All posts by william-davis

Periodically, I'll come across a knuckleheaded report like this one from Minneapolis:

Marathon Man’s Heart Damaged by Running?

Of course, the obligatory story about how a cardiologist came to the rescue and "saved his life" with a stent follows. In other words, a stent purportedly saved the life of this vigorous man with no symptoms and high capacity for exercise.

Does vigorous exercise, whether it's marathon running, long-distance biking, or triathlons, cause coronary disease? Should all vigorous athletes run to their doctor to see if they, too, need their lives to be "saved."

Let me tell you what's really going on here. People with the genetic pattern lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), tend to be slender, intelligent and athletic. For genetic reasons, these people gravitate towards endurance sports like long-distance running. Lp(a) is a high-risk factor for coronary disease. It is the abnormality present in the majority of slender, healthy people who are shocked when they receive a high heart scan score or have a heart attack or receive a stent. (I call Lp(a) "the most aggressive known coronary risk factor that nobody's heard about.")

The association between endurance exercise and heart disease is just that: an association. It does not mean that exercise is causal. Having seen coronary plaque detected with heart scans in many runners, virtually all of whom demonstrated increased Lp(a), I believe that Lp(a) is causal.

Unfortunately, the man in the Minneapolis story, now that his life is "saved," will likely be advised to take a statin drug and follow a low-fat diet . . . you know, the diet that increases Lp(a).

Pharmacists can be very helpful resources when it comes to questions about prescription drugs.

The operant word here is drugs.

What they are most definitely not expert on are nutritional supplements. In fact, a day doesn't pass by without having to dispell one falsehood or another conveyed to a patient about a nutritional supplement by a pharmacist.

Among the more common falsehoods told to patients by pharmacists:

"You have to take Niaspan. Sloniacin doesn't work."

Patent nonsense. A few years back, I was the largest prescriber of Niaspan in Wisconsin. Although I am embarassed to admit it, I also spoke for the company, educating fellow physicians on the value of niacin for correction of lipid disorders.

Then I shifted to Sloniacin due to cost--it costs 1/20th the cost of prescription Niaspan. I examined the pharmacokinetic data (pattern of release in the body), the published literature (e.g., the famous HATS Trial), and have used Sloniacin over 1000 times in patients. In my experience, there is no difference: no difference in efficacy, no difference in safety, no difference in side-effects. There is a BIG difference in price.

Unfortunately, most pharmacists get their information on niacin from the Niaspan representative.

"You shouldn't be taking vitamin D supplements. I have prescription vitamin D here."

What the pharmacist means is that you should replace your vitamin D3, or cholecalciferol--the form recognized as vitamin D by the human body--with the plant form of vitamin D, vitamin D2 or ergocalciferol.

Since when is a plant form of a hormone (vitamin D is a potent hormone, not a vitamin; it was misnamed) better than the human form?

I've previously talked about this issue in a blog post called Vitamin D for the pharmaceutically challenged.

The notion that D2 is somehow superior to the real thing, D3, is absurd. I use D3 only in my practice and have checked blood levels thousands of times. As long as the D3 comes as a gelcap, drops, or powder in a capsule, it works great, yielding predictable and substantial increases in blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D. If it comes as prescription D2 (or over-the-counter D2), I have seen many failures: no increase in blood levels of vitamin D or meager increases.

Prescription status is no guarantee of effectiveness.

"Why do you need iodine? You already get enough from food."

The NHANES data over the last 25 years argue otherwise: Iodine deficiency is growing, particularly as people are avoiding iodized salt and the iodine content of processed foods is diminishing. The explosion in goiters in my office also suggest this is no longer a settled issue.

On the positive side, it is exceptionally easy to remedy with an inexpensive iodine supplement. That is, until the pharmacist intervenes and injects his bit of nutritional mis-information.

I'm not bashing pharmacists. In fact, Track Your Plaque's own Dr. BG has a pharmacy background, and she is an absolute genius with nutritonal supplements. But she is a rare exception to the rule: Most pharmacists know virtually nothing about nutritional supplements. You might as well ask your hairdresser.

Ironically, the healthiest people are the most likely to be deficient in iodine.

Why?

Healthy people tend to:

--Avoid iodized salt because of public health advice to limit sodium
--Use sea salt to obtain minerals like magnesium--but sea salt contains little iodine
--Limit meat--Carnivores obtain more iodine than vegetarians or vegans. In one study, up to 80% of vegans were iodine-deficient (Krajcovicova-Kudlackova M et al 2003).
--Exercise--Substantial amounts of iodine are lost through sweating. In a study of high school soccer players, 38.5% were severely iodine deficient, compared to 2% of sedentary students (Mao IF et al 2001).

That is indeed what I am seeing in my office, as well: The healthiest, most attentive to healthy eating, and most physically active are the ones showing up with small goiters (enlarged thyroid glands) and increased TSH and low free T4 levels.

Why am I checking thyroid and talking about iodine? Because even the smallest degree of thyroid dysfunction can double, triple, or quadruple your risk for cardiovascular events. See the posts Is normal TSH too high? and Thyroid perspective update.

The results of the latest Heart Scan Blog poll are in.

204 respondents answered the question:

Do you take an iodine supplement?

The responses:

Yes, I take Iodoral, Lugol's, or SSKI
26 (12%)

Yes, I take potassium or sodium iodide
19 (9%)

Yes, I take kelp tablets or powder
64 (31%)

No, I rely on generous use of iodized salt
23 (11%)

No, I don't supplement iodine at all
66 (32%)

Isn't iodine something you put on cuts and scratches?
6 (2%)

I am heartened by the number of respondents taking iodine in some form. After all, iodine is an essential trace mineral. Without it and health suffers, often dramatically.

However, I am concerned by the percentage of people who don't supplement iodine at all: 32%. Interestingly, this is approximately the proportion of people who come to my office who also do not supplement iodine who are now showing goiters, or enlarged thyroid glands due to iodine deficiency. Goiters lead to hypothyroidism (low thyroid hormone levels), followed by hyperactive nodules, not to mention undesirable effects like weight gain, fatigue, hair loss, constipation, intolerance to cold, higher LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, and heart disease.

11% of respondents report using lots of iodized salt. This may or may not be sufficient to provide enough iodine to prevent goiter and allow normal thyroid function. The success of this strategy depends to a great extent on how often salt is purchased. Salt that sits on the shelf for more than a month is devoid of iodine, given iodine's volatility.

I am also favorably impressed by the number of people who take "serious" iodine supplements like Lugol's solution, Iodoral, or SSKI. Of course, people who read The Heart Scan Blog tend to be an unusually informed, healthy population. The 12% of people in the poll who take these forms of iodine does clearly not mean that 12% of the general population also takes them. But 12% is more than I would have predicted.

On the Track Your Plaque website, we are awaiting an interview with iodine expert, Dr. Lyn Patrick. I'm hoping for some juicy insights.

In 1995, the Palmaz coronary stent was introduced, the brainchild of Drs. Julio Palmaz and Richard Schatz. Medical device manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, priced the device at $2500 per stent.

Let's put this into perspective: At just 0.05 grams per 15 millimeter stent, that put the price of the common stainless steel used to manufacture the stent at $22,650,000 per pound.

Only after several competing stents finally made it to market did J&J reduce its price to its bargain price of $1200, or $10,872,000 per pound. And to think that most of us were shocked to find out that the U.S. military paid $200 for a hammer.

Since 1995, a competitive market for stents has developed, pushing prices down. Now, you can purchase a brand-new coronary stent for as little as $4,000,000 per pound.

Medical device manufacturers have been guilty of a degree of greed that would make many Wall Street bankers blush. That's why I call medical devices "the industry of infinite markups."

Dr. Christine Zioudrou and colleagues at the National Institutes of Mental Health got this conversation going back in 1979 with their paper, Opioid peptides derived from food proteins: The exorphins.

Exorphins are exogenously-derived peptides (i.e., short amino acid sequences obtained from outside the body) that exert morphine-like properties. Mimicking the digestive process that occurs in the gastrointestinal tract using the gastric enzyme, pepsin, and hydrochloric acid (stomach acid), Zioudrou et al isolated peptides from wheat gluten with morphine-like activity. They followed this research path because of the apparent association of wheat and mental illness.

In the bioassays used, wheat-derived exorphins competed successfully with the endogenous opiate, met-enkephalin. Interestingly, casein-derived (i.e., casein milk protein) exorphins were also identified that also displayed opiate-binding activity, though less powerfully. The morphine-like activity was also blocked by the drug, naloxone (the same stuff given to people exposed to morphine overdose).

Among the many devastating effects of celiac disease , the immune disease that develops from wheat gluten exposure, are mental and emotional effects, such as anxiety, fatigue, mental "fog," depression, bipolar illness, and schizophrenia, that disappear with removal of gluten. Many parents of autistic children also advocate wheat-free diets for similar reasons.

Among the many wonderful comments posted on the last Heart Scan Blog post, "I can't do it," was Anne's:

I am not the Anne in your post, but I was addicted to wheat. It was my favorite food. I lived on and for breads. Then I discovered I was gluten sensitive and I did go through a withdrawal of about 4 days. After 4 days I noticed my health problems were disappearing. Depression, brain fog and joint pain are 3 of the many symptoms that disappeared. That was 6 yrs ago.

Tell Anne that I had dreams about bread in the beginning - they will pass. Now the donuts, breads, cookies and cakes in the stores and at work don't even look good. In fact, I don't like the smell of bread anymore. It takes time, but the cravings do pass.

Combine wheat"s exorphin-driven addictive potential with its flagrant blood sugar-increasing properties, and you have a formula that:

1) makes you fat
2) increases likelihood of diabetes, and
3) makes you want to keep on doing it.

Reminds me of nicotine.

My personal view: I have absolutely no remaining doubt that wheat products have no place in the human diet. Not only does the research provide a plausible basis for its adverse health effects, but having asked hundreds of people to remove it from their habits has yielded consistent and remarkable health benefits. Just read the reader comments here and here.

Anne sat across from me, bent over and sobbing.

"I can't do it. I just can't do it! I cut out the breads and pasta for two days, then I start dreaming about it!

"And my husband is no help. He knows I'm trying to get off the wheat. But then he brings home a bunch of Danish or something. He knows I can't help myself!"

Having asked hundreds of people to completely remove wheat from their diet, I witness 30% of them go through such emotional and physical turmoil, not uncommonly to the point of tears. For about 10-20% of people who try, it is as hard as quitting cigarettes.

Make no mistake about it: For many people, wheat is addictive. It meets all the criteria for an addictive product: People crave it, consuming it creates a desire for more, lacking it triggers a withdrawal phenomenon. If wheat were illegal, there would surely be an active underground trafficking illicit bagels and pretzels.

Withdrawal consists of fatigue and mental fogginess that usually lasts 5-7 days. Just like quitting smoking, wheat withdrawal is harmless but no less profound in severity.

People who lack an addictive relationship with wheat usually have no idea what I'm talking about. To them, wheat is simply a grain, no different than oats.

But wheat addicts immediately know who they are. They are the ones who can't resist the warm dinner rolls served at the Italian restaurant, need to include something made of wheat at every meal, and crave it every 2 hours (matching the cycle of blood sugar peaks and valleys, the "valley" triggering the craving). When they stop the flow of immediately-released glucose that comes from wheat (with blood sugar peaks that occur higher and faster than table sugar), irresistible cravings kick in. Then watch out: They'll bite your hand off if you reach for that roll before they do.

Break the cycle and the body is confused: Where's the sugar? The body is accustomed to receiving a constant flow of easily-digested sugars.

Once the constant influx of sugars ceases, it takes 5-7 days for metabolism to shift towards fat mobilization as a source of energy. But along with fat mobilization comes a shrinking tummy, reducing the characteristic wheat belly.

If you try to quit smoking, you've got "crutches" like nicotine patches and gum, Zyban, Chantix, hypnosis, and group therapy sessions. If you try and quit wheat, what have you got? Nothing, to my knowledge. Nothing but sheer will power to divorce yourself from this enormously destructive, diabetes-causing, small LDL-increasing, inflammation-provoking, and addictive substance.

What do the following have in common:

Lima beans
Flaxseed
Broccoli
Cabbage
Kale
Soy
Millet
Sorghum?

They are all classified as goitrogens, or foods that have been shown to trigger goiter, or thyroid gland enlargement. Most of them do this either by blocking iodine uptake in the thyroid gland or by blocking the enzyme, thyroid peroxidase. This effect can lead to reduction in thyroid hormone output by the thyroid gland, which then triggers increased thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) by the pituitary; increased TSH acts as a growth factor on the thyroid, thus goiter.

Add to this list of goitrogens the flavonoid, quercertin, found in abundance in red wine, grapes, apples, capers, tomatoes, cherries, raspberries, teas, and onions. Most of us obtain around 30 mg per day from our diet. Quercetin, often touted as a healthy flavonoid alongside resveratrol (e.g., Yang JY et al 2008), has been shown to be associated with reduced risk for heart disease and cancer. Many people even take quercetin as a nutritional supplement.

Quercetin has also been identified as a goitrogen (Giuliani C et al 2008).

What to make of all this?

Most of these observations have been made in in vitro ("test tube") preparations or in mice. Rabbits who consume a cabbage-only diet can develop goiter.

How about humans? The few trials conducted in humans have shown little or no effect. In most instances, the adverse effects of goitrogens have been eliminated with supplemental iodine. In other words, goitrogens seem to exert their ill thyroid effects when iodine deficiency is present. Restore iodine . . . no more goitrogens (with rare exceptions).

Should we as humans adopt a diet that avoids apples, grapes, tomatoes, red wine, tea, onions, soy etc. on the small chance that we will develop goiter?

I believe that we should avoid these common food-sourced goitrogens with as much enthusiasm as we should be worried about spontaneous combustion of humans or the appearance of vampires on our front porches. We are as likely to suffer low thyroid activity from quercetin or other "goitrogens" as we are to experience the "mitochondrial explosions" that are purported to set innocent people afire.

Blood magnesium levels are a poor barometer for true body (intracellular) magnesium.

Only 1% of the body’s magnesium is in the blood, the remaining 99% stored in various body tissues, particularly bone and muscle. If blood magnesium is low, cellular magnesium levels are indeed low—very low.

If blood magnesium is normal, cellular or tissue levels of magnesium may still be low. Unfortunately, tissue magnesium levels are not easy to obtain in living, breathing humans. In all practicality, a blood magnesium test only helps if it’s low, while normal levels don’t necessarily mean anything and may provide false reassurance.

Short of performing a biopsy to measure tissue magnesium levels, several signs provide a tip-off that magnesium may be low:

• Heart arrhythmias—Having any sort of heart rhythm disorder should cause you to question whether magnesium levels in your body are adequate, since low magnesium levels trigger abnormal heart rhythms. In fact, in the hospital we give intravenous magnesium to quiet down abnormal rhythms.
• Low potassium— Low magnesium commonly accompanies low potassium. Potassium is another electrolyte depleted by diuretic use and is commonly deficient in many conditions (e.g., excessive alcohol use, hypertension, loss from malabsorption or diarrhea). Like magnesium, potassium may not be fully replenished by modern diets.
• Muscle cramps— Magnesium regulates muscle contraction. Leg cramps, or “charlie-horses”, painful vise-like cramps in calves, fingers, or other muscles, are a common symptom of magnesium deficiency. (Leg cramps that occur with physical activity, such as walking, are usually due to atherosclerotic blockages in the leg or abdominal arteries, not low magnesium.)
• Migraine headaches—Reflective of magnesium’s role in regulating blood vessel tone, low magnesium can trigger vascular spasm in the blood vessels of the brain. In some emergency rooms, they will actually administer intravenous magnesium to break a migraine.
• Metabolic syndrome—Magnesium plays a fundamental role in regulating insulin responses. Metabolic syndrome (low HDL, high triglycerides, small LDL, high blood pressure, increased blood sugar, excessive abdominal fat, etc.) is triggered by insulin responses gone awry and is clearly linked to low magnesium levels.

The absence of any of these tell-tale signs does not necessarily mean that tissue levels of magnesium are normal.

Then how do you really know? There really is no easy, available method to gauge body magnesium. As a practical solution, we therefore have aimed for maintaining serum levels of >2.1 mg/dl or RBC magnesium (a surrogate for tissue levels) of >6.0 mg/dl. (Going too high is not good either, so occasional monitoring really helps. However, I've only seen this once in a psychotic woman who drank ungodly amounts of magnesium-containing antacids for no apparent reason; she almost ended up on a respirator due to respiratory suppression by the magnesium level of 11 mg/dl!)

In all practicality, because of magnesium’s crucial role in health, its widespread deficiency in Americans, and the growing depletion of magnesium in water, supplemental magnesium is necessary for nearly everyone to ensure healthy levels.

More on magnesium to come.

I call the combination of low HDL, small LDL, and lipoprotein(a) "lethal lipids," since the trio is an exceptionally potent predictor for heart disease. Uncorrected, the combination is a virtual guarantee of heart disease.

Ed is a perfect example of someone who came to my office recently with this pattern. His starting values:

HDL: 34 mg/dl

Small LDL: 78% of total LDL
NMR: Small LDL 1655 nmol/L; total LDL particle number 2122 nmol/L)

Lipoprotein(a): 205 nmol/L

The atherogenicity, or plaque-causing potential, of this pattern was reflected in Ed's heart scan score of 2133.

You can readily see that, of this combination, only HDL cholesterol would be adequately identified through conventional lipid testing. Small LDL and lipoprotein(a) need to be specifically measured via lipoprotein testing.

And, contrary to the drug industry's "statin drugs for everybody" motto, this pattern, while improved with statin therapy, is not shut off.

Specific correction of each abnormality is required. For instance, niacin addresses all three: increases HDL, reduces small LDL, and (usually) reduces lipoprotein(a). A standard low-fat diet makes this pattern worse by reducing HDL, increasing small LDL, and (usually) increasing lipoprotein(a).

Mel's HDL started at 37 mg/dl one year ago. Mel had several other abnormal lipoprotein patterns along with his HDL (inc. small LDL and Lp(a)), but HDL was clearly a crucial factor in his panel.

With a heart scan score of 1166, we needed to raise Mel's HDL to the Track Your Plaque target of 60 mg/dl. So Mel started niacin, our number one method to raise HDL, in addition to reducing his exposure to wheat products and other high glycemic index foods; increasing his physical activity; trying to reduce his excess tummy fat; fish oil; dark chocolate (2 oz per day) and red wine (1-2 glasses per day, preferably dark French reds). The form of niacin we often choose is SloNiacin (Upsher Smith), available over-the-counter for about $12-14 per 100 tablets.

Mel started out with niacin 500 mg per day at dinner, increased to 1000 mg at dinner after four weeks. Although this is usually too soon to reassess HDL, Mel insisted. His HDL 41 mg/dl. Mel's disappointment was palpable. He was the usual type A personality: he wanted his HDL higher--now! So Mel insisted that we increase niacin to 1500 mg per day. (We never go higher than this if low HDL or small LDL is the indication for niacin; only when Lp(a) is present do we go higher.)

Six months into this process, HDL: 45 mg/dl. Still a sluggish response.

One year later, HDL: 68 mg/dl. Finally!

That is typical for niacin, as well as combination of lifestyle changes Mel made. None of them result in an immediate rise in HDL; all take months to 1-2 years to exert full HDL-raising effect.

Think of HDL as the 82-year old grandma who takes a long time to cross the street-she does get there!

Note: Doses of niacin >500 mg per day should be taken with medical supervision.

Here's a crazy question. It occurred to me as I was talking to Drew, a slender, active 54-year old dentist with no bad habits including no smoking.

Drew's heart scan score was 222. His lipoprotein analysis mostly revealed a lot of nothing, which is unusual. The only pattern that showed up was a modestly high LDL of 122 mg/dl with a very slight excess of small LDL. That's it. I would not be satisfied that these were sufficient cause for Drew's level of coronary plaque.

Drew's 25-OH-vitamin D3 level: 15 ng/ml--severe deficiency--despite the fact that his doctor had suggested that he take a vitamin D2 preparation. In other words, Drew had been profoundly deficient, probably for years.

Given the unimpressive cholesterol and lipoprotein values, could vitamin D serve as a trigger for coronary plaque all by itself?

I don't have an answer and know of nobody else who does. However, my opinion is that vitamin D is indeed a potent risk that can cause heart disease as a sole risk factor.

Perhaps it's another piece of circumstantial evidence suggesting that vitamin D has an enormous influence on health, including coronary plaque. Interestingly, the only other health problem Drew has had is prostate cancer, treated a few years ago with prostate removal and radiation. Good evidence suggests that vitamin D deficiency escalates risk of prostate cancer substantially.

By the way, I've seen people taking vitamin D2 preparations, called "ergocalciferol," who are every bit as deficient as those who take no vitamin D at all. Avoid D2 or ergocalciferol preparations: they're worthless.

Katie had an LDL (conventionally calculated) of 87 mg/dl, HDL of 48 mg/dl.

She added fish oil, 6000 mg per day. Three months later her LDL was 118 mg/dl, HDL 54 mg/dl. In other words, LDL increased by 31 mg. What gives?

Several studies have, indeed, shown that fish oil raises LDL cholesterol, usually by 5-10 mg/dl. Occasionally, it may be as much as 20-30.

Unfortunately, many physicians often assume that it's the (minor) cholesterol content of fish oil capsules, or some vague, undesirable effect of fish oil. It's nothing of the kind.

Since we based Katie's program on (NMR) lipoprotein analysis, not conventional lipids (HDL, calculated LDL, triglycerides, total cholesterol), I knew that Katie also had a severe excess of intermediate-density lipoprotein, or IDL, and very-low density lipoproteins, VLDL. This signifies that after a meal, dietary fats persist for 12, 24,or more hours. Fish oil is a very effective method to clear IDL and VLDL, though sometimes it also causes a shift of some IDL and VLDL into the LDL class. Thus, the apparent increase in LDL.

Another contributor: Conventional LDL is a calculated value, not measured. The calculation for LDL is thrown off by any reduction in HDL or rise in triglycerides. In Katie's case, the rise in HDL from 48 to 54 means that calculated LDL is becoming more accurate and rising towards the true measured value. At the start, Katie's true measured LDL was 122 mg/dl, 35 mg higher than the calculated value. Calculated LDL is therefore approximating measured LDL more accurately as HDL rises.

The most important lesson to learn is that, if LDL rises significantly on fish oil and you haven't had lipoproteins formally measured, there may have been a substantial postprandial abnormality like IDL that was unrecognized.

If you ever need convincing that heart disease is everywhere, you should do what I do: subscribe to Google Alerts and have them forward news anytime the search phrase "heart attack" crosses the web. (Just go to Google, click on "more" to the right of the search bar, and follow the links.)

Some recent samples:

Workmates resuscitate driver after heart attack

A woman coal mine truck driver had a heart attack and required resuscitation with a defibrillator 3 times on the way to the hospital.

Heart attack kills groom at reception

A 34-year old man died during his wedding reception, leaving behind his 26-year old new wife.

Heart attack ruled as cause of crash

An Alabama man drove his pick-up truck into oncoming traffic while suffering a heart attack.

Heart-attack victim to return to Hamburg stage

Country music artist, Michael Harding, suffered a heart attack and cardiac arrest during a performance. He is apparently recovered and returning to the stage.

That's just a sample from the last two days. While you and I are carry on a conversation on reversal of heart disease, our neighbors and friends drop over every day. Even though I witness successful heart disease reversal routinely, the rest of the world is not participating.

Pass it on: Coronary disease is identifiable, preventable, controllable, and reversible.

Here's a neat trick for losing weight: Become a strict vegetarian for 3 days.

Before you yawn or say "Yecchhhh!", let me elaborate.

Pick some time period. It doesn't have to be 3 days. It could be 2 days, or 5 days, or two weeks. But, for the period you choose, eat only vegetables. No meat, cereals, breads, milk, cookies, etc.

Vegetables alone could get monotonous, so make them interesting. Possibilities include:

--Hummus--add a little bit of olive-oil, chopped garlic, paprika, red pepper.

--Tabouleh--I get mine from Trader Joe's and it's delicious.

--Salsa--Low in calories, rich in lycopene and other flavonoids, with no nutritional downside. Also, pico de gallo--chopped tomatoes, onions, jalapeno chiles, cilantro, cucumbers.

--Mustards--hot, yellow, brown, spicy, gourmet, horseradish, etc.

--Cocktail sauce--i.e., ketchup and horseradish. Use the low-carb ketchup made without high fructose corn syrup.

--Tapenades--e.g., olive tapenade made with chopped olives, capers, and olive oil.
--Pesto-made with basil, garlic, and olive oil.

--Spices and herbs--basil, arugula, peppers, mustard powder, garlic, cilantro, ginger, etc.

--Vinegars--wine, Balsamic, rice, apple cider.

--Infused olive oils--infused with garlic is especially delicious,e.g., added to hummus.

--Bean dips--white bean dip, roasted bean dip, etc.

With the varieties of ways to jazz up your vegetables, you couldn't possibly be bored.

For example, for breakfast on day 1, eat sliced cucumbers and green peppers dipped in garlic-infused olive oil hummus and a handful of almonds. For a snack, some walnuts, sunflower seeds, sliced zucchini dipped in salsa. For lunch, a salad with an olive oil and balsamic vinegar dressing. For dinner, tablouleh, a cucumber and tomato salad, celery sticks dipped in pico de gallo.

All vegetables can be eaten without restricting portion size, since calorie content of vegetables are so low compared to other calorie-dense foods. (See The Heart Scan Blog from a few days back, "One bit or many mouthfuls?" at http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/one-bite-or-many-mouthfuls.html.)

This approach works nearly as well as fasting. A half-pound per day weight loss or more is common and painless. You'll also feel great living on low glycemic index foods.

(Photos courtesy Wikipedia.)

Dr. Arthur Agatston, author of wildly successful South Beach Diet, has just released a new book titled The South Beach Heart Program. Dr. Agatston has started on a media speaking circuit to promote his book and concepts.

A reporter from Time, who interviewed Dr. Agatston, commented:

". . .not enough doctors prescribe niacin for their heart patients, even though the medicine is a proven treatment for raising 'good' cholesterol. Physicians are reluctant, Agatston suggests, because niacin requires diligent follow-up to watch for side effects, taking time that most primary-care practices cannot afford. On the other hand, he says, too many doctors are performing heart operations that represent a financial windfall for hospitals. Bottom line: there isn't as much money to be made in prevention as in treatment."

Amen.

Dr. Agatston echoes many of the concepts that the Track Your Plaque program advocates. His notoriety is going to help disseminate the idea that 1) CT heart scans are the #1 method to identify hidden atherosclerotic coronary plaque, 2) taking control of your heart scan score is the best way to seize hold of your future, and 3) the present-day popularity of heart procedures like stents and bypass is intolerable, inexcusable, and needs to be reined back.

Agatston also brings great credibility and fairness to the conversation and his comments will gain tremendous attention in the press and with the public.

When it's a hormone.

That's the stand that several researchers in vitamin D have taken and I think they're right. Dr. John Cannell has made a fuss over this in his www.vitamindcouncil.com website.

Structurally, vitamin D is most closely related to testosterone, estrogen, and cortisol. You wouldn't call testosterone vitamin T, would you?

Vitamins are also meant to be obtained from food. Yes, vitamin D is in milk but only because humans are required to put it there to prevent childhood rickets. Otherwise, the only substantial food source of vitamin D is in oily fish like salmon and then only a modest quantity.

Vitamin D is cholecalciferol, a hormone. Deficiencies of hormones can have catastrophic consequences. Imagine that every winter your thyroid gland shuts down and produced no thyroid hormone. You'd get very ill, gain 30 lbs, lose your hair, feel awful.

That's what happens when you're sun deprived and thereby deficient in cholecalciferol--you're deficient in a hormone. And it happens to most of us every year for many months.

I continue to witness spectacular effects by bringing 25-OH-vitamin D3 blood levels to 50 ng/ml with supplementation, including an apparent surge in success dropping heart scan scores.

Heart disease reversal is nothing new in my office. However, I have to admit that it's not something that generally happens each and every day.

As our approach is refined, we are witnessing an unprecedented frequency of plaque reversal. Since Monday (today is Tuesday), I've seen four people who have regressed their coronary plaque and dropped their heart scan score.

Pat was the most recent addition to this list. At age 53, I was honestly surprised at the ease of dropping her heart scan score from 128 to 42 in the space of a year. I was surprised because among her lipoprotein patterns was the dreaded combination of lipoprotein(a) and small LDL, probably the most aggressive risk for heart disease I know of and also among the most difficult to gain control over. She also suffered a deep personal tragedy in her family, an emotional convulsion that can sometimes wipe out any hope of plaque reversal.

I'm hopeful that this virtual epidemic of heart disease reversal continues. And I hope that you participate in it.

At first, Joe felt disappointed, defeated, and frightened. After his heart scan, a radiologist at the center told him that his score of 264 was moderately high. He told Joe that he was at moderate risk for heart attack and that a nuclear stress test was going to be required.

This left Joe feeling confused. After all he'd had a heart scan 18 months earlier and his score was 278, 5% higher.

I reassured Joe that the radiologist had not been aware that Joe had a prior heart scan. The radiologist didn't know that Joe's heart scan score had actually been reduced.

In fact, Joe's risk for heart attack was not moderate--it is now very low, since his score was 5% lower. While growing plaque is active plaque, shrinking plaque is inactive plaque and thereby at far less risk for heart attack.

I wrote about this phemonenon in a previous Blog: When is a heart scan score of 400 better than 200? at http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html. When you've had more than one scan, the risk for heart attack suggested by the score takes a back seat to the rate of change of your score. In other words, even though Joe's score of 264 represented a moderate risk (of approximately 3% per year, roughly 30% over 10 years), this no longer held true, since it actually represented a 5% decrease over a previous score.

Joe's risk for heart attack is probably close to zero. ALWAYS view your second (or any subsequent) heart scan score in the context of your previous score, not in isolation.

Track Your Plaque newsletter subscribers: We will detail more of Joe's story in the coming January 2007 newsletter. If you'd like to read or subscribe to the newsletter, go to http://www.cureality.com/f_scanshow.asp.

Despite the controversy over drug-coated stents, I maintain that the best stent is no stent at all.

Yes, there are indeed times when such things are necessary, but not with the frequency that they are implanted nowadays.

Another reason why stents are an undesirable phenemenon is that they muck up your heart scan. Take a look:

The long white object in the center is a stent in the left anterior descending artery of this 60 year old man. Just beyond the stent (at about 1 o'clock from the stent) is a plaque that could be scored. However, you can see that, with the presence of the stent, the bulk of this artery is no longer "scorable". If this man wishes to "track his plaque", he will have to be content with tracking only the circumflex and right coronary arteries, the other two arteries without stents.

The stainless steel or similar metallic materials of current stents simply prevent us from seeing through them for plaque scoring purposes. It's best if you can simply avoid getting one for this and other reasons.

Track Your Plaque Members: Watch for the upcoming editorial by our Heart Hawk on drug-eluting stents.

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.

Jogging does NOT cause heart disease

Warning: Your pharmacist may be hazardous to your health

"Healthy" people are the most iodine deficient

What kind of iodine do you take?

And you thought gasoline was expensive

"Hey buddy, wanna buy some exorphins?"

"I can't do it"

Spontaneous combustion, vampires, and goitrogens

Magnesium and you-Part II

Lethal Lipids II

Be patient with niacin

Can vitamin D be a SOLE risk factor?

Does fish oil raise LDL cholesterol?

Heart disease is everywhere

Watch your weight plummet:Be a super vegetarian

Dr. Agatston to the rescue

When is a vitamin not a vitamin?

An epidemic of heart disease reversal

Second heart scan and heart attack risk

Heart scan curiosities #5

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