Lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), can be a tough nut to crack.

Having struggled and wrestled with this genetic pattern for the last 12 years or so in hundreds of patients, I have gained great respect for this difficult to control pattern.

I regard lipoprotein(a) as the number one most aggressive cause for heart disease and coronary plaque known. It can account for heart attacks in men in their 40s, women in their 50s. It can cause heart disease and heart attacks in even the ultra-fit like marathon runners. It accounts for both excessive coronary risk and misleading cholesterol values in slender, healthy-appearing people.

Niacin is the number one treatment choice for Lp(a), followed by testosterone for men, estrogens (preferably human, not horse or other non-human mammal) for women. I then often resort to DHEA, along with adjunctive nutritional agents like raw almonds, ground flaxseed, and others.

Our most recent addition to the Lp(a) treatment list is high-dose fish oil, which appears to exert a significant effect in about 40% of people with Lp(a).

Even with this multi-agent approach, not everybody gains control over Lp(a).

That makes me wonder if someone has Lp(a) at a substantial level of, say, 200 nmol/L or 70 mg/dl (values can differ tremendously, depending on the method of measurement), should we throw everything but the kitchen sink at Lp(a) from the start? Right now, by adding an agent one at a time, it often takes two years to gain control over Lp(a) (if we are going to get it at all).

While many people might find this unpalatable and overwhelming from the starting gate of their program, I do believe it may be a strategy we should consider adopting for full and more immediate plaque control in the Track Your Plaque program. Something to chew on.

Clearly, we need better answers for Lp(a). A "kitchen sink," full-frontal assault might be a way to gain faster control, though not necessarily a superior approach with regards to efficacy and potency.

There are a number of unique, potentially effective therapies for Lp(a) that are worth examining. Given the difficulty of performing clinical trials with non-drug agents (largely a lack of financial support, since nobody gets a financial return with non-patent-protectable agents), I am anxious to put these potential treatments to a test in the Track Your Plaque program Virtual Clinical Trail (VCT). The VCT gives us a quick and relatively easy method to test various potential treatments, with feedback generated in months, rather than years.

Any suggestions on promising agents to test? Of course, they must be widely available nutritional agents, not drugs.

Colleen started with the usual discrepancy between conventional calculated LDL cholesterol of 121 mg/dl and the far more accurate LDL particle number (NMR) of 1927 nmol/L.

Those of you following this conversation or our many conversations on the Track Your Plaque Forum know that a useful and highly reliable rule-of-thumb for converting NMR LDL particle number to LDL is to drop the last digit: 1927 nmol/L becomes 192 mg/dl. (This is, admitttedly, arrived at empirically, not by design. However, it has held up through thousands of NMR analyses and plays out reasonably when you compare distributions of Friedewald LDL and LDL particle number on a population basis.)

In other words, by this simple manipulation, Colleen's Friedewald calculated LDL is off by 58%. This is very common, a phenomenon I witness several times every day.

By LDL particle size, 75% of all Colleen's LDL particle were abnormally small (small LDL particle number 1440 nmol/L). This is a moderately severe small LDL tendency.

So we took all the steps for reduction of small LDL/LDL, including elimination of wheat and cornstarch, exercise, weight loss (which happens inevitably when wheat and cornstarch are eliminated), fish oil, vitamin D, etc.

Another NMR lipoprotein panel showed an LDL particle number of 882 nmol/L and a Friedewald calculated LDL of 87 mg/dl. Using our rule-of-thumb, LDL by particle number is virtually the same as the calculated LDL. This time, small LDL numbered only 237 nmol/L, or 26.8% of the total, a marked reduction.

Isn't that interesting? As small LDL is corrected, the crude Friedwald calculated LDL approximates the more accurate LDL particle number.

It assumes that accuracy of the Friedewald calculation may be more likely to occur as LDL size approaches normal. However, when LDL size is abnormally small--a condition shared by at least 70% of people with coronary heart disease--then the Friedewald LDL becomes increasingly inaccurate.

The opposite can also happen: When all or nearly all LDL particles are large, Friedewald calculated LDL can markedly overestimate LDL particle number. Yesterday, for instance, a patient had a Friedewald calculated LDL of 183 mg/dl, but an NMR particle number of 1110 nmol/L--drop the zero . . . LDL 110 mg/dl. This woman was advised to take a statin drug by her primary care physician, based on the Friedewald LDL. Instead, she proved to have a far lower LDL. She would not have benefitted from taking a statin drug.

As I've warned many times before: Beware the Friedewald calculated LDL.

The last post on vitamin D raised a number of basic questions among readers. So let me discuss some of these questions one by one. All of them raise important issues surrounding the practical aspects of managing vitamin D in your health.

Anne said:

I think it is important to stress that vitamin D supplementation needs to be continued long term.

I have met too many people who have been prescribed 50,000 IU of D2 for 8-12 weeks and then told to stop because their 23(OH)D went over 30ng/ml. I know one person who's doctor stopped and started the D2 3 times.

Thanks for pointing that out, Anne. Excellent point. I also see doctors do this with statin drugs: start it, check a LDL level which is lower, then think that you're done and stop the drug. What the heck are they thinking?

If vitamin D is not being produced by sun exposure and not obtainable through diet, continued supplementation is necessary, essentially for life.

Twinb asked:

How often you think Vit. D levels should be tested after the initial test is done, especially if the levels are drastically low?

We have used every 6 months in the office. Ideally, levels are in mid-summer and mid- to-late winter in order to gauge the extremes of your seasonal fluctuations. While most adults over 40 fail to fluctuate more than 10 ng/ml in the Wisconsin climate (and this summer, after an initial rainy season early, has been flawlessly bright and sunny, in the high-70s and 80s every single day for months), an occasional person fluctuates more widely. The only way to judge is to check a blood level.

Rich said:

Vitamin D dosage effects appear to be quite idiosyncratic.

Yes, indeed it is. Despite using crude rules-of-thumb, like taking 1000 units of vitamin D per 10 ng/ml desired (a rule I learned from Dr. John Cannell, which he offered fully aware of its inaccuracy), many people will surprise you and have levels that make no sense. Testing is crucial to know your vitamin D level.

Richard asked: Where do we get enough vitamin D wihout worring about laboratory tests?

Well, the entire point of the post was that you absolutely, positively cannot just take vitamin D blindly at any dose and hope that your level is ideal, no more than you can blindly take a dose of thyroid and know you have achieved normal thyroid levels. In my view, vitamin D blood levels are an absolute.

Another simple issue: Don't be afraid of vitamin D. It is, in all practicality, no more dangerous than getting a dark tan. (But, as many of you realize, getting a tan is no assurance of raising vitamin D if you are over 40 years old.)

Wouldn't it be great if someone developed a do-it-yourself-at-home skin test for vitamin D? I know of no effort to develop this, but it would be a huge advantage for all of us.

It’s probably the number one most common question I get today:

“How much vitamin D should I take?”

Like asking for investing advice, there are no shortage of people willing to provide answers, most of them plain wrong.

The media are quick to offer advice like “Take the recommended daily allowance of 400 units per day,” or “Some experts say that intake of vitamin D should be higher, as high as 2000 units per day.” Or “Be sure to get your 15 minutes of midday sun.”

Utter nonsense.

The Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine has been struggling with this question, also. They have an impossible job: Draft broad pronouncements on requirements for various nutrients by recommending Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) for all Americans. The Food and Nutrition Board has tried to factor in individual variation by breaking vitamin D requirements down by age and sex, but what amounts to a one-size-fits-nearly-all approach.

Much of the uncertainty over dosing stems from the fact that vitamin D should not be called a “vitamin.” Vitamins are nutrients obtained from foods. But, outside of oily fish, you'll find very little naturally-occurring vitamin D in food. (Even in fish, there is generally no more than 400 units per 4 oz. serving.) Sure, there’s 20 units in an egg yolk and you can activate the vitamin D in a shiitake mushroom by exposing it to ultraviolet radiation. Dairy products like milk (usually) contain vitamin D because the USDA mandates it. But food sources hardly help at all unless you’re an infant or small child.

It all makes sense when vitamin D is viewed as a hormone, a steroid hormone, not a vitamin. Vitamin-no, steroid hormone-D exerts potent effects in tiny quantities with hormone-like action in cells, including activation of nuclear receptors.

It is the only hormone that is meant to be activated by sun exposure of the skin, not obtained through diet. But the ability to activate D is lost by the majority of us by age 40 and even a dark tan is no assurance that sufficient skin prohormone D activation has taken place.

As with any other hormone, such as thyroid, parathyroid, or growth hormones, dose needs to be individualized.

Imagine you developed a severely low thyroid condition that resulted in 30 lbs of weight gain, lose your hair, legs swell, and heart disease explodes. Would you accept that you should take the same dose of thyroid hormone as every other man or woman your age, regardless of your body size, proportion of body fat, metabolism, genetics, race, dietary habits, and other factors that influence thyroid hormone levels? Of course you wouldn’t.

Then why would anyone insist that vitamin D be applied in a one-size-fits-all fashion? (There’s another world in which a one-size-fits-all approach to hormone replacement has been widely applied, that of female estrogen replacement. In conventional practice, there’s no effort to identify need, estrogen-progesterone interactions, nor assess the adequacy of dose, not to mention the perverse non-human preparation used.)

With thyroid hormone, ideal replacement dose of hormone ranges widely from one person to another. Some people require 25 mcg per day of T4; others require 800% greater doses. Many require T3, but not everybody.

Likewise, vitamin D requirements can range widely. I have used anywhere from 1000 units per day, all the way up to 16,000 units per day before desirable blood levels were achieved.

Vitamin D dose needs to be individualized. Factors that influence vitamin D need include body size and percent body fat (both of which increase need substantially); sex (males require, on average, 1000 units per day more than females); age (older need more); skin color (darker-skinned races require more, fairer-skinned races less); and other factors that remain ill-defined.

But these are “rules” often broken. My office experience with vitamin D now numbers nearly 1000 patients. The average female dose is 4000-5000 units per day, average male dose 6000 units per day to achieve a blood level of 60-70 ng/ml, though there are frequent exceptions. I’ve had 98 lb women who require 12,000 units, 300 lb men who require 1000 units, 21-year olds who require 10,000 units. (Of course, this is a Wisconsin experience. However, regional differences in dosing needs diminish as we age, since less and less vitamin D activation occurs.)

Let me reiterate: Steroid hormone-vitamin D dose needs to be individualized.

There’s only one way to individualize your need for vitamin D and thereby determine your dose: Measure a blood level.

Nobody can gauge your vitamin D need by looking at you, by your skin color, size, or other simple measurement like weight or body fat. A vitamin D blood level needs to be measured specifically-period.

Unfortunately, many people balk at this, claiming either that it’s too much bother or that their doctor refused to measure it.

I would rank normalizing steroid hormone-vitamin D as among the most important things you can do for your health. It should never be too much bother. And if your doctor refuses to at least discuss why he/she won’t measure it, then it’s time for a new doctor.

If you’re worried about adding to rising healthcare costs by adding yet another blood test, think of the money saved by sparing you from a future of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, diabetes, etc. The cost of a vitamin D blood test is relatively trivial (around $40-50, a fraction of the cost of a one month supply of a drug for diabetes.)

So how much vitamin D should you take? Enough to raise your blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D to normal. (We aim for a normal level of 60-70 ng/ml.)

The results of the recent Heart Scan Blog survey in response to the question: MY DAILY DOSE OF EPA + DHA FROM FISH OIL IS revealed:

Zero--I don't take any
17 (7%) of respondents

Less than 1000 mg per day
24 (10%) of respondents

1000-2000 mg per day
91 (38%) of respondents

2000-3000 mg per day
44 (18%) of respondents

3000-4000 mg per day
40 (16%) of respondents

More than 4000 mg per day
20 (8%) of respondents

Based on the above results, I would say that only a minority of respondents are taking an ideal dose of omega-3 fatty acids. Nearly all of us should consider taking more.

Benefits of omega-3 fatty acids (EPA + DHA) from fish oil begin around a dose of 840 mg per day, according to the GISSI Prevenzione Trial of 1999, an 11,000-participant trial. This dose also corresponds to a quantity of omega-3s that have been shown to raise EPA + DHA blood levels and thereby reduce the notoriously high AA:EPA ratio of Americans.

But what dose is sufficient? What dose is ideal?

Well, the answer to a great degree depends on what you are taking the fish oil for. If being taken to reduce triglycerides and triglyceride-containing lipoproteins, like VLDL and the after-eating (postprandial) IDL, then a higher dose will be necessary. (Triglyceride reduction for the genetically-determined very high triglyceride level of familial hypertriglyceridemia is the FDA-approved indication for prescription Lovaza.)

If you are taking fish oil for treatment of ADHD, depression, or bipolar illness, very high doses are often necessary.

But how about maximal reduction of cardiovascular risk and for control or reversal of atherosclerotic plaque?

This conversation is still evolving. But we can learn some important lessons from three populations of the world that are vigorous consumers of fish:

--The Inuits (aka Eskimos) of Greenland and northern Canada
--The Japanese
--The Bantus of Tanzania who live along Nyasa Lake

All three indigenous populations have several-fold greater intakes of fish and omega-3 fatty acids, have higher blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids, and have enjoyed reduced cardiovascular events, reduced atherosclerotic plaque, or improvement in various surrogates of cardiovascular risk (e.g., Lp(a)).

The most recent addition to this conversation is the ERA JUMP Study, discussed in a previous Heart Scan Blog post. In ERA JUMP, despite being heavy smokers and having other markers for greater risk for heart disease, Japanese men living in Japan had markedly less carotid and coronary plaque, as compared to Caucasian men living in PIttsburgh or Hawaiian men of Japanese descent. The difference appeared to be attributable to serum levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

I believe that the trend is here is to increase the amount of omega-3 fatty acids that most of us take. In the Track Your Plaque program, we have been advocating a rock-bottom starting dose of EPA + DHA of 1200 mg per day. However, I believe that this is due for a change.

We will be increasing the minimum dose for plaque regression and control. Please attend our Webinar this evening for a full, in-depth discussion of the rationale behind this important change.

As always, let me remind you that I am not selling, nor ever have sold, fish oil supplements. If I advocate a specific dose, a higher dose, I do so based on my interpretation of the data and experience with patients, not because I am interested in selling brand X of fish oil.

Despite the paucity of scientific documentation of this phenomenon, I am continuing to witness extraordinary increases in HDL cholesterol levels with vitamin D supplementation.

I've touched on the interaction of vitamin D supplementation with HDL in The Heart Scan Blog previously:

Vitamin D: Treatment for metabolic syndrome?

HDL for Dummies

At first, I thought it was attributable to other factors. In real life, most people don't modify one factor at a time. They reduce
processed carbohydrates/eliminate wheat and cornstarch, lose weight, add or increase omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, begin niacin, increase exercise and physical activity. All these efforts also impact on HDL.

Among the many things I do, I consult on complex lipid (cholesterol) disorders (complex hyperlipidemias) in my office. A substantial number of these people carry a diagnosis of hypoalphalipoproteinemia, a mouthful that simply means these people are unable to manufacture much apoprotein A1, the principal protein of HDL cholesterol particles. As a result, people with hypoalphalipoproteinemia have HDL cholesterol levels in the neighborhood of 20-30 mg/dl--very low. They are also at high risk for heart disease and stroke.

Encourage these people to exercise, attain ideal weight, eliminate wheat and cornstarch: HDL increases 5 mg/dl or so.

Add niacin, HDL increases another 5-10 mg/dl.

Perhaps we're now sitting somewhere around an HDL of 35-40 mg/dl--better, but hardly great.

Add vitamin D to achieve our target serum level . . . HDL jumps to 50, 60, 70, even 90 mg/dl.

The first few times this occurred, I thought it was an error or fluke. But now that I've witnessed this effect many dozens of time, I am convinced that it is real. Just today, I saw a 40-year old man whose starting HDL was 25 mg/dl increase to 87 mg/dl.

Responses like this are supposed to be impossible. Before vitamin D, I had never witnessed increases of this magnitude.

Not all therapies for raising HDL raise the important large (also known as HDL2b) fraction. With lipoprotein analyses, it appears that is principally the large fraction of HDL that rises with vitamin D supplementation.

Why? How?

That I can't tell you. But for those of you struggling with low HDL cholesterols despite your best efforts, vitamin D can make a world of difference.

An interesting corollary: If super-high HDL cholesterols are associated with extreme longevity, as they are with centenarians, does raising HDL to extraordinary levels with vitamin D lead to longer, healthier life, all the way up to age 110 years?

Again, no answers, but an interesting thought. And one I'd bet on. (And I'm not selling vitamin D.)

Here's another thought with regards to time issues with weight loss: reductions in blood pressure (BP).

The previous post talked about how triglycerides initially go up, sometimes way up, when weight drops, only to be followed months later by substantial drops. HDL initially drops in response to the triglyceride fluctuations, only to be followed by a rise.

Blood pressure also shows a curious pattern that is largely dependent on age.

Say someone in their 20s or 30s, for instance, loses 30 lbs (through elimination of wheat and cornstarch, say). BP usually drops within a few weeks, perhaps a month or two at most.

How about someone in their 70s? Say a substantial amount of weight is lost, say 50 lbs over 6 months. BP does indeed drop, but it may require 6 months or longer after weight plateaus for the full effects of BP-reduction to be fully expressed. But it will eventually drop.

Why the age-dependent difference?

It relates to the capacity of arteries to remain flexible and distensible. Over the years, cross-linking of collagen (a structural protein), glycation (glucose molecules attaching to proteins), loss of endothelial responsiveness to generate artery-dilating substances like nitric oxide, and arterial atherosclerotic plaque all all up to making older arteries less able to "relax" and BP to drop.

But given time and the proper effort, BP will eventually drop. Awareness of this time effect can help most people decide better when medications are necessary or if weight loss alone is sufficient to reach BP goals.

Brad needed to lose weight.

At 6 ft tall, he began the program at 291 lbs, easily 80 lbs overweight. He wore virtually all of it in his belly.

He had laboratory numbers to match: HDL 33 mg/dl, triglycerides 225 mg/dl, LDL (calculated) 144 mg/dl, blood sugar 122 mg/dl (fasting--clearly "pre-diabetic"), c-reactive protein 3.0 mg/dl. Among his lipoprotein abnormalities: small LDL representing 80% of all LDL (no surprise).

Readers of The Heart Scan Blog know that these are the patterns of the carbohydrate-indulgent. I asked Brad to eliminate all wheat flour products, all foods made with cornstarch, and follow a diet rich in healthy oils, raw nuts, vegetables, and lean meats.

Brad returned for a discussion about follow-up basic lipids (cholesterol) values four months later--31 lbs lighter, most of it clearly lost from his abdomen. He claimed he felt more energetic and clear-headed than he had in years.

His lipid panel: HDL 34 mg/dl, LDL 122 mg/dl, triglycerides 295 mg/dl. Brad's smile dissolved. "How could that happen? You said losing weight would make my HDL go up and my triglycerides go down!"

Yes, I had said that. But I was oversimplifying.

The truth is that, when there is weight loss, especially profound weight loss like Brad experienced eliminating wheat and cornstarch products, there is mobilization of fat stores. Fat is stored energy. Energy is stored as . . . triglycerides.

So when there is substantial weight loss, there is a flood of triglycerides in the blood, and triglyceride levels in the midst of weight loss can commonly jump up, not uncommonly to the 200-300+ mg/dl range. When triglycerides go up, there is also a drop in HDL (triglycerides interact with HDL particles, modify their structure and make them more readily destroyed, thereby dropping blood levels). Occasionally, substantial weight loss like Brad experienced will drop HDL really low, as low as the 20's.

Once weight stabilizes, this effect can last up to 2 months before correcting. Only then will triglycerides drop and HDL rise. The rise in HDL occurs even more slowly, requiring several more months to plateau.

In other words, weight loss like Brad's causes triglycerides to increase and HDL to decrease, to be followed later by a drop in triglycerides and a rise in HDL.

I know of no way to block this phenomenon. And perhaps we shouldn't, since this is how fat stores are mobilized and "burned off." Fish oil does blunt the triglyceride rise (perhaps through activation of lipoprotein lipase, an enzyme responsible for clearance of triglycerides), but doesn't eliminate it.

I call these changes "transitional" changes in lipids.

Patience pays. A few more months from now, Brad's numbers will be much happier, as will Brad.

The doctor-patient relationship has gone sour.

This probably comes as no surprise to most of you, particularly if you've been following conversations here in The Heart Scan Blog:

Who is your doctor? discussing the emergence of the physician-as-hospital-employee phenomenon that causes your doctor to become the de facto portal (seller?) of hospital services to you, a model fraught with conflicts of interest.

Exploitation of trust, my observation that the enormous gap in heart disease prevention between the woefully ignorant (by necessity) level of sophistication of the primary care physician and the procedure-obsessed cardiologist leads to an exploitation of humans-for-heart-procedures because of the failure to institute genuine preventive efforts.

Bait and switch , a description of how a minor test or symptom can reap a bonanza of medical testing; a $20 "screening" test yields $10's of thousands in hospital procedures. If it were entirely due to the imprecision of medical testing and detection of disease, that might be forgivable. But it often is not: It has become utterly distorted by the profit model.

Lest you think that I am a kook ranting off in some backwoods corner (Milwaukee), here are the comments of New York Times' Health Editor Tara Parker-Pope in a series called Doctor and Patient, Now at Odds:

Lately I've been hearing a lot from patients who are frustrated, angry, and distrustful of doctors. Their feelings speak to a growing disconnect between doctors and patients and worries that drug companies, insurance rules, and hospital cost-cutting are influencing the care and advice that doctors provide.

Research shows that even among patients who like their personal physicians, there is a simmering distrust of the medical system and the doctors who work inside it.

(There's also a series of candid video interviews with people who echo these sentiments.)

There are a number of reasons for this increasing "disconnect," some of them articulated by Ms. Parker-Pope, others detailed in my blog posts.

The solutions, however, will not be found by advancing technology: the newest robotic surgery, a better defibrillator, a new statin drug, the next best chemotherapeutic agent. It will not be found by adding a new wing to the hospital. It will not be found by the reorganization of healthcare delivery achieved by converting primary care and specialty practice into an arm of hospital care. It will not be improved by employing "hospitalists." It will not emerge from legislation controlling insurance company practices. It certainly will not come from increasing marketing dollars spent by drug companies (who make $4 for every $1 spent on direct-to-consumer marketing).

The solutions will come from shifting the idea of care from a paternalistic, "I'm the doctor and I'll tell you what to do" approach, to the doctor-as-advocate-and-supporter of the patient. The physician should act as someone with a particular sort of expertise that can advise a patient.

But a caveat: The patient MUST be informed.

Proper information will not originate with the doctor. It will originate with internet-based information portals and tools that help you understand the issues, often with far greater depth than your doctor could ever provide. The physician needs to accept this role, one of advocate, adviser, but not of being in charge, not of viewing the patient as profit-center, not as an opponent in a power struggle.

Sadly, the last few years in online information portals has been dominated by the drug company-dominated websites like WebMD, nothing more than a deliverer of the conventional wisdom with nothing whatsoever aimed towards empowering patients in a self-directed healthcare model.

Some people call the emerging new empowered and information-armed patient Medicine 2.0. Unfortunately, Medicine 2.0 will first benefit the intellectual upper crust of Americans, the web-savvy and motivated to engage in health issues. But, give it 10 years, and we will witness the effects on an unprecedented broad scale. Part of the Information Age is acceleration of information dissemination. Imagine your children, facile with a computer mouse, posting comments on FaceBook, doing homework with Google and Wikipedia, now turning their attentions to health.

It will be a startling change.

In the meantime, be wary. Be empowered. Think increasingly about self-direction in your health.

In a comment to the Bait and switch post, Jennytoo offered an insightful response:

You are getting to the essence of the problem, and it's not just cardiology that is rife with what is, at bottom, malpractice.

There is little incentive for the profession as a whole to know anything about or promote prevention, and many incentives from hospitals, drug and insurance companies to stick with the status quo or to change it in their corporate favor. The formulaic, conventional statements purporting to be guidelines for prevention that are put out by various interest groups and in such publications as hospital-sponsored newsletters ("eat a 'balanced diet', avoid stress, etc.") are useless sops to the concept of prevention.

It is, and I fear is going to remain, up to motivated individuals, both physicians and patients, to reshape the system, and it's going to be a long frustrating struggle.

It's my personal conviction that if just 4 things were promoted to the public, and people actually practiced them, we could change the health profiles of the majority of people in this country for the better within two years or less. They are:

(1) education on and promotion of a true low-carbohydrate, whole foods, diet,
(2) measurement and supplementation of Vitamin D3,
(3) supplementation with DHA/EPA (found in Fish Oils), and
(4) measurement and supplementation of intracellular magnesium.

I am not a health professional, and others may want to add to this list, but I don't think any strong case can be made against any of the items. The wonderful and hopeful thing is that each of us can implement them ON OUR OWN, and thereby take charge of our own well-being. (The Life Extension Foundation is one organization which provides access to lab tests you can request on your own.)

If you have a physician who is willing and capable of being your partner, you are richly blessed, and that is the ideal we all should hope for. But in the more likely event that you do not have such a physician, and if your physician demonstrates little potential for becoming one, think about firing the one you have and finding another.

Sometimes we are forced by circumstances, particularly urgent ones, to deal with physicians who are not ideal, but the main impetus for change will come from us, the patients, and the expectations we communicate to our individual doctors. In the meantime, we can be self-reliant in our own prevention practices.

Wow. A woman after my own heart.

This post just furthers this line of thinking out loud: How much fish oil is "enough"?

Observations over the last 30 years followed this path: If a little bit of omega-3 fatty acids from fish are beneficial in reducing cardiovascular events, and a moderate intake is even better, is even more better? When have we reached a plateau? When do adverse effects outweigh the benefits?

Some insight can be gained through studies that examined blood levels of omega-3s. Let's take a look at some data from 2002, a comparison of men dying from heart disease vs. controls in the Physicians' Health Study, Blood Levels of Long-Chain n–3 Fatty Acids and the Risk of Sudden Death.

This is a table that shows the blood levels of various fatty acids Group with sudden death vs Control Group:

Several observations jump out:

--The total omega-3 blood content differed significantly, 4.82 vs 5.24% ("Total long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated")
--Total omega-6 content did not differ
--Arachidonic acid (AA) content did not differ
--Linolenic acid content did not differ (i.e., plant sourced omega-3)

The fact that neither omega-6 nor arachidonic acid content differed counters the argument that Simopoulos has made that the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio (intake, not blood levels) is what counts. It also argues against the EPA to AA ratio (and similar manipulations) that some have argued is important. In this study, only the omega-3 level itself made a difference; no ratio was necessary to distinguish sudden death victims vs controls.

Further, quartiles of omega-3 blood levels showed graded reductions of risk:

An omega-3 blood level of 6.87% conferred greatest risk reduction. Depending on the model of statistical analysis, risk reductions of up to 81-90% were observed. Wow.

Taken at face value, this study would argue that:

--An omega-3 fatty acid blood level of 6.87% (or greater?) is ideal
--The omega-3 fatty acid blood level stands alone as a predictor without resorting to any further manipulation of numbers, such as relating EPA and/or DHA to AA levels.

Of course, this is just one study, though an important one. It is also not a study based on any intervention, just an observational effort. But it does add to our understanding.

We will develop these issues further in our upcoming Track Your Plaque Webinar on Wednesday, August 20th, 2008.

This has nothing to do with coronary plaque reversal, nor directly with the Track Your Plaque program, but I found Dr. John Cannell's discussion about the possible relationship between vitamin D and autism so compelling that I thought I just had to pass it on.

So, below are Dr. Cannell's latest thoughts. He takes some criticisms along with praise. I think we owe him a lot for continuing to doggedly promote the benefits of vitamin D.

Vitamin D Newsletter

August, 2007

Dear Dr. Cannell:

I saw an article from a Toronto newspaper about autism and vitamin D. I am currently searching for a vitamin D specialist in the Washington D.C. area to perform a medical work up on my daughter to look for vitamin D-related disorders. The reason I am in search of a vitamin D specialist is that I believe I have stumbled upon a complex relationship in my daughter involving her foot pain, vitamin D, and her autism.

In April 2006, a few weeks after my 3-year-old profoundly autistic daughter began refusing her daily PediaSure drink, she began having excruciating foot spasms lasting from 10-30 minutes at a time, several times a week. She would throw herself on the floor, curl her toes, slam her heels against the floor, and rub the tops of her feet against the carpet, all while screaming the entire time. These were horrible for her to endure, and horrible for my wife and myself to watch. This went on for a year.

From what I read, the symptom was perhaps like foot spasms associated with carpopedal syndrome or tetany. But her blood work did not support that at all. Calcium level was normal (10.2 mg/dL); 25-Hydroxy-vitamin D low (23.5 ng/ml); 1,25 dihydroxy-vitamin D normal (24.7). Despite some vitamin D deficiency, I was assured by medical professionals that nothing supported a vitamin D cause of these particular spasms, so vitamin D was dismissed. Because her calcium level was normal, they told me she did not have tetany, and vitamin D could not be the cause of the pain.

All medical consultants were stymied. I made another research effort and found a 2003 article on WebMD that stated vitamin D has been found to have some link to basic, unexplained muscle and bone pain. By chance, vitamin D was the next supplement we had at home to begin giving my daughter to treat her autism. So, in April 2007 we began giving my 4 year-old profoundly autistic daughter Vitamin D supplements. Her foot spasms which had plagued her for a year diminished within days and disappeared within three weeks. She has not had a spasm in over two months.

In addition, we noted clear improvements in her autistic condition which appear to be from the vitamin D supplements. Eye contact went from zero to fantastic. Her vocalizations increased markedly (still only babbling; she remains completely nonverbal). She appears even happier than previously (she has always been a somewhat happy child). (Please note that my wife and I have tried many dietary supplements over the past 1.5 years guided by a doctor and dietician who both specialize in autism. We honestly state that this is the only thing that has ever had a positive effect on my daughter. We have seen nothing else work.)

My daughter and vitamin D have a complicated relationship. By all counts, looking at her lab work and general condition, vitamin D should have played no role in those excruciating foot fits. And yet it is apparently exactly what is involved in them. And, my wife and I believe at the same time her autistic condition has improved from the vitamin D. The foot fits and her autism appear linked; it was not just a coincidence that this autistic child has those mysterious foot spasms, and the link appears to be vitamin D.

And so I wonder if this is just the tip of the iceberg, if perhaps there is more to know about my child's relationship with vitamin D and what that might mean for her autism. Does she have a specific vitamin D-related disorder? If so, might direct treatment of it also improve her autism further? These are the questions I would like to pose to a vitamin D specialist who could perform a medical work up on my daughter. Please let me know if you know of anyone in the Northern Virginia/Washington DC area. Also, where is the best place to get vitamin D? Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Paul, Washington, D.C.

Dear Paul:

I know of no such specialist in the Washington area, indeed no vitamin D/autism expert exists in the world. As far as a specific "vitamin D disorder," linking her spasms, autism, and vitamin D, the world's English language medical literature contains no description of such a disorder. From your daughter's case, it sounds as if PediaSure was her only regular source of vitamin D. If so, her spasms began two weeks after stopping the small amount of vitamin D contained in PediaSure. The spasms continued for a year, ending a few days after you started giving her vitamin D again, this time in the form of a supplement. Several weeks after restarting vitamin D, both you and your wife noticed an improvement in her autism. To my knowledge, this "case report" - your daughter's - is the first ever published.

As no medical literature has ever been published on any of this, all you can do is give her enough vitamin D to get her 25-hydroxy-vitamin D, known as 25(OH)D, into high normal ranges and then wait and hope. Vitamin D's extraordinary mass-action pharmacology implies that simply providing more substrate ([25(OH)D] will help children with low enzyme activity produce more activated vitamin D (calcitriol) in their brains. The vitamin D theory of autism is not simply that vitamin D deficiency in gestation or early childhood causes the disorder. Instead, the theory holds that a quantitative or qualitative abnormality exists in the enzyme system that activates vitamin D.

It could as simple as the normal variation in the enzyme, an enzyme whose activity would vary in a normal or Gaussian distribution, much like height. Some people are tall, some are short, most are in the middle. The same may be true of the enzyme that forms activated vitamin D (calcitriol), some children have a lot of enzyme and some only a little; most are in the middle. As the substrate [25(OH)D] the enzyme metabolizes fell over the last 20 years with sun-avoidance, more and more children on the low end of the enzyme curve are effected by marginally low 25(OH)D levels, explaining both its genetic basis and exploding incidence.

At this point, all your daughter needs is a physician willing to periodically measure her 25(OH)D. Then you can safely supplement your daughter with doses higher than the current Upper Limit for children (2,000 IU/day). You did not tell me your daughter's weight but, assuming she weighs about 30 pounds, even without 25(OH)D blood tests, you can safely give her 50 mcg/day which is 2,000 IU per day. In fact, the U.S. government says this dose is safe for children over the age of one. Life Extension Foundation sells 250 of the 1,000 IU capsules for about ten bucks with powdered vitamin D inside. The powder is tasteless and dissolves easily in juice. Bio Tech Pharmacal, of Fayetteville, Arkansas, told me they were going to be making a 1,000 IU capsule. Or you can get 1,000 IU capsules in a pharmacy or at Costco and crush them. A Canadian firm is now making vitamin D liquid, called Ddrops, with 1,000 IU per drop, but their mail order web site is not yet easily accessed. Beware of cod liver oil; do not use it because vitamin A inhibits the actions of activated vitamin D, and due to the potential for low-grade vitamin A toxicity.

Remember, more and more researchers now believe autism is a progressive, inflammatory, disorder. That is, the inflammation probably progressively destroys brain tissue as the child ages. As I said in my recent paper, I think there is a chance that vitamin D may have a treatment effect in young autistic children if given in adequate doses, due to its anti-inflammatory properties, and its ability to upregulate glutathione, the master antioxidant that also chelates (binds) and then helps excrete heavy metals like mercury. Unfortunately, I see no way, even if the vitamin D/autism theory turns out to be true, that vitamin D can regenerate brain tissue. However, if it stops the inflammation, and cell death, the brain could then begin to develop and learn. These are big ifs. However, you have nothing to lose by trying, the worst that will happen is that it will not help and vitamin D will be added to the long list of false-hope treatments.

Actually, there is a worse possibility. Say the parents of a three-year-old autistic child decide today that vitamin D is nonsense, another false hope, and that I'm a quack. They decide not to give vitamin D supplement their autistic child, who is probably - like your child - vitamin D deficient. Then, it turns out five years from now that scientific evidence shows vitamin D does indeed help. By that time, the child will be eight and will have suffered additional, irreparable, brain damage. In my mind, that is more tragic than another false hope.

Dear Dr. Cannell:

After that article appeared in the Toronto paper, I started my four-year-old son on 1,000 IU of vitamin D two weeks ago. So far the only thing I noticed is that after about ten days, he didn't seem so miserable. The thing that has always broken my heart is that look of sadness and suffering on his face. After about two weeks of vitamin D, I noticed he seemed less miserable. I wouldn't say he looks happy now but that look of misery seems to be gone. Will it come back? I'm not sure I can take it if it comes back. What else might happen? Also, last summer we noticed he seemed to get better, but then he got worse in the fall. We never thought about it until we read about vitamin D.

Susan, Toronto, Canada

Dear Susan:

I don't know. I think all parents have had their heart pierced by that look at one time or another. I would advise increasing the dose to 2,000 IU per day, making sure it is cholecalciferol and not ergocalciferol, and having your doctor order a 25(OH)D every two months to see if he needs higher doses. You want to get his blood level up to between 50 ng/ml and 80 ng/ml (In many countries outside of the USA, that would be reported as between 125 and 200 nmol/L.) and keep it there, summer and winter, and that may take more than 2,000 IU/day in the winter. If vitamin D has a treatment effect, it will take many months to see its full effect. As you noted, if the theory is correct, autistic children who spend time outdoors in the summer should show some seasonal improvements - if they don't wear sunblock and they expose enough of their skin to generate significant amounts of vitamin D.

Dear Dr. Cannell:

I resent you calling autism a tragedy. My son is not a tragedy and I'm glad he was born and is in our lives. He is our joy. Autism is not a tragedy.

Emma, London, England.

Dear Emma:

I'm glad he is your joy and I believe you. I'm new to the autism field and was not aware how much thought and speech control exists in the discussion of the disease. Nevertheless, I have a few politically incorrect questions. If autism is a joy, I assume you would like other parents to have an autistic child? If autism is such a joy, why is there a huge industry forming to prevent and treat it? At the risk of sounding insensitive - apparently one of the most serious charges leveled in the autism debate - autism is a tragedy. As I pointed out in my paper, research shows that having an autistic child, puts the family under more emotional stress than having a child with a fatal illness.

Dear Dr. Cannell:

Who are you to write an article on autism? You didn't even publish it in a medical journal. You are not with a university. You have not published very much. You have no expertise on autism. No autism experts support your theory. There is no evidence to support the theory. Shouldn't you leave this to experts before you give parents more false hopes?

Mary, Trenton, New Jersey.

Dear Mary:

You are right, I am a nobody; just ask my ex-wife. In the Toronto Globe, I explained why I have not yet submitted the paper. As far as giving false hopes, I've thought about that charge. Right now, regardless of what advocacy groups say, autism is rather hopeless. That is, no treatment, including vitamin D, has been shown to materially affect the clinical course of autism. As a psychiatrist, my observation is that people would rather live with a false hope than with no hope.

Furthermore, if autistic children began taking vitamin D, the worse that can happen is that a period of false hope will followed by dashed hopes and then parents will be back to hopelessness. In the meantime, they will have made their child vitamin D sufficient. Vitamin D deficiency is a serious problem in childhood.
Postgrad Med J. 2007 Apr;83(978):230-5.

The Telegraph, Why is Vitamin D So Vital?

As far as the theory having no support from experts, Dr. Richard Mills, research director of the National Autistic Society in England, was quoted in the Telegraph article on the autism/vitamin D theory: "There has been speculation in the past about autism being more common in high-latitude countries that get less sunlight and a tie-up with rickets has been suggested - observations which support the theory."

Finally, you said there is no evidence to support the theory. I assume you meant there is no proof. The first statement is absolutely false, the second absolutely true. As I detailed in my paper, there is a lot of evidence to support the theory. In fact, if anyone can come up with an autism fact, that the theory cannot explain, I'd like to know about it. Even the announcement of a link between television viewing and autism supports the theory. Furthermore, the TV/autism link is actually evidence of a treatment effect. That is, if autistic children who play outside in the sunshine more - watching less TV - have less severe illness, it may be due to the Sun-God, who bestows her precious gift of calcitriol into the brains of children playing outside in her sunlight but not into the brains of children watching TV inside in the darkness.
Natl Bur Econ Res Bull Aging Health. 2007 Winter;(18):2-3.

As far as proof the theory is true, there is, of course, none. In medicine, proof means randomized controlled human trials, the gold standard for proof. However, proof is the last step, not the first. First comes evidence, then comes a theory, then comes researchers disproving those theories. It works that way. Sometimes we never get to the last step, proof. For example, please point me to a single randomized controlled human trial proving cigarette smoking is dangerous? Instead, the convincing evidence of smoking's dangerousness lies in epidemiological studies, not randomized controlled trials. Proof, or disproof, of the autism vitamin D theory will take years, years during which young autistic brains will continue to suffer irreparable damage. Perhaps vitamin D' powerful anti-inflammatory actions will help prevent that damage, perhaps not.

It's something of a Pascal's wager, betting on vitamin D instead of the existence of God, risking your child's brain instead of eternal damnation. "If you believe vitamin D helps autism and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in vitamin D and turn out to be incorrect, your child will suffer irreparable brain damage."

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council
9100 San Gregorio Road
Atascadero, CA 93422

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you don't want to get the newsletter, please hit reply and let us know. This newsletter is not copyrighted. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. Remember, we are a non-profit and rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website.

I just found this great podcast of an April, 2006 National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Omnivore's Dilemma author, Michael Pollan:

Author Michael Pollan: 'The Omnivore's Dilemma'

available at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5342514

The Science Friday segment is a great encapsulation of all the fascinating spins this wonderfully insightful author has on human eating habits and the developing distortions of food choices, much magnified by the food manufacturing industry.

One of my favorite comments from Pollan: "The USDA should be called "The Department of Corn," referring to the ubiquitous dissemination of corn products into livestock and human foods that has increasingly led to the enormous health problems we're all facing in 2007.

Try a little experiment:

Side by side, try a yogurt made with fructose or high fructose corn syrup as one of the first ingredients on the label along with a yogurt made without fructose.

Yoplait and Dannon brands, for instance, fit the bill for fructose. Several brands do not use fructose products. Many of these are the unflavored or unsweetened versions. You may therefore have to add some blueberries, strawberries, or some other fruit for some flavor. ( I doubt that you would add high fructose corn syrup.) Add nuts, seeds, flaxseed, or oat bran to either.

Many people who do this will notice a peculiar effect: The fructose or high fructose corn syrup containing product is, to most, delicious. It also triggers a desire for more. You can't have just one--you've got to have another, or you've got to eat something else.

The non-fructose containing product is more likely to generate satiety, a feeling that you've had enough.

If you experience this effect, the solution is simple: avoid fructose and high fructose corn syrup. I believe that the most worrisome health effect of fructose is this hunger-increasing aspect, difficult to document, perhaps impossible to measure, but a great boon to the food industry who practice an "eat more" philosophy to increase revenues year after year.

Perhaps you will also see weight drop (since you will be more satisfied), see triglycerides drop (since fructose raises triglycerides), and maybe obtain all the downstream benefits of reduced triglycerides (higher HDL, less small LDL, less VLDL, more rapid clearance of post-prandial lipoproteins).

Most people who follow this idea gain better control over appetite, lose weight, and do better in health, including in their Track Your Plaque program.

Clinical studies can be designed in a number of ways. The ease and cost of these studies differ dramatically, as does the confidence of the findings.

The most confident way to design a clinical study is to tell neither the participants nor the investigator(s) what treatment is being offered, then to administer treatment or placebo. Neither the people doing the research nor the participants know what they are receiving. Of course, there needs to be some way to find out what was given at the end of the study in order to analyze the outcome.

This is called a “double-blind, placebo-controlled” clinical study. While not perfect since it tends to examine a treatment phenomenon in isolation (e.g., the effects of a single drug in a select group of people), it is the best sort of study design that is most likely to yield confident results, both negative and positive. This sort of design is followed, for instance, for most prescription drugs.

There are pitfalls in such studies, of course, and some have made headlines lately. For instance, beyond tending to examine single conditions in a select group of participants, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study can also fail to uncover rare effects. If a study contains 5000 participants, for instance, but a rare complication develops in 1 person out of 20,000, then it’s unlikely such an ill-effect will be observed until larger numbers of people are exposed to the agent.

Another pitfall (though not so much of study design, but of human greed) is that study outcomes that are not favorable can be suppressed by simply failing to publish the results. This has undoubtedly happened numerous times over the years. For this reason, a registry has been created for all human clinical trials as a means to enforce publication of outcomes, both favorable and unfavorable.

Despite its weaknesses, the double-blind, placebo-controlled study design remains the most confident way to show whether or not some treatment does indeed yield some effect. It is less prone to bias from either the participant or the investigator. Human nature being what it is, we tend to influence results just to suit our particular agenda or interests. An investigator who knows what you are given, drug or placebo, but owns lots of stock in the company, or is hoping for special favors from the pharmaceutical company sponsor, for instance, is likely to perceive events in a light favorable to the outcome of the study.

Now, most studies are not double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. These are notoriously difficult studies to engineer; raise lots of ethical questions (can you not treat a person with an aggressive cancer, for instance, and administer a placebo?); often require substantial numbers of participants (thousands), many of whom may insist on payment for devoting their time, bodies, and perhaps even encountering some risk; and are tremendously expensive, costing many tens of millions of dollars.

For this reason, many other study designs are often followed. They are cheaper, quicker, may not even require the active knowledge or participation of the group being studied. That’s not to say that the participants are being tricked. It may simply be something like trying to determine if there are more heart attacks in people who live in cities compared to rural areas by comparing death rates from heart attack from public records and population demographic data. Or, a nutritional study could be performed by asking people how many eggs they eat each week and then contacting them every month for 5 years to see if they’ve had a heart attack or other heart event. No treatment is introduced, no danger is added to a person’s established habits. Many epidemiologic studies are performed this way.

The problem is that these other sorts of study designs, because they generate less confident results, are not generally regarded as proof of anything. They can only suggest the possibility of an association, an hypothesis. For real proof to occur, a double-blind, placebo-controlled may need to follow. Alternatively, if an association suggested by a study of lesser design might, by reasons of a very powerful effect, be sufficient. But this is rare. Thalidomide and catastrophic birth defects are an example of an association between a drug and fetal limb malformation that was so clear-cut that no further investigation was required to establish a causative association. Of course, no one in their right mind would even suggest a blinded study.

Where am I going with this tedious rambling? Lately, the media has been making a big to-do about several studies, none of which are double-blind, placebo-controlled, but were cross-sectional sorts of observations, the sorts of studies which can only suggest an effect. This happened with Dr. Steve Nissen’s study of Avandia (rosiglitazone) for pre-diabetes and risk for heart attack and the recent study suggesting that cancer incidence is increased when LDL cholesterol is low. Both were observations that suggested such associations.

Now, those of you following the Heart Scan Blog or the www.cureality.com website know that we do not defend drug companies nor their drugs. In fact, we’ve openly and repeatedly criticized the drug industry for many of its practices. Drugs are, in my opinion, miserably overused and abused.

But, as always, I am in the pursuit of truth. Neither of these studies, in my view, justified the sort of media attention they received. They are hypothesis-generating efforts—that’s it. You might argue that the questions raised are so crucial that any incremental risk of a drug is simply not worth it.

Despite the over-reaction to these studies, good will come of the fuss. I do believe that heightened scrutiny of the drug industry will result. Many people will seek to avoid prescription drugs and opt for healthy changes in lifestyle, thus reducing exposure to costs and side-effects.

But beware of the media, acting as our Chicken Little, reporting on studies that prove nothing but only raise questions.

Some of the math-savvy will have noticed that we often report drops in CT heart scan scores on a percentage basis. Unfortunately, it this were a competition (which, of course, it is not), this would be unfair.

A score of 50, for instance, that drops "only" 25 points would represent a 50% drop in score.

But someone with a score of 1050 who drops his or her score the same quantity, or 25, will have dropped their score less than 5%.

In other words, the magnitude of your starting score determines how large a percentage drop you achieve, even when the absolute, or real, quantity of plaque reversal is the same as someone who begins with a lower score.

I qualify this discussion in this vein because of Grady's story. Grady, a soon-to-retire attorney, started with a heart scan score of 1151. On the Track Your Plaque program, he saw his score drop nearly 200 points--200 points!

But, if we gauged Grady's success just on a percentage basis, he dropped his score only a measly 17% or so. (Imagine the headlines if this program were sponsored by a drug manufacturer. The Track Your Plaque program proudly has nothing to do with the drug industry.)

Of course, the Track Your Plaque program is not a competition. It is an effort to help everyone possible, the more the better. Even if Grady failed to set a new Track Your Plaque record gauged on a percentage basis, he will have achieved an extraordinary advantage in health: the virtual elimination of the dangers of heart disease.

With this drop in score, Grady's risk for heart attack plummets from a spine-chilling 25% per year to nearly zero. (I know of NO other program that can claim such a track record.)

Grady's full story will be reported in the August, 2007 Track Your Plaque newsletter. To subscribe or to just view when it is posted, go to www.cureality.com website, click on the upper right hand corner What Does My Heart Scan Show? graphic, which then takes you to the page to view the newsletter. Or, Track Your Plaque Members can just go to the Library and click on newsletter archives.

One of the basic requirements that stack the odds in your favor of stopping or dropping your CT heart scan score is to achieve basic lipid targets of 60-60-60.

In other words, we generally see best results when LDL is reduced to 60 mg/dl, HDL raised to 60 mg/dl, triglycerides reduced to 60 mg/dl. Now, these are not absolute requirements. Someone can have a spectacular drop in heart scan score even with an HDL of 56, LDL of 71. But the "Rule of 60" provides a useful target that is easy to remember, packs real power, and is clearly beyond that achieved with conventional approaches.

People often ask, "Just how tough is it to get to these targets?"

It's really not that tough. Interestingly, whenever I tell my cardiologist or primary care colleagues that I advocate these 60-60-60 targets, they declare that it's tough, perhaps impossible, except for the most highly motivated.

I agree that it requires motivation. A cigarette-smoking, TV-addicted, 70-lb overweight, chip- and pretzel-eating couch potato is not going to achieve them.

On the other hand, you don't have to be a marathon running vegetarian to do it, either.

Most people, in fact, engaged in the Track Your Plaque program achieve the 60-60-60 targets---or exceed them. It's not uncommon, for instance, for HDL to skyrocket to 80 or 90 mg/dl with many of our strategies. (Of course, if your starting HDL is 20 or 25 mg/dl, 80 or 90 is not possible with current technology.)

But it certainly does require more than the "Take Lipitor and stick to your low-fat diet" approach that is the mantra repeated in the vast majority of medical offices across the U.S. For instance, reducing LDL to 60 mg/dl when starting at 170 mg/dl will require addition of oat bran and other soluble or viscous fibers; raw almonds and walnuts; perhaps the use of Benecol butter substitute; reduction or elimination of wheat products if small LDL comprises a substantial proportion of LDL particles. Reducing triglycerides requires the generous use of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil. Attention to vitamin D must be a part of the effort.

So, yes, it is not as simple as the conventional approach. But the results are far superior in reducing or eliminating heart attack and in dropping your heart scan score.

But it can be done. We do it every day.

It happened yet again.

Mel came to the office. CT heart scan score: 799--quite high, enough to pose a real threat very soon. Thus, no time to lose in instituting an effective prevention program.

We do the usual--identify the six causes of coronary plaque; begin fish oil, show him how to correct his plaque causes. You've heard it before.

Vitamin D blood level in March: 17 ng/ml--severe deficiency.

Vitamin D replacement needs to be a part of his coronary plaque control program. So I suggested 6000 units per day of an oil-based preparation of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol). Conveniently, there is a Vitamin Shoppe outlet across the street from my office. I just point and tell people to go across the street.

Mel did just that. However, he also informed his primary care physician about his vitamin D deficiency. His primary physician promptly told him he needed to take a prescription form of vitamin D and not to bother with just a supplement.

So Mel stopped his vitamin D capsules and started taking vitamin D prescription "medication." Mel figured, naturally, that if it requires a prescription, it must be better. Unfortunately, Mel and his doctor failed to pass the change in strategy onto us.

So, four months later, Mel got repeat vitamin D blood level: 19 ng/ml.

I've seen this too many times. The prescription form of vitamin D is nonsense. There's hardly any effect on blood levels of vitamin D3 at all. The body's conversion of this non-human form of D is extremely inefficient and therefore virtually useless. While it raises the blood level of vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) and thereby total D (D3 + D2), there is negligible effect on the real human and active form, D3.

How and why this preparation got through the FDA process to obtain approval as a drug is beyond me, though I am not a defender of FDA practices and politics.

This notion that "if it's a prescription, it must be better" is a fiction perpetuated by the drug industry. The same principle gets tossed around with fish oil, hormones like estrogens and testosterone, and others. Often, the principal difference between prescription and non-prescription is patent protection. Patent protection provides profit protection. Selling a product without patent protection can be risky business. It's certainly less profitable.

As always, getting at the truth is sometimes the most difficult job of all. Prescription vitamin D belongs in the garbage. Vitamin D capsules (gelcaps) do the job and do it well, over and over, with reliable, consistent and substantial rises in blood levels of 25-OH-vitamin D3. I take 6000 units per day (3 2000 unit capsules) that cost me $5.99 for a bottle of 120 capsules, or about $4.50 a month.

And nobody--nobody--pays me to say this. I say it because I believe it's true.

What does angioplasty have over the Track Your Plaque program?

Well, first of all, the Track Your Plaque program has a lot to boast about. What other approach can claim to have reduced heart disease 30, 40, 51, and now 63%? That's as close to a cure that's ever--EVER--been achieved. Statin drug manufacturers can talk about an occasional 1, 2, or 5% reversal. We're talking 10 times more.

The Track Your Plaque program also uses as little prescription medication as necessary. Fish oil, vitamin D, coenzyme Q10, niacin--some of the frequent tools used for plaque reversal in our program. Yes, we do use prescription medications, but only when there is truly a benefit and nutritional strategies have failed to achieve the goals we're seeking. We do not endorse shotgun prescription approaches conceived of by some marketing department at a pharmaceutical company.

So what possible advantage can coronary angioplasty have? Why don't more people embrace a program like Track Your Plaque that has already proven itself enormously effective?

Because angioplasty is easy. There's little worrying ahead of time. Just wait for the symptoms or other problem to appear, go to the hospital and get your procedure. You can live the free and easy life beforehand--no exercise, no diet efforts, no nutritional supplements. Just be sure to go to the hospital when suspicious symptoms strike. (Of course, you gamble that you survive the appearance of symptoms, a process 30-50% of people fail to survive.)

That means you can eat all you want, drink all you want, save the money you otherwise might have thrown away on supplements, pocket the monthly costs of an exercise club membership, etc. Go to the hospital when you experience the sensation of an anvil on your chest or of suffocation, let the emergency room do their thing, meet your cardiologist, go to the catheterization laboratory, get two or three stents, go home the next day!

Why bother with a prevention program, especially one that requires involvement, learning, and effort like Track Your Plaque?

Because it's your way to stack the odds enormously in your favor of 1) surviving the appearance of symptoms, 2) avoiding the prospect of heart procedures, which are not as clean and easy as they often seem, 3) have a longer lasting durability than a stent which could buy you a couple of years before your next procedure or heart catastrophe, and 4) it's the right thing to do for the sake of the huge societal cost of heart disease.

Many of you have the equivalent of a cure for heart disease at your fingertips. Unless you have a soft spot in your heart for hospitals, cardiologists, or the pharmaceutical or medical device industry, there isn't a choice.

In case anyone missed this in the June, 2007 Track Your Plaque Newsletter, I'm again posting how we calculate the annual rate of score increase, should it occur.

For instance, say your score in January, 2005, is 100. In November, 2006, you undergo another scan and the score is 140. Obviously, your score has increased an undesirable 40%. But what is the annual rate of score increase, the amount of increase per year?

In this example, the annual rate of score increase is 19%--not anywhere near as bad as the 40% that can scare the heck out of you.

Obviously, the best rate of heart scan score increase is a negative number, i.e., a drop in score from, say 100, to 60. You might even eliminate the need for this calculation altogether if you drop your score.

Nonetheless, whenever there is a score increase over an uneven period of time, a fraction of year(s), this is the method we use to annualize the calculation. The equation we use is a modified form of the annual compound interest equation using continuous compounding, since that’s how coronary atherosclerotic plaque grows--just like money. The difference is, of course, is that while you might want more money, you certainly don't want more plaque.

You will need a calculator for this calculation, one with an exponential “y to the power x” function. For ease, calculate "1/t first, then use it as the “x” exponent on your y^x function and "(score 2 / score 1)" as the "y".

Annual rate of plaque growth (APG) = ( score 2 / score 1 ) ^1/t - 1

Multiply the result by 100 to yield a percent.

“Score 1” is your 1st heart scan score, “score 2” is your 2nd (or any subsequent heart scan score); “t” is the amount of time between the two scans expressed in years in decimal form. Time between scans should be expressed in years or fractions of years. To obtain the time interval in fractions of years, simply divide the number of months between scans by 12 (e.g., 18 months / 12 = 1.5 years ; 22 months / 12 = 1.83 years).

It’s not as tricky as it looks. For example, if your first heart scan score is 300 and your next scan 16 months later (or 16/12 = 1.33 years) is 372, then:

Annual rate of plaque growth (APG) = ( 372 / 300 ) ^1/1.33 - 1 = 0.175

Multiply 0.175 x 100 = 17.5% annual rate of plaque growth

Some scan centers will do the calculation for you as part of a repeat scan. However, the equation can be used if you're left on your own, or if you go to a different scan center. If this is too much effort, perhaps it's just another reason to add to the list of reasons to drop your heart scan score!

In The Track Your Plaque program, we advocate decreasing triglycerides to 60 mg/dl or less.

That's the level of triglycerides that minimize the presence of triglyceride-containing undesirable lipoproteins causing plaque, such as small LDL, VLDL, and the after-eating persistence of IDL (intermediate-density lipoprotein, a bad player). (The enzyme, cholesteryl-ester transfer protein, or CETP, is responsible for exchanging one triglyceride molecule for one cholesterol molecule between HDL and other lipoprotein particles. Thus, an excess of triglyceride availability permits CETP to operate unrestrained, creating more undesirable lipoproteins. This was the basis for Pfizer's now defunct CETP inhibitor, torcetrapib.)

Of course, this triglyceride target is far below that of the conventional guidelines. The Adult Treatment Panel-III of the National Cholesterol Education Panel suggests a triglyceride level of 150 mg/dl is okay.

In my view, a level of 150 mg/dl is highly abnormal, permitting the persistence of multiple lipoprotein particles and virtually guarantees plaque growth. In short, triglycerides of 150 are awful.

Curious thing: Successful participants in our program, i.e., people who achieve desirable weight, reduce processed carbohydrate junk foods and saturated fat sources, and aim for the 60-60-60 targets for conventional lipids, commonly end up with triglyceride levels of 25-50 mg/dl.

We have seen many people drop their heart scan scores just by achieving a triglyceride level of 60 mg/dl or less. So achieving a lower level below 60 is not necessarily a requirement for coronary plaque regression.

But it makes me wonder if a triglycere level of 30s or 40s is the level for perfect health. These are levels ordinarily regarded as impossibly low. When colleagues see the numbers we readily and routinely achieve, they declare that the numbers are spurious, temporary, or just flukes. "No way you can do that all the time!"

This level also seems to, in virtually all cases, eliminate the triglyceride-containing undesirable lipoproteins small LDL, IDL, etc., and allow full conversion of HDL into the healthy, large fraction.

Should we move the Track Your Plaque triglyceride target to below 45 mg/dl or even lower? I don't think so, but it makes me wonder.

Kitchen sink approach for Lp(a)

Making Dr. Friedewald an honest man

Some basic vitamin D issues

“How much vitamin D should I take?”

You probably don't take enough fish oil

Vitamin D and HDL

Weight loss and blood pressure

"I lost 30 lbs and my triglycerides went . . . up?"

Divorce court for the doctor-patient relationship?

How much fish oil is enough?

Vitamin D and autism

Michael Pollan Podcast

Are you addicted to fructose?

Chicken Little

200 point drop in heart scan score

How tough is the Track Your Plaque 60-60-60 target?

Vitamin D2 belongs in the garbage

Angioplasty vs. Track Your Plaque

Plaque is like money

Triglycerides: What is normal?