John Cannell on Vitamin D 11. March 2007 William Davis (2) You can always count on Dr. John Cannell for unique perspectives on vitamin D. I reprint here his unfailingly entertaining and informative Vitamin D Newsletter on whether vitamin D replacement enhances physical performance. The whole vitamin D "discovery" sometimes worries me. Vitamin D has proven to be an unbelievable, remarkable, dramatic boon to health, including facilitation in dropping CT heart scan scores. Yet the answer was always right in front of us. It worries me that you and I might have the answer to important questions right within our grasp all along--but don't know it. What if the same were true, say, for cancer? That is, a profound answer is right there, but our eyes just pass right over it. Anyway, we should all keep our eyes open and perhaps you and I will continue to identify the most powerful tools available that return control over heart disease to us and take it away from the perverse, procedural hospital formula that still reigns. If you haven't done so already, be sure to visit Dr. Cannell's website, www.vitamindcouncil.com. The Vitamin D NewsletterMarch, 2007 Peak Athletic Performance and Vitamin D "No way doc." I had just finished telling my patient about the benefits of vitamin D, telling him he should take 4,000 IU per day, using all the techniques I had learned in 30 years of medical practice to convince someone proper treatment is important. But, he knew the U.S. government said he only needed 200 IU per day, not 4,000. He also knew the official Upper Limit was 2,000 IU a day. "What are you trying to do doc, kill me?" I told him his 25(OH)-vitamin D blood test was low, only 13 ng/ml. He had read about that too, in a medical textbook, where it said normal levels are between 10 and 40 ng/ml. "I'm fine doc;" adding "Are you in the vitamin business?" I explained I was not; that the government used outdated values; that recent studies indicate ideal 25(OH)D levels are about 50 ng/ml; and that they indicated that he needed about 4,000 IU per day to get his level up to 50. "No thanks doc, I'm fine." So I tried a different tact. I brought him copies of recent press articles. "Look," I said, "look at these." Science News called vitamin D the Antibiotic Vitamin. The Independent in England says vitamin D explains why people die from influenza in the winter, and not the summer. U.S. News and World Report says almost everyone needs more. Newsweek says it prevents cancer and helps fight infection. In four different recent reports, United Press International says that: it reduces falls in the elderly, many pregnant women are deficient , it reduces stress fractures, and that it helps heals wounds. He glanced at the articles, showing a little interest in stress fractures. Then he told me what he was really thinking. "Look doc, all this stuff may be important to old guys like you. I'm 22. All I care about are girls and sports. When I get older, maybe I'll think about it. I'm too young to worry about it. I'm in great condition." I couldn't argue. He was in good health and a very good basketball player, playing several hours every day, always on indoor courts. What could I do to open his eyes? As an African American, his risk of early death was very high, although the risk for blacks doesn't start to dramatically increase until their 40's and 50's. Like all young people, he saw himself as forever young. The U.S. government was no help, relying on a ten-year-old report from the Institute of Medicine that is full of misinformation. I tired to tell him that the 200 IU per day the U.S. government recommends for 20-year-olds is to prevent bone disease, not to treat low vitamin D levels like his. I pointed out the U.S. government's official current Upper Limit of 2,000 IU/day is the same for a 300 pound adult as it is for a 25 pound toddler. That is, the government says it's safe for a one-year-old, 25-pound, child to take 2,000 IU per day but it's not safe for a 30-year old, 300-pound, adult to take 2,000 and one IU a day. I mean, whoever thought up these Upper Limits must have left their thinking caps at home. Nevertheless, nothing worked. My vitamin D deficient patient was not interested in taking any vitamin D. What are young men interested in? I remembered that he had told me: "Sex and sports." Two years ago I had researched the medical literature looking for any evidence vitamin D enhanced sexual performance. Absolutely nothing. That would have been nice. Can you imagine the interest? Then I remembered that several readers had written to ask me if vitamin D could possibly improve their athletic performance? They told me that after taking 2,000 to 5,000 IU per day for several months, they seemed just a little faster, a little stronger, maybe had a little better balance and timing. A pianist had written to tell me she even played a better piano, her fingers moved over the keys more effortlessly! Was vitamin D responsible for these subtle changes or was it a placebo effect? That is, did readers just think their athletic performance improved because they knew vitamin D was a steroid hormone precursor (hormone, from the Greek, meaning "to set in motion")? The active form of vitamin D is a steroid (actually a seco-steroid) in the same way that testosterone is a steroid and vitamin D is a hormone in the same way that growth hormone is a hormone. Steroid hormones are substances made from cholesterol, which circulate in the body, and work at distant sites by "setting in motion" genetic protein transcription. That is, both vitamin D and testosterone regulate your genome, the stuff of life. While testosterone is a sex steroid hormone, vitamin D is a pleomorphic (multiple function) steroid hormone. All of a sudden, it didn't seem so silly. Certainly steroids can improve athletic performance although they can be quite dangerous. In addition, few people are deficient in growth hormone or testosterone, so when athletes take sex steroids or growth hormone they are cheating, or doping. The case with vitamin D is quite different because natural vitamin D levels are about 50 ng/ml and, since almost no one has such levels, extra vitamin D is not doping, it's just good treatment. I decided to exhaustively research the medical literature on vitamin D and athletic performance. It took me over a year. To my surprise, I discovered that there are five totally independent bodies of research that all converge on an inescapable conclusion: vitamin D will improve athletic performance in vitamin D deficient people (and that includes most people). Even more interesting is who published this literature, and when. Are you old enough to remember when the Germans and Russians won every Olympics in the 60's and 70's? Well, it turns out that the most convincing evidence that vitamin D improves athletic performance was published in old German and Russian medical literature. With the help of my wife and mother-in-law, both of whom are Russian, and with the help of Marc Sorenson, whose book Solar Power is a must read, I finally was able to look at translations of much of the old Russian and German literature. When one combines that old literature with the modern English language literature on neuromuscular performance, the conclusion is inescapable. The readers who wrote me are right. If you are vitamin D deficient, the medical literature indicates that the right amount of vitamin D will make you faster, stronger, improve your balance and timing, etc. How much it will improve your athletic ability depends on how deficient you are to begin with. How good an athlete you will be depends on your innate ability, training, and dedication. However, peak athletic performance also depends upon the neuromuscular cells in your body and brain having unfettered access to the steroid hormone, activated vitamin D. In addition, how much activated vitamin D is available to your brain, muscle, and nerves depends on having ideal levels of vitamin D in your blood - about 50 ng/ml, to be precise. Why would I write about such a frivolous topic like peak athletic performance when cancer patients all across this land are dying vitamin D deficient? Like many vitamin D advocates, I have been disappointed that the medical profession and the public don't seem to care about vitamin D. Maybe people, like my young basketball player, will care if it makes better athletes. So, Hey! You jocks! Listen up! I'm talking speed, balance, choice reaction time, muscle mass, muscle strength, squats, reps, etc. Important stuff. Here's the Vitamin D Council's first ever sports quiz. 1. Vitamin D-producing UVB radiation improves athletic performance and may have been widely practiced by German and Russian Olympic athletes in the 1960's and 70's. True. I found tantalizing evidence the Russians and especially the Germans were on to this during the 60's and 70's when those two nations took turns placing number one and number two in the Olympics every year? For example, in 1938, Russian researchers reported that a course of ultraviolet irradiations improved speed in the 100-meter dash in college students compared to matched controls, both groups undergoing daily training. Average 100-meter dash times decreased from 13.51 seconds to 13.28 seconds in the non-irradiated controls, but from 13.63 seconds to 12.62 seconds in the irradiated students. Here we see training improved times but training and irradiation improved times much more. Obviously, irradiation or vitamin D would not render the same magnitude of improvements in world-class sprinters, but they would be happy with a few milliseconds. Gorkin Z, Gorkin MJ, Teslenko NE. [The effect of ultraviolet irradiation upon training for 100m sprint.] The Journal of Physiology of the USSR [Fiziol, z. (RSSR)] 1938; 25: 695-701. (In Russian) If you want to know what early German thinking was on this, read this summation of the German literature:"It is a well-known fact that physical performance can be increased through ultra-violet irradiation. In 1927, a heated argument arose after the decision by the German Swimmers' Association to use the sunlamp as an artificial aid, constituting an athletic unfairness, doping, so to speak. In 1926, Rancken had already reported the improving effect of sunlamp irradiation on muscle work with the hand-dynamo-graph. Heib observed an improvement in swimming times after repeated irradiations. In thorough experiments, Backmund showed that a substantial increase in muscle activity happens after radiation of larger portions of the body with an artificial sunlamp; that this performance increase is not caused through local - direct or indirect - effects on the musculature, but through a general effect. This general effect, triggered by ultra-violet irradiation, is caused by a systemic effect on the nervous system." (p. 17) Parade GW, Otto H. Die beeinflussung der leistungsfahigkeit durch Hohensonnenbestrahlung. Zeitschrift fur Klinische Medizin (Z Klin Med),1940;137:17-21 [In German] In 1945, two Americans measured the cardiovascular fitness and muscular endurance of 11 male Illinois subjects undergoing training in an indoor physical education class, comparing them to 10 matched controls. Both groups underwent similar physical training. Treatment consisted of ultraviolet irradiation, given in the nude, up to two minutes per session, three times per week, for ten weeks in the late fall and winter. After ten weeks, the treatment group had a 19% standard score gain in cardiovascular fitness compare to a 2% improvement in the control students. To regular readers of this newsletter, it should come as no surprise that the un-irradiated control group reported twice as many viral respiratory infections as the treatment group. Allen R, Cureton T. Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation on Physical Fitness. Arch Phys Med 1945: 10: 641-44. In 1952, the German sports medicine researcher, Spellerberg, reported on the effects of wholesale irradiation of athletes studying and training at the Sports College of Cologne - including many elite athletes - with a "central sun lamp." He irradiated the athletes in their bathing suits, on both sides of their bodies, for up to ten minutes, twice a week, for 6 weeks. He reported a "convincing effect" on athletic performance and a 50% reduction in sports injuries. Results were particularly impressive for swimmers, soccer, handball, hockey, and tennis players, as well as for boxers and most track and field athletes. He reported that irradiation leading to burns, further irradiation of athletes having achieved peak performance, and irradiation within 24 hours of competition, all impaired athletic performance. Their results were so convincing, the Sports College of Cologne officially notified the "national German and International Olympic committee." (p. 570) Spellerberg AE. [Increase of athletic effectiveness by systematic ultraviolet irradiation.] Strahlentherapie 1952; 88: 567-70. [In German] In 1952, Ronge exposed 120 German schoolchildren to UV lights installed in classrooms and compared them to 120 un-irradiated control children. Over a two-year period - excluding summer vacations - he tested both groups with a series of six cardiovascular fitness tests using a bike ergometer. Un-irradiated children showed a distinct seasonality in fitness, with the highest values right after summer break and the lowest values in the spring. Treated children showed no seasonal differences in physical performance. Differences in work performance between the irradiated and un-irradiated children were most conspicuous in the spring with 56% difference between the two groups. In a final experiment, he gave 30 children in the control classrooms 6.25 mg (250,000 IU) of vitamin D as a single dose in February and found their performance had "increased considerably," one month later but did not report the actual numbers. He concluded that vitamin D, either as a supplement or induced via UV irradiation, improved physical performance.Ronge HE. [Increase of physical effectiveness by systematic ultraviolet irradiation.] Strahlentherapie 1952; 88: 563-6. [In German] In 1954, another researcher, at the Max-Planck Institute for Industrial Physiology in Dortmund, Germany, administered three different wavelengths of UV light over 8 weeks to university students. He found that ultraviolet light in the vitamin D-producing UVB range was consistently effective in reducing resting pulse, lowering the basal metabolic rate, and increasing athletic performance. UVA had no effect; interestingly, artificial UVC irradiation (the atmosphere normally completely filters out UVC radiation and thus it's not naturally present on earth) also gave some positive results.Lehmann G. [Significance of certain wave lengths for increased efficacy of ultraviolet irradiation.] Strahlentherapie. 1954 Nov;95(3):447-53. [In German] In 1956, Hettinger and Seidel irradiated seven subjects in two different experiments: athletic performance on bike-ergometers and forearm muscle strength. They found that UV radiation induced a significant improvement in both muscle strength and athletic performance. Hettinger T, Seidl E. [Ultraviolet irradiation and trainability of musculature.] Internationale Zeitschrift für angewandte Physiologie, einschliesslich Arbeitsphysiologie 1956; 16: 177-83. [In German] Another German researcher, at the Institute for Medical Physics and Biophysics at the University of Gottiingen, studied reaction times (the time needed to recognize a light and switch it off) during October and November in a series of controlled experiments on 16 children and an unspecified number of adults. He first controlled for practice effects (getting better by practicing) and then administered nine full-body UV radiation treatments over three weeks to the two treatment groups, using placebo radiation in the two control groups. UV radiation improved choice reaction time by 25% in children and 20% in adults while reaction time worsened in controls. The improvements in the irradiated groups peaked at the end of the three weeks of UV treatments and reverted to baseline levels three weeks later. In the two control groups, he found distinctly improved reaction times in the sunnier months. Sigmund R. [Effect of ultraviolet rays on reaction time in man.] Strahlentherapie. 1956; 101: 623-9. [In German] The next study threw me because it was very well conducted, meticulously designed, and completely negative. In 1963, Berven reported on the effects of ultraviolet irradiation and vitamin D supplementation in a group of 30 Stockholm schoolchildren, aged 10 -11, comparing them to appropriate controls. He found no seasonality of fitness in the control group and no effect from either irradiation or two different vitamin D supplementation protocols (1500 IU of cholecalciferol daily for two months and a single dose of 400,000 IU of ergocalciferol) on performance on a bike ergometer.Berven H. The physical working capacity of healthy children; seasonal variations and effect of ultraviolet irradiation and vitamin-D supply. Acta paediatrica. Supplementum 1963; 148: 1-22. However, two things were not right and got me thinking. One, Berven found no seasonality of physical fitness and was the only author who found no such seasonal variations in athletic performance. Second, he found no effect from irradiation, again, the only author. Then I realized he was working with Swedish children in the late 1950's. Supplementation of children with high doses of vitamin D - often as cod liver oil - was routine in Scandinavia in the past, particularly in children. For example, in neighboring Finland, the official recommended daily dose of vitamin D for children - including infants - was 4,000 IU per day until 1964, when authorities reduced it to 2,000 IU/day. (That's right, you read that correctly, 4,000 IU per day for infants, which is too much by the way.) In 1975, Finnish authorities reduced it to 1,000 IU per day, and, in 1992, to 400 IU per day. I emailed Professor Elina Hy Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in Synthroid, Armour Thyroid, and the battle for T3 6. July 2008 William Davis (2) In the last Heart Scan Blog post on thyroid issues, Is normal TSH too high?, the provocative findings of the the HUNT Study were discussed. The text of the study can be found at:The association between TSH within the reference range and serum lipid concentrations in a population-based study. The HUNT StudyHypothyroidism, or low thyroid that is signaled by high thyroid-stimulating hormone, TSH, is proving far more prevalent an issue than previously thought. While previous estimates put hypothyroidism as affecting only about 3% of younger populations, 10-20% of older populations (women more so), data like the HUNT Study suggest that, if lower and lower TSH levels (higher thyroid) are necessary for perfect heart health, then many more people stand to benefit than we used to think.But another crucial issue in the world of hypothyroidism: Is T4 (thyroxine) enough? Or should we be supplementing T3 (triiodothyronine) along with T4?Your friendly neighborhood primary care doctor or endocrinologist would likely argue vehemently that T4 (as Synthroid, Levoxyl, levothyroxine, and others) is adequate and not subject to the impurities and contaminants of natural thyroid extracts. They would also argue that T4 is effectively converted to T3 at the tissue level, and exogenous supplementation is unnecessary.Others--most of all thyroid patients themselves, along with thyroid advocates like Mary Shomon and Janie Bowthorpe, along with some physicians--argue that supplementing T3 along with T4 can be very important. They argue that people feel better, have more physical energy, lose weight more effectively, and more completely resolve many of the phenomena of hypothryoidism with T3 added. There are also some data that argue the same.Adding T3 to the mix may address the presumed poor conversion of T4 to T3 that is peculiar to some people. It may overcome the "reverse T3" phenomenon, the production of a useless look-alike T3 that occurs in some people. It may also (anecdotally) exert greater effects on some lipid/lipoprotein parameters, such as Lp(a).My experiences adding T3 to T4 have been mixed: Some feel better, others do not. Some show objective improvements, others do not.Nonetheless, hypothyroidism, or incompletely corrected hypothryoidism by way of inadequate T3, is an issue to consider in your plaque-control program.More on this somewhat complex issue, along with practical solutions to consider, can be found on the Special Report to be released this week on the Track Your Plaque website. Letter to New York Times 3. July 2008 William Davis (9) All right. I sent a Letter to the Editor to the New York Times. No word from them; it's no longer news.So here is what I tried to convey.While the authors overall did a credible job of talking to my colleagues and laying out the issues, they made the crucial and boneheaded mistake of confusing CT heart scans with CT coronary angiograms. Sadly, many people who may have been considering having a simple screening heart scan may be scared away by the confused authors, Alexn Berenson and Reed Abelson. They do correctly point out that, while CT coronary angiograms are fascinating examples of technology and a way of visualizing coronary arteries, this test all too often is being subverted into the "let's make money from high-tech testing" medical model. It's also a test that frequently leads to the "real" test, heart catheterization, since the "time bomb" you have in your arteries might "need" a stent. CT coronary angiograms are also virtually useless for purposes of tracking disease, since they are not longitudinally (along the length of the artery) quantitative, nor should anyone be exposed to this much radiation repeatedly. A simple heart scan, on the hand, provides a longitudinal summation of coronary plaque volume. Radiation exposure is sufficiently low that repeated scanning can be performed for purposes of tracking . . .yes, track your plaque. Poorly-informed reporters can do a lot of damage. As always, you and I must dig a little deeper for the truth. Dear Editor,Re: Weighing the Costs of a CT Scan’s Look Inside the HeartThe Times featured an article on June 29th that discussed rapidly expanding use of CT scans for the heart:Weighing the Costs of a CT Scan’s Look Inside the Heart. The authors, Alex Berenson and Reed Abelson, stated that CT heart scans “expose patients to large doses of radiation, equivalent to at least several hundred X-rays, creating a small but real cancer risk.”I’d like to offer a clarification. Though the authors discuss both CT heart scans and CT coronary angiograms, they confuse the two and use the terms interchangeably. A heart scan is a simple screening test for coronary atherosclerotic plaque. It detects the presence of calcium in the heart’s arteries, provided as a “score.” (Because calcium occupies 20% of total plaque volume, knowing the amount of calcium tells you how much total coronary plaque is present by applying this simple proportion.) Just having a high score should not prompt heart procedures, since people undergoing simple screening heart scans are without symptoms. However, a stress test may yield some useful information. On present-day CT devices, heart scans expose a patient to 0.4 mSv of radiation on an electron-beam, or EBT, device, and on up to 1.2 mSv on a 64-slice multi-detector, or MDCT, device, compared to 0.1 mSv during a standard chest x-ray. CT heart scans are therefore performed with about the same quantity of radiation as a mammogram done to screen women for breast cancer, or about the equivalent of four chest x-rays on an EBT scanner, up to 12 chest-xrays on a MDCT scanner. CT coronary angiograms, while performed on the same devices as heart scans, require x-ray dye to fill the contours of the coronary arteries. It also requires up to several hundred times more radiation. While new engineering innovations are being introduced that promise to reduce this exposure, the current devices being used today do indeed require a radiation dose equivalent to 100 to 400 chest x-rays (usually in the range of 10-15 mSv), a value that equals or exceeds that obtained during a conventional heart catheterization. While heart scans are most useful to detect and quantify plaque that can help determine the intensity of a heart disease prevention program, CT coronary angiograms are generally used as prelude to hospital procedures like catheterizations, stents and bypass surgery. That’s because they are performed to look for (or rule out) “severe” blockages. CT heart scans and CT coronary angiography are therefore two different tests that yield two different kinds of information, and yield two entirely different levels of radiation exposure. This confusion from a major and respected media outlet like the New York Times is unfortunate, because it could persuade millions of people who otherwise could benefit from simple heart scans to avoid them because of misleading information on radiation exposure of a different test. Thank you. William Davis, MD Red yeast rice alert 2. July 2008 William Davis (9) While there have been some positive reports in the media lately about the cholesterol-reducing effects of red yeast rice, Consumer Lab has issued a very concerning report. Because Consumer Lab is a subscription website (incidentally, the $20 per year membership fee is money well spent for insightful tests on many supplements, though new reports only come out a handful of times per year), I won't discuss the results of their red yeast rice in its entirety. However, Consumer Lab testing uncovered several disturbing findings:--The lovastatin content varied by a factor of 100, from 0.1 mg per tablet/capsule in one brand up to 10.6 mg in another brand. By FDA regulations, lovastatin is a drug and NO red yeast rice preparation is supposed to contain ANY lovastatin. Nonetheless, despite the marketing of supplement manufacturers, it is probably the lovastatin that is largely responsible for the LDL-reducing effect. The monacolins or mevinolins in red yeast rice add little, if any, further LDL-reducing effect. --Several preparations contain a potential kidney toxin called citrinin. The Walgreen's product, specifically, contained substantial quantities of this toxin.Interestingly, the FDA has taken repeated action against red yeast rice manufacturers and distributors because they continue to contain lovastatin. In the FDA's most recent action in August, 2007, for instance, Swanson's product and Sunburst Biorganics' Cholestrix, were both sent letters to stop selling their product because it contained lovastatin. The Consumer Lab findings would explain the enormous variation in LDL-reducing effect of various red yeast rice products. In my experience, some work and reduce LDL 40 mg/dl or so, some fail to reduce LDL at all, others generate a modest effect, e.g., 5-10 mg/dl LDL reduction.In effect, red yeast rice IS a statin drug, albeit a highly variable and weak one. Although readers of The Heart Scan Blog know that I am a big fan of nutritional supplements and self-empowerment in health, I am a bigger fan of truth. I despise B--- S---- of the sort that emits from some nutritional supplement manufacturers and drug companies. I am puzzled by much of the public's readiness to embrace a statin drug if it comes from a supplement company while avoiding it if it comes from a drug manufacturer. Personally, I do not like the drug industry, their questionable (at best) ethics, their aggressive marketing tactics, their sleazy sales people. But, in this instance, if a statin effect is desired, I'd reach for generic lovastatin before I purchased red yeast rice. The Consumer Lab report tells us that red yeast rice IS essentially a statin drug, an inconsistent one that often contains a potential toxin. "Average amount of heart disease for age" 2. July 2008 William Davis (4) A 72-year old woman came to my office after a complicated hospital stay (unrelated to heart disease). She'd undergone a CT coronary angiogram and heart scan as part of a pre-operative evaluation prior to a surgery for a non-heart related condition. The heart scan portion of the test (I was impressed they even did this) yielded a heart scan score of 212. The CT coronary angiogram portion of the test revealed a 50% blockage in one artery, a lesser blockage in one other artery. The cardiologist consulting on the case advised her that the amount of coronary disease detected was insufficient to pose risk during her surgical procedure. He also advised her that she had "an average amount of disease for age." He thought that nothing further was necessary since she was "average." Say what? What if I told you that you have an average amount of cancer for your age? After all, cancers become more common the older we get. Who would find that acceptable? Then why should ANY amount of coronary atherosclerotic plaque be "acceptable for age"? Coronary plaque is a degenerative disease that poses risk for rupture. While it is indeed common, by no means should it be acceptable. I would bet that this same cardiologist would be from the same school of thought that would be eager to advise heart catheterization, stent, and other procedures--revenue-generating procedures--should she have a heart attack appropriate for age. I wish that I could tell you that this silly comment was provided by some peculiar, "everyone-knows-he's-crazy" doctor. But it was not. It was a solidly mainstream physician. He pooh-poohs nutrition, laughs when asked about nutritional supplements, thinks anyone complaining about symptoms less than a full-blown heart attack is a baby. He is respected by the primary care physicians, lectures on the advantages of prescription medications. In short, he is your typical conventional cardiologist.This is the way they think. I know, because I was one of them. Thankfully, something banged me upside my head one day (my Mother's sudden cardiac death) and tipped me off to the painful irony of the conventional approach to heart disease. There is NO amount of coronary disease appropriate for age. This notion is a remnant of the paternalistic, "I-know-better-than-you" attitude of the last century of medicine. The 21st century promises a new age. Quantum leaps 29. June 2008 William Davis (6) A reader of The Heart Scan Blog and member of the Track Your Plaque program posted this comment on The Heart.org:*The facts speak for themselves.* Dr. William Davis and Dr. William Blanchet, your patients thank you for the low cost PREVENTIVE care you prescribe. The published facts speak for themselves. It is indeed a sad state of affairs, that the larger cardiology community does not take the time to research the data and results you have been reporting. Unfortunately it is the patients who are the victims of the mainstream, inappropriate, treatment protocols, as evidenced with the ongoing high rate of CV death rate. I am dumbfounded by the lack of open-minded inquisitive curiosity to thoroughly research your claims by many/most cardiologists. Understood, we are all busy, but that is no excuse to stick with practices that do not result in major breakthrough improvements in patient outcomes. Then again, we are all humans, and when "we" are convinced that "our" approach is correct, "we" tend to conveniently ignore any evidence to the contrary. "We" like to believe "we" have been right all along. A very insightful book, recently published, says it all in its title: "Mistakes were made (but not by me)." From the intensity of the comments on this topic, it is clear that we are in the middle of a battlefield. It is to be hoped that the facts will become visible before too much smoke obscures the field, and before the patients are all dead. George Orwell said it correctly, back in 1946: “We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, imprudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality usually on a battlefield.” And, after several posts that preventive care with EBT would be too costly..... *Heroic* Prevention is what matters, but it is not very heroic. A hospital that advertises the highest volumes in heart bypasses and other heart "repair" procedures, sounds to many like a go-to place when one gets into trouble with one's heart. Cardiologists who perform impressive surgical procedures are heroes. Not unlike fire-fighters. We celebrate them (deservedly!) for rescues and life saving heroic actions. We tend to not pay much attention to the folks that work hard to minimize risk of calamities in the first place. Similarly, we recently learned that it is too costly to build schools that are earthquake resistant in China. Parents had to look at their children's bodies, crushed. Is it too graphic to imagine 20,000 American bodies, who died of heart disease, piled up on a field? What will it take before we make prevention our first priority? AL, Ann Arbor, MichiganThe reader also tells me that, prompted by his father's death from heart attack while following conventional advice after heart catheterization, he has lost 50 lbs and corrected his lipid patterns on the Track Your Plaque program. The reader is currently struggling with full correction of his severe small LDL pattern and is following some of the advice we discussed on our webinar recently.Another Heart Scan Blog reader, Stan the Heretic, posted this quote from scientist, Max Planck, in his comment:"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - M. Planck(Max Planck was a German physicist who developed quantum theory, a disruptive set of ideas that supplanted other explanations of energy mechanics of the day.)I fear that may prove to be the case for heart disease. The revenue-generating formula for heart disease management that dominates practice in cardiovascular medicine today is so deeply ingrained into the thinking and revenue expectations of practicing cardiologists that a preventive or reversal approach just won't cut it--even if it is vastly superior. That's why it is important for you to take control yourself. You will be the one who obtains and applies the information that saves your life or the lives of those around you. It is, in all likelihood, NOT your doctor who will save your life, but YOU. Body count 28. June 2008 William Davis (7) Imagine the following headline:War in Iraq a growing success: 20,000 Americans now dead!If a newspaper ran that headline, we would all be outraged, and rightly so. Deaths in war are a tragedy. They are not something we celebrate. Then why do we hear hospitals boasting about the number of bypass operations performed every year, number of heart catheterizations performed, number of heart attacks treated?"_______ Hospital breaks 1000-heart bypass per year milestone""We treat more heart attacks than other other hospital in the state!""More people come to ________ Hospital than any other in the region!"I hear this stuff on the radio, on TV, see it in newspapers and magazines, even on highway billboards every single day in Milwaukee. Heart procedures, like deaths in war, are casualties of health. They are not successes (though, of course, you can have a "successful" bypass). I see most procedures as a failure of prevention. Death from heart attack is a failure of prevention. Tim Russert's death was a (unnecessary) failure of prevention. But so are bypass surgery, stents, and the like. Such is the perverse state of affairs in hospitals and health: They celebrate illness. They glamorize it with ads displaying high-tech equipment, efficient staff in scrubs, "caring and friendly staff." But it is illness they are celebrating. Why? Because it has become a business necessity, a necessary strategy to remain competitive and profitable in the business called "healthcare" that makes money from treating people. The biggest return is from major procedures like bypass operations. Every success in prevention denies the hospital an $80,000+ opportunity. You'll never hear that advertised. Dr. Bill Blanchet: A ray of sunshine 26. June 2008 William Davis (4) Another heated discussion is ongoing at The Heart.org, this one about Tim Russert's untimely death: Media mulls Russert's death as cardiologists weigh in Although I posted a couple of brief comments there, I quickly lost patience with the tone of many of the other respondents. Should you choose to read the comments, you will see that many still cling to old notions like heart attack is inevitable, defibrillators should be more widely available, "vulnerable" plaques cannot be identified before heart attacks, etc. I quickly lose patience with this sort of outdated rhetoric. However, our good friend, Dr. Bill Blanchet of Boulder, Colorado, has a far stronger stomach for this than I do. Here, a sample of his wonderfully persuasive comments:Heart disease cannot be stopped but we can certainly do better!Goals we must achieve if we hope to solve the Rube Goldberg of coronary disease:1. Find something more reliable than Framingham risk factors to determine who is at risk. Framingham risk factors are wrong more often than they are right. If you are comfortable treating 40% of the patients destined to have heart attacks, continue to rely on “traditional” risk factors only.2. Treat to new standards beyond NCEP/ATP-III. These accepted standards prevent at best 40% of heart attacks in patients treated. This is unacceptable, and arguably why Tim is dead today! Why prevention protocols emphasize LDL and more or less ignore HDL, triglycerides and underemphasize blood pressure eludes me.3. Motivate patients to participate in coronary prevention. Saying “you need to get exercise and lose weight” is not adequate motivation, it hasn't worked to date and probably won't work tomorrow. If you are satisfied saying it is "the patient's fault for not listening to me" so be it, that excuse doesn't work for me!Currently “good results” consist of being able to convince 50% of patients at risk by traditional risk factors to participate in prevention and hopefully 30% will be treated to goal. Of those treated to goal, 60% of the heart attacks will still happen anyway. Mathematically we can hope to prevent <10% of heart attacks with this approach!I have personally found a solution to this dilemma. It goes like this:1. EBT-CAC [electron-beam tomography coronary artery calcium] is the most reliable predictor of coronary events period, the end! Anyone who disagrees has not objectively read the literature. The only test more predictive than the initial calcium score is the follow up score 12 to 36 months later. EBT predicted Tim Russert’s event 10 years before it happened; passing his stress test gave him inappropriate reassurance 2 months before he died. If only Tim had the benefit of a second EBT sometime over the last 10 years he and his doctor would have known that what they were doing was insufficient and improvements could have been made.2. I treat to the standard of stable calcified plaque by EBT (<15% annualized progression, preferably <1% annualized progression). This correlates with a very low incidence of coronary events. Even the ACC/AHA 2007 position paper agrees with this. This is accomplished with aspirin, omega-3 fatty acids, diet, exercise, weight control, smoking cessation, treatment of sleep apnea, stress reduction, control of HDL, triglycerides and LDL cholesterol and excellent control of BP and insulin resistance plus the recent addition of vit D-3. Meeting an LDL goal of 70 is easy but prevents only a minority of events, treating to the goal of stable CAC by EBT is a challenge but when achieved, the reward is near elimination of heart attacks and ischemic strokes. This has indeed been my personal experience!3. A picture of plaque in the coronary artery is a monumental motivator for patients to get on board to make things better. The demonstration of progression of that plaque despite our initial therapies gets all but a few suicidal patients interested in doing a better job. I think that similar motivational results can be had with carotid imaging; the difference is that CAC by EBT is clinically validated as being a much stronger predictor of events with progression and non-events with stability than any ultrasound test including IVUS.Wow! I couldn't have said it better. Sadly, I doubt even Dr. Blanchet's persuasive words will do much to convince my colleagues on this forum. And the cardiologists on this forum are likely among the more inquisitive and open-minded. The ones stuck in the cath lab day and night, or implanting defibrillators, are even less inclined to entertain such conversations. While I admire Dr. Blanchet's energy for continuing to argue with my colleagues, the lesson I take is: Take charge of health yourself. If you wait for your doctor to do it for you, you could be in the same situation as poor Tim Russert. This is an age when your physician should facilitate your success, not prevent it or leave you wallowing in ignorance. The Russert Protocol at work 25. June 2008 William Davis (6) Without a concerted effort at prevention, heart scan scores (coronary calcium scores) grow like weeds. The average rate of growth is 30% per year. Keith is an illustrative case. At age 39, Keith's heart scan score was 29, in the 99th percentile due to his young age. (In other words, young people before age 40 have no business having plaque. If they do, it's bad.)True to conventional practice, Keith's doctor prescribed a cholesterol drug (Zocor), asked him to take a baby aspirin, and prescribed a blood pressure medicine. He asked Keith to cut the fat in his diet. His doctor even exceeded conventional (ATP-III) LDL cholesterol treatment targets. Keith, an intelligent and motivated businessman, happily complied with his doctor's instructions. Eighteen months later, a 2nd heart scan showed a score of 68, representing an increase of 135%, or 76% per year.This is the very same approach that the late Mr. Tim Russert's doctors employed: treat (calculated) LDL cholesterol with a statin drug, treat high blood pressure, reduce saturated fat, take aspirin. It was a miserable failure in Keith, whose plaque continued to grow at a frightening rate of 76% per year. It was also an obvious failure in poor Tim Russert. Further investigation in Keith uncovered:--Severe small LDL--80% of all LDL was small (despite a favorable HDL of 58 mg/dl)--Measured LDL particle number (NMR) showed that "true" LDL was actually about 60 mg/dl higher than suggested by the crude calculated LDL--An after-eating (postprandial) disorder (IDL)--A pre-diabetic blood sugar and insulin--Severe vitamin D deficiency--Very low testosteroneAll these patterns were present despite the steps Keith and his doctor had instituted. It's no wonder his plaque was undergoing explosive growth. The conventional approach to coronary disease prevention is inadequate, more often than not a mindless adherence to one-size-fits-all template crafted to a great degree by drug industry interests and "experts" who often stand at arm's length from real live patients. Keith's "residual" abnormalities are all readily correctable. He has since made dramatic improvements in all parameters. Among the strategies used is a wheat- and cornstarch-free diet that resulted in 12 lbs lost within the first few weeks of effort. If you are on the "Russert Protocol," have a serious conversation with your doctor about the continued advisability of remaining on this half-assed approach to heart disease. Or, consider finding another doctor. Petition to the National Institutes of Health 24. June 2008 William Davis (2) A petition to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is being circulated in response to the mis-statement made in an NIH-sponsored study, ACCORD. The ACCORD Trial included over 10,000 type II diabetics and compared an intensive, multiple-medication group to achieve a target HbA1c of <6.0%, with a less intensively treated group with a target HbA1c of 7-7.9%. (HBA1c is a long-term measure of glucose, averaging approximately the last 3 months glucose levels.) To the lead investigators' surprise, the intensively treated group experienced more death and heart attack than the less intensive group. The conclusion suggested that intensive management of diabetes may not be a desirable endpoint and may result in greater risk for adverse events. The petitioners argue that the problem was not with intensive glucose control per se, but the use of multiple side-effect-generating medications. Unfortunately, the ACCORD conclusions give the impression that loose control over blood sugar may be desirable. The petition originates from the Nutrition and Metabolism Society, a non-profit organization seeking to promote carbohydrate restriction. The petition reads:National Institute of Health re: the ACCORD Diabetes Study: "Intensively targeting blood sugar to near-normal levels ... increases risk of death. "This statement is untrue. This study lowered blood glucose levels only by aggressive drug treatment.Preventative measures and proven non-drug treatments are being ignored by the NIH, ADA and many other governing agencies.There is abundant scientific evidence proving a carbohydrate restricted diet can be as effective as drugs in lowering blood glucose levels safely. Many times diet is more effective than medication in controlling diabetes - all without side effects or increased risk of death. I ask that the NIH publicly retract the above statement. It is misleading the public.I also request that the NIH acknowledge the existing science and fund more research by the experts who have experience with carbohydrate restriction as a means of treatment for diabetes.For more info, or to help people with diabetes, please e-mail info@nmsociety.org .Thank you.I added my comment:In my preventive cardiology practice, I have been employing strict carbohydrate restriction in both diabetics and non-diabetics. This results in dramatic improvement in lipids and lipoprotein abnormalities, substantial weight loss, and improved insulin sensitivity. This experience has been entirely different from the heart disease-causing and diabetes-causing low-fat diets that I used for years. I have a substantial number of diabetics who have been to reduce their reliance on prescription medication for diabetes or even eliminate them. In my experience, the power of carbohydrate-restricted diets is profound. However, better clinical data to further validate this approach is needed, particularly as diabetes and pre-diabetes is surging in prevalence. I ask that more funding to further explore and validate this research be made available if we are to have greater success on a broader basis.If you are interested in adding your voice, you can also electronically sign the petition. It is optional, but you can also add your own comments regarding your own views or experiences. Wheat withdrawal 24. June 2008 William Davis (16) It happens in the hospital every so often: A clean-cut, law-abiding person is hospitalized for, say, pneumonia, kidney stones, knee surgery, etc. Everything's fine until . . . they're running down the hospital hallway stark naked, screaming about snakes on the wall, accusing nurses of trying to kill him, all while yanking out IV's and monitor patches.It's called alcohol withdrawal. Alcohol withdrawal can range from tremulousness and sweatiness, all the way to delirium tremens, the full-blown form that leads to disorientation, seizures, fever, even death. Withdrawal can also be associated with a number of chronically used agents, such as sedatives/sleeping pills, pain medication/opiates, among others. How about wheat?I wouldn't have believed it, but after witnessing this effect countless times, I am convinced there is such a phenomenon: Wheat withdrawal. You'll recognize it in someone who previously ate bread and other wheat flour-containing products freely, then eliminates them. This is followed by extreme cravings, usually for bread, cookies, or cake; profound fatigue; shakiness; mental fogginess; blue moods. The syndrome can last for up to one week. Then, bam! Sufferers of wheat withdrawal report mental clarity superior to their wheat-crazed days, improved energy, decreased appetite and cravings, heightened mood, and, of course, fantastic drops in weight. Why would removal of wheat from the diet trigger a withdrawal phenomenon? I can only speculate, but I believe that at least part of this response is due to a physical conversion from a glycogen (sugar)-burning metabolism to that of a fatty acid (fat mobilizing) metabolism. People who lived in the up-and-down cycle of craving and eating wheat constantly fed the sugar furnace for years and are enzymatically impaired in fat burning; they've been growing fat stores. Eliminating wheat deprives the body of this easy source of glycogen, forcing it to mobilize fatty acids in the fatty tissues. Sluggish at first, people feel fatigue, mental fogginess, etc. Once the enzymatic capacity for fat mobilization revs up, then these feelings dissipate. Could it also relate to the opioid sequences apparently present in wheat? I wasn't even aware of this fact until a reader of The Heart Scan Blog, Anne, left this comment:Wheat protein contains a number of opiod peptides which can be released during digestion. Some of these are thought to affect the central and peripheral nervous systems. When I gave up gluten, I felt much worse for a few days. This is a very common reaction in those who stop eating gluten cold turkey. Dr. BG provides a fascinating commentary on the addictive/opioid aspect of wheat addictions in her Animal Pharm Blog. Whatever the mechanism, I believe it is a real phenomenon. It can, at times, be so overwhelming that about 20% of people who try to eliminate wheat find they are simply unable to do it without being incapacitated. Of course, that might be a lesson in itself: If withdrawal is so profound, it hints that there must be something very peculiar going on in the first place. << Older posts Newer posts >> Newer posts12...585960616263646566...123124Older p121122Older posts
Synthroid, Armour Thyroid, and the battle for T3 6. July 2008 William Davis (2) In the last Heart Scan Blog post on thyroid issues, Is normal TSH too high?, the provocative findings of the the HUNT Study were discussed. The text of the study can be found at:The association between TSH within the reference range and serum lipid concentrations in a population-based study. The HUNT StudyHypothyroidism, or low thyroid that is signaled by high thyroid-stimulating hormone, TSH, is proving far more prevalent an issue than previously thought. While previous estimates put hypothyroidism as affecting only about 3% of younger populations, 10-20% of older populations (women more so), data like the HUNT Study suggest that, if lower and lower TSH levels (higher thyroid) are necessary for perfect heart health, then many more people stand to benefit than we used to think.But another crucial issue in the world of hypothyroidism: Is T4 (thyroxine) enough? Or should we be supplementing T3 (triiodothyronine) along with T4?Your friendly neighborhood primary care doctor or endocrinologist would likely argue vehemently that T4 (as Synthroid, Levoxyl, levothyroxine, and others) is adequate and not subject to the impurities and contaminants of natural thyroid extracts. They would also argue that T4 is effectively converted to T3 at the tissue level, and exogenous supplementation is unnecessary.Others--most of all thyroid patients themselves, along with thyroid advocates like Mary Shomon and Janie Bowthorpe, along with some physicians--argue that supplementing T3 along with T4 can be very important. They argue that people feel better, have more physical energy, lose weight more effectively, and more completely resolve many of the phenomena of hypothryoidism with T3 added. There are also some data that argue the same.Adding T3 to the mix may address the presumed poor conversion of T4 to T3 that is peculiar to some people. It may overcome the "reverse T3" phenomenon, the production of a useless look-alike T3 that occurs in some people. It may also (anecdotally) exert greater effects on some lipid/lipoprotein parameters, such as Lp(a).My experiences adding T3 to T4 have been mixed: Some feel better, others do not. Some show objective improvements, others do not.Nonetheless, hypothyroidism, or incompletely corrected hypothryoidism by way of inadequate T3, is an issue to consider in your plaque-control program.More on this somewhat complex issue, along with practical solutions to consider, can be found on the Special Report to be released this week on the Track Your Plaque website.
Letter to New York Times 3. July 2008 William Davis (9) All right. I sent a Letter to the Editor to the New York Times. No word from them; it's no longer news.So here is what I tried to convey.While the authors overall did a credible job of talking to my colleagues and laying out the issues, they made the crucial and boneheaded mistake of confusing CT heart scans with CT coronary angiograms. Sadly, many people who may have been considering having a simple screening heart scan may be scared away by the confused authors, Alexn Berenson and Reed Abelson. They do correctly point out that, while CT coronary angiograms are fascinating examples of technology and a way of visualizing coronary arteries, this test all too often is being subverted into the "let's make money from high-tech testing" medical model. It's also a test that frequently leads to the "real" test, heart catheterization, since the "time bomb" you have in your arteries might "need" a stent. CT coronary angiograms are also virtually useless for purposes of tracking disease, since they are not longitudinally (along the length of the artery) quantitative, nor should anyone be exposed to this much radiation repeatedly. A simple heart scan, on the hand, provides a longitudinal summation of coronary plaque volume. Radiation exposure is sufficiently low that repeated scanning can be performed for purposes of tracking . . .yes, track your plaque. Poorly-informed reporters can do a lot of damage. As always, you and I must dig a little deeper for the truth. Dear Editor,Re: Weighing the Costs of a CT Scan’s Look Inside the HeartThe Times featured an article on June 29th that discussed rapidly expanding use of CT scans for the heart:Weighing the Costs of a CT Scan’s Look Inside the Heart. The authors, Alex Berenson and Reed Abelson, stated that CT heart scans “expose patients to large doses of radiation, equivalent to at least several hundred X-rays, creating a small but real cancer risk.”I’d like to offer a clarification. Though the authors discuss both CT heart scans and CT coronary angiograms, they confuse the two and use the terms interchangeably. A heart scan is a simple screening test for coronary atherosclerotic plaque. It detects the presence of calcium in the heart’s arteries, provided as a “score.” (Because calcium occupies 20% of total plaque volume, knowing the amount of calcium tells you how much total coronary plaque is present by applying this simple proportion.) Just having a high score should not prompt heart procedures, since people undergoing simple screening heart scans are without symptoms. However, a stress test may yield some useful information. On present-day CT devices, heart scans expose a patient to 0.4 mSv of radiation on an electron-beam, or EBT, device, and on up to 1.2 mSv on a 64-slice multi-detector, or MDCT, device, compared to 0.1 mSv during a standard chest x-ray. CT heart scans are therefore performed with about the same quantity of radiation as a mammogram done to screen women for breast cancer, or about the equivalent of four chest x-rays on an EBT scanner, up to 12 chest-xrays on a MDCT scanner. CT coronary angiograms, while performed on the same devices as heart scans, require x-ray dye to fill the contours of the coronary arteries. It also requires up to several hundred times more radiation. While new engineering innovations are being introduced that promise to reduce this exposure, the current devices being used today do indeed require a radiation dose equivalent to 100 to 400 chest x-rays (usually in the range of 10-15 mSv), a value that equals or exceeds that obtained during a conventional heart catheterization. While heart scans are most useful to detect and quantify plaque that can help determine the intensity of a heart disease prevention program, CT coronary angiograms are generally used as prelude to hospital procedures like catheterizations, stents and bypass surgery. That’s because they are performed to look for (or rule out) “severe” blockages. CT heart scans and CT coronary angiography are therefore two different tests that yield two different kinds of information, and yield two entirely different levels of radiation exposure. This confusion from a major and respected media outlet like the New York Times is unfortunate, because it could persuade millions of people who otherwise could benefit from simple heart scans to avoid them because of misleading information on radiation exposure of a different test. Thank you. William Davis, MD
Red yeast rice alert 2. July 2008 William Davis (9) While there have been some positive reports in the media lately about the cholesterol-reducing effects of red yeast rice, Consumer Lab has issued a very concerning report. Because Consumer Lab is a subscription website (incidentally, the $20 per year membership fee is money well spent for insightful tests on many supplements, though new reports only come out a handful of times per year), I won't discuss the results of their red yeast rice in its entirety. However, Consumer Lab testing uncovered several disturbing findings:--The lovastatin content varied by a factor of 100, from 0.1 mg per tablet/capsule in one brand up to 10.6 mg in another brand. By FDA regulations, lovastatin is a drug and NO red yeast rice preparation is supposed to contain ANY lovastatin. Nonetheless, despite the marketing of supplement manufacturers, it is probably the lovastatin that is largely responsible for the LDL-reducing effect. The monacolins or mevinolins in red yeast rice add little, if any, further LDL-reducing effect. --Several preparations contain a potential kidney toxin called citrinin. The Walgreen's product, specifically, contained substantial quantities of this toxin.Interestingly, the FDA has taken repeated action against red yeast rice manufacturers and distributors because they continue to contain lovastatin. In the FDA's most recent action in August, 2007, for instance, Swanson's product and Sunburst Biorganics' Cholestrix, were both sent letters to stop selling their product because it contained lovastatin. The Consumer Lab findings would explain the enormous variation in LDL-reducing effect of various red yeast rice products. In my experience, some work and reduce LDL 40 mg/dl or so, some fail to reduce LDL at all, others generate a modest effect, e.g., 5-10 mg/dl LDL reduction.In effect, red yeast rice IS a statin drug, albeit a highly variable and weak one. Although readers of The Heart Scan Blog know that I am a big fan of nutritional supplements and self-empowerment in health, I am a bigger fan of truth. I despise B--- S---- of the sort that emits from some nutritional supplement manufacturers and drug companies. I am puzzled by much of the public's readiness to embrace a statin drug if it comes from a supplement company while avoiding it if it comes from a drug manufacturer. Personally, I do not like the drug industry, their questionable (at best) ethics, their aggressive marketing tactics, their sleazy sales people. But, in this instance, if a statin effect is desired, I'd reach for generic lovastatin before I purchased red yeast rice. The Consumer Lab report tells us that red yeast rice IS essentially a statin drug, an inconsistent one that often contains a potential toxin.
"Average amount of heart disease for age" 2. July 2008 William Davis (4) A 72-year old woman came to my office after a complicated hospital stay (unrelated to heart disease). She'd undergone a CT coronary angiogram and heart scan as part of a pre-operative evaluation prior to a surgery for a non-heart related condition. The heart scan portion of the test (I was impressed they even did this) yielded a heart scan score of 212. The CT coronary angiogram portion of the test revealed a 50% blockage in one artery, a lesser blockage in one other artery. The cardiologist consulting on the case advised her that the amount of coronary disease detected was insufficient to pose risk during her surgical procedure. He also advised her that she had "an average amount of disease for age." He thought that nothing further was necessary since she was "average." Say what? What if I told you that you have an average amount of cancer for your age? After all, cancers become more common the older we get. Who would find that acceptable? Then why should ANY amount of coronary atherosclerotic plaque be "acceptable for age"? Coronary plaque is a degenerative disease that poses risk for rupture. While it is indeed common, by no means should it be acceptable. I would bet that this same cardiologist would be from the same school of thought that would be eager to advise heart catheterization, stent, and other procedures--revenue-generating procedures--should she have a heart attack appropriate for age. I wish that I could tell you that this silly comment was provided by some peculiar, "everyone-knows-he's-crazy" doctor. But it was not. It was a solidly mainstream physician. He pooh-poohs nutrition, laughs when asked about nutritional supplements, thinks anyone complaining about symptoms less than a full-blown heart attack is a baby. He is respected by the primary care physicians, lectures on the advantages of prescription medications. In short, he is your typical conventional cardiologist.This is the way they think. I know, because I was one of them. Thankfully, something banged me upside my head one day (my Mother's sudden cardiac death) and tipped me off to the painful irony of the conventional approach to heart disease. There is NO amount of coronary disease appropriate for age. This notion is a remnant of the paternalistic, "I-know-better-than-you" attitude of the last century of medicine. The 21st century promises a new age.
Quantum leaps 29. June 2008 William Davis (6) A reader of The Heart Scan Blog and member of the Track Your Plaque program posted this comment on The Heart.org:*The facts speak for themselves.* Dr. William Davis and Dr. William Blanchet, your patients thank you for the low cost PREVENTIVE care you prescribe. The published facts speak for themselves. It is indeed a sad state of affairs, that the larger cardiology community does not take the time to research the data and results you have been reporting. Unfortunately it is the patients who are the victims of the mainstream, inappropriate, treatment protocols, as evidenced with the ongoing high rate of CV death rate. I am dumbfounded by the lack of open-minded inquisitive curiosity to thoroughly research your claims by many/most cardiologists. Understood, we are all busy, but that is no excuse to stick with practices that do not result in major breakthrough improvements in patient outcomes. Then again, we are all humans, and when "we" are convinced that "our" approach is correct, "we" tend to conveniently ignore any evidence to the contrary. "We" like to believe "we" have been right all along. A very insightful book, recently published, says it all in its title: "Mistakes were made (but not by me)." From the intensity of the comments on this topic, it is clear that we are in the middle of a battlefield. It is to be hoped that the facts will become visible before too much smoke obscures the field, and before the patients are all dead. George Orwell said it correctly, back in 1946: “We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, imprudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality usually on a battlefield.” And, after several posts that preventive care with EBT would be too costly..... *Heroic* Prevention is what matters, but it is not very heroic. A hospital that advertises the highest volumes in heart bypasses and other heart "repair" procedures, sounds to many like a go-to place when one gets into trouble with one's heart. Cardiologists who perform impressive surgical procedures are heroes. Not unlike fire-fighters. We celebrate them (deservedly!) for rescues and life saving heroic actions. We tend to not pay much attention to the folks that work hard to minimize risk of calamities in the first place. Similarly, we recently learned that it is too costly to build schools that are earthquake resistant in China. Parents had to look at their children's bodies, crushed. Is it too graphic to imagine 20,000 American bodies, who died of heart disease, piled up on a field? What will it take before we make prevention our first priority? AL, Ann Arbor, MichiganThe reader also tells me that, prompted by his father's death from heart attack while following conventional advice after heart catheterization, he has lost 50 lbs and corrected his lipid patterns on the Track Your Plaque program. The reader is currently struggling with full correction of his severe small LDL pattern and is following some of the advice we discussed on our webinar recently.Another Heart Scan Blog reader, Stan the Heretic, posted this quote from scientist, Max Planck, in his comment:"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - M. Planck(Max Planck was a German physicist who developed quantum theory, a disruptive set of ideas that supplanted other explanations of energy mechanics of the day.)I fear that may prove to be the case for heart disease. The revenue-generating formula for heart disease management that dominates practice in cardiovascular medicine today is so deeply ingrained into the thinking and revenue expectations of practicing cardiologists that a preventive or reversal approach just won't cut it--even if it is vastly superior. That's why it is important for you to take control yourself. You will be the one who obtains and applies the information that saves your life or the lives of those around you. It is, in all likelihood, NOT your doctor who will save your life, but YOU.
Body count 28. June 2008 William Davis (7) Imagine the following headline:War in Iraq a growing success: 20,000 Americans now dead!If a newspaper ran that headline, we would all be outraged, and rightly so. Deaths in war are a tragedy. They are not something we celebrate. Then why do we hear hospitals boasting about the number of bypass operations performed every year, number of heart catheterizations performed, number of heart attacks treated?"_______ Hospital breaks 1000-heart bypass per year milestone""We treat more heart attacks than other other hospital in the state!""More people come to ________ Hospital than any other in the region!"I hear this stuff on the radio, on TV, see it in newspapers and magazines, even on highway billboards every single day in Milwaukee. Heart procedures, like deaths in war, are casualties of health. They are not successes (though, of course, you can have a "successful" bypass). I see most procedures as a failure of prevention. Death from heart attack is a failure of prevention. Tim Russert's death was a (unnecessary) failure of prevention. But so are bypass surgery, stents, and the like. Such is the perverse state of affairs in hospitals and health: They celebrate illness. They glamorize it with ads displaying high-tech equipment, efficient staff in scrubs, "caring and friendly staff." But it is illness they are celebrating. Why? Because it has become a business necessity, a necessary strategy to remain competitive and profitable in the business called "healthcare" that makes money from treating people. The biggest return is from major procedures like bypass operations. Every success in prevention denies the hospital an $80,000+ opportunity. You'll never hear that advertised.
Dr. Bill Blanchet: A ray of sunshine 26. June 2008 William Davis (4) Another heated discussion is ongoing at The Heart.org, this one about Tim Russert's untimely death: Media mulls Russert's death as cardiologists weigh in Although I posted a couple of brief comments there, I quickly lost patience with the tone of many of the other respondents. Should you choose to read the comments, you will see that many still cling to old notions like heart attack is inevitable, defibrillators should be more widely available, "vulnerable" plaques cannot be identified before heart attacks, etc. I quickly lose patience with this sort of outdated rhetoric. However, our good friend, Dr. Bill Blanchet of Boulder, Colorado, has a far stronger stomach for this than I do. Here, a sample of his wonderfully persuasive comments:Heart disease cannot be stopped but we can certainly do better!Goals we must achieve if we hope to solve the Rube Goldberg of coronary disease:1. Find something more reliable than Framingham risk factors to determine who is at risk. Framingham risk factors are wrong more often than they are right. If you are comfortable treating 40% of the patients destined to have heart attacks, continue to rely on “traditional” risk factors only.2. Treat to new standards beyond NCEP/ATP-III. These accepted standards prevent at best 40% of heart attacks in patients treated. This is unacceptable, and arguably why Tim is dead today! Why prevention protocols emphasize LDL and more or less ignore HDL, triglycerides and underemphasize blood pressure eludes me.3. Motivate patients to participate in coronary prevention. Saying “you need to get exercise and lose weight” is not adequate motivation, it hasn't worked to date and probably won't work tomorrow. If you are satisfied saying it is "the patient's fault for not listening to me" so be it, that excuse doesn't work for me!Currently “good results” consist of being able to convince 50% of patients at risk by traditional risk factors to participate in prevention and hopefully 30% will be treated to goal. Of those treated to goal, 60% of the heart attacks will still happen anyway. Mathematically we can hope to prevent <10% of heart attacks with this approach!I have personally found a solution to this dilemma. It goes like this:1. EBT-CAC [electron-beam tomography coronary artery calcium] is the most reliable predictor of coronary events period, the end! Anyone who disagrees has not objectively read the literature. The only test more predictive than the initial calcium score is the follow up score 12 to 36 months later. EBT predicted Tim Russert’s event 10 years before it happened; passing his stress test gave him inappropriate reassurance 2 months before he died. If only Tim had the benefit of a second EBT sometime over the last 10 years he and his doctor would have known that what they were doing was insufficient and improvements could have been made.2. I treat to the standard of stable calcified plaque by EBT (<15% annualized progression, preferably <1% annualized progression). This correlates with a very low incidence of coronary events. Even the ACC/AHA 2007 position paper agrees with this. This is accomplished with aspirin, omega-3 fatty acids, diet, exercise, weight control, smoking cessation, treatment of sleep apnea, stress reduction, control of HDL, triglycerides and LDL cholesterol and excellent control of BP and insulin resistance plus the recent addition of vit D-3. Meeting an LDL goal of 70 is easy but prevents only a minority of events, treating to the goal of stable CAC by EBT is a challenge but when achieved, the reward is near elimination of heart attacks and ischemic strokes. This has indeed been my personal experience!3. A picture of plaque in the coronary artery is a monumental motivator for patients to get on board to make things better. The demonstration of progression of that plaque despite our initial therapies gets all but a few suicidal patients interested in doing a better job. I think that similar motivational results can be had with carotid imaging; the difference is that CAC by EBT is clinically validated as being a much stronger predictor of events with progression and non-events with stability than any ultrasound test including IVUS.Wow! I couldn't have said it better. Sadly, I doubt even Dr. Blanchet's persuasive words will do much to convince my colleagues on this forum. And the cardiologists on this forum are likely among the more inquisitive and open-minded. The ones stuck in the cath lab day and night, or implanting defibrillators, are even less inclined to entertain such conversations. While I admire Dr. Blanchet's energy for continuing to argue with my colleagues, the lesson I take is: Take charge of health yourself. If you wait for your doctor to do it for you, you could be in the same situation as poor Tim Russert. This is an age when your physician should facilitate your success, not prevent it or leave you wallowing in ignorance.
The Russert Protocol at work 25. June 2008 William Davis (6) Without a concerted effort at prevention, heart scan scores (coronary calcium scores) grow like weeds. The average rate of growth is 30% per year. Keith is an illustrative case. At age 39, Keith's heart scan score was 29, in the 99th percentile due to his young age. (In other words, young people before age 40 have no business having plaque. If they do, it's bad.)True to conventional practice, Keith's doctor prescribed a cholesterol drug (Zocor), asked him to take a baby aspirin, and prescribed a blood pressure medicine. He asked Keith to cut the fat in his diet. His doctor even exceeded conventional (ATP-III) LDL cholesterol treatment targets. Keith, an intelligent and motivated businessman, happily complied with his doctor's instructions. Eighteen months later, a 2nd heart scan showed a score of 68, representing an increase of 135%, or 76% per year.This is the very same approach that the late Mr. Tim Russert's doctors employed: treat (calculated) LDL cholesterol with a statin drug, treat high blood pressure, reduce saturated fat, take aspirin. It was a miserable failure in Keith, whose plaque continued to grow at a frightening rate of 76% per year. It was also an obvious failure in poor Tim Russert. Further investigation in Keith uncovered:--Severe small LDL--80% of all LDL was small (despite a favorable HDL of 58 mg/dl)--Measured LDL particle number (NMR) showed that "true" LDL was actually about 60 mg/dl higher than suggested by the crude calculated LDL--An after-eating (postprandial) disorder (IDL)--A pre-diabetic blood sugar and insulin--Severe vitamin D deficiency--Very low testosteroneAll these patterns were present despite the steps Keith and his doctor had instituted. It's no wonder his plaque was undergoing explosive growth. The conventional approach to coronary disease prevention is inadequate, more often than not a mindless adherence to one-size-fits-all template crafted to a great degree by drug industry interests and "experts" who often stand at arm's length from real live patients. Keith's "residual" abnormalities are all readily correctable. He has since made dramatic improvements in all parameters. Among the strategies used is a wheat- and cornstarch-free diet that resulted in 12 lbs lost within the first few weeks of effort. If you are on the "Russert Protocol," have a serious conversation with your doctor about the continued advisability of remaining on this half-assed approach to heart disease. Or, consider finding another doctor.
Petition to the National Institutes of Health 24. June 2008 William Davis (2) A petition to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is being circulated in response to the mis-statement made in an NIH-sponsored study, ACCORD. The ACCORD Trial included over 10,000 type II diabetics and compared an intensive, multiple-medication group to achieve a target HbA1c of <6.0%, with a less intensively treated group with a target HbA1c of 7-7.9%. (HBA1c is a long-term measure of glucose, averaging approximately the last 3 months glucose levels.) To the lead investigators' surprise, the intensively treated group experienced more death and heart attack than the less intensive group. The conclusion suggested that intensive management of diabetes may not be a desirable endpoint and may result in greater risk for adverse events. The petitioners argue that the problem was not with intensive glucose control per se, but the use of multiple side-effect-generating medications. Unfortunately, the ACCORD conclusions give the impression that loose control over blood sugar may be desirable. The petition originates from the Nutrition and Metabolism Society, a non-profit organization seeking to promote carbohydrate restriction. The petition reads:National Institute of Health re: the ACCORD Diabetes Study: "Intensively targeting blood sugar to near-normal levels ... increases risk of death. "This statement is untrue. This study lowered blood glucose levels only by aggressive drug treatment.Preventative measures and proven non-drug treatments are being ignored by the NIH, ADA and many other governing agencies.There is abundant scientific evidence proving a carbohydrate restricted diet can be as effective as drugs in lowering blood glucose levels safely. Many times diet is more effective than medication in controlling diabetes - all without side effects or increased risk of death. I ask that the NIH publicly retract the above statement. It is misleading the public.I also request that the NIH acknowledge the existing science and fund more research by the experts who have experience with carbohydrate restriction as a means of treatment for diabetes.For more info, or to help people with diabetes, please e-mail info@nmsociety.org .Thank you.I added my comment:In my preventive cardiology practice, I have been employing strict carbohydrate restriction in both diabetics and non-diabetics. This results in dramatic improvement in lipids and lipoprotein abnormalities, substantial weight loss, and improved insulin sensitivity. This experience has been entirely different from the heart disease-causing and diabetes-causing low-fat diets that I used for years. I have a substantial number of diabetics who have been to reduce their reliance on prescription medication for diabetes or even eliminate them. In my experience, the power of carbohydrate-restricted diets is profound. However, better clinical data to further validate this approach is needed, particularly as diabetes and pre-diabetes is surging in prevalence. I ask that more funding to further explore and validate this research be made available if we are to have greater success on a broader basis.If you are interested in adding your voice, you can also electronically sign the petition. It is optional, but you can also add your own comments regarding your own views or experiences.
Wheat withdrawal 24. June 2008 William Davis (16) It happens in the hospital every so often: A clean-cut, law-abiding person is hospitalized for, say, pneumonia, kidney stones, knee surgery, etc. Everything's fine until . . . they're running down the hospital hallway stark naked, screaming about snakes on the wall, accusing nurses of trying to kill him, all while yanking out IV's and monitor patches.It's called alcohol withdrawal. Alcohol withdrawal can range from tremulousness and sweatiness, all the way to delirium tremens, the full-blown form that leads to disorientation, seizures, fever, even death. Withdrawal can also be associated with a number of chronically used agents, such as sedatives/sleeping pills, pain medication/opiates, among others. How about wheat?I wouldn't have believed it, but after witnessing this effect countless times, I am convinced there is such a phenomenon: Wheat withdrawal. You'll recognize it in someone who previously ate bread and other wheat flour-containing products freely, then eliminates them. This is followed by extreme cravings, usually for bread, cookies, or cake; profound fatigue; shakiness; mental fogginess; blue moods. The syndrome can last for up to one week. Then, bam! Sufferers of wheat withdrawal report mental clarity superior to their wheat-crazed days, improved energy, decreased appetite and cravings, heightened mood, and, of course, fantastic drops in weight. Why would removal of wheat from the diet trigger a withdrawal phenomenon? I can only speculate, but I believe that at least part of this response is due to a physical conversion from a glycogen (sugar)-burning metabolism to that of a fatty acid (fat mobilizing) metabolism. People who lived in the up-and-down cycle of craving and eating wheat constantly fed the sugar furnace for years and are enzymatically impaired in fat burning; they've been growing fat stores. Eliminating wheat deprives the body of this easy source of glycogen, forcing it to mobilize fatty acids in the fatty tissues. Sluggish at first, people feel fatigue, mental fogginess, etc. Once the enzymatic capacity for fat mobilization revs up, then these feelings dissipate. Could it also relate to the opioid sequences apparently present in wheat? I wasn't even aware of this fact until a reader of The Heart Scan Blog, Anne, left this comment:Wheat protein contains a number of opiod peptides which can be released during digestion. Some of these are thought to affect the central and peripheral nervous systems. When I gave up gluten, I felt much worse for a few days. This is a very common reaction in those who stop eating gluten cold turkey. Dr. BG provides a fascinating commentary on the addictive/opioid aspect of wheat addictions in her Animal Pharm Blog. Whatever the mechanism, I believe it is a real phenomenon. It can, at times, be so overwhelming that about 20% of people who try to eliminate wheat find they are simply unable to do it without being incapacitated. Of course, that might be a lesson in itself: If withdrawal is so profound, it hints that there must be something very peculiar going on in the first place.