Fat = triglycerides

In other words, eat fat, whether it's saturated, hydrogenated, polyunsaturated, or monounsaturated, and blood levels of triglycerides will go up over the next 6 hours. This remains true if there are carbohydrates in the meal, or if there are NO carbohydrates in the meal. It also remains true if you chronically consume fats.

While fats are the primary determinant of postprandial (after-eating) triglycerides, carbohydrates are the primary determinant of fasting triglycerides.

So, if your triglycerides are high on a fasting cholesterol (lipid) panel, it's most likely because you overconsume carbohydrates.

Thanks to cartoonist Eli Stein, who has generously allowed me to reprint his artwork on these pages. Mr. Stein has published his work in dozens of magazines and newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, Barron's, and Good Housekeeping. More of his work can be found at Eli Stein Cartoons.

Humans have limited capacity to store carbohydrates. Beyond the glucose and glycogen in our blood and tissues, we have relatively little carbohydrate to draw from in time of energy need. That's why long-distance runners and triathletes have to carry sugar sources to keep blood sugar from plummeting.

Fat, of course, is different. We have virtually unlimited capacity to store energy as fat.

Because we have limited carbohydrate storage capacity, what can the body do with the excessive quantities of carbohydrates that Americans ingest? What becomes of a bagel for breakfast, wheat crackers for snacks, a whole wheat sandwich for lunch, pretzels, and whole wheat pasta that many people eat every day, not to mention the chips, soft drinks, and juices?

Excess carbohydrates are diverted to an interesting metabolic pathway called de novo lipogenesis (DNL). This refers to the liver's ability to make triglycerides from excessive carbohydrates in the diet. Triglycerides are packaged for release into the blood as VLDL. VLDL, in turn, interacts with other lipoproteins, creating small LDL particles, reduced HDL and smaller, less protective HDL. High VLDL will be measured on a standard cholesterol panel as higher triglycerides.

A University of California (Berkeley, San Francisco) group has done much of the work describing DNL.

A diet weighed towards carbohydrates, especially if 50% or greater calories are carbohydrate, is sufficient to provoke plenty of DNL, even in slender people. DNL is a big part of the reason why low-fat (and, thereby, high-carbohydrate) diets result in higher triglycerides. DNL really gets turned on many-fold if the carbohydrates are "simple," rather than "complex."

Overweight people, however, can demonstrate five-fold greater DNL even with lesser quantities of carbohydrate intake (e.g., 40% fat, 46% carbohydrate, 14% protein):

From Schwarz et al 2003. Mean (± SEM) fractional de novo lipogenesis in lean normoinsulinemic (NI), obese NI, and obese hyperinsulinemic (HI) subjects after 5 d of consuming a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet and in different lean NI and obese HI subjects after 5 d of consuming a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet. Values with different superscript letters are significantly different.

Excessive carbohydrates, a la standard low-fat diets, are good for nobody. The concept of de novo lipogenesis fills in a theoretical hole that now explains why people who eat carbohydrates have higher triglycerides, VLDL, and, eventually, insulin resistance and diabetes.

I previously posted Gretchen's postprandial diet experiment, in which she consumed a low-fat diet for a day, followed by a low-carbohydrate diet for a day. Grethen monitored blood glucose and triglycerides with fingerstick checks. (Blood glucose can be checked on any widely available glucose monitor; triglycerides can be monitored with the Cardiochek device.)

Let's now discuss what happened.

On the low-carb, high-fat day, there was an initial surge in triglycerides to 250 mg/dl late morning, followed by a secondary peak several hours following dinner. Because fat is mostly triglycerides, Gretchen's high-fat (sausage, bacon, butter, whole-fat yogurt) breakfast provided a large quantity of triglycerides that needed to be absorbed. This generally occurs over approximately 6 hours, varying depending on body weight, how accustomed you are to fat, activity level during the day, the kind of fat in the meal. The high content of saturated fat in Gretchen's high-fat breakfast likely caused the somewhat slower drop in triglycerides over approximately 7 1/2 hours.

As Gretchen herself had noted, triglycerides the following day were lower, a typical low-carb response. Blood sugar throughout showed only minor variation, with only small postprandial increases.

Thus, Gretchen experienced what we'd expect with a low-carb, high-fat diet: an initial high surge in triglycerides, followed by a decline in fasting levels, while blood sugar shows a normal contour.

Now, the more confusing low-fat experience:

Blood glucose makes a striking peak at 200 mg/dl after the low-fat breakfast of pasta and rice, in contrast to the low-carb breakfast. Triglycerides behaved very differently from the low-carb experiment: While there was no initial postprandial surge, there was a late surge developing 6-24 hours later. The late surge continued into the next day, with fasting levels the following morning (210 mg/dl) exceeding the starting triglyceride level (60 mg/dl).

The one potentially confusing aspect of all this is Gretchen's late rise in triglycerides on the low-fat diet. This phenomenon is due to something called de novo lipogenesis, or the liver's conversion of carbohydrates to triglycerides that occurs when an excessive carbohydrate load comes through diet. Because the human body cannot store anything beyond a minor quantity of carbohydrates (as glucose and glycogen), carbohydrates are converted to fats.

Another factor causing the late triglyceride increase is insulin resistance, given the high blood sugar response. When insulin resistance is present, the activity of the enzyme, lipoprotein lipase, is reduced. Less lipoprotein lipase activity allows slower VLDL degradation, allowing VLDL (and thereby triglycerides contained in VLDL) to "stack up" in the blood. Thus, the higher triglycerides late after eating and into the next morning.

One issue to be aware of: Acute responses can differ from chronic responses. In other words, had Gretchen had the luxury (and time and money) to conduct the experiment over, say, 4 weeks, rather than a single day, there would be somewhat different responses. The best data on this come from Dr. Jeff Volek of the University of Connecticut, in which 4 weeks of low-carbohydrate eating modify fasting and postprandial responses over time.

Several conclusions can be made from Gretchen's experience:

1) Low-carb, high-fat acutely generates extravagant postprandial triglyceride responses.
2) Low-fat causes a late triglyceride surge and higher fasting triglycerides.
3) Low-fat leads to high blood sugars and, by implication, diabetes.

Both the low-carb and the low-fat responses are undesirable, both leading to increased risk for heart disease. Which is worse? I believe that low-fat is more destructive, since it leads over time to both high triglycerides and diabetes, while low-carb/high-fat only leads to postprandial triglyceride surges, at least acutely.

How to best balance the responses to reduce risk for heart disease? That's a discussion for future.

Again, my thanks to Gretchen and the substantial amount of effort that went into generating these numbers. More of Gretchens' own writing can be found on her blogs:
http://wildlyfluctuating.blogspot.com
http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/5068

A Heart Scan Blog reader sent this fascinating description of his wheat-free adventure.

Whenever I discuss this notion of going wheat-free and the incredible health effects that develop, I invariably receive comments or emails saying something like "I eat wheat and feel fine. That can't be true." The problem is that not everybody needs to go wheat-free. 20-30% of people can include wheat in their diet and suffer little more than weight gain, some not at all.

But stories like Michael's (below) are commonplace in my experience. I've had many patients who, at first, refused to believe that wheat exposure might be the underlying cause for health struggles. But they finally give it a try and find that rashes, arthritis, acid reflux, irritable bowel symptoms, mood swings, anger, etc. are miraculously improved or gone.

Anyway, hear what Michael has to tell us:

Dr. Davis,

I want to thank you. I was browsing the web a while back and happened to stumble upon your blog post about wheat belly. The first thing that caught my attention was that I thought you had somehow gotten a photograph of me. The young man you posted an image of looked exactly like me. So I read what you had to say. After reading, I thought "Four weeks isn’t so bad. I think I can handle this."

It has now been nine weeks and all I can say is that I am completely amazed. Let me say first that twice in the past twenty years I have been tested for allergies. The first time I was tested I showed a slight reaction to Timothy Grass, but not enough to cause me any problems. The second testing I did not show a reaction to anything. So, I have always assumed that my chronic sinus problem were due to sensitivities to environmental pollutions. Now I am not so sure. I would like to list for you everything that has happened to me since I eliminated wheat from my diet.

1. I have lost a total of 12 pounds in the last 9 weeks.
2. I have lost 1 ¼ inches of belly fat
3. I have lost a tremendous amount of fat from my neck.
4. My entire life I have had problems with oily hair. I could wash my hair and three hours later I looked as if I hadn’t washed in a week. Now my hair stays clean and soft for two to three days without shampoo.
5. My hair was always flat and stringy. Now it has lots of body.
6. I used to have thick layers of dry skin on my scalp. It would come loose in chunks as large as a fingernail. That dry scalp is gone.
7. I used to have dry flaky skin that seemed to secrete oil. That no longer happens. My skin is now soft and smooth.
8. I have lived with bad acne for at least 35 years. Now it is hard to find a pimple on my body.
9. I have always had to fight dehydration. That is no longer a problem.
10. I used to drink two large cups of coffee every morning just to be able to function. I now have enough energy that I have eliminated caffeine from my diet.
11. I sleep more soundly than ever before and my dreams are clear and vivid.
12. My thought processes are more active and clear than they have ever been.
13. My chronic sinus issue is now a thing of the past.
14. I used to have problems with getting the “shakes” if I had gone more than a couple of hours without eating. It was as if I was suffering from low blood sugar. I would even be afraid that I would pass out. Now all I feel is hunger. I can go all day without eating and never feel in danger of losing consciousness.

Today is Thursday. This past Monday my wife and I were eating out and I ordered a burger without a bun. What I didn’t realize was that the burger would arrive covered in onion rings. I knocked the mountain of onion rings onto the plate but there were still a couple that were embedded in the cheese. I decided, what the hell, a couple of onion rings shouldn’t make that much of a difference. I will not make that mistake again anytime soon. Within 30 minutes I felt like there was a steel spike going through my left eye socket. I don’t remember ever being in that much pain. My sinuses were exploding. This morning, as I write this, I still feel the vestiges of that pain. Just enough that I know it is there. But after two and a half days, I am at least able to function again.

I owe you a debt of gratitude. You may have just saved my life. In the very least you have given me the means to improve my life in ways that I never thought possible.

Thank you so much,
Michael B.

Now, if wheat exposure can do that in Michael, what damage can it do in other people?

Personally, I previously experienced many of the same symptoms that Michael suffered, all gone with wheat elimination.

My advice: If you have any inkling that you might have a wheat sensitivity, make a New Year's resolution to stay wheat-free for 4 weeks and see whether you can feel any difference. Not everybody will, but many will be telling us about the dramatic health turnarounds they experienced.

Lipoprotein lipase can make the difference between having heart disease and not having it. Having sky-high triglycerides or normal triglycerides. It can mean dinner hanging around for over 12 hours in the bloodstream, rather than the usual 4-6 hours.

We use a lot of niacin in the Track Your Plaque program.

Niacin:

--Increases HDL and shifts HDL towards the large, protective fraction

--Reduces small LDL--In fact, niacin is the best treatment we have to reduce small LDL after wheat elimination and carbohydrate reduction.

--Reduces fasting and postprandial (after-eating) triglycerides

--Reduces heart attack risk by 20-28%--even as a sole agent.

But . . . niacin also triggers higher blood sugar because it partially blocks the effects of insulin (insulin "resistance").

While the net effect of niacin remains positive, the provocation of insulin resistance is not such a good thing. Can it be minimized or eliminated?

Yes, through exercise. Here's one interesting observation in obese (BMI 34.0), sedentary men given placebo, exercise, niacin (1500 mg Niaspan, once per day), or niacin + exercise:

From Plaisance et al 2008.

Blood was drawn following a high-fat meal challenge. (Yes, a high-fat challenge, not a carbohydrate challenge. In this study, there were only 17 grams carbohydrates in the test meal, but 100 grams fat. More on this in future.) Exercise consisted of walking for 50 minutes at a moderate pace one hour prior to the meal challenge.

You can see from the graph that exercise partially corrected the increased insulin level provoked by niacin.

Judging from this and other studies, exercise can help minimize the insulin-blocking effects of niacin. It doesn't take much, just moderate exercise for at least 30 minutes.

Adequate sleep can also help, since sleep deprivation is a potent trigger for insulin resistance, only worsened in the presence of niacin. Vitamin D supplementation to achieve desirable blood levels (which I define as 60-70 ng/ml) is also an effective means to minimize this effect.

Here's a trick I learned after years of fussing over people's small LDL.

To gain better control over small LDL, follow blood sugars (blood glucose).

When you think about it, all the foods that trigger increases in blood sugar also trigger small LDL. Carbohydrates, in general, are the most potent triggers of small LDL. The most offensive among the carbohydrates: foods made with wheat. After wheat, there's foods made with cornstarch, sucrose (table sugar), and the broad categories of "other" carbohydrates, such as oats, barley, quinoa, sorghum, bulghur, etc.

Assessing small LDL requires a full lipoprotein assessment in which small LDL particles are measured (NMR, VAP, GGE). Not the easiest thing to do in the comfort of your kitchen.

However, you can easily and now cheaply check your blood sugar. Because blood sugar parallels small LDL, checking blood sugar can provide insight into how you respond to various foods and know whether glucose/small LDL have been triggered.

Here's how I suggest patients to do it:

1) Purchase an inexpensive blood glucose monitor at a discounter like Walmart or Walgreen's. You can buy them now for about $10. They're even sometimes free with promotional offers. You will also need to purchase lancets and test strips.

2) With a meal in question, check a blood sugar just prior to the meal, then again 60 minutes after finishing the meal. Say, for example, your pre-meal blood sugar is 102 mg/dl. You eat your meal, check it 60 minutes after finishing. Ideally, the postprandial (after-meal) blood sugar is no more than 102 mg/dl, i.e., no higher than pre-meal.

Perhaps you're skeptical that oatmeal in skim milk with walnuts and raisins will do any damage. So you perform this routine with your breakfast. Blood sugar beforehand: 100 mg/dl. Blood sugar 1 hour post: 163 mg/dl--Uh oh, not good for you. And small LDL will be triggered.

This approach is not perfect. It will not, for example, identify "stealth" triggers of blood sugar and small LDL like pasta, for the same reasons that pasta has a misleadingly low glycemic index: sugars are released slowly and not fully evident with the one-hour blood sugar.

Nonetheless, for most foods and meals, tracking your one-hour postprandial blood sugar can provide important insight into your individual susceptibility to sugar and small LDL-triggering effects.

C-reactive protein (CRP) is the liver product of inflammatory responses anywhere in the body. If there's an inflamed left knee, CRP will be increased. If viral bronchitis is making you cough, then CRP will be increased.

The argument put forward by the drug industry is that, because CRP indicates underlying inflammation, very low-grade levels that can be measured in the absence of overt inflammation like the sore knee or bronchitis is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular events. There are now many studies that conclusively demonstrate that, the higher the CRP, the greater the cardiovascular risk.

Naturally, any marker of risk is followed by the inevitable study: Do statin drugs reduce the excess cardiovascular risk of excessive CRP?

And, yes, indeed they do. My statin-crazed colleagues rave about the so-called "pleiotropic," or non-lipid, effects of statins. CRP reduction and the reduction of risk associated with CRP result with statin treatment.

But is life really statin vs. placebo, as most statin trials are constructed? Are there strategies that can outdo statins like Crestor for reduction of CRP?

A quick quiz:

How much omega-3 fatty acids, EPA + DHA, are in each capsule of fish oil with the composition shown on the label below:

If you said 1340 mg (894 mg + 446 mg), sorry, but you're wrong. There are 670 mg EPA + DHA per capsule.

Did you notice that the composition, or "Supplement Facts," lists the contents of two capsules? Rather than the usual one capsule contents, this product label lists two capsules.

I don't know why some manufacturers or distributors do this. However, I have seen many people tripped up by this kind of labeling, taking half the omega-3 fatty acids they thought they were taking. This can be important when you are trying to obtain a specific dose of EPA + DHA to reduce triglycerides, reduce Lp(a), control abnormal heart rhythms, reduce bipolar mood swings, or other important effects.

I liken this to pulling up to a gas station where the sign says gasoline for $1.25. Wow! Can't beat that! You then find out that it's really $1.25 for a half-gallon, or $2.50 a gallon.

In truth, the labeling is accurate; it's just very easy to not notice the two capsule composition.

Imagine this:

What is OLAVA?

Olava is prescription olive oil. It is the purest, highest concentration of olive oil available.

Why Do I Need a Prescription for OLAVA?

Studies show that olive oil contains essential fatty acids, "good" fats that:

--Contain natural compounds your body needs for good health but can't produce on its own.

--Has antioxidants that may provide protection from heart disease.

So, it is common for people to ask why they need a prescription for OLAVA if it is made from a natural ingredient--olive oil. It's time to get the facts about OLAVA. Learn why OLAVA is different from olive oil you can buy at a store.

OLAVA Is an FDA-Approved Medication

OLAVA is the only FDA-approved medicine made from olive oil that's proven, along with diet, to reduce risk for heart disease

The FDA enforces standards to make sure that prescription medications like OLAVA are safe, effective, and quality controlled.

The way OLAVA is manufactured is reviewed and approved by the FDA.

OLAVA uses a 10-step purification process that helps remove lead and other environmental toxins that can be present in olive oil.

Each 1-gram capsule of OLAVA contains 1000 mg of pure olive oil.

The FDA-approved dose of OLAVA is 4 capsules per day. It could take up to 2 tablespoons per day of regular olive oil to provide the same amount of active ingredients proven to lower heart disease risk.

What Else You Should Know About Olive Oil

Regular olive oil has not been approved by the FDA to treat any specific disease like heart disease.

Olive oil doesn't have specific dosing information; it has a food label.

Olive oil does not go through an FDA-approved manufacturing process.

Talk to Your Doctor About OLAVA

If you have very heart disease, you may need a prescription medicine, along with diet, to treat your condition. Talk to your doctor about OLAVA. Print a trial offer to use on your first prescription of OLAVA.

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.

What's that in your mouth?

De Novo Lipo-what?

Gretchen's postprandial diet experiment II

A wheat-free 2010

Lipoprotein lipase and you

If you take niacin, you must exercise

To track small LDL, track blood sugar

C-reactive protein: Fiction from the drug industry?

Watch your fish oil labels

Why do I need a prescription for Olava?

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