All posts by william-davis

Don had an angioplasty 6 months ago. When asked about the symptoms that prompted him to go to the hospital, he explained:

"I remember feeling really tired for about a week before I went. I'd read that fatigue can sometimes be a sign of heart disease. But then I had some trouble breathing. You know, like not being able to get a deep breath."

"My wife and I were planning on going on vacation. So I wanted to be certain something wasn't going on in my heart. That's when my wife insisted that she take me to the hospital.

"I kind of remember going there and arriving in the emergency room, but then I don't remember anything. Next thing I know, I'm waking up in a hospital bed. My wife and kids were there, looking all concerned. They said that I just got two stents and that the doctor just barely saved my life."

Happy story, happy ending? Not quite.

I reviewed the angiograms made during Don's hospital stay. They did, indeed, show some plaque, but not anywhere close to the amount necessary to account for symptoms like fatigue or breathlessness. For symptoms like this to occur without physical exertion, say, at your desk or relaxing at home, a critical >90% blockage would be required.

The worst "blockage" Don had was 50% at most. The leap was made to connect his relatively vague symptoms with these "blockages," leading to the implantation of two stents.

This is not as uncommon as you think. Yes, the practice of cardiology can be a life of acute procedures, urgent situations, and crises. Unfortunately, some people with questionable need for these procedures also get swept up in the wave. Sometimes it's due simply to the doctor's need to do "something," nervous family waiting in the wings. Sometiems it's intellectual laziness: putting in two stents seems to satisfy many patients' needs to have something "fixed," even when symptoms like fatigue could be due to anemia, sleep deprivation, a thyroid disorder, or any other myriad conditions that require a diagnostic effort (otherwise known as thinking). And sometimes it's simply done with financial motives, since angiplasty and related procedures pay well.

I call this "drive-by angioplasty," the impulsive, poorly considered coronary procedure that really should never have happened. How often does this happen? What percentage of heart procedures fall into this category? There are no clear-cut estimates. There are crude attempts by independent agencies that have put the number of unnecessary heart catheterizations up to 20% of the total number performed. The proportion of angioplasty procedures, stents, etc. that are not necessary is a tougher number to pinpoint, given the uncertainties surrounding the indications for these procedures, physician judgment that factors into the decision-making process, and the fact that many decisions are made on a qualitative basis, not precise quantification.

In real life, I would put the proportion of flagrant drive-by procedures at no more than 10%. However, that is 10% of an enormous number. The annual cardiovascular healthcare bill is $400 billion. 10% of that is $40 billion--an unimaginable sum. It also adds up to tens of thousands of people per year needlessly subjected to procedures. Consider that 10,000 heart procedures were performed today alone.

Should we push for legislation to control how and when heart procedures are performed? I don't think so. Despite my criticisms of the status quo in heart care, I still favor the freedom and rapid development of a free-market approach. However, you as a healthcare consumer need to be armed with information. You don't go to the car dealer unarmed with information on prices and comparative performance of the car you want. You should do the same with health. Information is your weapon, your defense against becoming the victim of the next drive-by heart procedure.

"Bankers believe liquidation has run its course and advise purchases."

New York Times headline, Oct 30, 1929, at the start of the Great Depression.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky."

Former President Bill Clinton at a Washington Press Conference, 1998.

"The third quarter is going to be great."

Enron CEO, Ken Lay, just before the company reported a $638 million third-quarter loss, triggering the company's collapse.

Should we add the following to the list?

Heart Healthy Bisquick

Heart Healthy snacks according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute:

Animal crackers, devil's food cookies, fig and other fruit bars, ginger snaps, graham crackers, vanilla or lemon wafers

Angel food cake or other lowfat cakes

Low fat frozen yogurt, ice milk, fruit ices, sorbet, sherbet

Pudding (make it with fat free or 1% milk), gelatin desserts

Popcorn without butter or oil; pretzels, baked tortilla chips

67% digestible carbohydrates/sugars from corn syrup, sugar, raisins, and honey. Oh, yes . . . and it contains plant sterols.

"Heartzels are a healthy snack alternative for anyone wanting to control fat intake and add fiber to their diet," said Tracy LaRosiliere, a Frito-Lay vice president of marketing. "What better time for Frito-Lay to launch its first heart-healthy snack than during American Heart Month and just in time for Valentine's Day."

The relationship with the American Heart Association and the launch of Rold Gold Heartzels Pretzels is the latest move by Frito-Lay to continue its commitment to offering a wide variety of low-fat and better-for-you snacks nationally, which like the company's assortment of regular chips can be enjoyed as part of a healthy diet and lifestyle.

Imagine that I'm planning to build a wall of bricks. I start by throwing cement at a pile of bricks, hoping that it forms a nice, orderly brick wall.

Fat chance, you say.

I believe that is what appears to be emerging as the situation with calcium supplementation.

A recent study from New Zealand reported an experience with 1,471 postmenopausal women, mean age of 74 years, who were randomized to treatment with either calcium supplements or placebo. Calcium was supplied as calcium citrate (Citrical) to provide 1000 mg of (elemental) calcium per day (400 mg morning, 600 mg evening).

(Bolland MJ, Barber PA, Doughty RN et al. Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium supplementation: randomised controlled trial. Brit Med J BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.39440.525752.BE; published 15 January 2008)

Over 5 years, women taking calcium had twice the risk of having a heart attack compared with women taking the placebo; women taking calcium had a 47 percent higher risk of having any one of three "events" (heart attack, stroke or sudden death) than women in the placebo group.

The findings of this study run counter to what we've been telling people all these years: Calcium supplementation, usually taken to halt deteriorating bone health and osteoporosis, modestly reduces blood pressure, reduces LDL and raises HDL cholesterol. At first blush, we might thereby presume that it also reduces cardiovascular events.

This study suggests that calcium supplementation does not result in reduction of cardiovascular events, perhaps even increases risk.

Certainly, this new finding will serve to confuse the public even more than it is already, particularly when it comes to strategies that modify risk for heart attack. However, this may make more sense once we stop and think for a moment.

Calcium supplementation inarguably slows, occasionally halts, calcium resorption from bone (through suppression of parathyroid hormone). Calcium also accumulates as part of atherosclerotic plaque in coronary and other arteries.

How does oral calcium know where to go--bones, not arteries or kidneys, in addition to serving all its other crucial functions?

Keep in mind that, in many roles, calcium is passive, something that responds to control exerted by some other factor. Vitamin D is that factor. Vitamin D controls the absorption of calcium in the intestinal tract (calcium aborption quadruples when vitamin D is restored to normal), it controls whether calcium is deposited in bone or extracted from arteries. It is the master control over the fate of calcium. Calcium just goes along for the ride.

Bone and arterial health do indeed intersect via calcium, but not through calcium supplementation. Instead, the control exerted by vitamin D (and vitamin K2, another conversation) connects the seemingly unrelated processes.

At what calcium dose threshold do the benefits stop and the adverse effects begin? That remains unanswered, particularly in light of this new study. However, this study calls into serious question the wisdom of supplementing calcium at a dose of 1000 mg, particularly when taken without normalization of vitamin D.

Calcium is therefore emerging as an important player in artery health. But just taking calcium makes no more sense than our brick wall and cement analogy. You might regard vitamin D as the mason that skillfully lays down both brick and cement in a neat, orderly way.

Lorenzo is an 81-year old retired manufacturing engineer whose intial heart scan score in late 2006 was an alarming 1102.

Recall that, despite feeling well and having a normal stress test, Lorenzo was facing a heart attack and death risk that was as high as 25% per year without preventive action.

Lorenzo was moderately interested in the Track Your Plaque concepts. While not exactly the most highly motivated, he did see the rationale in our approach. But he came to us mostly because his primary care doctor told him to.

Nonetheless, one year later, he underwent another heart scan. His score: 588--a 46.6% drop in score, nearly cutting his plaque in half. While Lorenzo didn't set any new records in terms of percentage drop in score, he has reduced his score in real numbers more than anybody else before: a 514 point drop in score.

Lorenzo joins the ranks of our current record holders, Amy, with a 63% drop in heart scan score, and Neal with a 51% drop in score. Both of these Track Your Plaque record holders, while achieving larger percentage reductions in score, achieved less when viewed on an absolute number basis.

Now, breaking records is not necessary to succeed in the Track Your Plaque program or at heart disease reversal. Even 1% reversal is still a big success, certainly more than is achieved in conventional practice.

No special commitment was necessary in Lorenzo's case. All he required was a little of the right kind of information. I can tell what he didn't do: Lorenzo did not follow a low-fat American Heart Association diet, he did not take high-dose statin drug, he did not deprive himself of food, he did not exercise to extremes. He just applied some simple strategies from the Track Your Plaque program.

I play these sorts of games just to make a point and to show just what is possible. While the world of hospital procedures and emergency management of coronary disease marches on, we are quietly reversing the disease. Sometimes, we achieve results that even surprise ourselves.

Lorenzo's full story will be detailed in the February 2008 Track Your Plaque newsletter. If you are not yet a subscriber, you can sign up (without cost)here.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

I hear this comment from patients all the time:

"They told me that I had only mild blockages and so I had nothing to worry about."

That's one big lie.

I guess I shouldn't call it a lie. Is it a lie when it comes from ignorance, arrogance, laziness, or greed?

"Mild coronary disease" is usually a label applied to coronary atherosclerotic plaque that is insufficient to block flow. Thus, having a few 20%, 30%, or 40% blockages would be labeled "mild." No stents are (usually) implanted, no bypass surgery performed, and symptoms should not be attributable to the blockages. Thus, "mild."

The problem is that "mild" blockages are no less likely to rupture, the eruptive process that resembles a little volcano spewing lava. Except it's not lava, but the internal contents of atherosclerotic plaque. When these internal contents of plaque gain contact with blood, the coagulation process is set in motion and the artery both clots and constricts. Chest pains and heart attack result.

So, the essential point is not necessarily the amount of blood flow through the artery, but the presence of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Just having plaque--any amount of plaque--sets the stage to permit plaque rupture.

One thing is clear: The more plaque you have, the greater the risk for rupture. But the quantity of plaque cannot be measured by the "percent blockage." It is measured by the lengthwise extent of plaque, as well as the depth of plaque within the wall. Neither of these risk features for plaque rupture can be gauged by percent blockage.

Coronary atherosclerosis is a diffuse process that involves much of the length of the artery. It is therefore folly to believe that a 15 mm long stent has addressed the disease. This is no more a solution than to replace the faucet in your kitchen in a house with rotting pipes from the basement up.

The message: ANY amount of coronary plaque is reason to engage in a program of prevention--prevention of plaque rupture, prevention of further plaque growth, perhaps even regression (reversal). It is NOT a reason to be complacent and buy into the myth of "mild" coronary disease, the misguided notion that arises from ill-conceived procedural heart disease solutions.

Image courtesy Wikipedia.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), is an important cause for heart disease, heart attack, and coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

How do you know you have it?

Of course, it could be as simple as checking a blood level. But there are also a number of red flags for the presence of Lp(a), tell-tale signs that suggest it is present and contributing to the growth of coronary plaque.

I've seen so much of this pattern over the years that it's gotten so that I can pretty much pick out most of the people with Lp(a) just by either looking at them or by hearing their story. I do this simply by knowing what hints to look for.

Some of the red flags for Lp(a) include:

--High blood pressure in a slender person. Overweight is the overwhelmingly common reason for high blood pressure. However, inappropriate high blood pressure in a slender person can serve to tip you off that Lp(a) is present.

--HIgh LDL cholesterol poorly responsive to statin drugs. For instance, someone's LDL cholesterol of 190 mg/dl will be treated with Lipitor 40 mg, but drops to only 165 mg/dl, a very poor response. This can sometimes point towards Lp(a).

--Family clustering of heart disease in people before age 60. For instance, father with heart attack age 53, uncle with heart attack at age 55, aunt with heart attack age 59, etc. This clustering of risk, more often than not, signals Lp(a).

--Coronary disease or high heart scan score in the presence of relatively bland appearing lipids. For instance, LDL cholesterol 130 mg/dl, HDL 55 mg/dl, triglycerides 70 mg/dl on no medications or other efforts--figures ordinarily not associated with high likelihood of heart disease--yet heart disease is indeed present. This can mean that Lp(a) is the concealed culprit behind coronary atherosclerosis.

These red flags are not perfect. If you lack any of them, it doesn't necessarily rule out the possbility of having Lp(a). They simply serve as signs to suggest that Lp(a) may be lurking.

Once Lp(a) is identified, then the battle begins to gain control over this somewhat troublesome genetic pattern. Resourcesfulness and some ingenuity may be required. However, knowing that you have it shows you where to concentrate your efforts.

The makers of Vytorin, Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals, issued a press release about the the Enhance Study yesterday. The news has triggered a media frenzy.

The NY Times reporting of the story:

Drug Has No Benefit in Trial, Makers Say

The 700 participants in the trial all had a condition called "heterozygous hypercholesterolemia," a genetic disorder that permits very high LDL cholesterols. The average LDL at the start was 318 mg/dl.

The Times reported that, while Vytorin cut "LDL levels by 58 percent, compared to a 41 percent reduction with simvastatin alone," but "the average thickness of the carotid artery plaque increased by 0.0111 of a millimeter in patients taking Vytorin, compared to an increase of 0.0058 of a millimeter in those taking only simvastatin." There was no difference in heart attacks or other "events" between the two groups.

(Vytorin is the combination of simvastatin and Zetia.)

In other words, the participants taking Vytorin had 53 ten-thousands of a millimeter more plaque growth than the group taking just simvastatin.

I am always uncomfortable when put in the position of defending a drug or drug company. However, it is patently absurd that this study has generated such attention. I suspect the public and media are waiting for another Vioxx-like debacle, with memories of concealed or suppressed data that suggested heightened heart attack risk that was dismisssed by the drug manufacturer. (That's not to say that the company hasn't been trying to delay or modify the outcome of the study, which they apparently have, much to the objections of the FDA.)

However, at this point, there is no reason to believe that this question possesses any parallels to the Vioxx fiasco.

If we accept the data as reported, however, we might say it calls the entire "Lipid Hypothesis" into question: If LDL cholesterol is significantly reduced but is not correlated with reduction in plaque, is LDL the means by which atherosclerotic plaque progresses? This trial does not answer that question, but does serve to raise some doubt.

Another issue: Heterozygous hypercholesterolemia, and thereby LDL cholesterol, may not be the overwhelming driver of plaque growth in this population. It is probably the number of small LDL particles, a factor which is not revealed by LDL cholesterol. For this reason, heterozygous hypercholesterolemia by itself is insufficient to cause heart disease. Some other factor(s) needs to be present. I would propose that it is the size of the LDL particle: When small, heart disease develops; when large, heart disease is less likely to develop. This issue was not addressed by this study. Readers of The Heart Scan Blog know that conventional LDL cholesterol, the number used in this study, is a virtually worthless number for truly gauging plaque behavior because of its flagrant inaccuracy.

So, there are substantial uncertainties, contrary to the absolute certainty expressed by people like Dr. Steve Nissen (who, by the way, has no expertise in lipoprotein disorders). It is premature to reach any firm conclusions from this study. The only conclusions that I personally come to are 1) Is this yet another reason to question the entire Lipid Hypothesis as it stands? and 2) What would the results have been had LDL particle number and LDL particle size been examined, not just LDL?

I would not automatically conclude that Zetia causes carotid plaque. This is absurd. And I am definitely not one to come to the rescue of a drug or drug manufacturer. I am simply after understanding and truth.

As an interesting aside, Dr. Howard Hodis of the University of Southern California and an expert in carotid scanning for heart disease prevention research, made a comment relevant to us in the Track Your Plaque program:

"Clearly, progression of atherosclerosis is the only way you get events,” Dr. Hodis said. “If you don’t treat progression, then you get events."

The Miami Herald has a new report on Dr. Arthur Agagtston (of South Beach Diet fame) to announce his new book, The South Beach Heart Health Revolution:
The South Beach Diet doctor takes on cardio care

Agatston, the granddaddy of CT heart scanning, is always at least worth listening to. Although his diet may not be perfect, it clearly has jumped light years ahead of conventional diets like the inane American Heart Association diet. The South Beach Diet focuses on healthy oils, nuts, lean meats, vegetables, and fruits, while slashing grains (except in the often disastrous phase III).

The article lists Dr. Agatston's advice to achieve a "heart healthy" lifestyle:

• Maintain a healthy weight through diet.

• Undergo CT heart scans to check for arterial plaque.

• Do aerobic exercise, along with stretching and strengthening workouts.

• Ask your doctor about taking statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs.

We wouldn't have CT heart scan scoring (at least in its present form) without Dr. Agatston, who developed the algorithm for scoring years ago in the early days of heart scanning. We also need to credit him with putting together a rational diet despite the counter-information emanating from the Heart Association, the USDA (a la Food Pyramid, the one that makes Americans fat and diabetic), and the American Diabetes Association, among others.

But "Ask your doctor about taking statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs"? This is where Dr. Agatston begins to falter. While he is putting his enormous notoriety to use, his message is bland and ineffective. "Do aerobic exercise"? We don't need Dr. Agatston to tell us this.

As much as Art Agatston has added to the national conversation on heart disease and diet, he has failed to deliver the message of true heart disease prevention. His approach lacks just a few crucial ingredients like lipoprotein testing, diagnosis of hidden causes of heart disease (like Lp(a)), and vitamin D. (Two years ago I had a patient I saw for an opinion after he'd showed Dr. Agatston his lipoprotein panel. The patient said Dr. Agatston looked at the report and didn't know what to do with it and handed it back to him without comment. He then asked if he wanted his autograph.)

Anyway, the rising tide raises all boats. Agatston's repeated public endorsements of heart scans will help deliver the message that heart disease is detectable in its early stages and should trigger action to follow a heart disease prevention program.

That alone is an accomplishment in a world hell-bent on dragging us into the hospital for procedures.

In a previous post I entitled Heart disease reversal a big "No No", I posed a challenge--a dare--to readers to ask their doctors if coronary heart could be reversed.

Here's what I said:

I dare you: Ask your doctor whether coronary heart disease can be reversed.

My prediction is that the answer will be a flat "NO." Or, something like "rarely, in extraordinary cases," kind of like spontaneous cure of cancer.

There are indeed discussions that have developed over the years in the conventional scientific and medical literature about reversal of heart disease, like Dean Ornish's Lifestyle Heart Trial, the REVERSAL Trial of atorvastatin (Lipitor) and the ASTEROID Trial of rosuvastatin (Crestor). Reversal of atherosclerotic plaque in these trials tends to be small in scale and sporadic.

The concept of reversal of heart disease has simply not gained a foothold in the lexicon nor in the thinking of practicing physicians. Heart disease is a relentlessly, unavoidably, and helplessly progressive disease in their way of thinking. Perhaps we can reduce the likelihood of cardiovascular events like heart attack and death with statin drugs and beta blockers. But reverse heart disease? In your dreams!

We need to change this mentality. Heart disease is a reversible phenomenon. Atherosclerosis in other territories like the carotid arteries is also a reversible pheneomenon. Rather than throwing medicines and (ineffective) diets at you (like the ridiculous American Heart Association program), what if your doctor set out from the start not just to reduce events, but to purposefully reduce your heart's plaque? While it might not succeed in everyone, it would certainly change the focus dramatically.

After all, isn't this the theme followed in cancer treatment? If you had a tumor, isn't cure the goal? Would we accept an oncologist's advice to simply reduce the likelihood of death from cancer but ignore the idea of ridding yourself completely of the disease? I don't think so.

Then why accept "event reduction" as a goal in heart disease? We shouldn't have to. Heart disease reversal--elimination--should be the goal.

I know of one person who actually followed through on this challenge and asked his cardiologist whether his heart disease could be reduced or reversed. As predicted, the answer was no. No explanation followed.

But allow me to reiterate: Heart disease is 1) detectable, 2) quantifiable, 3) controllable, and, in many cases 4) reversible.

What if there was a big payoff to your doctor if heart disease was reversed, say $100,000? That's enough to dwarf the payoff from procedures. Guess what? You'd have doctors fighting for your business, a chance to reverse your disease, ads to that effect, champions of reversal emerging. No new tools would be necessary. They could use the tools already available. Then why hasn't this happened? Is the technology unavailable? Are the treatments ineffective?

No, heart disease is a controllable and reversible process with tools that are available today. But there is, of course, no big payoff for doing it. So the financial incentive remains to do procedures, not to reverse the disease.

But I'd like to re-pose this challenge. Ask your doctor if heart disease can be reversed, or at least reduced. I've even posted a Survey at the top left for anyone who tries.

Again, my prediction: Nobody will try it and nobody will post survey results. Why? Despite my rantings (and those of a few others) about the concept of heart disease being a reversible process, in the public's consciousness it remains a death sentence and the only solution is hospital procedures. My colleagues continue to cultivate this attitude and it serves them well financially.

I'll be disappointed if I prove to be right. I hope that I am wrong. But I don't think that I am.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

The wonderfully articulate Michael Pollan has written another book. Although he presents little new to anyone who read his previous book, The Omnivore's Dilemma: A natural history of four meals, he is such a wonderful writer, with such clever ways of seeing the world, that I couldn't resist this new, less ambitious book.

The new book is In Defense of Food: An eater's manifesto.

As in Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan reminds us that we've lost contact with real food, foods that our great grandmother would recognize, not the just-add-water, dried, pulverized, sweetened, high-fructose, hydrogenated, shrink-wrapped, artificially-colored products that pass as foods in the grocery store.

In particular, Pollan attacks what he calls the ideology of Nutritionism. "The widely shared but unexamined assumption is that the key to understanding food is indeed the nutrient. Put another way: Foods are essentially the sum of their nutrient parts." He calls this "Nutritionism."

In the section called "Nutritionism comes to market," he uses margarine as the prototypical product of this philosophy:

"No idea could be more sympathetic to manufacturers of processed foods, which surely explains why they have been so happy to jump on the nutritionism bandwagon. Indeed, nutritionism supplies the ultimate justification for processing food by implying that with a judicious application of food science, fake foods can be made even more nutritious than the real thing. This of course is the story of margarine, the first important synthetic food to slip into our diet. Margarine started out in the nineteenth century as a cheap and inferior sustitute for butter, but with the emergence of the lipid hypothesis in the 1950s, manufacturers quickly figured out that their product, with some tinkering, could be marketed as better--smarter!--than butter: butter with the bad nutrients removed (cholesterol and saturated fats) and replaced with good nutrients (polyunsaturated fats and then vitamins). Every time margarine was found wanting, the wanted nutrient could simply be added (Vitamin D? Got it now. Vitamin A? Sure, no problem. But of course margarine, being the product not of nature but of human ingenuity, could never be any smarter than the nutritionists dictating its recipe, and the nutritionists turned out to be not nearly as smart as they thought. The food scientists' ingenious method for making healthy vegetable oil solid at room temperature--by blasting it with hydrogen--turned out to produce unhealthy trans fats, fats that we now know are more dangerous than the saturated fats they were designed to replace. Yet the beauty of a processed food like margarine is that it can be endlessly reengineererd to overcome even the most embarrassing about-face in nutritional thinking--including the real wincer that its main ingredient might cause heart attacks and cancer. So now the trans fats are gone, and margarine marches on, unfazed and apparently unkillable. Too bad the same cannot be said of an unknown number of margarine eaters."

Anyone who reads and thinks a lot about nutrition will find little new here. But nobody says it better than Pollan. While Gary Taubes (Good Calories, Bad Calories) is the real thinker of our age about nutrition, Michael Pollan is the true writer about it.

With books like these making the bestsellers list, I believe that we are gradually seeing rationality return to eating. It makes people skeptical of the glitzy ads that run on TV around the clock. I hope that Pollan's new book will make more and more people leery of the latest health claim that adorn some product. "More omega-3!" "A low-fat snack." "Heart Healthy!" "High in healthy fiber!"

If you'd like to reduce LDL cholesterol with nearly as much power as a statin drug, think thyroid.

When thyroid is corrected to ideal levels, LDL cholesterol drops 20, 30, 40 mg/dl or more, depending on how poor thyroid function and how high LDL are at the start. The poorer the thyroid function (the higher the TSH or the lower the T3 and T4) and the higher the LDL cholesterol, the more LDL drops with thyroid correction.

(For those of you minding LDL particle size, such as Track Your Plaque Members, the "dominant" LDL species will drop: If you are genetic small LDL, small LDL will drop. If you have mostly large LDL because of being wheat-free and sugar-free, then large LDL will drop.)

One of the problems is that many healthcare providers blindly follow what the laboratory says is "normal" or the "reference range," which is usually nothing more than a population average (actually the mean +/- 2 standard deviations, a common method of developing references ranges). In other words, a substantial degree of low thyroid function, or hypothyroidism, can be present when your doctor adheres to the reference range provided by the laboratory.

What does it mean to achieve ideal thyroid status? My list includes:

--Normal oral temperature of 97.3 F first upon arising. (The thyroid is the body's thermoregulatory organ.)
--TSH 1.0 mIU/L or less
--Free T3 upper half "normal" range
--Free T4 upper half "normal" range
--You feel good: mental clarity, energy, upbeat mood. You lose weight when you try.

Iodine replacement should be part of any thyroid health effort. Iodine is not an optional trace mineral, no more than vitamin C is optional (else your teeth fall out). The only dangers to iodine replacement are to those who have been starved of iodine for many years; increase iodine and the thyroid can over-respond. I've seen this happen in 2 of the last 300 people who have supplemented iodine.

In my view, neglecting T3 replacement is absurd. While it is not clear to me why many otherwise healthy people have low T3 at the low range of "normal" or even in the below-normal range, people feel better and have better health--faster weight loss, reduced LDL, reduced triglycerides, they are happier and enjoy more energy--when T3 is increased to the upper half of the reference range. (Crucial question: Why is the 5'-deiodinase enzyme that converts T4 to T3 inhibited, resulting in reduced free T3? What is in our diets or environment that is exerting this effect? I don't have answer, but we sorely need one.)

It pays to be a perfectionist when it comes to thyroid. Not only do you feel better, but LDL cholesterol can drop with a statin-like magnitude, but with none of the adverse effects.

If interested, Track Your Plaque offers fingerstick blood spot testing that you can perform in your own home. Each test kit will test for: TSH, free T3, free T4, along with a thyroid peroxidase antibody (a marker for Hashimoto's thyroiditis, an autoimmune inflammatory condition of the thyroid).

What do you think of these chains of logic?

Cyanide is a potent lethal poison; carbon monoxide is a less lethal poison.
Therefore: plenty of carbon monoxide is good.

Having uterine cancer is a bad thing. Having uterine fibroids is a less bad thing.
Therefore: plenty of uterine fibroids are good.

These are obvious examples of seriously flawed logic. Students of logic and philosophy will recognize the above erroneous sequences as examples of the twisted arguments often used to persuade an argumentative opponent of the logic of a premise. As long ago as 335 B.C., Greek philosopher, Aristotle, recognized the pitfalls of thinking in such arguments. You think we’d know better by now.

Try this one:

White enriched flour is a bad for health; whole grains are less bad for health.
Therefore: plenty of whole grains are good for health.

Ouch!

In the 1960s, we all ate hot dogs on white buns, white flour Wonder Bread® sandwiches, Mom made cookies and cupcakes with white flour. Then, during the 1970s and 1980s, clinical studies were performed demonstrating that whole wheat and whole grains reduced colon cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease compared to white flour. In other words, add back fiber and B vitamins and health benefits develop: No argument here.

Therefore: whole grains must be good for health. Further, lots of whole grains?unlimited quantities of whole grains many times per day, every day?must be even better. Even the USDA says so on their nutrition pyramid, with 8-11 servings of grains per day, 4 of which should be whole grains, at the widest portion of the pyramid.

But what happens when you follow this logic through and fill your diet with whole grains?

Look around you and it’s easy to see: Appetite increases, people become obese, blood sugar increases, diabetes develops, HDL cholesterol plummets, triglycerides skyrocket, inflammatory patterns (e.g., c-reactive protein, or CRP) increase, small LDL (the number one cause for heart disease in the obese U.S.!) shoots through the roof.

I would no more fill my diet with “healthy whole grains” than I would close my garage door with the car running.

Pomegranate juice, 8 oz:

Sugars, total 31.50 g

Sucrose 0.00 g

Glucose (dextrose) 15.64 g

Fructose 15.86 g

In your quest to increase the flavonoids in your diet, do you overexpose yourself to fructose?

Remember: Fructose increases LDL cholesterol, apoprotein B, small LDL, triglycerides, and substantially increases deposition of visceral fat (fructose belly?). How about a slice of whole grain bread with that glass of pomegranate juice? The Heart Association says it's all low-fat!

(Coming on the Track Your Plaque website: A full in-depth Special Report on fructose in all its glorious forms and whether this is truly an issue for your health. Fructose tables and the scientific data to establish a safe "threshold" value will be included.)

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Honeydew melon:

Sugars, total 51.97 g

Sucrose 15.87 g

Glucose 17.15 g

Fructose 18.94 g

Because sucrose is half fructose (the other half is glucose), there are approximately 26 grams of fructose per one-half honeydew melon.

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g

Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons

Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient

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

A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

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

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

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

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

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

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

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

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The media frenzy

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

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

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

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

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

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

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

Non-CT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

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

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

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

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

--No lipoprotein(a)

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

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

I therefore asked Matt to:

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

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

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

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

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

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

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

Drive-by angioplasty

"Heart Healthy" and other lies

Calcium chaos

Another big Track Your Plaque success story

The myth of mild coronary disease

Red flags for lipoprotein(a)

Vytorin study explodes--But what's the real story?

Dr. Arthur Agatston in the news

Take this survey: I DOUBLE-DARE YOU

Michael Pollan on Nutritionism

Thyroid: Be a perfectionist

Nutrition Syllogism

Is pomegranate juice healthy?

Honeydew melon

Where do you find fructose?

Do heart scans cause cancer?

Goodbye, fructose

The statin-free life

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone