Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g

Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons

Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient

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

A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

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

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

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

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

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

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

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

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The media frenzy

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

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

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

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

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

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

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

Non-CT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

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

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

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

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

--No lipoprotein(a)

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

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

I therefore asked Matt to:

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

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

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

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's my story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Myth of Prevention

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

Dear Wall Street Journal Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Studies have conclusively shown that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M.

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

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

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

9 or more hours per night
15 (3.7%)

8-9 hours per night
72 (18%)

7-8 hours per night
152 (38.1%)

6-7 hours per night
111 (27.8%)

5-6 hours per night
38 (9.5%)

Less than 5 hours per night
11 (2.8%)

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the Dietary Guidelines for Americans were drafted and the USDA and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services charged with disseminating this information to us . . .

When the American Heart Association created its Total Lifestyle Change (TLC) diet to reduce cardiovascular risk and reduce cholesterol . . .

When the American Diabetes Association developed its diet to help diabetics manage their blood sugars and prevent hypoglycemia . . .

How did conditions like Familial Hypertriglyceridemia fit into this scheme?

How about all the health benefits of green tea in wheat-free bread form, spiced up with the magical combined flavors of ginger and orange?

Frequent consumption of green tea accelerates loss of visceral (“wheat belly”) fat, increases HDL and reduces triglycerides, reduces blood pressure, and may provide cardiovascular benefits that go beyond these markers such as reduction of oxidative stress. In this Green Tea Ginger Orange Bread, we don’t just drink the tea—we eat it! This provides an even more powerful dose of the green tea catechins believed to be responsible for the health benefits of green tea.

You can grind your own green tea from dried bulk leaves or it can be purchased pre-ground. I’ve used sencha and matcha green tea varieties with good results. The Teavana tea store sells a Sencha preground green tea that works well. If starting with bulk tea leaves, pulse in your food chopper, food processor, or coffee grinder (cleaned thoroughly first!) to generate green tea powder. You will need only a bit, as a little goes a long way.

The entire loaf contains 26 grams “net” carbohydrates; if cut into 10 slices, each slice therefore yields 2.6 grams net carbs, a perfectly tolerable amount.

Bread:
1¼ cup almond meal/flour
½ cup coconut flour
2 tablespoons ground golden flaxseed
1 teaspoon baking powder
Sweetener equivalent to 1 cup sugar
1 tablespoon ground green tea
1½ teaspoons ground ginger
1½ teaspoons ground allspice
1½ ground cinnamon
2 large eggs, separated
¼ teaspoon cream of tartar
1 tablespoon vanilla extract
1 teaspoon almond extract
Grated zest from 1 orange + 2 tablespoons squeezed juice
1/2 cup coconut milk

Frosting:
4 ounces cream cheese, room temperature
1 teaspoon fresh lemon juice
Sweetener equivalent to 1 tablespoon sugar

Preheat oven to 350° F. Grease a 9” x 5” bread pan.

In large bowl, combine almond meal/flour, coconut flour, flaxseed, baking powder, sweetener, green tea, ginger, allspice, and cinnamon and mix.

In small bowl, whip egg whites and cream of tartar until stiff peaks form. At low mixer speed, blend in egg yolks, vanilla extract, almond extract, orange zest and juice, and coconut milk.

Pour egg mixture into almond meal/flour mixture and mix by hand thoroughly.

Pour dough into bread pan and place in oven. Bake for 40 minutes or until toothpick withdraws dry. Remove and cool.

For frosting, combine cream cheese, lemon juice, and sweetener and mix. When cooled, spread frosting over top of bread.

These healthy bars will blast you with chocolate from several directions!

Look for cacao nibs in health food stores, Whole Foods Market, or at nuts.com. If unavailable, the bars are still delicious without them.

These bars contain around 4-5 grams "net" carbs per bar, well within the tolerance for most people.

Yields approximately 10 bars

1 cup ground almonds
2 tablespoons coconut flour
1 tablespoon unsweetened cocoa powder
1/2 cup cacao nibs
1/2 cup unsweetened shredded coconut
2 ounces 85-90% cocoa chocolate, finely chopped
3/4 cup raw pumpkin or sunflower seeds
Sweetener equivalent to 3/4 cup sugar
2 tablespoons almond butter
1/4 cup coconut milk
2 tablespoons coconut oil or cocoa butter (food grade)

Preheat oven to 200 degrees F. Lay sheet of parchment paper on large baking pan.

In large bowl, combine ground almonds, coconut flour, cocoa powder, cacao nibs, coconut, chocolate bits, pumpkin seeds, and sweetener (if dry) and mix.

In microwave-safe bowl or in small sauce pan, add almond butter, coconut milk, and coconut oil and sweetener (if liquid) and heat for 15 second increments in microwave until liquid, but not hot. If using stove, heat at low-heat enough to make liquid easily mixed, but not hot.

Pour liquid into dry almond mixture and mix together thoroughly. If too stiff, add water one tablespoon at at time until the consistency of thick dough.

Spoon out approximately 1 1/2-inch balls, shaping with the spoon and/or your hands into bar shapes.

Bake for 35 minutes. Remove and cool.

What if your diet is perfect--no wheat, no junk carbohydrates like that from corn or sugars, you are physically active--yet you fail to lose weight? Or you hit a plateau after an initial loss?

First think iodine.

Iodine is an essential nutrient. It is no more optional than, say, celebrating your wedding anniversary or obtaining vitamin C. If you forget to do something nice for your wife on your wedding anniversary, I would fear for your life. If you develop open sores all over your body and your joints fall apart, you could undergo extensive plastic surgery reconstruction and joint replacement . . . or you could just treat the scurvy causing it from lack of vitamin C.

Likewise iodine: If you have an iodine deficiency, you experience lower thyroid hormone production, since T3 and T4 thyroid hormones require iodine (the "3" and "4" refer to the number of iodine atoms per thyroid hormone molecule). This leads to lower energy (since the thyroid controls metabolic rate), cold hands and feet (since the thyroid is thermoregulatory, i.e., temperature regulating), and failed weight loss. So iodine deficiency is one of the items on the list of issues to consider if you eliminate wheat with its appetite-stimulating opiate, gliadin, and high-glycemic carbohydrate, amylopectin A, and limit other carbohydrates, yet still fail to lose weight. A perfect diet will not fully overcome the metabolism-limiting effects of an underactive thyroid.

Given sufficient time, an enlarged thyroid gland, or goiter, develops, signaling longstanding iodine deficiency. (The treatment? Iodine, of course, not thyroid removal, as many endocrinologists advocate.) Your risk for heart attack, by the way, in the presence of a goiter is increased several-fold. Goiters are becoming increasingly common and I see several each week in my office.

Iodine is found in the ocean and thereby anything that comes from the ocean, such as seafood and seaweed. Iodine also leaches into the soil but only does so coastally. It means that crops and livestock grown along the coasts have some quantity of iodine. Humans hunting and foraging along the coast will be sufficient in iodine, while populations migrating inland will not.

It also means that foods grown inland do not have iodine. This odd distribution for us land dwelling primates means that goiters are exceptionally common unless iodine is supplemented. Up to 25% of the population can develop goiters without iodine supplementation, a larger percentage experiencing lesser degrees of iodine deficiency without goiter.

In 1924, the FDA became aware of the studies that linked goiters to lack of iodine, reversed with iodine supplementation. That's why they passed a regulation encouraging salt manufacturers to add iodine, thought to be an easy and effective means for an uneducated, rural populace to obtain this essential nutrient. Their message: "Use more iodized salt. Keep your family goiter free!" That was actually the slogan on the Morton's iodized salt label, too.

It worked. The rampant goiters of the first half of the 20th century disappeared. Iodized salt was declared an incredible public health success story. Use more salt, use more salt.

You know the rest. Overuse of salt led to other issues, such as hypertension in genetically susceptible people, water retention, and other conditions of sodium overexposure. The FDA then advises Americans to slash their intake of sodium and salt . . . but make no mention of iodine.

So what recurs? Iodine deficiency and goiters. Sure, you eat seafood once or twice per week, maybe even have the nori (sheet seaweed) on your sushi once in a while . . . but that won't do it for most. Maybe you even sneak some iodized salt into your diet, but occasional use is insufficient, especially since the canister of iodized salt only contains iodine for around 4 weeks, given iodine's volatile nature. (Iodized salt did work when everybody in the house salted their food liberally and Mom had to buy a new canister every few weeks.)

Iodine deficiency is common and increasing in prevalence, given the widespread avoidance of iodized salt. So what happens when you become iodine deficient? Here's a partial list:

--Weight loss is stalled or you gain weight despite your efforts.
--Heart disease risk is escalated
--Total and LDL cholesterol and triglyceride values increase
--Risk of fibrocystic breast disease and possibly breast cancer increase (breast tissue concentrates iodine)
--Gingivitis and poor oral health increase (salivary glands concentrate iodine)

(Naturopathic doctor Lyn Patrick, ND, has written a very nice summary available here.)

So how do you ensure that you obtain sufficient iodine every day? You could, of course, eat something from the ocean every day, such as coastal populations such as the Japanese do. Or you could take an inexpensive iodine supplement. You can get iodine in a multivitamin, multimineral, or iodine drops, tablets, or capsules.

What is the dose? Here's where we get very iffy. We know that the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA), the intake to not have a goiter, is 150 mcg per day for adults (220 mcg for pregnant females, 290 mcg for lactating females). Most supplements therefore contain this quantity.

But what if our question is what is the quantity of iodine required for ideal thyroid function and overall health? Ah, that's where the data are sketchy. We know, for instance, that the Japanese obtain somewhere between 3,500 and 13,000 mcg per day (varying widely due to different habits and locations). Are they healthier than us? Yes, quite a bit healthier, though there may be other effects to account for this, such as a culture of less sweet foods and more salty, less wheat consumption, etc. There are advocates in the U.S., such as Dr. David Brownstein in Michigan, who argues that some people benefit by taking doses in the 30,000 to 50,000 mcg per day range (monitored with urinary iodine levels).

As is often the case with nutrients, we lack data to help us decide where the truly ideal level of intake lies. So I have been using and advocating intakes of 500 to 1000 mcg per day from iodine capsules, tablets, or drops. A very easy way to get this dose of iodine is in the form of kelp tablets, i.e., dried seaweed, essentially mimicking the natural means of intake that also provides iodine in all its varied forms (iodide, sodium iodate, potassium iodide, potassium iodate, iodinated proteins, etc.) This has worked out well with no ill effects.

The only concern with iodine is in people with Hashimoto's thyroiditis or (rarely) an overactive thyroid nodule. Anyone with these conditions should only undertake iodine replacement carefully and under supervision (monitoring thyroid hormone levels).

Iodine is inexpensive, safe, and essential to health and weight management. If it were a drug, it would enjoy repeated expensive marketing and a price tag around $150 per month. But it is an essential nutrient that enjoys none of the attention-getting advantages of drugs, and therefore is unlikely to be mentioned by your doctor, yet carries great advantage for helping to maintain overall health.

Track Your Plaque's new and proprietary formulation, AGF Factor I, is designed to to support a program to achieve low levels of endogenous glycation.

Endogenous glycation, discussed at length in a recent Track Your Plaque Special Report, makes LDL particles (especially small LDL particles) more prone to oxidation and thereby more atherogenic, i.e., more likely to contribute to atherosclerotic plaque. Endogenous glycation also exerts unhealthy effects on long-lived proteins in the body, such as the proteins in the lenses of your eyes (cataracts), the lining of arteries (hypertension), and the cartilage cells of joints (brittle cartilage and arthritis).

Endogenous glycation is reduced by slashing carbohydrates in the diet, especially the most offensive carbohydrates of all, the amylopectin A of wheat, sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup and other fructose sources. Endogenous glycation can also be blocked by using blockers of the glycation reaction, such as benfotiamine (lipid-soluble thiamine), pyridoxal-5'-phosphate (a form of vitamin B6 with greater glycation blocking effect), and chlorogenic acid from green coffee beans, all components of AGF Factor I, which also contains Portulaca oleracea (Portusana), or purslane, for reduction of glucose.

Green coffee bean extract, and thereby chlorogenic acid, is receiving increased attention, most recently due to a study demonstrating substantial weight loss with 750-1050 mg green coffee bean extract, providing approximately 325-500 mg chlorogenic acid per day. Participants lost 15.4 pounds over 8 weeks at the higher dose (500 mg chlorogenic acid per day), while participants lost 8.8 pounds over 8 weeks at the lower dose (325 mg chlorogenic acid per day).

AGF Factor I was not formulated for weight loss but, taken twice or three times per day, does indeed mimic the dose of chlorogenic acid from green coffee bean extract used in the weight loss study. If you wish to take advantage of this application of chlorogenic acid/green coffee bean extract, while also maximizing protection from endogenous glycation, our AGF Factor I is one excellent choice to do so.

I just returned from Jimmy Moore's Low-carb Cruise, a 7-day excursion to Jamaica, Grand Cayman Island, and Cozumel aboard the Carnival Magic. During our 7 wonderful days, a number of authors and experts spoke, each offering their unique perspective on the low-carb world. The focus was the science, experience, and practical application of low-carbohydrate diets.

The event kicked off with a roast by Tom Naughton of Fat Head fame, who entertained with his insightful low-carb humor and predictions of my demise at the hands of Monsanto!

Among the most important lessons provided:

Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt of the Diet Doctor blog discussed how Sweden is leading the world as the nation with the most vigorous low-carbohydrate following, witnessing incredible weight loss and reversal of carbohydrate-related diseases way ahead of the U.S. experience. I spent several hours with Dr. Eenfeldt who, besides being an engaging speaker, is a new father and an all-around gentleman. At 6 ft, 7 inches, he also towered high above all of us.

Dr. Eric Westman of Duke University and author of The New Atkins for a New You, debunked low-carbohydrate myths, such as "low-carb diets are high-protein diets that make your kidneys explode."

Dr. John Briffa, creator of the popular blog, Dr. John Briffa: A Good Look at Good Health, and author of the wonderfully straightforward primer to low-carbohydrate eating, Escape the Diet Trap, stressed the importance of never allowing hunger to rule behavior. Dr. Briffa's serious writing tone conceals an incredible charm and wit that took me by surprise, having spent several thoroughly engaging hours over breakfast, lunch, and dinner with him over the week.

Fred Hahn, exercise expert, founder of Serious Strength and author of Slow Burn Fitness Revolution and Strong Kids, Healthy Kids, debunked a number of trendy exercise methods, boiling many of the purported benefits of exercise down to that of increased strength.

Dr. Chris Masterjohn of The Daily Lipid and supporter of the Weston A. Price Foundation program, provided a comprehensive overview of the data that fails to link saturated fat with heart disease. He also helped me understand the analytical techniques used in studies of advanced glycation end-products.

Denise Minger, brilliant young usurper of China Study dogma and blogger at Raw Foods SOS, proved an engaging speaker and a truly real person (since some critics of her analyses have actually questioned whether there was even such a person!). She also proved every bit as likable as she seems in her captivating blog discussions.

Dr. Jeff Volek, prolific researcher from University of Connecticut, author of over 200 studies validating low-carbohydrate diet effects, and author of the recently released book with Dr. Stephen Phinney, The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living, debunked myths behind carbohydrate dependence and "loading" by athletes. He also talked about how assessing blood ketones may be the gold standard method to ensure low-grade ketosis on a long-term low-carb effort.

Over a bottle of wine, Jimmy Moore and I reminisced over how his modest start with no experience in blogging or media has now ballooned to an audience of over 100,000 readers/viewers.

All in all, Jimmy's Low-carb Cruise experience was worth every minute, with many wonderful lessons and memories!

Looking for something hot and crunchy?

These chili sesame crackers are perfect for dipping into hummus or salsa. As written, the recipe yields a moderately spicy cracker that you can modify readily by increasing or decreasing quantities of cayenne pepper and Tabasco sauce.

This recipe uses sesame seeds as the "flour." Either brown sesame seeds or the lighter version work, though the lighter seeds yield a slightly less bitter flavor with the spices.

For ease of baking, a shallow baking pan measuring 11 x 17 inches works best, as it allows the batter to fill the pan and spread to a cracker thickness. With a smaller pan, you may have to bake in two batches.

Makes approximately 30 chips

2 cups raw sesame seeds
1 cup shredded Parmesan cheese
2 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
1 tablespoon chili powder
½ teaspoon cayenne pepper
2 teaspoons onion powder
1 teaspoon garlic powder
1 teaspoon dry mustard
1 teaspoon sea salt
1 teaspoon Tabasco sauce
1¼ cups water

Preheat oven to 350º F.

In food chopper or food processor, grind 1¼ cups sesame seeds to fine meal. Remove and place in large bowl.

Place shredded Parmesan cheese in food chopper or food processor and pulse briefly until reduced to granular consistency. Add to sesame seed meal and mix. Stir in olive oil.

Add remaining (unground) sesame seeds, chili powder, cayenne pepper, onion and garlic powder, mustard, sea salt and mix thoroughly. Add Tabasco sauce and water and mix. Add additional water, if necessary, one tablespoon at a time, to obtain a consistency similar to pancake batter.

Pour mixture into baking pan and smooth to fill pan and obtain a thickness of a cracker. If too thick, remove some batter and re-smooth. Optionally, roll a clean cylindrical glass or bottle over top to smooth and yield a consistent thickness.

Bake for 30 minutes or until edges browned and center firm. If a dry, extra crunchy cracker is designed, bake an additional 10-15 minutes at 250 degrees F.

Remove and allow to cool. Cut with pizza cutter to desired size.

There are four values typically reported on any standard cholesterol panel:

Although it is a central premise of the whole Wheat Belly argument and the starting strategy in the New Track Your Plaque Diet, I fear that some people haven't fully gotten the message:

Modern wheat is an opiate.

And, of course, I don't mean that wheat is an opiate in the sense that you like it so much that you feel you are addicted. Wheat is truly addictive.

Wheat is addictive in the sense that it comes to dominate thoughts and behaviors. Wheat is addictive in the sense that, if you don't have any for several hours, you start to get nervous, foggy, tremulous, and start desperately seeking out another "hit" of crackers, bagels, or bread, even if it's the few stale 3-month old crackers at the bottom of the box. Wheat is addictive in the sense that there is a distinct withdrawal syndrome characterized by overwhelming fatigue, mental "fog," inability to exercise, even depression that lasts several days, occasionally several weeks. Wheat is addictive in the sense that the withdrawal process can be provoked by administering an opiate-blocking drug such as naloxone or naltrexone.

But the "high" of wheat is not like the high of heroine, morphine, or Oxycontin. This opiate, while it binds to the opiate receptors of the brain, doesn't make us high. It makes us hungry.

This is the effect exerted by gliadin, the protein in wheat that was inadvertently altered by geneticists in the 1970s during efforts to increase yield. Just a few shifts in amino acids and gliadin in modern high-yield, semi-dwarf wheat became a potent appetite stimulant.

Wheat stimulates appetite. Wheat stimulates calorie consumption: 440 more calories per day, 365 days per year, for every man, woman, and child. (440 calories per person per day is the average.) We experience this, sense the weight gain that is coming and we push our plate away, settle for smaller portions, increase exercise more and more . . . yet continue to gain, and gain, and gain. Ask your friends and neighbors who try to include more "healthy whole grains" in their diet. They exercise, eat a "well-balanced diet" . . . yet gained 10, 20, 30, 70 pounds over the past several years. Accuse your friends of drinking too much Coca Cola by the liter bottle, or being gluttonous at the all-you-can-eat buffet and you will likely receive a black eye. Many of these people are actually trying quite hard to control impulse, appetite, portion control, and weight, but are losing the battle with this appetite-stimulating opiate in wheat.

Ignorance of the gliadin effect of wheat is responsible for the idiocy that emits from the mouths of gastroenterologists like Dr. Peter Green of Columbia University who declares:

"We tell people we don't think a gluten-free diet is a very healthy diet . . . Gluten-free substitutes for food with gluten have added fat and sugar. Celiac patients often gain weight and their cholesterol levels go up. The bulk of the world is eating wheat. The bulk of people who are eating this are doing perfectly well unless they have celiac disease."

In the simple minded thinking of the gastroenterology and celiac world, if you don't have celiac disease, you should eat all the wheat you want . . . and never mind about the appetite-stimulating effects of gliadin, not to mention the intestinal disruption and leakiness generated by wheat lectins, or the high blood sugars and insulin of the amylopectin A of wheat, or the new allergies being generated by the new alpha amylases of modern wheat.

What if I said: "Eliminate all wheat from your diet and replace it with all the jelly beans and ice cream you want."

That would be stupid, wouldn't it? Eliminate one rotten thing in diet--modern high-yield, semi-dwarf wheat products that stimulate appetite (via gliadin), send blood sugar through the roof (via amylopectin A), and disrupt the normal intestinal barriers to foreign substances (via the lectin, wheat germ agglutinin)--and replace it with something else that has its own set of problems, in this case sugary foods. How about a few other stupid replacements: Replace your drunken, foul-mouthed binges with wife beating? Replace cigarette smoking with excessive bourbon?

Sugary carbohydrate-rich foods like jelly beans and ice cream are not good for us because:

1) High blood sugar causes endogenous glycation, i.e, glucose modification of long-lived proteins in the body. Glycate the proteins in the lenses of your eyes, you get cataracts. Glycate cartilage proteins in the cartilage of your hips and knees, you get brittle cartilage that erodes and causes arthritis. Glycate structural proteins in your arteries and you get hypertension (stiff arteries) and atherosclerosis. Small LDL particles--the #1 cause of heart disease in the U.S. today--are both triggered by blood sugar rises and are 8-fold more prone to glycation (and thereby oxidation).

2) High blood sugar is inevitably accompanied by high blood insulin. Repetitive surges in insulin lead to <em>insulin resistance</em>, i.e., muscles, liver, and fat cells unresponsive to insulin. This forces your poor tired pancreas to produce even more insulin, which causes even more insulin resistance, and round and round in a vicious cycle. This leads to visceral fat accumulation (Jelly Bean Belly!), which is highly inflammatory, further worsening insulin resistance via various inflammatory mediators like tumor necrosis factor.

3) Sugary foods, i.e., sucrose- or high-fructose corn syrup-sweetened, are sources of fructose, a truly very, very bad sugar that is metabolized via a completely separate pathway from glucose. Fructose is 10-fold more likely to induce glycation of proteins than glucose. It also provokes a (delayed) rise in insulin resistance, accumulation of triglycerides, marked increase in formation of small LDL particles, and delayed postprandial (after-eating) clearance of the lipoprotein byproducts of meals, all of which leads to diabetes, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

I think we can all agree that replacing wheat with jelly beans and ice cream is not a good solution. And, no, we shouldn't have drunken binges, wife beating, smoking or bourbon to excess. So why does the "gluten-free" community advocate replacing wheat with products made with:

rice starch, tapioca starch, potato starch, and cornstarch?

These powdered starches are among the few foods that increase blood sugar (and thereby provoke glycation and insulin) higher than even the amylopectin A of wheat! For instance, two slices of whole wheat bread typically increase blood sugar in a slender, non-diabetic person to around 170 mg/dl. Two slices of gluten-free, multigrain bread will increase blood sugar typically to 180-190 mg/dl.

The fatal flaw in thinking surrounding gluten-free junk carbohydrates is this: If a food lacks some undesirable ingredient, then it must be good. This is the same fatally flawed thinking that led people to believe, for instance, that Snack Well low-fat cookies were healthy: because they lacked fat. Or processed foods made with hydrogenated oils were healthy because they lacked saturated fat.

So gluten-free foods made with junk carbohydrates are good because they lack gluten? No. Gluten-free foods made with rice starch, tapioca starch, potato starch, and cornstarch are destructive foods that NOBODY should be eating.

This is why the recipes for muffins, cupcakes, cookies, etc. in this blog, the Track Your Plaque website, and the Track Your Plaque Cookbook are wheat- and gluten-free and free of gluten-free junk carbohydrates. And put that bottle of Jim Beam down!

Where do you find fructose?

Do heart scans cause cancer?

Goodbye, fructose

The statin-free life

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

Roger's near-miss CT angiogram experience

The Myth of Prevention: Letter to the Wall Street Journal

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

Sleep: A to Zzzzzzzzzz

What WERE they thinking

Green Tea Ginger Orange Bread

Chocolate Bomb Bars

An iodine primer

Green coffee bean extract in AGF Factor I

Lessons learned from the 2012 Low-carb Cruise

Chili Sesame Crackers

The standard cholesterol panel . . . dissected

Opiate of the masses

Jelly beans and ice cream