Fatal underdose

27. April 2008 William Davis (8)
Since vitamin D has been the topic of a fair amount of media coverage, I've received many questions about this fascinating "nutrient." A day doesn't go by without several nurses, friends, even fellow physicians stopping me to ask about vitamin D.

When I inform them that the average dose for females in this region (upper Midwest) is 4000-5000 units per day, 5000-6000 units per day for males, they are all surprised. "Then why did they say just take your multivitamin every day, or just drink your milk on the news?"

Many people are even more surprised, sometimes completely turned off, when they hear that, to be truly confident of adequate vitamin D dosing, a blood level of 25(OH) vitamin D3 needs to be checked. Now we're talking real hassle!

But there is no other way to do it. In order to obtain the full potential benefits of vitamin D, such as reduction in blood sugar and sensitization to insulin, reduction in cancer risk (especially prostate, colon, and breast), reductions in blood pressure, increased bone density, not to mention markedly increasing the likelihood of stopping or reducing your heart scan score, then achieving a desirable blood level of 25(OH) vitamin D is necessary.

Checking a blood level of vitamin D is no more difficult than having a cholesterol test, unless, of course, your doctor balks at the idea. (Time for a new doctor if that occurs.)

All too often, someone will be convinced they are taking a sufficient dose of vitamin D of, say 2000 units per day, only to discover that their blood level of 25(OH) vitamin D is something like 17 ng/ml--severe deficiency, sufficient to leave them exposed to all the undesirable consequences of vitamin D deficiency. Even though 2000 units per day represents 500% of the Institute of Medicine's recommended Adequate Intake for adults, to those familiar with the Track Your Plaque program it likely sounds like a child's dose.

Many variables enter into the equation in your body that determines your need for vitamin D: body size (heavier or larger people need more, with obese people often requiring enormous doses); sex (men need more than women); age (aging results in dramatic loss of ability to activate vitamin D in the skin); race; skin color (darker skinned people require more). Trying to guess your need is a fool's game. It's also a game that can seriously compromise your health and your hopes of ever stopping or reducing your heart scan score.



The message is clear: You cannot guess what your vitamin D need is. You cannot properly judge your vitamin D requirement by your age, body size, sex, or any other characteristic. Having a tan or a lack of a tan is a lousy indicator, as well. A simple blood level of 25(OH) vitamin D is an absolute necessity to gauge your vitamin D status, both before starting and while on your supplement.

Members of Track Your Plaque: Watch for the 30-some page booklet, The Track Your Plaque Complete Handbook on Vitamin D and Heart Health, which will be released in the next day or two.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Is direct-to-consumer drug marketing a failure?

23. April 2008 William Davis (4)
According to the poll just completed by 80 participants on The Heart Scan Blog, 50% of respondents said they were less likely to take a drug after viewing an advertisement for it. A whopping 3 (4%) said that they would be more likely to take the drug after viewing an advertisement.

I find that interesting. If half the people responding are less likely to become customers of a drug company, then how does the drug industry justify running around-the-clock, every-few-minute ads? Spending by the drug industry for direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising has ballooned over the past few years, and is now well over $30 billion dollars per year.

Unfortunately, despite the views of the highly-educated, curious, think-for-yourself, health information-seeking sorts of people who read this blog, drug companies still come out on top by DTC advertising. Estimates vary, with a 2006 U.S. Government Accountability Office study reporting that, for every $1 DTC advertising, sales are increased by $2.20. A 2000 Harvard study showed a higher return of $4.40 for every advertising dollar spent.

I'm sure the drug companies themselves have a very tight accounting handle on their own set of figures. We may not be terribly fond of these people and their often suspect tactics, but they're not stupid. They are certainly not stupid when it comes to making money.

Interestingly, 80% of the funds spent on DTC advertising focus on the 20 or so most popular drugs, all of which are used for treatment of chronic conditions like high cholesterol and high blood pressure, markets that are large and long-term. It pays very little to advertise drugs that may serve small markets for a short period. The implicit message is that this is not at all about informing the public. It is about advertising to grow revenues and profits--pure and simple.

It makes me wonder what the results of our poll would have been had we conducted it in 2000 before many people hadn't yet been brought to the brink of vomiting from the endless onslaught of commercial after commercial, complete with smarmy spokespeople (a la Lipitor's Dr. Robert Jarvik). What will it show in two years? Will the broader public join the more informed people who read this blog and become increasingly inured to the hard sell tactics?

For further discussion of this topic, click here for a reprint of an August, 2007 New England Journal of Medicine study, A Decade of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs provides background, along with commentary on the impact of DTC drug marketing since the FDA allowed it 10 years ago. (Because it is a study and not an editorial, the editors fall short of making any recommendations for improvement or calling for a moratorium.)


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Cheerios and heart health

22. April 2008 William Davis (11)


Anna responded to the Heart Scan Blog post, Can you say "sugar"? with the following wonderfully telling comment:

A measured bowl of Cheerios and a bit of milk (whole, because it's what I had), equal to 75 grams of carbohydrate, gave me the highest ever blood glucose reading from a food (not counting glucose solution from a Glucose Tolerance Test). I was attempting a "homemade" version of a 3 hr GTT before going to my doctor with my concerns about my BG.

My BG started to rise very fast within 15 minutes after eating the cereal, peaked at about 250 mg/dL at 45 minutes, then slowly dropped. By about 60-75 minutes, I experienced strong hunger and carb cravings as the BG began to slowly drop, and by about 2.5 hours after eating, my BG had suddenly dropped quite low (in the low 70s) and I had developed a nasty hypoglycemic feeling (shaky, irritable, craving sugary foods, headache, etc.).

It's hard for me to see "heart healthy" Cheerios (or any other highly processed breakfast cereal) as anything other than a bowl of pre-digested sugar that contributes to roller coaster blood glucose and insulin levels, which a great way to start anyone's day. Certainly, I don't do well with Cheerios because I clearly have a damaged glucose regulatory system (probably a diminished or absent first phase insulin response, but I can't imagine that it is doing any good for people with healthy glucose regulation, either.

I banned prepared cold cereals from our house. If my 9 yr old son gets cereal at all at home, it's whole groats (not even rolled or steel cut because those aren't truly "whole grain" anymore), soaked overnight in some water and a tsp of plain yogurt (soaking neutralizes phytates and reduces cooking time), then cooked about 8-10 minutes (water added as necessary). Sometimes I add a bit of quinoa or almond meal prior to soaking to boost the protein content a bit. I garnish with a pat of butter, some heavy cream, and a dusting of cinnamon. If I'm feeling *really* indulgent, I drizzle about 1 tsp of Grade B maple syrup on top (Grade B is stronger in flavor and so less can be used). I don't eat this cereal myself, and truthfully, I'd rather my son not, either, but he sometimes wants cereal. It's the least damaging compromise I can come up with that we can both live with.


I have also seen diabetic effects from Cheerios: rises in blood sugar, exagerration of small LDL, drops in HDL, rises in triglycerides. Yes, it may reduce LDL a small quantity, but so what?

The Cheerios "heart healthy" claim is based on a piece of research apparently performed by Dr. Donald Hunninghake at the University of Minnesota and reported in 1998:

A study conducted at the University of Minnesota Heart Disease Prevention Clinic and published as "Cholesterol-Lowering Benefits of a Whole Grain Oat Ready-to-Eat Cereal" in the May issue of the Nutrition in Clinical Care journal in 1998, showed that people can lower their blood cholesterol by an average of 3.8% over six weeks by enjoying 3 cups of cold cereal made with 100% whole grain oats everyday as part of the meals and snacks in a healthy lower-fat diet.

(Unfortunately, I could not locate the actual publication. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist; I just couldn't locate it. Perhaps it's in a small journal not entered into the online publication database.)

The purported effects of Cheerios should not be confused with that of actual, intact oat bran, as suggested by studies such as those of Brenda Davy et al, High-fiber oat cereal compared with wheat cereal consumption favorably alters LDL-cholesterol subclass and particle numbers in middle-aged and older men, in which significant reductions in LDL particle number and small LDL (NMR) were obtained. (This study was also supported by Quaker Oats.) Several studies have shown that oat bran does indeed reduce LDL cholesterol, sometimes as much as 30-50 mg/dl. Cheerios can not even come close to this.

If Cheerios were nothing more than finely pulverized oats, then perhaps it wouldn't be so bad. But add corn starch and sugar, and you have ingredients that have potential to distort LDL particle size and yield blood sugar-escalating effects like those described by Anna.

The gravity of perpetuating these myths is brought home by a testimonial posted on the website for Cheerios:

“I had unexpected open heart surgery a year ago. As I adopted heart health habits during my recovery, I realized that I should have been eating the Cheerios cereal I carried around in a plastic baggie so many years for my kids!”

Beverly
Scotch Plains, NJ


It makes me shudder.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

The IF Life: Intermittent fasting

21. April 2008 William Davis (4)
There's a wonderful blog called The IF Life: Intermittent Fasting and Instant Freedom. It is written by personal trainer (and apparently former corporate bigshot), Mike O'Donnell.

Mike has a great take on brief, intermittent fasting that I found helpful and I believe you will also.






Intermitent Fasting 101: How to Start, Part I

The biggest question people have is how to effectively use IF (intermittent fasting) to achieve their goals and maximum results. These results and goals can vary by each person with fat loss, muscle gain, better health, improved performance in your sport of choice and more. With that comes the individuality of what is a person’s insulin resistance, current body composition (bodyfat%), daily lifestyle, eating habits, macronutrient ratios (carbs/protein/fat), type of exercise program, frequency and volume of training, recovery demands, and so forth. You are unlikely to find 2 people with the same set of parameters and same exact responses to an IF protocol. What does this mean? Well just that we need to start with a basic IF program, and then learn how to monitor results and adjust as we go. Even down the road things will change as you will improve health, lower insulin resistance and maybe change performance and recovery needs. So nothing is ever just one set way. Life is dynamic (always changing and evolving) and so should be the way we see our own journey for health and fitness.

What is IF?

For those that may not be familiar to the term, intermittent fasting is just taking times of fast (no food) and working them into your lifestyle. This can be either daily or a couple times a week (will get into that more below). Benefits include improving insulin resistance (which you will hear alot about as being the #1 key marker in so many health factors including weight loss, muscle gain, performance, recovery, anti-ageing and disease prevention) and giving the body a chance to do some internal cleaning (or housework), which can lead to improved immune function and overall health. If you want to see studies of all the benefits of IF/CR, please the resources page.


How do I begin to IF?

Is there only one set way in which to do IF? No. I could easily come up with 10 different IF protocols based on 10 people’s individual’s needs, lifestyle, exercise, goal, macronutrient ratios, and so forth. We will keep it simple and give the 2 most frequent and basic options.

Daily Fasting: Typically done every day and only giving the person a smaller eating window in which to get their calories. (for example, a 18hr daily fast would mean someone would only eat every day between the hours of Noon and 6pm). You will see varying times from 15-19 hours for daily fasting.
Fasting 1-3x a week: This could also be called alternate day fasting/calorie restriction (for those doing it every other day). This is just fasting of usually longer periods 18-24 hours but only 1-3x a week. Many variations to play with here.
“But which one is better and how to I do it now if I want…….”. Whoa, slow down. I know many have questions but let’s still try to keep this simple for now and expand into more specifics later. So far many people have experimented with both types of IF and have seen great results. But you also have to take into account all the other variables such as what is the person eating in that window? Is is junk food? Is it low carb? How many times a week are they doing it? Are they overweight and wanting just fat loss? Are they lower bodyfat but looking for improved performance and health? How many times a week are they exercising? What kind are they doing and what intensity? The list can go on and on, but let’s start to analyze the 2 types of IF and let you decide which one best suits your lifestyle.

Daily Fasting (15-19 hours):

The Advantages are:

--simple eating strategies for every day
--even people that may not eat 100% clean foods can see weight loss due to the smaller window and lower calorie total per day


The Disadvantages are:

--Can possibly lower metabolism if calories are too low for too long (not what you want if your #1 goal is weight loss)
--Not getting enough food in the smaller window may also lead to muscle loss for more active people (not good)
Fasting 1-3x a week:


The advantages are:

--Allows a person to make sure they are getting enough calories on the non-fasting days, and then just keeps to a simple small feed window (if any) on the IF days.
--Simple thinking for people who do not have experience in how to eat clean to eat one day, and then eat in a smaller window the following day (alternate day fasting/CR). This can achieve fat loss for people who are mostly overweight and may not be too active. (of course don’t get me wrong, that eating healthy is our main goal but this can be a good step for some people to start their weight loss jounrey and learn how to make better choices as they go)


Disadvantages:

--Doesn’t force a person to make better choices with their food (as one could probably eat junk one day, and then fast the next and still lose weight). Not something we want long term because this is not going to improve your other health markers (diseases prevention, insulin resistance) like a good IF program on healthy foods.


Again I can’t say it enough, as there are so many variables to play with in an IF program. Some people may say “well it didn’t work for me” or “I didn’t gain any muscle”. Well unless I know everything about what you do for exercise daily, your total calories, when you eat and your macronutrient ratios (protein/carbs/fats), I can’t even begin to help. IF is a simple tool to start with, but you have to take full responsibility for your own health and progress and learn when it is not working and when to change things up! Like I said, if it is NOT working then stop IF and rethink your attack plan (or get a professional to coach you on it).

So to sum up, here are some examples of what you can play with:

Daily Fasting of 15-19 hours. I would highly suggest that if you do this make sure you are recovering from your exercise and start only Mon-Fri and give yourself the weekends to eat all day (hopefully with healthy choices of course)


Fast 1-2x a week to start if you have never done any fasting or do not know how to eat healthy and control your macronutrients. Start with 1-2 days a week with fasts of 18-20 hours (I wouldn’t start with 24 hr fasts to begin as most people can not handle the hunger cravings and in turn will just end up eating all the wrong foods when they do eat) and say eat only from say 1pm-6pm for example. Drink lots of water (add lemon, your liver will appreciate it! and it will help with the hunger). For example, fast Wed and Sun (or whatever days fit into your schedule)

Or you can do a mixed approach and fast every other day for a small eating window. For example eat all day Mon, only 12-6pm on Tues, all day Wed, 12-6pm on Thurs, etc. Start with bigger eating windows and make them smaller as you get used to fasting. This approach may work for people who have alot of weight to lose and can not (I should really say “will not” as everything is a choice!) eat 100% healthy for the moment. This approach may not work for more advanced people who have a high activity level unless you are getting a ton of health calories in that fasting window.
“So What Do I Eat on the Fasting Days?”

That’s the best part, you should be able to eat unlimited healthy foods (healthy proteins, fats, veggies, fruit, nuts…see Paleo Diet in the resources page). If you are eating more processed foods, breads and other high calorie intakes then you may have to monitor and control portions. Please know this is NOT about chronic calorie restriction or starving yourself. When I do weeks of eating 1-7pm, I am eating a ton of protein and veggies (complex carbs pwo also). I am hardly starving myself. I am not taking in 4000 cal a day however, so my daily average of say 2200-2500 cal is still low compared to the alternative. If you want to lose weight of course you will need a calorie deficit to pull the “stored energy” out of fat cells. That is the advantage to eating “Paleo”, you can’t over eat on protein, healthy fats, fruits (in moderation) and veggies. If you are making bad choices or starving yourself on IF, you may lose the effectiveness or slow progress. All goes back to the fact that if it is not working, then change something up! (there is always something that can be changed…and food choices is the #1 place to start!) I don’t count calories, and by eating natural foods that have been around for 100s of years….I don’t need to! (eating healthy natural foods will not only help you lose weight but also improve your health and lower your risks of diseases….so eating for health should always be the #1 goal in any program)

Hopefully this will give a good overview while trying to keep it simple. Remember it’s your journey to take, measure progress and adjust things that are not working. Start with one approach, and modify it. Who knows, your approach may change every couple months and that is ok. Life is always changing and so should your approach to health and fitness (as the body always responds better to change than sticking with the same eating/exercise approach for a long period of time).

Can you say "sugar"?

20. April 2008 William Davis (11)
All of these products bear the American Heart Association Check Mark of approval emblem, signifying that they are "heart healthy":


Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal

Ingredients:WHOLE GRAIN WHEAT, SUGAR, STRAWBERRY FLAVORED CRUNCHLETS (SUGAR, CORN CEREAL, CORN SYRUP, MODIFIED CORN STARCH, PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED COTTONSEED AND/OR SOYBEAN OIL, CITRIC ACID, GLYCERIN, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, RED #40, BLUE #2), NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL STRAWBERRY AND CREME FLAVOR, SORBITOL, GELATIN, REDUCED IRON, NIACINAMIDE, ZINC OXIDE, RED #40, PYRIDOXINE HYDROCHLORIDE (VITAMIN B6), RIBOFLAVIN (VITAMIN B2), THIAMIN HYDROCHLORIDE (VITAMIN B1), FOLIC ACID, BLUE #1, AND VITAMIN B12. TO MAINTAIN QUALITY, BHT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE PACKAGING.










Orville Redenbacher popcorns









Dora the Explorer Cereal
























Cheerios
























The following requirements must be met to gain approval of the Check Mark program:

1) total fat 3.0 grams or less per serving

2) saturated fat 1.0 gram or less per serving

3) 20 grams or less cholesterol per serving

4) 480 mg or less sodium per serving

5) "Jelly Bean Rule": 10% of the Daily Value of 6 nutrients (e.g., fiber, vitamins A and C, etc.) must also be contained in each serving.


Had the Check Mark program focused on genuine nutrition and rated products by:

1) Healthy oil content

2) Sugar content or sugar-equivalents, i.e., glycemic index or load

3) Impact on HDL, small LDL, triglycerides

none of these products would have made the list, not even close.

Warfarin is scary stuff

19. April 2008 William Davis (16)
Gilbert is a 58-year old high school science teacher.

When I first met Gil, he'd been having bouts of atrial fibrillation and had required various medications to suppress recurrences of the rhythm. However, because his rhythm proved somewhat difficult to control, his electrophysiologist (heart rhythm specialist) prescribed warfarin to reduce the risk of stroke. With atrial fibrillation, because of blood stagnation (in the left atrial appendage) in the heart, there is a stroke risk of approximately 8% per year. Warfarin reduces this risk substantially, to about 2%.

I met Gil because he had a cholesterol disorder. In my practice, the first step in gauging the implications of a lipid or lipoprotein disorder is to obtain a heart scan. If the heart scan score is zero, great. It means that we have plenty of time to treat the disorder since risk for cardiovascular events is near zero also; it means less intensive efforts less intensive efforts are necessary. But if the heart scan score is, say, 1200, then an aggressive approach in short order is required, since the risk for heart attack may as high as 20-25% per year, even in the absence of symptoms.

Gil's heart scan score: 787--high and posing a risk for heart attack of about 5-10% per year without preventive efforts. Gil did indeed prove to have a complex lipoprotein disorder, as well as high blood pressure, vitamin D deficiency, and several other potential contributors to coronary plaque.

Gil did just about everything right: He exercised, followed the recommended diet, achieved better than the Track Your Plaque 60-60-60, lost 18 lbs of abdominal fat.

Gil's rhythm stabilized for several months, only to have atrial fibrillation break through again. So Gil's electrophysiologist re-prescribed warfarin.

18 months later, Gil's 2nd heart scan score: 1410--a near doubling. Unsettling to Gil and to us, to say the least.

How can this happen in the face of perfect lipids/lipoproteins, correction of hidden causes like lipoprotein(a) and inflammation, along with a vigorous lifestyle effort?

I fear that the culprit might be warfarin.

Warfarin, better known by its brand name, Coumadin, may have some effects that intersect with the Track Your Plaque mission of reducing coronary plaque.

It is no secret that, beyond the obvious risk of bleeding from blood thinning, warfarin also may:

--Accelerate aortic valve calcification
--Accelerate calcification of the framework of the mitral valve (the mitral "anulus")
--Accelerate osteoporosis
--Induce an artificial situation of vitamins K1 and K2 deficiency.

The vitamin K1 deficiency is the route by which blood thinning is achieved. However, the K2 deficiency may have undesirable consequences, among which are the above list of various pathologic calcifications.

I therefore wonder if warfarin dramatically accelerated the coronary calcium that we track to gauge the progression of coronary atherosclerosis. One experience is hardly sufficient reason to sound the alarm. It is also difficult to pinpoint the cause of the explosive growth in Gil's coronary calcium specifically on warfarin.

That all said, I am quite certain it was the warfarin.

Unfortunately, some people are unavoidably committed to warfarin, such as those with specific genetic blood clotting disorders, prosthetic valves, prior deep vein thromboses and pulmonary emboli, etc.--serious reasons. Until an alternative emerges, warfarin remains a necessity for some people. (No, nattokinase is NOT an alternative, at least not one that would permit survival.)

My personal policy is that warfarin be used only when absolutely necessary and the gains markedly outweight the risks--including that of possible accelerated calcification of multiple sites.

Whether we will be able to get Gil off warfarin and potentially gain control over his coronary disease/plaque/calcium remains to be seen. I sure hope so.




Caraballo PJ, Heit JA, Atkinson EJ et al. Long-term use of oral anticoagulants and the risk of fracture. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159 (15): 1750–6. PMID 10448778.

Pilon D, Castilloux AM, Dorais M, LeLorier J. Oral anticoagulants and the risk of osteoporotic fractures among elderly. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004;13(5): 289–294.PMID 15133779.

Gage BF, Birman-Deych E, Radford MJ, Nilasena DS, Binder EF. Risk of osteoporotic fracture in elderly patients taking warfarin: results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation 2. Arch Intern Med 2004; 166(2):241–246.PMID 16432096.



Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Lipoprotein(a) Research Foundation

16. April 2008 William Davis (18)
There is no longer any doubt that lipoprotein(a) is a major causal factor in heart disease:

Meta-analysis (combined re-analysis) of 27 prospective studies:
Danesh J et al. Lipoprotein(a) and Coronary Heart Disease: Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies


Lp(a) and "subclinical" atherosclerosis
Brown SA et al. The relation of lipoprotein[a] concentrations and apolipoprotein[a] phenotypes with asymptomatic atherosclerosis in subjects of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study.

Lp(a) and oxidized LDL
Tsimikas S et al. Oxidized phospholipids, Lp(a) lipoprotein, and coronary artery disease.

Lp(a) predicts peripheral vascular disease
Valentine RJ et al. Lp(a) lipoprotein is an independent, discriminating risk factor for premature peripheral atherosclerosis among white men.

Peltier M et al.Elevated serum lipoprotein(a) level is an independent marker of severity of thoracic aortic atherosclerosis.


Lp(a) across various populations
Gambhir JK et al. Association between lipoprotein(a) levels, apo(a) isoforms and family history of premature CAD in young Asian Indians.

Weber M et al. Metabolic factors clustering, lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, lipoprotein (a) and apolipoprotein E phenotypes in premature coronary artery disease in French Canadians.



Lp(a) and stroke risk
Jurgens G et al. Lipoprotein(a) serum concentration and apolipoprotein(a) phenotype correlate with severity and presence of ischemic cerebrovascular disease.

Willeit J et al. Lipoprotein(a) and asymptomatic carotid artery disease. Evidence of a prominent role in the evolution of advanced carotid plaques: the Bruneck Study.




From just about any direction, Lp(a) has been conclusively associated with atherosclerotic disease. We have more than enough data proving association.

But there are two areas of desperate need:

1) Data on effective treatments.

2) Raising awareness of this widely unknown (among the public) and ignored (among health professionals) genetic condition.

Treatment remains a real struggle. In a recent detailed Track Your Plaque Special Report, Unique Treatment Strategies for Lipoprotein(a) Reduction, we summarized the treatment approaches that have some power to reduce Lp(a) and/or its potential for causing heart disease. But, even armed with an appreciation for the world's scientific literature on this genetic condition, full control remains difficult for many people.

Track Your Plaque's HeartHawk has Lp(a) and he has struggled with this pattern for the last several years. He details some of his thoughts in a recent blog post.

More research and clinical studies are required and we need it soon if we hope to gain better control over this genetic pattern that affects up to 20% of people with coronary or vascular disease. Much of the needed research is sophisticated, background work similar to that being done by Dr. Santico Marcovina at University of Washington, Dr. Angelo Scanu at the University of Chicago, and Dr. Sally McCormick in New Zealand.

However, much of the needed research also consists of brief clinical experiences that detail whether or not there is an effect of various potential agents. Larger experiences, for instance, with potential treatment agents such as various phospholipid fractions, acetylcysteine, antibiotic regimens, some hormonal treatments, etc. could be performed quickly and simply. These studies would not require the $20 or $30 million typically spent by a drug company for a study, nor the several hundred million dollars to gain FDA approval of a new agent. They would simply be examinations of existing agents. These studies still cost money, require expertise, staff, and equipment. But the cost is a tiny fraction of the drug industry's investment in research. But it also means that investment return is nil from a drug manufacturer's perspective. Yet there are literally dozens, perhaps hundreds, of agents that hold some promise but have not been thoroughly studied.

For instance, if a specific modification of the phosphatidylcholine molecule were to generate a substantial Lp(a) reducing effect, Merck, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca would yawn--it is non-patent protectable, cannot be protected from competitors through the costly FDA approval process, and therefore is simply not worth their investment--regardless of whether it works or not.

(This is yet another example of how the drug industry, as well as hospitals and many health professionals, have lost sight of their real mission: to alleviate disease, not to profit from sickness.)

HeartHawk and I have discussed on a number of occasions whether a Lipoprotein(a) Research Foundation should be formed, an organization that seeks to fund the smaller research efforts that may accelerate productive research in Lp(a) and perhaps yield useful strategies faster than hoping for somebody to simply stumble on a treatment, or wait for the drug industry to create a unique, patentable entity that returns billions.

I'd like to propose that our Track Your Plaque program begin to fund such an effort. But a lot more help will be needed, particularly to generate the money to fund genuine, high-quality research from high-quality researchers.

If any readers of the Heart Scan Blog have any thoughts or insights into this process of creating a foundation, we'd appreciate your input.

More on ASTEROID

16. April 2008 William Davis (3)
Since we are on the topic of the ASTEROID trial and rosuvastatin, I'd make one more point before I start to sound like I'm plugging this drug (which I definitely am not).

In an informative Roundtable Discussion (open to subscribers to the American Journal of Cardiology; sorry) amongst Dr. Steve Nissen, principal investigator behind ASTEROID; and Drs. Vincent Friedewald, Christie Ballantyne, P. Shah, and William Roberts, Dr. Nissen made some interesting comments:


Dr. Shah: In ASTEROID, was the magnitude of atheroma volume change seen across different levels of LDL-C and HDL-C?

Dr. Nissen: No. There was no plaque regression seen in the 17 persons with LDL-Cs >/= 100 mg/dl, and there was little change in persons with LDL-Cs of 70 to 100 mg/dl. Only in persons with LDLs less than or equal to 70 mg/dl was there significant regression. The study was not powered to look for an HDL-C(which increased by 14.7%)-raising effect.



Interesting. In other words, ASTEROID, in a fairly internally consistent way, suggests that the lower the LDL is reduced, the more likely plaque regression is obtained. This is consistent with the Track Your Plaque experience, in which we've advocated reducing (calculated) LDL cholesterol to 60 mg/dl for the past several years.

Unfortunately, the message that the ASTEROID Trial sponsors, AstraZeneca, as well as the roundtable discussion panel (later in the discussion) try to make is that there is something magical about Crestor, that it yields benefits superior to other statin agents or other means of reducing LDL.

I disagree with this message. In the Track Your Plaque experience, we do aim for a similar LDL target. But we also employ a number of other strategies. We have also succeeded in regressing plaque without use of any statin drugs (though, admittedly, many people do require statin drugs to obtain LDLs in this range). We also witness magnitudes of reversal that often far exceed that seen in ASTEROID.

The Rountable Discussion is unfortunately tainted, as is the ASTEROID Trial itself, with deep drug industry financial involvement of the Roundtable participants. In fact, the discussion begins with a listing of the financial disclosures of the participants, a listing that occupies a full column of a two-column page. The potential biases of the participants doesn't necessarily invalidate the arguments, but to me suggests that participants are more likely to argue in favor of the sponsor's drug, or that participants were chosen because of these biases.

Why bother to even mention the ASTEROID Trial in a venue (the Heart Scan Blog, that is) that purports to seek unvarnished, unbiased truth in coronary plaque reversal? Because useful information can sometimes be found in unlikely places. Just like the four-year old child who blurts out an unexpected pearl of wisdom, so it can happen with the gobbledy-gook that emerges from the drug industry.

Every once in a while, they are worth paying attention to.

LDL cholesterol, statins, and plaque regression

13. April 2008 William Davis (12)
The ASTEROID Trial reported in 2006 examined the effects of LDL cholesterol reduction using the statin drug, rosuvastatin (Crestor), with coronary atherosclerosis quantified and tracked with intracoronary ultrasound. The Track Your Plaque report, New study confirms: LDL of 60 mg reverses plaque, on the ASTEROID Trial provides commentary on the results.


Though I remain skeptical that a statin-only treatment strategy can reverse coronary plaque in the majority of people, I do believe that the AstraZeneca-sponsored ASTEROID Trial does add to the wisdom on heart disease management. More importantly, it has served to raise awareness among both the public and my physician colleagues that atherosclerosis is indeed a potentially reversible condition.


Specifically, the ASTEROID results confirm that, either directly or indirectly, LDL cholesterol reduction achieved with statin agents does correspond to increasing degrees of plaque reversal. The mean (calculated) LDL cholesterol achieved in ASTEROID was 60 mg/dl, the same as the Track Your Plaque suggested LDL target.

Though the ASTEROID Trial is not news, I stumbled on a chart posted on the ASTEROID Trial website that clearly highlights how a number of other studies beyond ASTEROID have fallen into this pattern:





The graph reveals a linear relationship: The greater the reduction in LDL cholesterol with statin drugs, the greater the plaque regression ("change in percent atheroma volume"). (Several other studies not included in the graph also cluster into the same linear relationship.)

I am no supporter of drug companies, nor a defender of their policies and practices. But I do believe that their data can serve to teach us a few lessons. For instance, here is an (cherry-picked, to be sure) example of intracoronary ultrasound cross-sectional images before and after two years of rosuvastatin, 40 mg daily:





The color-coded/outlined atherosclerotic coronary plaque is shown shrinking, while the "lumen," or the path for blood to flow, enlarges. The reduction in coronary plaque is irrefutable. (The small circle within the lumen with the white halo surrounding it is the ultrasound catheter.)

If you and I were to choose a single treatment approach to coronary disease reversal, then 40 mg of rosuvastatin is probably at the top of the list. However, in the Track Your Plaque program, we do not advocate a single treatment strategy. While the Crestor-only approach is relatively straightforward--one pill a day--few people, in my experience, can tolerate this dose for any length of time. Patients invariably have to stop the drug or reduce the dose severely due to muscle aches when I've had patients try it. Contrary to the ASTEROID results, in my experience the majority of people, perhaps all, eventually give up with this improbable "one-size-fits-all" scheme.

The Track Your Plaque approach, while more complicated and involves several nutritional supplements and strategies, in my view addresses more causes of coronary plaque, is better tolerated, and provides health benefits outside of just LDL cholesterol reduction. It also minimizes or eliminates the need for prescription medication.



Studies cited in graph:

1.Nissen S et al. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1253-1263.
2 Tardif J et al. Circulation 2004;110:3372-3377.
3 Nissen S et al. JAMA 2006;295 (13):1556-1565
4 Nissen S et al. JAMA 2004;292: 2217–2225.
5 Nissen S et al. JAMA 2004; 291:1071–1080

When is a calorie not a calorie?

10. April 2008 William Davis (8)
One ounce of raw almonds (about 23 nuts) contains:


6 grams protein

14 grams fat

6 grams carbohydrate

3.5 grams fiber

For a total of 163 calories per ounce.


(From the USDA Nutrient Database)


Calorie content of foods is determined by summing up the calories from each constituent: 1 gram of fat = 9 calories; 1 gram protein = 4 calories; 1 gram carbohydrate = 4 calories. Calorie content can also be directly measured using a device called a burn calorimeter, in which the amount of energy released from a specific food is measured by literally burning it and gauging precisely how much energy is released.


The problem with both of these methods is that it is assumed that all foods are digested with equal efficiency. That is, it assumes that a potato chip is as readily digested and absorbed as energy from table sugar, a pretzel, oatmeal, a piece of steak, or a handful of nuts. In real life, of course this is not true. Different foods are absorbed with varying efficiency.

For a long time I've suspected that some foods are very inefficiently absorbed. I've particularly suspected that raw nuts are relatively poorly absorbed and thus yield only a fraction of the calories ingested.

Among the studies recently reported at the Federation of the Association of Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) meetings I attended in San Diego this past week were several devoted to almonds.

One study, to my surprise, documented this phenomenon. In Manipulation of lipid bioaccessibility of almonds influences postprandial lipemia in healthy human subjects, it was determined that, of 100 calories ingested from the fat fraction of almonds, only about half was actually absorbed. The remaining half passed out in the stool. (They did this by collecting stool samples and comparing the fat composition after eating the different almonds prepartions. This is not discussed in the limited text of the abstract.) In addition, postprandial (after-eating) surges in triglycerides were much less with whole almonds compared to the oil separated from the nut (i.e., broken down into almond oil + defatted almond flour). The researchers attributed the difference to the inhibitory effects of the almond nut's "food matrix," or the structural properties of chewed foods.

Add to this the fact that, of 6 grams of carbohydrate per ounce of whole almonds, 3.5 grams are indigestible fibers. This means that 6 - 3.5 = 2.5 grams of digestible carbohydrates are present per ounce (assuming 100% release).

If we follow the reasoning that only about half the fat fraction of almonds are absorbed, and assume that the protein and carbohydrate (minus the indigestible fibers) are absorbed efficiently (100%), then we would re-calculate the calorie content of almonds to be 97 calories per ounce, or 40% less than calories calculated by composition or measured with a calorimeter.

If we were to assume that protein and carbohydrates were, like fats, inefficiently absorbed because of the effects of the food matrix, then one ounce of almonds yields 88 calories per ounce, or 46% less. This is, in fact, a likely scenario, since the food matrix is largely created by the cell wall and should impede digestive access to fat, protein, and carbohydrate equally.

My point? Almonds and other nuts at first appear to be calorically dense due to fat composition. However, this simplistic view of nuts is misleading because of the confounding effects of the food matrix. Stated differently: Whole foods yield less calories. And, judging by the postprandial triglyceride effects: Whole foods yield less undesirable effects, such as postprandial rises in triglycerides.

Some other observations with almonds included:

The effect of almonds on plasma lipids in persons with prediabetes This study confirmed the LDL-reducing and modest HDL-raising effects of almonds.

Almonds (Amygdalus communis L.) as a possible source of prebiotic functional food This curious observation suggests that almonds modify the bacterial flora of the intestinal tract in a positive way (like the cultures in yogurts).



Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Add Boston Globe to the list of heart scan blunders

17. September 2008 William Davis (15)
Yet another piece of mass media misinformation hit the airwaves today. This time it's not from the New York Times or the LA Times, both of which have previously mangled the issues surrounding heart scans. This time it's from the Boston Globe.

In an article titled What is a calcium scan for heart disease, and who should undergo the test?, the report states:

". . . calcium scans may not be a good idea, or prove terribly useful, for most people. For one thing, the scans expose a patient to significant radiation - equivalent to roughly 50 chest X-rays" said Dr. Warren Manning, chief of noninvasive cardiac imaging at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center."

As many before him, Dr. Manning is confusing two tests: CT coronary angiography and CT heart scanning. Perhaps we can't blame him: This technology has had its weakest following in the northeast, for reasons not entirely clear to me. (In fact, Track Your Plaque followers have had the greatest struggle obtaining heart scans in that part of the country.) Nonetheless, you'd think he'd have his simple facts straight before talking to the press. Unfortunately, hospital public relations departments will usually just grab whoever they can willing to talk to the press--regardless of their expertise or lack of.


The story goes on to say:

. . ." it's not clear what to do with the results from a calcium scan. If you have diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or a family history of heart disease, you already know - or should know - that you are at increased risk of heart problems and should lower these risk factors. So, a calcium scan provides little additional information," Manning said.

"Moreover, even a high score doesn't necessarily mean that the calcified plaque in your arteries is obstructing blood flow, said Dr. Adolph Hutter, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital."

"The vast majority of people with high calcium tests don't have obstructions and they do fine long-term. So you'd have to test lots and lots of people to prevent one heart attack or sudden death," said Manning.

And if you get a low calcium score, a sign of little or no calcification of plaques, that's not very useful, either, because it could be wrong, or it could be right but lull you into believing you do not have to exercise and watch your diet, cholesterol, and blood pressure levels. "You can still be at risk even if your calcium test is negative," Hutter said.


It is truly shocking how little many (not all, thank goodness) of my colleagues really know about 1) heart scans, 2) coronary disease prevention, and 3) prevention in general. These same "experts" likely advocate high-dose statin drugs and low-fat diets for people at risk. They likely refer patients to the American Heart Association for diet advice and themselves obtain a lot of information from the pharmaceutical industry. The notion of identification, tracking, and purposeful reversal of coronary plaque is entirely foreign to this bunch.

"The vast majority of people with high calcium tests don't have obstructions and they do fine long-term. So you'd have to test lots and lots of people to prevent one heart attack or sudden death." Well, take a look at a graph from a database of 25,000 people undergoing heart scans then observed for several years afterwards:




You can see quite clearly from the curves that heart scan scores very clearly predict your future (if no preventive action is taken). The higher the score, the greater the likelihood of heart attack and death. How much clearer can it get?

The most recent addition to this literature is the PREDICT study which concluded:

Hazard ratios relative to CACS [coronary artery calcium scores] in the range 0-10 Agatston units (AU) were: CACS 11-100 AU, 5.4 (P = 0.02); 101-400 AU 10.5 (P = 0.001); 401-1000 AU, 11.9 (P = 0.001), and >1000 AU, 19.8 (P < 0.001).

In other words, a heart scan score of >1000 is associated with a 20-fold increased risk of cardiovascular events (without preventive efforts). That kind of predictive power and quantitative confidence simply cannot be squeezed out of blood pressure and cholesterol values.

How about the 2008 University of California-Irvine study from the New England Journal of Medicine (do the northeast docs even pay attention to something that is published in their own neighborhood?) that reported:

There were 162 coronary events, of which 89 were major events (myocardial infarction or death from coronary heart disease). In comparison with participants with no coronary calcium, the adjusted risk of a coronary event was increased by a factor of 7.73 among participants with coronary calcium scores between 101 and 300 and by a factor of 9.67 among participants with scores above 300 (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Among the four racial and ethnic groups, a doubling of the calcium score increased the risk of a major coronary event by 15 to 35% and the risk of any coronary event by 18 to 39%.

How about the Prospective Army Coronary Calcium (PACC) project (men average age 43 years):

"In these men, coronary calcium was associated with an 11.8-fold increased risk for incident coronary heart disease (CHD) (p = 0.002) in a Cox model controlling for the Framingham risk score. Among those with coronary artery calcification, the risk of coronary events increased incrementally across tertiles of coronary calcium severity (hazard ratio 4.3 per tertile)."

Calcium score provided additional information even after factoring in the Framingham risk score.

That's just a sample of the studies. There are a number more.

Add to these conversations the fact that, unlike reducing blood pressure or LDL cholesterol, the heart scan score is a quantification of the disease itself. It can also be tracked over time to gauge the success or failure of prevention efforts. To believe that blood pressure reduction or LDL cholesterol reduction is sufficient to eliminate risk is something only a fool would believe.



Contary to the above statements, the data are clear:

--The higher the heart scan score, the greater the risk. This has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt in at least a dozen published studies. In fact, heart scan scores outshine lipid/cholesterol values several-fold.

--A person with a zero score has a nearly zero risk for cardiovascular events over a 5-year timeline.

--Heart scans are the only quantitative test available of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. This means that they can be repeated to gauge progression or regression. Cholesterol does not do that. Stress tests do not do that.

--Heart scans are not the same as CT coronary angiography.

--The lack of "need" for a procedure does not equate to the absence of disease.

The power of heart scans is that they can uncover evidence for coronary atherosclerotic plaque 10 years before a cardiac disaster strikes. Witness Tim Russert's heart scan score of 210 in 1998 at age 48. 10 years later, you know what happened.

Beware the camipaign of misinformation and ignorance that continues that is hell-bent on maintaining the procedural status quo or locking us into a "drugs for all" mentality.

What's worse than sugar?

16. September 2008 William Davis (11)
There are a number of ways to view the blood sugar-raising or insulin-provoking effect of foods.

One way is glycemic index (GI), simply a measure of how high blood sugar is raised by a standard quantity of a food compared to table sugar. Another is glycemic load (GL), a combination (multiplied) of glycemic index and carbohydrate content per serving.

Table sugar has a GI of 65, a GL of 65.

Obviously, table sugar is not good for you. The content of white table sugar in the American diet has exploded over the last 100 years, totaling over 150 lb per year for the average person. (Humans are not meant to consume any.)

What is the GI of Rice Krispies cereal, organic or not? GI = 82-- higher than table sugar. GL is 72, also higher than table sugar.

How about Corn Flakes? GI 81, GL 70--also both higher than sugar.

How about those rice cakes that many dieters will use to quell hunger? GI 78, GL 64.

How about Shredded Wheat cereal? GI 75, GL 62.

All of the above foods with GI's and GL's that match or exceed that of table sugar are made of wheat and cornstarch. Some, like Shredded Wheat cereal and rice cakes, don't even have any added sugar.

Stay clear of these foods if you have low HDL, high triglycerides, high blood sugar, or small LDL. Or, for that matter, if you are human.

Keep the eloquent words of New York University nutritionist, Marion Nestle, author of the book, Food Politics, in mind:

“Food companies—just like companies that sell cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, or any other commodity—routinely place the needs of stock holders over considerations of public health. Food companies will make and market any product that sells, regardless of its nutritional value or its effect on health. In this regard, food companies hardly differ from cigarette companies. They lobby Congress to eliminate regulations perceived as unfavorable; they press federal regulatory agencies not to enforce such regulations; and when they don’t like regulatory decisions, they file lawsuits. Like cigarette companies, food companies co-opt food and nutrition experts by supporting professional organizations and research, and they expand sales by marketing directly to children, members of minority groups, and people in develop countries—whether or not the products are likely to improve people’s diets.” ??

Are sterols the new trans fat?

13. September 2008 William Davis (16)
By now, I'm sure you're well-acquainted with the hydrogenated, trans fat issue.

Hydrogenation of polyunsaturated oils was a popular practice (and still is) since the 1960s, as food manufacturers sought a substitute for saturated fat. Bubbling high-pressure hydrogen through oils like cottonseed, soybean, and corn generates trans fatty acids. These man-made fatty acids, while safe in initial safety testing, proved to be among the biggest nutritional mistakes of the 20th century.

Trans fatty acids have been associated with increased LDL cholesterol, reduction in HDL, oxidative reactions, abnormal rigidity when incorporated into cell membranes, and cancer. Trans fats still dominate many processed foods like chips, cookies, non-dairy creamers, food mixes, and thousands of others. They're also found prominently in fast foods.

Fast forward to today, and most Americans have become aware of the dangers of trans fats and many try to avoid them.

But I worry there is yet another substance that has worked its way into the American processed food cornucopia that has some potential for repeating the trans fat debacle: sterol esters.


Sterols are naturally-occurring oils found in vegetables, nuts, and numerous other foods in small quantities. Most of us take in 200-400 milligrams per day just by eating plant-sourced foods.

Curiously, the chemical structure of sterols are very similar to human cholesterol (differing at one carbon atom). Sterols, by not fully understood means, block the intestinal absorption of cholesterol. Thus, sterol esters, as well as the similar stanol esters, have been used to reduce blood levels of total and LDL cholesterol.

So far, so good.

The initial commercial products, released in the late 1990s, were Take Control (sterol) and Benecol (stanol), both of which were marketed to reduce cholesterol when 2-3 tbsp are used daily, providing 3400 – 5100 mg of sterol or stanol esters, about 10- to 20-fold more than we normally obtain from foods. Several clinical trials have conclusively confirmed that these products reduce cholesterol levels.

They do indeed perform as advertised. Add either product to your daily diet and LDL cholesterol is reduced by about 10-15%. In fact, in the original Track Your Plaque book, these products were advocated as a supplemental means of reducing LDL when other methods fell short.

In 2008, there are now hundreds of products that have additional quantities of sterol esters in them, such as orange juice, mayonnaise, yogurt, breakfast cereals, even nutritional supplements. Most of these products proudly bear claims like "heart healthy." Stanol esters have not enjoyed the same widespread application. (I believe there may be patent issues or other considerations. However, it's the sterols that are the principal topic here, not stanols.)

Now, here's where it gets a bit tricky. There is a rare (1 per million) disease called sitosterolemia, a genetic disorder that permits the afflicted to absorb more than the usual quantity of sterols from the intestine. While you and I obtain some amount of sterols from plant-based foods, absorption is poor, and we absorb <10% of sterols ingested. However, people with sitosterolemia absorb sterols far more efficiently, resulting in high blood levels of sterols that result in coronary disease and aortic valve disease, with heart attacks occurring as young as late teens or 20s. Treatment to block sterol absorption are used to treat these people.

There are also a larger number, though still uncommon (1/500) of people who have only one of the two genes that young people with sitosterolemia have. These people may have an intermediate capacity for sterol absorption.

Okay, so what does this have to do with you? Well, if you and I now take in 10-20 times greater amounts of sterol esters, do our blood levels of sterols increase?

Several studies now suggest that, yes, sterol blood levels increase with sterol ingestion. One study from Finland, the STRIP Study, showed that children who had double usual sterol intake increased blood levels by around 50%.

Similarly, a Johns Hopkins study in adults with only one of the genes ("heterozygotes") for sitosterolemia increased sterol blood levels by between 54-116% by ingesting 2200 mg of sterols added per day, despite reduction of LDL cholesterol levels.

Even people with neither gene for sitosterol hyperabsorption can increase their blood levels of sterols. But the crucial question: Do the blood levels of sterols that occur in unaffected people or in heterozygotes increase the risk of coronary heart disease? The answer is not known.

Despite the several clinical trials performed with sterol esters, all of them have examined LDL and total cholesterol reduction as endpoints, not cardiovascular events. It is conceivable that, while sterol esters reduce cholesterol, risk for heart disease is increased due to higher blood levels of sterols.

The question is not settled. For now, it is just a suspicion. But that's enough for me to steer clear of processed foods supplemented with these uncertain sterol esters. My previous recommendations for sterol ester products will be removed with the next edition of Track Your Plaque. Until we have solid evidence that there are no adverse cardiovascular effects of sterol esters, in my view they should not be part of anyone's heart-disease prevention program.

(The same argument does not seem to apply to stanol esters, such as that contained in butter-substitute Benecol, since stanol esters are not absorbed at all and remain confined to the intestine.)

The Diabetes Gold Rush

11. September 2008 William Davis (9)
Lou came into the office. Clearly, his program had gone sour.

Lou had initially obtained wonderful control over his heart scan score of 1114, having reversed modestly in his first three years of effort through correction of his multiple causes (including low HDL, severe small LDL, Lp(a), and a diabetic tendency).

But Lou now came into the office red-faced and sporting a big bulging abdomen. Blood sugar? Now in the overtly diabetic range. Lou said that his primary care doctor had suggested that he start on three new medications (glucophage, injectable Byetta, and Actos) to control his blood sugar. His doctor also told him to increase his intake of fibers by eating more "healthy" breakfast cereals like Cheerios.

Lou had apparently done just that (added "healthy" fiber-rich foods) even before his doctor had suggested it. (Lou failed to remember the several conversations we'd had about healthy eating.) Unfortunately, Lou also failed to connect his increased intake of "healthy fiber-rich foods" and his growing abdominal girth (his "wheat belly").

Here's the dirty little secret: Much of the world wants you to be diabetic. It is the health gold rush of this century. "Go West, young man!"




To find out what I mean, you need only ask: Who profits when people become diabetic? That's easy:

The pharmaceutical industry--Diabetes is a booming growth industry, a source of tens of billions of dollars of revenue, poised for enormous growth as the population ages and gets fatter. It is common for a newly-diagnosed diabetic to be given new prescriptions for two or three drugs with a monthly cost of $300. Of course, the chronic nature of the disease make this far more profitable than, say, a two week course of antibiotics. Presently, 70 new drugs are under development.

Diabetes drug maker Novo Nordisk reported a 25% increase in revenues in 2007 from diabetic agents in the North American market, along with near $2 billion increase in profit for the year. Merck's recently-released DPP-4 inhibitor, Januvia, has already sold $668 million in 2007 and is growing rapidly.

The medical device and supply industry. Take a look at the Medtronic quarterly earnings report, detailing the breakdown of their record-setting quarterly revenue of $3.7 billion:

Diabetes revenue of $269 million grew 12 percent driven by sales
of consumables, the accessories required by insulin pump users, and
continuous glucose monitoring products. Revenue from international
sales grew 31 percent over the same quarter last year.

That's what I call a growth industry.

The processed food industry. The food industry is as big or bigger than the drug industry. ADM, Kraft, General Mills all have annual revenues in the $12-50 billion range. There are plenty of others.

When we're told, for instance, that Cheerios reduces cholesterol, we're not told that it skyrockets blood sugar or triggers small LDL. When we're sold whole wheat crackers, Cocoa Puffs (which the American Heart Asscociation says is heart-healthy), or granola bars, hunger is stimulated, impulse to eat more grows, blood sugar escalates, we get fat, we get diabetic. It's a simple formula.

So be aware that there is little incentive among corporate giants in the food, medical device, or drug industries to encourage behaviors that decrease the incidence of diabetes. In fact, there is enormous financial incentive to make sure that diabetes continues to grow at the startling rate it has over the last decade.

To be sure, the drug and medical device industry will also develop better tools to deal with diabetes and its complications. But the very best way to deal with diabetes is to not develop it in the first place.

What else is there?

7. September 2008 William Davis (11)
This question comes up frequently:

Aren't there any alternatives to heart scans performed on a CT or EBT device?

Yes, there are.

First of all, heart scans are performed best on an electron-beam CT device (EBT) or a 64-slice multi-detector CT (MDCT) device. (While they are also obtainable through less-than-64 slice CT devices (e.g., 16 slices and less), I would advise against it because of the excessive radiation exposure and poor accuracy.) CT heart scans are not to be confused with now more popular CT coronary angiograms, which are performed on the same devices but require intravenous x-ray dye and many times more radiation.(See CT scans and radiation exposure and Heart scan frustration.) Heart scans currently form the basis for the Track Your Plaque program, a program of tracking plaque in the hopes of stopping or reversing the otherwise inevitable 30% per year increase.

Let's confine our discussion to people without symptoms, meaning people like you and me sitting at home, not in an emergency room having chest pain or other similar acute symptomatic presentation.

Among the other ways to uncover hidden coronary plaque:

--Heart catheterization--to yield a coronary angiogram. Yes, this does tell us whether coronary plaque is present. However, it is invasive, expensive, and crude. (I've performed 5000 over my career; they are crude, though useful, tools in acute settings like unstable symptoms or heart attack, a different situation.) Coronary angiography is also non-quantitative. While they provide a value like "40% blockage mid-way in right coronary" or "90% blockage in left anterior descending" they do not provide a trackable lengthwise index of total plaque volume. Identifying severe blockages in people with symptoms leads to stents, bypass surgery and the like, but it is not practical nor of long-term usefulness in apparently, healthy people without symptoms.

--Carotid ultrasound--Here's is where a lot of confusion comes from. Standard carotid ultrasound (U/S) performed in virtually every hospital and many clinics will yield crude qualitative results, e.g., "16-49% stenosis (blockage) in right internal carotid artery". The crude value range is because much of carotid U/S is based on flow velocities, not just direct visualization of the plaque itself ("2-D imaging). However, if carotid stenosis of any degree is identified, the likelihood of silent coronary plaque is much greater.

Limitations: The qualitative, non-quantitative nature of carotid U/S make it difficult to follow long-term in a precise way. Also, this is carotid plaque, not coronary plaque. It makes it very difficult to follow carotid plaque as an indirect means of tracking coronary plaque. The two arterial territories, carotid and coronary, do not track together: there are divergences in many people, with carotid plaque absent in some people with advanced coronary plaque, carotid plaque more susceptible to different risk factors than coronary. So carotid U/S is helpful for its own purposes, but not terribly helpful for coronary tracking.

How about carotid intimal-medial thickness (CIMT) obtained also with carotid U/S? CIMT is a useful index of bodywide atherosclerosis. CIMT is simply a measure not of plaque (and is measured in regions of the carotid artery away from plaque), but of the thickness of the lining of the carotid arteries. Everybody has a measurable CIMT, but it thickens as atherosclerosis grows. CIMT is a radiation-free test that takes several minutes.

Limitations: Hardly anybody does it outside of research protocols. I know of no hospital or clinic in my area that performs CIMT, though it is slowly being adopted in some centers. It is also difficult to rely on repeated tests, because there is substantial variation when one technologist or another performs it. CIMT is also a flawed index of coronary plaque. When CIMT is compared to heart scan scores, CT coronary angiography, or conventional coronary angiography, CIMT correlates about 60-70% with the degree of coronary atherosclerosis.

CIMT is therefore a useful test for research, but a distant 2nd choice--if you can obtain it.

--Ankle-brachial index (ABI)--ABI is a crude measure, simply a comparison of the blood pressure (obtained with a blood pressure cuff) in the legs divided by blood pressure in the arms. The ratio is called ABI. Any ABI <1.0, meaning less pressure in the legs compared to the arms, is indirectly indicative of advanced coronary disease. ABI is, in fact, a very powerful predictor of cardiovascular events. If ABI is <1.0, your future risk for heart attack is very high, even in the absence of symptoms.

Limitations: The vast majority of people with heart disease, even those having undergone stents or bypass surgery, have normal ABI's. Virtually all people with high heart scan scores have normal ABI's. In other words, ABI is a measure of very advanced atherosclerosis only.

--Stress tests--I lump all stress tests together in their various forms, e.g., stress thallium, stress Cardiolite, stress Myoview, persantine/adenosine Cardiolite, dobutamine echocardiography, etc. Stress tests are tests of coronary blood flow, not of plaque. Stress tests are useful in people with symptoms, like chest pain or breathlessness, since stress tests are provocative tests that can help determine whether reduced coronary blood flow is the cause behind a symptom, or whether hiatal hernia, esophagitis, gallstones, pleurisy, musculoskeletal causes, or some other process is behind symptoms.

Limitations: Stress test are virtually useless in people without symptoms. This is why people like Tim Russert and Bill Clinton, both without symptoms, underwent several (Russert 3, Clinton 5) nuclear stress tests---all normal. You know what happened to them. Stress tests do not reliably uncover hidden coronary plaque in people without symptoms. Stress tests are, like coronary angiograms, non-quantitative. They are normal or abnormal.


Outside of experimental settings, that's it.

You can probably see why I advocate CT heart scans for tracking plaque. I do not advocate heart scans because I sell them (I don't), because scan centers pay me to say these things (they don't, and in fact my relationship with my usual heart scan centers has become deeply contentious, though I still endorse the technology). I say that heart scans are superior because they are, in 2008, the only way to 1) identify and 2) track coronary plaque that is easy, safe, low-radiation, and reasonably priced (<$200 in Milwaukee at 5 centers).

The need for a technology that allows tracking of plaque, not just initial identification, is also an important distinction. People who've had some measure of atherosclerosis all catch on to this eventually. "Can I reverse it?" is an inevitable question once the disease is identified in some way. So a tool for tracking over time to gauge the success or failure of a program of prevention can be assessed.

Perhaps in 10 years, another technology will emerge as the preferred means to do the same, but better. If that proves true, we will convert to that technology. But today heart scans performed on CT heart scans are the only rational way to both detect, then track, coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Let's gamble with your health

5. September 2008 William Davis (4)
Let's play a game.

I'm going to list some lipid patterns and you tell me whether or not the person with these values has heart disease.

Patient 1

Total cholesterol 150 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 75 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
Triglycerides 125 mg/dl


Patient 2

Total cholesterol 300 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 200 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 35 mg/dl
Triglycerides 325


Patient 3

Total cholesterol 300 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 100 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 25 mg/dl
Triglycerides 875 mg/dl



Let's say that any one of these profiles is yours. Should you be getting your affairs in order, preparing for your cardiac catastrophe? Should you demand a stress test from your doctor, hoping that it will shed some light on your dilemma? Should you go ahead and go to the all-you-can-eat rib restaurant, content that you will be attending your granddaughger's wedding in 2020 in full health?

If you can tell, you're a lot better at this than I am.

I provide consultation to other physicians and patients on complex hyperlipidemias in my area. In other words, if someone has a difficulty to manage lipid disorder, the doctor sends the patient to me.

Managing these wildly variable values is the easy part. Deciding whether or not heart disease is concealed within the patient . . . well, that's the hard part.

Let's take it a step further: Suppose all three profiles also have 50% of all LDL particles as the abnormal small particles. And they all have a lipoprotein(a) level of 50 mg/dl, an abnormally high level.

How about now: Can you tell whether any or all of these people have hidden heart disease?

What if they are 20 years old? Does that make a difference?

What if they are all females over 65 years--how about now?

If the only tool you have to divine the presence of hidden heart disease is a lipid panel, or even a lipoprotein panel, then the best you can manage is to hazard a guess based on statistical probability. You also assume that this "snapshot" represents the sorts of values someone has had for their entire lives. You cannot factor in the fact that the first person gained 60 lbs in the last three years since completing menopause. You can't factor in that patient 2 smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 25 years, but quit 10 years ago.

It's also foolhardy to believe that every known cause of heart disease is currently identifiable and revealed by modern-day blood testing.

A heart scan is simply a means to quantify the sum-total of risk factors--causes--that have exerted an effect up until the moment of your scan. It will reveal the quantity of coronary atherosclerotic plaque present, regardless of whether you stopped smoking 20 years ago or lost 30 lbs last year.

For these reasons, nothing can replace the value of quantifying plaque: not cholesterol, not the Framingham risk calculation, not measures of small LDL or lipoprotein(a), not the presence or absence of symptoms. In 2008, the method of choice for measuring plaque remains a CT heart scan. Perhaps in 10 years it will be some other method.

As always, let me remind Heart Scan Blog viewers that I make this point NOT to sell heart scans, which I have no reason whatsoever to do. I say this because we require a tool to track this potentially fatal disease. We require a yardstick for tracking progression or regression. The only tool that suits these purposes in 2008 is a CT heart scan.

Who knows what

4. September 2008 William Davis (4)
You know that cynical old saying:


It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

In other words, knowing the right person provides you strategic advantage in business, social advancement, etc.

In health, it was often true. Knowing who the better doctors were, for instance, in your city might provide you with access to better care.

Enter the Information Age. You now have access to medical information equal to that of your doctor. You now have access to patient discussions about doctors, their practices, their performance records. There is now a depth and breadth of information on health that was never available before.

I’d therefore turn the old saying into the new Health 2.0 version:


It’s not who you know, it’s what you know.


In health, information now reigns supreme, not knowing somebody else who has the right connections.

Positive: Everybody now theoretically has access to an equal amount of information, since you can access information on any topic just as easily as I can.

Negative: It puts more of the burden on you. If you screw up in health, perhaps you didn’t try to get the best information hard enough.

I love this new development, this emergence of empowerment in health. I call it self-directed health, the individual capacity to exert enormous influence over the quality of your healthcare.

This is obviously a work in progress. All the answers and tools for self-directed care, self-empowerment are not yet available, some haven’t even yet been imagined.

But they are coming.

“Too many false positives”

4. September 2008 William Davis (6)
“Do you really think I need a heart scan?” asked Terry.

“My doctor said that heart scans show too many false positives. He says that many people end up getting unnecessary heart catheterizations because of them.”

At age 56, Terry was becoming increasingly frightened. His father had suffered his first heart attack at age 53, Terry’s paternal uncle had a heart attack at age 56, his paternal grandfather a heart attack at age 50.

Is this true? Do heart scans yield too many false positives, meaning abnormal results when there really is no abnormality?

No, it is not. What Terry’s doctor is referring to is the fact that, in the decades-long process that leads to heart attack, heart scans have the ability to detect early phases of developing coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Let’s take Terry’s case, for example. Given his family history, it is quite likely that he does indeed have coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Will it be detectable by performing a stress test? Probably not. In fact, Terry jogs and feels well while doing so. While a stress test abnormality that fails to reach conscious perception is possible, it’s fairly unlikely given his exercise routine.

Will Terry’s coronary atherosclerotic plaque be detectable by heart catheterization? Very likely. But why perform an invasive hospital procedure just as a screening test? Should a woman wishing to undergo a screening test for breast cancer undergo breast removal? Of course not.

Is waiting for symptoms a rational way to approach diagnosis of heart disease? Well, when symptoms appear, it means that coronary blood flow is reduced. Stents and bypass surgery may be indicated. The risk of heart attack and death skyrocket. Sudden death becomes a real possibility.

In the 30 or so years required to establish sufficient coronary plaque to permit the appearance of symptoms or the development of an abnormality detectable by stress testing, there were many years when the disease was early--too early to generate symptoms, too early to be detectable by stress testing.

That’s when heart scans uncover evidence for silent coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Should we call this a “false positive” just because it doesn’t also correlate with “need” for a catheterization, stent, bypass operation or result in heart attack within the next few weeks?

The detection of early plaque is just that: early disease detection.

Imagine, for instance, that the breast cancer that will grow into a palpable nodule or mass detectable by mammogram is detectable by a special breast scan 15 years before it becomes a full-blown tumor, metastasizing to other organs. What if effective means to halt that earliest evidence of cancer could put a stop to this devastating disease decades ahead of danger? Is this a “false positive” too?

In my view, this is the knuckleheaded thinking of the conventional practitioner: “Don’t bother me until you’re really sick.” Prevention is a practice that has become fashionable only because of the push of the drug industry. Nutrition is an afterthought, a message conceived through consensus of “experts” with suspect motivations and allegiances.

So, no, heart scans do not uncover “false positives.” They uncover early disease--true positives--years before it is detectable by standard tests or by the appearance of catastrophe. But that is the whole point: Early detection means getting a head start on prevention.

Do heart scans lead to unnecessary heart catheterizations? Yes, sadly they do. But not because heart scans are false positive. It happens because of unscrupulous or ignorant cardiologists who use the information wrongly. In my view, heart scans should NEVER lead directly to heart catheterization in an asymptomatic patient. Heart scans, as helpful as they are, do not modify the standard reasons for performing heart procedures.

If a car mechanic is dishonest and fixes a carburetor that didn't need fixing, should we condemn all car mechanics? No, of course not. We only need to develop the means to weed out the bad apples. The same applies to heart scans.

Triglycerides divided by five

3. September 2008 William Davis (8)
Here's a bit of lipid tedium that might nonetheless help you one day decipher the meaning of shifts in your cholesterol panel.

Recall from prior discussions that conventional LDL cholesterol is a calculated value. Contrary to popular opinion, LDL is usually not measured, but calculated from the Friedewald equation:

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

For the sake of simplicity, let's call total cholesterol TC; HDL cholesterol HDL, and triglycerides TG.

We've also talked in past how a low HDL makes calculated LDL inaccurate, sometimes wildly so. (See Low HDL makes Dr. Friedewald a liar.)

Here's yet another source of inaccuracy of the Friedewald-calculated LDL: any increase in triglycerides.

Let's say, for instance, that starting lipid panel shows:

TC 170 mg/dl
LDL 100 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
TG 100 mg/dl


You're advised to follow a standard low-fat, whole grain-rich diet advocated by "official" agencies (the diet I bash as knuckleheaded). Another panel a few months later shows:

TC 230 mg/dl
LDL 140 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
TG 200 mg/dl


(Obviously, I've oversimplified the response for the sake of argument. HDL would likely go down, LDL would change more depending on body weight, small LDL tendencies, and other factors. You'd also likely get fat.)

Now your doctor declares that your LDL has gone up and you "need" a statin agent.

Nonsense, absolute nonsense.

What has really happened is that the increased dietary intake of wheat and other "healthy whole-grain foods" has caused triglycerides to skyrocket. LDL increases, in turn, by a factor of TG/5, or 40 mg/dl. Thus, LDL has been inflated by the triglyceride-raising effect of whole grains.

This is yet another reason why the standard lipid panel, full of hazards and landmines, needs to be abandoned. But calculated LDL in particular is an exercise in frustration.

Though the example used is hypothetical, I've witnessed this effect thousands of times. I've also seen many people placed on statin drugs unnecessarily, due to the appearance of a high LDL cholesterol that really represented increased TG/5, usually induced by an excessive carbohydrate intake, including those commonly misrepresented as healthy such as whole grains.

Who reads The Heart Scan Blog?

2. September 2008 William Davis (0)
In the Heart Scan Blog, I am often guilty of speaking out loud of my varied thoughts on this crazy thing that we've created called the cardiovascular healthcare machine. But I discuss it in the context of asking "How could this be done better--better outcomes, more patient-friendly, more accessible . . . more do-it-yourself?

The last part is the part that throws most people. Do-it-yourself? My colleagues would claim I'm nuts, suggesting that coronary heart disease is something manageable by yourself. In the conventional pathway, after all, coronary disease is that unpredictable, poorly detected by standard tests, condition that then leads to heart catheterization, stents, bypass , and the like.

Several factors distinguish the readers of The Heart Scan Blog that surprised me:

--Nearly 60% are women
--There are a disproportionate number of Asian people. (Can someone explain this to me?)
--A great number have graduate degrees

I believe this tells me that The Heart Scan Blog appeals to a somewhat more sophisticated audience. This, to some degree, warms my heart, since it means that I've captured the attention of some people who may be more discriminating and thoughtful in their Internet surfing.

However, I also lament the fact that these conversations are not achieving the mainstream. After all,

Boy, was I wrong!

1. August 2006 William Davis (0)
Around 10 years ago, I was talking to a balloon and stent manufacturer's representative, who was raving about some new device that was due for release to the market. Back then, the sky seemed the limit to cardiac device manufacturers, who were falling over themselves scrambling to design and market the next new device.

The angioplasty market then had ballooned (no pun intended) from nothing to a multi-billion dollar industry. Stents were just getting underway but clearly had potential for being at least as large.

But this was a time when preventive therapies were also beginning to get quite powerful. We had just gotten started doing CT heart scans and were excited about the possibilities, statin drugs were gaining evidence through clinical trials, and the power of many nutritional supplements was finally achieving validation. We were even learning the error of our prior low-fat ways.

So I broadly pronounced to the enthusiastic product representative, "In 10 years, balloons, angioplasty, and stents will occupy this little corner of cardiac care because prevention will have become so powerful. We won't talk about heart procedures. We'll talk about coronary plaque regression!"

I even advised the representative that he should consider a career change in anticipation of the coming wave of preventive strategies.

Was I ever wrong. Despite the power of heart disease prevention--which is indeed true--cardiac device and procedure technology has boomed, both in popularity as well as in revenue success. Device manufacturing and sales are hugely successful. Implanting devices into people is a hugely profitable enterprise.

Since my ill-timed comments to the salesman, Boston Scientific, a major manufacturer of stents and other cardiac devices, reported revenues of $6.2 billiondollars in 2005, a 12% increase over the prior year. Medtronic reported 2005 revenues of $11.3 billion, growing at 15% per year. Clearly, cardiac procedures are still quite popular--and profitable.

My timing was off, but not for long. The huge crest of change in preventive therapies is upon us. That's the premise behind the Track Your Plaque concept: heart disease prevention can't be found in a hospital, is not supported by cardiac device manufacturers, and is not being advocated by most cardiologists or primary care physicians. Yet the tools are getting better and better every day.

Those of you who succeed in halting or reducing your heart scan score are extremely unlikely to add to Boston Scientific's or Medtronic's revenues. Help me spread the word.

Don't forget how dangerous heart disease can be

29. July 2006 William Davis (0)
Sometimes it's easy to get smug when coronary plaque is a reversible process.

When you see people day in, day out, week in, week out, drop their heart scan scores, reversing what could be a dangerous disease, you can sometimes lose sight of just how dangerous coronary disease can be.

Whether I like it or not, I maintain a reasonably active role in hospitals out of necessity. I do need their services occasionally for people with advanced heart disease when I meet them (when regression is not the initial conversation for safety reasons), or valve disease is diagnosed, or someone shows up with congenital or heart muscle diseases. In other words, although we focus on coronary issues, there's more to heart disease than just coronary disease.

This unfortunate case just served to remind me how powerful coronary disease can be. Elizabeth, an active 67-year old, finally came to the hospital after suffering 6 months of chest pain and increasing breathlessness. She hated hospitals and hadn't seen a doctor in 30 years since she was successfully treated for cancer.

In those 30 years, she'd been quite active with family and a small business. But she also smoked 2 packs of cigarettes most of those years.

After she was admitted to the hospital, it became clear that Elizabeth had experienced one, if not several, heart attacks along the way. The entire front 2/3 of her heart was non-functional. If that wasn't bad enough, two of her heart valves were severely diseased and dysfunctional: Her aortic valve barely opened (aortic valve "stenosis", or stiffness) and the mitral valve leaked severely (mitral valve "insufficiency", or leakiness). All of this was confirmed with conventional testing in the hospital, including a heart catheterization.

Elizabeth ended up in emergency surgery--very unusual, by the way, for valve surgery of the sort she had--but died in the first few hours after her procedure. Her heart had simply been too damaged from her heart attacks, and the extraordinary stress of surgery that included two valves was too much. She died on the ventilator.

Coronary disease is a very serious matter. When I see cases like Elizabeth, it boosts my commitment to tell everyone that heart disease--when identified early enough--is a controllable, preventable, even reversible process. For poor Elizabeth, she was much too far down the path of severe, irreversible disease that control or reversal was simply not an option. She was in imminent danger of dying even upon arrival.

It's exciting yet sometimes frightening to know what you have in your hands: The means to control this monster called coronary disease. Use it wisely. But don't lose sight of what it can do it you permit it to grow, fester, and explode.

How many ways can you disguise sugar?

28. July 2006 William Davis (0)
I came across this shockingly silly report on AOL, who obtained their info courtesy Health Magazine:

The Best New Healthy Foods for Busy People
from Health

The foods on their list:

Kettle Brand Bakes Hickory Honey BBQ--the healthy claim is based on the lack of trans-fatty acids and low-fat.










Post Healthy Classics Raisin Bran Cereal Bars, Cranberry--Likewise, low-fat, sweet, and addictive means healthy to these people.




Amy’s Mediterranean Pizza With Cornmeal Crust --Please!!



Horizon Organic Colby Cheese Sticks --Because it's made by cattle without use of growth hormone or antibiotics, they declare this healthy. I guess we can ignore the saturated fat content and high total fat content.

100% Whole Grain Chips Ahoy! Cookies --You mean we can add the bran back to wheat products and make it healthy?!


This kind of mass-market marketing trickery leaves me incredulous. Don't believe it for a moment. This is typical of the food industry: Take one aspect of nutrition that is truly healthy, such as high-fiber, or low-fat, or organic. Then add undesirable, unhealthy ingredients. The current fad is to add lots of sugar and or sugar-equivalents (usually flour and other wheat products). Because there's one healthy ingredient, they'll call the end-product healthy, too.

If you want to see what health looks like if you indulge in "healthy" products like this, just look up and down the grocery aisles at your neighborhood grocery store. You're likely to see the results: Gross obesity, diabetes, and arthritis.

You won't, of course, see the huge acceleration of growth in coronary plaque, but it's there, ticking away.

To remind us what ideal body weight is: Watch an old movie!

26. July 2006 William Davis (0)
Jack was skeptical. At 273 lbs, 5 ft 11 inches, he felt that he was "just right".

"I feel fine. I don't see why you think I should lose weight," he declared. "In fact, when I lost 25 lbs a couple of years ago, everyone said I was too skinny!"

I showed Jack why: He had an HDL of 35 mg/dl, small LDL (over 90% of all LDL particles), an elevated blood sugar of 123 mg/dl (diabetes is officially 126 mg/dl or greater), high blood pressure, and increased inflammation (C-reactive protein). These were all manifestations that his body weight was too much for it to handle.




So I told Jack that we've all forgotten what ideal weight should look like. Our perception of "normal" has been so utterly and dramatically distorted by the appearance of our friends, family, co-workers, and other people around us that we've all lost a sense of what a desirable weight for health should be.




So I suggested to Jack that, if he wanted to rememember what ideal weight is and what people are supposed to look like, just watch old movies.

Old movies, like the 1942 production of Casablanca, or the 1952 production of Singin' in the Rain, show the body build that was prevalent in those days. Look at Humphrey Bogart or Gene Kelly--men with average builds, weighing 140-160 lbs--that's how humans were meant to look.

A report this morning on the Today Show showed the "after" photos of several people following bariatric (weight reduction) surgery. The "after" pictures, from the perspective of ideal weight and ideal health, remain hugely overweight.

We need to readjust our perceptions of weight. The average woman in the U.S. now weighs 172 lbs(!!!). Don't confuse average with desirable.

Diabetes is a choice you make

24. July 2006 William Davis (0)
Tim had heart disease identified as a young man. He had his first heart attack followed by a quadruple bypass surgery at age 38. Recurrent anginal chest pain and another small heart attack led to several stents over three procedures in the first four years after bypass.

Tim finally came to us, interested in improving his prevention program. You name it, he had it: small LDL, low HDL (28 mg/dl), lipoprotein(a), etc. The problem was that Tim was also clearly pre-diabetic. At 5 ft 10 inches, he weighed 272 lbs--easily 80 or more pounds overweight.

Tim was willing to make the medication and nutritional supplement changes to gain control over his seeminglly relentless disease. He even turned up his exercise program and lost 28 lbs in the beginning. But as time passed and no symptoms recurred, he became lax.

Tim regained all the weight he'd lost and some more. Now Tim was diabetic.

"I don't get it. I eat good foods that shouldn't raise my insulin. I almost never eat sweets."

I stressed to Tim that diabetes and pre-diabetes, while provoked acutely by sugar-equivalent foods (wheat products, breads, breakfast cereals, crackers, etc.), is caused chronically by excess weight. If Tim wants to regain control over his heart disease, he needed to lost the weight.

Unlike, say, leukemia, an unfortunate disease that has little to do with lifestyle choices, diabetes is a choice you make over 90% of the time. In other words, if you become diabetic (adult variety, not children's variety) as an adult, that's because you've chosen to follow that path. You've neglected physical activity, or indulged in too many calories or poor food choices, or simply allowed weight to balloon out of control.

But diabetes is also a path most people can choose not to take. And it is a painfully common choice: Nearly two-thirds of the adults in my office have patterns of pre-diabetes or diabetes when I first meet them.

Let me stress this: For the vast majority of adults, diabetes is a choice, not an inevitability.

I'll call the doctor when I feel bad!

24. July 2006 William Davis (0)
Max just had his heart scan. He sat down with the x-ray technologist at the work console while she pointed out the white areas in his coronary arteries that represented plaque.

"It looks like you're going to have a fairly high score," the technologist commented. "The final report will be available after one of our cardiologists reviews your images."

Max shrugged. "Well, I don't feel anything. I'm always running around with work, with my kids, stuff like that. That's better than any stress test. I guess I'll worry about it if it starts to bother me."


You'd be surprised how common this view remains: If it's not bothering you, then just forget about it. It's easy to do, since you have no symptoms, nothing to impair your physical activities. But what are the potential consequences of ignoring your heart scan? Here's a few:

--Prevention and plaque reversal efforts are most effective the earlier you start. From a heart scan score viewpoint, the lower your starting score, the easier it is to gain control over it. More people will succeed in reducing their score when the starting score is lower.

--The role of prevention of heart disease instantly crystallizes when you know your score. Your LDL cholesterol of 142 mg/dl or HDL of 41 mg/dl no longer seem like just numbers of borderline signficance. Instead, they become useful tools to gain control over plaque. They cast your numbers in a new and clear light.

--Knowing your heart scan score today gives you a basis for comparison in future. Your score of, say 250, today, can be 220 in one year. Without your preventive efforts, it will be 30% higher: 325. That's a big difference!

--Sudden death or heart attack--can occur in up to 35-40% of people with hidden heart disease--without warning.

Don't even bother getting a heart scan if you're going to ignore it. I've said it before and I'll say it again: A heart scan is the most important health test you can get--but only if you do something about it.

Coenzyme Q10 and statin drugs

23. July 2006 William Davis (0)
Although drug manufacturers claim that muscle side effects from statin drugs occurs in only around 2% or people or less, my experience is very different.

I see muscle weakness and achiness develop in the majority of people taking Lipitor, Crestor, Zocor, Vytorin, etc. I'd estimate that nearly 90% of people get these feelings sooner or later.

Thankfully, the majority of the time these feelings are annoyances and do not lead to any impairment. Full-blown muscle destruction is truly rare--I've seen it once in over 10 years and thousands of patients.

The higher the dose of statin drug and the longer you take it, the more likely you're going to have muscle aches.

I experienced a strange phemomenon myself today. I worked outdoors for about 4 hours, pulling weeds, digging in the dirt, spreading topsoil. (I have an area of overgrowth in the front yard.) Admittedly, I worked pretty hard and it was a warm, humid day.

I was sore, as you'd expect at age 49. But, much more than that, I was exhausted--my muscles ached and I had barely enough strength to get up the stairs.

Hoping for some relief, I took an extra dose of coenzyme Q10. I usually take 50-100 mg per day. Today, when I felt this overwhelming muscle fatigue, I took an additional 200 mg. Within 10 minutes, I felt a surge of energy. It was, in fact, a perceptible, quite dramatic feeling.

I am thoroughly convinced, through my own experiences on Lipitor (I have a high LDL particle number despite a healthy lifestyle, among other abnormalities), and the experiences of many other people, that coenzyme Q10 can be an extremely useful tool to minimize the muscle aches and weakness of the statin drugs.

If you do indeed need to take one of these agents, coenzyme Q10 is worth knowing about. Supplementing coenzyme Q10 has, for me, been a real lifesaver. For many people, LDL reduction is a crucial part of their heart scan score control program. In my experience, many of them would not be able to take the drug without eozyme Q10.

Blast your LDL with oat bran and almonds

21. July 2006 William Davis (1)
Nearly all of us can use an extra boost in reducing LDL cholesterol. We have a large number of people, in fact, who have reduced LDL into the Track Your Plaque range of 60 mg/dl or less without the use of statin cholesterol-reducing drugs.




Oat bran is among my favorite ways to reduce LDL. Three tablespoons per day is a really effective method to drop your LDL around 20 points. There's twice the beta glucan (soluble, or "viscous", fiber)in oat bran, as compared to the more popular oatmeal. Add oat bran to anything you can think of: yogurt, cottage cheese, vegetarian chili, oatmeal, top desserts with it, etc. Some people struggle to find oat bran in the grocery store. Most health food stores that sell bulk products will have oat bran, usually less than a $1 per pound. Many grocery stores will also have an oat bran hot cereal along with the Cream of Wheat and oatmeal. That's okay, provided the only ingredient is oat bran--no added sugars, etc.





Another dynamite method to reduce LDL 10-20 points is adding raw almonds to your daily food choices. One or two handfuls per day works great. We find it at Sam's Club for around $12.99 for a 3 lb. bag. The plentiful fibers and monounsaturates in almonds keep you full and satisified, take the edge off your sweet tooth, and even blunt the blood sugar rise caused by other foods.

Both these foods are also great ways to combat the metabolic syndrome. Since both fiber-rich oat bran and almonds slow the release of sugars into the blood, blood insulin level is also reduced. This results in a happy cascade of less small LDL, increased HDL, and a reduction in inflammation.

All these wonderful effects contribute to inching you closer to success: dropping your heart scan score.

Pre-diabetes with normal blood sugar

20. July 2006 William Davis (0)
We pay special attention to pre-diabetes, in all its varied manifestations, in the Track Your Plaque program. This is because these factors are potent instigators of coronary plaque growth.

Early in the Track Your Plaque program we ignored these measures. After all, this is a program for heart disease risk reduction, not for mangement of diabetes. But we saw explosive rates of plaque growth when pre-diabetic factors were not controlled--even when cholesterol and related factors were under excellent control.

It became increasingly clear that factors associated with pre-diabetes needed to be managed, as well. This includes small LDL, increased blood sugar, high blood pressure, increased inflammation (as CRP).

Many people, however, have normal blood sugars (100 mg/dl or less) with a high blood insulin level (>10 microunits/ml). (This blood test is available in most laboratories.) This means that they have early resistance to insulin. The pancreas, the source of insulin, responds to the body's unresponsiveness to insulin by increasing insulin production.

Increased blood insulin with normal blood sugar will drive production of higher triglycerides, a drop in HDL, creation of small LDL, and inflammation--and coronary plaque growth, as evidenced by increasing CT heart scan score.

Blood insulin levels can be very effectively dropped by weight loss; exercise; reduction of processed carbohydrates like breads, pretzels, and breakfast cereals; and increased raw nuts and oat products; and vitamin D replacement to normal levels. Drug manufacturers are desperately trying to make this a mandate for drug treatment (Actos, Avandia), but are encountering resistance, since most people without overt diabetes don't want to take diabetic medication (rightly so!).

You and your doctor should consider insulin as a factor to track, especially if you have small LDL, low HSL, or high triglycerides, or any of the other manifestations listed above.

Sometimes small LDL is the only abnormality

19. July 2006 William Davis (0)
Janet is a 58-year old schoolteacher. At 5 ft 3 inches and 104 lbs, she had barely an ounce of fat on her size-2 body. For years, Janet's primary care physician complimented her on her cholesterol numbers: LDL cholesterol values ranging from 100 to 130 mg/dl; HDL cholesterol of 50-53 mg/dl.

Yet she had coronary disease. Her heart scan score: 195.

Lipoprotein analysis uncovered a single cause: small LDL. 95% of all of Janet's LDL particles were in the small category. What was surprising was that this pattern occurred despite her slender build. Weight is a powerful influence on the small LDL pattern and the majority of people with it are overweight to some degree. But not Janet.

How did she get small LDL if she was already at or below her ideal weight? Genetics. Among the genetic patterns that can account for this pattern is a defect of an enzyme called cholesteryl-ester transfer protein, or CETP. This is the exact step, by the way, that is blocked by torcetrapib, the new agent slated for release sometime in future (The manufacturer, Pfizer, is apparently going to sell this agent only packaged in the same tablet as Lipitor. This has triggered an enormous amount of criticism against the company and they are, as a result discussing marketing torcetrapib separately.)

Also note that Janet had a severe excess of small LDL despite an HDL in the "favorable" range. (See my earlier conversation on this issue, The Myth of Small LDL at http://drprevention.blogspot.com/2006/06/myth-of-small-ldl.html.)

With Janet, weight loss to reduce small LDL was not an option. So we advised her to take fish oil, 4000 mg per day; niacin, 1000 mg per day; vitamin D, 2000 units per day; use abundant oat bran and raw almonds, both of which suppress small LDL. This regimen has--surprisingly--only partially suppressed her small LDL pattern by a repeat lipoprotein analysis we just performed. We're hoping this may do it, i.e., stop progression or reduce her heart scan score.

The lesson: Small LDL is a very potent pattern that can be responsible for heart disease, even if it occurs in isolation. And, contrary to conventional thinking, small LDL can occur as an independent abnormality, even when HDL is at favorable levels.

Stents, defibrillators, and other profit-making opportunities

16. avril 2006 William Davis (2)
As a practicing cardiologst, every day I receive a dozen or more magazines or newspapers targeting practicing physicians, not to mention the hundreds of letters, postcards, invitations to "talks", etc. that I receive. All of these materials share one common goal: To get the practicing cardiologist/physician to insert more of a manufacturer's stents, defibrillators, prescribe more of their drugs, etc.

This is a highly effective and profitable area. Pfizer's Lipitor, for instance, generated $12.2 billion just last year alone. This kind of money will fund an extraordinary amount of marketing.

I'm on the www.heart.org mailing list, a website for cardiologists. I'd estimate that 90% or more of their content is device-related: discussions of situations in which to insert stents, the expanding world of implantable devices, the ups and downs of various drugs. Rarely are discussions of healthy lifestyles, exercise, nutritional supplements, part of the dialogue.

How can you protect yourself from the brainwashed physician, flooded with visions of all the devices he can put in you, all the drugs that can "cure" your disease? Simple: information. Be better informed. Ask pointed questions. The idiotic lay press tells you to ask a doctor about his education. That's not generally the problem. Some of the best educated doc's I know are also the most flagrantly guilty of profiteering medicine.

Ask your doctor about his/her philosphy about the use of medications, devices, etc. If their word is God, take it or leave it, run the other way.

Will radiation kill you?

16. avril 2006 William Davis (4)
Several people have asked me lately if radiation is truly dangerous. These conversations were sparked by an editorial comment made on a column I wrote for Life Extension Magazine's April, 2006 issue on "Three ways to detect hidden heart disease".

Among the methods that were discussed in this piece was, of course, CT heart scanning. Anyone who is involved with CT heart scans Quickly recognizes the spectacular power of this test to uncover hidden, unsuspected heart disease, literally within seconds. In 2006, there's really nothing like it for the every day person to have hidden heart disease detected and precisely quantified.

Yet, the "rebuttal" to my article claimed that the broad use of heart scans was only my personal view and that, in truth, radiation kills people.

NONSENSE! If an ovarian cancer is discovered by a CT scan of the abdomen, is that unwise use of radiation? If pneumonia or lung cancer is discovered on a chest x-ray with minimal radiation exposure, have we performed a disservice. Of course not. In fact, these are often lifesaving applications of radiation.

Can radiation be used unwisely with excessive exposure? Of course. The 64 slice CT angiograms are just an example of this. Dr. Mehmet Oz announced on Oprah recently that this was a test to be used for broad screening of women for heart disease. This is wrong. The radiation required for a full 64 slice CT angiogram test is truly excessive for a screening application. You wouln't want to get breast cancer from your mammogram, would you? The radiation from a 64-slice CT angiogram is similar to that of a heart catheterization in the hospital--too much for screening. This is not to be confused with a CT heart scan for a calcium score performed on a 64 slice device. I think this can be performed with acceptable radiation exposure.

Think about what would happen, for instance, if you had your heart disease undetected, had a heart attack, and went to the hospital? During your hospitalization, you'd likely get five chest x-rays, a heart catheterization, perhaps one or more nuclear imaging tests, maybe even a full CT scan (with far more radiation than a screening heart scan). The amount of radiation of a heart scan is trivial compared to what you obtain in a hospital.

So take it all in perspective. The low level of radiation required for a simple heart scan (not an angiogram) does not by itself substantially add to your lifetime risk of radiation exposure. It may, in fact, save your life or reduce your life long exposure to radiation.

Are you using bogus supplements?

16. avril 2006 William Davis (0)
I consider nutritional supplements an important, many times a critical,part of a coronary plaque control program.

But use the wrong brand or use it in the wrong way, and you can obtain no benefit. Occasionally, you can even suffer adverse effects.

Take coenzyme Q10, for instance. (Track Your Plaque Members: A full, in-depth Special Report on coenzyme Q10 will be on the website in the next couple of weeks.) Take the wrong brand to minimize the likelihood of statin-related muscle aches, and you may find taking Lipitor, Zocor, Crestor, etc. intolerable or impossible. However, take a 100 mg preparation from a trusted manufacturer in an oil-based capsule, and you are far more likely to avoid the inevitable muscle aches. (Though, of course, consult with your doctor, for all it's worth, if you develop muscle aches on any of these prescription agents.)

Unfortunately, you and I often don't truly know for a fact if a bottle from the shelf of a health food store or drugstore is accurately labeled, pure, free of contaminants, and efficacious.

One really great service for people serious about supplements is the www.consumerlab.com website. They are a membership website (with dues very reasonable) started by a physician interested in ensuring supplement quality. Consumer Lab tests nutritional supplements to determine whether it 1) contains what the label claims, and 2) is free of contamination. (I have no reason to pitch this or any other site; it's just a great service.) They recently found a supplement with Dr. Andrew Weil's name on it to have excess quantities of lead!

What Consumer Lab does not do is determine efficacy. In other words, they do a responsible job of reporting on what clinical studies have been performed to support the use of a specific supplement. However, true claims of efficacy of supplement X to treat symptom or disease Y can only come with FDA approval. Supplements rarely will be put through the financial rigors of this process.

If you're not a serious supplement user, but just need a reliable source, we've had good experiences with:

--GNC--the national chain
--Vitamin Shoppe--also a national chain
--www.lifeextension.com or www.lef.org--A great and low-priced source, but they do charge a $75 annual membership that comes with a subscription to their magazine, Life Extension (which I frequently write for) and several free supplements that you may or may not need. Again, I'm not pitching them; they are simply a good source.
--Solgar--a major manufacturer
--Vitamin World
--Nature's Bounty
--Sundown

There are many others, as well. Unfortunately, it's only the occasional manufacturer or distributor that permits unnacceptable contamination with lead or other poisons, or inaccurately labels their supplement (e.g., contains 1000 mg of glucosamine when it really contains 200 mg). I have not come across any manufacturer/distributor who has systemtically marketed uniformly bad products.

It really helps to have someone to lean on

16. avril 2006 William Davis (0)
Among my patients are several husband and wife teams, both of whom have heart disease by some measure. Several couples, for instance, consist of a huband who's received a stent, survived a heart attack, or has some other scar of the conventional approach. The wives generally have a substantial heart scan score in the several hundred range.

There are a few couples for which the roles are reversed: wife with bypass, heart attack, etc. and husband with a substantial quantity of coronary plaque by CT heart scan.

From them all, however, I've learned the power of teamwork. When both wife and husband (or even "significant other") are committed to the effort of controlling or reversing heart disease risk, the likelihood of success is magnified many-fold. Everything is easier: shopping for and choosing foods, incorporating supplements in the budget, taking vacations with a healthy focus, following through and sticking with your program.

Several of the couples have succeeded in obtaining regression of plaque for both man and woman. Both have reduced their heart scan scores and, as a result, dramatically reduced the potential for future heart attack and procedures.

Unfortunately, I will also see the opposite situation: One spouse committed to the program but the other indifferent. They may say such things as "You can't control what happens in the future." Or, "There's no way you can get rid of risk for heart disease. My doctor says it's hereditary." Or, "I've eaten this way since I was a kid. I'm not changing now for you or for anybody else."

Such negative commentary can't help but erode your commitment to health. Most of us recognize these sorts of comments as self-fulfulling and self-defeating.

What should you do if you have an unsupportive partner? Not easy. But it really can help to seek out a supportive partner, whether it's a friend, relative, or other significant person in your life. Of course, not everybody can find such a person. Perhaps that's another way our program can help.

I'd like to hear from anyone who does obtain substantial support of someone close, or if you are struggling to do so.

Five foods that can booby trap your heart disease prevention program

14. avril 2006 William Davis (0)
There are several foods that commonly come up on people's lists of habitual foods that are truly undesirable for a heart disease prevention program. Curiously, people choose these foods because of the mis-perception that they are healthy. My patients are often shocked when I tell them that they are not healthy and are, in fact, detrimental to their program.

I'm not talking about foods that are obviously unhealthy. You know these: fried foods, greasy cheeseburgers, French fries, bacon, sausage, etc. Nearly everyone knows that the high saturated fat content, low fiber, and low nutritional value of these foods are behind heart disease, hypertension, and a variety of cancers.

I'm talking about foods that people say they eat because they view them as healthy--but they're not.

Here's the list:

1) Low-fat or non-fat salad dressings--Virtually all brands we've examined have high-fructose corn syrup as one the main ingredients. What does high fructose corn syrup do? Triggers sugar cravings, makes your triglycerides skyrocket (causing formation of abnormal lipoproteins like small LDL), and causes diabetes. The average American now ingests nearly 80 lbs of this evil sweetener per year. You're far better off with olive, canol, grapeseed, or flaxseed based salad dressings.

2) Breakfast cereals--If you've been following these discussions, you know that the majority of breakfast cereals are sugar. They may not actually contain sugar, but they contain ingredients that are converted to sugar in your body. They may be cleverly disguised as healthy--Raisin Bran, Shredded Wheat, etc.

3) Pretzels--"A low-fat snack". That's right. A low-fat snack that raises blood sugar like eating table sugar from the bowl.

4) Margarine--Forget this silly argument about which is worse, butter or margarine. Which is worse, strychnine or lead? Both are poisons to the human body. Who cares which is worse? Fortunately, there are now healthy "margarines" like Smart Balance and Benecol that lack the saturated fat or hydrogenated fat of either.

4) Bananas--Bananas are not all that intrinsically unhealthy. The problem is that people will say to me, "Oh sure, I eat fruit. Two bananas a day." What I hear is "I don't really eat fruit with high nutrient value, fiber, and reduced sugar release. I reach for only bananas which yield extreme sugar rises in my blood and are low fiber." Aren't they high in potassium? Yes, but there are better sources. Cut back if you are a banana freak.


Why the mis-perceptions? A holdover from the low-fat diet days and marketing from food manufacturers are the principal reasons. Of course, foods are meant to be enjoyed, but be informed about it. Choose foods for the right reasons, not because of some cleverly-crafted marketing campaign.

Breakfast of champions?

12. avril 2006 William Davis (1)
I spend time every day educating or reminding patients that breakfast cereals are not health foods.

I see jaws drop in shock when I tell them that, in my opinion and despite the marketing claims, Cheerios, Raisin Bran, Shredded Wheat, and the like do not yield health benefits. In fact, they do the the opposite: dramatically raise blood sugar and trigger an adverse cascade of events that eventually leads to diabetes and heart disease.

Why the health claims in advertising? Because these products contain insoluble fiber, the sort that makes your bowels regular. Yes, your bowels are important to health, too. But the benefits end there.

Breakfast cereals are a highly refined, processed food that are not good for your plaque control program. What they are is a highly profitable, multi-billion dollar business, deeply entrenched in American culture ("They'rrrre grrrrrreat!"--Tony the Tiger; "There's a whole scoop of raisins in every box of Post Raisin Bran!" Bet you remember them all.)

I find it particularly upsetting when I see the stamp of approval from the American Heart Association on some products. Gee, if the Heart Association says it's good for you, it must be true! Don't you believe it. The American Heart Association relies on corporate donations, just like any other charity.

If you must eat breakfast cereals, refer to www.glycemicindex.com for a full database of glycemic indexes. You can look up a specific product and it will list its glycemic index, or sugar-releasing properties. You should try to keep glycemic index of the foods you choose below 50.

For a revealing discussion of the influence of food marketers on our perceptions of food, see Track Your Plaque nutrition expert, Gay Riley's discussion The Marketing of Food and Diets in America at her website, www.netnutritionist.com.

In heart disease prevention, shoot for perfection

12. avril 2006 William Davis (0)
It really struck me today that it's the people who've chosen to compromise their prevention program who end up with trouble--heart procedures, heart attack, even heart failure.

Take Bob, for example. Bob is 73 years old and had a bypass operation in 2000. The procedure went well and Bob enjoyed 6 years of seemingly trouble-free life. Bob had a seriously low HDL cholesterol for which he as taken a modest dose of niacin, but was unwilling to do much more. His HDL cholesterol was thererefore "stalled" at around 40 mg. (We aim for 60 mg or greater.) We talked repeatedly about the options for increasing HDL but Bob was content with his results. After all, since his bypass operation, he'd felt well and could do all he wanted without physical limitation.

But Bob underwent a stress test for surveillance purposes (which we routinely do 5 or more years after bypass surgery). The test was markedly abnormal with two major areas of poor blood flow to his heart (signalling potential heart attack in future). Bob ended up getting 5 stents to salvage two bypass grafts, both of which showed signs of substantial degeneration.

I've seen this scenario repeatedly: A person is unwilling to go the extra mile to obtain perfection in lipid/lipoprotein patterns, lifestyle changes, and taking the basic, required supplements. Compromises eventually catch up to you in the form of another heart attack, more procedures, heart failure, physical disability, even death.

The message: Don't draw compromises in heart disease prevention. Coronary plaque is a chronic process. It will take advantage of you if you ever let your guard down.

The epidemic of small LDL

11. avril 2006 William Davis (0)
Of the patients I saw in my office yesterday, virtually EVERYONE had small LDL.

Small LDL is emerging as an extraordinarily prevalent lipoprotein pattern that drives coronary plaque growth. Previous estimates have put small LDL as affecting only 20-30% of people with coronary disease. However, in my experience in the last few years, I would estimate that greater than 80% of people with measurable coronary plaque have small LDL.

If you have a heart scan score >zero, chances are you have it, too.

I call small LDL a "modern" disease because it has skyrocketed in prevalence recently because of the great surge in inactivity in Americans.

When's the last time you walked to the grocery store and back, lugging two bags of groceries? How many years has it been since you've push-mowed your lawn? All the small conveniences of life have permeated further and further into our activities. Most of us spend the great majority of our day right where you are now--on your duff.

On the bright side, small LDL in most people is reducable by simply getting up and going. But the old teaching of 30 minutes of activity per day is now outdated. This was true when the other hours of your life included physical activities, like housework or a moderately active job. However, if the other 23 1/2 hours of your day are sedentary, then 30 minutes a day won't do it. An hour or more of activity, whether exercise or physical labor of some variety will get you better small LDL-suppressing results.

For most people with small LDL, fish oil and niacin are also necessary to fully suppress small LDL to the Track Your Plaque goal of <10 mg/dl.

A great discussion on vitamin D

10. avril 2006 William Davis (0)
If you need better convincing that vitamin D is among the most underappreciated but crucial vitamins for health, see Russell Martin's review of vitamin D and its role in cancer prevention. You'll find it in March, 2006 Life Extension Magazine or their www.LEF.org website at:

http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1308&query=vitamin%20d&hiword=VITAM%20VITAMER%20VITAMERS%20VITAMI%20VITAMINA%20VITAMINAS%20VITAMINC%20VITAMIND%20VITAMINE%20VITAMINEN%20VITAMINES%20VITAMINIC%20VITAMINK%20VITAMINS%20d%20vitamin%20

Our preliminary experience over the past year suggests that vitamin D may be the crucial missing link in many people's plaque control program. We've had a handful of people who, despite an otherwise perfect program (LDL<60, HDL>60, etc.; vigorous exercise, healthy food selection, etc.--I mean perfect)continued to show plaque growth. The rate of growth was slower than the natural expected rate of 30% per year, but still frightening rates of 14-18% per year--until we added vitamin D. All of a sudden, we saw dramatic regression of 7-25% in 6 months to a year.

This does not mean that vitamin D all by itself regresses plaque. I believe it means that vitamin D exerts a "permissive" effect, allowing all the other treatments (fish oil, LDL reduction, HDL raising, correction of small LDL, etc.) to exert their full benefit. So please don't stop everything and just take D. This will not work. However, adding vitamin D to your program on top of the basic Track Your Plaque approach--that's the best way I know of.

MSNBC Report: We need more heart procedures!

10. avril 2006 William Davis (0)
A recent headline from MSNBC by Robert Bazell reads:

NEW YORK - Angioplasty, bypass surgery and cholesterol-lowering medications are among the many interventions that have brought a sharp decrease in heart disease deaths in recent years. But, as Dr. Sharon Hayes of the Mayo Clinic points out, there is one big problem.

“The death rates in women have not declined as much as they have in men,” she says.

The piece goes on to suggest that women are getting short-ended in the diagnosis of heart symptoms and heart attack. The solution: More testing to assess the need for procedures like bypass.

This is typical of the device and medication-dominated media consciousness: More procedures, more medication, more devices. Who's paying for advertising, after all? The money at stake is huge. But is this what you want?

Don't be swayed by media reporters with limited understanding of the real issues (at best), consciousness of who's paying for advertising (at worst). Yes, heart disese is often underestimated or misdiagnosed in women. The answer is better detection earlier in life followed by efforts to halt the process--effective, safe treatments for people's benefit, not just profit.
All posts by william-davis

Why does wheat cause arthritis?

13. November 2010 William Davis (48)
Wheat causes arthritis.

Before you say "What the hell is he saying now?", let me connect the dots on how this ubiquitous dietary ingredient accelerates the path to arthritis in its many forms.

1) Wheat causes glycation--Glycation is glucose-modification of proteins in the body that occurs when blood glucose exceeds 100 mg/dl. Cartilage cells are especially susceptible to glycation. The cartilage cells you had at age 18 are the very same cartilage cells you have at age 60, since they lack the ability to reproduce and repair themselves. Proteins in cartilage are highly susceptible to glycation, which makes them stiff and brittle. Stiff, brittle cartilage loses its soft, elastic, lubricating function. Damaged cartilage cells don't regenerate nor produce more protective proteins. This allows destruction of cartilage tissue, inflammation, and, eventually, bone-on-bone arthritis.

Because wheat, even whole wheat, sends blood sugar higher than almost all other foods, from table sugar to Snickers bars, glycation occurs after each and every slice of toast, every whole wheat bagel, every pita wrap.

2) Wheat is acidifying--Humans are meant to consume a diet that is net alkaline. While hunter-gatherers who consume meat along with plentiful vegetables and fruits live a net alkaline diet (urine pH 7 to 9), modern humans who consume insufficient vegetables and too much grain (of which more than 90% is usually wheat) shift the body towards net acid (urine pH 5 to 7). Wheat is The Great Disrupter, upsetting the normal pH balance that causes loss of calcium from bones, resulting in decalcification, weakness, arthritis and osteoporotic fractures.

3) Wheat causes visceral fat--The extravagant glucose-insulin surges triggered by wheat leads to accumulation of visceral fat: wheat belly.

Visceral fat not only releases inflammatory mediators like tumor necrosis factor and various interleukins, but is also itself inflamed. The inflammatory hotbed of the wheat belly leads to inflammation of joint tissues. This is why overweight and obese wheat-consuming people have more arthritis than would be explained by the burden of excess weight: inflammation makes it worse. Conversely, weight loss leads to greater relief from arthritis pain and inflammation than would be explained by just lightening the physical load.

We need a name for this wheat effect. How about "bagel bones"?

Why do morphine-blocking drugs make you lose weight?

10. November 2010 William Davis (24)
Naloxone (IV) and naltrexone (oral) are drugs that block the action of morphine.

If you were an inner city heroine addict and got knifed during a drug deal, you'd be dragged into the local emergency room. You're high, irrational, and combative. The ER staff restrain you, inject you with naloxone and you are instantly not high. Or, if you overdosed on morphine and stopped breathing, an injection of naloxone would reverse the effect immediately, making you sit bolt upright and wondering what the heck was going on.

So what do morphine-blocking drugs have to do with weight loss?

An odd series of clinical studies conducted over the past 40 years has demonstrated that foods can have opiate-like properties. Opiate blockers, like naloxone, can thereby block appetite. One such study demonstrated 28% reduction in caloric intake after naloxone administration. But opiate blocking drugs don't block desire for all foods, just some.

What food is known to be broken down into opiate-like polypeptides?

Wheat. On digestion in the gastrointestinal tract, wheat gluten is broken down into a collection of polypeptides that are released into the bloodstream. These gluten-derived polypeptides are able to cross the blood-brain barrier and enter the brain. Their binding to brain cells can be blocked by naloxone or naltrexone administration. These polypeptides have been named exorphins, since they exert morphine-like activity on the brain. While you may not be "high," many people experience a subtle reward, a low-grade pleasure or euphoria.

For the same reasons, 30% of people who stop consuming wheat experience withdrawal, i.e., sadness, mental fog, and fatigue.

Wouldn't you know that the pharmaceutical industry would eventually catch on? Drug company startup, Orexigen, will be making FDA application for its drug, Contrave, a combination of naltrexone and the antidepressant, buproprion. It is billed as a blocker of the "mesolimbic reward system" that enhances weight loss.

Step back a moment and think about this: We are urged by the USDA and other "official" sources of nutritional advice to eat more "healthy whole grains." Such advice creates a nation of obese Americans, many the unwitting victims of the new generation of exorphin-generating, high-yield dwarf mutant wheat. A desperate, obese public now turns to the drug industry to provide drugs that can turn off the addictive behavior of the USDA-endorsed food.

There is no question that wheat has addictive properties. You will soon be able to take a drug to block its effects. That way, the food industry profits, the drug industry profits, and you pay for it all.

Heart scan tomfoolery 2

9. November 2010 William Davis (2)
In the last Heart Scan Blog post, I discussed the significance of the apparent discrepancy between Steve's heart scan score and volume score. This post addresses his second question, also a FAQ about heart scan scores.

Steve noted that his second scan compared to his first showed:

- Left Main volume went up from 22.4 to 35.6
- LAD went down from 95.2 to 91.3
- LCX volume went down from 23.2 to 0
- RCA volume went up from 0 to 9.3

So there are apparent divergences in behavior in the left main that increased and both LAD (left anterior descending) and LCX (left circumflex) that decreased.

The explanation is simple: When heart scans are "scored," they are viewed in horizontal "slices." When the heart is viewed as horizontal slices, the LAD and LCX originate from the common left main stem. In other words, it's like a tree with the left mainsteam representing the trunk, the LAD and LCX representing two main branches.

Plaque can form, obviously, in all three arteries, but it can do so by starting in the left main, for instance, and extending into either the LAD or LCX, or both. The left main plaque can therefore bridge any 2 or all 3 arteries.

When the plaque is "scored" by taking the computer mouse and circling the calcified plaque in question (to allow the computer program to generate the calcium score and volume score of that particular plaque), the plaque that may extend from left main into the LAD and/or LCX might be labeled "left main," or it might be labeled "LAD" or "LCX." There is no reliable way to "dissect" apart the plaque into the three arteries, since the plaque is coalescent and continuous. So the scoring technologist or physician simply arbitrarily declares the artery "LAD," for instance.

The problem comes when two different interpretation methods are used: Perhaps it's a new technologist or physician, or there was no attention paid to how the previous scan was read. One reader calls it "left main" and the next calls it "LCX."

So the apparent discrepancy has to do with flaws in the methods of segregating plaque location, as well as inattention to scoring techniques. The total score, however, remains unaffected.

Nonetheless, Steve has enjoyed a modest reduction in the score of the left main/LAD/LCX from his original 140.8 down to a second left main/LAD/LCX score of 126.9.

The right coronary artery (RCA), however, is not subject to this difficulty and Steve score shows a modest increase in score. (Why the divergent behavior between left main/LAD/LCX and RCA? There is no clear explanation for this, unfortunately.)

All in all, the news for Steve is good: He achieved these results on his own using nutritional techniques. Because he, in all practicality, stopped the progression of his heart scan score and avoided the "natural" rate of increase of 30% per year, all he needs to do is "tweak" his program a bit to achieve reversal, i.e., reduction of score.


Here's an image from another previous Heart Scan Blog post (about the relationship of osteoporosis and coronary disease) that shows such a plaque that starts in the left mainstem yet extends into both the LAD and LCX:

Heart scan tomfoolery

4. November 2010 William Davis (12)
Heart Scan Blog reader, Steve, sent these interesting questions about his heart scan experience. (I sometimes forget that this blog is called "The Heart Scan Blog" and was originally--several years ago--meant to discuss heart scans. It has evolved to become a much broader conversation.)

The answers are a bit lengthy, so I'll tackle Steve's questions in two parts, the second in another blog post.

Dr. Davis,

I had a heart scan last year. The score was 96. While not a horrible score, it
was a wake up call, and I changed my lifestyle.

I had another scan this year and the heart scan score went up to 105, but the
volume score went down from 141 to 136.

The report I received said this:

'The calcium volume score is less in the current study as compared with the
original or reference study. This is an excellent coronary result and indicates
that there has been a net decrease in coronary plaque burden. The current
prevention program is very effective and should be continued.'

This is all well and good, but I have two questions:

1. Am I really going in the right direction even though the heart scan score
went up 9%?

2. Here are results that make no sense to me:
- Left Main volume went up from 22.4 to 35.6
- LAD went down from 95.2 to 91.3
- LCX volume went down from 23.2 to 0
- RCA volume went up from 0 to 9.3

Why would there be so much variation from year to year, and why would the plaque
move from site to site?

Steve

Questions like Steve's come up with some frequency, so I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss in a blog post.

First of all, the conventional heart scan score, or "calcium score" or "Agatston score" (after Dr. Arthur Agatston, developer of the simple algorithm for calcium scoring, as well as South Beach Diet fame), is the product of the area of the plaque in a single CT "slice" image
multiplied by a density coefficient, i.e., a number ranging from 1 to 4 that grades the x-ray density of the plaque. (1 is least dense; 4 is most dense.) A density coefficient of 1 therefore signifies some calcium within plaque, with higher density coefficients signifying increasing calcium content and density. Incidentally, "soft" plaque, i.e., non-calcified, would fall in the less than 1 range, even the negative range (fatty tissue within plaque).

The volume, or "volumetric," score is the brainchild of Drs. Paulo Raggi and Traci Callister, who expressed concern that, if we cause plaque to shrink in volume, the density coefficient used to calculate the calcium score would increase (since they believed that calcium could not be reduced, contrary to our Track Your Plaque experience, thereby leading to misleading results. They therefore developed an algorithm that did not rely on density coefficients, but used the same two-dimensional area obtained in the standard heart scan score, but replaced the density coefficient with a (mathematically interpolated) vertical axis (z-axis) measure of plaque "height." This 3-dimensional volumetric value therefore provided a method to generate a measure of calcium volume. In their original publication, the volume score proved more reproducible than the standard calcium score. This way, any reduction in plaque volume would not be influenced by the misleading effects of calcium density, but reflect a real reduction in volume.

Callister and Raggi's study also highlighted that calcium scoring in any form is subject to variability. Back in 1998 (when their study was published), there was a bit more variation than today due to the image acquisition methods used. But, even today, there is about 9% variation in scoring even if performed repeatedly (with less percentage variation the higher the score).

Unfortunately, volume scoring never caught on and the calcium score has been the most commonly used value by most heart scan centers and in most clinical studies. And, in all practicality, the two values nearly always track together: When calcium score increases, volume score increases in tandem; when calcium score decreases, volume score decreases in tandem.

Steve is therefore an exception to the general observation that calcium score and volume score travel together. Steve's calcium score increased, while his volume score decreased. From the above discussion, you can surmise a few things about Steve's experience:"

1) In all likelihood, the changes in both calcium score and volume score could simply be due to variability, i.e., variation in the placement of his body on the scan table, variation in position of the heart, variation in data acquisition, etc. There is a high likelihood that neither value changed; both are essentially unchanged.

2) If the changes are not due to scan variability, but are real, then it could be that the calcified plaque is reduced in volume but increased in density. If true, this is probably still a favorable phenomenon, since plaque volume is a powerful predictor of coronary "events" and an increase in plaque density is likely a benign phenomenon. It would also raise questions about the adequacy of vitamin D and vitamin K2 status, both major control factors over calcium deposition and metabolism.

So, in all likelihood, Steve's apparent discrepant results are modest good news, especially since calcium scores can ordinarily be expected to increase at the rate of 30% per year if no action is taken. Experiencing no change in score, calcium or volumetric, carries a very excellent prognosis, with risk for heart attack approaching zero. (I'm impressed that Steve accomplished this on his own, something the majority of my colleagues haven't the least bit of interest doing.)

Part 2 of Steve's question will be tackled in a separate post.

Can I see your linea alba?

2. November 2010 William Davis (19)
As more and more people are eliminating wheat from their diet and losing their "wheat bellies," i.e., the muffin top around their waists along with the visceral fat beneath, I am frequently seeing something I haven't seen in years: the linea alba.

Linea alba, or "white line," refers to the band of connective tissue running vertically from sternum to pubic area. It underlies the depression that separates the horizontal abdominal rectus muscles of the "six pack" abdomen.

It's like digging in your closet and finding something you thought you'd lost years earlier. Surprise! It's been there all along. Buried deep beneath the abdominal fat from dozens of deep-crust pizzas, whole wheat pasta, and whole grain sandwiches is this pleasing anatomical feature long lost from most peoples' anteriors.


Can you see your linea alba?

Dwarf mutant wheat

31. October 2010 William Davis (13)
Here's my 12-year old standing next to dwarf wheat grown near my house. The wheat is full-grown, harvested about 2 weeks after I took this photo.

Wheat is no longer the 4-foot tall "amber waves of grain" of the 20th century. Over 99% of all wheat grown worldwide is now the 18- to 24-inch tall dwarf. New size, new biochemistry, new effects on humans. I call it dwarf "mutant" wheat despite its lack of extra limbs or eyes because of the dramatic transformation required to breed this unique synthetic plant. 

Short-stature means less stalk, faster growing. The stockier stalk also means that the heavy seed head won't cause the plant to "buckle," as 4-foot tall wheat used to. 





The thousand-plus proteins of wheat that have been transformed to generate this dwarf mutant also changed wheat's relationship to consuming humans.

Medical education in the days of Big Pharma

30. October 2010 William Davis (43)
I received this detailed email from an unexpected source: a 3rd-year medical student.

In her email, Theresa describes her frustrations in what she is witnessing for the first time, proceeding through her training and getting exposed to the realities of medical life.

Medical training, particularly clinical training from the 3rd and 4th years of medical school, onwards through internship, residency, and fellowship training, consists largely of bullying, "pimping" (meaning rapid-fire grilling of questions at trainees), and sleep deprivation. It is an extended hazing period meant to demoralize and inculcate the trainee into following the lead of superiors. Buck the system and you're . . . out. Imagine you've just sunk $190,000 and 8 years of college into getting to your internship. You are not going to chance being thrown out on principle. So you just swallow your pride, go along with the game, and echo all the answers they want you to repeat.

While Theresa laments the sad state of modern American pharmaceutical- and procedure-obsessed medicine, she provides me with hope that some young people training to practice medicine today will carve out their own paths, not the one laid for them by the pharmaceutical industry, nor fall for the temptation of higher-paying procedural specialties like orthopedics and cardiology. I am impressed with her ability to see this so early in her career.


Dr. Davis,

I am a 3rd year medical student at ________ University. I came across
your blog today, and I'm very glad I did. I appreciate the value of your time,
so I want to be as succinct as possible while still getting across what I'm
really thinking and feeling:

From what I gathered exploring your blog for a while this afternoon, the
wellness strategies you incorporate into your practice are some of the exact
things I want to do with my future patients. Personally, I strongly believe in
staying healthy by eating right, staying active, etc. For instance, I don't eat
grains or much in the way of starches and sugars. So I love the fact that you
are helping your patients make these powerful and foundational changes in their
lives.

As I'm sure was your experience, a full appreciation of nutrition and lifestyle
as a first-line health strategy is not something that was taught to me in
medical school. I came to school with this deep conviction already in my heart
and mind, and now, on my 3rd year rotations, I am still conflicted and at a loss
as to how I'm going to be able to practice medicine the way I want to, which is
to incorporate these all-important principles into the care of my patients.

What I've come to understand about the medical field today is that the
information that exists is primarily subsidized by the pharmaceutical industry,
and dictated to medical professionals as "evidence-based" treatment guidelines
and recommendations by organizations with sincere and official sounding names
like American Heart Association and American Cancer Society. Add to that the
pressure of potential malpractice litigation and the complexities of the
insurance reimbursement game, and it seems to me like what you get is a bunch of
diagnostic and medication management algorithms that any half-trained monkey
could follow. In his sleep. Which I guess would be alright if at least they
weren't algorithms based on misguided, self-serving, profit-seeking Big Pharma,
Food Inc, insurance conglomerates, and agri-politics (I think I just made that
word up.)

A lot of well-intentioned physicians are just parroting the party
line, as their patients dutifully and gratefully chomp down their statins and
diabetes drugs and blood pressure pills. And I'm sorry, but "diabetes
education" programs with curriculum put together by drug companies? How is that
even legal? Massive corporations raking in massive profits that are dependent
on uncontrolled blood sugars telling people how to best control their blood
sugars?!

Anyway, forgive my rant. What I'm getting at is this: How can I practice
medicine, with the freedom to educate/coach/treat my patients with diet and
lifestyle changes to mitigate/reverse their chronic health conditions? Without
feeling like I automatically have to first and foremost prescribe the litany of
drugs dictated by "evidence-based" guidelines? Without excessive fear of
litigation or loss of credibility among my peers? Without having to lie through
my teeth to my patients, and tell them that eating low-fat and heart-healthy
whole grains is the best way (implication also being the only scientifically
proven way) to control their diabetes, lower their cholesterol, etc, etc, etc?

I want my patients to have the full benefit of honest nutrition and lifestyle
information, and medications and surgery as necessary. I'm afraid that there
isn't room for this kind of holistic emphasis in the medical profession today.
Are there residencies that include this kind of training or at least respect
these "unconventional" philosophies? Are there clinics or practice groups that
would allow me to practice with this emphasis, or is there a bias against docs
who do not necessarily conform to the party position? Will I have no other
option but to go it alone under the auspices of my own shingle? How do you
handle these kinds of issues in your professional life?

Sincerely,
Theresa M.


A ray of hope! Perhaps Theresa is just the first among many more medical students who refuse to submit to the brainwashing practices of the pharmaceutical industry, the same mind manipulation that has hopelessly turned most of my colleagues into their unwitting puppets.

I'll be interested in watching how Theresa's experience unfolds. I've asked her to keep us informed every so often.

The Great Low-Carb Connector

28. October 2010 William Davis (15)
The effusive Jimmy Moore of Livin' La Vida Low-Carb asked me to help get the word out about his new podcast subscription service, The Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show Fan Club.

Jimmy has been The Great Connector for the low-carb discussion, from his ubiquitous online and social media presence, to his annual low-carb cruise. He has also broadcast first class interviews of nutritional notables like Gary Taubes, Dr. Robert Lustig, and blogger Stephan Guyenet. His Fan Club expands listener involvement in the podcast process and, potentially, greater access to his guests:

My faithful listeners have long been asking me about how they can become even more engaged in the behind-the-scenes workings of the show to get the inside scoop about what’s coming next. I’ve heard people ask specifically for access to transcripts of the most popular podcasts, a listing of the interviews I’m currently working on with the ability to ask questions of those guests, to have sneak peek of audio from not-yet-released interviews and more. My amazing podcast producer, Kevin Kennedy-Spaein, and I have been discussing how to best do this for a while in an effort to meet the demands of our biggest fans and we think we’ve got just the answer for you. Introducing The Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb Show Fan Club!

This is for all intents and purposes the quintessential destination for people who can’t get enough of this podcast that goes much deeper than discussion about the low-carb lifestyle. Yes, I speak with a lot of people who are supporters of carbohydrate-restricted diets, but I also talk with fitness gurus, people who support alternative eating plans, those who have interesting theories and beliefs regarding health and much more. Wouldn’t you love to have a chance to know who’s coming up in my schedule to be able to ask them questions BEFORE I interview them? Keep in mind that my interviews are pre-recorded and air sometimes as much as 5-6 months afterwards. Members of the “fan club” would know all about who’s coming and likely will have their question asked on the air just for signing up to be a part of this exciting new addition to “The Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb Show.”

Jimmy is the guy who is bringing this disparate and widely-spread community together. He's the guy we all know, he knows "everybody." I'm looking forward to seeing how this new project makes a more involved, personal delivery of interaction possible.

New Track Your Plaque record!

27. October 2010 William Davis (19)
The record for the largest drop in heart scan score (by percentage of starting score) has been held for around three years, with 63% reduction in score.

Well, the longstanding record was broken this week: 75% reduction in score.

At the start, Freddie has disastrous lipid values:

LDL cholesterol 263 mg/dl
HDL 26 mg/dl
Triglycerides 323 mg/dl
Total cholesterol 354 mg/dl

Lipoproteins (NMR) were worse:

LDL particle number 3360 nmol/L
Small LDL 2677 nmol/L

Heart scan score: 732

Interestingly, Freddie had virtually no vitamin D in his body, with a 25-hydroxy vitamin D level that was unmeasurable.

Freddie was miserably intolerant to statin drugs, with even the smallest dose resulting in intolerable muscle aches. That's when his doctor sent him to me.

Because I felt that the dominant abnormality in Freddie's lipids and lipoproteins was small LDL particles, representing 80% of total LDL particle number, we focused his program on correcting this parameter. Freddie's program was therefore focused elimination of wheat, cornstarch, oats, and sugars, along with an eventual vitamin D dose of 20,000 units to finally achieve a 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 66 ng/ml. No statin drug in sight.

43 lbs of weight loss and 18 months later, a second heart scan score: 183--a 75% reduction.

While the rest of the world continues to insist that coronary calcium (heart scan) scores cannot be reduced, I am seeing records being broken. I add Freddie's experience to the rapidly growing list of people who have not just stopped coronary plaque from growing, but are seizing control and reducing it, sometimes to dramatic degrees.

The Anti-AGEing Diet

22. October 2010 William Davis (36)
Advanced Glycation End-products, AGEs, are a diverse collection of compounds that have been associated with endothelial dysfunction, cataracts, kidney disease, and atherosclerosis in both animal models and human studies. Not all involve glycation nor glucose, but the catch-all name has stuck.

There are a number of actively-held theories of aging, such as the idea that aging is the result of accumulated products of oxidative injury; a genetically pre-programmed script of declining hormones and other phenomena; genetic "mis-reading" that results in disordered gene expression, debris, and uncontrolled cell proliferation (e.g., cancer); among others.

One of the fascinating theories of aging is, cutely, the AGEing theory of aging, i.e., the accumulation of AGE debris in various tissues. Such AGEs have been recovered in lenses from the eyes, atherosclerotic plaque in arteries, kidney and liver tissue, even brain tissue of people with Alzheimer's dementia. AGEs perform no known useful physiologic function: They are relatively inert once formed (especially polymeric AGEs), they do not participate in communication, they make no contribution of significance. They simply gum up the works--debris. (AGEs are to health as the USDA food pyramid is to dietary advice: material for the junkyard.)

There are two general ways to develop AGEs:

1) Endogenous--High blood glucose (any blood sugar above 100 mg/dl) will permit glycation of the various proteins of the body. The higher the blood glucose, the more glycation will proceed. Glycation also occurs at low velocity at blood glucose levels below 100 mg/dl, though this would therefore represent the "normal," expected rate of glycation. Endogenous glycation explains why people with diabetes appear to age and develop all the phenomena of aging faster than non-diabetics (kidney disease, eye diseases, atherosclerosis, dementia, etc.). Hemoglobin A1c, HbA1c, is a readily-obtainable blood test that can show how enthusiastically you have been glycating proteins (hemoglobin, in this case) over the last 2 to 3 months.

A low-carbohydrate diet is the nutritional path that limits endogenous glycation leading to AGE formation. Restricting the most obnoxious carbohydrates, the ones that increase blood sugar the most, such as wheat, cornstarch, rice starch, potato starch, tapioca starch, and sucrose, will limit endogenous AGE formation.

2) Exogenous--AGEs (here especially is where the "AGE" label is misleading, since many other reactions besides glycation lead to such compounds) are formed with cooking at high temperatures, especially meats and animal products. Therefore, a rare steak will have far less than a well-done steak. A thoroughly baked piece of salmon will have greater AGE content than sashimi.

The forms of cooking that increase AGE content the most: roasting,deep-frying, and barbecuing. Temperatures of 350 degrees Fahrenheit and greater increase AGE formation.

Therefore, cooking foods at lower temperature (e.g., baking, sauteeing, or boiling), eating meats rare whenever possible (not chicken or pork, of course), eating raw foods whenever possible (e.g., nuts) are all strategies that limit exogenous AGE exposure. And minimize or avoid butter use, if we are to believe the data that suggest that it contains the highest exogenous AGE content of any known food.

If we connect the dots and limit exposure to both endogenous and exogenous AGEs, we will therefore not trigger this collection of debris that is likely associated with disease and aging. So following a low-AGE diet may also be an anti-aging strategy.

The New Track Your Plaque Diet, soon to be released on the Track Your Plaque website, has incorporated strategies to limit both endogenous as well as exogenous AGEs.