All posts by william-davis

At a social gathering this weekend, as we humans like to do, someone asked me what I did for a living. I told him I was a cardiologist.

"What hospital do you work at?" he asked.

This is invariably the response I get whenever I tell people what I do. I wouldn't make much of it except that it happens just about every time.

This indicates to me just how successful hospitals, my colleagues, cardiac device manufacturers, and others supporting the status quo in heart care, have been in persuading us that the place for heart disease is the hospital--period.

Tense families, drama, high-tech...It all takes place in the hospital.

Yet the people destined to be the fodder for hospital heart care are presently well, mostly unaware of what the future holds. Also unaware that heart disease is readily, easily, inexpensively, and accurately identifiable. Ask anyone in the Track Your Plaque program who's had a CT heart scan.

We all need to rid ourselves of the idea that the hospital is the place for heart disease. If the coronary plaque behind heart attack is easy to detect and controllable, there's little or no need for the hospital for the vast majority of us.

In the majority of instances of coronary disease, the hospital should be the place for the non-compliant and the ill-informed, and not for those of us sufficiently motivated to know and do better. The formula is simple: 1) Quantify plaque with a CT heart scan, 2) Identify the causes, then 3) Correct the causes.

I came across this Blog authored by a nutritionist when it was highlighted on Blogger as an interesting site:

The Fanatic Cook at http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/

I was thoroughly impressed with the insightful and entertaining commentary. I'd highly recommend this site to you for reading on nutrition. In particular, her coenzyme Q10 column was exceptionally well written and clear.(http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2005/02/statins-and-not-well-publicized-side.html)

Also read her column, Super NonFoods at http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2005/07/super-nonfoods.html.

There's also oodles of recipes, all for the taking.

Eggs have been in the center of the cholesterol controversy almost from the very start.

The traditional argument against eggs went that eggs, high in cholesterol (210-275 mg per egg)and with some saturated fat (1.5-2.5 grams per egg), raised blood cholesterol (and LDL). Out went the daily fried, scrambled, poached eggs that many Americans indulged in most mornings. (We replaced it with more breakfast cereals and other carbohydrate conveniences, then got enormously overweight.)

A large Harvard epidemiologic study in 1999 called this observation into question. They tracked the fate of 117,000 thousand people and then compared the rate of heart attack, death, and other cardiovascular events among various people correlated to the "dose" of eggs they ate. Egg intake varied from none to 7 or more per week. Lo and behold, people who ate more eggs appeared to not suffer more events.

This study, large and well-conducted by an internationally respected group of investigators, seem to reopen the gates for more egg consumption, though most Americans still consume eggs cautiously.

Deeper down in this study, however, was another observation: People with diabetes who ate 1 egg per day had double the risk of heart attack. Because this study was observational, no specific conclusion as to why could be drawn.

A new study conducted by a Brazilian group may shed some light. Healthy (non-diabetic) men were fed an emulsion of several eggs. Inclusion of plentiful yolks caused a dramatic slowing of fat clearance from the blood. Specifically, "chylomicron remnants" were abnormally persistent in the blood. Chylomicron remnants are potent causes of coronary plaque. (Chylomicron remnants can be measured fairly well by intermediate-density lipoprotein and VLDL by NMR, or IDL by VAP.)

Diabetics are know to have substantial disorders of after-meal fat clearance, including an excess of chylomicron remnants. Could the Brazilian observation be the explanation for the increased event rate in diabetics in the Harvard study? Interesting to speculate.

We continue to tell our patients that eating eggs in moderation is probably safe. After all, there are good things in eggs: the high protein in the egg white, lecithin in the yolk. It is the yolk's contents that are in question, not the white. Thus, you and I can eat all the egg whites (e.g., Egg Beaters) we want. It's the safety of yolks that are uncertain.

The abnormal after-eating effect suggested by the Brazilians opens up some very interesting questions and confirms that we should still be cautious in our intake of egg yolks. One yolk per day is clearly too much. What is safe? The exisitng information would suggest that, if you have diabetes, pre-diabetes, or a postprandial disorder (IDL, VLDL), you should minimize your egg yolk use, perhaps no more than 3 or so per week, preferably not all at one but spaced out to avoid the after-eating effect.

Others without postprandial disorders may safely eat more, perhaps 5 per week, but also not all at one but spaced out.

Track Your Plaque Members: Be sure to read our upcoming Special Report on Postprandial Disorders. It contains lots of info on what this important pattern is all about. Postprandial disorders are largely unexplored territory that hold great promise for tools to inhibit coronary plaque growth and drop your heart scan score. The Brazilian study is just one of many future studies that are likely to be released in future about this very fascinating area.

Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Rimm EB, Manson JE, Ascherio A, Colditz GA, Rosner BA, Spiegelman D, Speizer FE, Sacks FM, Hennekens CH, Willett WC.A prospective study of egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease in men and women. JAMA 1999 Apr 21;281(15):1387-94.

Cesar TB, Oliveira MR, Mesquita CH, Maranhao RC. High cholesterol intake modifies chylomicron metabolism in normolipidemic young men. J Nutr. 2006 Apr;136(4):971-6.

If there's one thing I truly fear from a heart scan score reduction/coronary plaque regression standpoint, it's diabetes.

I saw a graphic illustration of this today. Roy came into the office after his 2nd heart scan. His first scan 14 months ago showed a score of 162. Roy started out weighing well over 300 lbs and with newly-diagnosed adult diabetes.

Roy put extraordinary effort into his program. He lost nearly 70 lbs by walking; cutting processed carbohydrates, greasy foods, and slashing overall calories. His lipoproteins, disastrous in the beginning, were falling into line, though HDL was still lagging in the low 40s, as Roy remains around 60 lbs overweight, even after the initial 70 lb loss.

Unfortunately, despite the huge loss in weight, Roy remains diabetic. On a drug called Actos, which enhances sensitivity to insulin, along with vitamin D to also enhance insulin response, his blood sugars remained in the overtly diabetic range.

Roy's repeat heart scan showed a score of 482--a tripling of his original score.

Obviously, major changes in Roy's program are going to be required to keep this rate of growth from continuing. But I tell Roy's story to illustrate the frightening power of diabetes to trigger coronary plaque growth.

Like Kryptonite to Superman (remember George Reeves crumbling and falling to his knees when the bad guys got a hold of some?), diabetes is the one thing I fear greatly when it comes to reducing your heart scan score. As you see with Roy's case, diabetes can be responsible for explosive plaque growth, more than anything else I know.

The best protection from diabetes is to never get it in the first place. (See my earlier Blog, "Diabetes is a choice you make".)

Around 10 years ago, I was talking to a balloon and stent manufacturer's representative, who was raving about some new device that was due for release to the market. Back then, the sky seemed the limit to cardiac device manufacturers, who were falling over themselves scrambling to design and market the next new device.

The angioplasty market then had ballooned (no pun intended) from nothing to a multi-billion dollar industry. Stents were just getting underway but clearly had potential for being at least as large.

But this was a time when preventive therapies were also beginning to get quite powerful. We had just gotten started doing CT heart scans and were excited about the possibilities, statin drugs were gaining evidence through clinical trials, and the power of many nutritional supplements was finally achieving validation. We were even learning the error of our prior low-fat ways.

So I broadly pronounced to the enthusiastic product representative, "In 10 years, balloons, angioplasty, and stents will occupy this little corner of cardiac care because prevention will have become so powerful. We won't talk about heart procedures. We'll talk about coronary plaque regression!"

I even advised the representative that he should consider a career change in anticipation of the coming wave of preventive strategies.

Was I ever wrong. Despite the power of heart disease prevention--which is indeed true--cardiac device and procedure technology has boomed, both in popularity as well as in revenue success. Device manufacturing and sales are hugely successful. Implanting devices into people is a hugely profitable enterprise.

Since my ill-timed comments to the salesman, Boston Scientific, a major manufacturer of stents and other cardiac devices, reported revenues of $6.2 billiondollars in 2005, a 12% increase over the prior year. Medtronic reported 2005 revenues of $11.3 billion, growing at 15% per year. Clearly, cardiac procedures are still quite popular--and profitable.

My timing was off, but not for long. The huge crest of change in preventive therapies is upon us. That's the premise behind the Track Your Plaque concept: heart disease prevention can't be found in a hospital, is not supported by cardiac device manufacturers, and is not being advocated by most cardiologists or primary care physicians. Yet the tools are getting better and better every day.

Those of you who succeed in halting or reducing your heart scan score are extremely unlikely to add to Boston Scientific's or Medtronic's revenues. Help me spread the word.

Sometimes it's easy to get smug when coronary plaque is a reversible process.

When you see people day in, day out, week in, week out, drop their heart scan scores, reversing what could be a dangerous disease, you can sometimes lose sight of just how dangerous coronary disease can be.

Whether I like it or not, I maintain a reasonably active role in hospitals out of necessity. I do need their services occasionally for people with advanced heart disease when I meet them (when regression is not the initial conversation for safety reasons), or valve disease is diagnosed, or someone shows up with congenital or heart muscle diseases. In other words, although we focus on coronary issues, there's more to heart disease than just coronary disease.

This unfortunate case just served to remind me how powerful coronary disease can be. Elizabeth, an active 67-year old, finally came to the hospital after suffering 6 months of chest pain and increasing breathlessness. She hated hospitals and hadn't seen a doctor in 30 years since she was successfully treated for cancer.

In those 30 years, she'd been quite active with family and a small business. But she also smoked 2 packs of cigarettes most of those years.

After she was admitted to the hospital, it became clear that Elizabeth had experienced one, if not several, heart attacks along the way. The entire front 2/3 of her heart was non-functional. If that wasn't bad enough, two of her heart valves were severely diseased and dysfunctional: Her aortic valve barely opened (aortic valve "stenosis", or stiffness) and the mitral valve leaked severely (mitral valve "insufficiency", or leakiness). All of this was confirmed with conventional testing in the hospital, including a heart catheterization.

Elizabeth ended up in emergency surgery--very unusual, by the way, for valve surgery of the sort she had--but died in the first few hours after her procedure. Her heart had simply been too damaged from her heart attacks, and the extraordinary stress of surgery that included two valves was too much. She died on the ventilator.

Coronary disease is a very serious matter. When I see cases like Elizabeth, it boosts my commitment to tell everyone that heart disease--when identified early enough--is a controllable, preventable, even reversible process. For poor Elizabeth, she was much too far down the path of severe, irreversible disease that control or reversal was simply not an option. She was in imminent danger of dying even upon arrival.

It's exciting yet sometimes frightening to know what you have in your hands: The means to control this monster called coronary disease. Use it wisely. But don't lose sight of what it can do it you permit it to grow, fester, and explode.

I came across this shockingly silly report on AOL, who obtained their info courtesy Health Magazine:

The Best New Healthy Foods for Busy People
from Health

The foods on their list:

Kettle Brand Bakes Hickory Honey BBQ--the healthy claim is based on the lack of trans-fatty acids and low-fat.

Post Healthy Classics Raisin Bran Cereal Bars, Cranberry--Likewise, low-fat, sweet, and addictive means healthy to these people.

Amy’s Mediterranean Pizza With Cornmeal Crust --Please!!

Horizon Organic Colby Cheese Sticks --Because it's made by cattle without use of growth hormone or antibiotics, they declare this healthy. I guess we can ignore the saturated fat content and high total fat content.

100% Whole Grain Chips Ahoy! Cookies --You mean we can add the bran back to wheat products and make it healthy?!

This kind of mass-market marketing trickery leaves me incredulous. Don't believe it for a moment. This is typical of the food industry: Take one aspect of nutrition that is truly healthy, such as high-fiber, or low-fat, or organic. Then add undesirable, unhealthy ingredients. The current fad is to add lots of sugar and or sugar-equivalents (usually flour and other wheat products). Because there's one healthy ingredient, they'll call the end-product healthy, too.

If you want to see what health looks like if you indulge in "healthy" products like this, just look up and down the grocery aisles at your neighborhood grocery store. You're likely to see the results: Gross obesity, diabetes, and arthritis.

You won't, of course, see the huge acceleration of growth in coronary plaque, but it's there, ticking away.

Jack was skeptical. At 273 lbs, 5 ft 11 inches, he felt that he was "just right".

"I feel fine. I don't see why you think I should lose weight," he declared. "In fact, when I lost 25 lbs a couple of years ago, everyone said I was too skinny!"

I showed Jack why: He had an HDL of 35 mg/dl, small LDL (over 90% of all LDL particles), an elevated blood sugar of 123 mg/dl (diabetes is officially 126 mg/dl or greater), high blood pressure, and increased inflammation (C-reactive protein). These were all manifestations that his body weight was too much for it to handle.

So I told Jack that we've all forgotten what ideal weight should look like. Our perception of "normal" has been so utterly and dramatically distorted by the appearance of our friends, family, co-workers, and other people around us that we've all lost a sense of what a desirable weight for health should be.

So I suggested to Jack that, if he wanted to rememember what ideal weight is and what people are supposed to look like, just watch old movies.

Old movies, like the 1942 production of Casablanca, or the 1952 production of Singin' in the Rain, show the body build that was prevalent in those days. Look at Humphrey Bogart or Gene Kelly--men with average builds, weighing 140-160 lbs--that's how humans were meant to look.

A report this morning on the Today Show showed the "after" photos of several people following bariatric (weight reduction) surgery. The "after" pictures, from the perspective of ideal weight and ideal health, remain hugely overweight.

We need to readjust our perceptions of weight. The average woman in the U.S. now weighs 172 lbs(!!!). Don't confuse average with desirable.

Tim had heart disease identified as a young man. He had his first heart attack followed by a quadruple bypass surgery at age 38. Recurrent anginal chest pain and another small heart attack led to several stents over three procedures in the first four years after bypass.

Tim finally came to us, interested in improving his prevention program. You name it, he had it: small LDL, low HDL (28 mg/dl), lipoprotein(a), etc. The problem was that Tim was also clearly pre-diabetic. At 5 ft 10 inches, he weighed 272 lbs--easily 80 or more pounds overweight.

Tim was willing to make the medication and nutritional supplement changes to gain control over his seeminglly relentless disease. He even turned up his exercise program and lost 28 lbs in the beginning. But as time passed and no symptoms recurred, he became lax.

Tim regained all the weight he'd lost and some more. Now Tim was diabetic.

"I don't get it. I eat good foods that shouldn't raise my insulin. I almost never eat sweets."

I stressed to Tim that diabetes and pre-diabetes, while provoked acutely by sugar-equivalent foods (wheat products, breads, breakfast cereals, crackers, etc.), is caused chronically by excess weight. If Tim wants to regain control over his heart disease, he needed to lost the weight.

Unlike, say, leukemia, an unfortunate disease that has little to do with lifestyle choices, diabetes is a choice you make over 90% of the time. In other words, if you become diabetic (adult variety, not children's variety) as an adult, that's because you've chosen to follow that path. You've neglected physical activity, or indulged in too many calories or poor food choices, or simply allowed weight to balloon out of control.

But diabetes is also a path most people can choose not to take. And it is a painfully common choice: Nearly two-thirds of the adults in my office have patterns of pre-diabetes or diabetes when I first meet them.

Let me stress this: For the vast majority of adults, diabetes is a choice, not an inevitability.

Max just had his heart scan. He sat down with the x-ray technologist at the work console while she pointed out the white areas in his coronary arteries that represented plaque.

"It looks like you're going to have a fairly high score," the technologist commented. "The final report will be available after one of our cardiologists reviews your images."

Max shrugged. "Well, I don't feel anything. I'm always running around with work, with my kids, stuff like that. That's better than any stress test. I guess I'll worry about it if it starts to bother me."

You'd be surprised how common this view remains: If it's not bothering you, then just forget about it. It's easy to do, since you have no symptoms, nothing to impair your physical activities. But what are the potential consequences of ignoring your heart scan? Here's a few:

--Prevention and plaque reversal efforts are most effective the earlier you start. From a heart scan score viewpoint, the lower your starting score, the easier it is to gain control over it. More people will succeed in reducing their score when the starting score is lower.

--The role of prevention of heart disease instantly crystallizes when you know your score. Your LDL cholesterol of 142 mg/dl or HDL of 41 mg/dl no longer seem like just numbers of borderline signficance. Instead, they become useful tools to gain control over plaque. They cast your numbers in a new and clear light.

--Knowing your heart scan score today gives you a basis for comparison in future. Your score of, say 250, today, can be 220 in one year. Without your preventive efforts, it will be 30% higher: 325. That's a big difference!

--Sudden death or heart attack--can occur in up to 35-40% of people with hidden heart disease--without warning.

Don't even bother getting a heart scan if you're going to ignore it. I've said it before and I'll say it again: A heart scan is the most important health test you can get--but only if you do something about it.

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.

Brainwashed!

The Fanatic Cook: A fabulous Blog about food and nutrition

Eggs: Good, bad, or indifferent?

Diabetes is Track Your Plaque's Kryptonite!

Boy, was I wrong!

Don't forget how dangerous heart disease can be

How many ways can you disguise sugar?

To remind us what ideal body weight is: Watch an old movie!

Diabetes is a choice you make

I'll call the doctor when I feel bad!

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