All posts by william-davis

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.

AT 186 lbs. and 5 feet 10 inches, Doug did not regard himself as overweight. Sure, he had a little extra "love handles", a small bulge in the belly and a waist of 34 inches. But he was by no means fat, particularly compared to most of his friends, neighbors, and co-workers, many of whom were 50-100 lbs heavier.

But examine Doug's lipoprotein patterns and, if you didn't know what he looked like, you'd guess that he's at least 50 lbs or more overweight. His prominent patterns included low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, the after-eating IDL, and borderline high blood sugar of 116 mg/dl. His blood pressure usually ranged around 138/82.

In other words, Doug is among the 5-10% of people who have most of the features of the so-called "metabolic syndrome", but don't look the part. They usually (though not always) have a modest excess of visceral abdominal fat. While some people have to be 100 lbs overweight before they express these patterns, someone like Doug could do it with minimal excess weight, sometimes as little as 5-10 lbs.

Several specific genetic patterns can account for this exagerrated sensitivity to weight, but the solutions remain much the same. Heightened sensitivity to processed carbohydrates, particularly those containing wheat, is commonly present. A sharp reduction in processed carbohydrates like breads, breakfast cereals, and pretzels yields a huge benefit. Reduction in weight, of course, can also yield marked improvement in these patterns. This means that Doug should consider achieving his truly ideal weight of <175 lbs and become a truly skinny skinny person. Though his patterns might not be fully corrected, he will see substantial improvement across the board.

These patterns are also potent triggers for coronary plaque growth. Correction of low HDL, small LDL, etc. is crucial if you are to seize hold of your heart scan score.

Put the search phrase "reverse heart disease" into your internet search engine, and you'll uncover an astonishing range of sites, all making extravagant promises.

The treatment programs offered range from the bizarre (colonic irrigation, magnetism, etc.), to centers using conventional approaches like statin drugs and low-fat diets, to sites that make lofty predictions with few unique tools (slash the fat and heart disease dissolves).

95% or more of the sites you turn up are clearly pandering to the unknowing, the unsophisticated, the hopeless, or other helpless niche groups. Homeopathic preparations, chelation, magnical combinations of herbals, you name it, you'll find it attached to claims for heart disease reversal.

I've seen people use many of these treatments. Is there any effect on the rate of increase of the heart scan score? Do they impact on the 30% per year expected rate of increase? Absolutely not.

Unfortunately, this gives anyone practicing truly effective methods to reverse coronary plaque a bad name. Just associating with this suspect group of "practitioners" can make us look bad--guilt by association.

Whenever someone claims to have the secret of heart disease reversal, I ask "Can you prove it?" Show me some evidence. It doesn't necessarily have to be $30 million drug company sponsored study, but some evidence of effectiveness should be available. The only thing we should take on faith is our religion, not our health care.

Our growing number of people who have, indeed, reversed their heart scan scores--reversed heart disease--to me is persuasive evidence of the value of the Track Your Plaque approach. Not foolproof, not 100%, but the best damned approach I'm aware of, by a long shot.

Sometimes good may come from legislation.

The City of New York is contemplating a ban on trans-fat use by restaurants, bakeries, and other food establishments in preparation of their foods. (Trans-fats are also known as hydrogenated fats.)

At this point, I believe it's unclear, should this pass, what the response will be. If food preparers turn to butter, that's not much better. (Don't get fooled by the non-sensical argument of which is better, butter or margarine--they're both terrible.) Subtracting hydrogenated fats will no doubt cause major disruption of food preparation habits. It may even increase the cost of food slightly.

I believe that the true positive effect of this situation, however, will be the tremendously heightened awareness it will raise in the public, both in New York and elsewhere, on just how bad and pervasive trans-fats are. It may increase awareness that foods like donuts and pastries are not just about excessive quantities of sugars, but also trans-fat content.

If you're already a Track Your Plaque follower, you already know that the easiest way to dodge trans-fats in your diet is to minimize your use of processed foods--the cellophane-wrapped, pulverized, dried, just-add-water, microwavable and ready-to-eat foods that line supermarket shelves. Trans-fats are purely man-made. You won't find them--not a stitch--in green peppers, lettuce, olive oil, almonds. . .unprocessed foods. Watch for an in-depth report on trans-fats on the Track Your Plaque website in which we will detail the scientific evidence behind this movement, how to recognize when foods contain trans-fats, etc.

Harold is energetic and highly motivated. His heart scan score of 997 really threw him for a loop: his view of himself as a healthy, slender, 58-year old clearly needed revision.

So Harold set himself on a quest to find new ways to help him deal with his heart disease risk. He enrolled in the Track Your Plaque program. Unfortunately, he skimmed through the information but didn't really put much of it to use.

Instead, he wanted the "secret" information that other people didn't know about, "insider" information that couldn't be found in magazines, wasn't know by doctors.

He'd read that hawthorne was useful for opening coronary arteries, so he bought hawthorne at the health food store. He read that coenzyme Q10 was a little know way to strengthen the heart, so he added that. A Chinese doctor in town was advertising chelation therapy that "dissolved plaque". He subscribed to a once-a-week intravenous infusion at the doctor's holistic clinic of Eastern medicine. He'd heard that testosterone opened up arteries, so he purchased a preparation of chrysin, horny goat weed, yohimbine, and saw palmetto. He was suspicious of many conventional medicines, but he didn't want to ignore his LDL cholesterol of 172 mg/dl. So he added guggulipid and a combination cholesterol-reducing product that contained about 10 ingredients.

Harold pursued his quest, often adding new agents that came with promising stories. One year later, Harold eagerly got another heart scan, certain that his extraordinary efforts were sure to yield a dramatic drop in his heart scan score. The score: 1372, a 37% increase.

Harold was therefore several thousand dollars poorer and several steps closer to taking the plunge, allowing a potentially fatal disease to cut his life short.

The message: There's no need to re-invent the wheel. There are no top-secret ways to reverse atherosclerotic plaque.

Don't neglect the basics. You can't do calculus until you learn how to add, subtract, and divide. From a heart scan score reducing perspective, achieving 60-60-60 in basic lipids, normalizing blood pressure and blood sugar, identifying any hidden lipoprotein patterns like small LDL and Lp(a), losing weight to your ideal weight, taking fish oil, normalizing vitamin D blood levels to 50-70 ng/ml--these are the necessary prerequisites to achieve control over your coronary plaque and stop the increase in your heart scan score.

You don't need to waste your time with the rants of some supplement-hawker eager to sell you the next cure for heart disease. I'm often amazed at the number of people who do so yet have never even taken care of someone with heart disease. Would you allow someone to try and repair your car if they've never actually laid their hands on an engine before? Then why would you entrust such a person with your health?

The Track Your Plaque approach is not fool-proof, but it's the best there is by a long shot.

I ran into a cardiology colleague this weekend. He was aware of my interest in CT heart scanning and plaque reversal.

Out of the blue, he declared "I don't care about hard plaque! I only care about soft plaque." He then proceeded to describe to me how everyone--EVERYONE--needs a CT coronary angiogram to identify "soft plaque".

Is there any truth to this view? Are we only identifying "hard plaques" by focusing on calcium and calcium scores on simple CT heart scans?

Several issues deserve clarification. First of all, CT heart scans don't identify hard plaque. They identify total plaque. Because calcium is a component of the majority of atherosclerotic plaque, comprising approximately 20% of its volume, a calcium "score" can be used to indirectly quantify total plaque, both "hard" and "soft".

Anyone cardiologist who performs a lot of the procedure, intracoronary ultrasound, knows that most human plaque is also not purely soft or hard, it is mixture of both. (I've been performing this procedure since 1995.) Quantifying only soft or only hard plaque is therefore only possible in theory, not in practice.

I believe my colleague does have a valid point in one regard, however. There is indeed a small percentage of people, probably around 5% of all people who have CT heart scans, who have scores of zero yet have a modest quantity of pure "soft" plaque. These people may be misled by having a zero score. How can these people benefit from better information?

Several ways. First, people like this tend to have very high LDL cholesterols, generally 180 mg/dl or greater. They may have a very worrisome family history, e.g., father with heart attack in his 30s or 40s. This small proportion of people with zero heart scan scores may benefit from receiving X-ray dye with their heart scan, i.e., a CT coronary angiogram. Keep in mind that we're assuming everyone is without symptoms, also. If symptoms are part of the picture, everything changes.

But should everybody get a CT coronary angiogram? I don't believe so. A CT coronary angiogram involves far more radiation exposure, greater expense (usually $1800 to $4000), and, with present day technology, does not yield quantitative (measurable) information that is useful for longitudinal use for repeated scans. You don't want to undergo yearly CT coronary angiograms, for instance.

Stay tuned for more on this issue. In the meantime, I continue to try and inform my colleagues about what is right, what is wrong, what is preferable for patient safety and yields truly empowering information, and try to impress on them that the practice of cardiology is not just about enriching their retirement accounts.

Years back, I'd heard some people argue that wheat-based products were detrimental to health. At the time, I thought they were nuts. After all, wheat is the principal ingredient in a huge number of American staples like breakfast cereals and bread.

What changed my mind was the low-fat movement of the 1980s and 1990s. Proponents of low-fat diets claim that heart disease is caused by excess fat in the diet. A diet that is severely restricted in fat therefore might cure or reverse heart disease.

But low-fat diets evolve into high-carbohydrate diets. This nearly always means an over-reliance on wheat products. People will say to me "I had a healthy breakfast: shredded wheat cereal in skim milk and two slices of whole wheat toast." Yes, it is low-fat, but is it healthy?

Absolutely not. Followers of the Track Your Plaque program know that low-fat diets ignite the formation of small LDL particles (a VERY potent trigger of coronary plaque growth), drops HDL, raises triglycerides, causes resistance to insulin and thereby diabetes, raises blood pressure. They also make you fat, with preferential accumulation of abdominal visceral (intestinal lining) fat.

Look at people with gluten enteropathy, a marked intolerance to wheat products that results in violent bowel problems, arthritis, etc. if unrecognized. These people, if the diagnosis is made early, are strikingly slender and commonly unusually healthy otherwise. There's a message here.

If you need convincing, try an experiment. Eliminate--not reduce, but eliminate wheat products from your diet, whether or not the fancy label on the package says it's healthy, high in fiber, a "healthy low-fat snack", etc. This means no bread, pasta, crackers, cookies, breads, chips, breading on chicken, rolls, bagels, cakes, breakfast cereal...Whew!

You won't be hungry if you replace the lost calories with plentiful raw almonds, walnuts, pecans, sunflower and pumpkin seeds; more liberal use of healthy olive oil, canola oil and flaxseed oil; adding ground flaxseed and oat bran to yogurt, cottage cheese, etc.; and more lean proteins like lean beef, chicken, turkey, and fish.

I predict that, not only will you lose weight, sometimes dramatically, but you will feel better: more energy, more alertness, sleep better, less moody. Time and again, people who try this will tell me that the daytime grogginess they've suffered and lived with for years, and would treat with loads of caffeine, is suddenly gone. They cruise through their day with extra energy.

Success at this can yield great advantage for your heart scan score control and reversal efforts. It will give you greater control over small LDL and pre-diabetic patterns, in particular.

Perhaps it's too early to tell whether it's true, but believe that we're seeing coronary plaque reversal--i.e., reduction of CT heart scan score--that is BIGGER and FASTER than ever before. We are now witnessing 20-30% reductions in score, even in the first year.

Early in our experience, I was thrilled with a slowing of plaque growth. Recall that coronary plaque grows at the rate of 30% per year. We would often seen slowing to 10-15% per year in the first year, then a levelling off to little or no increase in the 2nd or 3rd year. Regression, or reduction of score, was less common.

Now, with some further tweaking of our program, we are seeing these large magnitudes of coronary plaque reversal routinely. Not in everybody, of course. There are exceptions that mostly includes people who are less motivated and occasional people with more difficult to control lipoprotein patterns.

I believe that part, or perhaps most, of our recent success is from normalizing blood levels of 25-OH-vitamin D3 levels to 50-70 ng/ml. I'm unable to tell you why this occurs, but I am convinced that it has added huge advantage. Raising blood vitamin D levels to normal carries enormous implication: reduction of colon and prostate cancer risk, reduction of blood pressure, sensitization to insulin, prevention of arthritis and multiple sclerosis, and--I believe--control over coronary plaque calcification and growth.

Watch for a profile of one of our latest success stories, a physician who was experiencing 20% per year plaque growth three years in a row until he followed the Track Your Plaque approach and promptly experienced an 18% reduction in heart scan score. You'll find it in our next newsletter. To subscribe, go to the www.cureality.com homepage and click on the free book download.

I sat next to a cardiology colleague of mine last evening at a dinner. He was lamenting the fact that, because of changes in hospital affiliations of his several-member cardiology group, he'd seen a drop in the volume of heart catheterizations he was performing.

"I'm used to doing 5 cases a day! Now I'm down to 3 or 4 a day." He went on to tell me how he's working to increase his volume. "I'm branching out into doing carotid stents and anything I can find in the legs." He also described how he was cultivating referring physicians to send him more procedural patients.

Now, this colleague, I believe, is a hard-working, conscientious physician. But his attitude reflects the perverse logic of many physicians: I need to do more procedures, not because it benefits patients, but because that's what I want to do--to be busy, make more money, acquire more experience, build my ego, etc.

Doing more procedures has nothing to do with an altruistic goal of doing more good for society. It is purely for selfish reasons. Beware of this shockingly common, pervasive attitude. There's a proper time and place for heart procedures, or any procedure, for that matter. But feeding your doctor's ambitions is not a good reason.

Such was the title of Dr. William Roberts' editorial back in 1987 discussing the health effects of fast foods.

If you need a graphic illustration of the extraordinarily damaging health effects of fast foods, take a look at trends in mainland China. A recent editorial in the American Journal of Cardiology written by Dr. Tsung Cheng of George Washington University makes several points:

--The popularity of fast food in China is booming, with Chinese now more likely than Americans to eat in a fast food restaurant. Each week, 41% of Chinese eat in a fast food restaurant at least once, compared to 35% in the U.S.

--Average total cholesterol levels have skyrocketed from 150 mg/dl in 1958 to 230 mg/dl in 2003.

--50% of Chinese with normal blood pressure in 1992 are now hypertensive.

--Hospitalization for heart disease rose from the 5th most common diagnosis to #1, now constituting nearly 50% of all hospital admissions.

McDonald's and KFC dominate the fast food landscape in China, but up and coming competitors are growing at exponential rates. A media conversation that will surely be reported in the near future is the boom in obesity and diabetes in China as these trends express themselves in weight gain, as it has in the U.S.

I hope you've all seen the entertaining but frightening documentary, Supersize Me chronicling the travails of 30-something Morgan Spurlock as he eats all his meals for one month at McDonald's restaurants in 20 cities. Though focusing on McDonald's, the movie is about a lot more than that. It paints a picture of how fast food as well as food manufacturers in general have changed--distorted--our eating habits.

If you haven't yet seen it, I would urge you to do so and watch it with the rest of the family. My kids (ages 8, 12, and 14) were shocked (and entertained) and they haven't set food in a fast food restaurant since.

Ted is a 74-year old physician, still conducting a busy practice. He came to me because of some vague fatigue and breathlessness. He also got himself a CT heart scan. His score: 1277.

When he came to my office, he clearly became breathless with just minimal effort. A stress test confirmed an area of much reduced blood flow to the front of his heart muscle. A heart catheterization identified a severe blockage of 95% in the left anterior descending artery and a stent was inserted. This resulted in relief of Ted's symptoms.

When Ted returned to the office after his discharge from the hospital, I advised him that some major changes in his prevention program were overdue. "After all, Ted, you were lucky this time. You were provided some warning. It doesn't always work that way." So I advised Ted to make a number of changes in his diet (he was following an old-fashioned, and quite self-destructive, low-fat diet), have lipoproteins assessed to identify hidden causes of coronary plaque, and take fish oil.

"Fish oil? I don't think so. That's pretty drastic!" he exclaimed. He felt that all the nutrition he needed was contained in the food he ate. Even after several lipoprotein abnormalities were uncovered like small LDL and excessive after-eating (post-prandial) patterns, he still resisted any changes. "I'm going to just wait and see how I feel. But I will take aspirin."

Such is the state of mind of the older physician: procedures are okay, low-fat diets prevent heart disease, and the Beatles are touring America. But fish oil? No way!

Unfortunately, Ted's attitude encapsulates the attitudes of many of my medical colleagues who don't share the excuse of age. They still practice the woefully outdated ways of physicians like Ted, clinging to notions of "balanced diets", nitroglycerin representing a rational treatment for coronary disease, and adequate rest being curative for heart conditions.

The world is changing. We're entering an exciting age of self-empowerment. The ridiculous notions of health practiced in the last half of the 20th century are withering and dying. Poor Ted. He must view the current healthcare landscape as increasingly incomprehensible to a guy who started out delivering babies at home. Perhaps, in some respects his world was better. But, in coronary disease prevention, attitudes like this need to go the way of steam engines and racial segregation--good riddens!

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

Are you a skinny fat person?

Heart disease "reversal" gives health a bad name

Trans fats to be banned

Back to basics!

I don't care about hard plaque!

Try an experiment in a wheat-free diet

Bigger, faster plaque reversal

I need to do more procedures!

Fast food and quick plaques

But fish oil is too drastic!