It sounds like a word game, but is health the absence of disease?

In other words, if you're not sick, you must be well. If you don't have cancer, heart disease (overtly, that is, like angina and heart attack), the flu, diarrhea, fevers, pain someplace . . . well then, you must be well.

Of course, most of us would disagree. You can be quite unhealthy yet have no overt, explicit disease. Yet this is the philosophy followed in conventional medicine when it comes to many aspects of health.

With regards to heart disease, if you have no chest pain or breathlessness, you don't have heart disease. "Oh, all right, we'll perform a stress test to be sure." Track Your Plaque followers, as well as former President Bill Clinton, recognize the enormous pitfalls of this approach: It fails to identify the vast majority of hidden heart disease. In heart disease, the apparent lack of overt, sympatomatic "disease" does NOT equal the true absence of disease, even life-threatening.

How about nutritional supplements? Vitamin D is a perfect example. Blood levels of vitamin D of 10 ng/ml--profound deficiency--are common, yet people feel fine. Beneath the surface, blood sugar rises because of poor insulin response, hidden inflammatory responses are magnified, HDL is lower and triglycerides are higher, coronary plaque grows at an accelerated rate, colon cancer activity is heightened . . . Though you feel fine.

Can an abnormal "endothelial response" be present while you feel fine? You bet it can. This refers to the abnormal constrictive behavior of arteries that is present in many people who have hidden coronary plaque or risk for coronary plaque, but is entirely beneath consciousness.

How about a triglyceride level of 200 mg/dl, fatally high from the Track Your Plaque experience? (We aim for <60 mg/dl.) This is typical in people who follow the diets endorsed by agencies like the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association, organizations too eager to keep the money flowing from corporate sponsors and thereby offer us their advice based more on politics and less on health. Triglyceride levels of 200 mg/dl cause no symptoms.

At so many levels, the absence of disease is NOT the same as health. Health is something that is expressed by, yes, feeling good, but it's also measured by so many other factors hidden beneath the surface. An annual physical is one lame effort to address this aspect of "health." But it needs to go farther, much farther.

Heart scan, lipoprotein testing, vitamin D blood level--those are the basic requirements to go beyond the shortsighted practice of the conventional approach in the world of heart disease.

Take a look at the list of ingredients in Cocoa Puffs: corn, sugar, corn syrup--all high glycemic index foods.

In other words, Cocoa Puffs is the physiologic equivalent of pure table sugar. Sure, it comes packaged with this wacky bird and the back of the box usually has fun games and offers. There's also the clever, fast-paced TV commercials to remind you of how fun Cocoa Puffs can be.

What is the actual consequence of a breakfast of a food like Cocoa Puffs in a cup of skim milk? That's easy: A big surge in insulin and blood sugar (from the corn and sugar), a drop in HDL cholesterol, surge in triglycerides (from the sugar and sugar-equivalents), increase in small LDL. Beyond this, you raise blood pressure and experience an insatiable increase in appetite. Then you get fat.

Obviously, none of this is desirable. Then why does the American Heart Association allow its Heart CheckMark endorsement on the package?

The Heart Association is trapped in 1982. Low-fat was in, saturated fat was the sole enemy of heart disease.

In 1982, the evils of small LDL, for instance, were unappreciated. LDL cholesterol was LDL cholesterol--all of it was bad and saturated fats seem to raise LDL. But the story has evolved enormously since then: LDL is not all the same. Small LDL is among the principal culprits in heart disease, the same small LDL hugely magnified by Cocoa Puffs and other similar products that fill 70% of supermarket shelves.

The American Heart Association needs to get with the times. The conversation on healthy diets has progressed considerably. Yet garbage foods that wreak havoc on health like Cocoa Puffs continue to be endorsed by an organization that still carries substantial clout with the American consumer.

My advice: Until they change their tune, anything that carries the endorsement of the American Heart Association should be eliminated from your diet.

The latest analysis of the data from Treat to New Targets (TNT) Trial shows that higher HDL cholesterol values are associated with reduced risk of heart attack, even in those with low LDL cholesterol values.

This counters the argument that some have made that, if a person takes a statin drug, raising HDL adds no additional benefit.

In the 9770-participant trial (randomized, double-blind), participants were given atorvastatin (Lipitor®) 10 mg or 80 mg per day. The study was sponsored by Pfizer, the manufacturer of Lipitor®. All participants were survivors of heart attacks, significant coronary disease by heart catheterization, or had previously undergone coronary angioplasty, stent placement, or bypass surgery—a high-risk group.

At the third month of enrollment, lipid (cholesterol panel) values were obtained and used as the basis for analysis. Participants on 80 mg atorvastatin achieved an average LDL cholesterol (Friedewald) of 77 mg/dl; participants taking 10 mg achieved a level of 101 mg/dl. Using these values, 8.7% of participants taking the higher dose of drug experienced an event, compared to 10.9% on the lower dose (which the investigators called a 22% relative reduction).

However, when the groups were re-analyzed by HDL cholesterol levels, higher HDLs remained predictive of less heart attack and other events, with the group having the highest HDL of =55 mg/dl experiencing 25% less events. Most interestingly, this effect was upheld even in participants with very low LDL cholesterols of <70 mg/dl.

I'm always a bit leery of drug company-sponsored studies, especially ones in which virtually all the participants tolerated a drug like Lipitor 80 mg, a dose in my experience that is very poorly tolerated for more than a few months. (Muscle aches are, in my experience, inevitable. I do not even recommend this dose.) In other words, the data are, in that respect, too good to believe.

Anyway, despite my reservations about these big money studies, there was nothing to gain from the HDL observation. (Of course, at one time, there would have been, given Pfizer's efforts to commercialize the now-kaput torcetrapib, scrapped because of excess mortality in phase II trials.)

Thankfully, there's other data that likewise suggest that the higher the HDL, the better. Yet more validation for the Track Your Plaque lipid targets of LDL 60 mg/dl, triglycerides 60 mg/dl or less, HDL 60 mg/dl or greater.

Copyright 2007 William Davis,MD

My younger sister, aged 48 years (sorry, sis), called this morning.

"I'm going to my doctor today. What labs should I tell him to draw?" she asked.

"Why do you have to tell him? Can't you just ask him what he thinks should be drawn?"

"No," she said. "He just draws what I tell him to."

Maybe my sister is bossier than most. But I've heard this from many patients, as well. They go to their primary care physician and end up requesting this or that test. Sometimes their doctor complies. Often, they resist and refuse to do so.

I've heard many complaints from patients about doctors refusing to order even fairly benign tests like a vitamin D blood level or lipoproteins, even a C-reactive protein.

The number of these sorts of complaints seems to be growing. Ten years ago, it rarely happened. Today, I hear this nearly every day.

I think it is symptomatic of the growing discontent we all have with the status quo in healthcare. We are all expected to submit to the paternalistic, what-can-you-possibly-know mentality that still rules the day in medical offices. Only 40-50 years ago, if you wanted to look at a medical book, you'd have to ask the librarian for special permission so that they could make sure you weren't just a pervert trying to look at naked bodies. Today, every manner of medical and health information can be found online. Quite a contrast.

We are entering a new age, one in which people are far better informed, have surfed the internet and read media reports on health topics, have been exposed to drug company advertising, and know a fair amount about nutritional supplements. I think the system needs to change to accommodate this rapidly growing hyper-knowledgeable society.

In past, when a health problem turned up, you'd turn to your doctor first. I predict that,in the next few years, we will use the doctor as a place of last resort, the person we turn to when all else has failed, after you've exhausted your information sources.

I hope that the Track Your Plaque process will become one of the engines of change, an information resource that provides empowering tools that don't replace your doctor, but provide many information tools that are superior and may minimize your reliance on a health care provider.

Copyright 2007 William Davis, MD

I picked up a hospital publication today. Featured prominently on the cover was a glossy photo of an attorney and his wife, both smiling.

The headline: "Atorney grateful for the lifesaving work of the ______ Hospital."

The story detailed the near-tragic story of how this 59-year old man was exercising at his local gym, only to lose consciousness after stepping off one of the exercise machines. Bystanders--hospital employees, as luck would have it--checked the man's pulse: none. They performed CPR. Ambulance called, blah blah blah.

Severe coronary disease discovered, extensive atherosclerotic plaque in all three coronary arteries, a 12-inch chest incision later and he and his wife are eternally grateful for the fine work done at X hospital. And so they should be for a job well done.

But wait a minute. After the urgent hospital dust settled, did anyone ask the one crucial question: Why wasn't this man's far-advanced heart disease identified? Why did he have to die and be resuscitated before his disease was recognized?

If this man was an indigent, homeless alcoholic . . . well, perhaps it would be no surprise. Health is neglected in this population. But a successful attorney?

Detecting hidden coronary atherosclerotic plaque simply isn't that tough. In Milwaukee, $199 would have diagnosed his disease unequivocally.

Unfortunately, we still have to set off drumrolls and crash cymbals to even begin to get the attention of the practicing physicians around us who continue to fail to diagnose hidden coronary disease. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear if this man had a $4000 nuclear stress recently that was normal. Why would a nuclear stress test be normal? Easy: Wrong test.

The hidden message: The failure to diagnose paid somebody and some hospital over $100,000. So, why bother detecting disease before the payoff?

The profit motive in all this is all too obvious. The only other explanation is the enormous, repetitive, and systematic stupidity of the conventional approach to heart disease detection. You have the solution, at least for you and the people around you, in a CT heart scan and in the Track Your Plaque program.

Copyright 2007 William Davis, MD

Dr. John Rumberger has, from its start, been a good friend of the Track Your Plaque program.

We are very proud to have his friendship. Dr. Rumberger is not only a world-renowned scientist in the world of cardiac imaging and heart scanning, but also a humanitarian and gentleman. From the very first day I met Dr. Rumberger many years ago, when he answered my many silly and naive questions about heart scans, I came to appreciate his deep and genuine interest in improving the world of heart disease detection.

I tracked Dr. Rumberger down from his busy schedule, now on a new project at the Princeton Longevity Center in Princeton, New Jersey.

TYP: Dr. Rumberger, we understand that your career has taken a new direction. Can you tell us about your current project?

Dr. Rumberger: I have not really taken a new direction, but further expanded on my opportunities.

I remain Medical Director of PrevaHealth Wellness Diagnostic Center (formerly Healthwise) in Columbus, Ohio. At that center, we see patients referred by their doctors for further refinement in cardiac risk stratification using heart and body scanning. However, by only doing scans alone there are limited opportunities for me to react in a meaningful way with the individual patients and thus I miss opportunities to do direct one-on-one teaching.

Currently, I spend most of my time in Princeton, NJ as Director of Cardiac Imaging for the Princeton Longevity Center. At the PLC, we perform comprehensive medical examinations along with screening CT scans, blood work, fitness and diet consultation to affect a more thorough one-on-one experience. Each patient then receives a comprehensive de-briefing.

In addition, since I have been involved with cardiac CT for now nearly 24 years, the PLC also affords me an opportunity to develop a CT coronary angiography training program for cardiologists and radiologists (www.cardiaccta.us). Together, these new efforts are merely an extension of my interests in prevention, patient care, and teaching.

TYP: Based on your book, The Way Diet, we understand that you advocate gravitating away from processed foods and incorporating more nuts, monounsaturated oils, lean proteins like fish, and a reduction in processed carbohydrates. You’ve also been a proponent of the Mediterranean diet that demonstrated a dramatic reduction in cardiovascular events in the Lyon Heart Study.

Has your philosophy or practice regarding nutritional strategies evolved or changed in any way since your book was published?

Dr. Rumberger: No, the strategies put forward in The Way Diet have, if anything, been reinforced by further and further research in selecting foods that are naturally high in anti-oxidants with lean sources of protein and reduced intake of processed sugar-containing preparations. The book, however, is what I call a ‘philosophy’ book which looks at three major aspects: proper diet, adequate exercise, and stress management. I also include some recipes which follow the dietary plans, but are done using ingredients that are commonly found in the average home.

TYP: We regard you as the source of much of the wisdom in heart scanning as the basis for early heart disease detection. Much of the original and subsequent scientific data, in fact, bears your name. Can you touch on some of the new directions your research has taken over the past couple of years?

Dr. Rumberger: We have come a long way from the beginning and there is a long way to go to get this incorporated into routine preventive care in the United States.

The most recent research has provided not so much more information as continuing to reinforce the old research. As I always say: if your research continues to show the same thing, then maybe there is a clear pattern here! The biggest challenge is getting this message into the mainstream and also trying to get cardiologists (and internists and, in fact, the general public) away from ‘stenosis’ detection to define the real cause of heart attacks (plaque) and into ‘plaque detection.’ This is where basic heart scanning has the greatest potential to reduce the expanding burden of heart disease.

You may be aware of our SHAPE initiave in which an international group of cardiologists and scientists have advocated getting a heart scan FIRST and then, if abnormal, checking your cholesterol values; rather than using cholesterol (which is valuable, but highly variable in predictive power) to determine who needs medications or further testing. The heart scan can define the current level of plaque and THEN you can determine what to do about it. [See the Track Your Plaque report on the release of the Shape Guidelines at SHAPE Guidelines]

TYP: We understand that you are performing CT coronary angiography in your center. What are your thoughts on the role of CTA in 1) screening for coronary disease, and 2) its role in the diagnostic process?

Dr. Rumberger: CT coronary angiography (CTA) is an incredible method to really define the extent of disease, beyond just coronary calcium. Its role is most appropriate in ruling OUT a significant ‘stenosis’ while really defining the absence or presence (and thus ‘how much’) of plaque. It is the ultimate ‘plaque detector’. CTA is best used in patients who have some symptoms, but in whom the clinician feels may NOT have clear cardiac chest pain. By risk-stratifying using CTA, we also gain information about heart size, heart function, whether there is prior heart damage, as well as other important information. This then becomes a very universal means to risk-stratifying individuals.

TYP: Thanks for your wonderful insights, Dr. Rumberger! We look forward to hearing about your future projects and research directions.

About John Rumberger, PhD, MD:
Dr. Rumberger is among the world's leading authorities on cardiac and vascular imaging using EBT and CT Scanning. Dr. Rumberger was among the first to pioneer the use of new CT technologies for heart scanning. He currently serves as Director of Cardiac Imaging at the Princeton Longevity Center, Princeton, NJ.

Dr. Rumberger is formerly Professor of Medicine and Consultant in the Department of Cardiovascular Diseases at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Rumberger received his doctorate in engineering from The Ohio State University in 1976 and graduated from the University of Miami School of Medicine in 1978.

During his over 20 year career as a clinician, educator, and researcher, Dr. Rumberger has published nearly 500 scientific papers and book chapters. He has lectured worldwide on EBT, early heart disease diagnosis, and wellness. He is an Established Investigator of the American Heart Association and a Founding Member of the International Society of Atherosclerosis Imaging. Dr Rumberger is an active Reviewer for the Journal of the American Medical Association, Archives of Internal Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine.

It's been a glorious summer in Wisconsin.

For weeks straight, we've enjoyed bright, sunny days with temperatures in the 70s and 80s. Even now, in late September, our windows are wide open and the days are warm and sunny. Yesterday, it was 84 degrees. Yes, it did rain for a stretch of about 10 days in August, but for the most part it has been a wonderfully sunny summer.

So it struck Andy as a big surprise when we checked his 25-OH-vitamin D3 blood level: 15 ng/ml--severe deficiency.

"I don't get it. I'm outside almost every day. Look at me! How do you think I got this tan?"

Indeed, Andy sported a nice dark tan over exposed areas.

In fact, Andy was among the dozen or so people this month with deficiencies of this magnitude.

Deficiency is not the exception; it is the rule. Of course, if Andy's blood level is at the level of severe deficiency in September, he will only trend lower over the next few weeks and months. He would likely have shown vitamin D blood levels of <10 ng/ml by January--profound deficiency.

With deficiency of this severity, Andy has been exposing himself to risk for prostate and colon cancer, diabetes and metabolic syndrome, low HDL, higher triglycerides, higher blood sugars, higher C-reactive protein, osteoporosis, arthritis . . .

Correcting the deficiency is easy. But, as you can see, getting sun is not always the answer. Even with an active, outdoor lifestyle and a tan, Andy still remained significantly deficient. Oral replacement with vitamin D3, or cholecalciferol, is an absolute necessity.

In general, I try to exhaust possibilities before resorting to the statin drugs. But we still do use them, both in general practice and the Track Your Plaque program.

There are indeed a number of ways to reduce, minimize, or eliminate the need for these drugs. For instance, if your LDL is 150 mg/dl but comprised of 90% small particles, then a reduction in wheat and other high-glycemic index foods, weight loss, fish oil, and niacin can yield big drops in LDL.

But sometimes we need them. Say LDL is 225 mg/dl and is a mix of large and small. Exercise, weight loss, niacin, oat bran, ground flaxseed, Benecol, etc. and LDL: 198 mg/dl. Alright, that's when statins may be unavoidable. There's also many people who are not as motivated as all of us trying to reverse heart disease. Some just want the easy way out. Statins do indeed provide that option in some people.

So in truth, we end up using these drugs fairly regularly. How common are muscle aches and fatigue? In my experience, they are universal . If taken long enough, or if high doses are used, muscle complaints are inevitable. Most of the time, thankfully, they're modest and often relieved with a change in drug or with coenzyme Q10 supplementation.

But there's more to statin side effects than muscle aches. Among the wacky effects that I have witnessed with statin drugs:

--Insomnia-especially with simvastatin (Zocor and Vytorin). Insomnia can be quite severe, in fact, with difficulty sleeping more than 3-4 hours a night.

--Bone aches--I don't know why this happens, unless it's somehow related to muscle aches. I've seen this with all the statins, but more commonly with Crestor.

--Memory impairment--a la Dr. Duane Graveline's wacky book, Lipitor: Thief of Memory. I've seen this with Lipitor, though it's uncommon, and less commonly with simvastatin (Zocor, Vytorin).

--Diarrhea--More common with Zetia and Vytorin (which contains Zetia), because of the inhibition of bile acid reabsorption.

--Migraine headaches--This I certainly do not understand, but the cause-effect relationship is undoubtedly true in an occasional person.

--Low libido--In men more than women, though it may be more due to men being more willing to admit to it.

--Increased appetite--Rare, though I've seen dramatic instances.

--Tinnitus--Ringing in the ears. I've only seen it with Lipitor and Zocor.

In their defense (and in general I am no defender of the drug manufacturers), most people do fine with statin drugs, though the majority do eventually require coenzyme Q10 in my experience. By the way, coenzyme Q10 can be an indispensable aid to help tolerate statin agents.

I'd love to hear about your wacky experiences.

I don't use this space to toot my horn (at least I don't too often), but we were looking at the listings of our viewers and members. I was surprised to learn that we now have Track Your Plaque followers in 15 different countries around the world!

We have members from Europe including England, Ireland, Switzerland, Belgium, and the Czech Republic. We have members from as far away as South Africa, Australia, India, Singapore, Thailand, and China.

I see the entire Track Your Plaque process as a grand experiment. Never before in history has a system of health been delivered via a communication medium like the web. The internet provides more interactivity than television, it's more fluid than a book, it's more dynamic and evolves more rapidly than a face-to-face interaction. While we cannot be hands-on over the internet, we can still deliver all the crucial information and, hopefully, the knowledge on how to get it done.

Track Your Plaque is part of an even grander experiment: The movement to shift control over health away from the medical system, doctors, and hospitals and back to individuals. When you think about it, the idea that "health" (more acurately sickness) should be managed by people and institutions (e.g., hospitals and insurance companies) outside of the individual is a 20th century concept. I predict that this notion will also become a relic of the 20th century.

Someday, we will look back and laugh at the folly of the 20th century style of paternalistic health care. Perhaps it was a necessary step in the sequence to transform health to a better system that returns control to the individual. But it's clearly time for a change.

Track Your Plaque is an example of the extraordinary power that can be taken by a lone individual with only minimal assistance of a health care provider. I see Track Your Plaque members who understand heart disease (at least the coronary disease aspect) far better than 95% of my cardiology colleagues, 100% of my internal medicine and family practice colleagues. Physicians maintain a role, but their role has shrunk and receded. They should be facilitators of success in health, educators, a resource to turn to when we need help. It's not that way today. It will be in 50 years.

But, right now, we can get started on this wonderfully self-empowering--liberating-- movement by participating in this global experiment known as Track Your Plaque, the program with the goofy name that has the potential to usurp and unravel this enormous institutionalized system of health care the world has created.

There's a heated debate being waged on the Heart Hawk Blog

Dr. Melissa Walton-Shirley authored an editorial entitled It Should Be the Right of All Americans to Have Primary Percutaneous-Based Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome .

Heart Hawk's response:

Dr. Walton-Shirley feels the best use of time, talent, and money is to build more cath labs and train more people in how to use them so that IF you have a heart attack, you stand a better chance of being pulled back from the brink of death. Unfortunately, you have to first let people get so sick that they are about to die. My position is to use those same resources to prevent such disasters from happening in the first place. Take your pick. You cannot spend the money twice.

I am no stranger to "direct angioplasty," meaning performing immediate coronary angioplasty (with stenting) for heart attack. Since 1990, I have personally performed hundreds, perhaps over a thousand of these procedures, particularly when I was younger and my practice was procedurally-focused. But, after a few years, I quickly recognized the futility of this approach. Yes, you might have aborted a heart attack ,perhaps even saved a life at the brink of death. But wouldn't it have been better to have prevented the entire episode in the first place?

In my mind, putting a cath lab on every corner, as Dr. Walton-Shirley suggests, is like having a fire truck on every street to prevent a house from burning down. It's an enormously expensive proposition that provides no incentive to prevent fires. Why not spend the money on preventing the fires?

Expanding access to cath lab procedures is putting the fox in the henhouse. Procedures yield money--big money--for hospitals and cardiologists. Guess what happens when you build facilities that exceed the need? Yes--the number of procedures grows, whether or not they were needed.

In my view, Dr. Shirley-Walton's opinions are symptomatic of the profit-driven, procedurally-focused quick-fixes that divert money that would be far better spent on effective dissemination of preventive practices.

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.

Is health the absence of disease?

Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs

Further validation of the Track Your Plaque 60:60:60 targets

My sister called today . . .

Failure to diagnose

Interview with world heart scan authority, Dr. John Rumberger

Summer in Wisconsin

Wacky statin effects

Track Your Plaque goes global

Go to your corners

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