Olive oil for gourmets 19. October 2006 William Davis (0) "The finest extra-virgin olive oils should not be used as a medium for hot cooking, but rather as a condiment or a finisher on top of your favorite savory foods. They are expensive, but if stored properly they will last for up to a year..."You all know that olive oil is among the preferred oils to use: rich in monounsaturates, low in saturates, high in polyphenols. For a fascinating perspective for the olive oil gourmet, go to www.npr.org, the website for National Public Radio. (Scroll down to the article or enter olive oil into their site search.) Their article, "Like fine wines, fine olive oils boast subtle joys" provides an insightful discussion on squeezing maximum enjoyment out of this wonderful "functional food".As we emerge from the mis-directed low-fat craze of the past 20 years, we're re-discovering the joys of healthy oils. You'll find some great thoughts here
Vitamin D must be oil-based 18. October 2006 William Davis (10) As part of the Track Your Plaque coronary plaque reversal program, we advocate vitamin D supplementation. Vitamin D has been shown to reduce blood sugar and reduce pre-diabetic tendencies, reduce blood pressure (it's a renin antagonist, a blood pressure hormone), it's far more important for bone health than calcium, and it may help prevent colon cancer, prostate cancer, and multiple sclerosis. And, oh yes, it may facilitate coronary plaque regression.One lesson I've learned is that vitamin D MUST be taken as a oil-based capsule or gelcap. You'll recognize it as a transparent or translucent, sometimes opaque, capsule. The list of ingredients may say something like "cholecalciferol [vitamin D] in a base of soybean oil", indicating that the active ingredient is oil-based. Oil-based vitamin D3 skyrockets blood levels of 25-OH-vitamin D3 in to the normal range reliably and easily. Tablets are a different story. These are generally white powdery tablets. The rise in blood levels of vitamin D3 are minimal, sometimes none. Women will often say "I get vitamin D with my calcium tablets." People taking this form almost always have blood levels of vitamin D that are low, as if they were taking nothing.If you're going to take vitamin D, the oil-based tablets are the way to go. They're not necessarily any more expensive. We've had good experiences with the Nature's Life 2000 unit capsule, as well as preparations from Life Extension. We have had negative experiences with the preparations from GNC, Sam's Club, and Walgreen's, all tablets and non-oil-based.
When is LDL cholesterol NOT LDL cholesterol? 18. October 2006 William Davis (0) Darlene had a high LDL cholesterol, at times as high as 200 mg/dl. Her primary care doctor first tried Mevacor, then Pravachol, then Zocor, then Lipitor. Every statin drug failed to reduce Darlene's LDL below 160 mg/dl, even when maximum doses were used. The higher doses also resulted in nearly intolerable muscle aches and weakness. When we sent Darlene's blood sample off for lipoprotein analysis, a surprise came back: she had a high lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a). This explained a lot. LDL cholesterol is not always just LDL cholesterol. One of the particles that can masquerade as LDL is Lp(a). Darlene's story is typical of many people who've had high cholesterol levels poorly responsive to the statin drugs. That's because their LDL conceals Lp(a), which does not respond to these agents. LDL cholesterol does drop some because there's also some real LDL mixed in.A poor response to statin agents or to nutritional strategies to reduce LDL is a tip-off that Lp(a) may be hidden. The answer: just measure Lp(a)! If you and your doctor don't measure it, you won't know whether or not you have it. Rather than a statin drug, we put Darlen on niacin. Not only did her Lp(a) drop, but her LDL also plummeted.
What is a desirable triglyceride level? 17. October 2006 William Davis (0) Though well-intended, the National Cholesterol Education Panel's Adult Treatment Panel, or ATP-III, (whew!) guidelines for cholesterol have been responsible for loads of misinformation. The intention was to educate the internist or family doctor who treats sore throats, performs Pap smears, administers pneumovax vaccine, treats arthritic knees---and dabbles in heart disease prevention. The ATP-III guidelines are the "Cholesterol for Dummies" approach. What standard guidelines definitely do not represent are the ideal values to achieve. They do not ensure protection from heart disease. This is particularly true of the ATP-III advice to keep triglycerides at or below the "desirable" level of 150 mg/dl. In the Track Your Plaque program, we ask "What is necessary to tip the odds in favor of coronary plaque regresion or reduction of heart scan score?" This is not achieved with a triglyceride of 150. In fact, triglycerides at this level are associated with flagrant abnormalities of lipoprotein patterns. It usually means that processed carbohydrates, particularly wheat products, are occupying too prominent a role in your food choices. It could mean that you're making excessive use of processed foods containining high-fructose corn syrup. It will not respond to a low-fat diet. It will, however, respond vigorously to fish oil. Triglycerides are a crucial aspect of your plaque control program. We aim for 60 mg/dl or less. The ideal level is actually 45 mg/dl. At this level, all abnormal triglyceride-containing lipoproteins finally go away.
Super size me in little bits and pieces 17. October 2006 William Davis (1) Alvin came into the office for consultation on his cholesterol values: LDL 198 mg/dl, HDL, 43 mg/dl, triglycerides 143 mg/dl. He says that he doesn't really try to choose healthy foods but he restricts his overall calorie intake by following the Weight Watcher's exchange approach. Every morning, 7 days a week, Alvin eats a Sausage McMuffin for breakfast. He justified this by skipping lunch to make up for the 450 calories in the Sausage McMuffin, and not eating anything until dinner.Can this work? Can you eat foods with unhealthy ingredients but make up the excessive calories by cutting back elsewhere? The nutritional composition of McDonald's Sausage McMuffin includes 27 grams of total fat (10 gm saturated); 255 mg cholesterol; 950 mg sodium; 31 gm carbohydrate; 2 grams fiber. In other words, it's essentially the same as butter with sugar on it--pure fat, processed wheat, with little fiber or nutritive value. For Alvin, this is an extremely unhealthy way to eat. His lipid patterns are just the tip of the iceberg: multiple hidden factors are also at work to create heart disease, atherosclerosis in other territories outside the heart, diabetes, high blood pressure, and cancer. I think the effects are not much different than what Morgan Spurlock achieved in his Super Size Me documentary, but in little bits and pieces. Eating at McDonald's "restaurants" three times a day yielded frightening changes in his lipids, liver function, kidney function, not to mention his appearance and the way he felt. Alvin is doing the same thing, though in less dramatic fashion. I see this very frequently: people mimicking the experience of Spurlock, just a little at a time, with overindulgence in processed fats and starches. When you seen a set of Mcdonald's golden arches (or any fast food restaurant, for that matter), run as fast as you can in the other direction. Such indulgences, even in small bits and pieces, still creates a mess of your health.
View from the precipice 15. October 2006 William Davis (0) Many people, upon first learning of their CT heart scan score, feel like they're on the edge of a sharp drop. It can feel like you're facing a vast, unknown abyss. At the bottom, all those dreaded things that can happen to you: heart attack, heart failure, hospitals, even dying. I've encountered this "deer in the headlights" look many times. It truly can be frightening to hear that your heart scan score is 300, or 500, or whatever. What I find truly frightening, however, is when your score prompts the usual array of misinformation commonly dispensed by physicians: "That's so bad you need a heart catheterization", "Nobody knows why people get calcified plaque", or "Reversal is impossible". All absolute bunk. Let your fear motivate you to do something about your risk for heart disease. Aim for reversal of your coronary plaque and seek out the tools to achieve this. It is possible and, in fact, we do it all the time. I can't claim 100% success, but the majority of people who engage in an effort like the Track Your Plaque program to reverse coronary plaque succeed. Even a substantial slowing of plaque growth from the expected 30% per year is better than submitting to the conventional approach.At the very least, get both LDL and HDL cholesterol around 60 mg/dl. This alone is a major plus in reducing the risks associated with your heart scan score. It doesn't guaranteee reversal, but it sure tips the odds in your favor.
Organic Rice Krispies? 13. October 2006 William Davis (0) Breakfast cereal manufacturing giant, Kelloggs, is launching a line of three cereals that will carry the "organic" designation: Organic Rice Krispies, Organic Raisin Bran, and Organic Frosted Mini-Wheats. This reminds me of the advertisements I've seen for "fresh fried chicken", or "fresh from the can", or "contains only pure cane sugar". How about organic tobacco? Would that make cigarettes healthier?The TV ad ends with the slogan "Childood is calling!" Oh, those marketers are a shrewd, clever bunch. I worry that they're so clever that most people will fall for these ludicrous tricks. Don't fall for these thinly-shrouded marketing shenanigans. Organic? Who cares. These foods remain unhealthy whether or not they contain pesticide residues. Take a look at the nutritional composition: Rice Krispies, organic or not, is sugar to your body. It is the sort of food that creates pre-diabetes, diabetes, makes us fat, and fans the flames of lipoprotein patterns like small LDL, VLDL, and postprandial particles, all of which is like throwing cow manure on the weed patch of your coronary plaque.
Nuts as functional foods 13. October 2006 William Davis All posts by william-davis Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in American Heart Association stamp of approval 2. June 2007 William Davis (8) The American Heart Association (AHA) has a program called the Heart-Check Mark, an "approval" process that permits a food manufacturer to affix the AHA logo and stamp of approval on various food products. A company simply makes application to the AHA. The application and product details are reviewed and then approved or turned down. To date, 106 companies have obtained the AHA stamp of approval on 768 products. What kinds of products are on the approved list? Here's a sample:--Honey Bunches of Oats--Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats --Cocoa Puffs cereal--Cookie Crisp cereal ("The great taste of chocolate chips in every bite!")There are 764 others. If you doubt this, just go to the store and take a look at the product containers. What the heck is going on here? Most of us with any judgment know that these products are pure sugar. They may contain "no more" than 15-40 grams sugar per sugar, but the principal products--corn, wheat, fructose--mean that these products are, in effect, nearly pure sugar. Yet they carry the AHA stamp of approval. What do products like this cause? It's a long list but the major effects include:--Obesity--Diabetes--Drop in HDL--Rise in triglycerides--Small LDL particles--Heightened inflammation (i.e., C-reactive protein)--Mental cloudinessNeed I go on? Why are products like these and many others deserving of the AHA heart-check approval? Because they lack high fat and saturated fat (3.0 grams, 1.0 grams respectively, by AHA criteria). In other words, just lacking these ingredients means that, to the AHA, they qualify as "heart healthy." By that same line of reasoning, many candy bars are "heart healthy", as are many cookies and cupcakes. What's the reason behind this extraordinary absurdity? Is the AHA stupid? There may be many reasons, but one very suspicious fact becomes immediately obvious when you realize these endorsements product a substantial revenue source for the AHA, since companies must pay for the right to use the heart-check approval mark. Also, just look at the major contributors (millions of dollars) to the AHA: ConAgra, General Mills, Kraft, etc.) You get the picture.Does this make the AHA evil? Not necessarily. But it seriously erodes credibility. it also should make you very leery of any advice that comes from such an agency that is reluctant to bite the food manufacturer hands that feed it.In my view, we simply cannot rely on the AHA for genuine, unbiased heart health advice. "Your heart scan score means nothing" 1. June 2007 William Davis (7) Charles was visibly confused. He'd gotten his CT heart scan after hearing one of the local scan center's ads on the radio. His score 2773, obviously in the 99th percentile for any age. "Do you think the score means anything? My primary doctor said that it was meaningless because it was all in the deep wall of the artery. He said that it has nothing to do with risk for heart attack. As long as I feel good, he says don't do anything."What exactly did his doctor mean, in the "deep wall of the artery"?What the doctor is referring to is the fact that some people with a long history (many years) of diabetes or kidney failure (also for many years) tend to develop calcium deposits in the media, or muscular layer of arteries. The media is the tissue thin layer just below the intima, the most inner layer of arteries that we usually associate with atherosclerotic plaque and the layer that is most prone to calcium accumulation that we score on heart scans.Aging, generally into your late 70s, 80s, and onwards, also increases the likelihood of medial calcification. Lastly, longstanding deficiency of vitamin D encourages medial calcification.Is there any way to distinguish intimal vs medial calcification on a heart scan? No, there is not. Having read many thousands of CT heart scans, I can tell you that there is no practical way in 2007 to tell the difference. Then how did this doctor "know" that Charles' calcium was "deep walled" or medial? Simple: He didn't. This was yet another example of ignorance based on old thinking. Unfortunately, he did Charles a serious disservice by dismissing his heart scan score that predicted a 25% per year risk for heart attack. Interestingly, whether calcium is intimal as in atherosclerotic plaque, or medial, both are strongly associated with risk for heart attack. In other words, if calcium is confined to the intima, heart disease risk is present. If calcium is limited to the media, risk is still present. In all practicality, the only difference we make of the intima vs. media argument (that is, when the distinction has been made by some other means like intracoronary ultrasound, the test that is truly necessary to distinguish the two patterns) is that medial calcification may be more powerfully related to vitamin D deficiency. Thus, someone with heavy medial calcification may require closer attention to maintaining a perfect year-round blood level of 25-OH-vitamin D3. But that's the only practical difference. Vitamin D toxicity? 30. May 2007 William Davis (3) "My primary care doctor said to stop the vitamin D because it's toxic. So I stopped it and I just take a multivitamin. He said that a multivitamin and two glasses of milk a day was all I needed."So proclaimed Eleanor to me. This happens around once every week by doctors frightened of the vitamin D. So I reminded Eleanor that, before starting vitamin D supplementation, her blood level of 25-OH-vitamin D3 had been 17 ng/ml--severe deficiency. On 4000 units per day (oil-based gelcap), her blood level had been 37 ng/ml--still deficient, below the desirable range of 50-60 ng/ml. That's the dose Eleanor's doctor had declared "toxic."When exactly does deficiency develop? There's not full agreement on this, but Dr. Michael Holick of Boston University, among the most experienced and insightful authorities on vitamin D, states that toxicity is more likely when blood levels exceed 150 ng/ml (Nutr Clin Pract. 2007 Jun;22(3):297-304).In other words, Eleanor and her doctor should not be concerned with toxicity, but with the persistent levels of deficiency she is suffering. Some authorities call the behavior of vitamin D "bi-phasic": Deficiency is toxic, excessive levels are toxic. We're really just trying to achieve a middle ground in vitamin D levels that are above deficiency but below toxicity. In reality, deficiency is exceptionally common. In fact, it's the rule around here (northern U.S.), with >95% of everybody we check severely deficient in winter, mildly-moderately deficient in summer. Very few people approach normal levels year round without supplementation. Toxicity, on the other hand, is exceedingly rare. I have seen it once in a woman who was taking a toxic dose of 50,000 units a day on the instructions of her (mis-guided) doctor. Thankfully, no ill-effects developed from this little "experiment."So, it's not toxicity that is the overwhelmingly common worry, but deficiency, severe and sustained. Non-profit hospitals 30. May 2007 William Davis (0) Take a look at your local hospital and you're likely to notice several curious things:1) It is likely non-profit, meaning it enjoys a non-profit status with the Internal Revenue Service and enjoys the tax benefits of not paying taxes on profits. This provides an advantage to tax-protected hospitals. 70% or more of hospitals in the U.S. are "non-profit."2) Non-profit or no, many hospitals operate under the guise of a religious affiliation, e.g., St. Mary's Hospital, Trinity Hospital, All Saints', Jewish Hospital, etc. 3) Executives in non-profit hospitals can make capitalistic salaries. One CEO of a Milwaukee hospital took home $3.7 million dollars in salary last year. That's not including the very substantial perks and business interests in the spin-off businesses the hospital owns, including pharmacies, drug and medical device disitributors, even a venture capital division. "Non-profit" does not have to mean that executives within the operation can't benefit handsomely. That same hospital system spends over $10 million dollars in a year in local marketing for TV ads, print advertising, etc. Ads are slick and professionally produced. Make no bones about it: These are "non-profit" for tax purposes only . They are for-profit in every other sense of the phrase, including rich rewards for the insiders.Guess how those fat executive salaries and large marketing budgets are paid for? That's right: the 12-inch incision in your chest; the four stents, defibrillator, and repeated nuclear stress tests; the revolving door of hospitalization after hospitalization that typifies the "heart patient" experience. See the hospital for what it is: In the 21st century, it is no longer a charitable operation worthy of your volunteer time and donations. It is a business no different than Home Depot, IBM, or--Enron. Yes, they do perform needed services, as well. But the perverse equation that often determines who needs hospitalization and who doesn't, who needs a heart procedure and who doesn't, is not always based on necessity but on financial return. Just ask the CEO. What's the best lipoprotein test? 29. May 2007 William Davis (5) This is a frequent question from Track Your Plaque Members and others interested in improving their heart disease prevention program beyond that of simple-minded cholesterol testing. I obtain lipoprotein testing every day on patients. I can tell you with the confidence of having done thousands of these tests that plain, old-fashioned cholesterol testing is like relying on riding a scooter to work compared to an 8-cylinder modern automobile. The scooter might get you there, but any rain, snow, or long distance to travel and you can just forget it. All too often, lipoprotein testing uncovers abnormalities that standard cholesterol testing simply fails to uncover. So, among the various lipoprotein tests available, which is best?There are three commercial tests available today:1) Gel electropheresis (GGE)--often known by its "brand" name as the Berkeley lipoprotein profile, after Berkeley HeartLabs. GGE uses a gel with an electric field applied to cause lipoproteins to migrate, based on particle size and charge. 2) Vertical auto-profile (VAP)--a form of centrifugation, or high-speed spinning of blood plasma to separate lipoprotein particles.3) Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)--the idea of putting plasma in an NMR (also known as MRI) device to characterize blood proteins. All three tests do an excellent job. All are competitively priced. All have validating data--lots of it--to justify their broad use (though health insurers, in their vast wisdom, would still have you believe that the tests are "experimental"). But is one better? Having done many of all three (though least of VAP), I am partial to Liposcience's NMR. (By the way, I receive no fees from Liposcience to use their test, nor to promote it in any way.) I believe NMR is superior in a few ways:1) I believe that the LDL particle number is the best way to truly quantify LDL, better than apoprotein B and "direct" LDL. 2) It provides what I believe to be more accurate small LDL measures. 3) It provides intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), a post-prandial, or after-eating, measure not available on the other two. Perhaps I'm biased because I use the NMR most frequently. But I've used it because I felt it yielded superior, more clinically believable, data. In truth, all three laboratories do an excellent job and you'd be served fine by obtaining any of the three. But my heart goes to NMR. Vitamin K2, aspirin, fish oil and blood thinning 27. May 2007 William Davis (12) An interesting question came up from one of our Track Your Plaque Members on the Forum. "I am now taking 9 mg of vitamin K1 and 1000 mcg of K2.Does taking this supplement with this much K1 have a counteracting effect on the thinning/anticlotting properties of aspirin and fish oil that I also take?"Great question (along with lots of other greater discussions we have on the Forum.) The answer: Vitamin K should have no effect on the platelet-blocking effects of aspirin or fish oil. The majority of blood clot inhibiting effects of aspirin and fish oil arise from their ability to keep blood platelets from "clumping" (just like the TV commercials for Plavix). Vitamin K, on the other hand, participates in the liver production of blood clotting factors (like II, VII, IX, and X, among others for you curious ones). Thus, vitamin K-dependent clotting factors and platelet-blocking are two separate pathways to forming blood clots. Some of us refer to the difference as "red clots" from the vitamin K pathway and "white clots" from the platelet pathway, since they really do have this different physical appearance. The vitamin K2 conversation, like that about vitamin D, is fascinating for its potential to provide the missing link between the tightly-tied fortunes of bone health and atherosclerosis. Why is someone with a high CT heart scan score far more likely to have osteoporosis? Vitamin D and K2 deficiency may provide the missing link for many people. "Drug no cure for gluttony"
American Heart Association stamp of approval 2. June 2007 William Davis (8) The American Heart Association (AHA) has a program called the Heart-Check Mark, an "approval" process that permits a food manufacturer to affix the AHA logo and stamp of approval on various food products. A company simply makes application to the AHA. The application and product details are reviewed and then approved or turned down. To date, 106 companies have obtained the AHA stamp of approval on 768 products. What kinds of products are on the approved list? Here's a sample:--Honey Bunches of Oats--Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats --Cocoa Puffs cereal--Cookie Crisp cereal ("The great taste of chocolate chips in every bite!")There are 764 others. If you doubt this, just go to the store and take a look at the product containers. What the heck is going on here? Most of us with any judgment know that these products are pure sugar. They may contain "no more" than 15-40 grams sugar per sugar, but the principal products--corn, wheat, fructose--mean that these products are, in effect, nearly pure sugar. Yet they carry the AHA stamp of approval. What do products like this cause? It's a long list but the major effects include:--Obesity--Diabetes--Drop in HDL--Rise in triglycerides--Small LDL particles--Heightened inflammation (i.e., C-reactive protein)--Mental cloudinessNeed I go on? Why are products like these and many others deserving of the AHA heart-check approval? Because they lack high fat and saturated fat (3.0 grams, 1.0 grams respectively, by AHA criteria). In other words, just lacking these ingredients means that, to the AHA, they qualify as "heart healthy." By that same line of reasoning, many candy bars are "heart healthy", as are many cookies and cupcakes. What's the reason behind this extraordinary absurdity? Is the AHA stupid? There may be many reasons, but one very suspicious fact becomes immediately obvious when you realize these endorsements product a substantial revenue source for the AHA, since companies must pay for the right to use the heart-check approval mark. Also, just look at the major contributors (millions of dollars) to the AHA: ConAgra, General Mills, Kraft, etc.) You get the picture.Does this make the AHA evil? Not necessarily. But it seriously erodes credibility. it also should make you very leery of any advice that comes from such an agency that is reluctant to bite the food manufacturer hands that feed it.In my view, we simply cannot rely on the AHA for genuine, unbiased heart health advice.
"Your heart scan score means nothing" 1. June 2007 William Davis (7) Charles was visibly confused. He'd gotten his CT heart scan after hearing one of the local scan center's ads on the radio. His score 2773, obviously in the 99th percentile for any age. "Do you think the score means anything? My primary doctor said that it was meaningless because it was all in the deep wall of the artery. He said that it has nothing to do with risk for heart attack. As long as I feel good, he says don't do anything."What exactly did his doctor mean, in the "deep wall of the artery"?What the doctor is referring to is the fact that some people with a long history (many years) of diabetes or kidney failure (also for many years) tend to develop calcium deposits in the media, or muscular layer of arteries. The media is the tissue thin layer just below the intima, the most inner layer of arteries that we usually associate with atherosclerotic plaque and the layer that is most prone to calcium accumulation that we score on heart scans.Aging, generally into your late 70s, 80s, and onwards, also increases the likelihood of medial calcification. Lastly, longstanding deficiency of vitamin D encourages medial calcification.Is there any way to distinguish intimal vs medial calcification on a heart scan? No, there is not. Having read many thousands of CT heart scans, I can tell you that there is no practical way in 2007 to tell the difference. Then how did this doctor "know" that Charles' calcium was "deep walled" or medial? Simple: He didn't. This was yet another example of ignorance based on old thinking. Unfortunately, he did Charles a serious disservice by dismissing his heart scan score that predicted a 25% per year risk for heart attack. Interestingly, whether calcium is intimal as in atherosclerotic plaque, or medial, both are strongly associated with risk for heart attack. In other words, if calcium is confined to the intima, heart disease risk is present. If calcium is limited to the media, risk is still present. In all practicality, the only difference we make of the intima vs. media argument (that is, when the distinction has been made by some other means like intracoronary ultrasound, the test that is truly necessary to distinguish the two patterns) is that medial calcification may be more powerfully related to vitamin D deficiency. Thus, someone with heavy medial calcification may require closer attention to maintaining a perfect year-round blood level of 25-OH-vitamin D3. But that's the only practical difference.
Vitamin D toxicity? 30. May 2007 William Davis (3) "My primary care doctor said to stop the vitamin D because it's toxic. So I stopped it and I just take a multivitamin. He said that a multivitamin and two glasses of milk a day was all I needed."So proclaimed Eleanor to me. This happens around once every week by doctors frightened of the vitamin D. So I reminded Eleanor that, before starting vitamin D supplementation, her blood level of 25-OH-vitamin D3 had been 17 ng/ml--severe deficiency. On 4000 units per day (oil-based gelcap), her blood level had been 37 ng/ml--still deficient, below the desirable range of 50-60 ng/ml. That's the dose Eleanor's doctor had declared "toxic."When exactly does deficiency develop? There's not full agreement on this, but Dr. Michael Holick of Boston University, among the most experienced and insightful authorities on vitamin D, states that toxicity is more likely when blood levels exceed 150 ng/ml (Nutr Clin Pract. 2007 Jun;22(3):297-304).In other words, Eleanor and her doctor should not be concerned with toxicity, but with the persistent levels of deficiency she is suffering. Some authorities call the behavior of vitamin D "bi-phasic": Deficiency is toxic, excessive levels are toxic. We're really just trying to achieve a middle ground in vitamin D levels that are above deficiency but below toxicity. In reality, deficiency is exceptionally common. In fact, it's the rule around here (northern U.S.), with >95% of everybody we check severely deficient in winter, mildly-moderately deficient in summer. Very few people approach normal levels year round without supplementation. Toxicity, on the other hand, is exceedingly rare. I have seen it once in a woman who was taking a toxic dose of 50,000 units a day on the instructions of her (mis-guided) doctor. Thankfully, no ill-effects developed from this little "experiment."So, it's not toxicity that is the overwhelmingly common worry, but deficiency, severe and sustained.
Non-profit hospitals 30. May 2007 William Davis (0) Take a look at your local hospital and you're likely to notice several curious things:1) It is likely non-profit, meaning it enjoys a non-profit status with the Internal Revenue Service and enjoys the tax benefits of not paying taxes on profits. This provides an advantage to tax-protected hospitals. 70% or more of hospitals in the U.S. are "non-profit."2) Non-profit or no, many hospitals operate under the guise of a religious affiliation, e.g., St. Mary's Hospital, Trinity Hospital, All Saints', Jewish Hospital, etc. 3) Executives in non-profit hospitals can make capitalistic salaries. One CEO of a Milwaukee hospital took home $3.7 million dollars in salary last year. That's not including the very substantial perks and business interests in the spin-off businesses the hospital owns, including pharmacies, drug and medical device disitributors, even a venture capital division. "Non-profit" does not have to mean that executives within the operation can't benefit handsomely. That same hospital system spends over $10 million dollars in a year in local marketing for TV ads, print advertising, etc. Ads are slick and professionally produced. Make no bones about it: These are "non-profit" for tax purposes only . They are for-profit in every other sense of the phrase, including rich rewards for the insiders.Guess how those fat executive salaries and large marketing budgets are paid for? That's right: the 12-inch incision in your chest; the four stents, defibrillator, and repeated nuclear stress tests; the revolving door of hospitalization after hospitalization that typifies the "heart patient" experience. See the hospital for what it is: In the 21st century, it is no longer a charitable operation worthy of your volunteer time and donations. It is a business no different than Home Depot, IBM, or--Enron. Yes, they do perform needed services, as well. But the perverse equation that often determines who needs hospitalization and who doesn't, who needs a heart procedure and who doesn't, is not always based on necessity but on financial return. Just ask the CEO.
What's the best lipoprotein test? 29. May 2007 William Davis (5) This is a frequent question from Track Your Plaque Members and others interested in improving their heart disease prevention program beyond that of simple-minded cholesterol testing. I obtain lipoprotein testing every day on patients. I can tell you with the confidence of having done thousands of these tests that plain, old-fashioned cholesterol testing is like relying on riding a scooter to work compared to an 8-cylinder modern automobile. The scooter might get you there, but any rain, snow, or long distance to travel and you can just forget it. All too often, lipoprotein testing uncovers abnormalities that standard cholesterol testing simply fails to uncover. So, among the various lipoprotein tests available, which is best?There are three commercial tests available today:1) Gel electropheresis (GGE)--often known by its "brand" name as the Berkeley lipoprotein profile, after Berkeley HeartLabs. GGE uses a gel with an electric field applied to cause lipoproteins to migrate, based on particle size and charge. 2) Vertical auto-profile (VAP)--a form of centrifugation, or high-speed spinning of blood plasma to separate lipoprotein particles.3) Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)--the idea of putting plasma in an NMR (also known as MRI) device to characterize blood proteins. All three tests do an excellent job. All are competitively priced. All have validating data--lots of it--to justify their broad use (though health insurers, in their vast wisdom, would still have you believe that the tests are "experimental"). But is one better? Having done many of all three (though least of VAP), I am partial to Liposcience's NMR. (By the way, I receive no fees from Liposcience to use their test, nor to promote it in any way.) I believe NMR is superior in a few ways:1) I believe that the LDL particle number is the best way to truly quantify LDL, better than apoprotein B and "direct" LDL. 2) It provides what I believe to be more accurate small LDL measures. 3) It provides intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), a post-prandial, or after-eating, measure not available on the other two. Perhaps I'm biased because I use the NMR most frequently. But I've used it because I felt it yielded superior, more clinically believable, data. In truth, all three laboratories do an excellent job and you'd be served fine by obtaining any of the three. But my heart goes to NMR.
Vitamin K2, aspirin, fish oil and blood thinning 27. May 2007 William Davis (12) An interesting question came up from one of our Track Your Plaque Members on the Forum. "I am now taking 9 mg of vitamin K1 and 1000 mcg of K2.Does taking this supplement with this much K1 have a counteracting effect on the thinning/anticlotting properties of aspirin and fish oil that I also take?"Great question (along with lots of other greater discussions we have on the Forum.) The answer: Vitamin K should have no effect on the platelet-blocking effects of aspirin or fish oil. The majority of blood clot inhibiting effects of aspirin and fish oil arise from their ability to keep blood platelets from "clumping" (just like the TV commercials for Plavix). Vitamin K, on the other hand, participates in the liver production of blood clotting factors (like II, VII, IX, and X, among others for you curious ones). Thus, vitamin K-dependent clotting factors and platelet-blocking are two separate pathways to forming blood clots. Some of us refer to the difference as "red clots" from the vitamin K pathway and "white clots" from the platelet pathway, since they really do have this different physical appearance. The vitamin K2 conversation, like that about vitamin D, is fascinating for its potential to provide the missing link between the tightly-tied fortunes of bone health and atherosclerosis. Why is someone with a high CT heart scan score far more likely to have osteoporosis? Vitamin D and K2 deficiency may provide the missing link for many people.