The sun is getting stronger and the days are getting longer, even here in Wisconsin.

Some people are coming to the office with nice tans obtained by sunning themselves for several hours. Others have come back from winter getaways to Florida, Arizona, or the tropics, also sporting nice, dark tans.

Several people, in fact, were so confident that sunning themselves provided sufficient vitamin D that they reduced their usual dose. Some even stopped their vitamin D altogether.

But, when blood levels of 25(OH) vitamin D were checked, they were virtually all low, sometimes as low as <20 ng/ml. Yet all had nice tans.

Why does this happen? Why would people with dark tans remain deficient in vitamin D?

One big factor is age: Anyone over 40 years old is fooling themselves if they think that a tan ensures raising vitamin D levels to a desirable range. Also, the more you tan, the more melanin skin pigment accumulates, and the more vitamin D activation in the skin is blocked.

Weight is another factor: Heavier people need more vitamin D, sometimes three- or four-fold more than slender people.

Why does aging result in inefficient skin activation of vitamin D? It seems that, once we are beyond our reproductively useful years, this ticking clock of aging gets triggered. The older we get, the less activation of vitamin D occurs in our skin, the less of the youth-maintaining, disease-preventing benefits of vitamin D we obtain with sun exposure.

The message: Don't rely on a tan to gauge the adequacy of vitamin D. Maybe that works when you're 16 years old, but not at age 50 or 60. There's only one way to know your vitamin D status: a blood level of 25(OH) vitamin D.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

I admit it: In years past, I spoke for the drug industry.

In retrospect, I now regret it. In fact, I'm downright embarassed by it.

In the 1960s, you’d purchase a new car. If you changed the oil, adhered to the maintenance schedule—and were lucky—you might expect to get 100,000 miles out of your automobile. Only an occasional car made it beyond that odometer hurdle. Even if the engine made it past the 100,000 mile milestone, the automobile body would inevitably start to develop rusting decay at the edges of the fenders, signaling body rot that threatened to open gaping holes of metal.

Then along came Toyota and Honda, whose cars easily reached 100,000 miles and well beyond, reliably and with bodies intact. As this realization sunk into the American consciousness, many asked, “Why can’t American automakers accomplish the same sort of trouble-free longevity?” “Buy American” emerged as a mantra to preserve American jobs and prop up an economy vulnerable to the superior automotive products from Detroit’s competitors.

Of course, American automakers have since responded to the challenge posed by the Japanese auto industry and produced automobiles that essentially matched the reliability and longevity of Japanese cars. But, the great unanswered question remains: For years before the onslaught of Japanese competition, did Detroit quietly plot to maintain a policy of planned obsolescence that ensured Americans would have to scrap the old and buy a new car every few years whenever the odometer tipped over 100,000 miles?

We will never know. At worst, it may represent the behind-closed-doors, back-slapping sort of plotting that, for many years, maximized revenues, ensured shareholder returns, and secured executive paychecks. Or, perhaps it wasn’t some evil conspiracy but just complacency, a profitable position of comfort at that. There’s little incentive for industry insiders to reveal such self-incriminating information.

But the example set by the American auto industry presents an unusual learning opportunity for us, a chance to make some useful comparisons to the heart healthcare industry.

Is the American healthcare industry also guilty of practicing a policy of “planned obsolescence,” just like Detroit? The product that helplessly crumbles is, of course, not your rust-riddled automobile, but you.

When someone sees a primary care physician year after year, yet appears one morning in the emergency room, clutching his or her chest in agony from the closed coronary artery responsible for a life-threatening heart attack—prompting the flurry of activity that results in $100,000 in hospital procedures . . .

Perhaps “planned obsolescence” is not the perfect phrase to describe the situation, but the principle still applies: A failure to inform the patient that such an outcome was possible—no, probable—makes you wonder whether such an outcome was predictable and thereby preventable in the first place.

What should we do when planned obsolescence leads us down a path engineered by someone who has something, often substantial, to gain? Even if it's just complacency, or adhering to a beaten, ineffective status quo (can you say "low-fat diet?), it all points in the same direction.

You have a choice: Refuse to buy a 1962 Impala of health care, otherwise known as conventional heart disease management.

Melatonin is fascinating stuff.

In addition to its use as a sleep aid, melatonin exerts possible effects on cardiovascular parameters, including anti-oxidative action on LDL, reduction in sympathetic (adrenaline-driven) tone, and reduction in blood pressure.

Several studies document the blood pressure-reducing effect of melatonin:

Daily nighttime melatonin reduces blood pressure in male patients with essential hypertension.

Melatonin reduces night blood pressure in patients with nocturnal hypertension.

Prolonged melatonin administration decreases nocturnal blood pressure in women.

Blood pressure-lowering effect of melatonin in type 1 diabetes.

But blood pressure may be increased when melatonin is added to nifedipine, a calcium channel blocker:

Cardiovascular effects of melatonin in hypertensive patients well controlled by nifedipine: a 24-hour study.

Effects on BP tend to be modest, on the order of 5-8 mmHg reduction in systolic, half that in diastolic.

But don't pooh-pooh such small reductions, however, as small reductions exert mani-fold larger reductions in cardiovascular events like heart attack and stroke. NIH-sponsored NHANES data (see JNC VII), for example, document a doubling of risk for each increment of BP of 20/10. The Camelot Study demonstrated a reduction in cardiovascular events from 23% in placebo subjects to 16.7% in subjects taking amlodipine (Norvasc) with a 5 mm reduction in systolic pressure, 2 mmHg drop in diastolic pressure. Small changes, big benefits.

Many people take melatonin at bedtime and are disappointed with the effects. However, a much better way is to take melatonin several hours before bedtime, e.g., take at 7 pm to fall asleep at 10 pm. Don't think of melatonin as a sleeping pill; think of it as a sleep hormone, something that simply prepares your body for sleep by slowing heart rate, reducing body temperature, and reducing blood pressure. (You may need to modify the interval between taking melatonin and sleep, since individual responsiveness varies quite a bit.)

I also favor the sustained-release preparations, e.g., 5 mg sustained-release. Immediate-release, while it exerts a more rapid onset of sleep, allows you to wake up prematurely, The sustained-release preparations last longer and allow longer sleep.

The dose varies with age, with 1 mg effective in people younger than 40 years, higher doses of 3, 5, even 10 or 12 mg in older people. Sustained-release preparations also should be taken in slightly higher doses.

The only side-effect I've seen with melatonin is vivid, colorful dreams. Perhaps that's a plus!

Thinking about the programs for health care reform proposed by the three Presidential candidates highlights a distinct peculiarity of American style health care.

American health care is shaped to an unprecedented degree by five forces:

1) The drug industry

2) The health insurance industry

3) Hospitals

4) Fear of litigation

5) The uniquely American attitude of refusing compromise in access to health care services or products, regardless of the cost (for those who can afford health insurance)

All five of these unique forces have created this thing (monster?) we call health care. Remove or modify any one of these forces, and the health care landscape would look dramatically different.

The drug industry has recently been on the receiving end of plenty of negative press. This warms my bones. Decades of heavy-handed lobbying, sleazy marketing to physicians (all too willing to be wined and dined), and behind-the-scenes manipulation of clinical data are coming back to bite them. Sadly, the drug industry is so powerful that this bit of fuss is not likely to substantially change their ways.

I am thrilled that all three Presidential candidates agree that reimportation of drugs from outside the U.S. is a good idea. While the shrug of the shoulders federal and state attitude towards importation of drugs from Canada has not resulted in cost savings sufficient to impact on overall costs, it surely will lead to savings when practiced on a broad basis by pharmacies, distributors, and other bulk buyers of pharmaceuticals.

Senator Obama, in particular, has used strong language in his criticism of the health insurance industry, tough talk that is needed in an age in which insurance executives bring home salaries in the hundreds of millions of dollars and stock prices are climbing due to substantial profit gains within the industry, going against the grain of increasingly costly premiums. However, the Clinton experiment of federalizing health care during Bill Clinton's term that caused all the big boys to band together (most notably health insurance companies and drug industry) has tempered enthusiasm for attacking the insurance industry head-on. In both Democrats' health care reform proposals, the option of private insurance is preserved, as it is in the McCain proposal.

How about hospitals? Hospitals, though on a smaller scale than the nationwide reach of the drug and insurance industries, aim to maintain health service delivery in hospitals. For instance, the high-tech bypass service in the hospital gets plenty of local media coverage, as does the newest DaVinci robotic surgery, bariatric surgery, and other revenue-rich services. Many hospitals have forgotten that their mission is delivery of health, of which revenue creation and profiting from disease should only be part.

How big is fear of litigation? Estimates vary, but several have quoted numbers in the neighborhood of 20 to 30% of overall health care costs. At the street level from what I see, I'd say at least that much. Fear of litigation is rampant, often unrestrained, and sometimes leads to the craziest, illogical sequence of testing. Chest pain, for instance, no matter how trivial, will typically trigger around $5000 worth of testing (nuclear stress test, echocardiogram, laboratory work, etc.) Emergency room visit for a minor injury? CT scan of head, chest, abdomen. A formula to minimize this aspect of fear in health care delivery would generate enormous savings.

The last issue, the uncompromising nature of Americans in health--always wanting the latest new drug, new procedure, "best" surgeon--often simply causes the health care consumer to fall victim to marketing. If a hospital advertises the newest procedure, people want it regardless of whether it represents genuine improvement over the older procedure. The newest sleeping pill, antidepressant, antihypertensive, etc. replaces the old yet equivalent product, but at considerably greater cost.

I am optimistic that, regardless of which candidate gains the White House, that some reform is on the way. I do fear, however, that progress will be small and incremental, since major change of the sort that would slash hundreds of billions of dollars in costs would rouse the powers-that-be (drug industry, health insurers, etc.) to once again combine forces and combat the disruption of their franchise.

Until you and I see real change and cost savings coming through either legislation or free market advances, we need to continue to make full use of the self-empowering health information that we gain through venues like the web.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

No doubt, our little informal poll asking readers whether they have lipoprotein(a), is skewed towards people inclined to respond because they have this genetic trait.

Nonetheless, the response is telling. Of 82 respondents:

--40 (48%) said they did have Lp(a)

--16 (19%) said that they did not have Lp(a)

--26 (31%) said that they did not know whether or not they had Lp(a)

Though admittedly an informal analysis, I'd draw several conclusions from this simple "experiment".

One, while the proportion of people responding that they have Lp(a) may not be accurate, it is a prevalent genetic risk factor that, according to formal studies, is present in 17% of people with coronary or vascular disease, 11% of the broader population. This number may be even higher if the newer particle number assays (measurements) are used (with results expressed in nmol/L), since an occasional person with a "normal" Lp(a) in mg/dl (weight-based) will prove to have increased Lp(a) by nmol/L (particle number-based). (The reason for this phenomenon is not clear. It may be consequent to variation in apo(a) size, with larger apo(a) varieties of Lp(a) occasionally escaping detection .) As our little poll shows, plenty of people have Lp(a).

Two, readers of this blog tend to be highly motivated, sophisticated, and knowledgeable about health and heart disease. Yet a substantial portion--31%--did not know whether they have this crucial risk factor. That shouldn't be. The unnecessary difficulty of getting this simple blood test performed has been driven home to me repeatedly when I identify this factor in someone and then suggest that their grown children and parents, each of whom have a 50% chance of having Lp(a), be tested. It's not uncommon for a 35-year old son, for instance, to say that his doctor refused, claiming it is an unproven risk marker, or to simply say that he/she doesn't know what it is.

No doubt, just knowing whether you have Lp(a) or not is not the end of the story. Reducing Lp(a) and its associated co-factors is no easy matter. With several hundred patients in my practice with Lp(a), it occupies much of my time and energy. Sometimes it leads to enormous successes , but it can also pose a real challenge.

There should no longer be any doubt that Lp(a) is associated with significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease. This has been demonstrated conclusively across dozens of studies. Risk from Lp(a) is over and above that posed by other risk factors; it also amplifies the risk posed by other factors, e.g., small LDL, inflammatory phenemena, homocysteine, total LDL, low HDL.

In the world of Lp(a), our two most desperate needs for the future are:

1) Better education of physicians and the public, and

2) More effective treatment options.

Thus, our reasons to form The Lipoprotein(a) Research Foundation. Steps to gain tax-exempt status are being pursued as we speak.

I can't help but wonder whether, like vitamin D, a solution is right beneath our noses. An investment in research to fund the trials to better explore both basic science as well as practical treatment options might yield an answer more readily than we think. Wouldn't that be great?

Just a muse.

Endogenous substances are those that are already contained within our bodies. They are part of basic human equipment.

Exogenous substances are those that come from outside of our bodies. This includes various substances in foods, drugs (most, though not all), and pesticides.

I often mull over all of the tools we use in the Track Your Plaque program to achieve control over this thing called coronary plaque. It struck me that just about all the supplements we use that seem to provide outsized benefits are all endogenous substances themselves:

--Omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil
--Vitamin D
--l-arginine
--Niacin (vitamin B3)

Many of the other substances, though not directly relevant to our plaque-control efforts, but are among the most effective nutritional supplements, also supplement endogenous levels: calcium pyruvate, creatine, acetylcarnitine, DHEA, testosterone, progesterone, growth hormone, pregnenolone, phenylalanine, tyrosine, melatonin, etc.

Curiously, most drugs are not meant to directly supplement endogenous levels, but are designed either to enhance or block an enzyme (e.g., acetylcholinesterase inhibitors that block breakdown of acetylcholine; HMG CoA reductase inhibitors to block cholesterol synthesis; angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors to reduce blood pressure), to exert toxic effects on an organism (antibiotics, antivirals), or to exert an entirely unique effect that does not ordinarily occur in the human body (some anti-cancer drugs, for instance). (This is an admitted, vast over-simplification.)

That's not to say that any endogenous substance is desirable or safe when supplemented. Cortisol, thyroid hormone, and estrogens are three examples of endogenous substances that have downsides when administered at slightly more than physiologic concentrations.

Nonetheless, it makes me wonder if the world of endogenous substance supplementation has not been fully explored. Are there other endogenous substances that are as potent and wonderful, for instance, as vitamin D but not yet fully appreciated? I'm sure there are.

Reprinted here is the unfailingly informative Vitamin D Newsletter from Dr. John Cannell. Although there's little here specifically about heart disease, there's so much great information about vitamin D that I thought most would still appreciate it.

The Vitamin D Newsletter

May, 2008

Yesterday's Washington Post article, Too-Good-To-Be-True Nutrient?, sums up the April 9th vitamin D symposium at UCSD in San Diego, which was nothing short of spectacular. Carole Baggerly outdid herself organizing it and explaining how she got involved. Make no mistake; Carole is both serious and energetic. She told about her efforts to introduce resolutions at upcoming meetings of various professional groups. Then she introduced the volunteers from the San Diego Black Nurses Association who made sure the conference went off without a hitch. Then Carole introduced the four speakers. The slides of each speaker are available at Grassroots Health.

Before I tell you the highlights of the conference, I'd like to tell you about another conference, this one in Germany, this May 17th and 18th. It is the Third International Symposium on Vitamin D Analogs in Cancer Prevention and Therapy. Readers know how I feel about giving analogs to vitamin D deficient patients instead of vitamin D but speakers include Michael Holick, Reinhold Veith, Bill Grant, Tai Chen, Heidi Cross, David Feldman, and Roger Bouillon, all of whom know the importance of the nutrient. Most of this conference is for scientists, not lay people. However, Michael Holick is the first speaker and if you have not heard his latest talk about vitamin D, it might be worth a trip to Germany.

The first San Diego speaker was Dr. William Grant. Since leaving NASA to begin a full-time career as a vitamin D researcher, Bill has published dozens of studies and has another dozen in the works. Using ecological studies (from Greek oikos, house + German -logie, study or studying your own house) of UVB irradiance and cancer, Bill reported that 15 cancers (colon, esophageal, gallbladder, gastric, pancreatic, rectal, small intestinal, bladder, kidney, prostate, breast, endometrial, ovarian, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) are associated with lower UVB light. He concluded that 257,000 cancer deaths in 2007 in the USA were accounted for by inadequate vitamin D levels. Of course the problem with ecological studies is that it easy to be vitamin D deficient in Miami, all you have to do is listen to your doctor's advice and stay out of the sun. Recently, a group from the Arizona Cancer Center found almost 80% of Arizonians had levels below 30 ng/ml. So much for sunny spots.

Jacobs ET, et al. Vitamin D insufficiency in southern Arizona. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):608-13.

The next speaker was Professor Cedric Garland. I found myself wondering how he did it. I became convinced that vitamin D prevents cancer five years ago. Cedric and his brother Frank and his colleague Ed Gorham knew it 30 years ago! I know what it is like to tell someone that vitamin D prevents cancer and see them think, "Here we go again, another miracle vitamin." I know what it is like to try and explain and watch people die unnecessarily. But I've only had that experience for five years. Cedric has dealt with that frustration for thirty years. Almost thirty years ago, Cedric and Frank Garland published evidence that vitamin D prevents cancer. In fact, it was Cedric's first publication. Thankfully, the paper was recently recognized as being so important that it was republished in 2006 by the International Journal of Epidemiology. You can read the entire paper for free by clicking on the second link below and then clicking on "free final text", courtesy of Oxford Journals.

Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol. 1980 Sep;9(3):227-31.

Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Apr;35(2):217-20.

Cedric began by showing the incidence of type-1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis by latitude. I had no idea that the latitudinal data was so strong for type 1 diabetes in children. This disease is almost nonexistent around the equator. Type-1 diabetes is but one of the three modern childhood epidemics caused by the sunlight-hating dermatologists, the other two, I think, are autism and asthma. Next he showed latitude and 25(OH)D levels, which reminded me to be suspicious of high levels, unless they use accurate methods of detecting 25(OH)D. Some methods used, even in this country, are over detecting vitamin D and telling patients their levels are above 50 ng/ml when they are, in reality, much lower. Cedric's data showed Thailand had mean levels of 70 ng/ml, which I doubt and suspect were due to inaccurate 25(OH)D tests. He then reviewed evidence of the 25(OH)D levels needed to prevent numerous cancers. The safest levels are somewhere above 50 ng/ml. Cedric spent most of his time presenting an entirely new theory of carcinogenesis, one dependent on vitamin D maintaining cellular junctions. I suspect this paper will also be reprinted in 20 years. The only disagreement I have is with his recommendation for cancer patients to start at fairly low doses. For reasons I recently explained, the risk benefit analysis indicates cancer patients should take 5,000 to 10,000 IU per day and they may have no time to lose. Why worry about the phantom of vitamin D toxicity if you may be dying of cancer? Just have your calcium checked along with frequent 25(OH)D levels. Get your levels up to 70-90 ng/ml if you have cancer.

Does vitamin D treat cancer?

The next speaker was Professor Bruce Hollis. He reviewed basic physiology of vitamin D and emphasized that the entire system is designed to deal with an excess not with an insufficiency of vitamin D. Numerous mechanisms are available in your body to prevent vitamin D toxicity but few are available to deal with insufficiency. Then he briefly mentioned one of the most important discoveries about vitamin D in the last few years, one where Professor Neil Binkley of the University of Wisconsin was senior author. (In the last four years, Professor Binkley has become a prolific vitamin D expert and I hope Carol Baggerly is able to get him to speak at some of the upcoming conferences she hopes to sponsor.) As I have pointed out before, Hollis and Binkley's crucial discovery was that the body doesn't start storing the parent compound, cholecalciferol, until 25(OH)D levels reach about 50 ng/ml. They showed, using basic steroid pharmacology, that 50 ng/ml should be considered the lower limit of adequate 25(OH)D levels.

Hollis BW, Wagner CL, Drezner MK, Binkley NC. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-4.

Bruce kept the audience enthralled with a review of all the disease states that indicate 25(OH)D levels need to be much higher than they are now, that is, the multiple biomarkers that suggest the lower limit of 25(OH)D levels should be above 40 ng/ml and closer to 50 ng/ml. Then Professor Hollis spoke of his ongoing study in pregnant women and how he got approval to use 4,000 IU of vitamin D per day back in 2003, quite an accomplishment. He also reviewed another one of his research projects, one that answered an age old question, why is breast milk a poor source of vitamin D? How were prehistoric infants supposed to get their vitamin D, by lying out in the sun where saber tooth tigers would eat them? No, they were hidden in caves and had to have another source or the human race would have died out long ago because rickets destroys a woman's and infant's chance to live through childbirth due to rachitic deformations of the mother's pelvis. Carol Wagner and Bruce Hollis, together with their colleagues, answered that age old question, human breast milk is a poor vitamin D source because virtually all modern mothers are vitamin D deficient. That is, when pregnant women keep their levels where we think prehistoric human levels were, about 50 ng/ml, breast milk becomes a rich source of vitamin D. First Carol and Bruce gave 2,000 IU per day, then 4,000 IU per day and finally 6400 IU of D3 per day to lactating women. Only at 6400 of D3/day did the women maintain both their own 25(OH)D levels and the levels of their breast feeding babies above 50 ng/ml. On 6400 IU/day, the vitamin D activity of the breast milk went from about 80 to 800 IU/L. Quite a discovery, and another reason for all of us to keep our levels above 50 ng/ml.

Wagner CL, Hulsey TC, Fanning D, Ebeling M, Hollis BW. High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation in a cohort of breastfeeding mothers and their infants: a 6-month follow-up pilot study. Breastfeed Med. 2006 Summer;1(2):59-70.

Professor Robert Heaney went last, discussing 74 slides. So much of what we know about vitamin D today is due to Robert's unceasing dedication to vitamin D, the most recent example being his and Joanne Lappe's randomized controlled trial showing that increasing baseline levels from 29 to 38 ng/ml reduced the risk of getting cancer by around 70%. He again pointed out that the body does not begin to consistently store much vitamin D until your levels get to around 50 ng/ml. He also went through multiple biomarkers of vitamin D. That is, what level or intakes do you have to have to reduce the incidence of multiple diseases? He covered calcium absorption, osteoporosis, risk of falling, muscle function, death and disability of the aged, TB, influenza, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and gum disease. How can one vitamin be involved in so many diseases? Simple said Dr. Heaney, "vitamin D is the key that unlocks the DNA library." He then reviewed toxicity and concluded there is no evidence that it occurs at levels below 200 ng/ml or with intakes (total) below 30,000 IU per day. Of course, we have no reason to think anyone needs 30,000 IU per day or levels of 200 ng/ml, which would be irresponsible. But someone with a serious cancer should consider getting their level up to 70-90 ng/ml and that may take 10,000 IU per day or even more in some people. As a rule of thumb, 1,000 IU will raise 25(OH)D levels by about 10 ng/ml.

Then Professor Heaney addressed a public health question. How much would we have to give all Americans to get 98% of people above 32 ng/ml without causing toxicity in anybody? The answer: 2,000 IU per day. Of course 32 ng/ml is not adequate but it would be a great first step. Furthermore, of the people left out, a high percentage would be African Americans. In fact, Dr. Talwar recently reported that 40% of African American women fail to achieve a level of 30 ng/ml even after taking 2,000 IU/day for a year.

Talwar SA, Aloia JF, Pollack S, Yeh JK. Dose response to vitamin D supplementation among postmenopausal African American women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Dec;86(6):1657-62.

He also discussed his recent study giving healthy adults 100,000 IU as a single dose. If you start with a baseline level of 28 ng/ml and take 100,000 IU as a single dose, mean levels will remain above 32 ng/ml for two months. If you rely on such stoss doses, but you start with a lower level, or want your levels above 50 ng/ml, how often do you need to take 100,000 IU? We don't know the answer to the last question but we know that Grey et al gave 50,000 IU per week for four weeks then 50,000 per month for a year to 21 patients with hyperparathyroidism. Blood levels rose from a mean of 11 ng/ml at baseline to 30 ng/ml at one year and levels did not continue to rise after six months. Remember, that means half the patients had levels lower than 30 ng/ml at the end of the year. Also remember that the metabolic clearance (how quickly you use it up) might be higher in certain disease states.

Grey A, et al. Vitamin D repletion in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism and coexistent vitamin D insufficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Apr;90(4):2122-6.

That last point, metabolic clearance, is only one of a number of reasons that patients vary in their response to vitamin D. Remember, a surprising number of patients will tell their physician they are taking vitamin D when they are not, some will be taking preparations that have less in it than the label says, some will not absorb it, and some people weigh more than others. As Dr. Heaney points out, even if you know patients took 100,000 IU, great variably exists in individual response. At the end of two months some will have shown a minimal response and other much more. This is a field where little is known. Do different disease states use up vitamin D quickly? The answer is probably yes. Furthermore, variability also exists in how one metabolizes and catabolizes (breaks down) vitamin D. Also, what is the interactive effect of drugs that use the same liver enzymes for catabolism? We just don't know and that is why vitamin D blood testing is crucial. Remember, the only test to have is a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D. Do not let anyone get a 1,25-dihydroxy-vitamin D; it will not tell you if you are vitamin D deficient and is usually only indicated in evaluating high blood calcium.

As far as 25(OH)D levels go, many of you have written complaining about the high cost of a 25(OH)D levels at some labs. I've got some good news. For the next month, Life Extension Foundation is having a sale on their 25(OH)D blood tests, only $32.25, including the fee for drawing the blood. (No, we don't get funding from Life Extension, I wish we did.) Life Extension uses LabCorp, which, in turn, uses an accurate method to determine 25(OH)D levels, the DiaSorin Laiason method. The only problem is that DiaSorin, LabCorp, and Life Extension all say that 30 ng/ml is acceptable. It is not. Take enough vitamin D or get enough UVB radiation to get your levels above 50 ng/ml. To order the test, call Life Extension at 800 208-3444. Unfortunately, this offer is not available in New York, New Jersey or Rhode Island.

Also, Dr. James Dowd has written a fine book about vitamin D, The Vitamin D Cure. Get this, he is board certified in internal medicine, adult rheumatology, and pediatric rheumatology, an associate professor at Michigan State University, and runs his own Arthritis Institute and the Michigan Arthritis Research Center. He gives a formula for how much vitamin D you need but stresses the importance of testing to know for sure. He uses the formula of 2000 IU for every 100 pounds of body weight, which is as accurate an estimation as one can make without knowing baseline levels. Of course it depends on so many things, as Dr. Dowd points out, such as percentage body fat, latitude, skin type, sun exposure and age. He gives case after case examples of how vitamin D not just prevents disease, but seems to have a treatment effect. He also stresses three other things I've written about before, acid base balance, magnesium and potassium. If you can't get eat enough fruits and green leafy vegetables to obtain your potassium and magnesium and to get rid of low-grade chronic metabolic acidosis, then you should consider magnesium supplements and potassium bicarbonate supplements.

With these four experts and with this month's vitamin D news articles about breast cancer, brain function, artery blockage in the legs, soft skulls in babies, peripheral neuropathy in diabetics, childhood type-1 diabetes, colon cancer, and stress fractures and with the increasing number of scientists around the world jumping on the vitamin D express, why doesn't the government do something? What will it take? Like Carole says it will take a grassroots effort.

The first thing to do is tell your family and friends about vitamin D. Tell your doctor. Get your family's 25(OH)D tested, including your children. Once people begin to see it works, they will get their family and friends to take it. They will feel better and then the word will spread. All the government can do is make vitamin D illegal or limit the amount in each pill. The first is unlikely but not the second. With 5,000 IU capsules widely available, many people give no thought to taking one a day. But if the government limits the sale of anything over 400 IU and people had to take 12 of the 400 IU tablets, instead of one of the 5,000 IU, they might balk at so many pills. Before our officials in Washington take such a step, let's hope they read the Washington Post.

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. This newsletter is not copyrighted. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. We are a nonprofit tax-exempt educational organization and depend on your donations.

The Vitamin D Council
9100 San Gregorio road
Atascadero, CA 93422

Judging by the conversations here, in the Track Your Plaque Forums, and elsewhere, it's clear that many people are searching for the perfect diet.

Should we reconsider the role of saturated fat? Are there fractions of fatty acids in saturated fat that are more or less harmful? How about the role of fats on cancer risk? How about the role of proteins like casein on cancer risk? Are there flavonoid sources, or combinations of flavonoids, that yield outsized health benefits? Is there a ceiling for omega-3 fatty acid supplementation? Is there a role for linolenic acid sources in cardiovascular disease prevention? And on and on.

All important issues, to be sure, ones that we've all zig-zagged through over the past 30 years.

I also see patients every day, however, who are not interested in micro-managing their diet. Their goals are less ambitious: lose 20 lbs, feel good, raise HDL, reduce triglycerides and small LDL, all while meeting all the other responsibilities in their lives, like children, spouses, maintaining a household and jobs.

So, if your interest is not to consider whether we should distinguish myristic acid sources from palmitic, or if epigallocatechin is better when combined with quercetin, then the biggest bang from your nutritional buck can come from one single strategy:

Eliminate wheat flour products

Secondarily, avoiding corn starch products and "goodies" (candy, fruit juices, fruit drinks, cookies, potato chips, etc.--you know what they are) is important, as well.

It means weighing your diet more heavily in favor of vegetables and fruits; lean meats; healthy oils; and raw nuts and seeds, all in unlimited quantities. Dairy products should be limited, however, because of sugar effects.

Of course, this advice clearly contradicts the pronouncements of the USDA Food Pyramid (6-8 servings of grains per day), the American Heart Association, and the diabetes-causing American Diabetes Association diabetic diets.

But, follow this approach, a diet strategy that appears too simple to be effective, and the majority of people lose dramatic amounts of weight, raise HDL, reduce triglycerides, reduce small LDL, reduce C-reactive protein and other inflammatory measures, reduce blood pressure, and raise self-esteem.

It's also a lot easier than it sounds (after habits are broken) because the appetite stimulating effect of wheat is removed. Many, if not most, people also experience increased energy, including elimination of the afternoon "slump," improved sleep, less mood swings, less intestinal problems.

It may not be perfect, but if your interest is to get the most with a modest amount of effort, it works like a charm for the majority of people.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

You're going to hate this.

Dr. Romero-Corral and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic presented an analysis of the National Institutes of Health-funded National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-3) at the recent American College of Cardiology meetings. (Science Daily also has some coverage on this report.)

Their analysis identified 2127 adults from the NHANES database who had normal body-mass indexes (BMI) between 18.5 and 24.9 units), average age 41 years old. When broken down by percent body fat (measured with bioimpedance, meaning a small electrical current is passed through the body, much like what the store-bought Tanita devices do), with normal-weight obesity defined as >20% body fat in males, >30% body fat in females, 55% of participants met criteria for designation as normal-weight obesity.

Compared to people with similar BMI's but who fell below these body fat percentage cut-offs, the normal-weight obese men had increased ratios of Apo B to Apo A1; were much more likely to have increased blood sugars or be diabetic; have higher C-reactive protein (CRP); were several-fold more likely to meet other criteria for diagnosis of metabolic syndrome; had lower HDL cholesterols; and had higher blood pressure. Women with normal-weight obesity were four-fold more likely to have coronary disease.

While preliminary, this suggests that a substantial number of people with apparently favorable body weights and BMIs are, in actuality, overweight when judged by metabolic parameters. This then probably leads to increased risk for heart disease. We can then fairly readily extrapolate the argument that a reduction in weight to even lower BMIs likely reduces or corrects these patterns.

This argument is similar to that proposed by several others, arguing that BMI is a flawed measure, since it does not incorporate muscle mass or skeletal factors ("big- or small-boned"). Instead, they have argued that waist circumference is preferable.

The normal-weight obesity syndrome was originally identified by Dr. Antonio de Lorenzo and colleagues at the University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy, and reported in Normal weight obese (NWO) women: an evaluation of a candidate new syndrome. Their studies of women with this "syndrome" have suggested that heightened measures of inflammation are present despite apparently normal body weight and BMIs. One such report, Normal-weight obese syndrome: early inflammation?, is available in full-text.

Is there a lesson to be learned for the Track Your Plaque program? I believe there is. I believe it means that, if you have any weight-sensitive parameter, such as low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, high CRP, high blood sugar, high blood pressure, etc., then further weight loss might be considered, even if BMI is around 25. Obviously, there is a rational limit to how far you can push this concept. (Anorexia is not good for you either.)

I find this a useful concept. It provides yet another potential strategy to pursue when the above patterns are encountered. Perhaps it's also a way to cap reliance on niacin, whose effects closely mimic that of weight loss.

Now that's a lot more preferable to more and more statin drug, isn't it?

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

A friend told me this story.

Her friend, Linda, had added vitamin D to her daily supplements. Because she'd had a vitamin D blood level of 22 ng/ml, she was taking 6000 units per day.

However, Linda also had a high cholesterol value with a total cholesterol of 231 mg/dl. After several months on the vitamin D, she had another cholesterol panel. Total cholesterol: 256 mg/dl.

"It must have been the vitamin D! So I stopped it right away."

Is this true? Does vitamin D raise the level of blood cholesterol? Yes, it does. But it's a good thing. Let me explain.

Followers of The Heart Scan Blog know that total cholesterol is really a mix of 3 other factors:

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

This is the Friedewald equation, still used today in over 95% of cholesterol panels. So, by the Friedewald equation, anything that increases LDL, HDL, or triglycerides will increase total cholesterol.

One of the spectacular changes that develops over a year of taking vitamin D is that HDL cholesterol skyrockets. While sensitivity to this effect varies (probably on a genetic basis), HDL increases of 10, 20, even 30 mg/dl are common. A starting HDL, for instance, of 45 mg/dl can jump up to 65 or 70 mg/dl, though the effect requires up to a year, sometimes longer.

Vitamin D can also reduce triglycerides, though the effect is relatively small, usually no more than 20 mg/dl or so. Likewise, the effect on LDL is minor, with a modest reduction in the small type of LDL.

So the dominant effect of vitamin D from a cholesterol standpoint is a substantial increase in HDL. Looking at the equation, you can see that an increase in HDL is accompanied by a commensurate increase in total cholesterol. If HDL goes up 25 mg/dl, total cholesterol goes up 25 mg/dl.

So Linda is absolutely correct: Vitamin D increases cholesterol--but it's a good thing that reduces risk for heart disease and is an important part of a coronary plaque-reversal program.

This is yet another reason why I advocate elimination of total cholesterol on lipid panels. There is no useful information in the total cholersterol value, only the potential for misinformation.

Heart Scan Blog reader from Australia, Michaela, also a mother of a son with a complex congenital heart defect, wrote this series of e-mails to me. (Published with Michaela's permission.)

I've been reading the article, Valve disease and Vitamin D from April '07, by Dr William Davis. I'm hoping you may have some information on the topic. I'm hoping someone will have time to help me.

I have been supplementing my 15 year old son with Vit D for 4 months but only 1000 (U) per day. I would like to increase the dosage but am not sure if I would do him more harm than good.

I have been researching vitamins and supplements on the net for a few months and have been amazed at what I have found. I only wish I had done it years ago. My son has been let down by the Australian Medical Profession and it's a race against time now to keep him well and avoid a heart transplant.

My son was born with aortic stenosis and had a valvotomy at 4 weeks of age. This damaged the aortic valve and he had a Ross Repair procedure at aged 3. This left him with a damaged heart muscle and leaking aortic & pulmonary valves. In May '08, his heart grew more enlarged, causing the mitral & tricuspid valves to also leak.

I took him to Bangkok in Feb this year where he had 70 million of his own Adult Stem Cells directly injected into his heart muscle with the hope of strengthening the muscle and eventually valve replacement.

My son has recovered from the surgery and is once again symptom-free, thanks to the wonderful advice followed by the Author & Cardiologist, Stephen T. Sinatra. I have followed his supplement regime and what a difference! Of course, this won't last while my son's valves continue to leak.

My son has also developed secondary hyperparathyroidism, bone thinning and hypothyrodism. Vit D & Calcium have something to do with this I believe.

My Australian Doctors have never made mention of any vitamins or supplements .... EVER! Transplant is all they will consider and we are not having it.

If you have any info or links to any sites which may be useful to me, could you email them to me? I would be grateful for any help I could get.

Sincerely
Michaela

I responded to Michaela's e-mail:

Hi, Michaela--

Vitamin D is extremely important. Sometimes, hyperparathyroidism and calcium derangements are caused by vitamin D deficiency. You might be able to get help with this from an endocrinologist, since they are the ones who deal with hyperparathyroidism. An endocrinologist might even be familiar with several recent studies that document this phenomenon:

Vitamin D therapy in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism and hypovitaminosis D

Vitamin D deficiency and primary hyperparathyroidism

Also, see the discussions at www.vitamindcouncil.org from Dr. John Cannell.

Because of the complexity of your son's health, it might be hazardous to stray too far away from conventional care though you and I know that there are limitations to that perspective. For that reason, I would urge you to press for answers from a knowledgeable endocrinologist.

I hope you find the answers you need.

William Davis, MD

Several months later, Michaela provided this update:

Hi Dr Davis,

I wrote to you back in July regarding my 15 year old son's need for a Heart Transplant through a failed Ross Repair and the possible Vitamin D connection. You sent me some valuable links and I thank you again for that.

I just wanted to let you know, I think you have given me the answers. I increased Lee's Vitamin D supplement to 6000U a day and, along with the recommended nutritional supplements of US Cardiologist Dr Stephen T Sinatra, there have been remarkable improvements! Lee also had 70 million of his own Adult Stem Cells injected into his heart in February. As we know, Stem Cell Therapy takes time and Lee was looking like time was quickly running out.

I have removed him from the transplant list. He is now reading normal Kidney function, the BNP (Brain Natriuretic Peptide, a measure of heart failure] has dropped by 7000 and his liver size has reduced to where it no longer causes him discomfort. The liver tests show it's still affected but it's function is improving each month. His last Echo was in early July and there had been a reduction in the size of his heart, which is so important.

To the Doc's, Lee can't get better, there is only transplant or death so you can imagine the surprise on their faces to see him looking and feeling so well with their tests to back it up. Still, even though it's staring them in the face, they don't want to know about it. They have no interest in what supplements he is on or Stem Cell therapy. God help their other patients. I view them in the waiting room and think of them as lambs to the slaughter.

We are not spoiled for choice with Doc's here in Western Australia. I have to take what I can get and there is not many who would take on Lee's case. He was number 1 on the transplant list and a most urgent case. Not many were willing to even look at him with his cardiac history and all I had to help was the arrogant Doc's at the Advanced Heart Failure Unit. They were not at all interested in his secondary hyperparathyroidism. I suppose it didn't matter what else he had compared to his heart problems.

Anyway, I'm writing to thank you. Lee would be transplanted or dead now if it wasn't for Dr's like you sharing their knowledge online. I wish I had researched things years ago, Lee might not have sunk so low if I had. I don't know if the transplant can be held off indefinitely, but like I tell Lee, "Stay well. There are amazing people out there doing amazing things, if you can just hang on. The miracle is around the corner." He's so well, you'd have to see him to believe it. But I have 7 kids and Lee is as physically active and as well as the other 6! For how long he can stay like this, I don't know but if his ejection fraction [a measure of left ventricular strength] can keep climbing and his body gets stronger, I have hope for another attempt at valve replacement.

I'm still shocked and angry that nutritional supplements have never been mentioned in the 15 years I've been dealing with cardiologists. Surely they know about them. I have read through dozens of reports online of the benefits of them--Why haven't they?! Thank God for the online Doc's such as yourself, the valuable info would never make it out of a Doctor's office in Western Australia! I've had to leave my country for Stem Cell therapy and then implore overseas Doc's for advice and information. What does that say for the Australian Medical Profession? Not a lot! They put him in the position he is in yet don't want to help get him out.

I'm so very grateful to you, thank you and God bless.

Michaela

Note: The above is not meant to be an implicit endorsement of stem cell therapy. This was just part of Michaela's story about her son.

Most people already know that cranberries are useful for preventing urinary tract infections. Cranberries can also be useful for preventing other sorts of infections, such as dental cavities and stomach ulcers because of cranberry's ability to block bacterial adhesion.

Cranberries can also be a useful component of a heart healthy program.

Several unique properties of cranberries contribute to various aspects of heart health:

• Cranberries are a rich source of pectin--Pectin is a soluble fiber, the sort that binds bile acids in the intestinal tract and naturally reduces LDL cholesterol.
• Cranberries are a rich source of polyphenols and flavonoids--Including the wonderfully fascinating anthocyanins, the flavonoids that confer the beautiful red color. Surprisingly, cranberries are richer in polyphenols and flavonoids than blueberries, strawberries, and grapes. Cranberry juice is also rich in these compounds. However, beware of cranberry juice "cocktail," which is diluted with other liquids such as high-fructose corn syrup. Like grapes, cranberries are a source of resveratrol, the polyphenol also found in red wines that some believe is responsible for reduced risk for heart disease and extending life.
• Cranberries have high antioxidant activity--Cranberries are among the highest in antioxidant capacity against superoxide radicals, hydrogen peroxide, and hydroxyl radicals, oxidizing factors believed to underlie heart disease, cancer, and aging. Cranberries also reduce the oxidation of LDL cholesterol particles.
• Cranberries block uric acid production--Cranberries have the unique ability to block the activity of an enzyme, xanthine oxidase, that converts xanthine to uric acid. Uric acid is believed to add to heart disease risk and is the factor responsible for gout.
• Cranberries increase HDL cholesterol--Cranberry juice increases HDL by 3-4 mg/dl.

Cranberries are only modest sources of sugars, with 7.19 grams “net” carbohydrates (total carbohydrates minus fiber content) per cup of whole raw cranberries.

The best way to eat cranberries is to consume the real thing: eat the whole berry, as in sugar-free cranberry sauce or added to baked dishes like chicken. Second best are dried cranberries. However, be careful of the overly-sweetened dried cranberries that contain added sugar (for a total of 78 grams sugar per cup--far too much). Unsweetened dried cranberries can be purchased, or you can dry them yourself.

Cranberry juice is another way to obtain the health benefits of cranberries; the unsweetened juice, while quite tart, is the best with 30.5 grams sugar per 8 oz--so don't drink more than 4 oz at a time. The more common cranberry juice “cocktails” are generally too sugary and/or too dilute for full health benefit.

The cranberry harvest season in Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon, Massachusetts, and New Jersey is just getting underway, so we should be seeing fresh cranberries on store shelves or farmers' markets any day now.

Kay came to the office for an opinion.

Over the past 8 months, she'd received a stent to the left anterior descending coronary artery and, during a separate procedure, a stent to the left subclavian artery.

"My cardiologist was very capable doing procedures. But when I asked, 'What do I do now?' he barely said a word and handed me a presciption for Crestor."

This kind of incredible neglect is the norm: Write a prescription for statin drug, delegate dietary advice to the hospital dietitian who advocates a heart disease-causing low-fat diet, followed by hospital discharge. You are expected to report any recurrent symptoms (which are inevitable), at which point you might "qualify" for another procedure.

It would be malpractice if it were not the prevailing standard in the community. Yes, the prevailing standard is neglect--neglect to identify, quantify, and correct all the identifiable causes of heart disease; neglect to discuss the nutritional methods that actually correct the abnormal patterns that cause heart disease; neglect to discuss nutritional supplements or medications beyond statins that further reduce heart disease risk and "need" for more procedures. In other words, the prevailing community standard is to stent, bypass, prescribe statin. It is not to understand why the disease occurred in the first place, correct the causes and minimize or eliminate any future danger or need for procedures.

I see consultation after consultation involving stories just like Kay's. People are frightened and they sense intuitively that nobody raised the question of why they have a potentially fatal disease.

Don't allow yourself to fall victim to this incredibly neglectful mode of practice, the one that has enriched hospitals, the drug industry, many cardiologists, but does little to address the actual disease.

Wheat elimination continues to yield explosive and unexpected health benefits.

I initially asked patients in the office to eliminate wheat because I wanted to help them reduce blood sugar and pre-diabetic tendencies.

A patient would come to the office, for example, with a blood sugar of 118 mg/dl (in the pre-diabetic range) and the other phenomena of pre-diabetes or metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high inflammation/c-reactive protein, low HDL, high triglycerides, small LDL), and the characteristic wheat belly. Eliminate wheat and, within three months, they lose 30 lbs, blood sugar drops to normal, blood pressure drops, triglycerides drop by several hundred milligrams, HDL goes up, small LDL plummets, c-reactive protein drops.

People also felt better, with flat tummies and more energy. But they also developed benefits I did not anticipate:

--Improved rheumatoid arthritis--I have seen this time and time again. Eliminate wheat and the painful thumbs, fingers, and other joints clear up dramatically. Many former rheumatoid sufferers people tell me that one cracker or pretzel will trigger a painful throbbing reminder that lasts a couple of hours.

--Improved ulcerative colitis--People incapacitated with pain, cramping, and diarrhea of ulcerative colitis (who are negative for the antibodies for celiac disease) can experience marked improvement. I've seen people be able to stop all their nasty colitis medications just by eliminating wheat.

--Reduction or elimination of irritable bowel syndrome

--Reduction or elimination of gastroesophageal reflux

--Better mood--Eliminating wheat makes you happier and experience more stable moods. Just as wheat is responsible for a subset of schizophrenia and bipolar illness (this is fact), and wheat elimination generates dramatic improvement, when you or I eliminate wheat, we also experience a "smoothing" of mood swings.

--Better libido--I'm not sure whether this is a consequence of losing a belly the size of a watermelon or improvement in sex hormones (esp. testosterone) or endothelial responses, but more interest in sex typically develops.

--Better complexion--I'm not entirely sure why, but various rashes will often dissipate, bags under the eyes are reduced, itching in funny places stops.

It's also peculiar how, after someone eliminates wheat for several months, re-exposure of an errant cracker or sandwich results in cramping and diarrhea in about 30% of people.

Obviously, people with celiac disease, who can even die of exposure to wheat, are even worse. What other common food do you know of that makes us sick so often, even occasionally with fatal outcome?

If you have lipoprotein(a), Lp(a)--the most aggressive known cause of heart disease that no one has heard of--then you need to tell your children.

Lp(a) is a "cleanly" inherited genetic pattern: If either parent has it, there's a 50% chance that you have it. If you have it, then there's a 50% likelihood that each of your children has it. (Note that each child experiences a likelihood of 50%, not 50% of your children. This is because each child is conceived as an independent statistical event. So much for romance!)

The atherogenicity (plaque-causing potential) of Lp(a) also tends to get transmitted. In other words, if your Dad had a heart attack at age 50 due to Lp(a) and you share Lp(a), then you likely share a similar magnitude of risk as your Dad. If your Mom had Lp(a), though passed quietly at age 89 without any overt evidence of heart disease, then you are likely to share the relatively benign form of Lp(a).

For most of us with Lp(a), however, it is best to assume that it has at least some potential for causing heart disease, being the most aggressive cause known. (That is, until we have the ability in everyday clinical practice to characterize Lp(a) by assessing such factors as the size of the apoprotein(a) molecule, the number of kringle "repeats" on the tail, etc. Until then, we need to rely on the crude, though helpful, observation of family history.)

At what age should you inform your children? There's no hard-and-fast rule. However, I generally suggest to patients that they talk about Lp(a) with their children when they reach their 20s or 30s, old enough to begin to understand the implications and begin to think about adopting healthier lifestyles. Is treatment required at, say, age 35? That depends on the pattern of Lp(a)-related heart disease in the family: With exceptionally aggressive forms, it might be reasonable to begin treatment at this relatively early age.

The sterol question continues to pop up.

Sterols are an ingredient widely added by food manufacturers that allows a "heart healthy" claim, since sterols have been shown to reduce LDL cholesterol (at least transiently). HOWEVER, sterols have also been implicated in possibly increasing risk for heart disease. After all, people with the genetic condition called sitosterolemia absorb sterols into the blood and develop coronary heart disease in their teens and twenties. Those of us without sitosterolemia who increase sterol intake with sterol-enriched foods increase blood levels of sterols several-fold. Is this healthy, or does it contribute to coronary plaque as it does in people with sitosterolemia?

Below, I've reprinted a previous Heart Scan Blog post on sterols.

Sterols should be outlawed

While sterols occur naturally in small quantities in food (nuts, vegetables, oils), food manufacturers are adding them to processed foods in order to earn a "heart healthy" claim.

The FDA approved a cholesterol-reducing indication for sterols , the American Heart Association recommends 200 mg per day as part of its Therapeutic Lifestyle Change diet, and WebMD gushes about the LDL-reducing benefits of sterols added to foods.

Sterols--the same substance that, when absorbed to high levels into the blood in a genetic disorder called "sitosterolemia"--causes extravagant atherosclerosis in young people.

The case against sterols, studies documenting its coronary disease- and valve disease-promoting effects, is building:

Higher blood levels of sterols increase cardiovascular events:
Plasma sitosterol elevations are associated with an increased incidence of coronary events in men: results of a nested case-control analysis of the Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study.

Sterols can be recovered from diseased aortic valves:
Accumulation of cholesterol precursors and plant sterols in human stenotic aortic valves.

Sterols are incorporated into carotid atherosclerotic plaque:
Plant sterols in serum and in atherosclerotic plaques of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.

Though the data are mixed:

Moderately elevated plant sterol levels are associated with reduced cardiovascular risk--the LASA study.

No association between plasma levels of plant sterols and atherosclerosis in mice and men.

The food industry has vigorously pursued the sterol-as-heart-healthy strategy, based on studies conclusively demonstrating LDL-reducing effects. But do sterols that gain entry into the blood increase atherosclerosis regardless of LDL reduction? That's the huge unanswered question.

Despite the uncertainties, the list of sterol-supplemented foods is expanding rapidly:

Each Nature Valley Healthy Heart Bar contains 400 mg sterols.

HeartWise orange juice contains 1000 mg sterols per 8 oz serving.

Promise SuperShots contains 400 mg sterols per container.

Corozonas has an entire line of chips that contain added sterols, 400 mg per 1 oz serving.

MonaVie Acai juice, "Pulse," contains 400 mg sterols per 2 oz serving.

Kardea olive oil has 500 mg sterols per 14 gram serving.

WebMD has a table that they say can help you choose "foods" that are sterol-rich.

In my view, sterols should not have been approved without more extensive safety data. Just as Vioxx's potential for increasing heart attack did not become apparent until after FDA approval and widespread use, I fear the same may be ahead for sterols: dissemination throughout the processed food supply, people using large, unnatural quantities from multiple products, eventually . . . increased heart attacks, strokes, aortic valve disease.

Until there is clarification on this issue, I would urge everyone to avoid sterol-added "heart healthy" products.

Some more info on sterols in a previous Heart Scan Blog post: Are sterols the new trans fat? .

Why do obese people claim it is impossible to fast?

Most overweight people are terrified at the prospect of facing any period of time without ready access to food. Persuading them to begin a program of intermittent fasting is a hopeless cause. They just refuse.

Contrary to popular opinion, this is not just glutonny at work. It is the effect of what I call "the cycle of hunger," the 2-hour up and down cycle of rising sugar and insulin, followed by their inevitable fall. The precipitous fall of sugar and insulin triggers mental fogginess, fatigue, and insatiable hunger. (By the way, this is the same phenomenon underlying the silly notion of "grazing.")

According to an LA Times article, fasting may be difficult to impossible for some people:

"Ruth Frechman, a registered dietitian in Burbank and spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Assn., says she frequently sees such extreme strategies backfire. 'You're hungry, fatigued, irritable. Fasting is not very comfortable. People try to cut back one day and the next day they're starving and they overeat.'"
(Not surprising, coming from the American Diatetic Assn. They, along with such agencies as the American Diabetes Association, are vocal proponents of low-fat, high-carbohydrate, "healthy whole grain" diets--you know, the diets that make us fat and diabetic.)

Ms. Frechman is correct: Having someone engage in a period of fasting, no matter how brief, when the diet leading up to the fast is filled with "healthy whole grains" and other carbohydrates will result in painful hunger that eventually overcomes any effort. A period of overeating typically follows the aborted attempt.

Fasting cannot work as long as the 2-hour cycle of hunger continues. The first step: Eliminate the 2-hour cycle of hunger by dramatically reducing or eliminating carbohydrates. Our preferred method is to eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars. (Just be aware of wheat withdrawal, the fatigue that develops in the first 5 days after wheat elimination that affects up to 30% of people.)

Once wheat, cornstarch, and sugars are eliminated, hunger reverts to that of physiologic need--appetite will be smaller and less intense, since it is driven by your body's needs, not by abnormal stimulation from wheat, cornstarch, and sugar. The fear of not having food dissolves, the 2-hour cycle of mental fogginess, fatigue, and hunger will be gone.

Intermittent fasting is a wonderful strategy for reducing weight; gaining control over lipids, lipoproteins, and coronary plaque; regaining appreciation for food; reducing appetite. But it's not even worth trying unless you've already eliminated the unnatural appetite triggers that will booby-trap any fasting effort.

134 people responded to the latest Heart Scan Blog poll:

When I ask my doctor to test my thyroid, he/she:

Accommodates me without question 45 (33%)

Questions why, but orders the tests 49 (36%)

Refuses because you seem "healthy" 20 (14%)

Refuses without explanation 4 (2%)

Ridicules your request 16 (11%)

That's better than I anticipated: 69% of physicians complied with this small request. After all, you're not asking for major surgery. You're just asking for a very basic test, as basic as a blood count or electrolytes. 36% of respondents said that their doctor asked why, but still complied; this is simply practicing good medicine--If there is a problem, your doctor would like to know about it.

However, the remainder--31%--were refused in one way or another. Incredibly, 11% were ridiculed.

Although this was not asked in the poll, I believe that it is a safe assumption that you asked with good reason: you're abnormally fatigued, you have been gaining weight for no apparent reason or can't lose weight despite substantial effort, or you feel cold at inappropriate times.

Let's say you're tired. Ever since last summer, you've suffered a gradual decline in energy.

So you ask your doctor to assess your thyroid. He refuses. "You're just fine! There's nothing wrong with you."

You disagree. In fact, you are quite convinced that there is something physically wrong. What do you do?

You could:

--Drink more coffee
--Exercise more in the hopes that it will snap you out of your lethargy
--Sleep more
--Take stimulants of various sorts

Or, you could get your thyroid assessed and settle the issue. But how can you get this done when your doctor won't accommodate you, even though you have perfectly fine health insurance and are simply interested in feeling better and preserving your health?

You could test your thyroid yourself. This is why we're making self-testing kits available. Test kits are available here.

This is yet another facet of the powerful revolution that is emerging: Self-directed health.

A Heart Scan Blog reader posted the following question:

It is not clear to me why getting a cardiac scan is the necessary first step, if in fact the next step would be to bring down small LDL particles which is revealed on a NMR lipoprofile or VAP test. Why isn't the NMR or VAP test the first thing?

Good question. Think of it this way:

Lipoproteins, as measured via VAP (Vertical Auto Profile) or NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), provide a snapshot of risk from a metabolic viewpoint at that moment. Lipoproteins shift with the tides of age, menopause, weight changes, even what you ate last evening for dinner (especially small LDL). There are also other factors that cause coronary plaque, as well, not revealed through lipoprotein testing, such as vitamin D deficiency, smoking, high blood pressure, phosopholipase A2, lipoprotein(a), inflammatory factors, thyroid dysfunction, omega-3 fatty acid deficiency, etc.

A heart scan, providing a coronary calcium score, provides an indirect measure of coronary plaque that is the sum total of lipoprotein and other plaque-causing factors that have accumulated up to the time of your scan--regardless of the cause.

It means that two females, each 60 years old, with 70% small LDL, HDL 42 mg/dl, triglycerides 150 mg/dl, and mild hypertension, have identical markers for potential coronary risk, but can have widely different heart scan scores. One might have a score of zero, while the other might have a score of 300.

Why would the same panel of causes measured at one moment yield wildly different quantities of plaque? Several reasons:

1) The lifestyles, eating habits, and weight of each woman differed during their earlier years, not currently reflected in this moment's lipid or lipoprotein patterns. Perhpaps one experienced several years of extraordinary stress from a failed marriage, or suffered through two years of depression that caused her to smoke and overeat.

2) There are hidden factors that affect coronary plaque growth that we are presently not able to detect, e.g., vitamin D receptor genotype, cholesteryl-ester transfer protein variants, variation in inflammatory factors. If we can't measure it, we won't know whether it might influence coronary plaque risk.

With all the changes that occur over a person's life, with the uncertainties of yet-to-be-identified causes for coronary plaque, how can you possible know what your risk for heart disease truly is? Yup--a heart scan. Do it and you will know.

A tan does not equal vitamin D

Confessions of a former drug company patsy

Planned obsolence

Melatonin for high blood pressure?

The forces that shape heatlh care

Lipoprotein(a): Surprising Poll Results

Are endogenous nutritional supplements better?

Vitamin D Newsletter reprinted

Biggest bang for your nutritional buck

Can skinny be fat?

Vitamin D increased my cholesterol

Nutrtional ignorance is not unique to the U.S.

Eat cranberries

Procedures 'R Us

Unexpected effects of a wheat-free diet

Is Lp(a) part of your legacy to your children?

Do "Heart Healthy" sterols cause heart disease?

Why obese people can't fast

Test your own thyroid

Trains, planes, and heart scans