All posts by william-davis

Readers of The Heart Scan Blog know that I preach a diet that contains foods with low glycemic index to control weight, raise HDL, and reduce triglycerides, blood sugar, and small LDL.

A crucial aspect of a low glycemic index approach is to sharply reduce, preferably eliminate, wheat products.

I pick on wheat specifically because it has come to dominate the American diet. Look at the shelves in the supermarket: aisle after aisle of processed wheat products. The bread shelves alone in some of the grocery stores in my neighborhood are 40 feet long, six shelves high. There's also breakfast cereals, granola products, cookies, cakes, baking products, pretzels, crackers, pasta, and on and on.

Wheat products like these are tasty and they're addicting--literally. Test animals given processed wheat will eat more and gain more weight. Wheat fails to trigger satiety. So laboratory mice--and you and I--eat and eat, because eating wheat stimulates appetite, creates a hunger for more wheat, and a vicious cycle ensues. Eliminating wheat, on the other hand, results in dramatic drop in appetite, substantial weight loss, followed by correction of the metabolic disruptions it created.

A quick Google search for "gluten-free" turns up a startling array of wheat-free, gluten-free, yet high glycemic index products. The breakfast cereal pictured, for instance, can do as much damage as most wheat containing products--though it won't cause gluten enteropathy (also known as "celiac disease").

The product shown contains:

Brown rice flakes, rice bran, evaporated cane juice, brown rice syrup, raisins, cinnamon, gum arabic, vanilla, molasses, ground flaxseed, rosemary extract.

A 1/2-cup serving contains:
Total Carbohydrate 31g
Dietary Fiber 5g
Sugars 8g

And I'll bet that most people eat a lot more than a half-cup serving.

But you and I are not laboratory mice. If deprived of wheat, many people will then seek out processed rice products (rice cakes, Rice Krispies), processed cornstarch or cornmeal products (tacos, cornbread, many processed foods using these products for texture or thickness), or other products labeled "gluten-free."

Going wheat-free for our purposes is not about avoiding the gluten in wheat. It is about seizing control of appetite, eliminating a food that disrupts insulin responses, reduces HDL, raises triglycerides, and creates small LDL particles. But this applies to processed corn, rice, and other high glycemic index foods, as well.

So, occasionally, someone will declare, "I've eliminated wheat! Now I only eat rice, corn, and I've discovered all the gluten-free alternatives!"

Unfortunately, they've traded one evil for another. So it's not just about wheat. It's really about reducing or minimizing foods that mess up metabolic responses and lead to coronary plaque growth. Wheat is the biggest culprit and so I focus on it. However, you could easily transfer far less popular rice and corn products into center stage and allow them to wreak all the health damage of wheat.

Going wheat-free for our atherosclerotic plaque-control purposes is not the same as going gluten-free. So be careful of the distinction.

Wheat-free gummi bears:

Contents:
Organic dehydrated cane juice, organic corn malt syrup, organic juice concentrates (may contain organic apple, organic apricot, organic aronia, organic carrot, organic cranberry, organic elderberry, organic lemon or organic red beet), organic spinach powder, organic apple pectin, citric acid, natural fruit flavors.

Virtually pure sugar--yet wheat-free.

Wheat-free rice bread

Ingredients:
White rice flour, water, honey, soy oil, natural gum, salt, yeast, natural gum

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

In a previous post, Take this survey: I double-dare you, I posed a challenge:

Ask your doctor: Is heart disease reversible? Their answer:

1) No. Heart disease is definitely not reversible.

2) Yes, in rare instances, like lightning striking twice.

3) Yes, of course it is! Let's talk about how to do it!

I predicted that few readers of this blog would respond. I also predicted that the few who did would respond with the first answer, Heart disease is definitely not reversible. After all, in nearly all medical practices, the only parameters routinely followed to track risk for heart disease are LDL cholesterol and blood pressure. A measure of the disease itself (i.e., coronary atherosclerotic plaque) is not followed. So how can your doctor actually tell whether heart disease is reversed or not? When I engage in this conversation with colleagues, it goes no farther than rolled eyes or a snort. In my experience, talking about reversal of heart disease is a wasted effort.

To my great surprise, this simple survey received a total of 177 responses. Even more surprising, 122 (69%) of respondents chose number 3, claiming that their doctor said that heart disease is reversible.

Overall results:

1--31 responses (17.5%)

2--24 responses (13.5%)

3--122 responses (69%)

Now wait a minute: Where is the disconnect? Why are doctors saying that heart disease is reversible, yet not following this concept in practice? Contrary to the survey results, I have yet to meet a patient who said their doctor was trying to reverse their heart disease. Of course, this may be a skewed population, but I find it hard to believe that the prevailing view is that heart disease is reversible.

Anyway, this simple survey cannot settle the why or how, nor can it suggest just how prevalent this opinion is.

I am encouraged by these results. If true, it means that the message that heart disease is a reversible process is spreading. It may be make-believe heart disease reversal as preached by Dr. Dean Ornish or claimed by statin drug manufacturers. It may be the hocus-pocus of practices like chelation, or scams like nattokinase. But perhaps the seed of this notion has been planted in the minds of the medical community.

I'd be interested in hearing from the respondents who reported that their doctor said heart disease is reversible. How exactly are they going about achieving reversal?

The American public now has unprecedented freedom to explore new directions in health.

Never before have we had the enormous resources now available to add to our health experience: nutritional supplements, endless books on health and diet, the internet, online discussion groups, insurance products to permit spending on self-directed health services like medical savings accounts and flex-spending. The Track Your Plaque program is just one facet of this emerging and exciting area of self-empowerment in health. Compare what you can achieve with such a program with the situation of just 25 years ago, when the most you might get to reduce your risk for heart disease was to take the (largely ineffective) drug cholestyramine, probucol, and a low-cholesterol, low-fat diet.

Unfortunately, it also means that people have unrestrained potential to be tripped up, to be misled down some dead end of health that fails to accomplish desired goals, maybe even dangerous. The more freedom we have, the greater the choices, the more room we have to screw up.

Among the unproductive strategies I've witnessed recently:

--Nattokinase--The staying power of this scam continues to shock me. There is no rational basis for its use. A woman today declared that she would like to stop the warfarin that she was taking to prevent stroke from atrial fibrillation by taking nattokinase. This would be a mistake that could cost her a major and disabling, even fatal, stroke. Though warfarin is far from perfect, it at least achieves its goal of reducing stroke risk. Nattokinase does not. Nattokinase does nothing but make money for the people who sell it.

--Poly-nutritional supplements. You've heard of polypharmacy, the phenomenon of taking numerous medications with overlapping effects and side-effects, usually because of multiple doctors, each prescribing drugs without knowledge or interest in what colleagues are prescribing. I'm seeing the same phenomenon with supplements: 20,30, or more supplements per day, all in the hopes of heightening health. A focused few supplements is, in my view, superior to a shotgun approach of trying to improve health by taking hawthorne, silymarin, chrysin, calcium, Chinese herbs, and 25 other supplements.

--Chelation--Based on the notion that heavy metal toxicity causes heart disease; removal of heavy metals cures it. I've read some of the books on chelation, in addition to the slim scientific data, to decide whether there was anything to it. In my view, it is a complete and utter scam. It does make money for its practitioners, however. That's not to say that heavy-metal chelation doesn't have a role in health--it does. But it serves no purpose in coronary disease prevention and control.

--Colonic purges--Achieved by a number of routes, some oral, others via enema. Promotions for purging are often accompanied by a pile of scum that apparently lined somebody's intestinal tract. Purges purportedly, well, purge it from the intestine. This is also plain nonsense. There is no such toxic scum lining anybody's intestinal tract. However, if calorie restriction or a fast results inadvertently from the effort, perhaps some good comes from it.

--Statin drug alternatives--The unprecedented $27 billion dollar a year success of the statin drug industry, accompanied by the enormous marketing push by their manufacturers, has spawned an entire industry of statin alternatives. They range from red yeast rice, to guggulipid, to various concoctions of sterol esters, Chinese herbs, chitosan, and a variety of others. Some actually do reduce cholesterol a few points. Preparations like red yeast rice even pose a side-effect profile not too different from the prescription statin agents. Unfortunately, even among those agents that work, the effects tend to be small to trivial. While I am no lover of statin drugs nor the statin drug industry, I find these preparations to be anemic imitators. You'd be better off with raw nuts and ground flaxseed than wasting your money on these cheap imitations.

--Worries about liver toxicity--A day doesn't go by that I don't have at least several questions about suffering toxic liver effects from niacin, vitamin D, statin drugs, etc. I have treated thousands of patients for heart disease in its various stages and forms and have used many different strategies. How many times have I seen serious liver toxicity? A handful of times and usually from either mis-use of the agent or drug, or in a person with several other coexisting diseases. (Other serious health conditions, like kidney failure, raise the toxicity of drugs and supplements.) Liver toxicity in the vast majority of otherwise healthy people is close to being a non-concern.

Readers of The Heart Scan Blog and of the Track Your Plaque website know that I celebrate expansion of knowledge and information access to the public. However, I am concerned that the flip side of this growing self-empowerment is expanding potential for mistakes. It reminds me of an attorney friend, who, when diagnosed with prostate cancer, explored all manner of alternative treatments, from laetrile to heavy metal chelation to high-dose lycopene tablets. At the initial stage of diagnosis, his cancer was readily treatable. He now has widely metastatic cancer.

Maintain an open mind, but think before you commit to some crazed claim of cure, some "secret" to health, somebody's brazen but concealed attempt at steering profits in their direction.

With freedom comes responsibility. Otherwise, you might be looking for love . . .oops, I mean health . . . in all the wrong places.

I'm posting this intriguing comment from the Track Your Plaque Member Forum because I would like to speak to the Member who posted it.

The Member said:

I tested at 965 last year, and while I have followed the TYP diet and nutraceutical recommendations, I was totally unprepared for my first repeat scan (at the same lab/machine) on January 29, 2008. My result was 4.0, and at first I assumed the rating scale had been changed.

I then noted that 3 of the big four arteries received scores of 0, which means the same in any scale, and that four nodules had disappeared from the scan field.

Wow!!

If this is true, it would represent the biggest success in the Track Your Plaque program--ever! It would be an incredible story to tell, to convince the public and medical community that it is indeed possible, and a cause for popping a bottle of champagne! It would also represent what I would regard as essentially a cure for coronary atherosclerosis, a virtual elimination.

While we have plenty of success in stopping the progression or reducing heart scan scores, we do not have 100% success. I wish we did. The Track Your Plaque program is, to some degree, a work in progress. We learn from experiences, continually adjust to obtain the results we desire. Even as it stands today, the Track Your Plaque program is superior to any program of heart disease prevention known--by a long stretch. But it's not infallible, it's not foolproof.

That's all the more reason I would like to communicate with the Track Your Plaque Member who posted this comment. I would also like permission to view the heart scans themselves. (I can't obtain them nor view them without the individual's permission.) While we often have difficulty judging reversal just by looking at heart scans, presumed reversal to this profound degree should be obvious, even to the naked eye.

I would like to know--in detail--precisely what steps were taken and whether there was anything unique about this person's medical history or in the program they followed. This is all in an effort to learn and help others do the same.

If you are the Member who posted this comment, I would like to hear more. Please post your further thoughts on the Track Your Plaque Member Forum, or privately through our Contact page . Or e-mail us at contact@cureality.com.

It is the craziest thing.

The notion of vitamin D being easily and readily toxic has grabbed hold of many people, including my colleagues who were taught that vitamin D was toxic in medical school based on the skimpiest (and often misinterpreted) observations in a handful of unusual cases.

In my practice and in the Track Your Plaque program, we routinely use doses of 2000-10,000 units per day, occasionally more. We are guided by blood levels of 25(OH) vitamin D3. I have personally never witnessed vitamin D toxicity.

Here's an interesting graph from Dr. Reinhold Vieth. Those of you familiar with the vitamin D argument know that Dr. Vieth is among the few genuine gurus in the vitamin D world.

From Vieth R. Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations, and safety. Am J Clin Nutr 1999;69:842-856. (Full text is available without charge.)

In the graph, the X's represent toxicity; circles fall within the non-toxic range. (Toxicity is generally defined as a level sufficient to raise blood calcium levels, "hypercalcemia.") Note that the 25(OH) vitamin D3 levels are given in nmol/L; to convert to ng/ml units that are customary in the U.S., divide the nmol/L value by a factor of 2.5.

You will notice that toxicity is virtually unheard of until the dose exceeds 10,000 units per day. Beyond 10,000 units per day, the curve heads upward sharply and toxicity does become a possibility, though not an absolute (since there are circles above 10,000 units).

You may also notice that the curve is relatively flat from vitamin D doses between 200 units and 10,000 units (log scale on x axis; arithmetic scale on y), the range of most common doses for vitamin D supplementation.

Another perspective on vitamin D blood levels is to examine the blood levels of people who are young and obtain plentiful sun exposure. Lifeguards, for instance, have blood levels of 84 ng/ml (210 nmol/L) without ill-effect. (Sun exposure cannot generate vitamin D toxicity, because of a feedback safety mechanism in skin.) While this may not represent an ideal level since they represent an extreme, it does provide reassurance that such levels are non-toxic. I also point out these levels occur in the youthful since most people lose 75% or more of vitamin D activating capacity in the skin by their 70s. Most of us over 40 are kidding ourselves if we think that a suntan provides sufficient vitamin D.

Keep in mind that it is not necessarily the dose of vitamin D that is toxic, but the blood level it generates. I take 10,000 units of vitamin D as a gelcap per day to maintain my blood level between 50-60 ng/ml (125-150 nmol/L). This strategy helps me keep my HDL in the 70-80 mg/dl range, my blood sugar around 90 mg/dl, my blood pressure <120/80, and I no longer experience colds nor winter "blues."

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

For reasons unknown to me, I received a solicitation to invest in a company called Prescient Medical, with a slogan that caught my eye:

Detect and treat heart attacks before they occur.

The glossy brochure details their technology development strategy:

Predict(TM) Optical Catheter System--A catheter introduced into the coronary artery during a catheterization procedure to determine whether a specific plaque or vessel area is "vulnerable," i.e., prone to rupture in future.

Protect(TM) Luminal Shield--A stent-like metal device deployed into the coronary artery at the region of vulnerable plaque to prevent future plaque rupture.

The company anticipates FDA approval for their systems by 2009 and sales to begin by 2010. They predict sales of $7 billion.

Let's stop and think about this for a moment. It seems to me that, rather than pursuing the market of another stent for a "severe blockage," this company is going after the untapped procedural market of vulnerable plaque. In other words, their technology (an optical sensor technology that emits and analyzes light wavelengths to map specific plaque characteristics) identifies plaque that may rupture in months or years, followed by implantation of stent(s) that presumably prevent plaque rupture.

Thus, conceivably, many 20%, 30%, 40% etc. "blockages", atherosclerotic plaques that do not block flow and thereby pose no need for a conventional stent, will end up with this new type of stent. One patient could therefore receive multiple "Luminal Shields" in a single procedure.

When would these devices be employed? One pathway I could conceive of that my colleagues will be sure to exploit is 1) identify plaque by CT angiography, then 2) bring patient to the catheterization laboratory and perform this procedure for whatever hot, vulnerable plaques are identified. In other words, symptoms are no longer necessary. Reduced blood flow is no longer necessary. An abnormal stress test is no longer necessary. All that is required is that you have plaque. If the plaque is then determined to be vulnerable, then it is stented.

What bothers me about all this is the emerging effort to exploit this untapped market--a big one--of early heart disease as identified by coronary atherosclerotic plaque. As heart scans have demonstrated, there is an enormous amount of hidden heart disease in this world. This company has discovered a way to turn plaque into a profit opportunity, much as the statin drug industry found a way to "turn cholesterol into money."

The conventional stent market has plateaued and now has been, to some degree, battered by the drug-coated stent argument. Prescient has found a new and significant market for procedures and stents.

Is this really necessary? Why does plaque have to become a procedural disease? Doesn't it make more sense that, if vulnerable plaque is identified, that clinical trials are then designed to develop treatment strategies that modify vulnerable characteristics? Shockingly, this has not been done to any significant extent. Instead, the easiest path to a profit opportunity is to implant a "Luminal Shield."

You and I are able to inactivate, disempower, and essentially shut down plaque, while others are working furiously to convert it into a procedural profit opportunity. I personally find this so distasteful that I would sooner endorse a high-dose statin strategy than this approach.

You can view a video of my colleague, Dr. Martin Leon, on the Prescient Medical website, (or click here to go directly to the video), talking about how this technology will "change the treatment paradigm of the interventionalist from reactive to proactive." Scary stuff. Dr. Leon has made millions of dollars (probably more like tens of millions of dollars) from his support of technology companies for the interventional coronary device market.

My hope is that word of the sorts of techniques we use in the Track Your Plaque program disseminate before this sort of luminal coating idiocy gets off the ground.

(In actuality, a different version of this approach has been available for years using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), another procedure that involves threading a catheter down each coronary artery during a catheterization procedure. IVUS can also cross-sectionally map a plaque's anatomy and identify "vulnerable" features, like a thin cap overlying a collection of semi-liquid fat ("lipid pool"). There has been some discussion of using this approach to identify vulnerable plaque followed by stent implantation, but it has never gotten off the ground and has certainly not found validation in any clinical study. By the way, any stent prevents plaque rupture, since by their very nature, the plaque contents are compressed, modified, and excluded to the exterior of the stent. Plaque rupture within a stent is very rare in its few millimeters of length. It may therefore not require some new technology to prevent plaque rupture.)

Evan's first heart scan score in November, 2006 yielded a high score for a 56-year old male: 542.

So he put up little fuss when his doctor prescribed simvastatin at a high dose.

Evan's LDL cholesterol before simvastatin: 158 mg/dl

Evan's LDL cholesterol on simvastatin: 72 mg/dl.

By conventional standards, Evan has had an excellent response. The rest of his lipid (cholesterol) panel was unrevealing: HDL 62 mg/dl, triglycerides 78 mg/dl. Evan doesn't smoke, has a normal blood pressure, and he is not diabetic. That should do it, right?

So his doctor thought. So Evan asked if another heart scan was in order. In December, 2007, after one year of simvastatin, his second heart scan score: 705--a 30% increase over one year.

Recall that, with no effort at prevention whatsoever, the natural progression of heart scan scores is a 30% per year increase. Did simvastatin do nothing?

This is quite typical of people who do nothing more than take a statin drug. While some people do slow plaque growth (we say "decelerate") modestly on a statin drug, Evan's experience is not unusual: plaque continues to grow despite high-dose statin drug and an apparently favorable cholesterol panel.

In fact, I can count the number of people who reduced their heart scan scores taking a statin drug alone on one finger.

Statins do not represent a cure for heart disease. They cannot be used as sole therapy to reduce risk for heart attack. In fact, given sufficient time, the majority of people who do nothing more than follow this standard line of treatment (along with the equally lame low-fat diet, etc.) will have done nothing more than postpone their heart attack. Elimination of risk? Nope.

This is among the reasons we developed the Track Your Plaque approach. While not foolproof, I know of no better approach to seize control over plaque growth.

Additional conversations on clinical studies which, as with Evan's experience, demonstrated how statin drugs fail to slow plaque growth can be found in previous Heart Scan Blog posts:

Don't be satisfied with "deceleration"

Study review: Yet another Lipitor study

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Triglycerides are a potent trigger for coronary plaque growth.

Triglycerides in and of themselves probably do not cause plaque growth. Instead, triglycerides contribute to the formation of abnormal lipoproteins in the blood that, in turn, trigger coronary plaque, like VLDL, intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), and small LDL. Excess triglycerides also modify HDL structure and cause you to lose HDL in the urine.

I see plenty of people who begin with triglycerides of 200 mg/dl, 300, 700, even over 1000 mg/dl. It doesn't take long before you learn what works, what doesn't to reduce triglycerides. This is especially true in the Track Your Plaque approach, in which our target for triglycerides is 60 mg/dl or less.

Here's a list of things to consider if you are trying to gain control of your triglycerides:

--Fish oil--A mainstay of treatment. The omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil are the number one most potent treatment for high triglycerides.

--Reduction of high-glycemic index foods--Most notably wheat. Everybody knows that we shouldn't eat Snickers bars or bags of licorice. But many people eat plenty of wheat-containing breads, pastas, pretzels, crackers, breakfast cereals, etc., all in the name of increasing whole grains and fiber. In reality, they are causing triglycerides to skyrocket, dropping HDL, forming small LDL, increaaing blood sugar and blood pressure, and increasing obesity.

--Eliminating fructose and high-fructose corn syrup--This ubiquitous sweetener is now consumed in enormous quantities by the average American, nearly 80 lbs per year per person. You'll find it in soft drinks, ketchup, beer, breads, breakfast cereals, and many other processed foods. You'll find none in green peppers, cucumbers, and raw nuts. Fructose causes large rises in triglycerides, as well as diabetic patterns. Don't let "fat-free" claims fool you. Take a look at the ingredients in Kraft Fat-Free Caesar Italian salad dressing, for instance:

Kraft Fat-Free Caesar Italian

Ingredients:
Water, Vinegar, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Corn Syrup, Salt, Parmesan Cheese, Part-Skim Milk, Cheese Culture, Salt, Enzymes, Contains less than 2% of Garlic, Whey, Onion Juice, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Phosphoric Acid, Worcestershire Sauce, Vinegar, Molasses, Corn Syrup, Water, Salt, Caramel Color, Dried Garlic, Sugar ,Spices, Tamarind, Natural Flavors, Hydrolyzed Soy Protein, Xanthan Gum, Potassium Sorbate and Calcium Disodium EDTA as Preservatives, Dried Garlic, Buttermilk, Spice, Dried Parsley, Caramel Color, Sodium Phosphate, Oleoresin Paprika.

--Alcohol--While a couple of drinks a day raises HDL, exerts anti-inflammatory effects, and reduces blood pressure, more than this begins to raise triglycerides. Although I've come across no formal studies on this question, my gut sense is that beer, in particular, raises triglycerides more than wine or other alcoholic beverages. Could it be the wheat source of beer? Or its high-fructose corn syrup? I don't know, but beer is the least desirable form of alcohol of the choices we have.

Following these simple steps, it is unusual in my experience that you cannot achieve a triglyceride level <60 mg/dl. Rarely do we need to add fibrate drugs or other prescription agents to reduce triglycerides.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), is a problem area in coronary plaque reversal.

While our current Track Your Plaque record holder for largest percentage reduction in heart scan score has Lp(a), it remains among the more troublesome lipoprotein patterns.

One unique treatment for Lp(a) is high-dose omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil. While the data are relatively meager, there is one solid study from Lp(a) expert, Dr. Santica Marcovina of the University of Washington, called "The Lugalawa Study."

In this unique set of observations, 1300 members of a Bantu tribe living in Tanzania were studied. What made this population unusual is the fact that two groups of Bantus lived under different circumstances. One group lived on Nyasa Lake (3rd largest lake in Africa and reputed to have the greatest number of species of fish of any lake in the world) and ate large quantities of freshwater fish providing up to 500 mg of omega-3s, EPA and DHA, per day. Another Bantu group lived away from the lake as farmers, eating a pure vegetarian diet without fish.

Nyasa Lake

This situation among genetically similar stock provided a unique learning opportunity, a chance to assess whether different diets influenced Lp(a) levels.

The results: The fish-eating Bantus had an average Lp(a) level of 14.0 mg/dl. The farming, non-fish eating Bantus had an average Lp(a) of 27.0--a 48% difference. Curiously, a comparison of the apo(a) component of Lp(a) between the groups also showed that the fisherman expressed fewer dangerous small apo(a) forms, despite equal potential to express both.

The Lugalawa Study opens the question of whether similar results can be obtained not by moving to Tanzania and fishing Nyasa Lake, but by mimicking their experience by supplementing high doses of omega-3 fatty acids.

It's an intriguing question. In the Track Your Plaque program, we have no specific experience with this strategy, but it is certainly worth exploring further.

Watch for two upcoming Special Reports on the Track Your Plaque website in which we will be detailing 1)unique strategies for Lp(a) reduction, and 2) the usefulness of high-dose fish oil for coronary plaque reversal.

Interesting enough for a Virtual Clinical Trial?

Image courtesy Wikipedia.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Pam has an LDL cholesterol of 144 mg/dl.

To most people, this means that she has a mildly elevated LDL value. Many people would respond by cutting the saturated fat in their diet. Most physicians would concur and talk about prescribing a statin drug.

Let me tell you what an LDL cholesterol of 144 mg/dl means to me:

1) It could mean an LDL of all large particles (which is good) or an LDL of all small particles (which is very bad). Or, perhaps it's some combination of big and small. I can't tell which just by knowing that LDL is 144.

Small LDL responds to a diet reduced in processed carbohydrates and wheat flour; large LDL does not. Small LDL responds in an exagerrated way to niacin; large LDL does not. It makes a difference.

2) It could mean that, hidden within LDL, is lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a). Recall that Lp(a) is a high-risk genetic pattern that can provide the false appearance of high LDL cholesterol. If Pam were prescribed a statin drug, it would have little effect and little benefit. (See Red flags for Lipoprotein(a).)

Knowing that Pam has Lp(a) can point us in an entirely different direction than just LDL cholesterol. It might mean high-dose fish oil, a more serious approach to niacin, hormonal treatments like DHEA or testosterone. It might mean more attention to warning your children about the possibility that they, too, might share this genetic trait.

3) It could mean both small LDL and Lp(a) are present simultaneously, an especially dangerous combined pattern that is among the highest risks for heart disease known.

4) Because Pam's LDL of 144 mg/dl was not measured, but calculated, it means that it is subject to tremendous inaccuracy.

In my office, calculated LDL cholesterols can be inaccurate by 50 or 100 mg/dl--commonly. So Pam's LDL of 144 mg/dl could really be 70 mg/dl, or it could be 244 mg/dl. Once again, it's a big difference.

Just like The Three Faces of Eve, the 1957 film in which Joanne Woodward played the three wildly different sides of Eve's personality--the daytime Eve White, the fun-loving and daring Eve Black, and Jane--so can LDL assume several different faces, all with different personalities, different implications.

Accepting LDL cholesterol as LDL cholesterol is a fool's game. It is only a starting point, nothing more. Accepting a statin drug based on LDL is, likewise, a trap fraught with uncertainty, the potential for limited or ineffective results, the price being your heart and health.

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.

Wheat-free and still fat

Heart disease is reversible

Looking for health in all the wrong places

Track Your Plaque APB

Vitamin D toxicity

Turning plaque into profit

Statin mono-failure

Triglyceride traps

High-dose fish oil for Lp(a)

The many faces of LDL

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