Are you hungry?

6. December 2011 William Davis (43)
Eliminate modern high-yield semi-dwarf Triticum aestivum . . . and what is the effect on appetite?

A reduction in appetite is among the most common and profound experiences resulting from wheat elimination. I know that I have personally felt it: Wake up in the morning, little interest in breakfast for several hours. Lunch? Maybe I'll have a few bites of something. Dinner . . . well, I'd like to exercise first.

The wheatless report that:

--Appetite diminishes to the point where you can't remember whether you've eaten or not. It is not uncommon to miss a meal, perfectly content. Calorie intake drops by 400 calories per day, on average, calories you otherwise would not have needed but all went to . . . you know where.
--Hunger feels different: It's not the gnawing, rumbling hunger that plagues you every 2 hours. In its place, you will find that hunger feels like a soft reminder that, gee, maybe it's time to have something to eat because you haven't had anything in--what?--4 to 6 hours. And it's a subtle reminder, not a desperate hunt that makes you knock people aside at the food bar, steal coworkers' lunches stored in the refrigerator, salivating at the mere thought of food.
--The simplest foods satisfy--It no longer requires an all-you-can-eat buffet to satisfy, but a few small pieces of healthy food. (Yeah, but what happens to revenues at Kraft, Nabisco, and Kelloggs, not to mention the revenues at agribusiness giants ADM and Monsanto? Slash consumption by, say, 30%, you likewise slash revenues by 30%. What would shareholders say?)
--Even prolonged periods of not eating, i.e., fasting, is endured with ease.

Hunger and the relentless search for something to eat disappear for most people. By eliminating the appetite-stimulating properties of wheat, we return to a natural state of eating for sustenance, to satisfy physiologic need. We are no longer victims of this incredibly powerful appetite-stimulant called gliadin from wheat.

This is why many diets fail: They fail to remove this powerful appetite stimulant. You might eat only lean meats, limit your calories, and exercise 90 minutes per day, but as long as the gliadin protein is pushing your appetite button, you will want to eat more or you will have to mount monumental willpower to resist it. You can lose 20 pounds on phase 1 of the South Beach diet, for instance, only to regain it in phases 2 and 3 when "healthy whole grains" are added back.

So the key is to remove the gliadin protein from your life, i.e., eliminate all things wheat.

 

Chocolate . . . for adults only

30. November 2011 William Davis (22)
If you've got a serious chocolate addiction and you'd like to make it as healthy as possible, give this X-rated dark chocolate a try.
I call it X-rated because it is certain to not satisfy young, sugar-craving palates, but is appropriate for only the most serious chocolate craver. This is a way to obtain the rich flavors and textures of cocoa, the health benefits (e.g., blood pressure reduction, antioxidation) of cocoa flavonoids, while obtaining none of the sugars/carbohydrates . . . and certainly no wheat!

It is easy to make, requiring just a few ingredients, a few steps, and a few minutes. Set aside and save for an indulgence, e.g., dip into natural peanut or almond butter.

Ingredients:
8 ounces 100% unsweetened cocoa
5 tablespoons coconut oil, melted
1/2 cup dry roasted pistachios
1/4 cup whole flaxseeds or chia seeds
Truvia or other non-aqueous sweetener

Using double-boiler method, melt cocoa. Alternatively, melt cocoa in microwave in 15-20 second increments. Stir in coconut oil, pistachios, and flaxseeds or chia seeds. Stir in sweetener, mixing thoroughly. (Note that the sweetener must be non-aqueous, as water-based sweeteners will separate in the oils.)

Lay a sheet of parchment paper out on a large baking pan. Pour chocolate mixture slowly onto paper, tilting pan carefully to spread evenly until thickness of thick cardboard obtained. Place pan in refrigerator or freezer for 20 minutes.

Remove chocolate and break by hand into pieces of desired size.

"Friday is my bad day"

19. November 2011 William Davis (29)
At the start, Ted had a ton of small LDL particles. His starting (NMR) lipoprotien values:

LDL particle number: 2644 nmol/L

Small LDL: 2301 nmol/L

In other words, approximately 85% of all LDL particles were abnormally small. I showed Ted how to use diet to markedly reduce small LDL particles, including elimination of wheat, limiting other carbohydrates, and even counting carbohydrates to keep the quantity no higher than 15 grams per meal ("net" carbs).

Ted comes back 6 months later, having lost 14 pounds in the process (and now with weight stabilized). Another round of lipoproteins show:

LDL particle number: 1532 nmol/L

Small LDL: 799 nmol/L

Better, but not perfect. small LDL persists, representing nearly 50% of total LDL particle number.

So I quiz Ted about his diet. "Gee, I really stick to this diet. I have nothing made of wheat, no sugars. I count my carbs and I almost never go higher . . . except on Fridays."

"What happens on Friday?" I asked.

"That's when I'm bad. Not really bad. Maybe just a couple of slices of pizza. Or I'll go out for a big custard cone or something. That wouldn't do it, would it?"

That's the explanation. Your liver is well-equipped to recognize normal, large LDL particles. Large LDL particles therefore "live" for only a couple of days in the bloodstream. But the human liver does not recognize the peculiar configuration of small LDL particles, so it lets them pass--over and over and over again. The result: Once triggered by, say two slices of pizza, small LDL particles persist for 5 days, sometimes longer.

So Ted's one "bad" day per week is enough to allow a substantial quantity of small LDL particles to persist. While a fat indulgence (if there is such a thing) pushes large LDL up, the effect is relatively short-lived. Have a carbohydrate indulgence, on the other hand, and small LDL particles persist for up to a week. It means that Ted's one "bad" day per week is enough to allow his small LDL particles to persist at this level, preventing him from gaining full control over coronary plaque.

It also means that, if you have blood drawn for lipoprotein analysis but had a carbohydrate goodie within the previous week, small LDL particles may be exaggeratedly high.

HDL 80 mg/dl

14. November 2011 William Davis (73)
More and more people in my clinic are showing HDL cholesterol values of 80 mg/dl or higher, males included.

Think about it: Nationwide, average HDL for males is 42 mg/dl and for females 52 mg/dl. Even though these average values are generally regarded as favorable, HDL cholesterol values at these levels are nearly always associated with higher levels of triglycerides, postprandial (after-eating) lipoprotein abnormalities, and excessive quantities of small LDL particles.

HDL particles are, of course, protective and are powerfully anti-oxidative. Higher levels of HDL have been associated with reduced potential for cancer, as well as reduced risk for heart disease.

Following the simple regimen that we follow to gain control over coronary plaque has therefore increased levels of HDL to heights that are uncommon in the rest of the population, levels that readily top 80, 90, or 100 mg/dl. That regimen includes:

1) Elimination of all wheat--Yes, consumption of "healthy whole grains" sets you up to have lower HDL levels; elimination of wheat increases HDL.
2) Limited carbohydrate consumption--While eliminating wheat is a powerful nutritional strategy to increase HDL, non-wheat carbohydrates like quinoa, millet, beans, rice, and fruit can still cause high triglycerides that lead to reduced levels of HDL. Limited exposure helps keep HDL at higher levels.
3) Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation--Because omega-3 fatty acids reduce both triglycerides and blunt the postprandial rise in lipoproteins that can cause HDL degradation, HDL rises with omega-3s from fish oil.
4) Vitamin D supplementation--The effect is slow, but it is BIG. HDL just goes up and up and up over about 2 years of supplementation. Before vitamin D, HDL levels of 60 mg/dl were the best I could hope for in most people. Now 80 mg/dl is an everyday occurrence.

Other factors can also be used to increase HDL levels, such as weight loss, red wine and alcohol, exercise, cocoa flavonoids, green tea, and niacin. But following the regimen above sends HDL through the roof in the majority.

Lessons from the 20-year statin experience

2. November 2011 William Davis (0)
Readers of the Heart Scan Blog know that, while I recognize that statins are useful in a small segment of the population with genetically-determined disorders, they are wildly overused, misused, and abused. In my view, the majority of people taking statins have no business doing so and could, in fact, obtain superior results by following some of the strategies advocated in these pages.

Nonetheless, the 30-year long statin experience has taught us some important lessons. Statin drugs have enjoyed more "research" than any other class of drugs ever conceived. They have received more media attention and embraced by more physicians than any other class of drugs. Combine these social phenomena and I believe that several lessons can be learned:

Small LDL particles and increased HbA1c--An evil duo

30. October 2011 William Davis (53)
Small LDL particles are triggered by consumption of carbohydrates. Eat more "healthy whole grains," for instance, and small LDL particles skyrocket.

Increased hemoglobin A1c, HbA1c, a reflection of the last 60-90 days' blood sugars, is likewise a reflection of carbohydrate consumption. The greater the carbohydrate consumption and/or carbohydrate intolerance, the greater the HbA1c. Most regard a HbA1c of 6.5% or greater diabetes; values of 5.7-6.4% pre-diabetes. However, note that any value of 5.0% or more signifies that the process of glycation is occurring at a faster than normal rate. Recall that endogenous glycation, i.e., glucose modification of proteins, ensues whenever blood sugars increase over the normal range of 90 mg/dl (equivalent to HbA1c of 4.7-5.0%). Glycation is the fundamental process that leads to cataracts, arthritis, and atherosclerosis.

Put the two together--increased quantity of small LDL particles along with HbA1c of 5.0% or higher--and you have a powerful formula for heart disease and coronary plaque growth. This is because small LDL particles are not just smaller; they also have a unique conformation that exposes a (lysine residue-bearing) portion of the apoprotein B molecule contained within that makes small LDL particles uniquely glycation-prone. Compared to large LDL particles, small LDL particles are 8-fold more prone to glycation.

So glycated small LDL particles are present when HbA1c is increased above 5.0%. Small, glycated LDL particles are poorly recognized by the liver receptor that ordinarily picks up and disposes LDL particles, unlike large LDL particles, meaning small LDL particles "live" much longer in the bloodstream, providing more opportunityt to do its evil handiwork. Curiously, small LDL particles are avidly taken up by inflammatory white blood cells that can live in the walls of arteries, where they are oxidized--"glycoxidized"--and add to coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

The key is therefore to tackle both small LDL particles and HbA1c.

Unforgiving small LDL particles

21. October 2011 William Davis (39)
Small LDL particles are triggered by carbohydrates in the diet: Eat carbohydrates, small LDL particles go up. Cut carbohydrates, small LDL particles go down.

A typical scenario would be someone starts with, say, 2000 nmol/L small LDL (by NMR) because they've been drinking the national Kool Aid of eating more "healthy whole grains" and consuming somewhere around 200 grams carbohydrates per day, including the destructive amylopectin A of wheat. This person slashes wheat followed by limiting other carbohydrates and takes in, say, 40-50 grams per day. Small LDL: 200 nmol/L.

In other words, reducing carbohydrate exposure slashes the expression of small LDL particles, since carbohydrate deprivation disables the liver process of de novo lipogenesis that forms triglycerides. Abnormal or exaggerated postprandial (after-eating) lipoproteins that are packed with triglycerides are also reduced. Because triglycerides provide the first lipoprotein "domino" that cascades into the formation of small LDL particles, carbohydrate reduction results in marked reduction in small LDL particle formation.

So let's say you are doing great and you've slashed carbohydrates. Small LDL particles are now down to zero--no small LDL whatsoever. What LDL particles you have are the more benign large variety, say, 1200 nmol/L (LDL particle number), all large, none small. You are due for some more blood work on Thursday. On Tuesday, however, you have four crackers because, what the heck, you've been doing great, you've lost 43 pounds, and have been enjoying dramatic correction of your lipoprotein abnormalities.

Your next lipoprotein panel: LDL particle number 1800 nmol/L, small LDL 700 nmo/L--substantially worse, with a major uptick in small LDL.

That's how sensitive small LDL particles can be to carbohydrate intake. And the small LDL particles can last for up to several days, since small LDL particles are not just smaller in size, they also differ in conformation, making them unrecognizable by the normal liver receptor. The small LDL particles triggered by the 4 crackers therefore linger, outlasting the normal-conformation large LDL particles that are readily cleared by the liver.

This phenomenon is responsible for great confusion when following lipoprotein panels, since a 98% perfect diet can yield dismaying results just from a minor indulgence. But, buried in this simple observation is the notion that small LDL particles are also extremely unforgiving, being triggered by the smallest carbohydrate indulgence, lasting longer and wreaking their atherosclerotic plaque havoc.

I eliminated wheat . . . and I didn't lose weight!

19. October 2011 William Davis (33)
Elimination of wheat is a wonderfully effective way to lose weight. Because saying goodbye to wheat means removing the gliadin protein of wheat, the protein degraded to brain-active exorphins that stimulate appetite, calorie consumption is reduced, on average, 400 calories per day. It also means eliminating this source of high blood sugar and high blood insulin and the 90-minutes cycles of highs and lows that cause a cyclic need to eat more at the inevitable low. It means that the high blood sugar and insulin phenomena that trigger accumulation of visceral fat are now turned off. It may possibly also mean that wheat lectins no longer block the leptin receptor, undoing leptin resistance and allowing weight loss to proceed. And weight loss usually results effortlessly and rapidly.

But not always. Why? Why are there people who, even after eliminating this appetite-stimulating, insulin-triggering, leptin-blocking food, still cannot lose weight? Or stall after an initial few pounds?

There are a list of reasons, but here are the biggies:

1) Too many carbohydrates--What if I eliminate wheat but replace those calories with gluten-free breads, muffins, and cookies? Then I've switched one glucose-insulin triggering food for another. This is among the reasons I condemn gluten-free foods made with rice starch, cornstarch, tapioca starch, and potato starch. Or perhaps there's too many potatoes, rices, and oats in your diet. While not as harmful as wheat, they still provoke phenomena that cause weight loss to stall. So cutting carbohydrates may become necessary, e.g., no more than 12-14 grams per meal.

2) Fructose--Fructose has become ubiquitous and has even assumed some healthy-appearing forms. "Organic agave nectar" is, by far, the worst, followed by maple syrup, honey, high-fructose corn syrup, sucrose,and fruit--yes, in that order. They are all sources of fructose that causes insulin resistance, visceral fat accumulation or persistency, prolongation of clearing postprandial (after-meal) lipoproteins that antagonize insulin, and glycation. Lose the fructose sources--as much of it as possible. (Fruit should be eaten in very small portions.) Watch for stealth sources like low-fat salad dressings--you shouldn't be limiting your fat anyway!

3) Thyroid dysfunction--A real biggie. Number one cause to consider for thyroid dysfunction: iodine deficiency. Yes, it's coming back in all its glory, just like the early 20th century before iodized salt made it to market shelves. Now, people are cutting back on iodized salt. Guess what's coming back? Iodine deficiency and even goiters. Yes, goiters, the disfiguring growths on the neck that you thought you'd only see in National Geographic pictures of malnourished native Africans. Number two: Exposure to factors that block the thyroid. This may include wheat, but certainly includes perchlorate residues (synthetic fertilizer residues) on produce, pesticides, herbicides, polyfluorooctanoic acid residues from non-stick cookware, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (flame retardants), and on and on. If you are iodine-deficient, it can even include goitrogenic iodine-blocking foods like broccoli, cauliflower, and soy. Thyroid status therefore needs to be assessed.

4) Cortisol--Not so much excess cortisol as disruptions of circadian rhythm. Cortisol should surge in the morning, part of the process to arouse you from sleep, then decline to lower levels in the evening to allow normal recuperative sleep. But this natural circadian cycling is lost in many people represented, for instance, as a flip-flopping of the pattern with low levels in the morning (with morning fatigue) and high levels at bedtime (with insomnia), which can result in stalled weight loss or weight gain. Cortisol status therefore needs to be assessed, best accomplished with salivary cortisol assessment.

5) Leptin resistance--People who are overweight develop an inappropriate resistance to the hormone, leptin, which can present difficulty in losing weight. This can be a substantial issue and is not always easy to overcome. It might mean assessing leptin levels or it might mean taking some steps to overcome leptin resistance.

Okay, that's a lot. Next: More on how to know when thyroid dysfunction is to blame.

Do the math: 41.7 pounds per year

14. October 2011 William Davis (21)
Consumers of wheat take in, on average, 400 calories more per day. Conversely, people who eliminate wheat consume, on average, 400 calories less per day.

400 calories per day multiplied by 365 days per day equals 146,000 additional calories over the course of one year. 146,000 calories over a year equals 41.7 pounds gained per year. Over a decade, that's 417 pounds. Of course, few people actually gain this much weight over 10 years.

But this is the battle most people who follow conventional advice to "cut your fat and eat more healthy whole grains" are fighting, the constant struggle to subdue the appetite-increasing effects of the gliadin protein of wheat, pushing your appetite buttons to consume more . . . and more, and more, fighting to minimize the impact.

So, if you eat "healthy whole grains" and gain "only" 10 pounds this year, that's an incredible success, since it means that you have avoided gaining the additional 31.7 pounds that could have accumulated. It might mean having to skip meals despite your cravings, or exercising longer and harder, or sticking your finger down your throat.

400 additional calories per day times 365 days per year times 300,000,000 people in the U.S. alone . . . that's a lot of dough. Is this entire scenario an accident?

Or, of course, you could avoid the entire situation and kiss wheat goodbye . . . and lose 20, 30, or 130 pounds this year.

We got the drug industry we deserve

14. October 2011 William Davis (6)
A biting commentary on just who is writing treatment guidelines for diabetes and cardiovascular disease was published in the British Medical Journal, summarized in theHeart.org's HeartWire here.

"About half the experts serving on the committees that wrote national clinical guidelines for diabetes and hyperlipidemia over the past decade had potential financial conflicts of interest (COI), and about 4% had conflicts that were not disclosed.

"Five of the guidelines did not include a declaration of the panel members' conflicts of interest, but 138 of the 288 panel members (48%) reported conflicts of interest at the time of the publication of the guideline. Eight reported more than one conflict. Of those who declared conflicts, 93% reported receiving honoraria, speaker's fees, and/or other kinds of payments or stock ownership from drug manufacturers with an interest in diabetes or hyperlipidemia, and 7% reported receiving only research funding. Six panelists who declared conflicts were chairs of their committee.

"Of the 73 panelists who had a chance to declare a conflict of interest but declared none, eight had undeclared COI that the researchers identified by searching other sources. Among the 77 panel members who did not have an opportunity to publicly declare COI in the guidelines documents, four were found to have COI."

The closing quote by Dr. Edwin Gale of the UK is priceless:
"Legislation will not change the situation, for the smart money is always one step ahead. What is needed is a change of culture in which serving two masters becomes as socially unacceptable as smoking a cigarette. Until then, the drug industry will continue to model its behavior on that of its consumers, and we will continue to get the drug industry we deserve."

It's like having Kellogg's tell us what to each for breakfast, or Toyota telling us what car to drive. The sway of the drug industry is huge. Even to this day, I observe colleagues kowtow to the sexy sales rep hawking her wares. But that's the least of it. Far worse, even the "experts" who we had trusted to have objectively reviewed the evidence to help the practitioner on Main Street appears to be little more than a hired lackey for Big Pharma, hoping for that extra few hundred thousand dollars.

Are Your Cosmetics Safe?

11. June 2014 Dawn D (0)


If you are reading The Cureality blog chances are you care about your health. You care about what you eat. You want to remain healthy, free of disease, feel good and possibly even want to look and feel as vibrant as you were when you were 20. Many of us think of food all day long. Many of us love to eat. We plant gardens so we know our food is free of pesticides and other toxic chemicals. Food can be a cause of disease and it can minimize our chances of disease. We try and take care of our insides but did you ever wonder what in the world you apply to your skin on a daily basis? What do these products contain and are they safe? Why are there more endocrine disorders popping up. Could it be that some of things we apply to our skin every single day may be harmful to our insides?

A portion of the skin health section of Cureality will take a look at skincare products and cosmetics. Are the products we apply to our skin gluten-free, paraben-free and free of other harsh chemicals that can cause skin irritations and possible other unwanted diseases. I came across Mirabella cosmetics and I wanted to learn more about this particular product line so I tracked down John Maly, founder and CEO of Mirabella Cosmetics. Mr. Maly was gracious enough to take time out and answer my questions.This is what Mr. Maly has to say about Mirabella:

DD: Tell us about some key features about Mirabella, gluten-free cosmetics. What made you get started in a gluten-free line?

JM: We didn't start as gluten-free. Over time we have continued to make our line more beautiful AND more healthy for women. First we began with a mineral foundation. Then as we introduced new products, we made sure they were as clean and healthy, while still being fashion forward. We saw the benefits to our clients to take out those ingredients that didn't help them look and feel their best such as glutens, parabens and talcs.

DD: Some cosmetic companies carry partially gluten-free cosmetics. Are all of Mirabella products gluten-free, paraben-free and talc-free?

JM: Everything is paraben-free and talc free. And our brand is all gluten-free except our Skin Tint Creme foundation. That is a product that women love and we just cannot make the formula without a wheat protein to perform as well...yet! We will continue to work on it!

DD: Are there other ingredients in cosmetics that women should be cautious of using if they have skin sensitivities or allergies?

JM: Some women are sensitive to fragrance as well.This is another thing that we avoid with our brand. The biggest ingredients that women find that helps with their skin health is mineral products. They are natural and very breathable on a woman's skin.

DD: I think your velvet lip pencils are by far the most extraordinary lip pencil on the market. What are some of your other standout products your customers love?

JM: Pure Press Mineral Foundation is still our #1product. But the fastest growing product is Magic Marker Eyeliner. It is easy to use, doesn't smudge and lasts all day.

DD: Anything new on the horizon for Mirabella that you can share with us?

JM: In August we launch CC crème. This product has all the good for you ingredients to help with Anti-Aging like avocado oil, argan oil and Acai (Assai) berry. Plus it is a mineral formula, gluten-free, and paraben-free. And it has an SPF of 20. One of the biggest issues that women have with aging is lips. That is why we put Litchi Chinesis Fruit Extract in our Colour Vinyl lipstick. Then in your favorite Velvet Lip Pencil, we put Pomegranate Extract, Vitamin C and E in to assist with in Anti-Aging.

DD: Is Mirabella only sold in the US or do you have international distribution as well.

JM: We are sold in Canada, Australia, Finland and Russia.

DD: Where can we purchase your cosmetics?

JM: Our products are available at www.mirabellabeauty.com and at over 1,500 of the finest salons and spas. Go to our salon locator to find a retailer near you.

Top 5 Tips to Get Ready for Tough Mudder

10. June 2014 Amber B Exercise (0)

When it comes to mud runs, Tough Mudder is a big deal.  This event covers ten to twelve miles of muddy running interspersed with challenging obstacles.  Using the word “challenging” when describing the obstacles along the course is an understatement.  Obstacles include getting an electrical shock, running through ice-cold water, jumping over fire, climbing over walls, and things you’ve seen when watching American Ninja Warrior.  Plus these obstacles are all done on a rugged, muddy terrain.  So, maybe the word dirty-insane-challenging would be a better fit to describe the Tough Mudder.

Don’t let this description lead you to think that this is an impossible feat.   The Tough Mudder website states that 1.3 million people have completed this event since it’s inauguration.  If Tough Mudder is on your bucket list, know that if they can do it so can you.  Here are 5 tips to get you ready to tackle the Tough Mudder.

1) Train: This tip seems obvious, but it’s not.  Many people are standing at the start line hoping for the best.  This strategy puts you at high risk for injury and not completing the event.  You need to train anywhere from 8 to 12 weeks for the Tough Mudder.  Use this guideline if you have a regular workout routine established.  If you’re new to exercise or have been on a workout hiatus you may need 4 to 6 months to get ready.  Carve out time in your schedule to train 3 to 5 days a week to prepare for this event.  If you need some guidance, join a training program to provide a road map to Tough Mudder success.

2) Run:  Tough Mudder is like a half-marathon on steroids.  Running is critical component when you find that you’re traveling up to a mile between obstacles.  Incorporate running intervals, hills, and fartleks into your training program.  Start your training off with a new pair of running or minimalist shoes so that by the time your Tough Mudder comes around your shoes are ready to get trashed.

3) Simulate Obstacles:  To feel confident at the start line of Tough Mudder, you need to practice skills that can help you with the obstacles.  This will reduce your risk of obtaining any injuries during the event.  Utilizing stairs, fences, playgrounds, rock climbing walls, football fields, lakes, and beaches are great places to start when looking to simulate obstacles.  Check out the Tough Mudder website to see a list obstacles.  Use your imagination to find ways to incorporate obstacle training in your workouts.   

4) Simulate Terrain: Running covered in mud with wet shoes is much different from running on the treadmill.  Running in the grass, on the sand and through the water is much different from running on asphalt.  Get ready to be a little uncomfortable.  Your shoes will begin to slide around on your feet and your clothes will cling to your body.  Get ready to work a little harder.  Your stride will be affected by the changes in terrain.  Practice running on the grass, in the water, and in the sand.  Make sure you get wet and run with soaked shoes and clothes. You’ll realize what shoes and clothes to wear on race day to be the most comfortable and effective.

5) Team: Teamwork is what Tough Mudder is about.  Teamwork is what keeps drawing people back to the Tough Mudder venue.  From the start to the finish, it’s about getting everyone across the finish line.  If you’re struggling to get over a wall, a hand is there to help pull you up.  When fatigue is setting in, another person is there to bring up your spirits.  You’re not alone out there.  At other races you find you’re left in the dust.  At Tough Mudder you are overcoming challenges with your muddy buddies. Get together with friends or a training group to form a team bond that will keep you accountable with your training and support you to the finish line.

Want personalized training???  Schedule a virtual appointment with Amber.

Keeping Up with the Kids

5. June 2014 Amber B (0)


On Saturday my husband and I took our niece Anna out her annual birthday date. That date started with a trip to the Humboldt park playground. As with most kids, Anna ran straight to the spider-web jungle gym which I have to admit it looked pretty cool. Just before she began to climb up, she turned to look at me and said “Auntie Amber, climb up too!”

I was not wearing my playground apparel on Saturday. I had a cute pair of pink loafers on, skinny jeans, tank and a jean jacket. But it did look like fun so I decided to climb. No problems yet. I was good to go climbing around on the ropey, spider web apparatus. But of course, just climbing around was not enough. Anna suggested that we should race. Not just to the top, but to the top of the jungle gym over the side, across the rope bridge and down the slide. This is when my skill was put to the test.

As you could have guessed, Anna smoked me during our race. Not only that, but the jean jacket was off and I was working up a sweat. Was I getting a workout from my 9-year-old niece? I think so. But we both were having so much fun. We continued to climb up and down the fake rock wall, monkey bars and run around the playground. It was a blast.

But as I looked around the playground, I was the only adult climbing around the playground and playing. The other adults were sitting on park benches watching. One parent near by had to decline the request of a child they were with to join them on the playground equipment. I felt really good that I could be there with my niece running around, climbing and swinging.

Keeping up with our kids, grandkids, nieces and nephews is really important as we age. Otherwise we sit on the sidelines. How do you train for the playground? Get in the weight room. Lift heavy things, jump, pull yourself up, move side ways, and challenge your body to do movements beside sitting or standing. If it’s been awhile or you’re just not sure where to start then get a trainer and join some group workouts.

It’s time to get moving. Because it starts out at the playground now but soon it will be mud runs, Frisbee, triathlons and weekend football games. You need to keep up!

4 Tips to Boost Kids Veggie Intake

3. June 2014 Lisa G (0)


Vegetables are arguably the most important food group, the key to any healthy diet. They are one of the most nutrient dense food groups and serve the foundation to healthy meals and snacks. A frequent comment from people enjoying the Cureality way of eating is, “I am eating more vegetables than I ever have in my life!”

This is great because plentiful consumption is associated with decreased heart disease, reduced weight, lower blood pressure, glowing skin and decreased risk of some cancers. However, perhaps you’re reading this and feeling great that you eat your veggies but struggle to get your kids to do the same. If you are a parent, who is simply trying to provide nutritious options to your kids, give these tips a try.

1. Add cheese or butter to enhance flavor and increase the absorption of fat soluble vitamins A, D, E and K. Younger kids like to dip foods, so often pairing with a dip, such as hummus, can increase intake.

2. Try the “rule of 15” — putting a food on the table at least 15 times to see if a child will accept it. Don’t give up after a few attempts. This can indeed be frustrating, but have patience and continue to offer a small portion to expose children to veggies without forcing intake. Often parents feel like it’s their job to just make their children eat something. I suspect most children will always select apple pie over an apple. It is important to set the stage, at an early age, with what is offered. In addition, being a good food model is important. You can’t expect your child to try broccoli, if you make negative comments about its taste, texture or smell.

3. Once a food is accepted, parents should use “food bridges,” finding similarly colored or flavored foods to expand the variety of foods a child will eat. If a child likes pumpkin pie, for instance, try mashed sweet potatoes and then mashed carrots. If a child loves corn, try mixing in a few peas or carrots. Even if a child picks them out, the exposure to the new food is what counts.

4. Allow children to engage, as able. When grocery shopping or offering a snack, ask your child which option they would like to eat (e.g. ask which healthy foods they would prefer, blueberries or strawberries, cucumbers or carrots, etc.). When children are included in more food decisions it can decrease resistance. Include children in age appropriate preparation, as well, for example cutting produce, making a vegetable soup, or selecting produce at the grocery store.

Lisa Grudzielanek, MS, RDN, CD, CDE
Cureality Nutrition Coach

When is the Best Time of Day to Workout?

2. June 2014 Amber B (0)


There are various theories about the best time of day to workout. At the personal training studio I own, training sessions start as early as 5:45am and the latest sessions start at 8pm. We have people that get up early and get their workout done first thing in the morning. We also have other people that get it done after work to release the stress of the day.

So which group is getting the better workout?

If you’re an early bird or have too many evening commitments then a morning workout is ideal for you. Here are some benefits to training in the morning.

1. Very few things can get in the way when you workout in the morning. (Except for the snooze button.) Later in the day extra phone calls, meetings and tasks can get in the way of getting your workout done.

2. After a strength or interval training session, your metabolism is elevated for hours after your workout. Enjoy these post exercise benefits while you are awake and active instead of when you are at rest.

3. Exercise will boost your energy. Use the momentum from a morning workout to arrive at work energized, present and focused instead of feeling sluggish because you just got out of bed.

4. Exercise on an empty stomach before breakfast is a great way to burn more body fat. Upon waking, the body is in a fasted state. Without ready available glucose in the bloodstream, the body is forced to use fat as an available fuel source for the workout.

However, some of us need our sleep or need to burn off the steam of a hectic workday. Here are some of the benefits of working out in the evening.

1. Getting enough sleep is crucial for health and recovery. If you have to skimp on regular sleep to get up for an early workout, the benefits of the workout start to diminish.

2. Instead of taking that stress of work home, you hit the gym after work. Even after the worst workdays, exercise will boost your mood. Friends and family will be grateful that you get your workouts (aka therapy session) completed.

3. Often people feel stronger when they workout in the evenings. When performing strength tests people tend to lift heavier during evening workouts. This could be due to the fact that they are more awake or that they have food fuel to utilize during their exercise session.

4. Research shows that you can build more muscle with evening workouts because cortisol levels are lowest in the evening. The result of this will be a higher testosterone to cortisol ratio leading to a less catabolic workout.

So which time of day comes out on top for the best workout time? In my opinion, it’s the time that you can do consistently. It’s the time that works best with your natural energy rhythms, work schedule, and family commitments.

Experiment working out at different times to see what works best for you. When you find the right fit, schedule your workouts on your calendar to build the exercise habit.

What is Cureality all about?

27. May 2014 William Davis (1)

“Looking over your medical record, Nancy, I’m a bit concerned about your risk for osteoporosis and hip fracture. It looks like your mom had a hip fracture at age 67. Is that right? ”

“Yes, she did,” Nancy responded. “And her life was never quite the same for the 15 years she lived after that.

“You’re 53 year old. Bone thinning develops over many years. Let’s get you scheduled for a bone scan.”

Two weeks later:

“Your z-score is 1.5, Nancy. This means you’ve got a mild form of osteoporosis called ‘osteopenia.’ Here: This is a prescription for alendronate, what used to be called Fosamax.”

“Aren’t there side-effects with that drug? A friend of mine said that her mom had a leg fracture from it.”

“Well, yes. All prescription drugs have potential side-effects. They’re rare, but they can happen and we can’t predict it. Besides leg fracture, there’s something called jaw osteonecrosis in which the jawbone dies and has to be surgically replaced. But would you rather run the risk of a hip fracture?”

“Before we jump to drugs, aren’t there natural things I could do first?”

(Big sigh.) “You can take calcium, but that only helps a bit. You’ve got to make a choice: Take the drug or risk a hip fracture.”

“I’m going to explore some natural remedies on my own first.”

Nancy’s dialogue with her doctor is fictional but based on similar encounters that occur thousands of times every day nationwide. Identify a problem, prescribe a drug. Natural remedies? “They don’t work.” “I don’t know anything about that.” “None of that is proven.” “I only practice evidence-based medicine.” You’ve probably heard a few of these explanations yourself if you ever question the wisdom of conventional medical care.

Each of Nancy’s fictitious interactions were no more 10 minutes long. If she is like most people, she will have one or two such interactions over the course of a year, unless she develops some acute illness. So she’s got something like 20-30 minutes per year to compress all of her “health” advice into the time allotted. 20-30 minutes per year to discuss bone health, nutrition, blood sugar issues, cholesterol issues, blood pressure, female issues, and all the other facets of health. Perhaps she has developed some chronic gastrointestinal complaints, too, and an odd rash on her elbows, maybe headaches a few times per week that she didn’t have before. Regardless, she’s going to have to make do with those few minutes, likely receiving one or more prescriptions or imaging procedures for each.

Such is the nature of modern healthcare: Provide the minimum interaction, address only a few, perhaps no more than one, problem, then prescribe a drug. This is, more often than not, wrong. Plain wrong. Tragically, awfully, unethically, unnecessarily wrong.

Let’s pick up again with Nancy. Upon learning of her osteopenia and long-term risk for hip fractures of the sort that changed her mom’s life and health irretrievably, Nancy started searching for solutions. Not only did she discover that, yes, there are indeed a number of safe and effective ways to deal with osteopenia. She also learned that such strategies have even been examined in clinical trials, some of the strategies pitted head-to-head with drugs and performed on a par, sometimes better, than prescription drugs. She also found that there are online communities that she could join and discuss her health situation with people all sharing the same health interests. During one such interaction at the start of her effort, when she was still a bit unsure and tentative, a woman she didn’t know but who shared a similar interest in restoring bone health, commented to Nancy, “Don’t sweat it, Nancy. I was in your shoes a little over a year ago. I followed a program for bone health: vitamin D, vitamin K2, magnesium, I made sure that I included leafy green vegetables at least once or twice per day, and I added strength training for a few minutes twice per week. I started with osteoporosis. My most recent bone density test showed that I reversed it completely—it’s entirely normal! So hang in there and be sure to share your questions and concerns with us here.”

THAT is what Cureality is all about. Cureality fills the gap of knowledge in health that is not being provided in a few minute-long medical interaction. Cureality reveals the astounding amount of credible, safe, scientific information that allows you to participate, sometimes take over completely, various aspects of health. You don’t have to fire your doctor; these efforts supplement the information and advice you obtain (or don’t obtain) in the doctor’s office. While critics may sometimes say that this can be dangerous or that misdiagnoses and dangerous treatments might be risked, our experience is the exact opposite: People do better by taking the reins of health themselves, choosing to use the health care system for acute or catastrophic illness—but not necessarily for health.

Our fictional woman, Nancy, returns to her doctor one year later after undergoing a repeat bone scan. The doctor opened her chart, clearly expecting to scold her for her foolhardy and careless attitude. Instead, he was speechless. After a pause, he said, “I don’t know how you did it, but your bone density is now normal, the density of a healthy 30-year old woman. Just continue doing what you’re doing.” He closed the chart and walked out.

Yes: “Just continue what you are doing”—not “Please tell me what you did so that I might learn something new,” or “Where did you learn about such strategies? I knew nothing about this!” Just “do what you’re doing.” Too often, that is the response you get that defines what modern health care has become.

You don’t want that kind of health care. Sure, it’s reassuring to know that the doctor and hospital are there in case you injure yourself or develop pneumonia. But obtain day-to-day health advice of the sort that keeps you slender, keeps blood pressure normal, maintains normal insulin and blood pressure responses, helps keep bowel health ideal, can even be used to reverse conditions such as autoimmune joint pain, diabetes, osteoporosis, or skin rashes, while costing next to nothing and yielding health care benefits for you and your family in multiple areas of health? That is the kind of health care you want.

That’s why we developed Cureality.


William Davis, MD
Author of #1 New York Times Bestseller Wheat Belly: Lose the wheat, lose the weight and find your path back to health, The Wheat Belly Cookbook, and Wheat Belly 30-Minute (or Less!) Cookbook published by Rodale, Inc.  
Author, Track Your Plaque: The only heart disease prevention program that shows how the new CT heart scans can be used to detect, track, and control coronary plaque

How Can I Lose Weight Eating Fat?

26. May 2014 Lisa G Carbohydrates, Lipids, Nutrition (0)

For new comers to the Cureality nutrition approach, this question may invariably pop up. For many years, fats and oils, whether classified as good or bad, were demonized because they contain 9 calories per gram. Meaning, they contain more than twice the 4 calories per gram of carbohydrate or protein.

So this familiar logic stated, if you eat less fat, which by default meant more carbohydrate, you would eat fewer calories and lose weight. This misguided logic was based on the assumption that caloric density was the primary reason people either gained or lost weight. The result - obesity rates have climbed and low-fat diet recommendations have proven unsuccessful in thwarting the battle of the bulge.

Why? There are a multitude of reasons, as discussed in the Cureality Diet Track. The following two explanations are important to to avoid needlessly suffering on a low-fat diet.

1) Appetite satiation is drive by insulin response, not calorie density.

Meals that trigger a substantial insulin response trigger increased appetite and fat storage. Carbohydrates, such as whole grain bread, whole wheat waffles, and fruit juice trigger insulin release. Continuous insulin provocation equates to one heck of a time trying to lose weight, as insulin is a fat-storage hormone. In comparison, oils and fats are the least insulin provoking with protein a close second. Consuming adequate fat intake is essential to quench appetite and avoid the insulin surges and crashes that are the result of eating plenty of “healthy whole grains”.

2) Modern wheat increases appetite thereby increasing intake.

Portion control becomes a major challenge because the gliadin protein in modern wheat stimulates appetite to the tune of 400 calories more per day, 365 days per year. That’s a recipe for weight gain, not loss.

The Cureality nutrition approach encourages the generous use of healthy fats and oils to support healthy weight loss and cardiovascular health. These topics are discussed in much more detail in the Cureality Member Forum.

Lisa Grudzielanek, MS, RDN, CD, CDE
Cureality Nutrition Coach

Drowning in a Sea of "Endocrine Disrupter Toxins"

20. May 2014 Chris K Drug advertising (1)

In my previous post I spoke about the close connection between gut health and thyroid health. Of course, as someone who lives with Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis I have a keen interest in anything related to the thyroid.

Just today, I came across an article revealing the 100 most-prescribed drugs in America and was stunned at what drug topped the list with more than 23 million prescriptions in 2013 – levothyroxine – the most commonly prescribed drug for treating hypothyroidism (but not necessarily the best in my opinion).

Some observers have warned about a pending epidemic of thyroid disorders. I believe the revelation of a thyroid drug as the most prescribed drug in America suggests that this epidemic is already a “fait accompli” (that’s French for the more colloquial expression “it’s a done deal!”).

I also believe it is due, in part, to the grim observations of experts like Dr. Davis who warn that we are literally “swimming in a sea” of endocrine disruptors, toxins that disrupt our hormonal glands such as the thyroid, adrenals, pancreas, ovaries, and testes. I would go farther to say we are drowning in that sea. Here are just a few examples of how ubiquitous and pervasive these toxins are.

Bisphenol A (BPA) in plastic containers has gotten a lot of bad press recently yet it still considered by the FDA to be safe in certain applications even though it has been shown to disrupt the sex glands and bind to thyroid receptors.

Triclosan is commonly used in hand-sanitizers and similar applications. Triclosan is known to decrease circulating levels of the thyroid hormone thyroxine (T4).

Polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) is common used to make flame retardant clothing. PBDEs have been shown to disrupt both estrogen and thyroid hormones. The effects of PBDE exposure both in utero and shortly after birth can persist into adulthood.

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in Teflon coated pots and pans and even microwave popcorn bags has been detected in the blood of more than 98% of the general US population. PFOA has implicated as both a carcinogen as well as an endocrine disruptor associated with thyroid disruption.

With all these “thyro-toxins” floating about it might not seem you like have a fighting chance to achieve thyroid health. But, the first step is to educate yourself - then take action. It is the essential sequence in what I call “Informed, Self-directed, Healthcare” (ISH).

Now that you have a better understanding of how to navigate the “thryo-toxin minefield” there are also positive steps you can take to stack the odds in favor of a healthy thyroid. If you participate in the Cureality program make certain to check out the Thyroid Health Track for a powerful list of proactive steps you can take.

Chris K. (aka HeartHawk)
Cureality Member Advocate


Source: IMS National Prescription Audit, IMS Health.

Italian Food the Cureality Way

19. May 2014 Lisa G (0)

100% grain elimination is the theme that drives the Cureality nutrition approach. A common mistake made when eliminating grains is replacing wheat-based foods with gluten-free foods. Most gluten-free foods, as they are currently available in the supermarket, are made with rice starch, tapioca starch, cornstarch, and potato flour. These dried pulverized starches generate more insulin and blood sugar surges than wheat. Gluten-free foods made with these undesirable ingredients are free of the appetite stimulating gliadin protein and wheat germ agglutinin, a lectin protein unique to wheat that causes direct intestinal damage. However, at best they can be referred to as “less bad” or unwelcome additions to the diet. Increasing your intake of these junk carbohydrates is a recipe for weight gain, inflammation and sky high blood sugar.

When removing grains from the diet, the goal is to replace them with truly healthy alternatives that do not contribute to negative health consequences. There are several reasonable substitutions available that allow your favorite sauce and protein combos to shine in tasty pasta-like dishes. People following the Cureality nutrition approach frequently comment that they do not miss “real” pasta because of the available healthy replacements they have learned about and incorporated into their lifestyle.

Our nutritionist, Lisa G., is the champion at helping navigate this lifestyle. In this video, she demonstrates how to prepare spaghetti squash, which can be used to replace wheat-based pasta. In another video zucchini noodles are the star. Homemade meatballs, a zesty tomato sauce and zucchini “pasta” combine for a delicious meal. Who needs grains when you can enjoy meals that support increased energy and less joint pain? 


Traveling, while being wheat-free and dairy-free. Can it be done?

16. May 2014 Dawn D Dairy products, Wheat-free (0)

Summer vacation is right around the corner. The temptation to deviate from your normal healthy eating habits may occur… but resist. So how in the world do you continue to eat The Cureality way when you're traveling internationally? Let me tell you how I do it. I would also like to add I am allergic to dairy and I avoid all wheat containing foods. This has been my way of life for years and actually is extremely simple for me to manage while away from my own kitchen.

I decided to pay Italy a visit. I knew I would be overwhelmed with wonderfully fresh smelling bakery, pasta, cheese, gelato, and pizza. All foods I either can't consume due to my dairy allergy or foods I choose to avoid because of their health effects.

I was correct in my food assessment: the grains, bakery, and gelato were in every nook and cranny I encountered. Food choices can be difficult while traveling but I ask numerous questions regarding ingredients and I am certainly not afraid to swap out french fries for grilled vegetables.

Here's what I did the first few days on vacation with my diet routine to minimize dietary booby traps:

Day 1: 

Breakfast, Hmmmm….Italians like their bakery. WOW. Tough when most of the foods being served are grains and eggs with dairy mixed in. I had two hard boiled eggs, tomatoes, sausage and espresso.

Lunch: Arugula lettuce topped with a chicken breast, roasted peppers and tomatoes. A side of salmon and lots and lots of olive oil on top. Very tasty and filling with the olive oil.

Dinner: Hamburger (no bun) with tomato, mayo, lettuce topped with a mountain of sauteed spinach. Water and yes…Italian wine found it's place at the table.

Day 2: 

Breakfast: I devoured two hard boiled eggs with lettuce, cucumbers, shredded carrots, tomato and pineapple slices. Two cafe Americanos and water.

Lunch: Lunch was spectacular: Beef tips, arugula, lettuce, shredded carrots, tomatoes, olive oil and raw salmon. Yes, I mixed it all together and it was fabulous. Plenty of water with the "frizzle."

Dinner: I'll be honest: I had a difficult time with this meal due to our location and choice of foods, but I managed. Another hamburger with no bun, salad with mixed vegetables, and a few potato wedges. Wine and water.

Day 3: 

Breakfast: Hardboiled eggs were getting old. Nonetheless, I had two of them chopped with tomato. Deli meat--Italians love their deli meat as well. Cafe Americano and water.

Lunch: Seafood salad-shrimp, octopus and squid mixed with argulua, fresh tomatoes, cucumbers and olive oil. Water.

Dinner: One hefty salad with shrimp, pear slices, ginger, tomatoes, avocado and olive oil. Wine and water.

Day 4:
Breakfast: Scrabbled eggs/sauage and pineapple slices. Cafe Americano and plenty of water.

Lunch/Dinner: I had to combine these two meals today. I had a delicious meal of curried shrimp (I made sure there was no dairy in the curry sauce) and a very large plate of grilled vegetables. Wine and water.

My diet may not be the most lavish to some but I enjoy my choices. I'm confident I will have no troubles with the remainder of my vacation. I haven't eaten wheat for a number of years so I don't experience the craving for bakery, pasta, or pizza. Dairy, I simply have to avoid, because I truly experience ill-effects from consuming it. My experience with travel and food choices have always worked in my favor. Ask questions and resist putting on that 5-10 pounds of vacation weight.

Ciao-Ciao~

All posts by william-davis

Dr. Cannell on vitamin D and cancer

2. December 2007 William Davis (0)
Here is Dr. John Cannell's Vitamin D Council Newsletter reprinted in its entirety. It answers some of the questions that came up on The Heart Scan Blog about the recent release of a study of vitamin D and cancer



The Vitamin D Newsletter

December, 2007

Does vitamin D prevent cancer? If it does, will doctors who ignore the research end up with blood on their hands? The press makes it easy for doctors to believe what they want to believe. Below are six stories about the same scientific study; read the six different headlines. According to your a priori beliefs, you can choose the story you want to believe and read that one. Don't feel bad, we all do it. As Walter Lippman once said, "We do not see and then believe, we believe and then we see."


Vitamin D cuts colon cancer death risk



Study Finds No Connection Between Vitamin D And Overall Cancer Deaths



Vitamin D protects against colorectal cancer



Vitamin D May Not Cut Cancer Deaths



Vitamin D protects against colorectal cancer



Scientists advise a vitamin D downgrade as there is no real proof ...




Another option is to read the study yourself.


Freedman DM, et al. Prospective Study of Serum Vitamin D and Cancer Mortality in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Oct 30; [Epub ahead of print]




What Dr. Freedman actually discovered is that when you take a very large group of people (16,818), some as young as seventeen, measure their vitamin D levels, and then wait about ten years to see who dies from cancer, you find 536 die and that a vitamin D level from ten years earlier is not a good predictor of who will die from cancer. However, even a level drawn ten years earlier predicted that those with the lowest level were four times more likely to die from colon cancer, suggesting, as Ed Giovannucci has, that colon cancer may be exquisitely sensitive to vitamin D. Furthermore, 28 women got breast cancer, 20 in the group with the lowest vitamin D level but only 8 in the highest. The breast cancer findings were not statistically significant - even during a very long breast cancer awareness month - but can you imagine what critics at the American Cancer Society would be telling women if the numbers were reversed, if the 20 women who got breast cancer were in the high vitamin D group?



Another large epidemiological study appeared about breast cancer the very next day. This time, the press passed on the story and the American Cancer Society was mum, no editorials by Dr. Lichtenfeld, their spokesman, in spite of breast cancer awareness month.



Abbas S, et al. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer - results of a large case-control study. Carcinogenesis. 2007 Oct 31; [Epub ahead of print]



In the above study, 1,394 women with breast cancer were case-controlled with a similar number of women without breast cancer. The women with breast cancer were three times more likely to have low vitamin D levels. That is a lot of women who may be dying during next year's breast cancer awareness month.



Both of the above studies were epidemiological, not randomized controlled trials. Of course a randomized controlled trial has already shown a 60% reduction in internal cancers in women taking even a modest 1,100 IU per day of vitamin D.



Lappe JM, et al. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.



What is interesting is the difference in the response of the Canadian Cancer Society and the American Cancer Society. The Canadian Cancer Society has advised all Canadians to take 1,000 IU per day - not enough but a good first step - and for immediate additional large scale clinical trials. The Canadians simply performed a risk/benefit analysis. What is the risk of treating vitamin D deficiency versus what are the potential benefits? They quote the American Food and Nutrition Board, which says 2,000 IU/day is safe for anyone over the age on one to take, on their own, without being under the care of a physician. If there is little or no risk, then the next question is what are the potential benefits of treating vitamin D deficiency? This is not quantum mechanics.



Cancer society calls for major vitamin D trial



The Canadians acted because the Canadian government knows it could save billions of dollars by treating vitamin D deficiency.



Vitamin D Deficiency Drains $9 billion From Canadian Health Care ...



If wide spread treatment of vitamin D deficiency became the rule, ask yourself, "Who would be helped and who would be hurt." First ask yourself that question about Canada and then about the USA. Remember, in Canada, the government directly pays for its citizen's health insurance; in the USA, private insurance is the norm. In Canada, the government is realizing they could save billions if vitamin D deficiencies were treated. In the USA, a large segment of the medical industry would be hurt, some anti-cancer drug manufacturers would have to close their doors, thousands of patents would become worthless, lucrative consulting contracts between industry and cancer researchers would dry up.

Both Canadians and Americans are shocked to think their doctors care about money, are in the illness business. In some ways people think of their doctors like they do their local public schools. They know medicine is a business and know doctors do things for money but they don't think their own doctors do. Likewise they think public schools are in bad shape but think their local schools are above average. They think their doctor is above average, like their "Lake Woebegone" kids.

Lake Woebegone Effect

The fact is that doctors, hospitals, regional cancer centers, and the cancer drug manufacturers are all in business to make money and all of these businesses make money off the sick, not off the well. Just a fact, but, as Aldous Huxley once observed, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."



Vitamin D will save the Canadian government enormous amounts of money but will cause widespread economic disruption in the USA. Do the physicians leading the American Cancer Society have strong economic ties to the cancer industry in the form of patents, stock options, and consulting fees? If so, what do you expect them to do? What would you do? It's simple. You would believe what you have to believe, what you need to believe, that is, anything with the word "vitamin" in it is simply the latest Laetrile. Look to Canada, not the USA, to lead the way.



Vitamin D may fight cancer


What about American physicians? They are apparently waiting for the American trial lawyers to smell a tort. After all, the case is quite simple. Doctor, did you advise Mrs. Jones to avoid the sun? Doctor, did you tell her the sun is the source of 90% of circulating stores of vitamin D? Doctor, did you prescribe vitamin D to make up for what the sun would not be making? Doctor, did you measure her vitamin D levels? So you had no way of knowing if your sun-avoidance advice resulted in vitamin D deficiency? Doctor, do you know our expert tested her vitamin D level and it was less than 20? Doctor, did you tell her about any of the studies indicating vitamin D deficiency causes cancer? Doctor, did you know Mrs. Jones has terminal breast cancer and will be leaving behind a loving husband and two young children?

And what about the American Cancer Society? Dr. Lichtenfeld, their spokesman, quickly gave his opinion; from what I can tell the first time he ever commented on a vitamin D study. That is, he has ignored the hundreds of positive epidemiological studies, ignored the incredible randomized controlled trial, but he jumped on this one:

Maybe Vitamin D Isn't The Answer After All

Dr. Lichtenfeld, implied the Canadian Cancer Society has acted precipitously in recommending that all Canadians take 1,000 IU of vitamin D daily. He implied that Americans should placidly wait until more randomized controlled trials, such as Lappe JM, et al (above), accumulate before they address their vitamin D deficiency. That is, nothing should be done until more randomized controlled trials prove vitamin D prevents cancer, one randomized controlled trial is not enough; epidemiological studies are not enough, animal studies are not enough, multiple anti-cancer mechanisms of action are not enough? If that is his position, I challenge him to point to one human randomized controlled trial that proves smoking is dangerous?

If he cannot, then he must admit that the American Cancer Society's position on smoking is entirely derived from epidemiological studies, animal studies, and a demonstrable mechanism of action, not on human randomized controlled trials? Vitamin D not only has hundreds of epidemiological studies, thousand of animal studies, and at least four anti-cancer mechanisms of action, vitamin D deficiency has something smoking does not have, it has a high quality randomized controlled trial. If future randomized controlled trials fail to show vitamin D prevents cancer - and Dr. Lichtenfeld better hope they do - he can have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so." If future randomized controlled trials confirm vitamin D prevents cancer, then he needs to look at his hands, the red he sees is the blood of needless cancer deaths.

John Cannell, MD

The Vitamin D Council

9100 San Gregorio Road

Atascadero, CA 93422



This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you don't want to get the newsletter, please hit reply and let us know.

Remember, we are a non-profit and rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:

The Vitamin D Council

9100 San Gregorio Road

Atascadero, CA 93422

"Yes, Johnnie, there really is an Easter bunny"

30. November 2007 William Davis (13)
A Heart Scan Blog reader recently posted this comment:

You wouldn't believe the trouble I'm having trying to get someone to give me a CT Heart Scan without trying to talk me into a Coronary CTA [CT angiogram]. Every facility I've talked to keeps harping on the issue that calcium scoring only shows "hard" plaque...and not soft.

I also had a nurse today tell me that 30% of the people that end up needing a coronary catheterization had calcium scores of ZERO. That doesn't sound right to me. What determines whether or not someone needs a coronary catheterization anyway?


There was a time not long ago when I saw heart scan centers as the emerging champions of heart disease detection and prevention. Heart scans, after all, provided the only rational means to directly uncover hidden coronary plaque. They also offered a method of tracking progression--or regression--of coronary plaque. No other tool can do that. Carotid ultrasound (IMT)? Indirectly and imperfectly, since it measures thickening of the carotid artery lining, partially removed from the influences that create coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Cholesterol? A miserable failure for a whole host of reasons.

Then something happened. General Electric bought the developer and manufacturer of the electron-beam tomography CT scanner, Imatron. (Initial press releases were glowing: The Future of Electron Beam Tomography Looks Better than Ever.The new eSpeed C300 electron beam tomographic scanner features the industry’s fastest temporal resolution, and is now backed by the strength of GE Medical Systems. Imatron and GE have joined forces to provide comprehensive solutions for entrepreneurs and innovative medical practitioners.)

Within short order, GE scrapped the entire company and program, despite the development of an extraordinary device, the C-300, introduced in 2001, and the eSpeed, introduced in 2003, both yanked by GE. The C-300 and eSpeed were technological marvels, providing heart scans at incredible speed with minimal radiation.

Why would GE do such a thing, buy Imatron and its patent rights, along with the fabulous new eSpeed device, then dissolve the company that developed the technology and scrap the entire package?

Well, first of all they can afford to, whether or not the device represented a technological advancement. Second (and this is my reading-between-the-lines interpretation of the events), it was in their best financial interest. Not in the interest of the public's health, nor the technology of heart scanning, but they believed that focusing on the multi-detector technology to be more financially rewarding to GE.

GE, along with Toshiba, Siemens, and Philips, saw the dollar signs of big money with the innovations in multi-detector technology (MDCT). They began to envision a broader acceptance of these devices into mainstream practice with the technological improvements in CT angiography, a device (or several) in every hospital and major clinic.

Anyway, this represents a long and winding return to the original issue: How I once believed that heart scan centers would be champions of heart disease detection and reversal. This has, unfortunately, not proven to be true.

Yes, there are heart scan centers where you can obtain a heart scan and also connect with people and physicians who believe in prevention of this disease. I believe that Milwaukee Heart Scan is that way, as is Dr. Bill Blanchet's Front Range Preventive Imaging, Dr. Roger White's Holistica Hawaii, and Dr. John Rumberger's Princeton Longevity Center.

But the truth is that most heart scan centers have evolved into places that offer heart scans, but more as grudging lip service to the concept of early detection earned with sweat and tears by the early efforts of the heart scan centers. But the more financially rewarding offering of CT coronary angiograms, while a useful service when used properly, has corrupted the prevention and reversal equation. "Entry level" CT heart scans have been subverted in the quest for profit.

CT angiograms pay better: $1800-4000, compared to $100-500 for a heart scan (usually about $250). More importantly, who can resist the detection of a "suspicious" 50% blockage that might benefit from the "real" test, a heart catheterization? Can anyone honestly allow a 50% blockage to be without a stent?

CT angiograms not only yield more revenue, they also serve as an effective prelude to "downstream" revenue. By this equation, a CT angiogram easily becomes a $40,000 hospital procedure with a stent or two, or three, or occasionally a $100,000 bypass. Keep in mind that the majority of people who are persuaded that a simple heart scans are not good enough and would be better off with the "superior" test of CT angiography are asymptomatic--without symptoms of chest pain, breathelessness, etc. Thus, the argument is that people without symptoms, usually with normal stress tests, benefit from prophylactic revascularization procedures like stents and bypass.

There are no data whatsoever to support this practice. People who have no symptoms attributable to heart disease and have normal stress tests do NOT benefit from heart procedures like heart catheterization. They do, of course, benefit from asking why they have atherosclerotic plaque in the first place, followed by a preventive program to correct the causes.

So, beware: It is the heart scan I believe in, a technique involving low radiation and low revenue potential. CT angiograms are useful tests, but often offered for the wrong reasons. If we all keep in mind that the economics of testing more often than not determine what is being told to us, then it all makes sense. If you want a simple heart scan, just say so. No--insist on it.

Take trust out of the equation. Don't trust people in health care anymore than you'd trust the used car salesman with "a great deal."

Finally, in answer to the reader's last comment about 30% of people needing heart catheterizations having zero calcium scores, this is absolute unadulterated nonsense. I'm hoping that the nurse who said this was taken out of context. Her comments are, at best, misleading. That's why I conduct this Heart Scan Blog and our website, www.cureality.com. They are your unbiased sources of information on what is true, honest, and not tainted by the smell of lots of procedural revenue.

Diabetes: controlled or . . . cured?

28. November 2007 William Davis (37)
Russ had a beer belly, a big protuberant, hanging-over-the belt-on-top-of-skinny-legs sort of beer belly. Except he didn't get it from beer (only). Yes, he did drink beer, up to 3 or 4 per day on weekends, rarely during the week.

Russ got his "beer belly" from snack foods, processed foods, and yes, wheat products.

He came to my office for consultation for unexplained breathlessness. His primary care physician was stumped and asked for an opinion.

So, part of Russ' evaluation included laboratory work. Russ proved to have a blood sugar (glucose) of 136 mg/dl, well into the diabetic range. His insulin level was 102 microunits/ml, way above the desirable range of <10. I interpreted this to mean that Russ had early diabetes but still maintained vigorous pancreatic function, since the pancreas is the abdominal organ responsible for insulin production. In pre-diabetes and early diabetes, insulin levels can be high, reflecting the revved up output of the pancreas. However, the pancreas eventually "burns out," unable to keep up with the demand to product enormous quantities of insulin. That's when blood sugar skyrockets.

Along with the blood sugar and insulin, Russ showed all the expected markers of this syndrome (the "metabolic syndrome"): low HDL of 34 mg/dl, high triglycerides of 257 mg/dl, severe small LDL (80% of total LDL), high c-reactive protein, and high blood pressure.

A heart scan showed a surprisingly small amount of coronary plaque with a score of only 4. Thus, Russ' symptoms were unlikely to represent a coronary issue ("ischemia"). Breathlessness was far more likely to be from 1) his obesity and protuberant abdomen, large enough to encroach on his chest and lung volume, and 2) high blood pressure (which can, in turn, lead to high heart pressure and breathlessness, often called "left ventricular diastolic dysfunction").

I persuaded Russ to eliminate his previously flagrant and abundant over-reliance on wheat products and snack foods. Two months later, 15 lbs lighter, and a modestly less protuberant beer belly, Russ' laboratory evealuation showed:

--Blood sugar 90 mg/dl--normal.

--Insulin 12 microunit/ml--darn near normal.

Blood pressure was down 20 points. Russ' breathlessness was now entirely gone. He has another 30-40 lbs to go, but he's off to a great start. He is now clearly, solidly, and confidently NON-diabetic.

I see experiences like this every day, as do committed diabetes fighters like Jenny at Diabetes Update.

Why isn't this common practice? If pre-diabetes and diabetes can be cured by such a simple approach, why isn't it more widely embraced? After all, what other devastating diseases can claim to have such a simple, straightforward way to achieve cure?

And why does the American Diabetes Association (ADA) actually condone the inclusion of abundant carbohydrates in diabetics? Their modified food pyramid shows the widest part of the pyramid filled with "breads, grains, and other starches."



How about this question taken from a Q&A on the ADA website:

Can I eat foods with sugar in them?

For almost every person with diabetes, the answer is yes! Eating a piece of cake made with sugar will raise your blood glucose level. So will eating corn on the cob, a tomato sandwich, or lima beans. The truth is that sugar has gotten a bad reputation. People with diabetes can and do eat sugar. In your body, it becomes glucose, but so do the other foods mentioned above. With sugary foods, the rule is moderation. Eat too much, and 1) you'll send your blood glucose level up higher than you expected; 2) you'll fill up but without the nutrients that come with vegetables and grains; and 3) you'll gain weight. So, don't pass up a slice of birthday cake. Instead, eat a little less bread or potato, and replace it with the cake. Taking a brisk walk to burn some calories is also always helpful.


The answer is simple. Just as the American Heart Association focuses on ways to deliver the message of palliation, so does the ADA. So ADA diet advice is designed to help diabetics maintain a stable blood sugar on their medication. It is definitely not intended to reverse or eliminate diabetes. My patient Russ would be deep into diabetes on the ADA diet, enjoying his rolls, whole wheat bread, breakfast cereals, and birthday cake.

Once again, another example of the growing irrelevance of the "official" arbiters of health information for those of us looking for reversal of disease.

Study review: cerivastatin

27. November 2007 William Davis (10)
I'd like to start an occasional series of blog posts on The Heart Scan Blog in which I review studies relevant to the whole heart scan score reversal experience.

In a previous post, Don't be satisfied with "deceleration,"I discussed the BELLES Trial (Beyond Endorsed Lipid Lowering with EBT Scanning (BELLES)), in which either atorvastatin (Lipitor), 80 mg, or pravastatin (Pravachol),40 mg, was given to 615 women. Both groups showed an average of 15% annual plaque growth, regardless of which agent was taken and regardless of the amount of LDL cholesterol reduction.

I cited another study in which 471 participants received either Lipitor, 80 mg, or Lipitor, 10 mg. The rate of annual score increase was 25-27%, regardless of drug dose or LDL lowering.

Here's yet another study, a small German experience in 66 patients, with a curious design and using the now-defunct statin drug, cerivastatin (Bayccol, pulled in 2001, nearly simultaneous with the publication of this study, due to greater risk of muscle damage, particularly when used in combination with gemfibrozil). Achenbach et al in Influence of lipid-lowering therapy on the progression of coronary artery calcification: A prospective evaluation reported on this trial in which all participants underwent heart scanning to obtain a heart scan score; no treatment was initiated based on the score. A second scan was obtained after the no treatment period, followed by treatment with cerivastatin, 0.3 mg per day. A third scan was finally obtained.

In year one without treatment, the average increase in heart scan scores was 25%. In year two with cerivastatin, the average increase in heart scan score was 8.8%. In 32 participants who achieved LDL<100 mg/dl on the drug, there was an average modest reduction in heart scan scores of 3.7% (i.e., -3.7%).

Now, that was eye-opening. Why did this small study achieve such startlingly different results from the other two studies that showed relentless progression despite even high doses of Lipitor? That remains unanswered. Was cerivastatin unique among statins? Did the unique two-phase trial design somehow change the outcome by triggering participants to change lifestyle habits after their first scan (since most exhibited an increase in score; they were not "blinded" to their scores). Those questions will remain unanswered, since the drug has been made unavailable. This smal l study had actually been intended to be larger, but was prematurely terminated because of cerivastatin's withdrawal.

This experience is unique, as you can see, compared to the two other studies. But it was also smaller. The results are also different than what I have seen in day-to-day practice when I've seen people treated with statin drugs alone (not cerivastatin, of course): rarely do heart scan scores stop increasing. While slowing does usually occur (18-24% per year rates of annual score increase are very common in people who do nothing but take a statin drug and make modest lifestyle changes), I have personally seen only two people stop their score with this strategy alone. Nobody has ever dropped their score taking a statin alone, in my experience.

You can also see the nature of clinical studies: single or limited interventions instituted in order to control for unexpected or complex effects. If three different treatments are used, then what desirable or undesirable effects, or lack of an effect, is due to which treatment agent?

My experience is that no single treatment stops or reduces heart scan scores. It requires a more rational effort that includes 1) identification of all causes of coronary plaque (e.g., low HDL, high triglycerides, Lp(a), small LDL, deficiency of vitamin D, etc, none of which are substantially affected by statin drugs), and 2) correction of all causes. That simple concept has served us well.

Dr. William Blanchet: A voice of reason

24. November 2007 William Davis (21)
I don't mean to beat this discussion to a pulp, but looking back over the comments posted on www.theHeart.org forum, I am so deeply impressed with Dr. William Blanchet's grasp of the issues, that I posted his articulate and knowledgeable comments again.

Here is one post in which Dr. Blanchet, in response to accusations of trying to profit from heart scans, provides a wonderful summary of the logic and evidence behind the use of heart scans as the basis for heart disease prevention.


Yes, I have seen a dramatic reduction in coronary events.

Of 6,000 active patients, 48% being Medicare age and over, I have seen 4 heart attacks over the last 3+ years. 2 in 85 year old diabetics undergoing cancer surgery, one in a 90 year old with known disease and one in a 69 year old with no risk factors, who was healthy, and had never benefited from a heart scan.

The problem with coronary disease is that we rely on risk factors. Khot et al in JAMA 2003 showed that of 87,000 men with heart attacks, 62% had 0 or 1 major risk factor prior to their MI. According to ATP-III, almost everyone with 0-1 risk factors is low risk and most do not qualify for preventive treatment. EBT calcium imaging could identify 98% of these individuals as being at risk before their heart attack and treatment could be initiated to prevent their MI.

Treating to NCEP cholesterol goals prevents 30-40% of heart attacks. Treating to a goal of coronary calcium stability prevents 90% of heart attacks. Where I went to school, a 40% was an F. Why are we defending this result instead of striving to improve upon it? I am not making this up, look at Raggi's study in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 2004;24:1272, or Budoff Am J Card.[I believe it's the study Dr. Blanchet was referring to.]

I strongly disagree with the assertion that the stress test is a great risk stratifier. Laukkanen et al JACC 2001 studied 1,769 asymptomatic men with stress tests. Although failing the stress test resulted in an increased risk of future heart attack, 83% of the total heart attacks over the next 10 years occurred in those men who passed the stress test. Falk E, Shah PK, Fuster V Circulation 1995;92:657-671 demonstrated that 86% of heart attacks occur in vessels with less than 70% as the maximum obstruction. A vast majority of
patients with less than 70% vessel obstruction will pass their stress test.

Regarding [the] question of owning or referring for EBT imaging, I would be amused if it were not insulting. The mistake that is often made is that EBT imaging is a wildly profitable technology. It is not nearly as profitable as nuclear stress imaging. Indeed there are few EBT centers in the country that are as profitable as any random cardiologist's stress lab.

How can we justify not screening asymptomatic patients? Most heart attacks occur in patients with no prior symptoms and according to Steve Nissen, 150,000 Americans die each year from their first symptom of heart disease. My daughter is at this moment visiting with a friend who lost her father a few years ago to his first symptom of heart disease when she was 8 years old. That is not OK! We screen asymptomatic women for breast cancer risk. Women are 8 times more likely to die from heart disease than breast cancer. We do mass screening for colon cancer and we are over 10 times more likely to die from heart attacks than colon cancer. An EBT heart scan costs 1/8th the cost of a colonoscopy.

So what say we drop the sarcasm and look at this technology objectively. Read the literature, not just the editorial comments. This really does provide incredibly valuable information that saves lives.

Yes, a 90% reduction in heart attacks in my patients compared to the care I could provide 5 years ago when I was doing a lot of stress testing and referring for revascularization. Much better statistics than expected national or regional norms. I welcome your scrutiny.


That's probably the best, most concise summary of why heart scanning makes sense that I've ever heard. And it comes from a primary care physician in the trenches. With just a few paragraphs, Dr. Blanchet, in my view, handily trumps the arguments of my colleagues arguing to maintain the status quo of cholesterol testing, stress tests, and hospital procedures.


Note:
Dr. Blanchett talks openly about his affiliation with an imaging center in Boulder, Colorado, Front Range Preventive Imaging. I'm no stranger to the accusations Dr. Blanchet receives about trying to profit from the heart scan phenomenon. Ironically, heart scanning loses money. It is a preventive test, not a therapeutic, hospital-based procedure. Free-standing heart scan centers that do little else (perhaps virtual colonoscopies) usually manage to pay their bills but make little profit. Hospitals that offer heart scans usually do so as a "loss-leader," i.e., an inexpensive test that brings you in the door in the hopes that you will require more testing.

Accusations of profiteering off heart scans are, to those in the know, ridiculous and baseless. On the contrary, heart scans are both cost-saving and life-saving.

Vitamin D2 rip-offs

23. November 2007 William Davis (21)
Here's a sampling of prescription vitamin D2/ergocalciferol products available:






Prescription ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) (Drisdol brand), 50 caps for $130.84.










Alfcip brand of erogocalciferol (vitamin D), 30 capsules for $28.20.









Ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as Drisdol oral solution, 1 bottle $146.26.










How about vitamin D3/cholecalciferol?



Carlson's brand cholecalciferol (vitamin D3), 120 capsules $5.09.









Cholecalciferol, vitamin D3, is far less expensive than ergocalciferol, vitamin D2. Cholecalciferol is available as a supplement without prescription. Ergocalciferol is available only by prescription.

The price difference must mean that the plant-based form, ergocalciferol, must be far superior to the naturally-occurring human form, vitamin D3.

Of course, that's not true. Dr. Robert Heaney's study is just one of several documenting the inferiority of D2/ergocalciferol, Vitamin D2 Is Much Less Effective than Vitamin D3 in Humans. D2 exerted less than a third of the effect of D3.

In my experience, D2/ergocalciferol often exerts no effect whatsoever. One woman I consulted on came into the office having been prescribed Drisdol capsules, 50,000 units every day for the past 18 months (by mistake by her physician). Blood level of active 25-OH-vitamin D3: Zero.

But the pharmacy and drug manufacturer collected $1413 for her 18-month course. Cost for a 4000 unit per day dose of D3/cholecalciferol: $45--and it would have actually worked.

In my view, prescription vitamin D2 is yet another example of drug manufacturer scams, a product that provides no advantages, costs more, but yields bigger profits.

Yet this wonderful supplement called cholecalciferol, among which Carlson's is an excellent choice, is available to you inexpensively, without prescription, and actually provides the benefits you desire.

Stenosis detection vs. plaque detection

22. November 2007 William Davis (5)
One of the most common misunderstandings encountered by both physicians and the public is that, to create an effective heart disease prevention program, we need tools for atherosclerotic plaque detection. What we do not need is a tool for stenosis detection. (Stenosis means percent blockage. A 50% stenosis means 50% of the diameter of an artery is reduced by atherosclerosis.)

This issue came to mind recently with the ongoing conversation at Heart.org forum, in which the conversation predictably degenerated into a "what good are heart scans when there are better tests to detect blockage" sort of mentality.
They are right: There are better tests to detect stenoses or blockages, such as stress tests, heart catheterization, and CT coronary angiography. If someone is having chest pain or breathlessness, these tests are useful to help understand why. These tests are preludes to stents, bypass surgery, and the like. They are the popular tools in hospitals, the ones that provide entry into the revenue-yielding world of heart disease procedures.

Plaque detection, on the other hand, is principally a tool for the person without symptoms. In this regard, it is more like cholesterol testing. I doubt my colleagues would bash cholesterol because it doesn't reveal blockages. Plaque detection identifies the person who has already started developing atherosclerosis.

Dr. William Blanchett of Colorado articulates this idea well:

EBT calcium imaging not only identifies the vast majority of individuals at risk, it also identifies individuals with minimal risk. In other words, it distinguishes those who are likely to benefit from treatment . . .and it identifies those unlikely to benefit from treatment. Furthermore, the greatest value of EBT calcium imaging is that with serial imaging you can determine who is and who is not responding to treatment.

Those patients not responding to the initial treatment are identified by progression of their calcified plaque on a subsequent scan are then placed on additional therapies. The net result is a remarkable reduction in heart attack rates.

Ahh, the voice of reason. Plaque detection empowers you in your prevention program. If you know how much plaque your begin with, you can track that value to know whether you have having a full effect or not. Stenosis detection, on the other hand, empowers your doctor and provides the irresistible impulse to stent.

Another common objection raised to plaque detection is "why bother if you're going to give everybody a statin anyway?" We know the origins of that argument, don't we? If the only strategy known to your doctor is cholesterol reduction with statin drugs, then perhaps that's right. But, with awareness of all the things that go beyond statin drugs, often make them unnecessary, then knowledge of who should engage in an intensive program of prevention or not is enabled by plaque detection.

Is an increase in heart scan score GOOD?

20. November 2007 William Davis (30)
In response to an earlier Heart Scan Blog post, I don't care about hard plaque!, reader Dave responded:

Hello Dr Davis,

Interesting post about hard and soft plaque. I recently had a discussion with my GP regarding my serious increase in scan score (Jan 2006 = 235, Nov 2007 = 419).

After the first scan we started aggressively going after my LDL, HDL and Trig...196,59,221

And have them down to 103, 65, 92 - we still have a way to go to 60/60/60 [The Track Your Plaque target values]-

So the increase is a surprise, but my doctor said that the increase could in part be cause some of the soft plaque had been converted to hard plaque and the scan would show that conversion.


Dave's doctor then responded to him with this comment:

"Remember that although your coronary calcium score has gone up, this does not mean that you are at greater risk than you were a year ago. Remember that the most dangerous plaque is the not-yet calcified soft plaque, which will not show up on an EBT [i.e., calcium score]. It is only the safe, calcified plaque that can be measured with the EBT. [Emphasis mine.] For your score to go up like it did, while your lipids came down so much, what had to happen was that lots of dangerous unstable plaque was converted to stable, calcified plaque. There are no accepted guidelines for interpreting changes in calcium scores over time, because the scores tend to go up as treatment converts dangerous plaque to safer plaque. We do know that aggressively lowering LDL reduces both unstable and stable plaque, and we know that risk can be further lowered by adjuvant therapy such as I listed above."


Huh?

This bit of conventional "wisdom" is something I've heard repeated many times. Is it true?

It is absolutely NOT true. In fact, the opposite is true: Dave's substantial increase in heart scan score from 235 to 419 over 22 months, representing a 78% increase, or an annualized rate of increase of 37%. This suggests a large increase in his risk for heart attack, not a decrease. Big difference!

Dr. Paulo Raggi's 2004 study, Progression of coronary artery calcium and risk of first myocardial infarction in patients receiving cholesterol-lowering therapy in 495 participants addresses this question especially well. Two heart scans were performed three years apart, with a statin drug initiated after the first scan, regardless of score.

During the period of study, heart attacks occurred in 41 participants. When these participants were analyzed, it was found that the average annual increase in score over the three year period was 42%. The average annual rate of increase in those free of heart attack was 17%. The group with the 42% annual rate of increase--all on statin drugs--the risk of heart attack was 17.2-fold greater, or 1720%.

The report made several other important observations:

--20% of the heart attack-free participants showed reduction of heart scan scores, i.e., reversal. None of the participants experiencing heart attack had a score reduction.
--Only 2 of the 41 heart attacks occurred in participants with <15% per year annual growth, while the rest (39) showed larger increases.
--The intensity of LDL reduction made no difference in whether heart attacks occurred or not. Those with LDL<100 mg/dl fared no better than those with LDL>100 mg/dl.

Dr. Raggi et al concluded:

"The risk of hard events [heart attack] was significantly higher in the presence of CVS [calcium volume score] progression despite low LDL serum levels, although the interaction of CVS change and LDL level on treatment was highly significant. The latter observation strongly suggests that a combination of serum markers and vascular markers [emphasis mine] may constitute a better way to gauge therapeutic effectiveness than isolated measurement of lipid levels."

This study demonstrates an important principle: Rising heart scan scores signal potential danger, regardless of LDL cholesterol treatment. Yes, LDL reduction does achieve a modest reduction in heart attack, but it does not eliminate them--not even close.

These are among the reasons that, in the Track Your Plaque program, we aim to correct more than LDL cholesterol. We aim to correct ALL causes of coronary plaque, factors that can be responsible for continuing increase in heart scan score despite favorable LDL cholesterol values.

So, Dave, please forgive your doctor his misunderstanding of the increase in your heart scan score. He is not alone in his ignorance of the data and parroting of the mainstream mis-information popular among the statin-is-the-answer-to-everything set.

Just don't let your doctor's ignorance permit the heart attack that is clearly in the stars. Take preventive action now.

The Heart.org online debate

20. November 2007 William Davis (9)
There's a fascinating and vigorous debate going on at the Heart.org website among Dr. Melissa Shirley-Walton, the recently publicized proponent of "a cath lab on every corner": Dr. William Blanchet, a physician in northern Colorado; and a Track Your Plaque Member who calls himself John Q. Public.

John Q. has been trying to educate the docs about the Track Your Plaque program. Unfortunately, Dr. Shirley-Walton essentially pooh-poohs his comments, preferring to lament her heavy work load. In her last post, when she discovered that John Q. was not a physician, she threatened to block his posts and delete all prior posts.

However, Dr. Blanchet has emerged as a champion of heart scanning, intensive lipid management, and lipoproteins, much similar to our program. In fact, many of Dr. Blanchet's comments were so similar to mine that John Q. asked me if it was really me! (It is definitely not.)


Here's a sampling of some of the discussion going on now:


Dr. Blanchett started out the discussion by saying:

Stent Insanity
I have no trouble agreeing with the argument that we have initiated the widespread use of DES without adequate study regarding outcomes. Shame on us.

That said, we are ingoring the DATA that shows that most heart attacks occur as a result of non-obstructing plaque and all the talk about which stent to use ignors the majority of individuals at risk. In addition, for a decade we have known that stenting does not improve net outcomes anyway.

What ever happened to effective primary prevention? We discarded EBT calcium imaging like moldy cabbage without even looking at the outcomes DATA. With direction provided by EBT calcium imaging and effective primary prevention, I have been able to reduce myocardial infarction by 90% in my very large Internal Medicine practice. Through effectively identifying patients at risk and measuring success or failure of treatment with serial EBT, I have made the argument as to which stent to use moot. No symptomatic angina and rare infracts equals little need for any stent.

Is anybody listening? Certainly not the cardiologists whose wealth and fortunes are based on nuclaer imaging, angiography and stenting.


Dr. Shirley-Walton, skeptical of Dr. Blanchet's claim of >90% reduction of heart attacks using a prevention program starting with a heart scan:

To rely soley upon a calcium score will deprive you of a lot of information that could be otherwise helpful in the management of your patients.

Without seeming sarcastic, I must refute : "of 6,000 patients I've seen 4 heart attacks in 3 years". Although I certainly hope your statistics are accurate, I will suggest the following:

You've not seen all of the heart attacks since up to 30% of all heart attacks are clinically silent. So unless you are echo'ing or nuclear testing all of these patients in close followup, you aren't certain of your stats.

Secondly, in order to attribute this success to your therapy, you would have to have nearly 100% compliance. In the general population, compliance is often less than 50% with any regimen in any given year of treatment. If you can tell us how you've achieved this level of compliance, we could all take a lesson.



Dr. Blanchett, commenting on his use of heart scanning as a primary care physician:

CAC [coronary artery calcium] is an inexpensive and low radiation exam to identify who is at increased risk for heart attacks.

A study of 222 non-diabetic patients admitted with their first MI found 75% of them did not qualify for cholesterol modifying therapy prior to their initial MI (JACC 2003:41 1475-9). In another study of 87,000 men with heart attacks, 62% had 0 or 1 major risk factors (Khot, et al. JAMA. 2003). Almost all individuals with 0 or 1 risk factor are Framingham "Low risk" and therefore will not qualify for cholesterol lowering therapies. (JAMA. 2001;285:2486-2497)

Risk factors alone are not sufficient. In my practice, of the last 4 patients who have died from heart attacks, none qualified for preventive therapies by NCEP guidelines.

Studies have shown that CAC by EBT provides an independent and incremental predictor of heart attack risk. (1. Kondos et al, Circulation 2003;107:2571-2176, 2. Am Heart J 141. 378-382, 2001, 3. St Francis Heart Study Journal of the American College of Cardiology July, 2005) The old saw that CAC simply reflects risk factors and age is just wrong.

Although CT angiography shows great promise to reduce unnecessary conventional angiography and is helpful in emergency room chest pain evaluation, I do not see CT angiography as a screening study in asymptomatic individuals. 10 times more radiation than EBT calcium imaging plus the risk of IV dye exposure makes CT angiography inconsistent with the principles of a screening test. Taken in the context of a primary care physician's evaluation of heart attack risk, EBT calcium imaging has great value.

Coronary calcium changes management by: 1. Identifying those at risk who do not show up with standard risk stratification (St Francis Heart Study: Journal of the American College of Cardiology July, 2005). 2. Motivating patients to be compliant with therapies (Atherosclerosis 2006; 185:394-399). 3. By measuring serial calcium, we can see who is and who is not responding to our initial treatment so that we can further refine our therapeutic goals (Atherosclerosis, 2004;24:1272).

When used in the primary care preventive setting, CAC imaging is indeed of great incremental value. In my practice, in improves my outcomes so greatly that it compels Melissa Walton-Shirley to question my veracity.


Dr. Melissa Walton-Shirley:

Ahhhhhh.......the aroma of profit making, I thought I smelled it. [Accusing Dr. Blanchett of referring patients for heart scans for personal profit.]

I will tell you that I was a little hurt when I was called "a typical cardiologist with a butcher block mentality" after my primary pci piece for med-gen Med was reviewed by the track your placque [sic] folks.

Though, it's clear that they misunderstood and thought I was cathing for dollars, instead my intention was to "push" for primary PCI for AMI, it left me seething until the blessing of a busy schedule and a forgetful post menopausal brain took its toll.
None the less, an honest open discussion is always welcome here but I would appreciate it if everyone would just divulge their affiliations up front so that the context of their opinions could be better understood.

I also insist that the compliance described by you William B. is rather astounding and a bit unbelieveable, however if it's accurate, you are to be congratulated.



Dr. Blanchett, in response to Dr. Shirley-Walton's statement that she relies on stress testing:

I think that the threshold of comfort you get from stress test stratification is different than what I consider acceptable. It is hard for me to tell a bereaved spouse that the departed did everything I suggested and still died from a MI. Coronary calcium imaging provides me the tool that I need.

Are you aware that there are a number of studies that show a dramatic increase in risk of MI in individuals with an annualized increase in calcified plaque burden of >14%? I consider this to be a valuable measure of inadequacy of medical management. A stress test does not become positive until we have catastrophically failed in medical management. Consequently, even in the patient with “high risk” stratification, one can justify a calcium score to establish a baseline to measure adequacy of primary prevention. Calcium scores by EBT cost about 1/5th the cost of a nuclear stress test and subject the patient to 1/10th the radiation of nuclear imaging and provides more precise information.

Regarding John Q, I do not think that non-medical prospective should be excluded from this blog. I think we as physicians benefit from hearing how the non-physician public views medicine. I have become much better at what I do by listening to my patients and learning from them.


Dr. Blanchett continues:

Yes, I have seen a dramatic reduction in coronary events. Of 6,000 active patients, 48% being Medicare age and over, I have seen 4 heart attacks over the last 3+ years. 2 in 85 year old diabetics undergoing cancer surgery, one in a 90 year old with known disease and one in a 69 year old with no risk factors, who was healthy, and had never benefited from a heart scan.

The problem with coronary disease is that we rely on risk factors. Khot et al in JAMA 2003 showed that of 87,000 men with heart attacks, 62% had 0 or 1 major risk factor prior to their MI. According to ATP-III, almost everyone with 0-1 risk facto is low risk and most are do not qualify for preventive treatment. EBT calcium imaging could have identify 98% of these individuals as being at risk before their heart attack and treatment could be initiated to prevent their MI.

Treating to NCEP cholesterol goals prevents 30-40% of heart attacks. Treating to a goal of coronary calcium stability prevents 90% of heart attacks. Where I went to school a 40% was an F. Why are we defending this result instead of striving to improve upon it? I am not making this up, look at Raggi's study in Ateriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 2004;24:1272, or Budoff Am J Card

Melissa, I strongly disagree with the assertion that the stress test is a great risk stratifier. Laukkanen et al JACC 2001 studied 1,769 asymptomatic men with stress tests. Although failing the stress test resulted in an increased risk of future heart attack, 83% of the total heart attacks over the next 10 years occurred in those men who passed the stress test.
Falk E, Shah PK, Fuster V Circulation 1995;92:657-671 demonstrated that 86% of heart attacks occur in vessels with less than 70% as the maximum obstruction. A vast majority of patients with less than 70% vessel obstruction will pass thier stress test.

William, regarding your question of owning or referring for EBT imaging, I would be amused if it were not insulting. The mistake that is often made is that EBT imaging is a wildly profitable technology. It is not nearly as profitable as nuclear stress imaging. Indeed there are few EBT centers in the country that are as profitable as any random cardiologists stress lab.

How can we justify not screening asymptomatic patients? Most heart attacks occur in patients with no prior symptoms and according to Steve Nissen, 150,000 Americans die each year from their first symptom of heart disease. My daughter is at this moment visiting with a friend who lost her father a few years ago to his first symptom of heart disease when she was 8 years old. That is not OK! We screen asymptomatic women for breast cancer risk. Women are 8 times more likely to die from heart disease than breast cancer. We do mass screening for colon cancer and we are over 10 times more likely to die from heart attacks than colon cancer. An EBT heart scan costs 1/8th the cost of a colonoscopy.

So what say we drop the sarcasm and look at this technology objectively. Read the literature, not just the editorial comments. This really does provide incredibly valuable information that saves lives.

Yes, a 90% reduction in heart attacks in my patients compared to the care I could provide 5 years ago when I was doing a lot of stress testing and referring for revascularization. Much better statistics than expected national or regional norms. I welcome your scrutiny.


John Q. Public jumps into the fray with:

Fascinating, isn't it, that there appear to be two doctors, William Blanchet in this forum and Dr. William Davis, FACC, of cureality.com that both claim to have dramatically reduced risk of heart attack among their patients and/or actual calcium plaque score regression and BOTH are ardent proponents of CT Calcium Scoring?


Despite Dr. Blanchet's persuasive arguments backed up with numerous scientific citations and John Q.'s support, I sense they had no effect whatsoever on Shirley-Walton's way of thinking.

Such are the deeply-entrenched habits of the cardiology community. It will be many years and impassioned pleas to see things in a different light before the wave of change seizes hold.

To learn how to eat . . . try fasting

18. November 2007 William Davis (13)
Curious thing about fasting: It teaches you how to eat.

In previous posts, I've discussed the potential benefits of fasting: reduction of blood pressure, reduction of inflammatory responses, drop in blood sugar, weight loss, and reduced heart attack risk. In my recent Heart Scan Blog post, Fasting and Heart Disease, I discussed the just-released results of a study in people who fast for religious reasons and experience less heart disease.

Fasting can mean going entirely without food and just making do with (plenty of) water, or it can mean variations on "fasting" such as vegetable juice fasts, soy milk fasts, etc.

How can fasting teach you any lessons about food and eating?

People who fast will tell you that the experience:

--Helps you appreciate food tastes when you resume eating. After a fast, flavors are stronger; sensations like sweet, sweet, or salty are sharper; you become reacquainted with the variety of wonderful food textures.

--Makes you realize how you ate too much before your fast. After a fast, you are satisfied with less. You will eat more for taste and enjoyment, less for satiety and mindless indulgence.

--Makes you more mindful of the act of eating. For many of us, eating is an automatic activity that provides fleeting satisfaction. After a fast, each bite of food brings its own special enjoyment.

--Reveals to you how awful you felt when many foods were eaten. For example, many people are physically slightly ill after eating pancakes, pizza, or other highly processed foods but cease to recognize it. Remove the offensive foods entirely and you might realize just how bad you felt.

--Takes away fear of hunger. Many people have a gut-wrenching fear of hunger. It's probably partly instinctive, that animal-like fear of not knowing when your next meal is coming, partly the abnormal, artificial drive to eat ignited by processed foods like wheat and corn syrup.

--Makes you realize just how much of your day is spent in some activity associated with food. Shopping, eating, cleaning up afterwards, thinking and talking about food all occupy an extraordinary portion of everyone's life. A fast can open your eyes to just how much time is spent in these pursuits. Sometimes, gaining an awareness of a mindless, repetitive behavior can provide the first step towards changing direction.


Most people consider a fast for rapid weight loss. But fasting is far more than that. Perhaps fasting has become an integral part of many religious practices because of its capacity for enlightenment, reawakening, revelation, but not of only the spiritual, but also of how far many of us have strayed in diet.

Fasting is what Omnivore's Dilemma author Michael Pollen might describe as looking the pig you're about to eat in the eye, an opportunity to open your eyes to what it is you 've been doing all these years.