Addictive Foods

25. June 2007 William Davis (3)
Kraft Foods, Inc. is manufacturer of Kool Aid, Oscar Mayer, Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, Velveeta, Honey Maid Grahams, and hundreds of other processed food products. Post cereals also falls under the umbrella of Kraft with products like Raisin Bran, Post Toasties, and Fruity Pebbles. Annual revenues in 2006 for Kraft: $34.4 billion. A big operation with enormous influence over our eating habits.

Nabisco is manufacturer of Oreos, Ritz Crackers, Chips Ahoy and many others. Like Kraft/Post, it is also a big player.

While Nabisco was owned for several years by tobacco giant RJ Reynolds, in 2000 it was acquired by Philip Morris, another big tobacco manufacturer.

More recently in Spring, 2007, Philip Morris (now called Altria--you'd change your name, too, if it was synonymous with dirt) spun off its Kraft subsidiary for a big profit. However, the management structures remain intertwined.

In other words, despite the shuffling of shares, the two industries, big tobacco and big food, are in many respects one and the same.

Is it any surprise that the same industry that made billions of dollars pushing addictive nicotine products responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is now intimately involved with addictive products produced and marketed by the processed food industry?

If you believe that food manufacturers are innocently and honestly conducting their businesses, simply think back to the testimony provided in front of Congress during the tobacco industry hearings. Broad deception, concealed truths, and outright lies were commonplace. There was no conscience involved. This was about money--and lots of it.

Why should the processed food industry, intimate with the tobacco industry, be any different?

If you want control over heart disease and your heart scan score, buy produce and buy local. Spend your time in the produce aisle, not the cereal or chip aisle. Unprocessed food, unadorned by bright labels, cartoon animals, American Heart Association endorsements, that's what we should seek.

Heart Scan Curiosities #7

25. June 2007 William Davis (1)



Here's a situation that crops up once in a while, occurring in perhaps 2% of heart scans.

The white within the circled area represents calcium, and thereby atherosclerotic plaque, situated immediately at the "mouth", or opening, of the the right coronary artery. What is somewhat unusual is that this plaque is not principally coronary, but aortic. That is, the plaque is mostly situated in the large vessel called the aorta. The three coronary arteries arise from the aorta.

In this instance, the aortic plaque involves the mouth of the right coronary artery. (In views not shown, the plaque also extends into the artery as well.) I call this a "double whammy" because the same plaque can post risk for heart attack and stroke.

Generally, aortic plaques pose risk for stroke. When aortic plaque fragments, little bits and pieces can travel upward to the brain and block an artery, thus a stroke.

In the coronaries, disrupted ("ruptured") plaques don't generally shower debris, but permit blood clot formation, resulting in heart attack.

This plaque, however, poses the theoretical risk of both heart attack and stroke because of its strategic location.

Should a plaque like this be handled any differently? I don't think so. But it does provide another reason to take atherosclerotic plaque in any artery seriously.

The nutrition counterculture

23. June 2007 William Davis (2)
When we look back over our American nutritional history over the last 50 years, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that much of the innovation in nutrition did not come from official agencies like the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, the FDA, the USDA, or the AMA.

Instead, it came from the popular culture. It came from bold, extravagant claims made by maverick figures like Ancel Keys, Nathan Pritikin, Dean Ornish, and Robert Atkins. Of course, some ideas have now fallen by the wayside, dismissed in a broad American "experiment" as ineffective, impractical, or kooky. But it permitted experimentation on an extraordinary scale with millions of people following a particular strategy at a time.

The advice of the official agencies tended to be reactionary. When nutritional deficiencies (remember those?) of the early 1900s were prevalent, they issued advice on food choices to help alleviate deficiencies. When deficiency transformed into excess after World War II, "smart" food choices from food groups and "sensible eating" became the theme.

Unfortunately, the advice was always adulterated by the enormous influence of various special interests, anxious to protect their national franchise. Powerful groups like the meat industry, wheat producers, and the dairy industry all made sure they had a big hand in crafting and influencing what was told to the American people.

The result: the advice offered by official groups has always represented the compromise of what some agency wished to convey to the people and the very powerful input of industry. What if the government decided to advise us what automobile to buy? Imagine the uproar in the auto industry when Washington tells us to buy Toyota for fuel economy and reliability. How long would that advice last?

That's why almost no knowledgeable adult follows the advice of the USDA, the National Academy of Sciences, or the Food Pyramid. I believe that we all intuitively recognize that the advice is watered-down, sometimes silly, sometimes downright unhealthy.

Nonetheless, the national experiment in diet that has taken place since 1950 has led to a collective wisdom of what is good and what is bad. The most productive conversations on nutrition therefore take place outside of the USDA and Washington. It occurs, instead, in places like bookstores, websites, and the media. Of course, there's lots of misinformation and profiteering in these sectors, as well. But like the enormous force unleashed by the collective wisdom of those contributing to the Wikipedia phemonenon, we've zig-zagged to something closer to the truth than ever uttered by an official agency.

Prescription vitamin D

23. June 2007 William Davis (32)
Niacin:

Over-the-counter: $2-5 per month
Prescription: $120 per month


Fish oil:

Over-the-counter: $3-6 per month
Prescription: $120 per month


Vitamin D:

Over-the-counter: $2 per month
Prescription: $70 per month



With vitamin D in particular, the prescription form is vastly inferior to the over-the-counter preparation. This is because the prescription form is ergocalciferol, or vitamin D2, not the effective human form, vitamin D3 or cholecalciferol.

When you're exposed to sun, what form of vitamin D is activated in the skin? It's all vitamin D3, no vitamin D2 whatsoever. Vitamin D3 is also far more effective than D2. People taking D3 (as long as it's oil-based) easily obtain healthy levels of vitamin D in the blood. People taking 50,000 units per day of D2 (the recommended quantity) remain miserably deficient, with minor increases in vitamin D blood levels. In short, D2 barely works at all. D3 works easily and effectively.

Moreover, D2 is the plant-based form. It is a form not found naturally in humans. D3 is the mammalian form, the same found in humans that exerts all its biologic benefits.

Then why is the prescription form of vitamin D2 (brand names Driscol and Calciferol) more expensive?

It's the same old pharmaceutical industry scam: Look for something patent protectable, regardless of whether it's superior to the non-patent protectable product, then sell it for exagerated profits. Though it is inferior and the science and clinical experience prove that it's inferior, you can still fool lots of people, including prescribing physicians. So what if you only make $50 or $100 million?

Don't fall for it. Prescription doesn't necessarily mean superior. In fact, the prescription form may be significantly inferior, as with vitamin D2. But the pharmaceutical industry carries such power and persuasion, who's going to know?

Nutrition activist Mike Adams

20. June 2007 William Davis (1)












I borrowed the above comic from the website of nutritionist, more properly nutrition activist and author, Mike Adams. His website, www.newstarget.com, was a pleasant surprise.

I was actually looking for some thoughts on pharmaceutical advertising and its pervasive and destructive effects and came across one of Adam's reports, Pharmaceutical television advertising is a grand hoax at http://www.newstarget.com/021526.html. The piece is a rant against the pharmaceutical industry's constant bombardment of the media, who have also been co-opted into their service, enticed by the enormous advertising revenues the drug industry brings.

But I was surprised to find an insightful, informative website on health issues, particularly healthy eating that rejects the manufactured food industry's intensive effort to persuade us to eat their products. While I don't agree with everything Adams has to say, his website provides some great food for thought. He also provides lots of downloadable information.

There's also some great laughs at his poke at the pharmaceutical industry with his Disease Mongering Engine at http://www.newstarget.com/disease-mongering-engine.asp, in which you get to create your own diseases. I got a real kick out of this.

CT scans and radiation exposure

19. June 2007 William Davis (8)


The NY Times ran an article called

With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests at

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/health/19cons.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1182254102-vQpytpx6W/Z9gvAaNPDZvA



“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.”


Where do CT heart scans fall?

Let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:



Typical effective radiation dose values

Computed tomography Milliseverts (mSv)

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 Milliseverts (mSv)

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


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.

A heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, your exposure is 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 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 legimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

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.



Detail on radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms on multidetector devices can be found at 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, one of several studies on this issue.

Mediterranean diet vs. American Heart Association Diet

18. June 2007 William Davis (4)
In 1994, the Lyon Heart Study demonstrated a 50-70% reduction in coronary events in participants who followed a diet rich in vegetables, olive oil, fish, nuts, red wine, and enjoyed meals as a family activity. Various other studies have documented similar phenomena with less metabolic syndrome, better lipid patterns, less obesity with the Mediterranean lifestyle.

There are two fundamental differences between the Mediterranean diet and the diet advocated by the American Heart Association (AHA) for people with heart disease: the Mediterranean diet uses olive oil more liberally, such that fat calories can reach 40% of total; and, unlike the AHA diet, processed foods are not a part of the Mediterranean diet. Greeks, for instance, are far less likely to eat Count Chocula cereal for breakfast, or snack on Healthy Choice Premium Caramel Swirl Sandwich (ice cream sandwiches) or Malt-O-Meal Honey Nut Scooters. All three of these foods on listed on the AHA Heart-Check Mark heart-healthy program.

In other words, remove all the processed foods, and the AHA diet pretty closely resembles the Mediterranean diet. There are differences but they tend to be relatively small. If the only major difference is the presence of processed foods, wouldn't you therefore expect the AHA to embrace the Mediterranean diet?

Here's what their official stand on the Mediterranean diet states:

Does a Mediterranean-style diet follow American Heart Association dietary recommendations?

Mediterranean-style diets are often close to our dietary recommendations, but they don’t follow them exactly. In general, the diets of Mediterranean peoples contain a relatively high percentage of calories from fat. This is thought to contribute to the increasing obesity in these countries, which is becoming a concern.



The AHA is actually lukewarm towards the diet that was the first to show a dramatic decrease in heart attack and death. Why?

The answer is obvious, once cast in this light. To wholeheartedly endorse the Mediterranean diet might be seen as an indirect rejection of American processed foods. You know, the foods that have caused an extraordinary and unprecedented epidemic of obesity in the U.S., the foods that are manufactured by ConAgra, General Mills, Kelloggs--all also major financial contributors to the AHA, according to the AHA Annual Report.

I tell my patients: If you want heart disease, follow the American Heart Association diet. In my view, it is a diet founded on politics and money, not on health. How else could Cocoa Puffs be regarded as heart healthy?

Track Your Plaque in 50,000 BC

16. June 2007 William Davis (3)
Imagine we could send you back in a time machine to 50,000 BC.

However, our agreement: no modern tools or equipment. Just your brain, hands, and legs. And your landing spot will be tropical or semi-tropical, the same climate that humans spent much of their evolutionary time in.

Not only might you rub elbows with contemporaries like homo erectus and neanderthalensis, you'd also have to fend for your life and survival.

To eat, you will have to chase and kill wild game, all with your bare hands or crude tools crafted from sticks and stones. You will have to learn what wild berries, roots, and plants are edible and distingusih them from those that make you retch, make your bowels run, or kill you. You won't be able to cultivate grain, at least for a good long time, since you don't have a community that makes such an undertaking easier.

Instead, you are constantly on the run, from the moment you awake until you finally settle back as the sun sets, hopefully with a full stomach, but often empty and growling, anticipating the hunt and forage of tomorrow.

You are outdoors all day, except for the period when you hide in your cave or self-made shelter. You wear what little clothing you can make yourself from your kills, a skin or two. Your skin becomes a dark brown, a 5 foot 10 inch male will weigh 140 lbs, a 5 foot 5 inch woman 95 lbs. There are obvious downsides: your teeth will rot, you will be prone to infections, and predators view you as fair game.

But the result will be that many chronic diseases of modern life will no longer be worries for you. Heart disease? Highly unlikely. Do you need vitamin D? No, because you are outdoors virtually all day with most of your body surface area exposed to sun. Omega-3 fatty acids? You get those from the wild game you eat, since they have higher omega-3 content feeding in the wild, not eating corn like modern livestock. Since your body fat is minimal, just enough for survival, you don't need niacin.

In other words, many of the strategies of the Track Your Plaque program are modern necessities, responses to the "deficiencies" of modern life. Of course, I don't really have a time machine. I also doubt that you wish to hunt wild game every day, forage for plants and roots, run nearly-naked in the sun. You probably also have become accustomed to brushing your teeth and not viewing every animal as a potential threat to your life.

Nonetheless, I find this an interesting exercise for understanding the role of all the tools we use in the Track Your Plaque program for plaque control.

When pessimism wins

15. June 2007 William Davis (3)
When I first met Hank, I immediately sensed it: anger, hostility, fear. His heart scan score of 685 just made it worse.


He didn't want to be there talking to me. His wife was giving him a hard time. Work was a constant source of irritation. The receptionist at the front desk screwed up his paperwork. Our office charges were too much.


In short, Hank was a pessimist. A bad one.


All the nutrition information out there is bunk. Only he knew how he should eat right. It's stupid to take a lot of fish oil. "You want me to grow gills?"


Among the parameters we use in the Track Your Plaque program is blood pressure during exercise, which provides a surrogate measure of blood pressure during emotional stress, anxiety, etc. "No, I don't need that. I already exercise." No amount of justification could change his mind. "A guy at work had a stress test. They said everything was fine, then Bang! He drops dead. What good is that?"


Hank did go along with a few pieces of advice.


A repeat heart scan 12 months after the first: 870, a 27% per year rate of increase. That's about what would happen if Hank had done nothing, had taken no action to try and stop or reduce his heart scan score.


I don't know if Hank will ever succeed in dropping his score. In fact, I suspect that he will fail, meaning that plaque will grow and he will eventually, perhaps in a year, two or three, require several stents, heart bypass, or have a heart attack. In other words, Hank's pessimism is a self-fulfilling phenomenon: If he believes he will fail, he will. If he believes the world is a rotten place, it is.


Is it possible to "cure" someone like Hank of his deeply-rooted pessimistic attitudes? I don't know of any easy solutions for someone with attitudes as deeply-ingrained as Hank's. (See my prior post, "Cure for pessimism?" at http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html.)

I believe it does help to make someone aware of their attitudes and that it does indeed exert ill health-effects--if they will believe it. But this is a very tough nut to crack.

Bad news on CoQ10?

13. June 2007 William Davis (8)
A review of the effects of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) on the muscle aches and weakness (myopathy) of statin drug therapy was just published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

(Marcoff L, Thompson PD. The role of coenzyme Q10 in statin-associated myopathy. J Amer Coll Cardiol 2007;49(23):2231-2237.)

This is not a study, but a review of the existing scientific and clinical data available on this topic. The study authors conclude with a lukewarm statement:

". . .there is insufficient evidence to prove the etiologic [causal] role of CoQ10 deficiency in statin-associated myopathy and that large, well-designed clinical trials are required to address this issue. The routine use of CoQ10 cannot be recommended in statin-treated patients. Nevertheless, there are no known risks to this supplement and there is some anecdotal and preliminary trial evidence of its effectiveness. Consequently, CoQ10 can be tested in patients requiring statin treatment, who develop statin myalgia, and who cannot besatisfactorily treated with other agents. Some patients may respond, if only via placebo effect."

Should the media get hold of this report, be prepared for the usual "Nutritional supplement no help for drug toxicity" headlines, or "Yet another nutritional supplement shows no benefit" with parallels drawn to vitamin C or E.

There are several issue that need to be factored into the discussion:

1) This is not a study, just a review. Thus, any biases of the authors are more likely to exert themselves.

2) The understanding of CoQ10 absorption among different preparations may be an issue. I just received a mailing from Life Extension that made extravagant claims about the superior absorption of ubiquinol, to be distinguished from ubiquinone, the more common form. They claim that eight-fold increased absorption and blood levels of CoQ10 are achievable with ubiquinol. Unfortunately, virtually all the supportive data are unpublished, proprietary observations, i.e., generated by companies who make or sell it. This is as reliable as drug manufacturers who publish glowing reports on their own drugs--perhaps it's true, but it requires unbiased corroboration.

3) Despite the lack of a large, well-funded clinical trial (all are small), the issue continues to live and breathe because of the powerful anecdotal experience.

In our experience, CoQ10 does work. It doesn't work all of the time, perhaps just 80-90% of the time. It does generally require higher doses (100 mg per day, occasionally more). It very clearly must be an oil-based gelcap (just like vitamin D) to work; capsules containing powder do not work.

It's difficult to doubt when someone starts a statin drug, develops the muscle aches and weakness, begins CoQ10 and obtains distinct relief, stops CoQ10 and aches and weakness return, then only to go away again with resumption of CoQ10 . I've seen this countless times.

We do need better information on CoQ10. There's no doubt about it. For people who obtain benefit from statin therapy, I think CoQ10 remains a useful solution. A better solution would be to get rid of the offending drug. But that's not always possible--e.g., LDL cholesterol 190 mg/dl despite the best diet and "adjunctive" food effort. Then CoQ10 can be very useful.
All posts by william-davis

More on being wheat-free

21. April 2007 William Davis (5)
Reducing or even eliminating the wheat in your diet can dramatically enhance the phenomenon of insulin resistance.

Insulin resistance is the evil process that lies behind low HDL, high triglycerides, small LDL particles, and VLDL and IDL. It’s also the process that makes us tired after meals, heightens inflammation that raises your risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and caner. Insulin resistance is the culprit behind the bulge hanging over some 100,000,000 American belts.

Show me a person with a protruding abdomen and I’ll show you a bread lover, or some other form of wheat.

Why do I pick on wheat so much? Many of you among the more nutrition-minded would point out that wheat is just one group of food items among many other high-glycemic index foods, i.e., foods that yield a vigorous surge in blood sugar (glucose), followed by a sharp decline. Wheat enjoys the high-glycemic index company of corn, rice (white and brown), potatoes, among others.

I pick on wheat because, for most Americans, wheat is 90% of the high-glycemic index problem. (I’m assuming you’ve at least eliminated or dramatically reduced highly-processed sweets like candy, cookies, soft drinks, cakes, etc. That’s a no-brainer.) It’s not uncommon to have a wheat-based product with every meal, a wheat-based snack, 7 days a week. But few people have corn products (i.e., corn starch products) three times a day. Or rice three times a day.

Wheat has traded places with saturated fat sources as the chief scourge of diet. In 1985, we had dinners of spare ribs, cheeseburgers, French fries, and butter on our mashed potatoes. Hardly anybody eats that like anymore, at least amongst the web-savvy set.

Wheat has assumed the previous exalted role as chief scourge as a consequence of the low-fat consciousness of the 80s and 90s. It has since ballooned in importance in diet and, as a result, skyrocketed as a cause of obesity, insulin resistance, and coronary plaque growth.

What if you're already slender and have none of the above issues, especially small LDL particles? Then don't sweat the wheat issue.

Note: My comments on being wheat-free should not be confused with gluten sensitivity or celiac disease. These are allergies to wheat gluten that, if undiagnosed, wreak havoc on health to extremes. This phenomenon is separate and distinct from the far more prevalent issue I’m discussing.

Can you break the “Rule of 60”

21. April 2007 William Davis (1)
In the Track Your Plaque program, we aim for conventional lipid values (LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides) of 60—60—60, i.e., LDL 60 mg/dl, HDL 60 mg/dl or greater, triglycerides 60 mg/dl. Most participants do indeed reach these target values.

When I tell this to colleagues, they’re stunned. “You can’t possibly get those numbers in most people.” And I can sympathize with their plight. After all, they are stuck with relatively lame tools: statin drugs, the American Heart Association diet. I’d be surprised if they ever achieved 60—60—60.

But can you drop your heart scan score even if you don’t reach the 60—60—60 targets? Yes, you can. The Rule of 60 is only a guideline, a tool that helps more people achieve our goals. The Rule of 60 does not guarantee reversal (drop in heart scan score), nor does not achieving the targets completely destroy your chances.

We have had many people drop their scores even if they haven’t reached the targets. On the other hand, we’ve also had people who failed at first, only to see success once they achieved the 60 mg/dl targets.

But which one are you? That’s the problem. We possess limited capacity to predict who will or who will not drop their scores from the start. We know that there are factors that stack the odds in your favor (e.g., optimism, lack of Lp(a), ideal weight, vitamin D >50 ng/ml, etc.). We know that there are factors that make it tougher (overweight, Lp(a), pessimistic attitude, underappreciated hypertension, higher heart scan scores, etc.) But at the start, we just don’t know who truly needs to adhere to the Rule of 60. So we suggest that everyone, at least in the beginning, aim to achieve it.

I had an exception the other day. Rich did everything by the Track Your Plaque book. However, a starting low HDL of 27 only rose to 37 after one year of effort—way below our 60 mg/dl target. Yet a repeat heart scan showed 23% reduction.

Why would Rich be so successful despite a persistently very low HDL? There may be a number of reasons. One explanation could be that conventional measures of HDL fail to distinguish between what HDLs truly work and what do not. Look at ApoA1 Milano; remember this story? The people in the secluded mountain village of Limone-Sul-Garde in northern Italy have HDL cholesterols of 8-15 mg/dl yet do not experience excess vascular atherosclerosis, suggesting that what little HDL they have is super-effective.

Yes, large HDL seem to be more healthy and effective than small HDL, but perhaps there’s more to it. However, nobody has a HDL effectiveness test ready for us to use.

In the meantime, we continue to suggest that the Track Your Plaque Rule of 60 be considered as a means of making plaque reversal as likely as possible. You and your doctor can always adjust in future, depending on your heart scan score results.

Non-profit hospitals

21. April 2007 William Davis (1)
Hospitals hide behind a veil of non-profit.

Ostensibly operating for the public good, most hospitals enjoy all the business advantages of non-profit status. This means that any profits that flow to the bottom line at the end of the year are not subject to tax. Hospitals point out that profit margins are modest, often ranging from 2-6%.

What they don’t tell you is that, regardless of non-profit status, lots of money can be paid out along the way. A hospital CEO who pays himself $4 million dollars a year can work for this non-profit organization. He can also direct the hospital in business expansion: pharmacies, extended-care facilities, medicine and medical supply distributorships. Your friendly hospital CEO, as well as his many administrators, can hold positions in hospital subsidiaries, complete with salaries and perks.

Yes, most hospitals are officially non-profit. But that’s a designation for tax purposes. It does not mean that hospitals are non-lucrative.

I believe that it’s time for hospitals to drop the façade of “Saint” in their names or other religious names—Methodist, Baptist, Jewish, All Saints’. More accurate would be something like “ABC Medical Enterprises, Inc.” That way, the public would be quicker to recognize that they are dealing with a business run by people eager to make more money.

Wheat five times a day

20. April 2007 William Davis (3)
Terri couldn't understand why her weight wouldn't drop.

At 5'3", 208 lbs., she had the typical mid-abdominal excess weight that went with small LDL, low HDL, high triglycerides, a post-prandial (after-eating) fat clearance disorder, high blood sugar, increased c-reactive protein, and high blood pressure.

She claimed to have tried every diet and all had failed. So we reviewed her current "strict" diet:

"For breakfast, I had Shredded Wheat cereal in skim milk. No sugar, just some cinnamon and a little Splenda. For lunch, I had low-fat turkey breast sandwich--no mayonnaise--on whole wheat bread. For snacks, I had pretzels between breakfast and lunch, and a whole wheat bagel with nothing on it before dinner. For dinner, we had whole wheat pasta with tomato sauce and a salad. While we watched TV, I did have a couple of whole wheat crackers.

"I don't get it. I didn't butter anything, I didn't sneak any sweets, cakes, I didn't even touch cookies. And I love cookies!"

Did you see the pattern? I pointed out to Terri that what she was doing, in effect, was eating sugar 5 or more times a day. Many of her meals, of course, contained no sugar. All were low fat. But the excessive wheat content yielded quick conversion to sugar--glucose--immediately after ingestion.

Repeated surges of blood sugar like this trigger the excessive insulin response that yields low HDL, higher triglycerides, small LDL, etc., everything that Terri had.

Terri was skeptical when I suggested that she attempt an "experiment": Try a four week period of being entirely wheat-free. This meant more raw nuts and seeds, more lean proteins like low-fat yogurt and cottage cheese, chicken, fish, lean red meats, more vegetables and fruits.

After only two weeks, Terri dropped 5 1/2 lbs. She also reported that the mood swings she had suffered, afternoon sleepiness, and uncontrollable hunger pangs had all disappeared. The mental cloudiness that she had experienced chronically for years had lifted.

What happened was that the load of sugar from wheat products, followed by an insulin surge then a precipitous drop in sugar, and finally fogginess, irritability, and cravings for food all disappeared. With it, the entire panel of downstream phenomena (small LDL, CRP, etc.) all faded.

Though she started out intending to complete a four week trial, I believe that, having seen the light, she will continue to be wheat-free, or nearly so, for a lifetime.

The battle for natural hormones

18. April 2007 William Davis (0)
The battle for preservation of availability of compounded natural hormones goes on.

It started with pharmaceutical manufacturer, Wyeth, who petitioned the FDA to disallow the mixing of pharmaceuticals, especially natural human hormones, by specially trained pharmacists at what are called "compounding pharmacies." These are pharmacies that have special equipment and where trained pharmacists can mix up specific preparations for dispensing. These are available by prescription.

For instance, I have been prescribing natural human testosterone and progesterone for nearly 10 years. I have found service to be excellent, with lots of learning materials provided to patients by the pharmacy. The pharmacists I've spoken to have been courteous and knowledgeable. Compounded hormones are also shockingly less expensive. While a testosterone patch from a pharmaceutical company costs around $4.00 per day, the same quantity of testosterone cream formulated by a compouding pharmacy costs around $0.50 per day--87.5% less.

Wyeth hides behind a smoke screen of concern over quality. But the price differences tells the entire story: they want to eliminate the inexpensive competition and hold us all hostage to the far more expensive, often inferior products that they produce. They'd sooner force a woman to use horse-derived Premarin than to allow her access to human estrogens and progesterone.

To me, this is an outrageous affront to our freedom of choice, both as consumers as well as a physician. If you feel as strongly as I do about opposing the unfair and bullying ways of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals and the FDA, the P2C2 association of compounding pharmacists makes writing a letter to your Senator easy by going to

http://iacprx.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=P2C2

Just enter your info and personalize the comments, and the e-mails will be generated for you.

Lipitor and memory

17. April 2007 William Davis (2)
At first, I was skeptical. A book from a nutty author and physician named Duane Graveline kept on coming up in conversations with patients. His book, Lipitor: Thief of Memory , details his personal experience with dramatic changes in memory and thought while taking Lipitor.



Now this is a drug that I've seen used thousands of times. But I've now seen about a dozen people who have had distinct struggles with memory and clarity of thinking while taking Lipitor. Most took doses of 40 mg per day or more, though an occasional person takes as little as 10 mg. The association seems to be undeniable, since it improves after two weeks off the drug, recurs when resumed. Just today, I saw two people where this effect may be an issue.

Curiously, I've not seen it with any other statin agent. Unfortunately, uncovering any scientific data on the issue is a hopeless quest. Either it's very uncommon or, worse, the data has been suppressed.

Any way, I believe that Dr. Graveline was right: Lipitor, in a small number of people, does indeed seem to exert real detrimental effects on the mind.

If you take Lipitor, should you stop it in fear of long-term effects on your mental capacity? I think it's premature to toss the drug out based on this relatively uncommon relationship. This particular effect is likely to be idiosyncratic, i.e., peculiar to an occasional person but does not seem to apply to the majority, probably by some quirk of metabolism or penetrability of the barrier between the blood and nervous system tissue.

If, however, you feel that your thinking and memory have deteriorated on the drug, please speak to your doctor.

EKG's and heart disease

16. April 2007 William Davis (6)

How helpful are EKG's for detecting hidden heart disease?

I pose this question because several patients asked this question just this week. It's also a frequent point of confusion and misperception.

Your EKG is nothing more than an expression of the surface electrical activity emitted by heart muscle activity. Multiple (12) leads are attached to the body simply to provide various "views" of this electical activity. EKG, or sometimes "ECG", is short for "electrocardiogram".

What modifies this surface electrical activity? Anything that modifies the electrical activity within the heart itself, or interferes with the detection of the activity. An old heart attack modifies the patterns of electrical conduction in the heart and that can change your EKG. An ongoing heart heart attack likewise. High blood pressure commonly creates changes in the EKG, as does lung disease. A bellyache can change your EKG, as can a stroke. (These non-heart-related phenomena probably are often due to changes in autonomic, or "automatic," nervous system activity.) The heart generates electrical activity in a predictable sequence that generates the heart beat, or "rhythm". EKG's are useful for monitoring heart rhythm, also.

Does having plaque in your coronary arteries have any effect on the EKG? None whatsoever, unless plaque rupture caused heart attack or is about to cause heart attack. So, you can have a horrendous CT heart scan score of, say, 3000, yet maintain a perfectly normal EKG, as long as the heart muscle is normal.

Then why bother with these iffy tests? They are indeed useful to diagnose the cause of active symptoms. For instance, go to the ER with chest pain and an EKG could show changes suggesting that the chest pain is a heart attack. EKG's are also useful for future comparison. Any change in EKG can suggest certain things, like new heart rhythm disturbances unrelated to coronary plaque.

Think of your EKG as just like buying a used car. Say I'm trying to sell you my 1999 Buick Century. It looks pretty good from the outside and I tell you that it has 70,000 miles and runs well. You ask to open the hood, look in the interior and take it out for a drive. I tell you no, you can't do that.

Would you buy the car? Of course you wouldn't. You were permitted only a very superficial examination of the car. You have no idea what's going on inside. Just because the paint job looks brand new doesn't mean the engine and transmission are good.

The same with your EKG: It's a superficial look at one aspect of this used car called your heart. If the EKG is normal, that's good, just like a good exterior on the Buick. But you cannot assume that the heart is otherwise normal.

View the EKG as a simple, superficial test that can only provide minimal reassurance, no matter how often you have it done.

A new Track Your Plaque record

14. April 2007 William Davis (0)
Neal, a 40-year old school principal, and his young wife were terrified on learning of his CT heart scan score of 339, a concerningly high score for any age, particularly age 40.

To make matters worse, all of Neal's plaque was located in the critical left mainstem coronary artery, the shared stem of two of the three coronary arteries. A heart attack in this location is instantly fatal.

So, it was especially gratifying that Neal has set the Track Your Plaque record for largest magnitude of plaque reversal: 51% in his first year.

Studies that show a reduction in heart attack make the news. They talk about 1, 2, up to 6% regression, all achieved with high doses of statin drugs. Yet we are seeing huge, extraordinary quantities of heart disease reversal that haven't yet made headlines, amounts that far exceed those featured in the news. We should be encouraged by experiences like Neal's.

Watch for the upcoming Track Your Plaque newsletter for more details on Neal's story--how he came to the program, how he accomplished this huge effect, and why his experience was such a success. If you haven't yet subscribed, go to the www.cureality.com homepage and click on the upper right hand corner.

The Plavix Scam

12. April 2007 William Davis (3)
Periodically, I'll see a flurry of TV ads for Plavix. It comes with a polished computer-animated cartoon that shows how platelets clump and form a blood clot, causing heart attack.

Imagine there's a pile of oil-soaked rags in a corner of your garage. I come by and tell you to get a good fire extinguisher to keep next to the rag pile in case they spontaneously ignite.

Does that make sense to you?

Wouldn't it be better to get rid of the oily rags and forget about the fire extinguisher?

Plavix is the fire extinguisher. The oil rags are your coronary plaque. The solution is to gain control over plaque behavior. Unfortunately, the TV ads (intentionally, I suspect) give the impression that blood clots just form out of the blue for no reason. Of course that's not true. It requires active, growing, inflamed atheroslcerotic plaque that ruptures, uncovering the "angry" and platelet-adhering material underneath the thin covering or endothelial lining.

Urging everybody to take Plavix is absurd. The TV ads urge many people who have no business taking the drug to take it. There are, without a doubt, groups of people who are better off taking Plavix and aspirin: people who are in the midst of heart attack, people who have unstable plaque, people with recent stents or bypass. Perhaps people at high risk for plaque rupture, e.g., extensive coronary plaque that has continued to grow.

These tactics are consistent with the experiences I've had with the sales representatives from the company (when I used to actually talk to sales reps; my office is now barred from them). The reps very aggressively would urge me to consider having everyone take Plavix. No kidding.


For us, i.e., for people who just have a heart scan score but interested in engaging in a powerful program of prevention and reversal, Plavix rarely provides any advantage. The answer is, just like our oily rag analogy, control the plaque, not put out the fire.

Lipoprotein(a) and small LDL

11. April 2007 William Davis (0)
You won't find a lot of scientific validation for this, but it is my firm impression that small LDL, by some crazy means, has the capacity to "turn on" or "turn off" lipoprotein(a), Lp(a).

Recall that Lp(a) is a specific genetic trait, passed to us (if you have it) by mother or father. It falsely elevates LDL cholesterol and escalates heart disease risk more than just about any other known abnormality.

A frequent hint that Lp(a) might be present is a comment I hear often from patients: "My doctor said statin cholesterol drugs don't work for me. I tried them all and my cholesterol won't go down." Or, the result was substantially less than expected. That's because, when Lp(a) is lurking in your cholesterol value, it is unaffected by the statins.

It's been my in-the-trenches observation that, the more fully expressed the small LDL pattern becomes, the worse the Lp(a) behaves. In other words, if small LDL is suppressed effectively, Lp(a) doesn't seem to carry the same dangers as in someone who has plenty of small LDL. I don't know why this is. (I expect that the answer will come from someone like Dr. Marcovina at Stanford, who is at the forefront of Lp(a) structural research. Lp(a) is a complex molecule with several components. How and why it interacts with other particles remains a mystery.)

There are a little bit of data to confirm this. The Quebec Cardiovascular Study has presented some data to this effect, that the combination of small LDL particles and Lp(a) are a particularly lethal combination. We are trying to correlate our data from a CT heart score perspective to discern any statistical relationships.

This raises a very important therapeutic issue if you have Lp(a): the worst thing you can do if you have Lp(a) is become overweight. Excess abdominal fat is a huge trigger to create small LDL particles. Even though being overweight itself has no effect on the measured level of Lp(a), it activates small LDL which, in turn, throws gasoline on the Lp(a) fire.

If you have Lp(a), stay skinny.