There's a $22 billion industry based on treating LDL cholesterol, a fictitious number.

LDL cholesterol is calculated from the following equation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Apoprotein B--available in most laboratories.

--"Direct" LDL

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

--LDL by Friedewald calculation.

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

Faye was clearly frustrated.

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

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

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

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

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

--Lp(a) levels rise dramatically.

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

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

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

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

I've talked about this before, but I need to periodically remind everybody:
Vitamin D must be an oil-based capsule, a gel-cap, not a tablet.

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

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

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

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

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

What if vitamin D cost $200 rather than $2?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most hospitals maintain the "Saint _____" in their names, despite many having little or nothing to do with the church.

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

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

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

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

You can always count on Dr. John Cannell for unique perspectives on vitamin D. I reprint here his unfailingly entertaining and informative Vitamin D Newsletter on whether vitamin D replacement enhances physical performance.

The whole vitamin D "discovery" sometimes worries me. Vitamin D has proven to be an unbelievable, remarkable, dramatic boon to health, including facilitation in dropping CT heart scan scores. Yet the answer was always right in front of us. It worries me that you and I might have the answer to important questions right within our grasp all along--but don't know it. What if the same were true, say, for cancer? That is, a profound answer is right there, but our eyes just pass right over it.

Anyway, we should all keep our eyes open and perhaps you and I will continue to identify the most powerful tools available that return control over heart disease to us and take it away from the perverse, procedural hospital formula that still reigns.

If you haven't done so already, be sure to visit Dr. Cannell's website, www.vitamindcouncil.com.

The Vitamin D Newsletter
March, 2007

Peak Athletic Performance and Vitamin D

"No way doc." I had just finished telling my patient about the benefits of vitamin D, telling him he should take 4,000 IU per day, using all the techniques I had learned in 30 years of medical practice to convince someone proper treatment is important. But, he knew the U.S. government said he only needed 200 IU per day, not 4,000. He also knew the official Upper Limit was 2,000 IU a day. "What are you trying to do doc, kill me?" I told him his 25(OH)-vitamin D blood test was low, only 13 ng/ml. He had read about that too, in a medical textbook, where it said normal levels are between 10 and 40 ng/ml. "I'm fine doc;" adding "Are you in the vitamin business?" I explained I was not; that the government used outdated values; that recent studies indicate ideal 25(OH)D levels are about 50 ng/ml; and that they indicated that he needed about 4,000 IU per day to get his level up to 50. "No thanks doc, I'm fine."

So I tried a different tact. I brought him copies of recent press articles. "Look," I said, "look at these." Science News called vitamin D the Antibiotic Vitamin. The Independent in England says vitamin D explains why people die from influenza in the winter, and not the summer. U.S. News and World Report says almost everyone needs more. Newsweek says it prevents cancer and helps fight infection. In four different recent reports, United Press International says that: it reduces falls in the elderly, many pregnant women are deficient , it reduces stress fractures, and that it helps heals wounds.

He glanced at the articles, showing a little interest in stress fractures. Then he told me what he was really thinking. "Look doc, all this stuff may be important to old guys like you. I'm 22. All I care about are girls and sports. When I get older, maybe I'll think about it. I'm too young to worry about it. I'm in great condition." I couldn't argue. He was in good health and a very good basketball player, playing several hours every day, always on indoor courts.

What could I do to open his eyes? As an African American, his risk of early death was very high, although the risk for blacks doesn't start to dramatically increase until their 40's and 50's. Like all young people, he saw himself as forever young. The U.S. government was no help, relying on a ten-year-old report from the Institute of Medicine that is full of misinformation.

I tired to tell him that the 200 IU per day the U.S. government recommends for 20-year-olds is to prevent bone disease, not to treat low vitamin D levels like his. I pointed out the U.S. government's official current Upper Limit of 2,000 IU/day is the same for a 300 pound adult as it is for a 25 pound toddler. That is, the government says it's safe for a one-year-old, 25-pound, child to take 2,000 IU per day but it's not safe for a 30-year old, 300-pound, adult to take 2,000 and one IU a day. I mean, whoever thought up these Upper Limits must have left their thinking caps at home. Nevertheless, nothing worked. My vitamin D deficient patient was not interested in taking any vitamin D.

What are young men interested in? I remembered that he had told me: "Sex and sports." Two years ago I had researched the medical literature looking for any evidence vitamin D enhanced sexual performance. Absolutely nothing. That would have been nice. Can you imagine the interest?

Then I remembered that several readers had written to ask me if vitamin D could possibly improve their athletic performance? They told me that after taking 2,000 to 5,000 IU per day for several months, they seemed just a little faster, a little stronger, maybe had a little better balance and timing. A pianist had written to tell me she even played a better piano, her fingers moved over the keys more effortlessly! Was vitamin D responsible for these subtle changes or was it a placebo effect? That is, did readers just think their athletic performance improved because they knew vitamin D was a steroid hormone precursor (hormone, from the Greek, meaning "to set in motion")?

The active form of vitamin D is a steroid (actually a seco-steroid) in the same way that testosterone is a steroid and vitamin D is a hormone in the same way that growth hormone is a hormone. Steroid hormones are substances made from cholesterol, which circulate in the body, and work at distant sites by "setting in motion" genetic protein transcription. That is, both vitamin D and testosterone regulate your genome, the stuff of life. While testosterone is a sex steroid hormone, vitamin D is a pleomorphic (multiple function) steroid hormone.

All of a sudden, it didn't seem so silly. Certainly steroids can improve athletic performance although they can be quite dangerous. In addition, few people are deficient in growth hormone or testosterone, so when athletes take sex steroids or growth hormone they are cheating, or doping. The case with vitamin D is quite different because natural vitamin D levels are about 50 ng/ml and, since almost no one has such levels, extra vitamin D is not doping, it's just good treatment. I decided to exhaustively research the medical literature on vitamin D and athletic performance. It took me over a year.

To my surprise, I discovered that there are five totally independent bodies of research that all converge on an inescapable conclusion: vitamin D will improve athletic performance in vitamin D deficient people (and that includes most people). Even more interesting is who published this literature, and when. Are you old enough to remember when the Germans and Russians won every Olympics in the 60's and 70's? Well, it turns out that the most convincing evidence that vitamin D improves athletic performance was published in old German and Russian medical literature.

With the help of my wife and mother-in-law, both of whom are Russian, and with the help of Marc Sorenson, whose book Solar Power is a must read, I finally was able to look at translations of much of the old Russian and German literature. When one combines that old literature with the modern English language literature on neuromuscular performance, the conclusion is inescapable. The readers who wrote me are right.

If you are vitamin D deficient, the medical literature indicates that the right amount of vitamin D will make you faster, stronger, improve your balance and timing, etc. How much it will improve your athletic ability depends on how deficient you are to begin with. How good an athlete you will be depends on your innate ability, training, and dedication. However, peak athletic performance also depends upon the neuromuscular cells in your body and brain having unfettered access to the steroid hormone, activated vitamin D. In addition, how much activated vitamin D is available to your brain, muscle, and nerves depends on having ideal levels of vitamin D in your blood - about 50 ng/ml, to be precise.

Why would I write about such a frivolous topic like peak athletic performance when cancer patients all across this land are dying vitamin D deficient? Like many vitamin D advocates, I have been disappointed that the medical profession and the public don't seem to care about vitamin D. Maybe people, like my young basketball player, will care if it makes better athletes. So, Hey! You jocks! Listen up! I'm talking speed, balance, choice reaction time, muscle mass, muscle strength, squats, reps, etc. Important stuff. Here's the Vitamin D Council's first ever sports quiz.

1. Vitamin D-producing UVB radiation improves athletic performance and may have been widely practiced by German and Russian Olympic athletes in the 1960's and 70's.

True. I found tantalizing evidence the Russians and especially the Germans were on to this during the 60's and 70's when those two nations took turns placing number one and number two in the Olympics every year?

For example, in 1938, Russian researchers reported that a course of ultraviolet irradiations improved speed in the 100-meter dash in college students compared to matched controls, both groups undergoing daily training. Average 100-meter dash times decreased from 13.51 seconds to 13.28 seconds in the non-irradiated controls, but from 13.63 seconds to 12.62 seconds in the irradiated students. Here we see training improved times but training and irradiation improved times much more. Obviously, irradiation or vitamin D would not render the same magnitude of improvements in world-class sprinters, but they would be happy with a few milliseconds.

Gorkin Z, Gorkin MJ, Teslenko NE. [The effect of ultraviolet irradiation upon training for 100m sprint.] The Journal of Physiology of the USSR [Fiziol, z. (RSSR)] 1938; 25: 695-701. (In Russian)

If you want to know what early German thinking was on this, read this summation of the German literature:

"It is a well-known fact that physical performance can be increased through ultra-violet irradiation. In 1927, a heated argument arose after the decision by the German Swimmers' Association to use the sunlamp as an artificial aid, constituting an athletic unfairness, doping, so to speak. In 1926, Rancken had already reported the improving effect of sunlamp irradiation on muscle work with the hand-dynamo-graph. Heib observed an improvement in swimming times after repeated irradiations. In thorough experiments, Backmund showed that a substantial increase in muscle activity happens after radiation of larger portions of the body with an artificial sunlamp; that this performance increase is not caused through local - direct or indirect - effects on the musculature, but through a general effect. This general effect, triggered by ultra-violet irradiation, is caused by a systemic effect on the nervous system." (p. 17)

Parade GW, Otto H. Die beeinflussung der leistungsfahigkeit durch Hohensonnenbestrahlung. Zeitschrift fur Klinische Medizin (Z Klin Med),1940;137:17-21 [In German]

In 1945, two Americans measured the cardiovascular fitness and muscular endurance of 11 male Illinois subjects undergoing training in an indoor physical education class, comparing them to 10 matched controls. Both groups underwent similar physical training. Treatment consisted of ultraviolet irradiation, given in the nude, up to two minutes per session, three times per week, for ten weeks in the late fall and winter. After ten weeks, the treatment group had a 19% standard score gain in cardiovascular fitness compare to a 2% improvement in the control students. To regular readers of this newsletter, it should come as no surprise that the un-irradiated control group reported twice as many viral respiratory infections as the treatment group.

Allen R, Cureton T. Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation on Physical Fitness. Arch Phys Med 1945: 10: 641-44.

In 1952, the German sports medicine researcher, Spellerberg, reported on the effects of wholesale irradiation of athletes studying and training at the Sports College of Cologne - including many elite athletes - with a "central sun lamp." He irradiated the athletes in their bathing suits, on both sides of their bodies, for up to ten minutes, twice a week, for 6 weeks. He reported a "convincing effect" on athletic performance and a 50% reduction in sports injuries. Results were particularly impressive for swimmers, soccer, handball, hockey, and tennis players, as well as for boxers and most track and field athletes. He reported that irradiation leading to burns, further irradiation of athletes having achieved peak performance, and irradiation within 24 hours of competition, all impaired athletic performance. Their results were so convincing, the Sports College of Cologne officially notified the "national German and International Olympic committee." (p. 570)

Spellerberg AE. [Increase of athletic effectiveness by systematic ultraviolet irradiation.] Strahlentherapie 1952; 88: 567-70. [In German]

In 1952, Ronge exposed 120 German schoolchildren to UV lights installed in classrooms and compared them to 120 un-irradiated control children. Over a two-year period - excluding summer vacations - he tested both groups with a series of six cardiovascular fitness tests using a bike ergometer. Un-irradiated children showed a distinct seasonality in fitness, with the highest values right after summer break and the lowest values in the spring. Treated children showed no seasonal differences in physical performance. Differences in work performance between the irradiated and un-irradiated children were most conspicuous in the spring with 56% difference between the two groups. In a final experiment, he gave 30 children in the control classrooms 6.25 mg (250,000 IU) of vitamin D as a single dose in February and found their performance had "increased considerably," one month later but did not report the actual numbers. He concluded that vitamin D, either as a supplement or induced via UV irradiation, improved physical performance.

Ronge HE. [Increase of physical effectiveness by systematic ultraviolet irradiation.] Strahlentherapie 1952; 88: 563-6. [In German]

In 1954, another researcher, at the Max-Planck Institute for Industrial Physiology in Dortmund, Germany, administered three different wavelengths of UV light over 8 weeks to university students. He found that ultraviolet light in the vitamin D-producing UVB range was consistently effective in reducing resting pulse, lowering the basal metabolic rate, and increasing athletic performance. UVA had no effect; interestingly, artificial UVC irradiation (the atmosphere normally completely filters out UVC radiation and thus it's not naturally present on earth) also gave some positive results.

Lehmann G. [Significance of certain wave lengths for increased efficacy of ultraviolet irradiation.] Strahlentherapie. 1954 Nov;95(3):447-53. [In German]

In 1956, Hettinger and Seidel irradiated seven subjects in two different experiments: athletic performance on bike-ergometers and forearm muscle strength. They found that UV radiation induced a significant improvement in both muscle strength and athletic performance.

Hettinger T, Seidl E. [Ultraviolet irradiation and trainability of musculature.] Internationale Zeitschrift für angewandte Physiologie, einschliesslich Arbeitsphysiologie 1956; 16: 177-83. [In German]

Another German researcher, at the Institute for Medical Physics and Biophysics at the University of Gottiingen, studied reaction times (the time needed to recognize a light and switch it off) during October and November in a series of controlled experiments on 16 children and an unspecified number of adults. He first controlled for practice effects (getting better by practicing) and then administered nine full-body UV radiation treatments over three weeks to the two treatment groups, using placebo radiation in the two control groups. UV radiation improved choice reaction time by 25% in children and 20% in adults while reaction time worsened in controls. The improvements in the irradiated groups peaked at the end of the three weeks of UV treatments and reverted to baseline levels three weeks later. In the two control groups, he found distinctly improved reaction times in the sunnier months.

Sigmund R. [Effect of ultraviolet rays on reaction time in man.] Strahlentherapie. 1956; 101: 623-9. [In German]

The next study threw me because it was very well conducted, meticulously designed, and completely negative. In 1963, Berven reported on the effects of ultraviolet irradiation and vitamin D supplementation in a group of 30 Stockholm schoolchildren, aged 10 -11, comparing them to appropriate controls. He found no seasonality of fitness in the control group and no effect from either irradiation or two different vitamin D supplementation protocols (1500 IU of cholecalciferol daily for two months and a single dose of 400,000 IU of ergocalciferol) on performance on a bike ergometer.

Berven H. The physical working capacity of healthy children; seasonal variations and effect of ultraviolet irradiation and vitamin-D supply. Acta paediatrica. Supplementum 1963; 148: 1-22.

However, two things were not right and got me thinking. One, Berven found no seasonality of physical fitness and was the only author who found no such seasonal variations in athletic performance. Second, he found no effect from irradiation, again, the only author. Then I realized he was working with Swedish children in the late 1950's. Supplementation of children with high doses of vitamin D - often as cod liver oil - was routine in Scandinavia in the past, particularly in children. For example, in neighboring Finland, the official recommended daily dose of vitamin D for children - including infants - was 4,000 IU per day until 1964, when authorities reduced it to 2,000 IU/day. (That's right, you read that correctly, 4,000 IU per day for infants, which is too much by the way.)

In 1975, Finnish authorities reduced it to 1,000 IU per day, and, in 1992, to 400 IU per day. I emailed Professor Elina Hypponen who confirmed that the Swedish recommendations were similar to the Finnish ones. Therefore, it seems highly unlikely that many of Berven's Swedish children, studied in 1958 and 1959, all from "families with a good standard of living," were vitamin D deficient. Therefore, this study showed that vitamin D will not improve athletic ability in vitamin D replete people. That's very important because it indicates more is not necessarily better. More is only better if you are not taking enough.

Hypponen E, et al. Intake of vitamin D and risk of type 1 diabetes: a birth-cohort study. Lancet. 2001 Nov 3;358(9292):1500-3.

In the 1960's, three American researchers conducted experiments with university students. Rosentswieg studied the effects of a single six-minute dose of UV light on each side of the trunk in 23 college women, recording changes in various tests of muscle strength at one and five hours. He found a trend towards significance after five hours in white but not African American students. In 1968, Cheatum found that a six-minute administration of UV light, on each side of the trunk, increased the speed of 15 college women in the 30-yard dash. In 1969, Rosentswieg found a six-minute dose of UV light, on each side of the trunk, finding improved performance on a bicycle ergometer in college women. However, unlike the Germans and Russians, I could find no evidence that any of these American findings interested any American professionals involved in the care or training of athletes.

Rosentsweig J. The effect of a single suberythemic biodose of ultraviolet radiation upon the strength of college women. J Assoc Phys Ment Rehabil. 1967 Jul-Aug;21(4):131-3.

Cheatum BA. Effects of a single biodose of ultraviolet radiation upon the speed of college women. Res Q. 1968 Oct;39(3):482-5.

Rosentswieg J. The effect of a single suberythemic biodose of ultraviolet radiation upon the endurance of college women. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1969 Jun;9(2):104-6.

2. Athletic performance peaks in the summer when vitamin D levels peak, and is at its lowest in the winter when vitamin D levels are at their lowest.

A. True
B. False

True. The studies below - all I could find in the literature - show tests of physical performance peak in the summer, when vitamin D levels peak, start to decline in early autumn, as vitamin D levels decline, and athletic performance reaches its lowest point in late winter, when vitamin D levels bottom out. However, it is reasonable to assume that any associations between athletic performance and summer season may be due to "reverse causation." That is, improved athletic performance in the summer might be secondary to increased outdoor physical and recreational activity in the warmer weather with an indoor sedentary lifestyle during the colder months. Maybe people have better athletic ability in the summer because they exercise more. If that is true - and using the same logic - athletic performance should not begin to decline until late autumn, because at most temperate latitudes early fall weather is ideal for outdoor physical activities.

However, some of the studies below controlled for seasonal variations in time spent exercising. Furthermore, besides a consistent positive association of summer season with improved athletic performance, the below studies found an abrupt - and unexplained - reduction in athletic performance beginning in the early fall - when vitamin D levels decline - but when the weather is ideal for outdoor activities.

For example, in 1956, German researchers found a distinct seasonal variation in the trainability of musculature, studying wrist flexor strength in 21 German subjects undergoing daily training. They found highly significant seasonal differences with peak performance during the later part of the summer, nadirs in the winter, and an unexplained sharp autumn decline beginning in October.

Hettinger T, Muller EA. Seasonal course of trainability of musculature. Int Z Angew Physiol. 1956;16(2):90-4.

A study of Polish pilots and crew found physical fitness and tolerance to hypoxia were highest in the late summer with an unexplained sharp decline starting in September. The authors hypothesized that seasonal variations in an unidentified hormone best explained their results.

Kwarecki K, Golec L, Klossowski M, Zuzewicz K. Circannual rhythms of physical fitness and tolerance of hypoxic hypoxia. Acta Physiol Pol. 1981 Nov-Dec;32(6):629-36.

Cumulative work ability among 1,835 mainly sedentary Norwegian men during bicycle exercise tests showed an August peak, a sharp decline starting in the autumn, and a wintertime nadir. There were no seasonal changes in body weights, as might be expected if more caloric-demanding recreational activity during the sunnier months explained their results.

Erikssen J, Rodahl K. Seasonal variation in work performance and heart rate response to exercise. A study of 1,835 middle-aged men. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1979 Oct;42(2):133-40.

Koch and Raschka reviewed the mostly German literature on the seasonality of physical performance, discussing studies indicating that muscle strength and stamina peak in the late summer. The authors then attempted to control for seasonal variations in the time spent exercising by instituting a controlled yearlong training regimen, beginning in December. The training regimen consisted of at least 20 push-ups per day and 2 or 3 long-distances races per week for the entire year. They found the both the number of push-ups and muscle strength peaked in late summer followed by a rapid decline in the fall, and a nadir in the winter, despite continued training. They concluded that seasonal variations in an unidentified hormone best explained their results. In addition, by now we all know that vitamin D is a seasonal hormone, and a steroid hormone precursor to boot.

Koch H, Raschka C. Circannual period of physical performance analysed by means of standard cosinor analysis: a case report. Rom J Physiol. 2000 Jan-Dec;37(1-4):51-8.

3. Vitamin D has direct muscle-building (anabolic) effects.

A. True
B. False

True, but only in vitamin D deficient subjects. Both animal and human studies have found that vitamin D directly affects muscle. That is, vitamin D increases muscle mass.

For example, Birge and Haddad found that vitamin D caused new protein synthesis in rat muscle.

Birge SJ, Haddad JG. 25-hydroxycholecalciferol stimulation of muscle metabolism. J Clin Invest. 1975 Nov;56(5):1100-7.

What about humans? In 1981, Young performed muscle biopsies on 12 severely vitamin D deficient patients before and after vitamin D treatment. They found type-II (fast-twitch) muscle fibers were small before treatment and significantly enlarged after treatment. Sorensen performed muscle biopsies on eleven older patients with osteoporosis before and after treatment with vitamin D. The percentage and area of fast twitch fibers increased significantly after treatment, despite the lack of any physical training.

Young A, Edwards R, Jones D, Brenton D. Quadriceps muscle strength and fibre size during treatment of osteomalacia. In: Stokes IAF (ed) Mechanical factors and the skeleton. 1981. pp 137-145.

Sorensen OH, Lund B, Saltin B, Lund B, Andersen RB, Hjorth L, Melsen F, Mosekilde L. Myopathy in bone loss of ageing: improvement by treatment with 1 alpha-hydroxycholecalciferol and calcium. Clin Sci (Lond). 1979 Feb;56(2):157-61.

Sato reported that two years of treatment with 1,000 IU of vitamin D per day significantly increased muscle strength, doubled the mean diameter, and tripled the percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers, in the functional limbs of 48 severely vitamin D deficient elderly stroke patients. The placebo control group suffered declines in muscle strength, and in the size and percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers.

Sato Y, Iwamoto J, Kanoko T, Satoh K. Low-Dose Vitamin D Prevents Muscular Atrophy and Reduces Falls and Hip Fractures in Women after Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2005 Jul 27;20(3):187-192 [Epub ahead of print]

These studies clearly show that vitamin D when administered to vitamin D deficient people stimulates the growth and number of those muscle fibers critical to athletic ability, type-2, or "fast twitch," muscle fibers.

4. Many studies have found direct associations between physical performance and vitamin D levels. That is, the higher your vitamin D level, the better your athletic performance.

A. True
B. False

True. I found 13 positive studies of associations between vitamin D levels and various parameters of neuromuscular performance. However, they were all in old people. Of course, old people can be athletes too. Furthermore, age differences in physiology and pharmacology are quantitative, not qualitative. That is, what is true in old people will be true in young people, although the magnitude might be different. Higher vitamin D levels are associated with a wide variety of athletic performance but appear to have the strongest associations with balance, timing, and timed tests of physical performance.

The three largest studies had more than 7,000 elderly subjects. All found evidence of a vitamin D threshold of between 30 - 50 ng/ml, above which further improvements in athletic performance were not seen. Wicherts and her colleagues found a linear correlation between vitamin D and neuromuscular performance; scores were 78% better for those with vitamin D levels greater than 30 ng/ml compared to those with levels less than10 ng/ml.

Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Dietrich T, Orav EJ, Hu FB, Zhang Y, Karlson EW, Dawson-Hughes B. Higher 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations are associated with better lower-extremity function in both active and inactive persons aged > or =60 y. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Sep;80(3):752-8.

Gerdhem P, Ringsberg KA, Obrant KJ, Akesson K. Association between 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels, physical activity, muscle strength and fractures in the prospective population-based OPRA Study of Elderly Women. Osteoporos Int. 2005 Nov;16(11):1425-31.

Wicherts IS, et al. Vitamin D status predicts physical performance and its decline in older persons. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Mar 6; [Epub ahead of print]

Professor Heike Bischoff-Ferrari, now in Switzerland, did the largest study. She and her colleagues found a strong positive correlation and suggestion of a U-shaped curve with athletic performance on one test peaking with vitamin D levels of 50 ng/ml but deteriorating at higher levels. It is interesting to speculate that levels around 50 ng/ml may be optimal for athletic performance as such levels are common in humans living in a "natural" state of sun-exposure, such as lifeguards or tropical farmers.

Bischoff HA, Stahelin HB, Urscheler N, Ehrsam R, Vonthein R, Perrig-Chiello P, Tyndall A, Theiler R. Muscle strength in the elderly: its relation to vitamin D metabolites. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999 Jan;80(1):54-8.

Interestingly, all three studies that looked for an association between mental abilities and vitamin D levels found one. A fourth study, unrelated to athletic function, also found an association. The obvious explanation for these findings is that cognitively impaired patients do not go outdoors as often as higher functioning patients and thus have lower vitamin D levels. However, Dhesi found the association after excluding all but mildly demented patients, making such an explanation more difficult. Flicker and - more recently - Przybelski and Binkley, found the association after controlling for outdoor activities, raising the possibility that the association of vitamin D levels with cognitive abilities is casual. Both the vitamin D receptor and the enzyme necessary to activate vitamin D are present in a wide-variety of human brain tissue. If vitamin D deficiency impairs cognitive abilities, it is likely that such deficiencies will also impair the brain's ability to process the complex circuits needed for peak athletic performance.

Dhesi JK, Bearne LM, Moniz C, Hurley MV, Jackson SH, Swift CG, Allain TJ. Neuromuscular and psychomotor function in elderly subjects who fall and the relationship with vitamin D status. J Bone Miner Res. 2002 May;17(5):891-7.

Kenny AM, Biskup B, Robbins B, Marcella G, Burleson JA. Effects of vitamin D supplementation on strength, physical function, and health perception in older, community-dwelling men. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003 Dec;51(12):1762-7.

Flicker L, Mead K, MacInnis RJ, Nowson C, Scherer S, Stein MS, Thomasx J, Hopper JL, Wark JD. Serum vitamin D and falls in older women in residential care in Australia. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003 Nov;51(11):1533-8.

Przybelski RJ, Binkley NC. Is vitamin D important for preserving cognition? A positive correlation of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration with cognitive function. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2007 Jan 8;

There can be no doubt that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved athletic performance in the elderly. From what we know of physiology and pharmacology, the same associations should hold true in young people, including young athletes.

5. Numerous studies have found that vitamin D improves physical performance.

A. True
B. False.

True, but, again, most all the studies are in old persons, not young ones, and none of the studies are in world-class athletes. However, there is no medical reason why vitamin D would improve the athletic performance of vitamin D deficient old people but not vitamin D deficient young ones. Eleven studies found vitamin D improved physical performance, mainly on measures of balance and reaction time. The one study of younger subjects showed dramatic physical performance effects in 55 severely vitamin D deficient women.

Sorensen OH, Lund B, Saltin B, Lund B, Andersen RB, Hjorth L, Melsen F, Mosekilde L. Myopathy in bone loss of ageing: improvement by treatment with 1 alpha-hydroxycholecalciferol and calcium. Clin Sci (Lond). 1979 Feb;56(2):157-61.

Gloth FM 3rd, Smith CE, Hollis BW, Tobin JD. Functional improvement with vitamin D replenishment in a cohort of frail, vitamin D-deficient older people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995 Nov;43(11):1269-71.

Glerup H, Mikkelsen K, Poulsen L, Hass E, Overbeck S, Andersen H, Charles P, Eriksen EF. Hypovitaminosis D myopathy without biochemical signs of osteomalacic bone involvement. Calcif Tissue Int. 2000 Jun;66(6):419-24.

Prabhala A, Garg R, Dandona P. Severe myopathy associated with vitamin D deficiency in western New York. Arch Intern Med. 2000 Apr 24;160(8):1199-203.

Verhaar HJ, Samson MM, Jansen PA, de Vreede PL, Manten JW, Duursma SA. Muscle strength, functional mobility and vitamin D in older women. Aging (Milano). 2000 Dec;12(6):455-60.

Pfeifer M, Begerow B, Minne HW, Abrams C, Nachtigall D, Hansen C. Effects of a short-term vitamin D and calcium supplementation on body sway and secondary hyperparathyroidism in elderly women. J Bone Miner Res. 2000 Jun;15(6):1113-8.

Bischoff HA, Stahelin HB, Dick W, Akos R, Knecht M, Salis C, Nebiker M, Theiler R, Pfeifer M, Begerow B, Lew RA, Conzelmann M. Effects of vitamin D and calcium supplementation on falls: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2003 Feb;18(2):343-51.

Dhesi JK, Jackson SH, Bearne LM, Moniz C, Hurley MV, Swift CG, Allain TJ. Vitamin D supplementation improves neuromuscular function in older people who fall. Age Ageing. 2004 Nov;33(6):589-95.

Sato Y, Iwamoto J, Kanoko T, Satoh K. Low-Dose Vitamin D Prevents Muscular Atrophy and Reduces Falls and Hip Fractures in Women after Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2005 Jul 27;20(3):187-192 [Epub ahead of print]

In summary, five converging - but totally separate - lines of scientific evidence leave little doubt that vitamin D improves athletic performance. (I actually left out a sixth line of evidence, something a little more complicated, studies of muscle strength and vitamin D receptor polymorphisms; the two studies I could find were both positive.) Anyway, the scientific evidence that UVB radiation, either from the sun or from sunbeds, will improve athletic performance is overwhelming and the mechanism is almost certainly vitamin D production. Peak athletic performance will probably occur with 25(OH)D levels of about 50 ng/ml, whether from sun, sunbeds, or supplements.

All that is missing is a big-time professional or college team identifying and then treating their elite athletes who are vitamin D deficient. Can you imagine what such performance-enhancing effects would do for basketball players, most of who are African American and who practice and play indoors all winter? Or gymnasts? Or weight lifters?

However, a word of caution. The above studies suggest that taking too much vitamin D (more than 5,000 IU per day) may actually worsen athletic performance. Take the right amount, not all you can swallow. Take enough to keep your 25(OH)D levels around 50 ng/ml, year round. Easier yet, regularly use the sun in the summer and sunbeds in the winter - with care not to burn. Once a week should be about right.

When you think about it, none of this should surprise anyone. Every body builder knows that steroid hormones can improve athletic performance, certainly increase muscle mass. Barry Bonds knows they increase timing and power. Moreover, activated vitamin D is as potent a steroid hormone as exists in the human body. However, unlike other steroids, levels of activated vitamin D in muscle and nerve tissue are primarily regulated by sun exposure. That's right, the rate-limiting step for the cellular function (autocrine) of activated vitamin D is under your control. It depends on how much you put in your both or go into the sun. It's ironic that many athletes now avoid the sun, organized baseball is even promoting sun avoidance and sunblocks. The ancient Greeks knew better; they had there elite athletes train on the beach and in the nude.

The medical literature indicates vitamin D levels of about 50 ng/ml are associated with peak athletic performance. Of course, recent studies show such levels are ideal for preventing cancer, diabetes, hypertension, influenza, multiple sclerosis, major depression, cognitive impairments, etc. But who cares about all that disease stuff old people get, we're talking about something really important: speed, balance, reaction time, muscle mass, muscle strength, squats, reps, etc. And guess who's now taking 4,000 IU/day? Yes he is, and he tells me his timing is better, he can jump a little higher, run a little faster, and the ball feels "sweeter," whatever that means.

John Cannell, MD

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you don't want to get the newsletter, please hit reply and let us know. We don't copyright this newsletter. Please feel free to reproduce it and post it on Internet sites and blogs. Remember, we are a non-profit educational organization. Our pathetic finances are available for public inspection. We rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:

The Vitamin D Council (www.vitamindcouncil.com)
9100 San Gregorio Road
Atascadero, CA 93422

The reason why I've been blogging lightly these past few days is because, as a favor, I'm covering the practice for some colleagues who I'm (very) loosely affiliated with. The time demands have been great.

Nonetheless, it is a good reminder to me just how far wrong conventional cardiology remains. Judging by what I see around me, there is a startling lack of restraint in proceeding to the catheterization laboratory. Curiously, the internists and family practitioners have been brainwashed into accepting this path. I suppose that all it takes is an occasional real "save" for these physicians to develop a fear of ever missing real disease.

What I'm seeing is just how many people presenting with chest pain or similar symptoms end up going to the cath lab. I would crudely estimate 80%. That is, once you make it past the emergency room, there's a four out of five chance that you'll end up with a heart catheterization to "be sure your heart is okay", "make certain you're not going to die of heart disease", "see if there's a ticking time bomb in your chest". You've heard all the clever, scary phrases that get tossed around to scare the pants off you and justify putting catheters in your groin.

Despite the fact that tools for heart disease prevention have improved dramatically, the volume of heart catheterizations continues to grow nationwide.

I find it shocking and unacceptable. We're currently working behind the scenes to help change this situation through education of the public. Persuade a $1 million a year cardiologist that he is overdoing procedures? Unlikely in my experience. Educate the public about the shocking over-reliance on high-revenue procedures? Perhaps more practical.

Garlic May Not Lower Cholesterol
Study Shows No Improvement in Cholesterol Levels From Raw Garlic or Garlic Supplements

Lots of reports continue to hit the press about a small study that hoped to determine whether garlic as whole cloves (4 to 6), an aqueous extract of garlic called Kyolic, or an oil extract called Garlicin (high in allicin), or placebo. No differences in lipid numbers including LDL cholesterol were observed.

(Full text at WebMD at http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/news/20070226/garlic-may-not-lower-cholesterol?ecd=wnl_chl_030507. You may be required to log in or register.)

I believe that the researchers were sincere in their effort to follow an honest, scientfically sound clinical trial design. I'm personally not that surprised. The effect in prior studies has been modest, sometimes none. Does that mean that we should ignore the other studies that suggest there may be modest blood-thinning, anti-inflammatory, blood pressure-reducing, and cancer-preventing properties? No, it does not. Dr. Matt Budoff at UCLA even published a very small study in about 20 people that suggested a slowing of plaque growth by using Kyolic in persons tracked by CT heart scans.

Nonetheless, garlic is, at best, probably no more than a source of small benefits. The biggest fallout from this kind of report, however, is not the neutral results from garlic, but from the open door the drug companies sense when this happens.

If you read the WebMD report, you'll notice all sorts of advertisements from drug companies for statin cholesterol drugs ("Cholesterol health center"; "Understanding Cholesterol Numbers"; "There are two sources of cholesterol: food and family"), Niaspan (which I used to support but have been discouraged by the Kos companies excessively profiteering methods and recent big Wall Street sellout).

It doesn't follow. The failure of one nutritional strategy to reduce LDL does nothave to trigger a run to the drugs. Don't fall for it. Drugs have their place. So do supplements and food choices, which can be very powerful. Drug manufacturers and their marketing people salivate when something like this comes along, an open invitation to say, "If garlic doesn't work, _____ sure does."

Jason came to the office because of chest pain. At 34 years old, he works as manager of a (non-fast food) restaurant, but indulges in lots of the odds and ends. Among his indulgences: Diet Coke.

Every time he'd have a diet Coke, he'd have chest pain. Not drinking diet Coke--no chest pain. If Jason drank coffee, no chest pain. Other foods, no chest pain. Anyway, just eliminating the diet Coke seemed to do the trick. (Aspartame?)

Anyway, that's not why I tell you Jason's story. In the midst of his evaluation, an echocardiogram showed a mildly enlarged aorta, measuring 4.0 cm in diameter. So we obtained lipoproteins. Jason showed lipoprotein(a) and small LDL particles, the dreaded duo. We talked about how to correct this pattern. Among the strategies we discussed was niacin.

But what bothered me was that neither of Jason's parents had a diagnosis of heart disease. Jason had to have gotten Lp(a) from either his mother or father, since you obtain the gene from one or the other parent. You cannot acquire Lp(a). So one of Jason's parents was sitting on a genetic time bomb of unrecognized Lp(a) and hidden heart disease.

Because Jason's paternal grandfather had a heart attack at age 62, only Jason's Dad had the heart scan (though I urged both to get one). Score: 1483. Recall that heart scan scores >1000 carry a risk of death or heart attack of 25% per year if no preventive action is taken. Now, of course, we have to persuade Jason's Dad that a program of prevention--intensive prevention is in order, including a measure of Lp(a).

So that's the curious story of how Diet Coke probably saved Jason's Dad's life. The lesson is that if you or someone you know has Lp(a), think about their children as well as their parents, each of whom carry a 50% chance of having the pattern.

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.

Low HDL makes Dr. Friedewald a liar

Menopause unleashes lipoprotein(a)

Vitamin D must be oil-based

Vitamin D for $200?

What's up with garlic?

Drop the pretense

John Cannell on Vitamin D

Watch your groin

Garlic and cholesterol--Does everyone now need Lipitor?

Diet Coke saves father's life

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