All posts by william-davis

You've heard of wheat belly. How about wheat hip?

Recall that the innocent appearing wheat belly is actually a hotbed of inflammatory activity beneath the surface. The visceral fat of the wheat belly, i.e., fat kidneys, fat liver, fat intestines, fat pancreas, produces abnormal inflammatory signals, such as various interleukins, tumor necrosis factor, and leptin. These are the inflammatory signals that create insulin resistance and diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and cancer.

These same inflammatory mediators are able to enter the joint spaces, such as those in your hips, knees, and hands. This leads to osteoarthritis, the exceptionally common form of arthritis that affects 1 in 7 Americans. In particular, the level of leptin in joints mirrors that in blood, a phenomenon that has been associated with joint destruction.

The previously widely-held notion that arthritis is simply a wear-and-tear phenomenon due to the mechanical stress of excess weight is proving to be an oversimplification. Arthritis is also part of the carbohydrate-driven, weight-increasing, inflammatory condition of insulin resistance or metabolic syndrome.

Throw into this cytokine storm the fact that glycation, i.e., glucose modification of proteins, also causes cartilage destruction. The cells of human cartilage lack the ability to divide, so the cartilage cells you had at age 18 are the cartilage cells that you will hopefully still have at age 80. However, high blood sugars (glucose) glycate the proteins in cartilage. (Wheat raises blood glucose higher than almost all other foods, higher than a Milky Way bar, higher than a Snickers bar.) The process is irreversible and cumulative. Because cartilage has next to no capacity for repair or regeneration, it becomes brittle. Over years, it essentially crumbles, leading to the "bone on bone" that prompts conversations about total hip and total knee replacement.

So that ciabatta or blueberry muffin in your mouth takes you a step or two closer to joint destruction via heightened inflammation arising from the visceral fat of the wheat belly, worsened by glycation of high blood sugars after carbohydrate consumption.

My solution: Lose the ciabatta.

Consume wheat products, like poppyseed muffins, raisin bagels, and whole grain bread, and you trigger the 90- to 120-minute glucose-insulin cycle.

Blood glucose goes way up (more than almost any other known food), triggering insulin release from the pancreas. Glucose enters cells as a result, blood glucose plummets. You get hungry, shaky, and crabby, reach for another wheat or other sugar-generating food to start the roller coaster ride all over again.

Repetitive insulin triggering grows this thing I call a "wheat belly," the protuberant, hang-over-the-belt fat you see everywhere nowadays. Wheat belly fat is really visceral fat. Visceral fat means you have fat kidneys, fat intestines, fat pancreas, and fat liver, all causing the belly to protrude in the familiar way we've all come to recognize.

Visceral fat is special fat. Unlike the fat in the backside, thighs, or arms, visceral fat triggers inflammatory responses that are evident in such measures as tumor necrosis factor, interleukins, and leptin, as well as drops in the protective hormone, adiponectin.

Visceral fat also, oddly, triggers estrogen release. Estrogen triggers growth of breast tissue. That's why females with wheat bellies have up to four-fold (400%) greater likelihood of breast cancer.

Men also experience excess estrogen from the visceral fat wheat belly, causing "man boobs." This B-cup phenomenon means that inflammation is raging beneath the surface, all due to this thing you're wearing around your waist.

I wasn't aware until recently that male breast reduction surgery is a booming business growing at double-digit rates. So are special clothes to help men conceal their expansive breasts.

Perhaps the USDA is in cahoots with Playtex.

Joanne started with a 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 23 ng/ml--severe deficiency.

What made this starting value even worse was that it was drawn in August after a moderately sunny summer spent outdoors. (Last summer, not this summer.) It therefore represented her high for the year, since vitamin D levels trend lower as fall and winter set in. This suggests that her winter level was likely in the teens or even single digits. In addition, note that, at age 43, Joanne has lost much of her ability to activate vitamin D in the skin.

So I advised that she take 6000 units of an oil-based gelcap per day, a dose likely to generate the desired blood level, which I believe is 60-70 ng/ml.

Four months later, her 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 39.9 ng/ml--still too low. So I advised her to increase her dose to 10,000 units per day. Several months later, her 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 63.8 ng/ml--perfect.

However, on hearing that she was taking 10,000 units vitamin D per day, Joanne's primary care physician was shocked: "What? Stop that immediately! You're taking a toxic dose!" So Joanne called me to find out if this was true.

No, of course it's not true. It's not the dose that's toxic, but the blood level it generates. Although it varies, vitamin D toxicity, as evidenced by increased blood calcium levels, generally does not even begin to get underway until at least 120-130 ng/ml, perhaps higher. Rarely, a dose of 2000 units per day will generate a level this high. In others, it may require 24,000 or more units per day to generate such a high level.

So it's not the dose that's toxic, but the blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D it generates.

Provided you and/or your doctor are monitoring 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood levels, the dose is immaterial. It's the blood level you're interested in.

That's it: I will NEVER ever write another prescription for Lovaza.

I actually very rarely write a prescription for Lovaza, i.e., prescription fish oil. But this was the last straw.

I advised a patient that we've had good success using high-doses of fish oil to reduce lipoprotein(a), Lp(a). 6000 mg per day of the omega-3 component (EPA + DHA) from fish oil reduces Lp(a) in 60% of people after one year. (Recall that Lp(a) is the most aggressive known lipid-related cause of heart disease.)

The two preparations I generally suggest are either the very affordable Sam's Club Members Mark Triple-Strength Fish Oil with 900 mg EPA + DHA per capsule: 7 capsules per day. Another great product (my personal favorite because of its extreme purity--it doesn't even smell like fish oil): Pharmax Finest Pure Fish Oil with 1800 mg EPA + DHA per teaspoon: 3 to 3 1/2 teaspoons per day.

Both preparations work great and are quite affordable, given the high dose. For the Sam's Club preparation, it will cost around $30 per month, while the Pharmax liquid will run around $49 per month.

Well, the woman's husband insisted on a prescription for Lovaza. One Lovaza capsule contains 784 mg EPA + DHA per capsule: 7 to 8 capsules per day.

Here are some prices for Lovaza from online pharmacy discounters:
Prescription Giant: $78.99 for 30 capsules ($2.63 per capsule)
Planet Drugs Direct: $135 for 100 capsules ($1.35 per capsule)

These are lower than the prices I obtained in past by calling local pharmacies in my area, quite a bit lower, in fact.

Filling the Lovaza prescription at Prescription Giant will therefore cost $552.93 to $631.92 per month; at Planet Drugs Direct it will cost $283.50 to $324.00 per month. At local pharmacies, a similar 7 to 9 capsules Lovaza per day will cost upwards of $800 to $900 per month.

The patient's husband insisted on the Lovaza prescription because he knew that his insurance would cover it. When I pointed out that this was a large cost that would have to be borne by others in their healthcare premiums, he said that didn't matter to him.

I hesitated, but ended up writing the prescription for 7 Lovaza capsules per day. As soon as I handed to him, I regretted it. In fact, I am embarassed and angry at myself for having given in.

So I vowed: I will NEVER EVER write another prescription for Lovaza.

I do not believe that we should spread the excessive profiteering of the pharmaceutical industry around on the backs of people who pay their healthcare insurance premiums, just so that a few people, like this selfish couple, can save a few dollars a month.

In the original Heart Scan Blog post, This is your brain on wheat, I discussed how opioid peptides (i.e., small proteins that act like opiates such as heroine or morphine) that result from digestion of wheat cause unique effects on the human brain, particularly addictive behaviors. I also briefly reviewed how elimination of wheat has been shown to reduce auditory hallucinations and other psychotic behaviors in a subset of people with paranoid schizophrenia.

These two phenomena, addictions and schizophrenia, are most likely the result of exorphins that cross the blood-brain barrier. Exorphins--exogenous morphine-like compounds--can be blocked by opiate-blocking drugs like naloxone and naltrexone. Naloxone is used in hospitals to reverse morphine or heroine overdoses; naltrexone is being repackaged into a weight loss drug, since blocking wheat-derived exorphins reduces appetite. (Yes: The USDA tells us to eat more wheat, the drug industry sells us the antidote.)

There's another way that wheat can affect the brain and nervous system: immune-activated damage.

This is similar to the effect seen in celiac. There's even overlap with some of the antibody markers used to diagnose celiac, like the anti-gliadin antibodies and the anti-endomysium antibodies.

The most common immune neurological syndrome consequent to wheat consumption is cerebellar ataxia, a condition in which an immune response causes damage to the Purkinje cells of the cerebellum, the portion of the brain responsible for balance and coordination. This results in stumbling, incoordination, incontinence, and eventually leads to reliance on a cane or walker and wearing a diaper. Average age of onset: 53 years. A shrunken, atrophied cerebellum can be seen on an MRI of the brain.

Problem: Most people with central nervous system damage caused by wheat do not have any intestinal symptoms, like diarrhea and abdominal pain, the sort of symptoms usually associated with celiac disease. It means the first sign of wheat-induced brain damage may be bumping into walls and wetting your pants.

When I tell patients how I advise a wheat-free, cornstarch-free, sugar-free diet on the background of a low-carbohydrate diet, some people ask: "But can I live on a no-carb diet?"

Well, there's no such thing as a "no-carb" diet. Low-carb, yes. No-carb, no.

Here are the carbohydrate contents of various "low-carb" foods:

Gouda cheese--3 oz contains 1.65 grams carbohydrates
Mozzarella cheese--1 cup contains 2.89 grams carbohydrates
Walnuts--4 oz (56 nuts) contains 2.96 grams carbohydrates
Almonds--4 oz contains 1.38 grams carbohydrates
Sour cream--one-half cup contains 3.31 grams carbohydrates
Red wine--3.5 oz glass contains 2.69 grams carbohydrates
Eggplant--1 cup cooked contains 8.33 grams carbohydrates
Green pepper--1 medium-sized raw contains 5.52 grams carbohydrates
Cucumber--1 medium contains 4.34 grams carbohydrates
Tomato--1 medium contains 4.82 grams carbohydrates

(Nutrition data from USDA Nutrient Database)

In other words, foods thought to be "low-carb" actually contain a modest quantity of carbohydrates.

Such modest quantities of carbohydrates may not be enough to trip your blood sugar. But add up all the "low-carb" foods you consume over the course of a day and you can easily achieve 30 grams or more carbohydrates per day even without consuming any higher carbohydrate foods.

Imagine you have breast cancer. You go to your doctor and she says, "As your pain worsens, we'll help you with pain medication. We'll fit you with a special bra to accommodate the tumor as it grows. That's all we're going to do."

"What?" you ask. "You mean just deal with the disease and its complications, but you're not going to help me get rid of it . . . cure it?"

It would be incredibly shocking to receive such advice. Then why is that the sort of advice given when you are diagnosed with diabetes?

Say you go to the doctor. Lab values show a fasting blood sugar of 156 mg/dl, HbA1c (a reflection of your previous 60 days average glucose) of 7.1%. Both values show clear-cut diabetes.

Your doctor advises you to 1) start the drug metformin, then 2) talk to the diabetic teaching nurse or dietitian about an American Diabetes Association (ADA) diet.

The ADA diet prescribed encourages you to increase carbohydrates and cut fats at each meal and maintain a consistent intake so that you don't experience hypoglycemic (low blood sugar) episodes. You follow the diet, which causes you to gain 10-15 lbs per year, increasing your "need" for diabetes medication. You doctor adds Actos, then Januvia, then injections of Byetta.

Three years and 34 lbs later, you are not responding well to the drug combination with blood sugars rarely staying below 200 mg/dl. You've developed protein in your urine ("proteinuria"), lost 30% of your kidney function, and you are starting to lose sensation in your feet. So the doctor replaces some of your medication with several insulin injections per day.

This formula is followed millions of times per year in the U.S. So where along the way did your doctor mention anything about a "cure"?

Adult diabetes is the one chronic disease that nobody cares to cure. Treat it, maintain control over blood sugars, but cure it? Most physicians say it's impossible.

The tragedy is that diabetes is a curable condition. I've seen it happen many times. Physicians dedicated to curing diabetes like low-carb expert, Dr. Mary Vernon, have cured it countless times. Dr. Eric Westman and colleagues have been building the case for the carbohydrate-restricted cure for diabetes with studies such as this. In this last study, of the 8 participants on insulin + medications at the start of the study, 5 no longer required medications at the close of the study--they were essentially non-diabetic.

I tell patients that diabetes, in fact, is a disease you choose to have or not to have--provided you are provided the right diet and tools. Sadly, rarely are diabetics told about the right diet and tools.

That's why Cadbury Schweppes has been a major contributor to the American Diabetes Association, as are other processed food manufacturers and the drug industry, all who stand to profit from maintaining the status quo.

The cure? Eliminate or at least dramatically reduce carbohydrates, the foods that increase blood sugar.

Note: If you have diabetes and you are taking any prescription agents, such as glyburide, glipizide, insulin, and some others, you will need to discuss how to manage your medications if you reduce carbohydrates. The problem is finding a doctor or other resource to help you do this.

Here's a Q&A I stumbled on in the Forum of MedHelp, where people obtain answers from presumed health "experts."

Question:

My VAP test results in July 07 identified an LDL Pattern B.
Overall results:
Total 150
HDL 75
LDL 61
Trig 60
HDL-2 17
LP(a) 6.0
LDL Pattern B

Medications:
Lipitor 10mg
Zetia 10mg
Altace 10mg
Atenolol 50mg
Plavix 75mg
Aspirin 81mg

I had several heart attacks which resulted in CABG performed May 2000. I am a 53 year old white male , 6'1", 190 pounds, exercise every day, watch my diet and feel great. Everything looks OK except my LDL Pattern B. Is there any therapy to improve the Patten B?

Answer from CCF, MD:
Your results indicate an LDL pattern B, which generally indicates small atherogenic LDL particles which may cause increased risk for CAD. However, there are several problems with LDL patterning: 1) its unreliability (of LDL pattern testing ), 2) unclear clinical evidence regarding regarding the usefulness of LDL patterns and particle size. The majority of evidence regarding the progression of atherosclerosis is with LDL lowering and to an smaller extent HDL raising.

All available clinical evidence shows that any particles in the VLDL, IDL, or LDL range are atherogenic, and there is no evidence that whether belonging to pattern A or B one is more atherogenic than others.

Subclass studies have proliferated over the last few years, but many of these studies were funded or subsidized either by suppliers of the assays as a method to expand their use and move them into mainstream practice, or by pharmaceutical companies in an attempt to claim some advantage over other therapeutic agents.
Thus, current data on LDL subclasses are at best incomplete and at worst misleading, suffering from publication bias, and now given the recent results of the Ensign et al. study, unreliable.

Your LDL, and HDL are at goal. The Lpa level is still not clearly linked as a modifiable risk factor for CAD, although elevated levels are now know to be linked to stroke.

Continue with your present treatments: aspirin, plavix, ateonol and altace are all essential medications.

Wow. The extent of ignorance that pervades the ranks of my colleagues is frightening.

Contrary to the response, LDL particle size assays are quite reliable and accurate. I've performed many thousands of lipoprotein assays and they yield reproducible and clinically believable results. For example, eliminate wheat, oats, cornstarch, and sugars and small LDL drops from 2400 nmol/L to 893 nmol/L (NMR)--huge drops. If repeated within a short period of time, the second measure will correspond quite closely.

The data are also quite clear: Small LDL particles (i.e., "pattern B") are a potent predictor of cardiovascular events. What we lack are the treatment trials that show that reduction of small LDL results in reduced cardiovascular events. The reason for this is that small LDL research is not well-funded, since there is no prescription drug to treat small LDL, only nutritional means. Niacin (as Niaspan) is as close as it comes for a "drug" to reduce small LDL. But diet is far more effective.

Given the questioner's fairly favorable BMI of 25.1 and his history of aggressive heart disease, it is virtually certain that he has what I call "genetic small LDL," i.e., small LDL that occur on a genetically-determined basis (likely due to variants of the cholesteryl-ester transfer protein, or CETP, or of hepatic lipase and others).

Ignoring this man's small LDL will, without a doubt, consign him to a future of more heart attacks, stents, and bypass. Maybe by that time the data supporting the treatment of small LDL will become available.

Take a look at these glycemic indexes (GI):

White bread 69
Whole wheat bread 72
Sucrose 59
Mars bar 68
White rice 72
Brown rice 66

I've made issue in past of whole wheat's high GI--higher than white bread. Roughly in the same glycemic league as bread are shredded wheat cereal, brown rice, and a Mars candy bar.

With few exceptions, wheat products have among the highest GIs compared to the majority of other foods. For instance:

Kidney beans 29
Chick peas 36
Apple 39
Ice cream 36
Snickers Bar 40

Yes, by the crazy logic of glycemic index, Snickers is a low-glycemic index food.

While I do not believe that low GI makes a food good or desirable, since low GI foods still provoke high blood sugars, small LDL particles, trigger glycation, and other abnormal phenomena, they are clearly less obnoxious than the items in the first list.

Take a look at this list:

Cornflakes 80
Rice cakes 80
Rice Krispies 82
Rice pasta, 92
Instant potatoes 83
Tapioca 81

Starches that are dried and/or pulverized, such as cornstarch, potato starch, rice starch, and tapioca starch (cassava root) will increase blood sugar even more than wheat. Foods with these starches have GI's of 80-100.

Cornstarch, potato starch, rice starch, and tapioca starch: Sound familiar? These are the main starches used in "gluten-free" foods. A hint of the high GI behavior of these dried starches is seen in the GI for cornflakes of 80.

So remember: Wheat-free is not the same as gluten-free. Gluten-free identifies junk carbohydrates masquerading as healthy because they don't contain one unhealthy ingredient, i.e. wheat.

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 hip

Men's lingerie is on the second floor

Rerun

10,000 units of vitamin D

No more Lovaza

This is your brain on wheat II

There's no such thing as a "no-carb" diet

Why doesn't your doctor try to CURE diabetes?

LDL pattern B

What increases blood sugar more than wheat?

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