; enhancement of insulin responses, etc. All of these effects can be connected to beneficial properties that may facilitate atherosclerotic plaque regression and, indeed, there are limited data to document that this is true.

Drug companies may be greedy, but they’re not stupid. They’ve been vigorously pursuing this line of research for some years, a research path that led inadvertently to the erectile dysfunction agent, sildenafil (Viagra), and all its subsequent competitors. (Erectile dysfunction is another expression of endothelial dysfunction, since male erections are driven by the ability to dilate penile arteries.) The wonderful properties of NO enhancement continue to occupy research labs around the world.

Wow. So what’s the reluctance? In the early years of the Track Your Plaque program (meaning just a short 7-8 years ago), I was thoroughly convinced that l-arginine was a crucial, necessary part of a plaque regression program. Without it, you would rarely succeed. With it, the odds were tipped in your favor.

However, something curious has emerged recently. I’ve seen more and more people dropping their heart scan scores. Not just a little bit, but a huge amount. Witness our most recent record holder, Neal, who dropped his score 51% in 15 months. Just five years ago, this magnitude of reversal was unimaginable. Granted, Neal is our record holder, but others are obtaining 10, 18, 24, 30% drops in scores all the time. Many have done it without l-arginine.

Now, how about the people who have failed to stop a rising score? Would they do better with l-arginine as part of the mix? I believe so, but sometimes we never quite know except in retrospect. It has been a great dilemma for us trying to predict from the starting gate who will or who won’t drop their heart scan score.

My view from the trenches is that l-arginine packs its greatest atherosclerosis-fighting punch in the first year or two of use, when “endothelial dysfunction” is likely to be present (abnormal artery constriction). But as all other strategies take hold—fish oil, correction of lipid and lipoprotein abnormalities, weight loss (big effect), vitamin D (another very big effect), etc.—endothelial behavior improves over time. Perhaps l-arginine becomes a less necessary component over time.

There’s no doubt that uncertainty still surrounds the use and science surrounding l-arginine. However, if you’re interested in stacking the odds in your favor, particularly during the first year or two of your plaque-reducing efforts, I think that l-arginine is worth considering. It is cumbersome, it can be expensive, some preparations may even be foul. But in the big picture of life, with hospitals trying every possible ploy to get your body on a table for a procedure, doctors perverting their mission by signing employment contracts with hospitals and agreeing to usher you into the hospital as a paying patient whenever possible, and drug companies viewing you and me as a market for medications which may or may not be helpful, l-arginine is surely not that big a burden.

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.

How much omega-3s are enough?

Repentance for past sins

A fanatic for Fanatic Cook

Erectile dysfunction and coronary plaque

An exercise in optimism

No need to re-invent the wheel

Are we a front for drug companies?

What is "normal"?

The wisdom of the masses

How important is l-arginine?

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