I dare you: Ask your doctor whether coronary heart disease can be reversed.

My prediction is that the answer will be a flat "NO." Or, something like "rarely, in extraordinary cases," kind of like spontaneous cure of cancer.

There are indeed discussions that have developed over the years in the conventional scientific and medical literature about reversal of heart disease, like Dean Ornish's Lifestyle Heart Trial, the REVERSAL Trial of atorvastatin (Lipitor) and the ASTEROID Trial of rosuvastatin (Crestor). Reversal of atherosclerotic plaque in these trials tends to be small in scale and sporadic.

Of course, the medical literature is swamped with studies that have nothing to do with reversal, like what stent is best, what platelet-inhibiting intravenous drug is best, when should angioplasty or stents be used and when, do implantable defibrillators save lives, improvements in coronary bypass techniques, etc. There are tens of thousands of these studies for every study that focuses on the question of atherosclerotic plaque reversal.

The concept of reversal of heart disease has simply not gained a foothold in the lexicon nor in the thinking of practicing physicians. Heart disease is a relentlessly, unavoidably, and helplessly progressive disease in their way of thinking. Perhaps we can reduce the likelihood of cardiovascular events like heart attack and death with statin drugs and beta blockers. But reverse heart disease ? In your dreams!

We need to change this mentality. Heart disease is a reversible phenomenon. Atherosclerosis in other territories like the carotid arteries is also a reversible pheneomenon. Rather than throwing medicines and (ineffective) diets at you (like the ridiculous American Heart Association program), what if your doctor set out from the start not just to reduce events, but to purposefully reduce your heart's plaque? While it might not succeed in everyone, it would certainly change the focus dramatically.

After all, isn't this the theme followed in cancer treatment? If you had a tumor, isn't cure the goal? Would we accept an oncologist's advice to simply reduce the likelihood of death from cancer but ignore the idea of ridding yourself completely of the disease? I don't think so.

Then why accept "event reduction" as a goal in heart disease? We shouldn't have to. Heart disease reversal--elimination--should be the goal.

Once upon a time, remember how medical information was mysterious, hospitals were places where frightening, inscrutable things happened, diseases were strange maladies that struck without reason, and obtaining information about health was like hunting for buried treasure? The full extent of many peoples' understanding of health came through relatively anemic sources like Readers' Digest. (Remember "I am Joe's Colon"?)

Compare this to what we have now. If I wanted to obtain information about ankylosing spondylitis (a rare genetic disease of the spine), a Google search yields 1.46 million citations. Not all the information, of course, is helpful or relevant, but there's certain to be a bounty of information that far exceeds what you could have uncovered 40 years ago.

Suppose you enter the search phrase "antithrombin III" into your Google search. Citations: over 900,000. (The number of search citations, in fact, exceeds the number of Americans with a deficiency of this blood clotting protein!)

The same is true with heart disease. There was a time, not more than 30-40 years ago, when information about the heart and heart disease was hard to come by. The most you would find were superficial discussions about heart attacks, what chest pain means, descriptions of bypass surgery. Ask your doctor, you'd likely receive a brief, cursory response about how you probably shouldn't worry it.

Even during medical school in the 1980s, I remember struggling to get answers to my questions from faculty during medical school and medical training. It was as if providing too much information would eliminate the advantage superiors wielded over trainees.

The same selfish sentiment, the "I know something you don't know" mentality reminiscent of a schoolboy's "naa na na naa naa!" unfortunately persists. But it is rapidly disintegrating. Soon it will join the junk heap of medical mis-information accumulated over the years (a big pile, to be sure). The internet and, I'll admit (grudgingly), the media, have been responsible for demystifying the formerly mysterious and indecipherable world of health.

You now have, at a moment's disposal, access to an extraordinary array and breadth of health information that was inconceivable just a few years ago.

Times are changing. Doctors no longer hold the monopoly over health information. The public--YOU--are rapidly becoming the arbiters of health, the informed consumers of a soon-to-be retail product called health care, and the increasingly savvy judges of what should join the mainstream path of health. It is all part of this wave of change that I've been advocating: the emerging concept of self-empowerment in healthcare.

Added to the junk heap of health-mistakes-of-years-past will be medical protectionism over health information, heart procedures, drug industry excesses, nutritional mis-information, among others. The demystification of health information will open the floodgates of individual insight into health. It delivers control over your own health destiny straight into your own lap.

Walking the supermarket aisles, you may have lately noticed that numerous new products are appearing sporting "omega-3s" on the label.

Some products simply contain alpha-linolenic acid, a tiny amount of which is converted to the biologically active omega-3s, EPA and DHA. Natural Ovens' Brainy Bagel, for instance, carries a claim of "620 omega-3."

I find this confusing and misleading, since people will often interpret such a claim to mean that it contains 620 of EPA and DHA, similar to two capsules of standard fish oil (1000 mg capsules). Of course, it does NOT. I find this especially troublesome when people will actually stop or reduce their fish oil, since they've been misled into thinking that products like this bread contain active omega-3 fatty acids that yield all the benefits of the "real stuff."

Other products actually contain the omega-3, DHA, though usually in small quantities. Breyer's Smart with DHA is an example, with 32 mg DHA per container.

I find products with actual DHA (from algae) a more credible claim. However, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has looked at the actual contents of DHA in some of these products and found some discrepancies, including amounts of DHA less than the labeled amount and claims of omega-3 wihtout specifying DHA vs. linolenic acid. (It's probably linolenic acid, if it's not specified.)

All in all, the addition of DHA to food products is a nice way to boost your intake of this healthy omega-3. However, keep in mind that these are processed, often highly processed, foods and you will likely pay a premium for the little boost. For now, stick to fish oil, the real thing.

For a brief summary of the CSPI report and a link to the Nutrition Action Newsletter, see Omega-3 Madness: Fish Oil or Snake Oil.

I'm sitting at dinner with two colleagues. One is a cardiology colleague, another an internist who, in addition to practicing general internal medicine, also takes heart disease prevention very seriously. He has, in fact, participated in the Track Your Plaque program and dropped his heart scan score substantially.

"Why don't we see you in the cath lab much?" my cardiology colleague asked me. He was puzzled, since he knew my background in cath lab work from years before, spending day and night doing procedure after procedure. He spends virtually all his days there.

"Well, my patients simply don't have events any more. Heart attacks and angina among people in my program are just about non-existent. They don't have symptoms and they don't have to go to the hospital. I can't remember the last time that I was woken up in the middle of the night for an urgent procedure for one of my patients."

The internist across the table smiled and expressed his agreement. "That's the same thing I'm seeing: No heart attacks, very few if any referrals to cardiologists for procedures. I remember when it was a several times a week thing. Now, almost never. "

Looking at my cardiology colleague, I saw the usual cardiologist reaction: Eyes searching left and right and behind us for something more interesting. Certainly, talking about a virtual cure for coronary heart disease was just too damn dull.

Such is the attitude of 98% of my colleagues: If it doesn't generate a revenue-producing procedure, why bother? Prevention is for general practitioners, the line of thinking goes. "And anyway, I'm too busy doing procedures! I don't ahve time to talk about prevention and health!" Of course, the poor general practitioner is already overloaded with caring for arthritis, flu, diabetes and all the new drugs for diabetes, headaches, vaccinations, diarrhea, and . . .oh, yes, heart disease prevention.

Are cardiologists the enemy? No, of course they are are not. But they often act like they are. Talking to cardiologists is like going to the car dealer with your checkbook out, pen in hand. The salesman gets to write the check himself and you just sign it. Talk to a cardiologist and more often than not you will end up with a heart procedure--whether or not you need it.

Unfortunately--tragically--they often forget what they are supposed to be doing: Taking care of a disease by preventing it. Putting in a defibrillator is not preventing a disease. Putting in three stents, laser angioplasty, and thrombectomy are not ways of preventing a disease.

I'm thankful for my internist friend who sees the light. Coronary heart disease is a an easily measurable, quantifiable, preventable, and REVERSIBLE process for many, if not most, people when provided the right tools. But don't ask your neighborhood cardiologists to give you those tools.

Was torcetrapib’s crash and burn fatal for this class of drug?

At the 2007 American Heart Association meetings in Orlando, Florida, Dr. Philip Barter of Sydney, Australia, presented an update of the ILLUMINATE drug trial for the once-promising drug, torcetrapib, the billion-dollar bet that Pfizer made on its first entry into the new drug class.

You may recall that the crash and burn of Pfizer’s torcetrapib in December 2006 made headlines and prompted enormous disappointment for many patients and doctors who had hoped for a new drug choice to raise HDL cholesterol. Pfizer executives (heads flew!) and investors were also disappointed, anticipating release of a drug that might have become the number one biggest selling drug in the world—ever, surpassing even Lipitor's® $13 billion annual sales.

Torcetrapib is the first among the “cholesteryl-ester transfer protein inhibitors,” or CETP-inhibitors, drugs that block the exchange of cholesterol and triglycerides between HDL and VLDL particles and prevent formation of the unwanted small LDL particles. Preliminary efforts suggested that effects were positively enormous.

However, the 15,000-participant trial was abruptly terminated after 550 days when an excess of deaths were identified among the group taking the experimental drug: 59 deaths in control group; 93 deaths in the torcetrapib group.

In addition, cardiovascular events were 24% greater in the torcetrapib group, numbering 373 compared to 464 in the no-torcetrapib group, including a substantially greater number of heart attacks and hospitalizations. Another surprise came in the way of cause of death among some of the torcetrapib patients, with an excess of deaths due to cancers (twice as many in the torcetrapib group), strokes, and infections.

Why the divergence: enormous improvements in cholesterol values, yet increase in adverse effects including more heart attack? Deeper digging by the principal investigators uncovered unexpected distortions of electrolytes like sodium and potassium. They then re-analyzed blood samples from participants on both sides of the trial and discovered that participants taking torcetrapib experienced significant rise in the blood pressure hormone, aldosterone. This, they surmised, also likely accounted for the 4 mmHg average rise in blood pressure among those taking the experimental drug. (This is the same pathway blocked by blood pressure drugs like ACE inhibitors lisinopril and enalapril, ARBs like losartan.)

Simultaneously (what a coincidence!) with the torcetrapib data, investigators at competing drug manufacturer, Merck, reported encouraging data with their version of CETP inhibitor, anacetrapib. In a phase II FDA trial of 589 patients, anacetrapib reduced LDL-C levels by up to 40% and increased HDL-C up to 139%.

Spokesman Daniel Bloomfield, M.D., of Merck Research Laboratories reported that "The favorable lipid effects seen in this study with multiple doses of anacetrapib were significant, and confirm the continued evaluation of the clinical benefits of CETP inhibitors in the treatment of dyslipidemia." Quick to distinguish this drug from torcetrapib’s track record of dangerous effects on blood pressure, he added that "the decreased LDL-C concentrations, increased HDL-C concentrations and no demonstrable increase in blood pressure seen with anacetrapib are particularly encouraging results of this study."

However, the data reported only an 8 week expereince. Given the experience with torcetrapib, longer term data will obviously be required to assess safety. After Pfizer spent over $1 billion and sacrificed lives to obtain this experience, Merck will need to tread carefully.

It will clearly be many years before we have a confident answer on whether the CETP-inhibitor class of drugs will be a safe choice for correction of cholesterol abnormalities, especially low HDL. Are we helpless until then?

Though CETP inhibitors offer the potential for a one-stop opportunity to raise HDL substantially, there are still many strategies available to raise HDL.

Strategies that raise HDL and are available today include:
• Weight loss—to your ideal weight. A very effective strategy.
• Reduction in processed carbohydrates—like breads, pasta, cookies, pretzels, etc. Note that very low-fat diets reduce HDL. Often a huge effect.
• Fish oil—A small effect, more dramatic when triglycerides are high.
• Niacin—Vitamin B3, the best we have at present. Doses of 500-1500 mg per day raise HDL 20–50%; work with your doctor if you are contemplating niacin. We use this agent everyday and have had great success; good hydration is key to minimize the annoying “hot-flush” effect.
• Dark chocolate—40 grams, or about 2 inches square, a delicious way to squeeze out a little rise in HDL.
• Alcoholic beverages—Red wines are almost certainly the preferred route, rich in flavonoids.
• Exercise—HDL-raising effects vary, but can sometimes be as much as 10–20 mg.
• Other drugs—Though not commonly used for this effect, drugs like pioglitazone (for diabetes and pre-diabetes); fibrates (Tricor® or fenofibrate; Lopid® or gemfibrozil); and Pletal® or cilostazol are occasionally prescribed.
• Vitamin D—You won’t find validation of this effect in any scientific study, but our emerging experience in our heart disease reversal program is suggesting that this neglected nutrient can exert powerful HDL-raising effects. In fact, supplementing vitamin D has made my life much easier.

And, last I checked, none of these HDL-raising strategies are ever fatal.

Joe, a machinist, was frightened and frustrated.

With a heart scan score of 1644 at age 61, his eyes bulged when I advised him that, if preventive efforts weren't instituted right away, his risk for heart attack was a high as 25% per year. Joe had "passed" a stress test, thus suggesting that, while coronary plaque was present--oodles of it, in fact--coronary blood flow was normal. Thus, there would be no benefit to inserting three stents, say, or a bypass operation.

(Illustration courtesy Wikipedia)

"I don't get it, doc. Why can't you just take it out? You know, like Roto-Rooter it out? Or give me something to dissolve it!"

Of course, if there were such a thing, I'd give it to him. But, of course, there is not. It doesn't mean that there haven't been efforts in this direction over the years. Among the various attempts made to "Roto-Rooter" atherosclerotic plaque have included:

Coronary endarterectomy
This is a drastic procedure rarely performed anymore but enjoyed some popularity in the 1980s and 1990s. Coronary endarterectomy was performed during coronary bypass surgery, but few thoracic surgeons performed it. Milwaukee's Dr. Dudley Johnson was the foremost practitioner of this procedure (retired a few years ago after his own bypass operation) with a mortality in excess of 25%. A very dangerous procedure, indeed. The technical hurdle, beyond the tedium and length of time required to remove plaque that had a tendency to fragment, was blood clot formation after tissue was exposed upon plaque removal. I saw many lengthy hospital stays and deaths following this procedure.

Coronary atherectomy
This is an angioplasty-type procedure that has gone through several variations over the years.

In the early 1990s, transluminal extraction atherectomy (TEC) was a technique involving low-rpm drill bits with a suction apparatus that was used to clear soft debris, usually from large coronary arteries or, more commonly, bypass grafts. Then came direction atherectomy, in which a steel housing contained a sharp drill bit that captured atherosclerotic plaque in an aperture along the housing length and stuffed it into a nosecone, retrieved once the device was removed.

Then came high-speed rotational atherectomy in which a diamond-tipped drill bit rotated up to 200,000 rpm and essentially pulverized plaque to flow downstream and, presumably, eventually captured by the liver for disposal. Rotational atherectomy is still in use on occasion. Laser angioplasty, usually using the excimer wavelength, vaporizes plaque. I did plenty of all of these back in the early and mid-1990s.

While all atherectomy procedures sound clever, they are all plagued by the same problem: vigorous return of plaque. Remove plaque, it grows back. There are few instances today in which atherectomy is still performed.

Chelation
This involves a metal-binding, or "chelating," agent like EDTA normally used in conventional practice for lead poisoning. Usually administered IV, some have also advocated oral use. People who use chelation also tend to believe in faith healing and other practices based on faith, not science. There is an international trial that is nearing completion that should provide the final word on whether there is any role to intravenous chelation.

There are numerous other oral treatments that claim a Roto-Rooter-like effect. Nattokinase, for example--an outright, unadulterated, and unqualified scam.

Unfortunately, the helpless, ignorant, and gullible are many. When frightened by the specter of heart disease, there are plenty of people who will willingly pay for the hope provided by clever ads, fast-talking salespeople, and unscrupulous practitioners.

So, Joe, there is no Roto-Rooter for coronary atherosclerotic plaque, at least one that is safe, doesn't involve a life-threatening effort, provides results that endure beyond a few months, and truly works.

The Track Your Plaque program may not be easy. There are obvious common hurdles to adhering to these concepts: obtaining lipoprotein testing, getting intelligent interepretation of the results, persuading your doctor to measure vitamin D blood levels, battling the onslaught of prevailing food propaganda that confuses and misleads. The Track Your Plaque program also requires time, at least a year.

But it's the best program there is. Do you know of anything better?

In our effort to expand the reach for the nationwide conversation on heart disease reversal, I'd like to welcome the newest contributor to the Track Your Plaque family, a new Member blogger, Heart Cipher.

We first came to appreciate the insights of Heart Cipher on our Member Forum. His curiousity and ability to cut through the bull--- have won over our hearts and minds. I think you will appreciate his unique perspective as someone who has experienced first hand the inadequacies of the present procedure-focused, drug-obsessed standard of medical care that dominates, yet has the intelligence and worldliness to recognize that there are better ways.

Read his post about meeting a new cardiologist for the first time and the reaction he receives when he describes the Track Your Plaque program here.

http://www.heartcipher.com/

For the last few years, most practicing physicians have followed a rough blueprint for cholesterol management provided by the Adult Treatment Panel-III “consensus” guidelines, or ATP-III, a lengthy document last released in 2001, updated in 2004.

For instance, ATP-III suggests reducing LDL cholesterol to 100 mg/dl or less for those deemed to be at high risk for future heart disease, arbitrarily defined as a risk of 20% over a 10-year period. It also suggests that a desirable triglyceride level is no more than 150 mg/dl. The ATP-III guidelines have been the topic of discussion in thousands of medical meetings, editorials, and reports. They have served as the basis for many dinners at nice restaurants, weeks in Vegas or Honolulu, many, many lunches catered by pharmaceutical representatives. For most internists, family doctors, cardiologists, and lipid clinics, ATP-III is the Bible for cholesterol management.

AT-III has also become the de facto standard that could conceivably held up as the prevailing "standard of care" in a court of law in cases of presumed negligence to treat cholesterol values. “Doctor, would you agree that the consensus guidelines issued by the National Institutes of Health and endorsed by the American Heart Association state that LDL cholesterol should be reduced to 100? You do? Then why was Mr. Jones’ LDL not addressed according to these guidelines?”

Who was on the ATP-III panel and on what scientific evidence were the guidelines based? Several problems:

1) Of the 9 physician members of the panel, 8 had ties to industry, some of them quite intimate.

2) The studies upon which the guidelines were based and figure prominently, such as the Heart Protection Study, PROVE IT, and 4S, were all funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Of course, it would be unreasonable to expect anyone other than the pharmaceutical industry to fund drug studies. But prominently neglected or understated in the guidelines are all the other insights and treatments for coronary atherosclerotic risk available that were NOT funded by industry.

Of course, there’s money to be made in reducing LDL cholesterol. Lots of it--$23 billion last year alone, in fact. Just keeping that fact in mind makes the ATP-III guidelines make far better sense.

ATP-III is really not a blueprint for heart disease prevention. It is a blueprint--by industry, for industry--on how and when to treat LDL cholesterol.

But what if ATP-III had been a map for navigating coronary plaque reversal instead? What if it were not obsessed with just reducing LDL cholesterol, but was focused on providing the corner internist, family doctor, or cardiologist a roadmap for navigating the highways and byways of reversal?

That would be interesting. Mainstream reversal. Imagine that.

Among the difficulties is that the path to reversal is not lined with deep pockets. Treat LDL and who gains? That's easy. Reverse heart disease and who gains? Beyond LDL reduction, very few (beyond you and me, of course).

That’s why the call for a new Age of Self-Empowerment in healthcare is necessary now more than ever. In my view, in the foreseeable future, we will not have an ATP-III-like blueprint for heart disease control or reversal, nor will we witness a boom of nationwide appreciation that coronary atherosclerosis is a reversible process.

It’s time to take the control back and put it in our own hands. Don't expect the American Heart Association to do it. Don't expect the pharmaceutical industry to do it. If there's anyone who's going to do it, it's YOU.

Greg slumped back in his chair.

"I'm sorry, doc. I feel like the world's biggest schlump!"

He was referring to the fact that he had gone wheat-free for two months--eliminated all breads, bagels, donuts, pasta, breakfast cereals, crackers, pretzels--and promptly lost 30 lbs. He felt great, discovered new levels of energy he thought he'd lost long ago.

Then some friends convinced him to have some cheeseburgers at a fast food restaurant.

"After that, it was downhill. I couldn't get enough. My wife made chile and I had to have four slices of bread with it. Then I'd have two more. I just couldn't stop."

Now, having regained the 30 lbs in the space of another two months, Greg was expressing his disgust.

And it's not the first time. Greg has struggled with his wheat-alholism for as long as I've known him. I've tried motivating him by showing him the flagrant lipoprotein patterns that his wheat habit and excess weight caused: markedly elevated LDL particle number, severe small LDL, low HDL, high triglycerides, high C-reactive protein, high blood sugar, high blood pressure. Greg has received a total of 7 stents over the past 5 years. His next stop is the operating room for a bypass if he can't bring his patterns and impulses under control.

But for some reason, Greg seems to always return to the wheat trough, gorging on breads, pretzels, cake, often in great quantities.

I'm not entirely sure what to do with someone with Greg's severe degree of wheat-aholism. I view wheat-aholism as similar to alcoholism. For some, it can be as addictive.

The only strategy that I know can work is to make a clean break and drop wheat products altogether. Just as an alcoholic cannot just satisfy him/herself with a drink or two a day, so a wheataholic can't be satified with just a couple of wheat crackers. It inevitably leads to the avalanche of wheat indulgences.

Perhaps we should form a new group: Wheataholics Anonymous. "Hi. My name is Greg and I'm a wheataholic."

The heart disease revenue pie is shrinking. So is the "serving size" being shared by competing hospitals.

In other words, as more hospitals open heart programs, there is more competition for the same heart patient. Throw into the mix the drop in "acute" presentations of disease, probably due to the now widespread prescribing of statin drugs. When I first started cardiology practice 15 years ago, for instance, days and nights spent taking care of heart attacks coming through the emergency room was a common event. It still happens, but far less frequently. (I don't mean to suggest that the actual prevalence of coronary heart disease has decreased, just the acute, catastrophic version of it.)

Throw into this mix the results of the COURAGE Trial that has put a damper on the value of stents and angioplasty vs. "optimal" medical therapy in people with stable anginal symptoms, since there was little advantage of procedures. Though it has not stopped the practice, it has reduced the enthusiasm for procedures. Though data are hard to come by, I've heard talk of 10% or greater drops in total procedural volume over the past year.

It's not uncommon for hospitals to have overbuilt heart facilities in anticipation of continued growth of this--until recently--growth industry called heart disease. However, factors are converging that may provide a new profit opportunity for hospitals.

One such opportunity is CT coronary angiography. The usual scenario: Man or woman without symptoms is persuaded somehow--an ad, primary care physician, next door neighbor with a scary event, Dr. Mehmet Oz gushing about this sexy new technology on yet another Oprah episode--to undergo a CT coronary angiogram. A "severe" blockage is found, despite the lack of symptoms, and voila! A stent patient or bypass patient is created out of nothing! Do this repeatedly and systematically, and a hospital can regain its former high-procedural volume glory.

Heart scans, though I believe deeply in them and they are the basis for the Track Your Plaque prevention and reversal program, can also be used and abused this way. Asymptomatic person has a score 150. Concerned, they go to their physician who orders a nuclear stress test. An "inferior perfusion defect" is seen, presumably representing poor flow through the right coronary artery (but often just means that the diaphragm overlaps the heart muscle and yields this apparition, a "false positive" or misleading result). "But--wink--we've got to find out if there's a severe blockage, don't we? You don't want to end up in an early grave!"

Thus, the battle for new patients with asymptomatic disease is getting underway in earnest. The scramble for cardiologists to learn how to use CT coronary angiograms is proceeding at breakneck speed, with new training courses being offered nationwide several times and places every month. CT coronary angiography is a useful test, but it is also subject to enormous abuse. It also provides the ticket for the unscrupulous physician and the revenue-hungry hospital eager to expand its patient volume.

Many people believe that this cannot happen commonly in 2007, given scrutiny of practices, litigiousness, and the expectation of a moral sense in medicine. However, I've witnessed such incidents several times this month alone. If you need graphic proof of just how far this can go before action is taken, read Coronary, Stephen Klaidman's chilling tale of a cardiologist and cardiothoracic surgeon in small-town northern California who built an enormous heart center based on fabricated heart disease diagnoses. You'll also find their story in Shannon Brownlee's recently released Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer.

Of course, the Track Your Plaque program is meant principally for people without symptoms, also. But we are advocating that asymptomatic disease is a reason for prevention, not procedures. There's a difference.

By the way, the two practitioners who engineered the escapade detailed in these books, cardiologist Chae Hyun Moon and cardiac surgeon Fidel Realyvasquez, walked away with a monetary fine and suspension of their California medical licenses. It is likely that many people died because of their abusive practices, but the state struggled to make a sufficiently persuasive case for reasons that I still don't understand.

"The finest extra-virgin olive oils should not be used as a medium for hot cooking, but rather as a condiment or a finisher on top of your favorite savory foods. They are expensive, but if stored properly they will last for up to a year..."

You all know that olive oil is among the preferred oils to use: rich in monounsaturates, low in saturates, high in polyphenols.

For a fascinating perspective for the olive oil gourmet, go to www.npr.org, the website for National Public Radio. (Scroll down to the article or enter olive oil into their site search.) Their article, "Like fine wines, fine olive oils boast subtle joys" provides an insightful discussion on squeezing maximum enjoyment out of this wonderful "functional food".

As we emerge from the mis-directed low-fat craze of the past 20 years, we're re-discovering the joys of healthy oils. You'll find some great thoughts here

As part of the Track Your Plaque coronary plaque reversal program, we advocate vitamin D supplementation. Vitamin D has been shown to reduce blood sugar and reduce pre-diabetic tendencies, reduce blood pressure (it's a renin antagonist, a blood pressure hormone), it's far more important for bone health than calcium, and it may help prevent colon cancer, prostate cancer, and multiple sclerosis.

And, oh yes, it may facilitate coronary plaque regression.

One lesson I've learned is that vitamin D MUST be taken as a oil-based capsule or gelcap. You'll recognize it as a transparent or translucent, sometimes opaque, capsule. The list of ingredients may say something like "cholecalciferol [vitamin D] in a base of soybean oil", indicating that the active ingredient is oil-based.

Oil-based vitamin D3 skyrockets blood levels of 25-OH-vitamin D3 in to the normal range reliably and easily.

Tablets are a different story. These are generally white powdery tablets. The rise in blood levels of vitamin D3 are minimal, sometimes none. Women will often say "I get vitamin D with my calcium tablets."

People taking this form almost always have blood levels of vitamin D that are low, as if they were taking nothing.
If you're going to take vitamin D, the oil-based tablets are the way to go. They're not necessarily any more expensive. We've had good experiences with the Nature's Life 2000 unit capsule, as well as preparations from Life Extension. We have had negative experiences with the preparations from GNC, Sam's Club, and Walgreen's, all tablets and non-oil-based.

Darlene had a high LDL cholesterol, at times as high as 200 mg/dl. Her primary care doctor first tried Mevacor, then Pravachol, then Zocor, then Lipitor. Every statin drug failed to reduce Darlene's LDL below 160 mg/dl, even when maximum doses were used. The higher doses also resulted in nearly intolerable muscle aches and weakness.

When we sent Darlene's blood sample off for lipoprotein analysis, a surprise came back: she had a high lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a). This explained a lot.

LDL cholesterol is not always just LDL cholesterol. One of the particles that can masquerade as LDL is Lp(a). Darlene's story is typical of many people who've had high cholesterol levels poorly responsive to the statin drugs. That's because their LDL conceals Lp(a), which does not respond to these agents. LDL cholesterol does drop some because there's also some real LDL mixed in.

A poor response to statin agents or to nutritional strategies to reduce LDL is a tip-off that Lp(a) may be hidden. The answer: just measure Lp(a)! If you and your doctor don't measure it, you won't know whether or not you have it. Rather than a statin drug, we put Darlen on niacin. Not only did her Lp(a) drop, but her LDL also plummeted.

Though well-intended, the National Cholesterol Education Panel's Adult Treatment Panel, or ATP-III, (whew!) guidelines for cholesterol have been responsible for loads of misinformation.

The intention was to educate the internist or family doctor who treats sore throats, performs Pap smears, administers pneumovax vaccine, treats arthritic knees---and dabbles in heart disease prevention. The ATP-III guidelines are the "Cholesterol for Dummies" approach.

What standard guidelines definitely do not represent are the ideal values to achieve. They do not ensure protection from heart disease. This is particularly true of the ATP-III advice to keep triglycerides at or below the "desirable" level of 150 mg/dl.

In the Track Your Plaque program, we ask "What is necessary to tip the odds in favor of coronary plaque regresion or reduction of heart scan score?" This is not achieved with a triglyceride of 150. In fact, triglycerides at this level are associated with flagrant abnormalities of lipoprotein patterns. It usually means that processed carbohydrates, particularly wheat products, are occupying too prominent a role in your food choices. It could mean that you're making excessive use of processed foods containining high-fructose corn syrup. It will not respond to a low-fat diet. It will, however, respond vigorously to fish oil.

Triglycerides are a crucial aspect of your plaque control program. We aim for 60 mg/dl or less. The ideal level is actually 45 mg/dl. At this level, all abnormal triglyceride-containing lipoproteins finally go away.

Alvin came into the office for consultation on his cholesterol values: LDL 198 mg/dl, HDL, 43 mg/dl, triglycerides 143 mg/dl. He says that he doesn't really try to choose healthy foods but he restricts his overall calorie intake by following the Weight Watcher's exchange approach.

Every morning, 7 days a week, Alvin eats a Sausage McMuffin for breakfast. He justified this by skipping lunch to make up for the 450 calories in the Sausage McMuffin, and not eating anything until dinner.

Can this work? Can you eat foods with unhealthy ingredients but make up the excessive calories by cutting back elsewhere?

The nutritional composition of McDonald's Sausage McMuffin includes 27 grams of total fat (10 gm saturated); 255 mg cholesterol; 950 mg sodium; 31 gm carbohydrate; 2 grams fiber. In other words, it's essentially the same as butter with sugar on it--pure fat, processed wheat, with little fiber or nutritive value.

For Alvin, this is an extremely unhealthy way to eat. His lipid patterns are just the tip of the iceberg: multiple hidden factors are also at work to create heart disease, atherosclerosis in other territories outside the heart, diabetes, high blood pressure, and cancer.

I think the effects are not much different than what Morgan Spurlock achieved in his Super Size Me documentary, but in little bits and pieces. Eating at McDonald's "restaurants" three times a day yielded frightening changes in his lipids, liver function, kidney function, not to mention his appearance and the way he felt. Alvin is doing the same thing, though in less dramatic fashion.

I see this very frequently: people mimicking the experience of Spurlock, just a little at a time, with overindulgence in processed fats and starches.

When you seen a set of Mcdonald's golden arches (or any fast food restaurant, for that matter), run as fast as you can in the other direction. Such indulgences, even in small bits and pieces, still creates a mess of your health.

Many people, upon first learning of their CT heart scan score, feel like they're on the edge of a sharp drop. It can feel like you're facing a vast, unknown abyss. At the bottom, all those dreaded things that can happen to you: heart attack, heart failure, hospitals, even dying.

I've encountered this "deer in the headlights" look many times. It truly can be frightening to hear that your heart scan score is 300, or 500, or whatever.

What I find truly frightening, however, is when your score prompts the usual array of misinformation commonly dispensed by physicians: "That's so bad you need a heart catheterization", "Nobody knows why people get calcified plaque", or "Reversal is impossible". All absolute bunk.

Let your fear motivate you to do something about your risk for heart disease. Aim for reversal of your coronary plaque and seek out the tools to achieve this. It is possible and, in fact, we do it all the time. I can't claim 100% success, but the majority of people who engage in an effort like the Track Your Plaque program to reverse coronary plaque succeed. Even a substantial slowing of plaque growth from the expected 30% per year is better than submitting to the conventional approach.

At the very least, get both LDL and HDL cholesterol around 60 mg/dl. This alone is a major plus in reducing the risks associated with your heart scan score. It doesn't guaranteee reversal, but it sure tips the odds in your favor.

Breakfast cereal manufacturing giant, Kelloggs, is launching a line of three cereals that will carry the "organic" designation: Organic Rice Krispies, Organic Raisin Bran, and Organic Frosted Mini-Wheats.

This reminds me of the advertisements I've seen for "fresh fried chicken", or "fresh from the can", or "contains only pure cane sugar". How about organic tobacco? Would that make cigarettes healthier?

The TV ad ends with the slogan "Childood is calling!" Oh, those marketers are a shrewd, clever bunch. I worry that they're so clever that most people will fall for these ludicrous tricks.

Don't fall for these thinly-shrouded marketing shenanigans. Organic? Who cares. These foods remain unhealthy whether or not they contain pesticide residues. Take a look at the nutritional composition: Rice Krispies, organic or not, is sugar to your body. It is the sort of food that creates pre-diabetes, diabetes, makes us fat, and fans the flames of lipoprotein patterns like small LDL, VLDL, and postprandial particles, all of which is like throwing cow manure on the weed patch of your coronary plaque.

Food manufacturers gave nuts a bad name when they started adding evil ingredients to them. "Party mix", "honey-roasted", mixed nuts, etc., are made with added hydrogenated oils, salt, sugar, excessive quantities of raisins, or other added ingredients that turned a healthy food--nuts--into something that made us fat and hypertensive, raised LDL, dropped HDL, and raised blood pressure.

But nuts themselves are, for the most part, very healthy foods. The very best are nuts with a brown fiber coating like almonds, walnuts, and pecans. Nearly all nuts also come rich in monounsaturated oils similar to that in olive oil. Although calorie-dense, nuts tend to be very filling and slash your appetite for other foods. I have never seen anyone gain weight by adding raw nuts to their diet. In fact, I find adding raw nuts cuts craving for sweets.

Nuts are also among the most concentrated sources of magnesium, containing around 150 mg per 1/2 cup serving. As most Americans are at least marginally if not severely deficient in magnesium, this really helps. Magnesium deficiency is a prominent aspect of "metabolic syndrome" and resistance to insulin.

Some nuts have added benefits like the l-arginine content of almonds or the linolenic acid content of walnuts. However, I think the real health "punch" comes from the fiber and monounsaturate content.

Add 1/4-1/2 cup of raw almonds, walnuts, or pecans per day to your diet and what can you expect? The effects that I see every day that are relevant to plaque control/heart scan score-reducing efforts include:

--Reduction in LDL--usually a 20 mg/dl drop, sometimes more.

--Reduction in triglycerides, especially if nuts replace processed carbohydrate calories. This may be because the fiber and monounsaturate content of nuts reduces blood sugar and the effective glycemic index of any accompanying foods.

--Modest blood pressure reduction.

--Though somewhat inconsistent, partial suppression of the dreaded small LDL particle pattern. We struggle with turning off the small LDL pattern in some people, and raw nuts can provide a real advantage.

If that isn't enough, the fiber content also makes your bowels regular.

Unless there's some reason to avoid nuts (e.g., allergy), nuts should be a part of your heart scan score reducing program. Shop around, as prices can vary wildly. I've been paying $12.99 for a 3 lb bag of raw almonds from Sam's Club, though I've seen almonds elsewhere for up to $12.99 per pound.

For additional commentary, go to one of my favorite Blogs, http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com. The Fanatic Cook's recent post, The Season for Walnuts , provides additional discussion on walnuts and the recent study showing how they improve "endothelial function". The nutritionist behind this Blog has fabulous insights into food, including the concept of "functional foods", i.e., using foods as a treatment tool. She is also unfailingly entertaining.

Stan is 55 years old. He feels fine, is in moderately good physical condition. His LDL cholesterol is 135 mg/dl, HDL 43 mg/dl, triglycerides 167 mg/dl, total cholesterol 211 mg/dl.

Can you tell me whether Stan has heart disease or not?

How about Charles? Charles has an LDL cholesterol of 127 mg/dl, HDL of 44 mg/dl, triglycerides of 98 mg/dl, and total cholesterol of 191 mg/dl. He is also reasonably fit and feels fine. Can you tell whether Charles has heart disease?

If you can't, don't feel bad. Neither can your doctor. But this is the folly of using cholesterol for risk prediction.

Stan's heart scan score: 0

Charles' heart scan score: 978

Look even more closely at Stan's and Charles' cholesterol numbers. Is there some fine distinction we overlooked? What if we calculated total cholesterol to HDL ratio? Or LDL/HDL ratio?

No matter how you squeeze it, shake it, beat it with a stick, you simply cannot use cholesterol numbers to predict heart disease in specific individuals. Yes, the higher your LDL cholesterol and lower your HDL, the higehr your total cholesterol to HDL ratio, the greater the likelihood of heart disease. But you can simply cannot tell in a specific individual at a specific point in time. If you've seen your doctor puzzle over the numbers, understand that he/she is trying to make sense out of something that doesn't make sense, no matter how hard he/she tries.

You simply need to measure the disease itself: get a CT heart scan, the only measure of atherosclerotic coronary plaque that you have access to.

By the way, if you haven't seen it yet, go to the Track Your Plaque website (www.cureality.com) to see the news piece reporting the American Heart Association's much overdue position statement on CT heart scanning. The AHA has finally released a statement which, in effect, provides their "official" endorsement. Blocked by political shenanigans behind the scenes for several years, the guidelines finally made it to press. The only real difference it makes to me is that my patients may finally get their heart scans paid for by insurance, once the insurance companies realize that it's getting tougher and tougher to dodge their responsibility.

How common are muscle aches with the statin drugs?

It depends on who you ask. If you ask the drug manufacturers, they will tell you no more than 2% of people who take them. They back this up with the experience in tens of thousands of people in published clinical trials.

What if we ask people who take them outside of clinical trials. How many then? I estimate, from my large experience, over 80%! In other words, muscle aches are inevitable in nearly everyone who takes them. The longer you take them, the higher your dose, the more likely muscle aches are going to be.

Why the disconnect between published data and real-world experience? I really don't know. In some instances, the differences are dramatic. The ASTEROID trial, for instance, in which Crestor, 40 mg, was given for two years, only resulted in 8% of people dropping out because of side-effects. My experience: everybody--nobody can tolerate this dose for any length of time.

Let me qualify what "muscle aches" mean. It means achiness and/or weakness, usually mild, occasionally moderate to severe, worse upon awakening and less with use. It can affect many muscles or it can involve only one. Rarely is it incapacitating but it is commonly annoying and frightening. It commonly shows up as gradually diminishing strength with exercise. Strength usually returns promptly upon stopping the offending drug.

"Rhabdomyolysis", or true muscle destruction is, fortunately, very unusual in otherwise well people. People with abnormal kidney function, diabetes, and other concurrent illnesses are somewhat more prone. But in reality, rhabdomyolysis is unusual. I've personally seen it twice, both in people sick for other reasons.

Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) supplementation has been a godsend for us. At least 4 out of 5 people who require statins and develop muscle aches respond favorably, but it requires 100 mg per day. The preparation must be oil-based to work, not powder in a capsule which exerts no effect. Some people get by with less; some require as much as 300 mg per day. I've had favorable experiences with the CoQ10 from Sam's Club, GNC, Vitamin Shoppe, and Life Extension (www.LEF.org).

The Track Your Plaque target for LDL cholesterol is 60 mg/dl. Many people do indeed use statins to achieve this level, the level of LDL that amplifies your chances of heart disease reversal, i.e., reduction of heart scan score. The only drawback that I'm aware of with CoQ10 replacement is cost. Beyond this, it's a benign supplement that even supplies higher energy for some people who take it.

If you'd like to reduce LDL cholesterol with nearly as much power as a statin drug, think thyroid.

When thyroid is corrected to ideal levels, LDL cholesterol drops 20, 30, 40 mg/dl or more, depending on how poor thyroid function and how high LDL are at the start. The poorer the thyroid function (the higher the TSH or the lower the T3 and T4) and the higher the LDL cholesterol, the more LDL drops with thyroid correction.

(For those of you minding LDL particle size, such as Track Your Plaque Members, the "dominant" LDL species will drop: If you are genetic small LDL, small LDL will drop. If you have mostly large LDL because of being wheat-free and sugar-free, then large LDL will drop.)

One of the problems is that many healthcare providers blindly follow what the laboratory says is "normal" or the "reference range," which is usually nothing more than a population average (actually the mean +/- 2 standard deviations, a common method of developing references ranges). In other words, a substantial degree of low thyroid function, or hypothyroidism, can be present when your doctor adheres to the reference range provided by the laboratory.

What does it mean to achieve ideal thyroid status? My list includes:

--Normal oral temperature of 97.3 F first upon arising. (The thyroid is the body's thermoregulatory organ.)
--TSH 1.0 mIU/L or less
--Free T3 upper half "normal" range
--Free T4 upper half "normal" range
--You feel good: mental clarity, energy, upbeat mood. You lose weight when you try.

Iodine replacement should be part of any thyroid health effort. Iodine is not an optional trace mineral, no more than vitamin C is optional (else your teeth fall out). The only dangers to iodine replacement are to those who have been starved of iodine for many years; increase iodine and the thyroid can over-respond. I've seen this happen in 2 of the last 300 people who have supplemented iodine.

In my view, neglecting T3 replacement is absurd. While it is not clear to me why many otherwise healthy people have low T3 at the low range of "normal" or even in the below-normal range, people feel better and have better health--faster weight loss, reduced LDL, reduced triglycerides, they are happier and enjoy more energy--when T3 is increased to the upper half of the reference range. (Crucial question: Why is the 5'-deiodinase enzyme that converts T4 to T3 inhibited, resulting in reduced free T3? What is in our diets or environment that is exerting this effect? I don't have answer, but we sorely need one.)

It pays to be a perfectionist when it comes to thyroid. Not only do you feel better, but LDL cholesterol can drop with a statin-like magnitude, but with none of the adverse effects.

If interested, Track Your Plaque offers fingerstick blood spot testing that you can perform in your own home. Each test kit will test for: TSH, free T3, free T4, along with a thyroid peroxidase antibody (a marker for Hashimoto's thyroiditis, an autoimmune inflammatory condition of the thyroid).

What do you think of these chains of logic?

Cyanide is a potent lethal poison; carbon monoxide is a less lethal poison.
Therefore: plenty of carbon monoxide is good.

Having uterine cancer is a bad thing. Having uterine fibroids is a less bad thing.
Therefore: plenty of uterine fibroids are good.

These are obvious examples of seriously flawed logic. Students of logic and philosophy will recognize the above erroneous sequences as examples of the twisted arguments often used to persuade an argumentative opponent of the logic of a premise. As long ago as 335 B.C., Greek philosopher, Aristotle, recognized the pitfalls of thinking in such arguments. You think we’d know better by now.

Try this one:

White enriched flour is a bad for health; whole grains are less bad for health.
Therefore: plenty of whole grains are good for health.

Ouch!

In the 1960s, we all ate hot dogs on white buns, white flour Wonder Bread® sandwiches, Mom made cookies and cupcakes with white flour. Then, during the 1970s and 1980s, clinical studies were performed demonstrating that whole wheat and whole grains reduced colon cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease compared to white flour. In other words, add back fiber and B vitamins and health benefits develop: No argument here.

Therefore: whole grains must be good for health. Further, lots of whole grains?unlimited quantities of whole grains many times per day, every day?must be even better. Even the USDA says so on their nutrition pyramid, with 8-11 servings of grains per day, 4 of which should be whole grains, at the widest portion of the pyramid.

But what happens when you follow this logic through and fill your diet with whole grains?

Look around you and it’s easy to see: Appetite increases, people become obese, blood sugar increases, diabetes develops, HDL cholesterol plummets, triglycerides skyrocket, inflammatory patterns (e.g., c-reactive protein, or CRP) increase, small LDL (the number one cause for heart disease in the obese U.S.!) shoots through the roof.

I would no more fill my diet with “healthy whole grains” than I would close my garage door with the car running.

Pomegranate juice, 8 oz:

Sugars, total 31.50 g

Sucrose 0.00 g

Glucose (dextrose) 15.64 g

Fructose 15.86 g

In your quest to increase the flavonoids in your diet, do you overexpose yourself to fructose?

Remember: Fructose increases LDL cholesterol, apoprotein B, small LDL, triglycerides, and substantially increases deposition of visceral fat (fructose belly?). How about a slice of whole grain bread with that glass of pomegranate juice? The Heart Association says it's all low-fat!

(Coming on the Track Your Plaque website: A full in-depth Special Report on fructose in all its glorious forms and whether this is truly an issue for your health. Fructose tables and the scientific data to establish a safe "threshold" value will be included.)

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Honeydew melon:

Sugars, total 51.97 g

Sucrose 15.87 g

Glucose 17.15 g

Fructose 18.94 g

Because sucrose is half fructose (the other half is glucose), there are approximately 26 grams of fructose per one-half honeydew melon.

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g

Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons

Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient

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

A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

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

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

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

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

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

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

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

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The media frenzy

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

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

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

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

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

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

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

Non-CT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

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

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

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

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

--No lipoprotein(a)

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

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

I therefore asked Matt to:

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

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

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

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

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

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

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

Heart disease reversal a big "No No"

Demystification

Everything has omega-3

Are cardiologists the enemy?

Are CETP inhibitors kaput?

Roto Rooter for plaque

"Beware nutritional supplements"

The rules of reversal

Incurable wheataholics

The battle for asymptomatic disease

Olive oil for gourmets

Vitamin D must be oil-based

When is LDL cholesterol NOT LDL cholesterol?

What is a desirable triglyceride level?

Super size me in little bits and pieces

View from the precipice

Organic Rice Krispies?

Nuts as functional foods

Can you tell the difference?

Statin agents and muscle aches

Thyroid: Be a perfectionist

Nutrition Syllogism

Is pomegranate juice healthy?

Honeydew melon

Where do you find fructose?

Do heart scans cause cancer?

Goodbye, fructose

The statin-free life

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone