Firefighters Face Added Risk of Fatal Heart Attack

22. March 2007 William Davis (1)
Firefighters are twice as likely to die from a heart attack in the line of duty than are policemen, and three times more likely than EMTs.

That's among the headlines run today because of a report in the New England Journal of Medicine documenting a dramatically higher risk for heart attack for fire fighters putting out fires. The above headline is from an excellent report run on NPR radio. You can listen to the webcast at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047656.

The story sparked comments from experts insisting that all fire fighters should have physicals, should be in better physical condition, should be covered by health insurance (the NPR report said that 1 out of 4 fire fighters lack health insurance). Judging from the indisputable risk firefighters encounter, these are all good ideas.

But if you've been following my blog or the Track Your Plaque program, you know that physicals alone are hopeless exercises for identifying hidden heart disease. Among the solutions: identify whether or not heart disease is present in the first place--do a CT heart scan.

In fact, several local fire companies in my area have done just that: insisting that all firefighters undergo a heart scan. When groups of people like firefighters arrange for heart scans, they gain the advantage of doing so en masse, thereby allowing many scan centers to offer a dramatically reduced price to the city, town, or village that is paying for them. I've even seen many firefighters scanned at no cost.

It would also help to have health insurance, be physically fit, and have a stress test (an exception to my view that stress tests are also useless to screen asymptomatic people for heart disease). But a CT heart scan would settle the question quickly, easily, undeniably, and inexpensively.

Prophylactic bypass surgery?

20. March 2007 William Davis (0)
This question comes up around once a week:

My CT heart scan score is ____. Wouldn't I be better off just getting a bypass (or stent, etc.) and getting it over with? If I know that heart attack is in my future, why not just get it over with?

The most recent source of this question was the wife of a patient. Jack had a heart scan score of 92 in 2005. He made very little effort to correct his causes, permitting pre-diabetic patterns to persist, failed to correct vitamin D, etc. and a repeat heart scan score showed a dramatic rise to 264.

Jack's wife asked whether he should just have a bypass.

There are several problems with this line of reasoning:

1) Bypass surgery does not reduce the long term risk for heart attack.

2) The risk of bypass surgery often outweighs the risk of an asymptomatic heart scan score.

3) Bypass surgery is a temporary "fix," a fancy Band Aid for a disease that progresses after the procedure. One bypass typically prompts another, and another...

4) Bypassing arteries that have vigorous blood flow often causes the bypass graft to not "take" and close within the first few days.


Thankfully, nobody in his right mind has proposed that we perform prophylactic bypass operations.

Of course, hospitals and surgeons would jump at the chance to perform procedures in anybody with some threshhold heart scan score. It would double or triple their business overnight. At $70,000 or more per procedure, they would dance in glee. Of course, you and I would pay for their new burst of wealth by a sharp increase in our health insurance premiums. Not only that, the people who underwent the procedure would not benefit.

Lipitor 80 mg

20. March 2007 William Davis (4)
I'm seeing more and more people taking 80 mg of Lipitor per day. For the most part, these are people who come in for another opinion after a stent or heart attack and are prescribed the drug during their hospitalization.

This practice is based on the results of the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 (PRavastatin Or atorVastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) trial, and the Reversal of Atherosclerosis with Aggressive Lipid Lowering (REVERSAL) trial, both reported in 2005. In the PROVE IT Trial, 4,000 people experiencing heart attacks were treated with Lipitor (atorvastatin), 80 mg, or Pravachol (pravastatin), 40 mg. There was a reduction in events like recurrent heart attack from 13.1% in the Pravachol group to 9.6% in the Lipitor group. In the REVERSAL Trial, the Lipitor group also showed no plaque growth compared to the Pravachol group, which did progress, with disease tracked by intracoronary ultrasound.

I believe that many of my colleagues took the bait. In a half-hearted effort to reduce events and trend towards better coronary plaque control, writing a prescription for 80 mg rather than a lower dose has become increasingly popular.

Some problems: Despite the favorable tolerance to high dose Lipitor in these trials, I don't know anybody who can tolerate 80 mg per day for more than a few months in real life. In my experience, people inevitably end up with intolerable muscle aches.

Also, I believe it is folly to believe that we can regress coronary plaque on a broad scale by just using one drug that addresses only a single cause (i.e., LDL cholesterol). Yes, drug companies would argue that the statin drugs are so wonderful because of their so-called "pleiotropic", or non-lipid, effects like reducing inflammation. I have seen regression of plaque once using Lipitor alone. We struggle to reduce coronary plaque using a multi-faceted approach. It is highly unlikely that Lipitor alone at a 80 mg dose will be sufficient in most people to regress plaque. How about lipoprotein(a)? Or vitamin D deficiency? Lipitor has no effect on these patterns and people do not regress just by taking statin agents.

Orlistat for weight loss

19. March 2007 William Davis (3)
In early February, the FDA approved orlistat, formerly known as prescription Xenical, for over-the-counter sale. Orlistat is a blocker of fat absorption.

The new OTC version will be called "Alli" (pronounced like "ally") and will come at a dose of 60 mg to be taken three times a day with meals. Prescription Xenical came as a 120 mg tablet. However, the company claims that the reduced dose sacrifices only 5% in reduced fat absorption, dropping from 30% with Xenical to 25% with Alli. It will cost in the neighborhood of $1 to $2 per day, or $30-60 per month, far less expensive than the $110-150 for the prescription form.

Does it work? Is it worth the money? Clinical trials document around 5-10 lbs lost over a 3 to 6 month period, 50% greater than using diet and exercise alone.

Our experience is that it works, though inconsistently. Results depend heavily on how reliant you are on fat calories. If you were to follow a low-fat diet while on the drug, you likely will lose little or no weight, since there's little fat absorption to block. However, I have witnessed more substantial weight loss of 10-20 lbs. in people who follow a higher fat intake in their diet, e.g., a traditional American diet. However, these people gain the weight back immediately because they've made no effort to modify food choices.

It is messy. Even though the clinical trials claims modest inconvenient effects like gas and greasy stools, I have found that it is, without fail, a very annoying product that results in crampiness and frequent messy stools in nearly everybody.

The company has created a glitzy website that you can view at www.myalli.com and promises to provide a personalized program and support for registrants when it is up and running by summer 2007.
I think that's a good idea, since the drug itself is no more than a temporary fix unless it's combined with long-term diet changes. However, the website, I believe, oversells the value of the drug with a drug company's usual over-the-top hints and innuendoes without actually coming out with straight pitches of the truth.

Beware of the vitamin D-blocking effect of Orlistat. The period of time you take it may be a time to resort to some modest sun exposure (10-15 minutes; be careful not to burn), rather than than oil-based vitamin D capsules, in order to avoid the inevitable vitamin D plunge in blood level.

I am not a fan of orlistat, having seen it tried many times with minimal success. However, it is another option for those who are really struggling. Personally, I would try fasting or some of the other strategies we've detailed on the www.cureality.com website before I resorted to orlistat.

Low HDL makes Dr. Friedewald a liar

17. March 2007 William Davis (5)
There's a $22 billion industry based on treating LDL cholesterol, a fictitious number.

LDL cholesterol is calculated from the following equation:

LDL cholesterol = Total cholesterol - HDL cholesterol - triglycerides/5

So when your doctor tells you that your LDL cholesterol is X, 99% of the time it has been calculated. This is based on the empiric calculation developed by Dr. Friedwald in the 1960s. Back then, it was a reasonable solution, just like bacon and eggs was a reasonable breakfast and a '62 Rambler was a reasonable automobile.

One of the problems with Dr. Friedewald's calculation is that the lower HDL cholesterol, the less accurate LDL cholesterol becomes. If it were just a few points, so what? But what if it were commonly 50 to 100 mg/dl inaccurate? In other words, your doctor tells you that your LDL is 120 mg/dl, but the real number is somewhere between 170 and 220 mg/dl. Does this happen?

You bet it does. In my experience, it is an everyday event. In fact, I'm actually surprised when the Friedewald calculated LDL closely approximates true LDL--it's the exception.

Dr. Friedewald would likely have explained that, when applied to a large population of, say, 10,000 people, calculated LDL is a good representation of true LDL. However, just like saying that the average weight for an American woman is 176 lbs (that's true, by the way), does that mean if you weigh 125 lbs that you are "off" by 41 lbs? No, but it shows how you cannot apply the statistical observations made in large populations to a single individual.

The lower HDL goes, the more inaccurate LDL becomes. This would be acceptable if most HDLs still permitted reasonable estimation of LDL--but it does not. LDL begins to become significantly inaccurate with HDL below 60 mg/dl.

How to get around this antiquated formula? In order of most accurate to least accurate:

--LDL particle number (NMR)--the most accurate by far.

--Apoprotein B--available in most laboratories.

--"Direct" LDL

--Non-HDL--i.e., the calculation of total cholesterol minus HDL. But it's still a calculated with built-in flaws.

--LDL by Friedewald calculation.

My personal view: you need to get an NMR if you want to know what your LDL truly is. A month of Lipitor costs around $80-120. A basic NMR costs less than $90. It's a relative bargain.

Menopause unleashes lipoprotein(a)

16. March 2007 William Davis (0)
Faye was clearly frustrated.

At age 52, she was having chest pains every day. A CT heart scan showed a score of zero. A CT coronary angiogram showed no plaque whatsoever.

"Everything went downhill when my menopause started. I gained weight, I started to have chest pains, my blood pressure went up, my cholesterol shot up."

She saw three physicians, none of whom shed much light on the situation. They ran through the predictable sequence of (horse, not human) estrogens, anti-depressants, suggestions for psychological counseling.

But we checked Faye for lipoprotein(a), which she proved to have at a high level of 182 nmol/l. This explained a lot.

A curious and predictable set of phenomenon occur to females with Lp(a) proceeding through the menopause. As estrogen recedes:

--Lp(a) levels rise dramatically.

--Blood pressure goes up, sometimes creating severe hypertension by mid- to late-50s.

--Chest pain can develop, presumably due to "endothelial dysfunction" or "microvascular angina", both representing abnormal coronary artery constriction facilitated by worsening expression of Lp(a).

All too often, these phenomena get dismissed as simply part of the menopausal package, when they are, in fact, important facets of this very important genetic pattern that confers high risk for heart disease.

If any of this rings familiar for you or a loved one, think Lp(a). Though Faye hadn't yet developed any measurable coronary plaque by her CT heart scan score, it was likely on its way, given the surge in Lp(a) expression as menopause unfolded--unless its recognized and appropriate preventive action taken.

Vitamin D must be oil-based

15. March 2007 William Davis (0)
I've talked about this before, but I need to periodically remind everybody:
Vitamin D must be an oil-based capsule, a gel-cap, not a tablet.

Lisa is one of early success stories: a heart scan score of 447 in her early 40's, modest reduction of CT heart scan score three years ago.

However, Lisa had a difficult time locating oil-based vitamin D. There has, in fact, been a national run on vitamin D and I'm told that even manufacturers are scrambling to keep up with the booming demand. So, she bought tablets instead and was taking 3000 units per day.

She came in for a routine check. Lisa's 25-OH-vitamin D3: 17 ng/ml, signifying severe deficiency, the same as if she were taking nothing at all. (Recall that we aim for 50 ng/ml.)

In other words, vitamin D tablets do not work. It is shameful. I see numerous women taking calcium tablets with D--the vitamin D does not work. I've actually seen blood levels of zero on these preparations.

You may have to look, but if you want to enjoy the extraordinary benefits of vitamin D replacement, it must be an oil-based capsule. Carlson's and Vitamin Shoppe have excellent prepartions. They raise blood levels substantially and consistently, and they're inexpensive. We pay $5.99 for a bottle of 120 capsules.

Vitamin D for $200?

13. March 2007 William Davis (2)
What if vitamin D cost $200 rather than $2?

In other words, what if cholecalciferol, or vitamin D3, was a patent-protectable agent that would sell for an extravagant price, just like a drug?

Vitamin D would be the hot topic. There would be TV ads run during Oprah, slick magazine two-page spreads with experts touting its outsized benefits, insurance companies would battle over how much your copay should be.

The manufacturer would host large fancy symposia to educate physicians on how wonderful vitamin D is for treatment of numerous conditions, complete with dinner, a show, and gifts. They would hire expert speakers to speak, scientists to have articles ghost-written, give out knick knacks with the brand label inscribed--just like Lipitor, Actos, Vytorin, ReoPro, Plavix . . .

After all, what other "drug" substantially increases bone density (up to 20% in adult females), enhances insulin responses 30% (equivalent to the TZD drugs, Actos and Avandia), and slashes colon cancer risk?

But it's not a drug. That is both vitamin D's strength and its weakness. It's a strong point because it's natural, phenomenally helpful across a variety of conditions, and inexpensive. It is also a weakness because, at $2 a month, no one is raking in the $12 billion annually that Pfizer makes for Lipitor that allows it to fund an enormous marketing campaign.

Vitamin D is a "discovery" of huge importance for health, including making reductions of CT heart scan scores far more likely for more people. And it comes without a prescription.

What's up with garlic?

13. March 2007 William Davis (0)

Fanatic Cook has posted an excellent summary on the recent negative attention cast on garlic preparations, at least for LDL cholesterol reduction.

Go to http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com to view.

I think Fanatic Cook is right--despite the lack of LDL reducing effects, it doesn't necessarily mean no benefit whatsoever. Anti-coagulation and anti-inflammatory effects, in particular, are well proven.

I do think, however, that it argues more in favor of sticking to whole cloves, rather than supplements. The benefits are also likely small. I would view garlic as a soft advantage for your plaque control program. You can do fine without it. You might do slightly better with it.

Drop the pretense

12. March 2007 William Davis (1)
Most hospitals maintain the "Saint _____" in their names, despite many having little or nothing to do with the church.

Out of 15 hospitals in my area, 13 are named after saints.

In my view, a more honest name would be something like "ABC Medical Enterprises, Inc." The profit motive, aggressive marketing tactics, and high CEO salaries would make better sense then. The trend to convert practicing physicians from professionals acting on behalf of patient welfare into paid employees would also be clearer.

Imagine Walmart were to change its name to "St. Mary's Emporium" Would it modify your perception of their business? I think it would. It would cause many people to believe that maybe their work was, at least in part, charitable and being done for the public welfare. But Walmart makes such pretense--they are in business for profit, just like all businesses.

It's time for the pretense to be dropped. Hospitals are cut-throat profit-seeking operations, operating under the guise of charitable, tax-free institutions. It's the farthest thing from the truth.
All posts by william-davis

Fat and fiber composition of nuts

30. November 2008 William Davis (16)


From Mukuddem-Petersen J, Oosthuizen1 W, Jerling JC. J Nutr 2005.



If you haven't yet done so, adding raw nuts to your health program yields a broad panel of health benefits.

Contrary to conventional advice, nuts can be eaten in unlimited quantities. Provided they are raw--unroasted, unsalted (since salting only accompanies roasted nuts), not roasted in unhealthy oils like hydrogenated cottonseed or soybean (very common)--they do not make you fat, regardless of the quantity consumed. Beer nuts, honey-roasted nuts, mixed nuts roasted in unhealthy oils with salt added are either fattening or exert other unhealthy effects (e.g., hypertension, rise in Lp(a), and cancer from the hydrogenated fats).

Some notable observations from the chart:

--Hazelnuts and macadamians are the richest in monounsaturates
--Walnuts are the richest in the omega-6 linoleic acid, while also richest in the "omega-3" linolenic acid.
--From a fat composition standpoint, raw cashews and dry roasted peanuts aren't so bad.
--Pistachios figure pretty favorably in this analysis, rich in monounsaturates.
--Coconuts are unusually rich in saturated fat, though about half is lauric acid--an issue for future conversation.



Here's a listing of the fiber composition of nuts per 1 oz serving (about a handful):

Almonds (24 nuts) 3.5 g
Brazilnuts, dried (6-8 nuts) 2.1 g
Cashew nuts, dry roasted, with salt added (18 nuts) 0.9 g
Hazelnuts or filberts 2.7 g
Macadamia nuts, dry roasted, with salt added (10-12 nuts) 2.3 g
Mixed nuts, dry roasted, with peanuts, with salt added 2.6 g
Peanuts, all types, dry-roasted, without salt 2.3 g
Pecans (20 halves) 2.7 g
Pine nuts, dried 1.0 g
Pistachio nuts, dry roasted, with salt added (47 nuts) 2.9 g
Walnuts, English (14 halves) 1.9 g

Data courtesy USDA Nutrient Database


Note that almonds are the winners with 3.5 grams fiber per ounce, pistachios a close second. Pine nuts and cashews place last on the fiber content chart.

Not addressed by the charts is protein content of nuts, as well as the low sugar content, all additional beneficial aspects of nuts. Nuts are also a moderate source of magnesium (though seeds like pumpkin and sunflower shine in the magnesium content area).

Rather than micromanage the specific fat and fiber content of your diet, why not get a little of the good of everything on the list and just mix and match the nuts? (Mixed and matched on your own, of course, not a hydrogenated cottonseed oil nut mixture).

Flush-free niacin kills

29. November 2008 William Davis (12)
Here, I re-post a conversation I've posted before, that of the scam product, "no-flush" niacin, also known as "flush-free" niacin.

I find this issue particularly bothersome, since I have a patient or two each and every week who forgets the explicit advice I gave them to avoid these scam products altogether. Despite costing more than conventional niacin, they exert no effect, beneficial or otherwise. Niacin--the real thing--exerts real and substantial beneficial effects. No-flush or flush-free does nothing except drain your wallet. I continue to marvel at the fact that supplement manufacturers persist in selling this product. Ironically, it commands a significant premium over other niacin forms.

They are outright scams that should be avoided altogether.


My former post, No-flush niacin kills:

Gwen was miserable and defeated.

No wonder. After a bypass operation failed just 12 months earlier with closure of 3 out of 4 bypass grafts, she has since undergone 9 heart catheterization procedures and received umpteen stents. She presented to me for an opinion on why she had such aggressive coronary disease (despite Lipitor).

No surprise, several new causes of heart disease were identified, including a very severe small LDL pattern: 100% of LDL particles were small.

Given her stormy procedural history, I urged Gwen to immediately drop all processed carbohydrates from her diet, including any food made from wheat or corn starch. (She and her husband were shocked by this, by the way, since she'd been urged repeatedly to increase her whole grains by the hospital dietitians.) I also urged her to begin to lose the 30 lbs of weight that she'd gained following the hospital dietitians' advice. She also added fish oil at a higher-than-usual dose.

I asked her to add niacin, among our most effective agents for reduction of small LDL particles, not to mention reduction of the likelihood of future cardiovascular events.

Although I instructed Gwen on where and how to obtain niacin, she went to a health food store and bought "no-flush niacin," or inositol hexaniacinate. She was curious why she experienced none of the hot flush I told her about.

When she came back to the office some weeks later to review her treatment program, she told me that chest pains had returned. On questioning her about what she had changed specifically, the problem became clear: She'd been taking no-flush niacin, rather than the Slo-Niacin I had recommended.

What is no-flush niacin? It is inositol hexaniacinate, a molecule that indeed carries six niacin molecules attached to an inositol backbone. Unfortunately, it exerts virtually no effect in humans. It is a scam. Though I love nutritional supplements in general, it pains me to know that supplement distributors and health food stores persist in selling this outright scam product that not only fails to exert any of the benefits of real niacin, it also puts people like Gwen in real danger because of its failure to provide the effects she needed.

So, if niacin saves lives, no-flush niacin in effect could kill you. Avoid this scam like the plague.

No-flush niacin does not work. Period.


Disclosure: I have no financial or other relationship with Upsher Smith, the manufacturer of Slo-Niacin.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

CT coronary angiography is NOT a screening procedure

28. November 2008 William Davis (3)
I've recently had several hospital employees tell me that their hospitals offered CT coronary angiograms without charge to their employees.

Among these hospital employees were several women in their 30s and 40s.

Why would young, asymptomatic, pre-menopausal women be subjected to the equivalent of 100 chest x-rays or 25 mammograms? Is there an imminent, life-threatening, symptomatic problem here?

All of these women were without symptoms, some were serious exercisers.

There is NO rational justification for performing CT coronary angiography, free or not.

What they really want is some low-risk, yet confident means of identifying risk for heart disease. Cholesterol, of course, is a miserable failure in this arena. Framingham risk scoring? Don't make me laugh.

Step in CT coronary angiography. But does CT coronary angiography provide the answers they are looking for?

Well, it provides some of the answers. It does serve to tell each woman whether she "needs" a heart procedure like heart catheterization, stent, or bypass surgery, since the intent of CT angiography is to identify "severe" blockages, sufficient to justify heart procedures.

Pitfalls: Because of the radiation exposure, CT angiography is not a procedure that can be repeated periodically to reassess the status of any abnormal findings. A CT angiogram every year? After just four years, the equivalent of 400 chest x-rays will have been performed, or 100 mammograms. Cancer becomes a very real risk at this point.

CT angiography is also not quantitative. Sure, it can provide a crude estimation of the percent blockage--the value your cardiologist seeks to "justify" a stent. But it does NOT provide a longitudinal (lengthwise) quantification of plaque volume, a measure of total plaque volume that can be tracked over time.

What's a woman to do? Simple: Get the test that, at least in 2008, provides the only means of gauging total lengthwise coronary plaque volume: a simple CT heart scan, a test performed with an equivalent of 4 - 10 chest x-rays, or 1 - 2.5 mammograms.

Perhaps, in future, software and engineering improvements will be made with CT coronary angiography that reduce radiation to tolerable levels and allows the lengthwise volume measurement of plaque. But that's not how it's done today.

The Wheat Deficiency Syndrome

26. November 2008 William Davis (21)
Beware the dreaded Wheat Deficiency Syndrome.

Like any other syndrome, you can recognize this condition by its many tell-tale signs:

--Flat abdomen
--Rapid weight loss
--High energy
--Less mood swings
--Better sleep
--Diminished appetite
--Reduced blood sugar
--Reduced blood pressure
--Reduced small LDL and total LDL
--Increased HDL
--Reduced triglycerides
--Reduced C-reactive protein and other inflammatory measures


Of course, you could choose to cure yourself of this syndrome simply by taking the antidote: foods made with wheat flour, like bread, breakfast cereals, pastas, pretzels, crackers, and muffins.

All the signs of the syndrome will then disappear and you can have back your protuberant abdomen, irrational mood swings, exagerrated appetite, higher blood sugar, etc.

The Framingham Crap Shoot

22. November 2008 William Davis (2)
The Framingham risk score is a risk-assessment tool that has become the basis for heart disease prediction used by practicing physicians.

The Framingham system determines that:

· 35% of the adult population in the U.S., or 70 million, is deemed “low-risk.” Low-risk is defined as the absence of standard risk factors for heart disease; low-risk persons have no more than a 1-in-20 chance (5%) of dying from heart disease in the next 10 years. Physicians are advised by the American Heart Association (AHA) and its experts that no specific effort at risk reduction is necessary.

· 25%, or approximately 50 million, U.S. adults are deemed “high-risk,” based on the presence of 2 or more risk factors. High-risk persons experience a 20%-30% likelihood of heart attack in the next 10 years. People at high-risk are candidates for preventive efforts according to the guidelines set by the Adult Treatment Panel-III (Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults; ATP-III) for cholesterol-reducing statin drug treatment and for “lifestyle-modifying” advice.

· The remaining 40% of the adult population, or 80 million people, are judged “intermediate-risk,” with the likelihood of heart attack between 5-20% over the next 10 years. This group should receive preventive advice and might be considered for statin drug treatment.


Let’s do some arithmetic. By the above scheme, the low-risk population will experience 3,500,000 heart attacks over the next decade, or 350,000 heart attacks per year.

The intermediate-risk population (without preventive treatment) will experience 8,000,000 heart attacks over the 10-year time period, or 800,000 per year.

The high-risk population, the group most likely to receive standard advice on diet, exercise, and be prescribed statin cholesterol drugs, will have their risk reduced by 35% by preventive efforts over the 10-year period. This means that heart attacks over 10 years will be reduced from 12,500,000 to 8,125,000 by standard prevention efforts, or reduced to 812,500 heart attacks per year.

These numbers are no secret. They are well known facts that have simply come to be accepted by the medical community. In other words, the standard approach to heart attack prediction makes the fact that two million people will succumb to cardiovascular events in the next year no mystery. This exercise in prediction is coldly accurate when applied to a large population.

The problem is that this approach cannot reliably distinguish which individuals will have a heart attack from those who will not.

From 100 people chosen at random, for instance, the numbers game played above will not confidently identify who among those 100 will have a heart attack, who will not, who will develop anginal chest pains and end up with stents or bypass surgery, or who will die. We just know that some of them will. Some people at high risk will have a heart attack, some people at intermediate risk will have a heart attack, some people at low risk will have a heart attack.

For any specific individual (like you or me), it’s a crap shoot.

That's why precise individual measurement of cardiovascular risk is required for real risk assessment, not applying broad statistical observations and forcing them to conform to the unique life of a specific individual, particularly risk calculators with as few risk parameters as the Framingham risk score.

At what score should a heart catheterization be performed?

21. November 2008 William Davis (2)
That's easy: NONE.

(Although I've addressed this previously, the question has come up again many times and I thought it'd be worth repeating.)

In other words, no heart scan score--100, 500, 1000, 5000--should lead automatically to procedures in someone who underwent a heart scan but has no symptoms.

This question is a common point of confusion.

In other words, is there a specific cut-off that automatically triggers a need for catheterization?

In my view, there is no such score. We can't say, for instance, that everybody with a score above 1000 should have a catheterization. It is true that the higher your score, the greater the likelihood of a plaque blocking flow. A score of 1000 carries an approximately 25-30% likelihood of reduced blood flow sufficient to consider a stent or bypass. This can nearly always be settled with a stress test. Recall that, despite their pitfalls for uncovering hidden heart disease in the first place, stress tests are useful as gauges of coronary blood flow.

But even a score of 1000 carries a 70-75% likelihood that a procedure will not be necessary. This is too high to justify doing heart catheterizations willy-nilly.

Unfortunately, some of my colleagues will say that any heart scan score justifies a heart cath. I believe this is absolutely, unquestionably, and inexcusably wrong. More often than not, this attitude is borne out of ignorance, laziness, or a desire for profit.

Does every lump or bump justify surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy on the chance it could represent cancer? Of course not. There is indeed a time and place for these things, but judgment is involved.

In my view, no heart scan score should automatically prompt a major heart procedure like heart catheterization in a person without symptoms. If a stress test is normal, signifying normal coronary flow (and there are no other abnormal phenomena, such as abnormal left ventricular function), then there is no defensible rationale for heart procedures. Heart procedures like stents and bypass cannot prevent heart attacks in future; they can only restore flow when flow is poor, or stop the heart attack that is about to occur.

However, EVERY heart scan score above zero is a reason to engage in a program of prevention.

"It's genetic"

17. November 2008 William Davis (17)
At 53, Sam had been through the wringer with heart disease. After his first heart attack at age 50, he'd undergone four heart catheterizations, 5 stents, and, most recently, a bypass operation. He came to us to see if there was a better solution.

After hearing Sam's story, I asked,"Did your doctors suggest to you why you had heart disease?"

"Well, they said it was genetic, since my father went through the same thing in his early 50s, though he died after his second heart attack at age 54. They said it was bad luck and nothing could be done about it."

Though Sam's case is more dramatic than most, I hear this argument every day: Risk for heart disease is genetic.

It's true: There are indeed multiple reasons for inheriting causes for coronary heart disease, genes that heighten inflammatory responses, oxidative responses, modify lipoprotein particles, increase blood pressure, etc. There has even been some excitement over developing chromosomal markers for heightened risk.

That's all well and fine, but what can we do about it today?

In practical life, many inherited genetic patterns can be expressed in ways that you and I can identify--and correct. They are not chromosomal markers, but end products of genetic patterns. (Although there are indeed identifiable chromosomal markers, they have not yet led to meaningful treatments to my knowledge.)

These readily identifiable patterns include:

--Lipoprotein(a)--Clearly genetically transmitted, passed from mother or father to each child with a 50% likelihood, then you onto your children if you have it.

--Small LDL--Although small LDL is amplified by high-carbohydrate diets and obesity, it can also occur in slender people who do not indulge in carbohydrates --i.e., a genetic tendency. Or, it can be a combination of poor lifestyle magnifying the genetic tendency for small LDL.

--Low HDL--Particularly the extremes of low HDL below 30 mg/dl. (Although, interestingly, I am seeing more of these people, though not all, respond to vitamin D replacement. Perhaps an important subgroup of low HDL people are really Vitamin D Receptor (VDR) variants.)

--ApoE--Two variants are relevant: ApoE2 and ApoE4. In my experience, it's the E2 that carries far greater significance, though the data are somewhat scanty. ApoE4 people are more sensitive to the fats in their diet (greater rises in LDL with fats; thus, some people advocate a tighter saturated fat restriction with this pattern, though I am not convinced that is the best solution), while ApoE2 people are exceptionally sensitive to carbohydrates, develop extravagant increases in triglycerides, and are very diabetes-prone with even the most minimal weight gain. If two "doses" of the E2 gene are present (homozygotic), then the tendencies are very exagerrated. E4 people are also subject to greater likelihood of Alzheimer's, though it is not a certain risk in a specific individual.

--Postprandial disorders--We use the fasting intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL) as an easy, obtainable index of the ability to clear after-eating byproducts of meals from the blood. Increased IDL has been related to increased coronary, carotid, and aortic aneurysmal disease.

--Hypertriglyceridemia-i.e., increases in triglycerides, While not all forms of high triglycerides confer risk for atherosclerosis, many do, particularly if associated with IDL, small LDL, increased LDL particle number and/or apoB.


There are more, but you get the point. There are clear-cut genetically-transmitted reasons for greater risk for cardiovascular disease. Some, like lipoprotein(a), yield very high risk. Others, like increased triglycerides, yield mixed levels of risk.

Importantly, all of these patterns--ALL--are identifiable and are treatable. Treatment may not always be the easiest thing, but they are treatable nonetheless. While lipoprotein(a), for instance, is the most difficult pattern to correct in the above list, I remind everyone that our current "record holder" for reversal of plaque and heart scan scores--63% reduction--has lipoprotein(a) that we corrected.

If you've been told that your risk for cardiovascular disease or coronary plaque is "genetic" and thereby uncorrectable and hopeless, run the other direction as fast as you can. Get another opinion from someone willing to take the modest effort to tell you precisely why.

Tim Russert Revisited

16. November 2008 William Davis (7)
A Heart Scan Blog reader brought this piece by Dr. MacDougall to my attention.

Dr. MacDougall created a fictitious posthumous conversation between himself and the late Tim Russert. MacDougall paints a picture of a hardworking, hard-living man who adhered to an overindulgent lifestyle of excessive eating. He concludes that a vegetarian, low-fat diet would have saved his life.

Beyond being disrespectful, I would differ with Dr. MacDougall’s assessment. In fact, I’ve heard an interview with Mr. Russert’s primary care physician in which the doctor claimed that Mr. Russert had been counseled on the need for a low-fat diet and, in fact, adhered to it quite seriously. Far from being an overindulgent, overeating gourmand, he followed the dictates of conventional dietary wisdom according to the American Heart Association. The low-fat diet articulated by Dr. MacDougall is simply a little more strict than that followed by Mr. Russert.

What exactly could Mr. Russert have done to prolong his life? Several basic strategies:

--Added fish oil. This simple strategy alone would have reduced the likelihood of dying suddenly by almost half.

--Eliminated wheat and cornstarch—Mr. Russert developed diabetes in the last few years of his life. By definition, diabetes is an inability to handle sugars and sugar-equivalents. Wheat and cornstarch yield immediate and substantial surges in blood sugar greater than table sugar; elimination causes weight to plummet, blood sugar to drop, and diabetes (at least in its early phases) can be eliminated in many people, particularly those beginning with substantial excess weight.

Just those two strategies alone would more than likely have avoided the tragic death that brought Mr. Russert’s wonderful life and career to an abrupt end.

Of course, he could have even taken his heart health program even further, as we do in the Track Your Plaque program. While the conversation has focused on how to avoid tragic events like sudden cardiac death, why not take it a step farther and ask, "How can coronary plaque be measured, tracked, and reversed?"

In that vein, Mr. Rusert could have restored vitamin D to normal levels; identified all hidden sources of heart disease using lipoprotein testing (though he had small LDL without a doubt, given his generous waist size, HDL of 36 mg/dl and high triglycerides); considered niacin. Simple, yet literally lifesaving efforts, that make reversal much more likely.

Those simple steps, in fact, would have tipped the scales heavily in Mr. Russert’s favor, making a heart attack and/or sudden death from heart disease exceptionally unlikely.

Water: Bottled vs. tap

16. November 2008 William Davis (4)
The Fanatic Cook has a great post discussing the findings of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) on the quality of bottled water.

The full text of the study from the EWG can be viewed here.

They report that "the bottled water industry promotes an image of purity, but comprehensive testing by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reveals a surprising array of chemical contaminants in every bottled water brand analyzed" . . . After analyzing 10 brands, they conclude that "tests strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted. Given the industry's refusal to make available data to support their claims of superiority, consumer confidence in the purity of bottled water is simply not justified."

"EWG's study has revealed that bottled water can contain complex mixtures of industrial chemicals never tested for safety, and may be no cleaner than tap water. Given some bottled water company's failure to adhere to the industry's own purity standards, Americans cannot take the quality of bottled water for granted. Indeed, test results like those presented in this study may give many Americans reason enough to reconsider their habit of purchasing bottled water and turn back to the tap."


For these reasons, as well as environmental reasons (plastic bottles filling up dumpsites), I think it is becoming clearer and clearer that bottled water is something we should only use in a pinch, not habitually.

Can CRP be reduced?

13. November 2008 William Davis (17)
The JUPITER study has sparked a lot of discussion about c-reactive protein, or CRP.

If we follow the line of reasoning that prompted this study, reducing CRP may correlate with reduction of cardiovascular events. Thus, in the JUPITER study, Crestor 20 mg per day reduced cardiovascular events by nearly half.

From a CRP perspective, starting values were 4.2 mg/dl in the Crestor group of the trial, 4.3 mg/dl in the placebo group. After 24 months, CRP in the Crestor group was 2.2 mg/dl, 3.5 mg/dl in the placebo group, representing a 37% reduction.

Now, in our Track Your Plaque program--an experience that has yielded the virtual ELIMINATION of cardiovascular events--we aim for a CRP level of 1.0 mg/dl or less, ideally 0.5 mg/dl or less. The majority of people achieve these ambitious levels. In fact, it is a rare person who does not.

How do we achieve dramatic reductions in CRP? We use:

--Weight loss through elimination of wheat and cornstarch--This yields impressive reductions.

--Vitamin D--I have no doubt whatsoever of vitamin D's capacity to exert potent anti-inflammatory effects. I am not entirely sure why this happens (enhanced sensitivity to insulin, reduced expression of tissue inflammatory proteins like matrix metalloproteinase and others, etc.), but the effect is profound.

--Elimination of junk foods--like candies, cookies, pretzels, rice cakes, potato chips, etc.

--Exercise--Amplifies the benefits of diet on CRP reduction.

--Not allowing saturated fats to dominate--Yes, yes, I know. The demonization of saturated fat conversation has been largely replaced by the Taubesian saturated fat has not been confidently linked to heart disease conversation. But controlled feeding studies, in which a single component of diet is manipulated (e.g., saturated vs. monounsaturated vs. polyunsaturated fat) have clearly shown that saturated fats do activate several factors in the inflammatory response.

--Fish oil--Though I am a firm believer in the huge benefits of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation/restoration, the anti-inflammatory effect is modest from a CRP perspective. However, there are anti-inflammatory benefits beyond that of simple CRP (via normalization of eicosanoid metabolism and other pathways).

--Weight loss--A BIG effect. Weight loss drops CRP like a stone. The CRP-reducing effect is especially large if achieved via carbohydrate reduction.

Of course, this is much more complicated than taking a pill. But it is effective to achieve health benefits outside of cardiovascular risk, is enormously useful as part of a weight loss effort, and doesn't cost $1400 per year like Crestor.

In short, if CRP reduction is the goal, it certainly does not have to involve Crestor.