Letter from the insurance company 18. March 2011 William Davis (24) Claudia got this letter from her health insurance company:Dear Ms. ------,Based on a recent review of your cholesterol panel of January 12, 2011, we feel that you should strongly consider speaking to your doctor about cholesterol treatment.Reducing cholesterol values to healthy levels has been shown to reduce heart attack risk . . . Okay. So the health insurer wants Claudia to take a cholesterol drug in the hopes that it will reduce their exposure to the costs for her future heart catheterization, angioplasty and stent, or bypass surgery. This is understandable, given the extraordinary costs of such hospital services, typically running from $40,000 for a several hour-long outpatient catheterization procedure, to as much as $200,000 for a several day long stay for coronary bypass surgery.So what's the problem? Here are Claudia's most recent lipid values:LDL cholesterol 196 mg/dlHDL 88 mg/dlTriglycerides 37 mg/dlTotal cholesterol 291 mg/dlBy the criteria followed by her health insurer, both total and LDL cholesterol are much too high. Note, of course, that LDL cholesterol was a calculated value, not measured. Here are Claudia's lipoproteins, drawn simultaneously with her lipids:LDL particle number 898 nmol/LSmall LDL particle number less than 90 nmol/L (Values less than 90 are not reported by Liposcience)LDL particle number is, by far and away, the best measure of LDL particles, an actual count of particles, rather than a guesstimate of LDL particles gauged by measuring cholesterol in the low-density fraction of lipoproteins (i.e., LDL cholesterol). It is also measured and is highly reproducible. To convert LDL particle number in nmol/L to an LDL cholesterol-like value in mg/dl, divide by ten (or just drop the last digit). Claudia's measured LDL is therefore 89 mg/dl--54% lower than the crude calculated LDL suggests. This is because virtually all of Claudia's LDL particles are large, with little or no small. This situation throws off the crude assumptions built into the LDL calculation, making it appear that she has very high LDL cholesterol. Do you think that Big Pharma advertises this phenomenon?
Healthy smoothies 15. March 2011 William Davis (51) I've now seen several people who have either caused themselves to be diabetic or to have other phenomena associated with excessive consumption of carbohydrates, all by innocently indulging in a carbohydrate-packed smoothie every morning. Kay, for instance, has a smoothie of a half-pint blueberries, a banana, a scoop of whey, low-fat yogurt, a cup of milk every morning. The rest of her diet was fairly healthy: salads with oil-based dressing for lunch, salmon and asparagus for dinner, only an occasional carbohydrate indulgence outside of her morning smoothie ritual. Yet she had a HbA1c (a reflection of prior 60 to 90 days average blood sugar) at the near-diabetic range of 5.9%. The mistake most people make when making smoothies is relying too heavily on carbohydrates like fruit. A smoothie like the one made by Kay can easily top 50, 60, or 70 grams carbohydrates per serving, more than sufficient to send blood sugars up to 150 mg/dl or more. So what can you put in your smoothie and not send you over the edge to diabetes, small LDL, and all the other undesirable phenomena of excessive carbohydrates? Here's a list:--coconut milk, unsweetened almond milk. Less desirable: milk, full-fat soymilk--ground flaxseed--oils: flaxseed oil, coconut oil (melted), extra-light olive oil, walnut oil--dried coconut--extracts: vanilla, almond, coconut, cherry, hazelnut--spices: cinnamon, nutmeg, ginger--herbs: mint leaves, cilantro--cocoa powder (unsweetened)--nut or seed butters (peanut butter, almond butter, sunflower seed butter)--tofu--exotic ingredients (ingredients you wouldn't expect in a smoothie): spinach, kale, cucumberHow do you sweeten a smoothie? This is what trips up most people. If you resort to fruit like bananas, pineapple, or apple, you will readily send your blood sugar skyward. Honey, agave syrup, and sugar, of course, all increase blood sugar and/or have the adverse effects of fructose. Be careful of yogurt, also, for similar reasons. Therefore, to sweeten your smoothie, consider:--Small servings of berries, e.g., 8-10 blueberries, 2 strawberries, a few wedges of apple, half a kiwi--Non-nutritive sweeteners like stevia, Truvia, sucralose, xylitol, erythritol. Also, sugar-free (sucralose-based) syrups like those from DaVinci and Torani are useful. (Just be aware that non-nutritive sweeteners can increase appetite--use sparingly.)Also, note that, if you have divorced yourself from wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, your desire for sweet should be much reduced. Foods other people find just right will taste sickeningly sweet to you. You might therefore find that foods like peanut butter or coconut milk have a mild natural sweetness; added sweetness is only minimally necessary. Coming next: I'll share a smoothie recipe or two of mine. Anyone want to share a recipe?
Insulin secretagogue 14. March 2011 William Davis (34) Dairy products have the peculiar property of triggering pancreatic release of insulin. The research group at Lund University in Sweden have contributed the most to documenting this phenomenon:Mean (±SEM) incremental changes (?) in serum insulin in response to equal amounts of carbohydrate from a white-wheat-bread reference meal (x) and test meals of whey (?), milk (?), cheese (?), cod (?), gluten-low (?), and gluten-high (?) meals. From Nilsson 2004.Note that it is the area under the curve (AUC), not the peak value, that assumes greatest importance. Dairy products, especially milk, whey, and yogurt, are insulin secretagogues: they stimulate pancreatic release of insulin. The effect is likely due to amino acids and/or polypeptides in dairy products. (The effect is less prominent with cheese. Also see this study.)By conventional wisdom, this may be a good thing, since the excess insulin will blunt the glucose rise after consumption. However, in my book, this is not such a good thing, since most of us have tired, beaten, overworked pancreatic beta cells from our decades of carbohydrate overconsumption. I fear that the effect of dairy products just take us a bit closer to beta cell failure: diabetes. Good news: The effect is least with cheese.
Be gluten-free without "gluten-free" 9. March 2011 William Davis (23) While I've discussed this before, it is such a confusing issue that I'd like to discuss it again.I advocate wheat elimination because consumption of products made from modern dwarf Triticum aestivum:--Triggers formation of extravagant quantities of small LDL and LDL particle number (or apoprotein B)--Triggers inflammatory phenomena like c-reactive protein, increases leptin resistance, and reduction of the protective adipocytokine, adiponectin.--Encourages accumulation of deep visceral fat ("wheat belly") that is inflammatory and causes resistance to insulin--Increases blood sugar more than nearly all other foods--higher than a Milky Way bar, higher than a Snickers bar, higher than table sugar. --Is being linked to a growing number of immune-mediated diseases, including celiac disease (quadrupled over past 50 years), type 1 diabetes in children, and cerebellar ataxia and peripheral neuropathies. This last group of wheat-related phenomena are primarily due to gluten, the collection of 50+ proteins found in each wheat plant. For this reason, people diagnosed with celiac disease are advised to eliminate gluten from wheat and other sources (barley, rye, triticale, bulgur) and to eat gluten-free foods. Gluten-free has therefore come to be viewed as wheat-free and problem-free. It ain't so. Among the few foods that increase blood glucose higher than wheat: cornstarch, rice starch, potato starch, and tapioca starch--Yup: the ingredients commonly used to replace wheat in gluten-free foods. They are also flagrant triggers of the small LDL pattern, along with increased triglycerides, reduced HDL, increased visceral fat, increased blood pressure. In short, gluten-free foods lack the immune and brain effects of wheat gluten, but still make you fat, hypertensive, and diabetic. I tell patients to view gluten-free foods like jelly beans: Gluten-free pancakes, muffins, breads, etc. are indulgences, not healthy replacements for wheat. It's okay to have a few jelly beans now and then. But they should not be part of a frequent or daily routine. Same with gluten-free foods.
Diabetes: Better than hedge funds 7. March 2011 William Davis (23) Diabetes is where the action is. While, for virtually all of history, type 2 diabetes was an uncommon condition of adults, the disease has spread so much to all levels of American society that even kids are now developing the adult form. Researchers from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention predict that, by 2050, one in three adults will be diabetic. The diabetes market is booming, handily surpassing growth of the oil industry, the housing market, even technology. It makes Bernie Madoff’s billions look like small potatoes. In health, few markets are growing as fast as diabetes—-not osteoporosis, not heart disease, not cancer. Americans are getting fat from carbohydrate consumption, becoming diabetic along with it. While kids hanging around the convenience store gulp down 26 teaspoons of sugar in 32-ounce sodas and 56-grams-of-sugar in 16-ounce frozen ices, health-minded adults are more likely eating two slices of 6-teaspoons sugar-equivalent “healthy whole grain” bread, wondering why last year’s jeans are too tight. The U.S. is not the only nation affected. Globally, 2.8% of the world’s population are diabetic, a number expected to double over the next 20 years. Pharmaceutical companies boast double-digit growth for diabetes drugs, growth rates that keep profit-hungry investors happy. Merck’s Januvia, for instance, introduced in 2006, recently catalogued 30% growth in sales, with annual sales approaching $1 billion. Recently FDA-approved Victoza, requiring once-a-day injection, is expected to reap $4 billion in sales per year for manufacturer Novo Nordisk. Such numbers can only warm a drug company CEO’s heart. Most diabetics don’t just take one medication, but several. A typical regimen for an adult diabetic after a couple of years of treatment and following the dietary advice of the American Diabetes Association includes metformin, Januvia, and Actos, a triple-drug treatment that costs around $420 per month. Two forms of insulin (slow- and fast-acting), along with two or three oral medications, is not at all uncommon. “Collateral” revenues from the other health conditions that develop from a diet rich in “healthy whole grains,” such as drugs for hypertension, drugs to slow the progression of kidney disease in diabetes, drugs for “high cholesterol,” and drugs for high triglycerides, and you have a pharmaceutical drug bonanza. You, too, would throw all-expenses-paid, fly-the-entire-sales-force-to-the-Caribbean sales meetings. The global diabetes market has already topped $25 billion and is growing at double-digit rates. Forget the Internet, gold stocks, or solar energy—-diabetes is where the money is. This fact has not been lost on the very market-savvy pharmaceutical industry. As with any successful business, they have devoted substantial resources to develop and grow this booming business.
270 lb man in diapers 5. March 2011 William Davis Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in The Big Squeeze 20. June 2008 William Davis (5) Some colleagues of mine brought this scary phenomenon to my attention last evening.As insurance and Medicare reimbursement to doctors and hospitals fall (Medicare is enacting a series of substantial cuts, which will be followed by the private health insurers), you would expect the use of hospital procedures to drop. Makes sense, right? Less money paid per procedure, less incentive to do them. Unfortunately, that's not how it's playing out in the real world. Your neighborhood interventional cardiologist or cardiothoracic surgeon is accustomed to a level of income and lifestyle. That lifestyle is now threatened by shrinking reimbursement. True to the Law of Unintended Consequences, rather than reducing use of procedures, diminishing procedural fees are prompting a good number of practitioners to do more. In other words, if each heart catheterization pays less, why not do more of them, along with more stents, pacemakers, defibrillators, and the like? If four heart catheterizations per day pays less, why not do five to make up the difference? Voila! Income protected. Of course, it comes at the cost of more work. But I will give one thing to my colleageus: They are a generally hard-working bunch who rarely balk at 12-16 hours days in the hospital.How do you do more procedures? Easy. Just lower the bar on who to do a procedure on. Use more aggressive criteria for pacemaker implantation. Interpret the always-fuzzy nuclear stress tests weighed more towards abnormal. Use scare tactics: "You never know--that chest pain could be the last warning you're going to have!" Because the criteria for performing procedures is "soft" in the real world, it is easy to bend the criteria any way you want. It's too early to measure the full impact of this unintended consequence of reduced reimbursement. But don't allow yourself to become a casualty in the reimbursement war. Remain vigilant. Recognize that, despite the fuzziness at the edges, there are still rational reasons for performing heart procedures. Always be armed with information and the right questions. Never submit unquestioningly or without satisfactory answers to your questions. Tim Russert's heart scan score 210. . .in 1998 18. June 2008 William Davis (10) Despite the media blathering over how Mr. Russert's tragic death from heart attack could not have been predicted, it turns out that he had undergone a heart scan several years ago. A New York Times article, A Search for Answers in Russert’s Death, reported:Given the great strides that have been made in preventing and treating heart disease, what explains Tim Russert’s sudden death last week at 58 from a heart attack?The answer, at least in part, is that although doctors knew that Mr. Russert, the longtime moderator of “Meet the Press” on NBC, had coronary artery disease and were treating him for it, they did not realize how severe the disease was because he did not have chest pain or other telltale symptoms that would have justified the kind of invasive tests needed to make a definitive diagnosis. In that sense, his case was sadly typical: more than 50 percent of all men who die of coronary heart disease have no previous symptoms, the American Heart Association says.It is not clear whether Mr. Russert’s death could have been prevented. He was doing nearly all he could to lower his risk. He took blood pressure pills and a statin drug to control his cholesterol, he worked out every day on an exercise bike, and he was trying to lose weight, his doctors said on Monday. And still it was not enough.“What is surprising,” Dr. Newman said, “is that the severity of the anatomical findings would not be predicted from his clinical situation, the absence of symptoms and his performing at a very high level of exercise.”Buried deeper in this article, the fact that Mr. Russert had a heart scan score of 210 in 1998 is revealed. That bit of information is damning. Readers of The Heart Scan Blog know that heart scan scores are expected to grow at a rate of 30% per year. This would put Mr. Russert's heart scan score at 2895 in 2008. But the two doctors providing care for Mr. Russert were advising the conventional treatments: prescribing cholesterol drugs, blood pressure medication, managing blood sugar, and doing periodic stress tests. Conventional efforts usually slow the progression of heart scan scores to 14-24% per year. Let's assume the rate of increase was only 14% per year. That would put Mr. Russert's 2008 score at 779.A simple calculation from known information in 1998 clearly, obviously, and inarguably predicted his death. Recall that heart scan scores of 1000 or greater are associated with annual--ANNUAL--risk for heart attack and death of 20-25% if no preventive action is taken. The meager prevention efforts taken by Mr. Russert's doctors did indeed reduce risk modestly, but it did not eliminate risk. We know that growing plaque is active plaque. Active plaque means rupture-prone plaque. Rupture prone plaque means continuing risk for heart attack and death. Heart attack and death means the approach used in Mr. Russert was a miserable failure. While the press blathers on about how heart disease is a tragedy, as Mr. Russert's doctors squirm under the fear of criticism, the answers have been right here all alone. It sometimes takes a reminder like Mr. Russert's tragic passing to remind us that tracking plaque is a enormously useful, potentially lifesaving approach to coronary heart disease.Who needs to go next? Matt Lauer, Oprah, Jay Leno, some other media personality? Someone close to you? Can this all happen right beneath the nose of your doctor, even your cardiologist?I don't need to remind readers of The Heart Scan Blog that heart disease is 1) measurable, 2) trackable, 3) predictable. Mr. Russert's future was clear as long ago as 1998. Every year that passed, his future became clearer and clearer, yet his doctors fumbled miserably. Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD Another failure of conventional cardiac care 15. June 2008 William Davis (5) Though Tim Russert was widely known and respected for his political commentary, he will likely be better remembered as an example of the gross shortcomings of the conventional approach to heart disease.Let's face it:Standard heart disease prevention efforts are a miserable failure. A Track Your Plaque member brought this interview of Mr. Russert's doctor to my attention.It appears that his doctor did all the correct conventional things. You know what became of it. In the eyes of the public and of any attorney, or even of my colleagues, no wrong was committed. The blame does not lie with Mr. Russert's hapless doctor. The blame lies on the system that endorses procedures, prescription medications, the blind adherence to dogma dictated by the pharmaceutical industry and FDA, along with a prevailing philosophy of preferring the management of catastrophes to preventing them. Dr. Newman's idea of a solution: Making an automatic defibrillator (AED) more widely available (!!!).How long does this sort of idiocy have to go on? How many people have to die before the system uses the tools that are already available, tools that could have prevented this tragedy and many more like it?If you and your doctor subscribe to the program that the unfortunate Mr. Russert was prescribed and the brainwashing, unthinking nonsense that his doctor follows, you are a fool. Shame on you. You therefore likely subscribe to the same variety of marketing BS that issues from food manufacturers about Cheerios, whole grains, and low-fat diets. Get with the program. Sadly, Mr. Russert is not the first, he's not the last. The tragedies of conventional advice that line the pockets of drug and food manufacturers number in the millions. We're not talking about some obscure, rare disease. We're talking about the number one cause of death in both males and females nationwide. I deeply wish this message could have reached Mr. Russert before his untimely death. We could all look forward to another Sunday morning with his usual incisive, unforgiving probing of the day's political figures. Tribute to Tim Russert 14. June 2008 William Davis (11) The sudden passing of news giant, Tim Russert, yesterday of sudden cardiac death struck a blow to American consciousness. Perhaps his hard-hitting interviewing style, while making guests squirm, made him seem invincible. But, of course, none of us is invincible. We are all vulnerable to this disease. We should not allow Mr. Russert's tragic death to occur without taking some lessons. The media have already resorted to interviewing prominent doctors for their opinion.Douglas Zipes, M.D., former President of the American College of Cardiology,was quoted in the media:"An automated external defibrillator (AED) could have been a life-saver. AEDs should be as common as fire extinguishers."This is typical sleight-of-hand, medicine-is-too-complex-for-the-public-to-understand sort of rhetoric that is surely to issue from the conventionally-thinking medical people and the press. Instead, let's cut the BS and learn the real lessons from Mr. Russert's needless death. It is virtually certain that:--Mr. Russert ruptured an existing coronary atherosclerotic plaque, prompting rhythm instability, or ventricular fibrillation. --Making automatic external defibrillators (AED) available might have Band-Aided the ventricular fibrillation, but it would not have stopped the heart attack that triggered it. --Though full details of Mr. Russert's health program have not been made available, it is quite likely that he was prescribed the usual half-witted and barely effective panoply of "prevention": aspirin, statin drug, anti-hypertensive medication. Readers of The Heart Scan Blog and members of Track Your Plaque know that this conventional approach is as effective as aspirin for a fractured hip. --It is highly unlikely that all causes of Mr. Russert's heart disease had been identified--did he have small LDL (it's certain he did, given his body habitus of generous tummy), Lp(a), low HDL, pre-diabetic patterns, inflammatory abnormalities, vitamin D deficiency, etc.? You can be sure little or none of this had been addressed. Was he even taking simple fish oil that reduces the likelihood of sudden cardiac death by 45%? --Far more could have been done to have prevented Mr. Russert's needless death. And I don't mean the idiocy of making AED's available in office buildings. I'm talking about preventing the rupture of atherosclerotic plaque in the first place. Far more can be done to prevent future similar deaths among all of us.Our jobs are to use the tragic death of Mr. Russert to help those around us learn that heart disease is identifiable and preventable. Though Mr. Russert did not stand for BS in his political commentary, he sadly probably received it in his health advice. Don't let this happen to you or those around you. Why do skinny people get heart disease? 13. June 2008 William Davis (9) There's no doubt about it: The majority of people with heart disease are overweight. They may not be grotesquely overweight, just a few pounds over. But weight plays a crucial role in activating numerous factors that heighten risk for heart disease. Excess weight reduces HDL cholesterol, raises triglycerides, increases small LDL (enormously), fans the fires of inflammatory responses (CRP, IL-6, TNF-alpha, etc.) raises blood pressure, increases resistance to insulin and raises blood sugar. Overweight people tend to be less physically active, may develop diseases of obesity like sleep apnea, and on and on. You've heard this all before. But why do slender people develop heart disease? If we can't blame weight, what is to blame? By slender, I mean body mass index (BMI) of <25. (Yes, I know there are other ways, better ways, to gauge healthy weight. But, for simplicity, I'll use BMI.) Let's put aside the two obvious causes of heart disease, cigarette smoking and Type I diabetes. (I'd be shocked if any cigarette smokers read this blog.)Slender people develop heart disease because:1) They have lipoprotein(a)--The big, big neglected risk factor. In fact, the Lp(a) genotype is, in my casual observation, associated with a slender phenotype (genotypic expression). The prototypical example that makes headlines is the marathon runner--slender and superbly fit, but develops heart disease anyway. People wax on about the uncertainties of exercise and fitness when they hear about Jim Fixx and Alberto Salazar. But one factor would explain it all: Lp(a).2) The murky category of the normal weight obesity. These people are generally recognizable by their flaccid tummies despite falling into a favorable BMI <25. Small LDL is the standout red flag in these people. 3) They were previously overweight but lost it. 4) They were former smokers. 5) Vitamin D deficiency--Deficiency of vitamin D is important for everyone's health. But there appears to be some people for whom it is the dominant risk. I believe that one of our great
The Big Squeeze 20. June 2008 William Davis (5) Some colleagues of mine brought this scary phenomenon to my attention last evening.As insurance and Medicare reimbursement to doctors and hospitals fall (Medicare is enacting a series of substantial cuts, which will be followed by the private health insurers), you would expect the use of hospital procedures to drop. Makes sense, right? Less money paid per procedure, less incentive to do them. Unfortunately, that's not how it's playing out in the real world. Your neighborhood interventional cardiologist or cardiothoracic surgeon is accustomed to a level of income and lifestyle. That lifestyle is now threatened by shrinking reimbursement. True to the Law of Unintended Consequences, rather than reducing use of procedures, diminishing procedural fees are prompting a good number of practitioners to do more. In other words, if each heart catheterization pays less, why not do more of them, along with more stents, pacemakers, defibrillators, and the like? If four heart catheterizations per day pays less, why not do five to make up the difference? Voila! Income protected. Of course, it comes at the cost of more work. But I will give one thing to my colleageus: They are a generally hard-working bunch who rarely balk at 12-16 hours days in the hospital.How do you do more procedures? Easy. Just lower the bar on who to do a procedure on. Use more aggressive criteria for pacemaker implantation. Interpret the always-fuzzy nuclear stress tests weighed more towards abnormal. Use scare tactics: "You never know--that chest pain could be the last warning you're going to have!" Because the criteria for performing procedures is "soft" in the real world, it is easy to bend the criteria any way you want. It's too early to measure the full impact of this unintended consequence of reduced reimbursement. But don't allow yourself to become a casualty in the reimbursement war. Remain vigilant. Recognize that, despite the fuzziness at the edges, there are still rational reasons for performing heart procedures. Always be armed with information and the right questions. Never submit unquestioningly or without satisfactory answers to your questions.
Tim Russert's heart scan score 210. . .in 1998 18. June 2008 William Davis (10) Despite the media blathering over how Mr. Russert's tragic death from heart attack could not have been predicted, it turns out that he had undergone a heart scan several years ago. A New York Times article, A Search for Answers in Russert’s Death, reported:Given the great strides that have been made in preventing and treating heart disease, what explains Tim Russert’s sudden death last week at 58 from a heart attack?The answer, at least in part, is that although doctors knew that Mr. Russert, the longtime moderator of “Meet the Press” on NBC, had coronary artery disease and were treating him for it, they did not realize how severe the disease was because he did not have chest pain or other telltale symptoms that would have justified the kind of invasive tests needed to make a definitive diagnosis. In that sense, his case was sadly typical: more than 50 percent of all men who die of coronary heart disease have no previous symptoms, the American Heart Association says.It is not clear whether Mr. Russert’s death could have been prevented. He was doing nearly all he could to lower his risk. He took blood pressure pills and a statin drug to control his cholesterol, he worked out every day on an exercise bike, and he was trying to lose weight, his doctors said on Monday. And still it was not enough.“What is surprising,” Dr. Newman said, “is that the severity of the anatomical findings would not be predicted from his clinical situation, the absence of symptoms and his performing at a very high level of exercise.”Buried deeper in this article, the fact that Mr. Russert had a heart scan score of 210 in 1998 is revealed. That bit of information is damning. Readers of The Heart Scan Blog know that heart scan scores are expected to grow at a rate of 30% per year. This would put Mr. Russert's heart scan score at 2895 in 2008. But the two doctors providing care for Mr. Russert were advising the conventional treatments: prescribing cholesterol drugs, blood pressure medication, managing blood sugar, and doing periodic stress tests. Conventional efforts usually slow the progression of heart scan scores to 14-24% per year. Let's assume the rate of increase was only 14% per year. That would put Mr. Russert's 2008 score at 779.A simple calculation from known information in 1998 clearly, obviously, and inarguably predicted his death. Recall that heart scan scores of 1000 or greater are associated with annual--ANNUAL--risk for heart attack and death of 20-25% if no preventive action is taken. The meager prevention efforts taken by Mr. Russert's doctors did indeed reduce risk modestly, but it did not eliminate risk. We know that growing plaque is active plaque. Active plaque means rupture-prone plaque. Rupture prone plaque means continuing risk for heart attack and death. Heart attack and death means the approach used in Mr. Russert was a miserable failure. While the press blathers on about how heart disease is a tragedy, as Mr. Russert's doctors squirm under the fear of criticism, the answers have been right here all alone. It sometimes takes a reminder like Mr. Russert's tragic passing to remind us that tracking plaque is a enormously useful, potentially lifesaving approach to coronary heart disease.Who needs to go next? Matt Lauer, Oprah, Jay Leno, some other media personality? Someone close to you? Can this all happen right beneath the nose of your doctor, even your cardiologist?I don't need to remind readers of The Heart Scan Blog that heart disease is 1) measurable, 2) trackable, 3) predictable. Mr. Russert's future was clear as long ago as 1998. Every year that passed, his future became clearer and clearer, yet his doctors fumbled miserably. Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD
Another failure of conventional cardiac care 15. June 2008 William Davis (5) Though Tim Russert was widely known and respected for his political commentary, he will likely be better remembered as an example of the gross shortcomings of the conventional approach to heart disease.Let's face it:Standard heart disease prevention efforts are a miserable failure. A Track Your Plaque member brought this interview of Mr. Russert's doctor to my attention.It appears that his doctor did all the correct conventional things. You know what became of it. In the eyes of the public and of any attorney, or even of my colleagues, no wrong was committed. The blame does not lie with Mr. Russert's hapless doctor. The blame lies on the system that endorses procedures, prescription medications, the blind adherence to dogma dictated by the pharmaceutical industry and FDA, along with a prevailing philosophy of preferring the management of catastrophes to preventing them. Dr. Newman's idea of a solution: Making an automatic defibrillator (AED) more widely available (!!!).How long does this sort of idiocy have to go on? How many people have to die before the system uses the tools that are already available, tools that could have prevented this tragedy and many more like it?If you and your doctor subscribe to the program that the unfortunate Mr. Russert was prescribed and the brainwashing, unthinking nonsense that his doctor follows, you are a fool. Shame on you. You therefore likely subscribe to the same variety of marketing BS that issues from food manufacturers about Cheerios, whole grains, and low-fat diets. Get with the program. Sadly, Mr. Russert is not the first, he's not the last. The tragedies of conventional advice that line the pockets of drug and food manufacturers number in the millions. We're not talking about some obscure, rare disease. We're talking about the number one cause of death in both males and females nationwide. I deeply wish this message could have reached Mr. Russert before his untimely death. We could all look forward to another Sunday morning with his usual incisive, unforgiving probing of the day's political figures.
Tribute to Tim Russert 14. June 2008 William Davis (11) The sudden passing of news giant, Tim Russert, yesterday of sudden cardiac death struck a blow to American consciousness. Perhaps his hard-hitting interviewing style, while making guests squirm, made him seem invincible. But, of course, none of us is invincible. We are all vulnerable to this disease. We should not allow Mr. Russert's tragic death to occur without taking some lessons. The media have already resorted to interviewing prominent doctors for their opinion.Douglas Zipes, M.D., former President of the American College of Cardiology,was quoted in the media:"An automated external defibrillator (AED) could have been a life-saver. AEDs should be as common as fire extinguishers."This is typical sleight-of-hand, medicine-is-too-complex-for-the-public-to-understand sort of rhetoric that is surely to issue from the conventionally-thinking medical people and the press. Instead, let's cut the BS and learn the real lessons from Mr. Russert's needless death. It is virtually certain that:--Mr. Russert ruptured an existing coronary atherosclerotic plaque, prompting rhythm instability, or ventricular fibrillation. --Making automatic external defibrillators (AED) available might have Band-Aided the ventricular fibrillation, but it would not have stopped the heart attack that triggered it. --Though full details of Mr. Russert's health program have not been made available, it is quite likely that he was prescribed the usual half-witted and barely effective panoply of "prevention": aspirin, statin drug, anti-hypertensive medication. Readers of The Heart Scan Blog and members of Track Your Plaque know that this conventional approach is as effective as aspirin for a fractured hip. --It is highly unlikely that all causes of Mr. Russert's heart disease had been identified--did he have small LDL (it's certain he did, given his body habitus of generous tummy), Lp(a), low HDL, pre-diabetic patterns, inflammatory abnormalities, vitamin D deficiency, etc.? You can be sure little or none of this had been addressed. Was he even taking simple fish oil that reduces the likelihood of sudden cardiac death by 45%? --Far more could have been done to have prevented Mr. Russert's needless death. And I don't mean the idiocy of making AED's available in office buildings. I'm talking about preventing the rupture of atherosclerotic plaque in the first place. Far more can be done to prevent future similar deaths among all of us.Our jobs are to use the tragic death of Mr. Russert to help those around us learn that heart disease is identifiable and preventable. Though Mr. Russert did not stand for BS in his political commentary, he sadly probably received it in his health advice. Don't let this happen to you or those around you.
Why do skinny people get heart disease? 13. June 2008 William Davis (9) There's no doubt about it: The majority of people with heart disease are overweight. They may not be grotesquely overweight, just a few pounds over. But weight plays a crucial role in activating numerous factors that heighten risk for heart disease. Excess weight reduces HDL cholesterol, raises triglycerides, increases small LDL (enormously), fans the fires of inflammatory responses (CRP, IL-6, TNF-alpha, etc.) raises blood pressure, increases resistance to insulin and raises blood sugar. Overweight people tend to be less physically active, may develop diseases of obesity like sleep apnea, and on and on. You've heard this all before. But why do slender people develop heart disease? If we can't blame weight, what is to blame? By slender, I mean body mass index (BMI) of <25. (Yes, I know there are other ways, better ways, to gauge healthy weight. But, for simplicity, I'll use BMI.) Let's put aside the two obvious causes of heart disease, cigarette smoking and Type I diabetes. (I'd be shocked if any cigarette smokers read this blog.)Slender people develop heart disease because:1) They have lipoprotein(a)--The big, big neglected risk factor. In fact, the Lp(a) genotype is, in my casual observation, associated with a slender phenotype (genotypic expression). The prototypical example that makes headlines is the marathon runner--slender and superbly fit, but develops heart disease anyway. People wax on about the uncertainties of exercise and fitness when they hear about Jim Fixx and Alberto Salazar. But one factor would explain it all: Lp(a).2) The murky category of the normal weight obesity. These people are generally recognizable by their flaccid tummies despite falling into a favorable BMI <25. Small LDL is the standout red flag in these people. 3) They were previously overweight but lost it. 4) They were former smokers. 5) Vitamin D deficiency--Deficiency of vitamin D is important for everyone's health. But there appears to be some people for whom it is the dominant risk. I believe that one of our great