Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g

Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons

Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient

Ingredients: High Fructose Corn Syrup, Vinegar, Concentrated Tomato Juice (Water, Tomato Paste), Water, Modified Food Starch, Salt, Honey, Contains Less Than 2% of Molasses, Natural Flavor, Paprika, Spice, Mustard Flour, Guar Gum, Red 40.

A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient

Ingredients: Tomato puree (water, tomato paste), high fructose corn syrup, vinegar, salt, water dried onions, contains less than 2% of black pepper, modified food starch, citric acid, dried parsley, dried garlic, xanthan gum, caramel color, potassium sorbate and calcium disodium EDTA as preservatives, molasses, corn syrup, sugar, spices, tamarind, natural flavor

Another in a series of data extrapolations that attempt to predict long-term cancer risk from medical radiation exposure was published in the July 13, 2009 Archives of Internal Medicine, viewable here.

Over the years, I've fussed about the radiation dose used by some centers for CT heart scans. (Note: I'm talking about CT heart scans, not CT coronary angiograms, an entirely different test with different radiation exposure.) In the "old" days, when electron-beam devices (EBT) were the best on the block, the old single-slice CT scanners (the predecessor of the current 64-slice MDCT scanners) exposed patients to ungodly quantities of radiation, while the EBT devices required very small quantities (0.5 mSv or about the equivalent of 4 standard chest x-rays or one mammogram).

But CT technology has advanced considerably. While EBT has been phased out (although it was an exceptional technology, GE acquired the small California manufacturer, then promptly scrapped the operation; you can guess why), multi-detector CT (MDCT) technology has improved in speed, image quality, and radiation exposure.

While it has improved, radiation exposure still remains an issue. The authors of the study applied the scanning protocols used at three hospitals and those in several CT heart scan studies, then calculated radiation exposure. They found a more than ten-fold range of exposure, from 0.8 mSv to 10.5 mSv. (All scanners were MDCT, none EBT.)

That's precisely what I've been worrying about: In the rapid rush to develop new devices, radiation exposure has often been a neglected issue. While some scan centers do an excellent job and take steps to minimize exposure, others barely lift a finger and consequently expose their patients to unnecessary radiation.

However, it's not as bad as it sounds. For one, the study included 16-slice MDCT scanners, a scanner type that I warned people to not use because of radiation. On the current most popular 64-slice devices, much lower radiation exposure is possible, on the order of 0.8-1.2 mSv routinely--if the center takes the effort.

This study, while eye-opening, will achieve some good: CT heart scans are here to stay. But the day-to-day practice of heart scanning should be:

1) standardized
2) conducted with radiation exposure as low as possible, preferably <0.8 mSv

To read more about this issue, below I've reprinted a 2007 full Track Your Plaque Special Report, CT Heart Scans and Radiation: The Real Story.

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

“My personal opinion is that many patients today who are receiving multiple CT scans may well be getting at least comparable doses to subjects that have now developed malignancies from x-ray radiation received in the 1930s and '40s. And, similar to those days when the doses were unknown, the dose that patients receive today over a course of years of multiple CT scans is also completely unknown . . .

“I recommend that all healthcare providers become familiar with the concept that 1 in 1000 CT studies of the chest, abdomen, or pelvis may result in cancer.”

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

Is this just hype to generate headlines? Or is the truth buried in the enormous marketing clout of the medical device industry, among which the imaging device manufacturers reign supreme?

It’s been over 110 years since radiation was first used for medical imaging. Over those years, it has had its share of misadventures.

In the 1930s and 1940s, before the dangers of radiation were recognized, shoe shoppers had shoes fitted using an x-ray device of the foot to assess fit. High doses of radiation were used to shrink enlarged tonsils and extinguish overactive thyroid glands. Attitudes towards radiation were so lax that doctors commonly permitted themselves to be exposed without protection day after day, year after year, until an unexpected rise in blood cancers like leukemia was observed. As recently as the 1970s and 1980s, cancers like Hodgkins’ disease were treated with high doses of radiation, also leading to radiation-induced diseases decades later.

Not all radiation is bad. Radiation can also be used as a therapeutic tool and even today remains a useful and reasonably effective method to reduce the size, sometimes eliminate, certain types of cancer. Forty percent of people with cancer now receive some form of radiation as part of their treatment (Ron E 2003).

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

Estimates vary, but most experts estimate that medical imaging provides approximately 15% of total lifetime exposure. In other words, radiation exposure from medical imaging is simply a small portion of total exposure that develops over the years of life. Exposure can be much higher, however, in a specific individual who undergoes repeated radiation imaging or treatment of one sort or another.

For all of us, exposure to medical radiation is part of lifetime exposure from multiple sources, added to the radiation we receive from the world around us. Just by living on earth, we are exposed to radiation from space and naturally-occurring radioactive compounds, and receive somewhere around 3.0 mSv per year (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). (Doses for radiation exposure are commonly expressed in milliSieverts, mSv, a measure that reflects whole-body radiation exposure.) People living in high-altitude locales like Colorado get exposed to an additional 30–50% ambient radiation (1.0–1.5 mSv more per year).

Much of the information on radiation exposure comes from studies like the Life Span Study that, since 1961, has tracked 120,000 Japanese exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs dropped in 1945 (Preston DL et al 2003). Although regarded as a high-dose exposure study for obvious reasons, there are actually thousands of people in this study who were exposed to lesser quantities of radiation (because of distance from the bomb sites) who still display a “dose-response” increased risk for cancer many years later in life. Radiation exposures of as little as 5–20 mSv showed a slight increase in lifetime risk.

Occupational and excessive medical exposure to radiation also provides a “laboratory” to examine radiation risk. Miners exposed to radon gas; patients exposed to the imaging agent, Thorotrast, containing radioactive isotope thorium dioxide and used as an x-ray contrast agent in the 1930s and 1940s and possesses the curious property of lingering in the body for over 30 years after administration; radium injections administered between 1945 and 1955 to treat diseases like ankylosing spondylitis and tuberculosis, all provide researchers an opportunity to study the long-term effects of various types of radiation exposure over many years (Harrison JD et al 2003).

The excess exposure of workers and several hundred thousand nearby residents to the Mayak nuclear plant in Russia has also revealed a “dose-response” relationship, with increasing exposure leading to more cancers, including leukemia and solid cancers of the bone, liver, and lung (Shilnikova NS et al 2003). Nuclear waste released into the Techa river between 1948 and 1956 contaminated drinking water used by over 100,000 Russians. A plant explosion in 1957 also released an excess of radiation into the atmosphere, yielding exposure via inhalation. Some sources estimate that at least 272,000 people have been affected by radiation from the Mayak plant. This unfortunate situation has, however, yielded plenty of data on radiation exposure and its long-term effects.

It’s also been known for several decades that people who receive therapeutic radiation for treatment of cancer, even with the reduced doses now employed, are subject to increased risk of a second cancer consequent to the radiation treatment.

From experiences like this, radiation experts estimate that an exposure of 10 mSv increases a population’s risk for cancer by 1 in 1000 (Semelka RC et al 2007).

This question was recently thrust into the spotlight with publication of a study from Columbia University in New York suggesting that a 20-year old woman would be exposed to a lifetime risk of cancer as high as 1 in 143 consequent to the radiation received during a CT coronary angiogram. (Important note: This was estimated risk from a CT coronary angiogram, not a simple heart scan that we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program.) The risk at the low end of the spectrum would be in an 80-year old man (because of the shorter period of time to develop cancer), with a risk of 1 in 5017. If “gating” to the EKG is added (which many scan centers do indeed perform nowadays), risk for a 60-year old woman is estimated at 1 in 715; risk for a 60-year old male, 1 in 1911 (Einstein AJ et al 2007). This study generated some criticism, since it did not directly involve human subjects, but used “phantoms” or x-ray dummies to simulate x-ray exposure. Nonetheless, the point was made: CT coronary angiograms in current practice do indeed expose the patient to substantial quantities of radiation, sufficient to pose a lifetime risk of cancer.

The media frenzy

The NY Times ran an article called With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests in which they stated:

"According to a new study, the per-capita dose of ionizing radiation from clinical imaging exams in the United States increased almost 600 percent from 1980 to 2006. In the past, natural background radiation was the leading source of human exposure; that has been displaced by diagnostic imaging procedures, the authors said."

“This is an absolutely sentinel event, a wake-up call,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., principal investigator for the study, by the National Council on Radiation Protection. “Medical exposure now dwarfs that of all other sources.”

Radiation is a widely used imaging tool in medicine. Although CT scans of the brain, bones, chest, abdomen, and pelvis account for only 5% of all medical radiation procedures, they are responsible for nearly 50% of medical radiation used. It’s been known for years that increasing radiation exposure increases cancer risk over many years, but the boom of newer, faster devices that provide more detailed images has opened the floodgates to expanded use of CT scanners.

But before we join in the hysteria, let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

Head CT 1 – 2 mSv
Pelvis CT 3 – 4 mSv
Chest CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen/pelvis CT 8 – 11 mSv
Coronary CT angiography 5 – 12 mSv

Non-CT

Hand radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Chest radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Mammogram 0.3 – 0.6 mSv
Barium enema exam 3 – 6 mSv
Coronary angiogram 5 – 10 mSv
Sestamibi myocardial perfusion (per injection) 6 – 9 mSv
Thallium myocardial perfusion (per injection) 26 – 35 mSv

Source: Cynthia H. McCullough, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

A plain, everyday chest x-ray, providing less than 0.1 mSv exposure, provides about the same quantity of radiation exposure as flying in an airplane for four hours, or the same amount of radiation from exposure to our surroundings for 11–12 days. Similar exposure arises from dental x-rays.

If you have a heart scan on an EBT device, then your exposure is 0.5-0.6 mSv, roughly the same as a mammogram or several standard chest x-rays.

With a heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, exposure is ideally around 1.0-2.0 mSv, about the same as 2-3 mammograms, though dose can vary with this technology depending on how it is performed (gated to the EKG, device settings, etc.)

CT coronary angiography presents a different story. This is where radiation really escalates and puts the radiation exposure issue in the spotlight. As Dr. Cynthia McCullough's chart shows above, the radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms is 5-12 mSv, the equivalent of 100 or more chest x-rays or 20 mammograms. Now, that's a problem.

The exposure is about the same for a pelvic or abdominal CT. The problem is that some centers are using CT coronary angiograms as screening procedures and even advocating their use annually. This is where the alarm needs to be sounded. These tests, as wonderful as the information and image quality can be, are not screening tests. Just like a pelvic CT, they are diagnostic tests done for legitimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

It’s also worth giving second thought to any full body scan you might be considering. These screening studies include scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. These scans, performed for screening, expose the recipient to approximately 10 mSv of radiation (Radiological Society of North American, 2007). Debate continues on whether the radiation exposure is justified, given the generally asymptomatic people who generally undergo these tests.

Always be mindful of your radiation exposure, as the NY Times article rightly advises. However, don't be so frightened that you are kept from obtaining truly useful information from, for instance, a CT heart scan (not angiography) at a modest radiation cost.

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

Unfortunately, practicing physicians and those involved in providing CT scans are generally unconcerned with radiation exposure. The majority, in fact, are entirely unaware of the dose of radiation required for most CT scan studies and unaware of the cancer risk involved. It is therefore up to the individual to insist on a discussion of the type of scanner being used, the radiation dose delivered (at least in general terms), the necessity of the test, alternative methods to obtain the same diagnostic information, all in the context of lifetime radiation exposure.

Our concerns about radiation exposure all boil down to concern over lifetime risk for cancer, a disease that strikes approximately 20% of all Americans. Many factors contribute to cancer risk, including obesity, excessive saturated fat intake, low fiber intake, lack of vitamin D, repeated sunburns, excessive alcohol use, smoking, exposure to pesticides and other organochemicals, asbestos and other industrial exposures, electromagnetic wave exposure, and genetics. Radiation is just one source of risk, though to some degree a controllable one.

Some people, on hearing this somewhat disturbing discussion, refuse to ever have another medical test requiring radiation. That’s the wrong attitude. It makes no more sense than wearing lead shielding on your body 24 hours a day to reduce exposure from the atmosphere. Taken in the larger context of life, radiation exposure is just one item on a list of potentially harmful factors.

It is, however, worth some effort to minimize radiation exposure over your lifetime, particularly before age 60, and by submitting to high-dose testing only when truly necessary, or when the potential benefits outweigh the risks. Thus, with heart scans and CT coronary angiography, some thought to the potential benefits of knowing your score or the information gained from the CT angiogram need to be considered before undergoing the test. Often the practical difficulty, of course, is that your risk for heart disease simply cannot be known until after the test.

In our view, in the vast majority of instances a simple CT heart scan can serve the simple but crucial role of quantifying risk for heart attack and atherosclerotic plaque. CT heart scans yield this information with less than a tenth of the radiation exposure of a CT coronary angiogram. In people without symptoms and a normal stress test, there is rarely a need for CT coronary angiography with present day levels of radiation exposure. Perhaps as technology advances and the radiation required to generate images is reduced, then we should reconsider.

Early experiences are suggesting that the newest 256-slice scanners, now being developed but not yet available, will cut the dose exposure of 64-slice CT angiograms in half (from 27.8 mSv to 14.1 mSv in a recent Japanese study). The 256-slice scanners will allow scanning that is faster over a larger area in a given period of time.

Thankfully, the scanner manufacturers are increasingly sensitive to the radiation issue and have been working on methods to reduce radiation exposure. However, it still remains substantial.

References:
Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007 Jul 18;298(3):317–323.

Harrison JD, Muirhead CR. Quantitative comparisons of cancer induction in humans by internally deposited radionuclides and external radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 2003 Jan;79(1):1–13.

Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzyky M et al. Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. Circulation 2006;113:1305–1310.

Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard J, Saini S. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619–628.

Mayo JR, Aldrich J, Müller NL. Radiation exposure at chest CT: A statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2003; 228:15–21.

Mori S, Nishizawa K, Kondo C, Ohno M, Akahane K, Endo M. Effective doses in subjects undergoing computed tomography cardiac imaging with the 256-multislice CT scanner. Eur J Radiol 2007 Jul 10; [Epub ahead of print].

Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Ron E, Mabuchi K. Dose response and temporal patterns of radiation-associated solid cancer risks. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):43–46.

Ron E. Cancer risks from medical radiation. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):47–59.

Shilnikova NS, Preston DL, Ron E et al. Cancer mortality risk among workers at the Mayak nuclear complex. Radiation Res 2003 Jun;159(6):787–798.

Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, Huda W. Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007 May;25(5):900–9090.

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

A carefully-conducted study by a collaborative research group at University of California-Berkeley has finally closed the lid on the fuss over fructose vs. glucose and its purported adverse effects.

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation--3% increased intra-abdominal fat with glucose; 14.4% with fructose. (Intraabdominal fat is the variety that blocks insulin responses and causes diabetes and inflammation.)

2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol but double the increase for Apoprotein B (an index of the number of LDL particles, similar to NMR LDL particle number).

3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, compared to 13.3% with glucose.

4) While glucose (curiously) reduced the net postprandial (after-eating) triglyceride response (area under the curve, AUC), fructose increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.

The authors propose that fructose specifically increases liver VLDL production, the lipoprotein particle that yields abnormal after-eating particles, increased LDL, and provides building blocks to manufacture small LDL particles. The authors also persuasively propose that fructose metabolism, unlike glucose, is not inhibited (via feedback loop) by energy intake, i.e., it's as if you are always starving.

Add to this the data that show that fructose increases uric acid (that causes gout and may act as a coronary risk factor), induces leptin resistance, causes metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes), and increases appetite, and it is clear that fructose is yet another common food additive that, along with wheat, is likely a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic.

Fructose is concentrated, of course, in high-fructose corn syrup, comprising anywhere from 42-90% of total weight. Fructose also composes 50% of sucrose (table sugar). Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose).

Also, beware of low-fat or non-fat salad dressings (rich with high-fructose corn syrup), ketchup, beer, fruit drinks, fruit juices, all of which are rich sources of this exceptionally fattening, metabolism-bypassing, LDL cholesterol/small LDL/ApoB increasing compound. Ironically, this means that many low-fat foods meant to reduce cholesterol actually increase it when they contain fructose in any form.

When you hear or say "fructose," run the other way, regardless of what the Corn Refiners Association says.

Matt came to me because his doctor couldn't reduce his LDL cholesterol.

His doctor had prescribed Zocor (simvastatin), Lipitor, Crestor, even pravastatin, all of which resulted in incapacitating muscle aches and weakness within a week of starting. No surprise, Matt had a jaundiced view of statin drugs.

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

--72% of LDL was small LDL, a moderately severe pattern. (This means that small LDL comprised 112 mg/dl of the total 155 mg/dl LDL; large LDL comprised 43 mg/dl--small LDL was the problem.)

--HDL 42 mg/dl --Triglycerides 133 mg/dl

--No lipoprotein(a)

Beyond lipoproteins, Matt proved severely deficient in vitamin D with a starting level of 18 ng/ml.

Matt's doctor had advised that he avoid salt, as his blood pressure had been borderline high. His thyroid assessment disclosed a TSH of 3.89 mIU/ml with thyroid hormones free T3 and free T4 in the lower half of the normal range.

I therefore asked Matt to:

--Eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars to reduce small LDL
--Add iodine
--Supplement 6000 units of an oil-based vitamin D preparation
--Take fish oil to provide at least 1800 mg EPA + DHA per day
--Take Armour Thyroid 1 grain per day

Several months later on this program, Matt had a repeat basic lipid panel:

--LDL 82 mg/dl--a 47% reduction

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

--Triglycerides 60 mg/dl--a 55% decrease

In addition, vitamin D was 66 ng/ml, TSH was <1.0 mIU/ml with free T3 and free T4 in the upper half of the "reference range." Matt also felt great.

While the numbers could be slightly better, Matt had made tremendous progress towards achieving perfect values.

There you have it: Marked correction of cholesterol values, no statin drugs involved.

Even if you’re not interested in building big muscles like a bodybuilder, there are health benefits to increasing muscle mass: increased bone density, better balance, and fewer injuries. Greater muscle mass means higher metabolic rate, improved insulin responsiveness, lower blood sugar. The inevitable loss of muscle mass of aging can lead to frailty, an increasingly common situation for the elderly. Muscle loss be reversed, health improved as a result.

Since its introduction in 1994, creatine has exploded in popularity, particularly among bodybuilders and athletes interested in gaining muscle mass and strength. But creatine is not just for young weight lifters. If you are just interested in increasing muscle mass for its health benefits, then creatine is something to consider.

A study of creatine supplementation in men, average age 70 years, demonstrated that, when creatine was combined with strength training, it increased muscle mass 250% better than placebo (7.26 lb muscle vs 2.86 lb muscle), along with improved leg strength and endurance. The same group also demonstrated 3.2% increased bone density (measured using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) after 12 weeks in participants taking creatine with strength training, while the control (no strength training, no creatine) group decreased by 1.0%.

Benefits are not confined to men. Similar results were observed in another study that included women (age 65 and older), with outcomes in females comparable to males. This is especially important for females, given the common development of osteopenia and osteoporosis in postmenopausal females.

Other studies have shown that benefits are maintained after stopping creatine supplementation.

The most popular form of creatine is the monohydrate, generally taken as a “loading” phase of 15-20 grams per day (generally split into 3-4 doses of 5 grams) for 5-7 days, followed by weeks to months of 2-5 grams per day.

An alternative form, polyethylene glycosylated creatine (PEG-creatine) provides similar effects at one-fourth to one-half the dose of creatine, i.e., 1.25-2.5 grams per day.

Despite previous concerns about kidney toxicity with prolonged use, another study showed that athletes taking creatine for up to 21 months have shown no adverse effects on kidney function, lipid (cholesterol) values, or other basic health measures.

Having healthy muscle mass doesn't make you bulge like a bodybuilder. With modest efforts at strength training, augmented with creatine supplementation, you have a wonderful tool to feel better, reduce injury, increase bone density, and combat abnormal insulin resistance, not to mention accelerate weight loss, since lean muscle mass consumes energy.

There has been a lot of debate over whether or not “bio-identical” hormones, i.e., hormones identical to the human form, are superior to non-human forms dispensed by the drug industry.

The FDA is currently taking steps to clamp down on availability of bioidentical hormones and their claims of superiority, despite a groundswell of grassroot support for them. The argument has pitted anti-aging practitioners and the public, as well as the likes of Oprah and Suzanne Somers, against Big Pharma and the FDA, the two forces trying to squash the bioidentical hormone movement.

Regardless of what heavy-handed approach the FDA takes, we already have access to hormones identical to the original human form. It requires no prescription and yields downstream hormones that the human body recognizes as human.

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

Pregnenolone is the first biochemical step in the conversion of dietary cholesterol (yes-cholesterol!) to numerous other hormones. Pregnenolone is the source of the hormones that lie at the center of the bioidentical hormone controversy: estrogens, progesterone, and testosterone. We therefore already have our own over-the-counter, non-prescription form of bioidentical hormones.

Supplemental pregnenolone increases estrogens (mildly), progesterone, and testosterone. Prenenonlone supplementation simply provide more of the basic substrate for hormone production. The increase in hormones is usually modest, not as vigorous as direct hormone replacement like, say, testosterone or progesterone topical creams. But pregnenolone can be useful when small to moderate increases are desired, such as for reduction of Lp(a). A theoretical downside is that pregnenonlone can also convert to cortisol, the adrenal gland hormone that regulates fluid and blood pressure. However, I've not seen any measurable increase in cortisol with low doses of pregnenonlone and limited data suggest that it does not. Pregnenolone also converts to the other adrenal gland hormone, DHEA; I call DHEA "the hormone of assertiveness," since some people who take too much pregnenolone (or direct DHEA) acquire excessive assertiveness.

The key to pregnenolone supplementation is to proceed gradually and begin with a small dose, e.g., 5 mg every morning. Hormonal assessment is best conducted periodically to assess the effects and to determine whether a dose adjustment is in order.

Heart Scan Blog reader, Roger, described his near-miss experience with CT coronary angiograms.

Hoping to obtain just a simple CT heart scan, he was bullied to get a CT coronary angiogram instead. Roger held strong and just asked for the test that we all should be having, a CT heart scan.

I posted yesterday that I was about to have my first CT heart scan...well, it was an interesting experience for reasons I coudn't possibly have anticipated. Dr. Davis has commented in the past on the confusion in the media about the difference between a CT calcium score scan, and a CT angiography, the latter requiring a far higher dose of radiation. I assumed this was a source of confusion only among patients and lay folks, but, lo and behold, I discovered today that doctors--or at least their helpers--can be just as confused.

Here's my story:

After checking in, I asked the receptionist to see if she had any information on whether my medical insurance was covering the scan. She called someone, and I heard her say over the phone, "He's here for a CT angiogram." At that point my ears perked up. I explained I wasn't here for a CT angiogram, only a regular CT scan. "Well, do you want to call your doctor and talk about this?" she asked. No, I said, I would like to ask one of their folks to verify exactly what test my doctor had ordered. As luck would have it, the technician was walking by at that point. "Is this a CT angiogram?" the receptionist asked. "No, it's just a CT calcium score scan" was the reply. But apparently the technician had been unclear herself, and had called my doctor just to verify. In other words, the "default" procedure they were accustomed to doing at this august Houston vascular clinic was a CT angiogram.

In fact, my appointment was even listed on their calendar as a "CT angiogram." For all I know, my insurance will be billed for the same. Later, during the procedure, the technician acted surprised I wasn't doing the "full test." I explained I had minimal risk factors (actually only one, an HDL of 34 a couple of years ago, which has since been raised to 50 partly as a result of taking advice from this site), but that my doctor was progressive (he is an MD for the Houston Astros) and thought it was a good idea since there is heart disease in my immediate family. My doctor did indeed prescribe only a CT calcium score scan, but it seems to have been an order that this clinic, at least, wasn't all that used to seeing.

So, I guess the message is: we have a lot of educating to do. Had I not been a faithful reader of these pages, I certainly wouldn't have known what kind of test I was about to get, or what questions to ask!

As for the heart scan itself, a piece of cake. If you can hold your breath, you can take this test. Just be sure it is the right one!

Why the "push" towards CT coronary angiograms and not "just" a CT heart scan? Well, I know it's shocking but it's . . . money!

CT coronary angiograms yield around $1800-$4000 per test. CT heart scans yield somewhere around $200. Though the scan center support staff might not care too much about the money themselves, their administrators likely make the cost distinctions clear to them.

Another reason: Most scan center staff, ironically, don't understand what a heart scan means, nor do they understand how it might serve to launch a program of prevention. They do understand that severe blockage by CT angiogram "needs" to be stented or bypassed. So they push patients towards things they understand.

Nobody makes money from CT heart scans, just as nobody makes money from a mammogram. Heart scans also don't lead to heroic, "lifesaving" procedures. They just lead to this sleepy, unexciting, inexpensive thing called prevention.

The June 20-21, 2009 Wall Street Journal Weekend Journal featured a provocative front page article written by physician, Dr. Abraham Verghese:

The Myth of Prevention

While eloquently written, I took issue with a few crucial points. Here is the letter I sent to the Editor at Wall Street Journal:

Dear Wall Street Journal Editor,

Re: Dr. Abraham Verghese’s article, The Myth of Prevention in the June 20-21, 2009 Weekend Journal.

I believe a more suitable title for Dr. Verghese’s article would be: “The Myth of What Passes as Prevention.”

As a practicing cardiologist, I, too, have witnessed firsthand the systemic “corruption” described by Dr. Verghese, the doing things “to” people rather than “for” them. Heart care, in particular, is rife with this form of profit-driven health delivery.

There is a fundamental flaw in Dr. Verghese’s otherwise admirable analysis: He assumes that what is called “prevention” in mainstream medicine is truly preventive.

Dr. Verghese makes issue of the apparent minor differences between preventing a condition and just allowing a condition to run its course. Prostate cancer screening is one example: Men subjected to repeated screenings have little length-of-life advantage over men who just allow their prostate to suffer the expected course of disease.

What if, instead, “prevention” as practiced today is nothing more than a solution that has been adopted in mainstream practice to suit yet another doing “to” strategy than doing “for”? In the prostate cancer example, PSA and prostate exam screenings often serve as little more than a means of harvesting procedures for the local urologist.

That’s not prevention. It is a prototypical example of “prevention” being subverted into the cause of revenue-generating procedures.

I submit that Dr. Verghese has fallen victim to the very same system he criticizes. His views have unwittingly been corrupted by the corrupt profit-driven system he describes.

What if, instead, prevention were just that: prevention or elimination of the condition. What if “prevention” of prostate cancer eliminated prostate cancer? What if heart disease “prevention” prevented all heart disease? What if this all proceeded without regard for profit or revenue-generating procedures, but just on results?

Dr. Verghese specifically targets heart scans or coronary calcium scoring, a test he likens to “miracle glow-in-the-dark minnow lures,” calling them “moneymakers.” Yes, when subverted into a corrupt algorithm of stress test, heart catheterization, stent, or bypass, heart scans are indeed a test used wrongly to “prevent” heart disease.

But what if the risk insights provided by heart scans prompt the start of a benign yet effective “prevention” program that inexpensively, safely, and assuredly prevents--in the true sense of the word--or eliminates heart disease? Then I believe the differences in mortality, quality of life, and costs would be substantial. Such strategies exist, yet do not necessarily include prescription drugs and certainly do not include the aftermath of heart catheterization and bypass surgery. Yet such programs fail to seize the limelight of media attention with no new high-tech lifesaving headline nor a big marketing budget to broadcast its message.

The problem in medicine is not prevention and its failure to yield cost- and life-saving results. It is the pervasively profit-driven mindset that keeps true preventive strategies from entering mainstream conversation. It is a repeat of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis’ late 19th-century pleads for physicians to wash their hands before delivering babies to reduce puerperal sepsis, ignominious advice that earned him life and death in an asylum. We are essentially continuing to deliver children with unwashed hands because there is no revenue-generating procedure to clean them.

No, Dr. Verghese, the economic and medical failings of preventive strategies are not at fault. The failure of the medical system, in which everyone is bent on seizing a piece of the financial action for himself, has resulted in the failure to support the propagation of true preventive strategies that could genuinely save money and lives.

President Obama’s goal of cultivating preventive practices in medicine can work, but only if the profit-motive for “prevention” does not serve as the primary determinant of practice. Results-driven practices that are applied without regard to profit have the potential to yield the sorts of cost-saving and life-saving results that can reduce healthcare costs.

William Davis, MD
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Medical Director, The Track Your Plaque Program (www.cureality.com)
Blog: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com

The efforts of Texas House of Representatives Rep. Rene Oliveira and the SHAPE Guidelines committee have paid off: The Texas legislature passed a bill that requires health insurers to cover CT heart scans.

(NOTE: Don't make the same mistake that the media often makes and confuse CT heart scans with CT coronary angiography: two different tests, two different results, two different levels of radiation exposure. The difference is discussed here.)

Track Your Plaque previously reported the release of the SHAPE Guidelines, an ambitious effort to open CT heart scanning to people who would benefit from a simple screening test for coronary disease. Rep. Rene Oliveira initially introduced the bill in 2006, after having a heart scan uncovered extensive coronary plaque that resulted in coronary bypass surgery.

The bill requires that health-benefit providers cover the cost of CT heart scans (and carotid ultrasound) in men between the ages of 45-76, women 55-76, as well as anyone with diabetes or at "intermediate-risk" or higher for coronary disease by Framingham risk score.

The usual panel of cardiology knuckleheads stepped to the media podium, expressing their incredulity that something as "unvalidated" as heart scans could gain the backing of legislative mandate. Heartwire carried this comment:

"Contacted by heartwire, Dr Amit Khera (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas) confirmed there are still no comprehensive, adequately powered studies showing that these screening tests lead to better outcomes. In a phone interview, Khera said he has major concerns about how physicians will use these tests, particularly primary-care physicians. "I gave a talk last week to primary-care doctors, and there were probably 250 people in the room, and when I asked how many people had ordered a calcium scan, just one person raised a hand. . . . Most people don't even know what to do with the Framingham risk score, so they're going to follow an algorithm that they don't know how to follow to order a test result that they don't know what to do with."

It's the same criticisms hurled at heart scans over the years despite literally thousands of studies validating their application.

Studies have conclusively shown that:

--Coronary calcium scores generated by a CT heart scan outperform any other risk measure for coronary disease, including LDL cholesterol, c-reactive protein, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure.
--Coronary calcium scores yield a graded, trackable index of coronary risk. Scores that increase correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular events; scores that remain unchanged correlate with much reduced risk.
--A coronary calcium score of zero--no detectable calcium--correlates with extremely low 5-year risk for cardiovascular events.
--Coronary calcium scores correlate with other measures of coronary disease. Heart scans correlate with coronary angiography, quantitative coronary angiography, carotid ultrasound (intimal-medial thickness and plaque severity), ankle-brachial index, and stress tests, including radionuclide (nuclear) perfusion imaging.

The reluctance of my colleagues to embrace heart scans stems from two issues, for the most part:

1) No study has yet been performed showing that knowing what the score is vs. not knowing what the score is changes prognosis. That's true. But it is also true of the great majority of practices in medicine. While many wrongs don't make a right, the miserable and widespread failure of other coronary risk measures, like LDL cholesterol or c-reactive protein, to readily and reliably detect hidden coronary disease creates a gaping void for improved efforts at early detection. If your LDL cholesterol is 140 mg/dl, do you or don't you have coronary disease? If your doctor's response is "Just take a statin drug anyway" you've been done a great disservice. (If and when this sort of study gets done, its huge cost--outcome studies have to be large and last many years--it will likely be a statin study. It is unlikely it will include such Track Your Plaque strategies that help reduce heart scan scores, like vitamin D and correction of small LDL particles.)

2) Fears over overuse of hospital procedures triggered by heart scans. This is a legitimate concern--if the information provided by a heart scan is misused. Heart scans should never--NEVER--lead directly to heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery. Heart scans do not change the indications for performing revascularization (angioplasty, stents, bypass). Just because 20% of my cardiology colleagues are more concerned with profit rather than patient welfare does not invalidate the value of the test. Just because the mechanic at the local garage gouged you by replacing a carburetor for $800 when all you need was a new spark plug does not mean that we should outlaw all auto mechanics. Abuse is the fault of the abuser, not of the tool used to exercise the abuse.

All in all, while I am not a fan of legislating behavior in healthcare, the blatant and extreme ignorance of this simple tool for uncovering hidden heart disease makes the Texas action a huge success for heart disease prevention. I hope that this success will raise awareness, not just in Texas, but in other states and cities in which similar systemic neglect is the rule.

Remember: CT heart scans are tools for prevention, not to uncover "need" for procedures. They serve as a starting point to decide whether or not an intensive program of prevention is in order, and I don't mean statin vs. no statin.

Though not a multi-million dollar statin drug study, I have NEVER seen a heart attack or "need" for procedure in any person who has stopped progression or reduced their heart scan score. A small cohort from my practice was reported:

Effect of a Combined Therapeutic Approach of Intensive Lipid Management, Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation, and Increased Serum 25 (OH) Vitamin D on Coronary Calcium Scores in Asymptomatic Adults.

Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M.

The impact of intensive lipid management, omega-3 fatty acid, and vitamin D3 supplementation on atherosclerotic plaque was assessed through serial computed tomography coronary calcium scoring (CCS). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with statin therapy has not been shown to reduce or slow progression of serial CCS in several recent studies, casting doubt on the usefulness of this approach for tracking atherosclerotic progression. In an open-label study, 45 male and female subjects with CCS of >/= 50 without symptoms of heart disease were treated with statin therapy, niacin, and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides /=60 mg/dL; and vitamin D3 supplementation to achieve serum levels of >/=50 ng/mL 25(OH) vitamin D, in addition to diet advice. Lipid profiles of subjects were significantly changed as follows: total cholesterol -24%, low-density lipoprotein -41%; triglycerides -42%, high-density lipoprotein +19%, and mean serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels +83%. After a mean of 18 months, 20 subjects experienced decrease in CCS with mean change of -14.5% (range 0% to -64%); 22 subjects experienced no change or slow annual rate of CCS increase of +12% (range 1%-29%). Only 3 subjects experienced annual CCS progression exceeding 29% (44%-71%). Despite wide variation in response, substantial reduction of CCS was achieved in 44% of subjects and slowed plaque growth in 49% of the subjects applying a broad treatment program.

Take a look at the results from the Heart Scan Blog's most recent reader poll (399 respondents):

How many hours do you sleep per night (on average)?

9 or more hours per night
15 (3.7%)

8-9 hours per night
72 (18%)

7-8 hours per night
152 (38.1%)

6-7 hours per night
111 (27.8%)

5-6 hours per night
38 (9.5%)

Less than 5 hours per night
11 (2.8%)

Like many issues in health, too much or too little of a good thing can present undesirable consequences.

Too much sleep: While psychologists and sleep researchers advise us that at least 9 hours are required to fully eliminate sleep "debt" and achieve optimal vigilance and mental performance, epidemiologic studies have shown increased mortality with this quantity of sleep.

Too little sleep: Getting less than 7 hours habituallly increases blood sugar, appetite, inflammatory measures, and encourages weight gain. Mortality is also increased, just as with sleeping too much. It is also associated with increased likelihood of a positive heart scan score.

7-8 hours per night from a health viewpoint is that Goldlilocks "just right" value: just enough to not erode mental performance substantially, but not so little that inflammatory, insulin-disrupting, and appetite-increasing effects develop.

Of our 399 respondents in the poll, 56.1% (38% + 18%) slept what appears to be an optimal amount for health. While only 3.7% slept too much (9 hours or more), the remaining 40.1% slept too little.

Our informal poll confirms what most of us observe in everyday life: The majority of people shortchange sleep in order to meet the demands of their high-pressure, squeeze-as-much-as-possible-into-every-day lives. But not paying off your sleep "debt" is like not paying the mortgage for a couple of months. You wouldn't expect your friendly neighborhood bank to say, "Oh, you forgot to pay your mortgage? Forget about it. Just pay next month's." Sure, fat chance. But if you don't pay off your sleep "debt," you will pay it back with health.

As always, Dr. John Cannell of The Vitamin D Council continues to teach us new lessons about vitamin D.

Apparently, Dr. Cannell is swamped with the attention that vitamin D is drawing, largely due to his efforts to publicize the enormous deficiency of Americans and his great talent for articulating the science. The most current newsletter, while a bit haphazard, makes some excellent new points that I reprint here.

(I did not reprint his conversation about "any form of vitamin D" being acceptable. My experience differs: In nearly 1000 patients who have taken vitamin D supplements, my experience is that most tablet forms are inconsistently absorbed, sometimes not absorbed at all. I therefore advocate only use of gelcaps or liquids. I'm told by members of Track Your Plaque, however, that they are witnessing reliable increases in blood levels of vitamin D by taking the powdered form of Bio Tech Pharmacal's product.)

Does it matter what reference lab my doctor uses?

Yes, it might make a huge difference. A number of methods exist to measure 25(OH)D in commercial labs. The two most common are mass spectrometry and a chemiluminescence method, LIAISON. The first, mass spectrometry, is highly accurate in the hands of experienced technicians given enough time to do the test properly. However, in the hands of a normally trained technician at a commercial reference lab overwhelmed with 25(OH)D tests, it may give falsely elevated readings, that is, it tells you are OK when in fact you are vitamin D deficient. The second method, chemiluminescence, LIAISON, was recently developed and is the most accurate of the screening, high throughput, methods; LabCorp uses it. Quest Diagnostics reference lab uses mass spec. Again, both Quest and LabCorp are overwhelmed by 25(OH)D requests. The problem is that the faster the technicians do the mass spec test, the more inaccurate it is likely to be. If your 25(OH)D blood test says "Quest Diagnostics" on the top, do not believe you have an adequate level (> 50 ng/ml). You may or may not; the test may be falsely elevated. Let me give you an example. A doctor at my hospital had Quest Diagnostics do a 25(OH)D. It came back as 99 ng/ml of ergocalciferol. He is not taking ergocalciferol (D2), he has never taken ergocalciferol, only cholecalciferol, and he is not taking enough to get a level of 99 ng/ml, 50 ng/ml at the most. His email to Dr. Brett Holmquist at Quest about why Quest identified a substance he was not taking went unanswered other than to say "any friend of Dr. Cannell's is a friend of ours."

Long story short: if your lab report says "LabCorp" on the top, it is probably accurate; if it says Quest Diagnostic, it may be falsely elevated. While LabCorp has also been overwhelmed with 25(OH)D requests, the LIAISON method they use is relatively easy to do and does not rely on technician skill as much as the mass spec methods do. I'm not saying this because I'm a consultant for DiaSorin, who makes LIAISON, I'm saying it because it is true. If you don't believe me, get Quest to make me an offer to be their consultant at 10 times what DiaSorin is supposed to be paying me ($10,000 per year) and see how fast I turn Quest down. If Quest fixes their test, I'd love to consult. The ironic thing: I've made both Quest and LabCorp lots of money via this newsletter, the website, and by repeatedly telling the press that people need to know their 25(OH)D level, which has contributed to the skyrocketing sales of 25(OH)D blood tests.

Demand for vitamin D tests soars as nutrient's potential benefits touted.

Here you can help. Find out which labs in your town use Quest Diagnostics and which use LabCorp. Have a 25(OH)D test at both labs the same day (you will have to pay for them yourself). Then send both results to the Vitamin D Council address below. If Quest Diagnostics does not fix their 25(OH)D test, the Vitamin D Council will fix it for them.

My doctor prescribed Drisdol, 50,000 IU per week. What is it?

Drisdol is a prescription of 50,000 IU tablets of ergocalciferol or D2. Ergocalciferol is not vitamin D but it is similar. It is made by irradiating ergosterol, which is found in many living things, such as yeast. D2 is not normally found in humans and most studies show it does not raise 25(OH)D levels as well as human vitamin D (cholecalciferol or D3) does. However, Drisdol is a lot better than nothing. The best thing to do, if you are vitamin D deficient, and a human, is to take human vitamin D, cholecalciferol, A.K.A. vitamin D3.

What is the ideal level of 25(OH)D?

We don't know. However, thanks to Bruce Hollis, Robert Heaney, Neil Binkley, and others, we now know the minimal acceptable level. It is 50 ng/ml. In a recent study, Heaney et al enlarged on Bruce Hollis's seminal work by analyzing five studies in which both the parent compound, cholecalciferol, and 25(OH)D levels were measured. It turn out that the body does not reliably begin storing the parent compound (cholecalciferol) in fat and muscle tissue until 25(OH)D levels get above 50 ng/ml. The average person starts to store cholecalciferol at 40 ng/ml, but at 50 ng/ml, virtually everyone begins to store it for future use. That is, at levels below 50 ng/ml, the body is usually using up the vitamin D as fast as you make it or take it, indicating chronic substrate starvation, not a good thing.

Hollis BW, Wagner CL, Drezner MK, Binkley NC. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-4.

Heaney RP, Armas LA, Shary JR, Bell NH, Binkley N, Hollis BW. 25-Hydroxylation of vitamin D3: relation to circulating vitamin D3 under various input conditions. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Jun;87(6):1738-42.

I have advanced renal failure and I'm on dialysis, how much vitamin D should I take?

The same as everyone else. Since I have told you about commercial labs ripping you off, let's add some drug companies. Patients with advanced renal failure need activated vitamin D or one of it's analogs, available by prescription. This is very important as their kidneys cannot make enough 1,25-dihydroxy-vitamin D (calcitriol) to maintain serum calcium. However, the rest of their tissues activate vitamin D just fine and when those tissues get enough, and when the kidneys get more vitamin D, the calcitriol spills out into the blood, lowering their need for prescription calcitriol or one of its analogs. The companies that make the analogs don't like that, it means reduced sales. So these companies do nothing, the scientists behind these companies say nothing, and renal failure patients die prematurely from one of the vitamin D deficiency diseases.

Vieth R. Vitamin D toxicity, policy, and science. J Bone Miner Res. 2007 Dec;22 Suppl 2:V64-8.

When I asked my doctor for a 25(OH)D blood test, he just laughed and said it was all idiotic. What can I do?

Help me unleash the dogs of war, the plaintiff attorneys. If you read about past nutritional epidemics caused by society, such as beriberi or pellagra, you will realize that education alone will take decades. Physicians successfully fought against the idea that thiamine deficiency caused beriberi for decades. However, things are different now. The agents of change in modern America, as obnoxious as they are, are plaintiff attorneys. Once the first malpractice lawsuits claiming undiagnosed and untreated vitamin D deficiency led to breast cancer, autism, heart disease, etc., get past summary judgment, and they will, and end up in front of a jury, and they will, things will change rapidly. One of the main reason physicians do what they do is fear of lawsuits. In a matter of months, arrogance and ignorance will give way to 25(OH)D tests and vitamin D supplementation.

Goodwin JS, Tangum MR. Battling quackery: attitudes about micronutrient supplements in American academic medicine. Arch Intern Med. 1998 Nov 9;158(20):2187-91.

And, to help support Dr. Cannell's efforts (I sent him a check for $250 a few months back; time for more), here is his contact info:

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council

Send your tax-deductible contributions to:

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

In 1910, taking a person's blood pressure was considered revolutionary, a high-tech practice that was of uncertain benefit.

Dr. Harvey Cushing of Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore had observed a blood pressure device while traveling in Europe, developed by Dr. Sciopione Riva-Rocci. Cushing brought this new technology back with him to the U.S. and promptly promoted its use, convinced that this insight into gauging the forcefulness of blood pressure would yield useful clinical insights.

But, in 1910, practicing physicians rejected this new technology, preferring to use their well-established and widely practiced technique of pulse palpation (feeling the pulse), skeptical that the new tool added value. Medical practice of the day was rich with descriptions of the strength and character of the pulse: pulsus parvus et tardus (the slow rising pulse of aortic valve stenosis), the dicrotic notch of aortic valve closure transmitted to the pulse, the "water-hammer" pulse of aortic valve insufficiency.

Over the next 20 years, however, the medical community finally gave way to the new technique, although only physicians were allowed to use blood pressure devices, as nurses were regarded as incapable of mastering the skills required to perform the procedure properly.

Stethoscopes were also gaining in popularity in the early 20th century, but were also the exclusive province of physicians trained in their use. Nurses were not allowed to use stethoscopes until the 1960s. Even then, nurses were not allowed to call them "stethoscopes," but "nurse-o-scopes" or "assistoscopes," and the nurses' version of the device was manufactured to look different to avoid confusion with the "real" doctor's tool.

And just half a century ago, if you wanted to look at a medical textbook, you would have to go to the library and ask for special permission. The librarian would lower her glasses and look you up and down to determine whether or not you were some kind of pervert. Only then might you be granted permission to peer into the pictures of organs and naked bodies.

Such has been the spirit of medicine for centuries: Medicine and its practices are meant to be secret, the insider knowledge of a privileged few.

Fast forward to 2008: The Information Age has overturned the rules of privileged information. Now you have access to the same information as I do, the same information available to practicing physicians. The playing field has been levelled.

Curiously, while information access has advanced at an instantaneous digital pace, attitudes in medicine continue to evolve at the traditional analog crawl. Many of my colleagues continue to be dismayed at the new public access to health information, belittle patients for excessive curiosity about their health, lament the erosion of their healthcare-directing authority. And while new concepts race ahead as we race towards a wiki-like collective growth in healthcare knowledge, physicians are still mired by their reluctance to abdicate their once-lofty positions as chief holders of secrets.

I believe that this is part of the reason why family doctors and cardiologists have been slow to adopt technologies like heart scans and self-empowering programs like Track Your Plaque: processes that take heart disease prevention away from the hands of physicians and place more control into the hands of the people.

Imagine the horror felt by physicians in 1935 of a young upstart nurse boldly trying to use a stethoscope to take a patient's blood pressure. You can imagine the internal horror now being felt as you and I dare to take control over heart disease and deny them the chance to put in four stents, three bypass grafts, then direct our future health habits.

But technology has a way of marching on. It will encounter resistance, bumps, and blind-alleys, but it will go on.

Dr. Jeffrey Dach posted a great piece on his blog, Bioidentical Hormone Blog , about his perspective on the Track Your Plaque program.

It's worth reading even for those familiar with the program, just to see a slightly different perspective. He also included many great graphics to illustrate his points.

CAT Coronary Calcium Scoring, Reversing Heart Disease

Also, see Dr. Dach's Heart Disease: Part 2, for some novel thoughts.

As we age, we lose the capacity to activate vitamin D in the skin.

Studies suggest that, between ages 20 and 70, there is a 75% reduction in the ability to activate vitamin D. The capacity of conversion from 25 (OH) vitamin D to 1,25 di(OH) vitamin D also diminishes.

Holick M. Sunlight and vitamin D for bone health and prevention of autoimmune diseases, cancers, and cardiovascular disease.

From Holick, M. 2006

This would explain why 70-year olds come to the office, just back from the Caribbean sporting dark brown tans, are still deficient, often severely, in blood levels of vitamin D (25(OH) vitamin D). A tan does not equal vitamin D.

Courtesy Ipanemic

A practical way of looking at it is that anyone 40 years old or older has lost the majority of ability for vitamin D activation.

This often makes me wonder if the loss of vitamin D activating potential is nature's way to get rid of us. After all, after 40, we've pretty much had our opportunity to recreate and make our contribution to the species (at least in a primitive world in which humans evolved): we've exhausted our reproductive usefulness to the species.

Is the programmed decline of vitamin D skin activation a way to ensure that we develop diseases of senescence (aging)? The list of potential consequences of vitamin D deficiency includes: osteoporosis, poor balance and coordination, falls and fractures; cancer of the breast, bladder, colon, prostate, and blood; reductions in HDL, increases in triglycerides; increased inflammation (C-reactive protein, CRP); declining memory and mentation; coronary heart disease.

Isn't that also pretty much a list that describes aging?

A fascinating argument in support of this idea came from study from St Thomas’ Hospital and the London School of Medicine:

Higher serum vitamin D concentrations are associated with longer leukocyte telomere length in women

Telomeres are the "tails" of DNA that were formerly thought to be mistakes, just coding for nonsense. But more recent thinking has proposed that telomeres may provide a counting mechanism that shortens with aging and accelerates with stress and illness. This study suggests that both vitamin D and inflammation (CRP) impact telomere length: the lower the vitamin D, the shorter the telomere length, particularly when inflammation is greater.

Data supporting vitamin D's effects on preventing or treating cancer, osteoporosis, lipid abnormalities, inflammation, cardiovascular disease, etc., is developing rapidly.

Now the big question: If declining vitamin D is nature's way of ensuring our decline and death, does maintaining higher vitamin D also maintain youthfulness?

I don't have an answer, but it's a really intriguing idea.

In the last Heart Scan Blog post on thyroid issues, Is normal TSH too high?, the provocative findings of the the HUNT Study were discussed. The text of the study can be found at:

The association between TSH within the reference range and serum lipid concentrations in a population-based study. The HUNT Study

Hypothyroidism, or low thyroid that is signaled by high thyroid-stimulating hormone, TSH, is proving far more prevalent an issue than previously thought. While previous estimates put hypothyroidism as affecting only about 3% of younger populations, 10-20% of older populations (women more so), data like the HUNT Study suggest that, if lower and lower TSH levels (higher thyroid) are necessary for perfect heart health, then many more people stand to benefit than we used to think.

But another crucial issue in the world of hypothyroidism: Is T4 (thyroxine) enough? Or should we be supplementing T3 (triiodothyronine) along with T4?

Your friendly neighborhood primary care doctor or endocrinologist would likely argue vehemently that T4 (as Synthroid, Levoxyl, levothyroxine, and others) is adequate and not subject to the impurities and contaminants of natural thyroid extracts. They would also argue that T4 is effectively converted to T3 at the tissue level, and exogenous supplementation is unnecessary.

Others--most of all thyroid patients themselves, along with thyroid advocates like Mary Shomon and Janie Bowthorpe, along with some physicians--argue that supplementing T3 along with T4 can be very important. They argue that people feel better, have more physical energy, lose weight more effectively, and more completely resolve many of the phenomena of hypothryoidism with T3 added. There are also some data that argue the same.

Adding T3 to the mix may address the presumed poor conversion of T4 to T3 that is peculiar to some people. It may overcome the "reverse T3" phenomenon, the production of a useless look-alike T3 that occurs in some people. It may also (anecdotally) exert greater effects on some lipid/lipoprotein parameters, such as Lp(a).

My experiences adding T3 to T4 have been mixed: Some feel better, others do not. Some show objective improvements, others do not.

Nonetheless, hypothyroidism, or incompletely corrected hypothryoidism by way of inadequate T3, is an issue to consider in your plaque-control program.

More on this somewhat complex issue, along with practical solutions to consider, can be found on the Special Report to be released this week on the Track Your Plaque website.

All right. I sent a Letter to the Editor to the New York Times. No word from them; it's no longer news.

So here is what I tried to convey.

While the authors overall did a credible job of talking to my colleagues and laying out the issues, they made the crucial and boneheaded mistake of confusing CT heart scans with CT coronary angiograms. Sadly, many people who may have been considering having a simple screening heart scan may be scared away by the confused authors, Alexn Berenson and Reed Abelson.

They do correctly point out that, while CT coronary angiograms are fascinating examples of technology and a way of visualizing coronary arteries, this test all too often is being subverted into the "let's make money from high-tech testing" medical model. It's also a test that frequently leads to the "real" test, heart catheterization, since the "time bomb" you have in your arteries might "need" a stent.

CT coronary angiograms are also virtually useless for purposes of tracking disease, since they are not longitudinally (along the length of the artery) quantitative, nor should anyone be exposed to this much radiation repeatedly.

A simple heart scan, on the hand, provides a longitudinal summation of coronary plaque volume. Radiation exposure is sufficiently low that repeated scanning can be performed for purposes of tracking . . .yes, track your plaque.

Poorly-informed reporters can do a lot of damage. As always, you and I must dig a little deeper for the truth.

Dear Editor,

Re: Weighing the Costs of a CT Scan’s Look Inside the Heart

The Times featured an article on June 29th that discussed rapidly expanding use of CT scans for the heart:
Weighing the Costs of a CT Scan’s Look Inside the Heart.

The authors, Alex Berenson and Reed Abelson, stated that CT heart scans “expose patients to large doses of radiation, equivalent to at least several hundred X-rays, creating a small but real cancer risk.”

I’d like to offer a clarification.

Though the authors discuss both CT heart scans and CT coronary angiograms, they confuse the two and use the terms interchangeably.

A heart scan is a simple screening test for coronary atherosclerotic plaque. It detects the presence of calcium in the heart’s arteries, provided as a “score.” (Because calcium occupies 20% of total plaque volume, knowing the amount of calcium tells you how much total coronary plaque is present by applying this simple proportion.) Just having a high score should not prompt heart procedures, since people undergoing simple screening heart scans are without symptoms. However, a stress test may yield some useful information.

On present-day CT devices, heart scans expose a patient to 0.4 mSv of radiation on an electron-beam, or EBT, device, and on up to 1.2 mSv on a 64-slice multi-detector, or MDCT, device, compared to 0.1 mSv during a standard chest x-ray. CT heart scans are therefore performed with about the same quantity of radiation as a mammogram done to screen women for breast cancer, or about the equivalent of four chest x-rays on an EBT scanner, up to 12 chest-xrays on a MDCT scanner.

CT coronary angiograms, while performed on the same devices as heart scans, require x-ray dye to fill the contours of the coronary arteries. It also requires up to several hundred times more radiation. While new engineering innovations are being introduced that promise to reduce this exposure, the current devices being used today do indeed require a radiation dose equivalent to 100 to 400 chest x-rays (usually in the range of 10-15 mSv), a value that equals or exceeds that obtained during a conventional heart catheterization.

While heart scans are most useful to detect and quantify plaque that can help determine the intensity of a heart disease prevention program, CT coronary angiograms are generally used as prelude to hospital procedures like catheterizations, stents and bypass surgery. That’s because they are performed to look for (or rule out) “severe” blockages.
CT heart scans and CT coronary angiography are therefore two different tests that yield two different kinds of information, and yield two entirely different levels of radiation exposure.

This confusion from a major and respected media outlet like the New York Times is unfortunate, because it could persuade millions of people who otherwise could benefit from simple heart scans to avoid them because of misleading information on radiation exposure of a different test.

Thank you.

William Davis, MD

While there have been some positive reports in the media lately about the cholesterol-reducing effects of red yeast rice, Consumer Lab has issued a very concerning report.

Because Consumer Lab is a subscription website (incidentally, the $20 per year membership fee is money well spent for insightful tests on many supplements, though new reports only come out a handful of times per year), I won't discuss the results of their red yeast rice in its entirety.

However, Consumer Lab testing uncovered several disturbing findings:

--The lovastatin content varied by a factor of 100, from 0.1 mg per tablet/capsule in one brand up to 10.6 mg in another brand. By FDA regulations, lovastatin is a drug and NO red yeast rice preparation is supposed to contain ANY lovastatin. Nonetheless, despite the marketing of supplement manufacturers, it is probably the lovastatin that is largely responsible for the LDL-reducing effect. The monacolins or mevinolins in red yeast rice add little, if any, further LDL-reducing effect.

--Several preparations contain a potential kidney toxin called citrinin. The Walgreen's product, specifically, contained substantial quantities of this toxin.

Interestingly, the FDA has taken repeated action against red yeast rice manufacturers and distributors because they continue to contain lovastatin. In the FDA's most recent action in August, 2007, for instance, Swanson's product and Sunburst Biorganics' Cholestrix, were both sent letters to stop selling their product because it contained lovastatin.

The Consumer Lab findings would explain the enormous variation in LDL-reducing effect of various red yeast rice products. In my experience, some work and reduce LDL 40 mg/dl or so, some fail to reduce LDL at all, others generate a modest effect, e.g., 5-10 mg/dl LDL reduction.

In effect, red yeast rice IS a statin drug, albeit a highly variable and weak one. Although readers of The Heart Scan Blog know that I am a big fan of nutritional supplements and self-empowerment in health, I am a bigger fan of truth. I despise B--- S---- of the sort that emits from some nutritional supplement manufacturers and drug companies.

I am puzzled by much of the public's readiness to embrace a statin drug if it comes from a supplement company while avoiding it if it comes from a drug manufacturer. Personally, I do not like the drug industry, their questionable (at best) ethics, their aggressive marketing tactics, their sleazy sales people.

But, in this instance, if a statin effect is desired, I'd reach for generic lovastatin before I purchased red yeast rice. The Consumer Lab report tells us that red yeast rice IS essentially a statin drug, an inconsistent one that often contains a potential toxin.

A 72-year old woman came to my office after a complicated hospital stay (unrelated to heart disease). She'd undergone a CT coronary angiogram and heart scan as part of a pre-operative evaluation prior to a surgery for a non-heart related condition.

The heart scan portion of the test (I was impressed they even did this) yielded a heart scan score of 212. The CT coronary angiogram portion of the test revealed a 50% blockage in one artery, a lesser blockage in one other artery.

The cardiologist consulting on the case advised her that the amount of coronary disease detected was insufficient to pose risk during her surgical procedure. He also advised her that she had "an average amount of disease for age." He thought that nothing further was necessary since she was "average."

Say what?

What if I told you that you have an average amount of cancer for your age? After all, cancers become more common the older we get. Who would find that acceptable?

Then why should ANY amount of coronary atherosclerotic plaque be "acceptable for age"? Coronary plaque is a degenerative disease that poses risk for rupture. While it is indeed common, by no means should it be acceptable.

I would bet that this same cardiologist would be from the same school of thought that would be eager to advise heart catheterization, stent, and other procedures--revenue-generating procedures--should she have a heart attack appropriate for age.

I wish that I could tell you that this silly comment was provided by some peculiar, "everyone-knows-he's-crazy" doctor. But it was not. It was a solidly mainstream physician. He pooh-poohs nutrition, laughs when asked about nutritional supplements, thinks anyone complaining about symptoms less than a full-blown heart attack is a baby. He is respected by the primary care physicians, lectures on the advantages of prescription medications. In short, he is your typical conventional cardiologist.

This is the way they think. I know, because I was one of them. Thankfully, something banged me upside my head one day (my Mother's sudden cardiac death) and tipped me off to the painful irony of the conventional approach to heart disease.

There is NO amount of coronary disease appropriate for age. This notion is a remnant of the paternalistic, "I-know-better-than-you" attitude of the last century of medicine.

The 21st century promises a new age.

A reader of The Heart Scan Blog and member of the Track Your Plaque program posted this comment on The Heart.org:

*The facts speak for themselves.*

Dr. William Davis and Dr. William Blanchet, your patients thank you for the low cost PREVENTIVE care you prescribe. The published facts speak for themselves. It is indeed a sad state of affairs, that the larger cardiology community does not take the time to research the data and results you have been reporting. Unfortunately it is the patients who are the victims of the mainstream, inappropriate, treatment protocols, as evidenced with the ongoing high rate of CV death rate.

I am dumbfounded by the lack of open-minded inquisitive curiosity to thoroughly research your claims by many/most cardiologists. Understood, we are all busy, but that is no excuse to stick with practices that do not result in major breakthrough improvements in patient outcomes.

Then again, we are all humans, and when "we" are convinced that "our" approach is correct, "we" tend to conveniently ignore any evidence to the contrary. "We" like to believe "we" have been right all along.

A very insightful book, recently published, says it all in its title: "Mistakes were made (but not by me)."

From the intensity of the comments on this topic, it is clear that we are in the middle of a battlefield. It is to be hoped that the facts will become visible before too much smoke obscures the field, and before the patients are all dead.

George Orwell said it correctly, back in 1946:

“We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, imprudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality usually on a battlefield.”

And, after several posts that preventive care with EBT would be too costly.....

*Heroic*

Prevention is what matters, but it is not very heroic. A hospital that advertises the highest volumes in heart bypasses and other heart "repair" procedures, sounds to many like a go-to place when one gets into trouble with one's heart.

Cardiologists who perform impressive surgical procedures are heroes. Not unlike fire-fighters. We celebrate them (deservedly!) for rescues and life saving heroic actions.

We tend to not pay much attention to the folks that work hard to minimize risk of calamities in the first place.

Similarly, we recently learned that it is too costly to build schools that are earthquake resistant in China. Parents had to look at their children's bodies, crushed.

Is it too graphic to imagine 20,000 American bodies, who died of heart disease, piled up on a field?

What will it take before we make prevention our first priority?

AL, Ann Arbor, Michigan

The reader also tells me that, prompted by his father's death from heart attack while following conventional advice after heart catheterization, he has lost 50 lbs and corrected his lipid patterns on the Track Your Plaque program. The reader is currently struggling with full correction of his severe small LDL pattern and is following some of the advice we discussed on our webinar recently.

Another Heart Scan Blog reader, Stan the Heretic, posted this quote from scientist, Max Planck, in his comment:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - M. Planck

(Max Planck was a German physicist who developed quantum theory, a disruptive set of ideas that supplanted other explanations of energy mechanics of the day.)

I fear that may prove to be the case for heart disease. The revenue-generating formula for heart disease management that dominates practice in cardiovascular medicine today is so deeply ingrained into the thinking and revenue expectations of practicing cardiologists that a preventive or reversal approach just won't cut it--even if it is vastly superior.

That's why it is important for you to take control yourself. You will be the one who obtains and applies the information that saves your life or the lives of those around you. It is, in all likelihood, NOT your doctor who will save your life, but YOU.

Imagine the following headline:

War in Iraq a growing success: 20,000 Americans now dead!

If a newspaper ran that headline, we would all be outraged, and rightly so. Deaths in war are a tragedy. They are not something we celebrate.

Then why do we hear hospitals boasting about the number of bypass operations performed every year, number of heart catheterizations performed, number of heart attacks treated?

"_______ Hospital breaks 1000-heart bypass per year milestone"

"We treat more heart attacks than other other hospital in the state!"

"More people come to ________ Hospital than any other in the region!"

I hear this stuff on the radio, on TV, see it in newspapers and magazines, even on highway billboards every single day in Milwaukee.

Heart procedures, like deaths in war, are casualties of health.

They are not successes (though, of course, you can have a "successful" bypass). I see most procedures as a failure of prevention.

Death from heart attack is a failure of prevention. Tim Russert's death was a (unnecessary) failure of prevention. But so are bypass surgery, stents, and the like.

Such is the perverse state of affairs in hospitals and health: They celebrate illness. They glamorize it with ads displaying high-tech equipment, efficient staff in scrubs, "caring and friendly staff." But it is illness they are celebrating. Why? Because it has become a business necessity, a necessary strategy to remain competitive and profitable in the business called "healthcare" that makes money from treating people. The biggest return is from major procedures like bypass operations.

Every success in prevention denies the hospital an $80,000+ opportunity. You'll never hear that advertised.

Where do you find fructose?

Do heart scans cause cancer?

Goodbye, fructose

The statin-free life

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

Roger's near-miss CT angiogram experience

The Myth of Prevention: Letter to the Wall Street Journal

A victory for SHAPE, CT heart scans, and doing what is RIGHT

Sleep: A to Zzzzzzzzzz

Dr. Cannell comments on vitamin D lab tests

Privileged information

Dr. Jeffrey Dach on the Track Your Plaque program

Vitamin D and programmed aging?

Synthroid, Armour Thyroid, and the battle for T3

Letter to New York Times

Red yeast rice alert

"Average amount of heart disease for age"

Quantum leaps

Body count