All posts by william-davis

Be patient with niacin

19. January 2007 William Davis (0)

Mel's HDL started at 37 mg/dl one year ago. Mel had several other abnormal lipoprotein patterns along with his HDL (inc. small LDL and Lp(a)), but HDL was clearly a crucial factor in his panel.

With a heart scan score of 1166, we needed to raise Mel's HDL to the Track Your Plaque target of 60 mg/dl. So Mel started niacin, our number one method to raise HDL, in addition to reducing his exposure to wheat products and other high glycemic index foods; increasing his physical activity; trying to reduce his excess tummy fat; fish oil; dark chocolate (2 oz per day) and red wine (1-2 glasses per day, preferably dark French reds). The form of niacin we often choose is SloNiacin (Upsher Smith), available over-the-counter for about $12-14 per 100 tablets.

Mel started out with niacin 500 mg per day at dinner, increased to 1000 mg at dinner after four weeks. Although this is usually too soon to reassess HDL, Mel insisted. His HDL 41 mg/dl. Mel's disappointment was palpable. He was the usual type A personality: he wanted his HDL higher--now! So Mel insisted that we increase niacin to 1500 mg per day. (We never go higher than this if low HDL or small LDL is the indication for niacin; only when Lp(a) is present do we go higher.)

Six months into this process, HDL: 45 mg/dl. Still a sluggish response.

One year later, HDL: 68 mg/dl. Finally!

That is typical for niacin, as well as combination of lifestyle changes Mel made. None of them result in an immediate rise in HDL; all take months to 1-2 years to exert full HDL-raising effect.

Think of HDL as the 82-year old grandma who takes a long time to cross the street-she does get there!

Note: Doses of niacin >500 mg per day should be taken with medical supervision.

Can vitamin D be a SOLE risk factor?

18. January 2007 William Davis (6)

Here's a crazy question. It occurred to me as I was talking to Drew, a slender, active 54-year old dentist with no bad habits including no smoking.

Drew's heart scan score was 222. His lipoprotein analysis mostly revealed a lot of nothing, which is unusual. The only pattern that showed up was a modestly high LDL of 122 mg/dl with a very slight excess of small LDL. That's it. I would not be satisfied that these were sufficient cause for Drew's level of coronary plaque.

Drew's 25-OH-vitamin D3 level: 15 ng/ml--severe deficiency--despite the fact that his doctor had suggested that he take a vitamin D2 preparation. In other words, Drew had been profoundly deficient, probably for years.

Given the unimpressive cholesterol and lipoprotein values, could vitamin D serve as a trigger for coronary plaque all by itself?

I don't have an answer and know of nobody else who does. However, my opinion is that vitamin D is indeed a potent risk that can cause heart disease as a sole risk factor.

Perhaps it's another piece of circumstantial evidence suggesting that vitamin D has an enormous influence on health, including coronary plaque. Interestingly, the only other health problem Drew has had is prostate cancer, treated a few years ago with prostate removal and radiation. Good evidence suggests that vitamin D deficiency escalates risk of prostate cancer substantially.

By the way, I've seen people taking vitamin D2 preparations, called "ergocalciferol," who are every bit as deficient as those who take no vitamin D at all. Avoid D2 or ergocalciferol preparations: they're worthless.

Does fish oil raise LDL cholesterol?

17. January 2007 William Davis (1)

Katie had an LDL (conventionally calculated) of 87 mg/dl, HDL of 48 mg/dl.

She added fish oil, 6000 mg per day. Three months later her LDL was 118 mg/dl, HDL 54 mg/dl. In other words, LDL increased by 31 mg. What gives?

Several studies have, indeed, shown that fish oil raises LDL cholesterol, usually by 5-10 mg/dl. Occasionally, it may be as much as 20-30.

Unfortunately, many physicians often assume that it's the (minor) cholesterol content of fish oil capsules, or some vague, undesirable effect of fish oil. It's nothing of the kind.

Since we based Katie's program on (NMR) lipoprotein analysis, not conventional lipids (HDL, calculated LDL, triglycerides, total cholesterol), I knew that Katie also had a severe excess of intermediate-density lipoprotein, or IDL, and very-low density lipoproteins, VLDL. This signifies that after a meal, dietary fats persist for 12, 24,or more hours. Fish oil is a very effective method to clear IDL and VLDL, though sometimes it also causes a shift of some IDL and VLDL into the LDL class. Thus, the apparent increase in LDL.

Another contributor: Conventional LDL is a calculated value, not measured. The calculation for LDL is thrown off by any reduction in HDL or rise in triglycerides. In Katie's case, the rise in HDL from 48 to 54 means that calculated LDL is becoming more accurate and rising towards the true measured value. At the start, Katie's true measured LDL was 122 mg/dl, 35 mg higher than the calculated value. Calculated LDL is therefore approximating measured LDL more accurately as HDL rises.

The most important lesson to learn is that, if LDL rises significantly on fish oil and you haven't had lipoproteins formally measured, there may have been a substantial postprandial abnormality like IDL that was unrecognized.

Heart disease is everywhere

16. January 2007 William Davis (0)

If you ever need convincing that heart disease is everywhere, you should do what I do: subscribe to Google Alerts and have them forward news anytime the search phrase "heart attack" crosses the web. (Just go to Google, click on "more" to the right of the search bar, and follow the links.)

Some recent samples:

Workmates resuscitate driver after heart attack

A woman coal mine truck driver had a heart attack and required resuscitation with a defibrillator 3 times on the way to the hospital.

Heart attack kills groom at reception

A 34-year old man died during his wedding reception, leaving behind his 26-year old new wife.

Heart attack ruled as cause of crash

An Alabama man drove his pick-up truck into oncoming traffic while suffering a heart attack.

Heart-attack victim to return to Hamburg stage

Country music artist, Michael Harding, suffered a heart attack and cardiac arrest during a performance. He is apparently recovered and returning to the stage.

That's just a sample from the last two days. While you and I are carry on a conversation on reversal of heart disease, our neighbors and friends drop over every day. Even though I witness successful heart disease reversal routinely, the rest of the world is not participating.

Pass it on: Coronary disease is identifiable, preventable, controllable, and reversible.

Watch your weight plummet:Be a super vegetarian

14. January 2007 William Davis (0)

Here's a neat trick for losing weight: Become a strict vegetarian for 3 days.

Before you yawn or say "Yecchhhh!", let me elaborate.

Pick some time period. It doesn't have to be 3 days. It could be 2 days, or 5 days, or two weeks. But, for the period you choose, eat only vegetables. No meat, cereals, breads, milk, cookies, etc.

Vegetables alone could get monotonous, so make them interesting. Possibilities include:

--Hummus--add a little bit of olive-oil, chopped garlic, paprika, red pepper.

--Tabouleh--I get mine from Trader Joe's and it's delicious.

--Salsa--Low in calories, rich in lycopene and other flavonoids, with no nutritional downside. Also, pico de gallo--chopped tomatoes, onions, jalapeno chiles, cilantro, cucumbers.

--Mustards--hot, yellow, brown, spicy, gourmet, horseradish, etc.

--Cocktail sauce--i.e., ketchup and horseradish. Use the low-carb ketchup made without high fructose corn syrup.

--Tapenades--e.g., olive tapenade made with chopped olives, capers, and olive oil.
--Pesto-made with basil, garlic, and olive oil.

--Spices and herbs--basil, arugula, peppers, mustard powder, garlic, cilantro, ginger, etc.

--Vinegars--wine, Balsamic, rice, apple cider.

--Infused olive oils--infused with garlic is especially delicious,e.g., added to hummus.

--Bean dips--white bean dip, roasted bean dip, etc.

With the varieties of ways to jazz up your vegetables, you couldn't possibly be bored.

For example, for breakfast on day 1, eat sliced cucumbers and green peppers dipped in garlic-infused olive oil hummus and a handful of almonds. For a snack, some walnuts, sunflower seeds, sliced zucchini dipped in salsa. For lunch, a salad with an olive oil and balsamic vinegar dressing. For dinner, tablouleh, a cucumber and tomato salad, celery sticks dipped in pico de gallo.

All vegetables can be eaten without restricting portion size, since calorie content of vegetables are so low compared to other calorie-dense foods. (See The Heart Scan Blog from a few days back, "One bit or many mouthfuls?" at http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/one-bite-or-many-mouthfuls.html.)

This approach works nearly as well as fasting. A half-pound per day weight loss or more is common and painless. You'll also feel great living on low glycemic index foods.

(Photos courtesy Wikipedia.)

Dr. Agatston to the rescue

12. January 2007 William Davis (0)

Dr. Arthur Agatston, author of wildly successful South Beach Diet, has just released a new book titled The South Beach Heart Program. Dr. Agatston has started on a media speaking circuit to promote his book and concepts.

A reporter from Time, who interviewed Dr. Agatston, commented:

". . .not enough doctors prescribe niacin for their heart patients, even though the medicine is a proven treatment for raising 'good' cholesterol. Physicians are reluctant, Agatston suggests, because niacin requires diligent follow-up to watch for side effects, taking time that most primary-care practices cannot afford. On the other hand, he says, too many doctors are performing heart operations that represent a financial windfall for hospitals. Bottom line: there isn't as much money to be made in prevention as in treatment."

Amen.

Dr. Agatston echoes many of the concepts that the Track Your Plaque program advocates. His notoriety is going to help disseminate the idea that 1) CT heart scans are the #1 method to identify hidden atherosclerotic coronary plaque, 2) taking control of your heart scan score is the best way to seize hold of your future, and 3) the present-day popularity of heart procedures like stents and bypass is intolerable, inexcusable, and needs to be reined back.

Agatston also brings great credibility and fairness to the conversation and his comments will gain tremendous attention in the press and with the public.

When is a vitamin not a vitamin?

12. January 2007 William Davis (0)

When it's a hormone.

That's the stand that several researchers in vitamin D have taken and I think they're right. Dr. John Cannell has made a fuss over this in his www.vitamindcouncil.com website.

Structurally, vitamin D is most closely related to testosterone, estrogen, and cortisol. You wouldn't call testosterone vitamin T, would you?

Vitamins are also meant to be obtained from food. Yes, vitamin D is in milk but only because humans are required to put it there to prevent childhood rickets. Otherwise, the only substantial food source of vitamin D is in oily fish like salmon and then only a modest quantity.

Vitamin D is cholecalciferol, a hormone. Deficiencies of hormones can have catastrophic consequences. Imagine that every winter your thyroid gland shuts down and produced no thyroid hormone. You'd get very ill, gain 30 lbs, lose your hair, feel awful.

That's what happens when you're sun deprived and thereby deficient in cholecalciferol--you're deficient in a hormone. And it happens to most of us every year for many months.

I continue to witness spectacular effects by bringing 25-OH-vitamin D3 blood levels to 50 ng/ml with supplementation, including an apparent surge in success dropping heart scan scores.

An epidemic of heart disease reversal

10. January 2007 William Davis (3)

Heart disease reversal is nothing new in my office. However, I have to admit that it's not something that generally happens each and every day.

As our approach is refined, we are witnessing an unprecedented frequency of plaque reversal. Since Monday (today is Tuesday), I've seen four people who have regressed their coronary plaque and dropped their heart scan score.

Pat was the most recent addition to this list. At age 53, I was honestly surprised at the ease of dropping her heart scan score from 128 to 42 in the space of a year. I was surprised because among her lipoprotein patterns was the dreaded combination of lipoprotein(a) and small LDL, probably the most aggressive risk for heart disease I know of and also among the most difficult to gain control over. She also suffered a deep personal tragedy in her family, an emotional convulsion that can sometimes wipe out any hope of plaque reversal.

I'm hopeful that this virtual epidemic of heart disease reversal continues. And I hope that you participate in it.

Second heart scan and heart attack risk

9. January 2007 William Davis (0)

At first, Joe felt disappointed, defeated, and frightened. After his heart scan, a radiologist at the center told him that his score of 264 was moderately high. He told Joe that he was at moderate risk for heart attack and that a nuclear stress test was going to be required.

This left Joe feeling confused. After all he'd had a heart scan 18 months earlier and his score was 278, 5% higher.

I reassured Joe that the radiologist had not been aware that Joe had a prior heart scan. The radiologist didn't know that Joe's heart scan score had actually been reduced.

In fact, Joe's risk for heart attack was not moderate--it is now very low, since his score was 5% lower. While growing plaque is active plaque, shrinking plaque is inactive plaque and thereby at far less risk for heart attack.

I wrote about this phemonenon in a previous Blog: When is a heart scan score of 400 better than 200? at http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html. When you've had more than one scan, the risk for heart attack suggested by the score takes a back seat to the rate of change of your score. In other words, even though Joe's score of 264 represented a moderate risk (of approximately 3% per year, roughly 30% over 10 years), this no longer held true, since it actually represented a 5% decrease over a previous score.

Joe's risk for heart attack is probably close to zero. ALWAYS view your second (or any subsequent) heart scan score in the context of your previous score, not in isolation.

Track Your Plaque newsletter subscribers: We will detail more of Joe's story in the coming January 2007 newsletter. If you'd like to read or subscribe to the newsletter, go to http://www.cureality.com/f_scanshow.asp.

Heart scan curiosities #5

8. January 2007 William Davis (1)

Despite the controversy over drug-coated stents, I maintain that the best stent is no stent at all.

Yes, there are indeed times when such things are necessary, but not with the frequency that they are implanted nowadays.

Another reason why stents are an undesirable phenemenon is that they muck up your heart scan. Take a look:

The long white object in the center is a stent in the left anterior descending artery of this 60 year old man. Just beyond the stent (at about 1 o'clock from the stent) is a plaque that could be scored. However, you can see that, with the presence of the stent, the bulk of this artery is no longer "scorable". If this man wishes to "track his plaque", he will have to be content with tracking only the circumflex and right coronary arteries, the other two arteries without stents.

The stainless steel or similar metallic materials of current stents simply prevent us from seeing through them for plaque scoring purposes. It's best if you can simply avoid getting one for this and other reasons.

Track Your Plaque Members: Watch for the upcoming editorial by our Heart Hawk on drug-eluting stents.

The case builds against wheat

29. October 2007 William Davis (21)

Looking back over the past few posts I've made about the adverse health effects of wheat, I was surprised to see just how many people have posted descriptions of their dramatic experiences following this route.

While I've seen it in real life many times, it always helps to have corroboration from others. Here is what a number of Heart Scan Blog readers and commenters have said:

Barbara W said:

It's true! We've done it. My husband and I stopped eating all grains and sugar in February. At this point, we really don't miss them any more. It was a huge change, but it's worth the effort. I've lost over 20 pounds (10 to go)and my husband has lost 45 pounds (20 to go). On top of it, our body shapes have changed drastically. It is really amazing. I've got my waist back (and a whole wardrobe of clothes) - I'm thrilled.

I'm also very happy to be eating foods that I always loved like eggs, avocados, and meats - without feeling guilty that they're not good for me.

With the extremely hot weather this week in our area, we thought we'd "treat" ourselves to small ice cream cones. To our surprise, it wasn't that much of a treat. Didn't even taste as good as we'd anticipated. I know I would have been much more satisfied with a snack of smoked salmon with fresh dill, capers, chopped onion and drizzled with lemon juice.

Aside from weight changes, we both feel so much better in general - feel much more alert and move around with much greater flexibility, sleep well, never have any indigestion. We're really enjoying this. It's like feeling younger.

It's not a diet for us. This will be the way we eat from now on. Actually, we think our food has become more interesting and varied since giving up all the "white stuff". I guess we felt compelled to get a little more creative.

Eating out (or at other peoples' places) has probably been the hardest part of this adjustment. But now we're getting pretty comfortable saying what we won't eat. I'm starting to enjoy the reactions it produces.

Weight loss, increased energy, less abdominal bloating, better sleep--I've seen it many times, as well.

Dotslady said:

I was a victim of the '80s lowfat diet craze - doc told me I was obese, gave me the Standard American Diet and said to watch my fat (I'm not a big meat eater, didn't like mayo ... couldn't figure out where my fat was coming from! maybe the fries - I will admit I liked fries). I looked to the USDA food pyramid and to increase my fiber for the constipation I was experiencing. Bread with 3 grams of fiber wasn't good enough; I turned to Kashi cereals for 11 years. My constipation turned to steattorrhea and a celiac disease diagnosis! *No gut pains!* My PCP sent me to the gastroenterologist for a colonscopy because my ferritin was a 5 (20 is low range). Good thing I googled around and asked him to do an endoscopy or I'd be a zombie by now.

My symptoms were depression & anxiety, eczema, GERD, hypothyroidism, mild dizziness, tripping, Alzheimer's-like memory problems, insomnia, heart palpitations, fibromyalgia, worsening eyesight, mild cardiomyopathy, to name a few.

After six months gluten-free, I asked my gastroenterologist about feeling full early ... he said he didn't know what I was talking about! *shrug*

But *I* knew -- it was the gluten/starches! My satiety level has totally changed, and for the first time in my life I feel NORMAL!

Feeling satisfied with less is a prominent effect in my experience, too. You need to eat less, you're driven to snack less, less likely to give in to those evil little bedtime or middle-of-the-night impulses that make you feel ashamed and guilty.

An anonymous (female) commenter said:

My life changed when I cut not only all wheat, but all grains from my diet.

For the first time in my life, I was no longer hungry -no hunger pangs between meals; no overwhelming desire to snack. Now I eat at mealtimes without even thinking about food in between.

I've dropped 70 pounds, effortlessly, come off high blood pressure meds and control my blood sugar without medication.

I don't know whether it was just the elimination of grain, especially wheat, or whether it was a combination of grain elimnation along with a number of other changes, but I do know that mere reduction of grain consumption still left me hungry. It wasn't until I elimnated it that the overwhelming redution in appetite kicked in.

As a former wheat-addicted vegetarian, who thought she was eating healthily according to all the expert advice out there at the time, I can only shake my head at how mistaken I was.

That may be a record for me: 70 lbs!!

Stan said:

It's worth it and you won't look back!

Many things will improve, not just weight reduction: you will think clearer, your reflexes will improve, your breathing rate will go down, your blood pressure will normalize. You will never or rarely have a fever or viral infections like cold or flu. You will become more resistant to cold temperature and you will rarely feel tired, ever!

Ortcloud said:

Whenever I go out to breakfast I look around and I am in shock at what people eat for breakfast. Big stack of pancakes, fruit, fruit juice syrup, just like you said. This is not breakfast, this is dessert ! It has the same sugar and nutrition as a birthday cake, would anyone think cake is ok for breakfast ? No, but that is exactly the equivalent of what they are eating. Somehow we have been duped to think this is ok. For me, I typically eat an omelette when I go out, low carb and no sugar. I dont eat wheat but invariably it comes with the meal and I try to tell the waitress no thanks, they are stunned. They try to push some other type of wheat or sugar product on me instead, finally I have to tell them I dont eat wheat and they are doubly stunned. They cant comprehend it. We have a long way to go in terms of re-education.

Yes. Don't be surprised at the incomprehension, the rolled eyes, even the anger that can sometimes result. Imagine that told you that the food you've come to rely on and love is killing you!

Anne said:

I was overweight by only about 15lbs and I was having pitting edema in my legs and shortness of breath. My cardiologist and I were discussing the possible need of an angiogram. I was three years out from heart bypass surgery.

Before we could schedule the procedure, I tested positive for gluten sensitivity through www.enterolab.com. I eliminated not only wheat but also barley and rye and oats(very contaminated with wheat) from my diet. Within a few weeks my edema was gone, my energy was up and I was no longer short of breath. I lost about 10 lbs. The main reason I gave up gluten was to see if I could stop the progression of my peripheral neuropathy. Getting off wheat and other gluten grains has given me back my life. I have been gluten free for 4 years and feel younger than I have in many years.

There are many gluten free processed foods, but I have found I feel my best when I stick with whole foods.

Ann has a different reason (gluten enteropathy, or celiac disease) for wanting to be wheat-free. But I've seen similar improvements that go beyond just relief of the symptoms attributable to the inflammatory intestinal effects of gluten elimination.

Wccaguy said:

I have relatively successfully cut carbs and grains from my diet thus far.

Because I've got some weight to lose, I have tried to keep the carb count low and I've lost 15 pounds since then.

I have also been very surprised at the significant reduction in my appetite. I've read about the experience of others with regard to appetite reduction and couldn't really imagine that it could happen for me too. But it has.

A few weeks ago, I attended a party catered by one of my favorite italian restaurants and got myself offtrack for two days. Then it took me a couple of days to get back on track because my appetite returned.

Check out Jimmy Moore's website for lots of ideas about variations of foods to try. The latest thing I picked up from Jimmy is the good old-fashioned hard boiled egg. Two or three eggs with some spicy hot sauce for breakfast and a handful of almonds mid-morning plus a couple glasses of water and I'm good for the morning no problem.

I find myself thinking about lunch not because I'm really hungry but out of habit.

The cool thing too now is that the more I do this, the more I'm just not tempted much to do anything but this diet.

Going wheat-free, along with a reduction in processed sugary foods like Hawaiian Punch, sodas, and candy, is the straightest, most direct path I know of to lose weight, obtain all the health benefits listed by our commenters, as well as achieve the lipoprotein corrections we seek, like reduction of small LDL particles and rise in HDL, in the Track Your Plaque program.

Cheers to flavonoids

28. October 2007 William Davis (14)

The case in favor of healthful flavonoids seems to grow bit by bit.

Flavonoids such as procyanadins in wine and chocolate, catechins in tea, and those in walnuts, pomegranates, and pycnogenol (pine bark extract) are suspected to block oxidation of LDL (preventing its entry into plaque), normalize abnormal endothelial constriction, and yield platelet-blocking effects (preventing blood clots).

Dr. Roger Corder is a prolific author of many scientific papers detailing his research into the flavonoids of foods, but wine in particular. He summarizes his findings in a recent book, The Red Wine Diet. Contrary to the obvious vying-for-prime-time title, Dr. Corder's compilation is probably the best discussion of flavonoids in foods and wines that I've come across. Although it would have been more entertaining if peppered with more wit and humans interest, given the topic, its straightfoward, semi-academic telling of the story makes his points effectively.

Among the important observations Corder makes is that regions of the world with the greatest longevity also correspond to regions with the highest procyanidin flavonoids in their wines.

Regading the variable flavonoid content of various wines, he states:

Although differences in the amount of procyanidins in red wine clearly occur because of the grape variety and the vineyard environment, the winemaker holds the key to what ends up in the bottle. The most important aspect of the winemaking process for ensuring high procyanidins in red wines is the contact time between the liquid and the grape seeds during fermentation when the alcohol concentration reaches about 6 percent. Depending on the fermentation temperature, it may be two to three days or more before this extraction process starts. Grape skins float and seeds sink, so the number of times they are pushed down and stirred into the fermenting wine also increases extraction of procyanidins. Even so, extraction is a slow process and, after fermentation is complete, many red wines are left to macerate with their seeds and skins for days or even weeks in order to extract all the color, flavor, and tannins. Wines that have a contact time of less than seven days will have a relatively low level of procyanidins. Wines with a contact time of ten to fourteen days have decent levels, and those with contact times of three weeks or more have the highest.

He points out that deeply-colored reds are more likely to be richer in procyanidins; mass-produced wines that are usually "house-grade" served at bars and restaurants tend to be low. Some are close to zero.

Wines rich in procyanidins provide several-fold more, such that a single glass can provide the same purported health benefit as several glasses of a procyanidin-poor wine.

So how do various wines stack up in procyanidin content? Here's an abbreviated list from his book:

Australian--tend to be low, except for Australian Cabernet Sauvignon which is moderate.

Chile--only Cabernet Sauvignon stands out, then only moderate in content.

France--Where to start? The French, of course, are the perennial masters of wine, and prolonged contact with skins and seeds is usually taken for granted in many varieties of wine. Each wine region (French wines are generally designated by region, not by variety of grape) can also vary widely in flavonoid content. Nonetheless, Bordeaux rate moderately; Burgundy low to moderate (except the village of Pommard); Languedoc-Roussillon moderate to high (and many great bargains in my experience, since these producers live in the shadow of its norther Bordeaux neighbors); Rhone (Cote du Rhone) moderate to high, though beware of their powerful "barnyard" character upon opening; decanting is wise.

Italy--Much red Italian wine is made from the Sangiovese grape and called variously Chianti, Valpolicella, and "super-Tuscan" when blended with other varietals. Corder rates the southern Italian wines from Sicily, Sardinia, and the mainland as high in procyanidins; most northern varieties are moderate.

Spain--Moderate in general.

United States--Though his comments are disappointingly scanty on the U.S., he points out that Cabernet Sauvignon is the standout for procyanidin content. He mentions only the Napa/Sonoma regions, unfortunately. (I'd like to know how the San Diego-Temecula and Virginian wines fare, for instance.)

The winner in procyanidin content is a variety grown in the Gers region of southwest France, a region with superior longevity of its residents. The wines here are made with the tannat grape within the Madiran appellation; wines labeled "Madiran" must contain 40% or more tannat to be so labeled (such is a quirk of French wine regulation). However, among the producers Dr. Corder lists are Chateau de Sabazan, CHateau Saint-Go, Chateau du Bascou, Domaine Labranche Laffont, and Chateau d'Aydie. (A more complete can be found in his book.)

How does this all figure into the Track Your Plaque program? Can you succeed without red wine? Of course you can. I doubt you could do it, however, without some attention to flavonoid-rich food sources, whether they come from spinach, tea, chocolate, beets, pomegranates, or red wine.

Though my wife and I love wine, I confess that I've never personally drank or even seen a French Madiran wine. Any wine afficionados with some advice?

Wheat and the hunger factor

28. October 2007 William Davis (20)

Low carbohydrate diets are becoming increasingly popular. In my experience, they also work exceptionally well.

However, I have observed a specific aspect of low-carb diets that deserves special attention: When wheat products in particular are eliminated, hunger plummets enormously.

It seems peculiar to wheat. Other high-glycemic index carbohydrates like a baked potato or white rice, for instance, don't seem to have the capacity to trigger appetite like a handful of pretzels or crackers can. There are exceptions: processed sweet drinks that contain high-fructose corn syrup can stimulate appetite, as do foods made with processed corn and corn starch.

However, wheat has grown to occupy an enormous part of diet, partly because of the "high-fiber" trickery that causes us to believe that wheat is healthy, but also, I'm convinced, because of wheat's hunger factor.

A reader of the The Heart Scan Blog recently made this comment:

I discovered this blog and Dr. Davis' TYP program at the beginning of September. I have relatively successfully cut carbs and grains from my diet thus far.

Because I've got some weight to lose, I have tried to keep the carb count low and I've lost 15 pounds since then.

I have also been very surprised at the significant reduction in my appetite. I've read about the experience of others with regard to appetite reduction and couldn't really imagine that it could happen for me too. But it has.

A few weeks ago, I attended a party catered by one of my favorite Italian restaurants and got myself offtrack for two days. Then it took me a couple of days to get back on track because my appetite returned.

Check out Jimmy Moore's website for lots of ideas about variations of foods to try. The latest thing I picked up from Jimmy is the good old-fashioned hard boiled egg. Two or three eggs with some spicy hot sauce for breakfast and a handful of almonds mid-morning plus a couple glasses of water and I'm good for the morning no problem.

I find myself thinking about lunch not because I'm really hungry but out of habit.

The cool thing too now is that the more I do this, the more I'm just not tempted much to do anything but this diet.

I, too, have personally experienced this effect. I also was skeptical. It made no sense. How can whole grain bread increase appetite? I don't know what it is about wheat products that make them especially powerful triggers of appetite. I think that it probably goes beyond glycemic index, perhaps some other component besides taste.

But if you want to seize control over appetite, elimination--not reduction--but elimination of wheat, as well as other processed carbohydrates, can really change the way you approach food. (Interestingly, The Wheat Foods Council estimates that the average American eats 144 lbs of wheat flour per year; they argue that it should be increased 210 lbs per year!)

Eliminating wheat products is also an effective tool in the Track Your Plaque program for raising HDL, reducing triglycerides, reducing small LDL, and reducing both blood sugar and blood pressure. And it can be among the most effective ways to control appetite, since eliminating wheat also eliminates its hunger factor.

Foods to consider to take up the calorie slack when eliminating wheat: cheese (fermented, of course, for vitamin K2 content); eggs, as our reader pointed out; other lean proteins like lean red meats, fish, chicken, turkey; more liberal use of healthy oils like olive and flaxseed; plenty of raw nuts and seeds; soy milk and tofu. Obviously, the center of your diet should remain vegetables.

Our friends at Liposcience

26. October 2007 William Davis (6)

A number of Track Your Plaque Members are still outraged at LabCorp's failure to convey the results of page 2 of the NMR Lipoprofile, as provided by Liposcience, Inc., the testing laboratory that actually performs the test. We've gotten an audience at both Liposcience and LabCorp, though no real progress in obtaining this information has yet been made.

Anyway, that's not what I'd like to focus on. Despite the tremendous aggravation created by this incomprehensible glitch, NMR Lipoprofile remains, in my view, the best way to discover hidden sources of risk for heart disease and the most powerful way to develop a coronary plaque/heart scan score control program.

We could do without NMR, but I think that we'd pay a price in effectiveness. We'd be, in effect, driving blindly when it comes to certain lipoprotein patterns. Some abnormalities, like intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL) and LDL particle number, are superior to similar measures (like apoprotein B and direct LDL) and yield priceless information that is simply not obtainable as reliably by any other method.

I've had my share of negative experiences with the marketing director and the staff at Liposcience, but it's the vision of company founder and inventor of the technology, biochemist Dr. James Otvos, that should continue to shine. Dr. Otvos' ingenious technology to fractionate plasma proteins has provided an advantage for coronary plaque reversal and reduction of CT heart scan scores that no other method can provide as well.

For a useful discussion on basic lipoprotein science, listen to the discussion provided by Dr. William Cromwell of Liposcience by clicking on the graphic below:

Condensed Taubes

26. October 2007 William Davis (15)

For anyone looking for a quick glimpse at Gary Taubes' provocative arguments on the detrimental health effects of the current carbohydrate-crazed world, take a look at the CNN post of an interview of Taubes at CNN. (Thanks, Fanatic Cook, for pointing this out.)

In his book, Good Calories, Bad Calories, Taubes, a science reporter, manages to deftly and systematically disarticulate the entire argument for the low-fat approach to nutrition that has dominated conventional advice for the last 30+ years.

The book is impressively detailed and well-thought through. If you would like an introduction to the nutrition world according to Taubes, take a look at the CNN video, which permits him to provide a quick, condensed version of his ideas. Even when debating the issue with physicians, Taubes' arguments shine through as a voice of reason, cutting through the flabby and tired arguments that have been proven misguided by the experience of those around us.

Fast-forward information

24. October 2007 William Davis (11)

The internet has accelerated the conversation in health . . . enormously.

The discussions we have in Blogs, places like the Track Your Plaque Forum, and websites have accelerated the exchange of information and ideas so much that it is making traditional "official" sources of information IRRELEVANT.

Dr. John Cannell's unfailingly interesting and insightful comments in his most recent Vitamin D Newsletter brought this issue to mind. In his discussion of the vitamin D needs of pregnant women and his frustration with the failure of the National Institute of Health to take action despite the evidence, he states:

Whenever you see a child with asthma, diabetes or autism, just think: American Medical Association, American Pediatric Association, Institute of Medicine, Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, or Food and Nutrition Board.

Dr. Cannell is upset with the misguided advice of these agencies for mothers and babies to totally avoid sun while failing to provide advice on vitamin D supplementation, a combination of unhealthy factors that will increase the incidence of both type I and II diabetes, childhood asthma, and perhaps even childhood autism.

But this got me thinking: Here we are listening to a very credible source in Dr. Cannell, who has proven a discriminating judge of the evidence, along with vitamin D experts like Tufts University's Dr. Michael Holick, who has written a book on vitamin D (The UV Advantage: The Medical Breakthrough that Shows How to Harness the Power of the Sun for Your Health) ; University of Toronto's Dr. Reinhold Vieth, whose wonderful webcast on vitamin D was certain to convince you of many aspects of this nutrient's vital importance in health (unfortunately, it must have been taken off the hosting server, since I can no longer locate it); among others.

We all have access to this information. They are providing discussions on the topic that have long ago made the comments of "official" agencies like the FDA or the Institute of Medicine's Food and Nutrition Board (charged with setting RDA's for vitamins) irrelevant. While information is conveyed at lightning speed through internet media sources, discussion boards, and chats, the committees of "experts" often sit on their hands, fearful of speaking out, often themselves unfamiliar with the scientific literature or the conversations being conducted, not uncommonly having hidden agendas of their own that might interfere with their impartiality.

Information on health (and other subjects, as well) is being conveyed to the interested public faster and faster. The FDA, the USDA, the Food and Nutrition Board, the American Heart Association are increasingly being viewed as behind the times. They often also provide tainted information. Among the most glaring examples of biased information is the Heart Association's endorsement of "heart healthy" products in its Heart Check Mark program, including Cocoa Puffs, Cookie Crisp cereal, and Berry Kix, pure unadulterated junk foods thinly veiled with the Heart Association stamp of approval. Or the American Diabetes Association failure to speak out on the increasing penetration of carbohydrate and sugary junk foods in the American diet, while maintaining relationships and funding from its number one financial contributor, Cadbury Schweppes, the number one candy, soft drink, and snack manufacturer in the world.

The collective knowledge we are gaining through our own efforts will supplant the mis-information provided by official agencies. Just as Wikipedia represents collective knowledge on a broad range of topics, such a collective wisdom will develop in health, as well.

America: The world’s diet laboratory

23. October 2007 William Davis (14)

Low-fat, low-carb, high-protein, Pritikin, Ornish, Atkins, South Beach, Sonoma, Sugar-Busters, Weight Watchers, vegetarian . . . Have Americans tried them all?

We’ve witnessed the relative success of diet habits in selected regions world-wide: the longevity of the Japanese on a spare soy and fish-based diet; the reduced heart disease incidence of the French despite an indulgent food-centered culture; the extreme heart disease-free lives of the Cretan Greeks.

Contrast this with the startling failure of the American diet experiment: We’re all (speaking for the collective whole) fat, diabetic, and miserably mired in the diseases of obesity. We’ve experimented with every possible iteration of diet from grapefruit or cabbage only, to calorie deprivation (a al Weight Watchers), to restricting this or that element of diet. The “official” organizations have made their contributions, as well: the American Heart Association’s Therapeutic Lifestyle Changes (formerly Step I and II diets), a program eerily similar to what Americans are already eating and resulting in failure; the American Diabetes Association diet, incomprehensibly embracing carbohydrates when they are the root of the nutrition-habit-gone-wrong that caused the disease in the first place; the USDA and their Food Pyramid, encompassing a design that contains the germ of wisdom but is so heavily overweighted in grains that it is a sure-fire way to increase weight and heart disease were you to follow their recommendations.

What have we learned from our grand experiment, our nationwide misadventure in nutrition?

I believe that we’ve learned how not to eat: Processed snack foods, meals delivered in a fast-food setting with the offer to “super-size” your order, make-believe food ingested in your car eaten for the sake of staving off the inevitable hunger pangs. Few would argue that these are certain paths to obesity and poor health.

Certainly, if we’ve learned how not to eat, can we extrapolate just how to eat? And not just for weight loss, since most diets focus just on that, but on health, particularly heart health?

If Americans have so far failed to learn the lessons of the nutritional world, we certainly have not failed at talking about it. From books to blogs, websites, information gurus to infomercials, we certainly celebrate the capacity to share our experiences, our grief over our nutritional “misfortune,” despite a world of plenty.

Yet we swim in a sea of information. Can we sift through the chaff to discover the essential truth?

Let me articulate an extreme (extreme meaning closer to the truth, I hope) interpretation of nutritional wisdom:

--If it requires a label or nutritional analysis, reject it. The wondrous green pepper, or bottle of olive oil, for instance, require no such qualifications. Some exceptions: milk, yogurt, cottage cheese (unless, of course, you purchase straight from a local producer). I am always impressed with the contortions and frustrations people experience trying to decipher labels. Ironically, the healthiest foods don’t even require labels.

--If it is ingested in a rush, it’s likely to add to poor health. True food is meant to be consumed at leisure, not in haste to satisfy some irrational, unthinking impulse.

--Search for natural, whole foods. Natural, whole foods require no marketing. You pay a premium for a company to adorn a product with glitz, glamour, and appeal. Repackage Cocoa Puffs as chocolate flavored, round overly-processed wheat flour, sans marketing spin, and what is left? Processed foods are?intentionally?addictive. They are added to, modified, high-fructose corn syruped, etc. to increase desirability, but also create addiction. Eliminate them just as a smoker eliminates cigarettes.

--A corollary to the above issue: purchase foods that appear as if you had grown it or raised it yourself. If you were to grow corn in your backyard garden, you would eat it on the cob or some similar way. You would not grind it, pulverize, process it, nor serve it as cornstarch and add to a pile of chemicals to make breakfast cereal. Eat foods in their natural state, not the highly processed food-product that requires a colorful package and advertising to sell.

--Don’t keep bags of chips, boxes of breakfast cereal and crackers, frozen dinners, all “just in case.” Don’t allow yourself that opportunity because you will more than likely seize it. An alcoholic who keeps a secret bottle of gin hidden in the cabinet is well aware that it’s there and will eventually give in to impulse.

--When you eat meat, try to find free-range, organic products. Even better, purchase from a local producer who you trust.

--For anyone with patterns like low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, and blood sugar >100 mg/dl, following a diet that is as free of wheat products as possible will yield enormous benefits. Wheat is a part of all breads, virtually all breakfast cereals, pretzels, crackers, bagels, cookies, cupcakes, pancakes, waffles, etc. Going wheat-free is also a surprisingly effective weight loss strategy.

That’s just a few thoughts. The approach we use in the Track Your Plaque program helps achieve weight loss, but also helps correct lipoprotein patterns, often dramatically.

Many diets have failed to keep pace with the changing nutritional habits of Americans. In 1960, we ingested close to zero high-fructose corn syrup. We’re now approaching 80 lbs per year per American. Breakfast cereal in 1950 consisted of a handful of products, eaten intermittently; today, it is a staple with enough products to fill a modern supermarket’s entire aisle. Meats have changed, thanks to the factory farm phenomenon feeding its animals corn in inhumanely restricted conditions, a dietary shift for livestock that has modified the fat composition to something far different than 50 years ago, not to mention the antibiotics and other chemicals used to accelerate growth and fight off infection from the artificial, overcrowded conditions.

The American nutritional shift, along with rampant obesity, have also caused a relatively new cause of coronary heart disease to explode: small LDL particles. The contribution of small LDL has been enormously underestimated, since most physicians don’t know what it is, don’t know how to check for it, and don’t know what to do with it. Yet it has emerged as the number one cause for heart attack and heart disease nationwide.

Stay tuned for our rewritten New Track Your Plaque diet to be released as a Special Report on the www.cureality.com website in future.

Dr. Jarvik, is niacin as bad as it sounds?

20. October 2007 William Davis (5)

A popular health newsletter, Everyday Health, carried this headline:

A Cholesterol-Busting Vitamin?
Did you know that niacin, one of the B vitamins, is also a potent cholesterol fighter?
Find out how niacin can help reduce choleseterol.

At doses way above the Recommended Dietary Allowance — say 1,000–2,500 mg a day (1–2.5 grams) — crystalline nicotinic acid acts as a drug instead of a vitamin. It can reduce total cholesterol levels by up to 25%, lowering LDL and raising HDL levels, and can rapidly lower the blood level of triglycerides. It does so by reducing the liver’s production of VLDL, which is ordinarily converted into LDL.

I'd agree with that, except that it is rare to require doses higher than 1000-1500 mg per day unless you are treating lipoprotein(a) and using niacin as a tool for dramatic drops in LDL. But for just raising HDL, shifting HDL into the healthy large class, reducing small LDL, and for reduction of heart attack risk, 1000-1500 mg is usually sufficient; taking more yields little or no further effect.

But after that positive comment comes this:

Niacin is safe — except in people with chronic liver disease or certain other conditions, including diabetes and peptic ulcer. . . However, it has numerous side effects. It can cause rashes and aggravate gout, diabetes, or peptic ulcers. Early in therapy, it can cause facial flushing for several minutes soon after a dose, although this response often stops after about two weeks of therapy and can be reduced by taking aspirin or ibuprofen half an hour before taking the niacin. A sustained-release preparation of niacin (Niaspan) appears to have fewer side effects, but may cause more liver function abnormalities, especially when combined with a statin.

Strange. After a headline clearly designed to pull readers in, clearly stating niacin's benefits, the article then proceeds to scare the pants off you with side-effects.

But look to the side and above the text: Ah . . . two prominent advertisements for Lipitor, complete with Dr. Robert Jarvik's photo. "I've studied the human heart for a lifetime. I trust Lipitor to keep my heart healthy."

Niacin bad. Lipitor good. Even celebrity doc says so. Sounds like bait and switch to me. "You could try niacin--if you dare. But you could also try Lipitor."

Who is Dr. Jarvik, anyway, that he serves as spokesman (or at least figurehead) for this $13 billion dollar a year drug? Of course, he is the 1982 inventor of the Jarvik artificial heart, surely an admirable accomplishment. But does that qualify him to speak about heart disease prevention and cholesterol drugs?

Jarvik has never--never--actually prescribed Lipitor, since he never completed any formal medical training beyond obtaining his Medical Doctor degree, nor has he ever had a license to practice medicine. He does, however, continue in his effort to provide artificial heart devices, principally for implantation as a "bridge" to transplantation, i.e., to sustain a patient temporarily who is dying of end-stage heart failure.

So where does his expertise in heart disease prevention come from? It's beyond me. Perhaps it was the thousands of dollars likely paid to him. That will make an "expert" out of just about anybody.

Robert Bazell, science reporter, for CNBC, made this report on the Jarvik-Lipitor connection in his March, 2007 report, Is this celebrity doctor's TV ad right for you?

Mr. Bazell writes:

On May 16, 1988, an editorial in the New York Times dubbed the artificial heart experiments, “The Dracula of Medical Technology.”

“The crude machines,” it continued, “with their noisy pumps, simply wore out the human body and spirit.”

Since then, in a series of start-up companies, Jarvik has continued his quest to make an artificial heart — as have several other firms. One competitor recently won FDA approval to sell its device for implantation in extreme emergencies.

Perhaps Jarvik’s chances of success with another artificial heart account for his willingness to serve as pitchman for Pfizer. I inquired, without success, to find the going rate for a semi- celebrity like Jarvik to appear in such ads. Thomaselli of Advertising Age said whatever it is, it is “infinitesimal” compared to Pfizer’s expenditures of $11 billion a year on advertising, much of it for Lipitor.

Why spend so much marketing Lipitor?

Because Lipitor is only one of six drugs in the class called statins that lower cholesterol. Many cardiologists say that for the vast majority of people any one of these drugs works just as well as the other. Two of them, Mevacor and Zocor, have already lost their patent protection so they cost pennies a day compared to $3 or more a day for Lipitor.

In 2010, when Lipitor loses its patent protection, it, too, will cost pennies a day, and Pfizer will no longer need Dr. Robert Jarvik.

So, is niacin so bad after all? Or is this Everyday Health report just another clever piece of advertising for Pfizer?

Is niacin as bad as it sounds?

20. October 2007 William Davis (0)

A popular health newsletter, Everyday Health, carried this headline:

A Cholesterol-Busting Vitamin?
Did you know that niacin, one of the B vitamins, is also a potent cholesterol fighter?
Find out how niacin can help reduce choleseterol.

At doses way above the Recommended Dietary Allowance — say 1,000–2,500 mg a day (1–2.5 grams) — crystalline nicotinic acid acts as a drug instead of a vitamin. It can reduce total cholesterol levels by up to 25%, lowering LDL and raising HDL levels, and can rapidly lower the blood level of triglycerides. It does so by reducing the liver’s production of VLDL, which is ordinarily converted into LDL.

I'd agree with that, except that it is rare to require doses higher than 1000-1500 mg per day unless you are treating lipoprotein(a) and using niacin as a tool for dramatic drops in LDL. But for just raising HDL, shifting HDL into the healthy large class, reducing small LDL, and for reduction of heart attack risk, 1000-1500 mg is usually sufficient; taking more yields little or no further effect.

But after that positive comment comes this:

Niacin is safe — except in people with chronic liver disease or certain other conditions, including diabetes and peptic ulcer. . . However, it has numerous side effects. It can cause rashes and aggravate gout, diabetes, or peptic ulcers. Early in therapy, it can cause facial flushing for several minutes soon after a dose, although this response often stops after about two weeks of therapy and can be reduced by taking aspirin or ibuprofen half an hour before taking the niacin. A sustained-release preparation of niacin (Niaspan) appears to have fewer side effects, but may cause more liver function abnormalities, especially when combined with a statin.

Strange. After a headline clearly designed to pull readers in, clearly stating niacin's benefits, the article then proceeds to share the pants off you with side-effects.

But look to the side and above the text: Ah . . . two prominent advertisements for Lipitor, complete with Dr. Robert Jarvik's photo. "I've studied the human heart for a lifetime. I trust Lipitor to keep my heart healthy."

Sounds like bait and switch to me. "You could try niacin--if you dare. But you could also try Lipitor."

Who is Dr. Jarvik, anyway, that he stands as the spokesman (or at least figurehead) for this $13 billion dollar a year drug. Of course, he is the 1982 inventor of the Jarvik artificial heart, surely an admirable accomplishment. But does that qualify him to speak about heart disease prevention and cholesterol drugs? Jarvik has, never actually prescribed Lipitor, since he never completed any formal medical training beyond obtaining his Medical Doctor degree, nor has he ever had a license to practice medicine. He does, however, continue in his effort to provide artificial heart devices, principally for implantation as a "bridge" to transplantation, i.e., to sustain a patient temporarily who is dying of end-stage heart failure.

So where does his expertise in heart disease prevention come from?

Omega-3 fatty acids: Frequency vs. quantity

20. October 2007 William Davis (8)

I believe I have been observing an unexpected phenomenon: When it comes to fish oil and omega-3 fatty acids, the frequency of dosing may be as important, perhaps more important, than the actual dose.

First of all, why advocate omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil? There’s a list of lipid/lipoprotein reasons, including reduction of triglycerides and triglyceride-containing particles (VLDL, intermediate-density lipoproteins), reduction of small LDL, and increase in HDL. There’s also solid benefit in reduction of heart attack risk, reduction in death from heart attack, and reduction in stroke. There are also anti-inflammatory benefits and improvements in mood, reduction in depression.

Fish oil is a crucial ingredient in the Track Your Plaque program. I am honestly uncertain of just how much success we would give up if fish oil were NOT a part of the program, but I am unwilling to find out. The data are simply too compelling to not include omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil. Of course, supplementation of omega-3 fatty acids assumes greater importance in a modern world in which your food has become terribly depleted of the omega-3 fraction of oils. (Cultures that rely heavily on fish or wild game probably would not benefit to the same extent, since these foods contain omega-3 fatty acids.)

But I believe I have observed a curious effect over the past year or two. With the proliferation of many different preparations of fish oil that provide seemingly endless choices—low-potency fish oil, high-potency fish oil, paste forms of fish oil like Coromega, liquids such as Carlson’s, etc.¾I’ve observed that frequency of dosing may exert as much of an effect as the dose.

For example, someone might take the basic, low-potency preparation like Sam’s Club that contains 180 mg EPA and 120 mg DHA per capsule, four capsules per day. That yields a total of 1200 mg EPA and DHA per day. This is our minimum dose that provides the basic heart attack-reducing effect, though with modest effect on triglycerides and associated patterns.

Say someone switches to a high-potency preparation of 360 mg EPA and 240 mg DHA, providing a total of 600 mg omega-3 fatty acids per capsule, or twice the dose of the low-potency preparation. Would you expect double the effect?

Curiously, no. What I have observed, however, is that more frequent dosing may provide a larger effect. The least effective dosing is once per day; twice per day is far more effective. Three times per day¾though cumbersome¾provides even greater effect.

So, which is more important: dose or frequency?

I can’t say for certain, since my observations are informal and have not been obtained by a formal statistical analysis of our data. That will come with time.

For the present, suffice it to say that, if you are struggling with suppression of patterns like increased triglycerides, IDL, or low HDL, then at least twice- or three-times-per-day dosing might be worth considering, even before you increase the dose further.

Best: Greater dose, or higher-potency preparation, combined with higher frequency.

All posts by william-davis

Thyroid: Be a perfectionist

27. July 2009 William Davis (18)

If you'd like to reduce LDL cholesterol with nearly as much power as a statin drug, think thyroid.

When thyroid is corrected to ideal levels, LDL cholesterol drops 20, 30, 40 mg/dl or more, depending on how poor thyroid function and how high LDL are at the start. The poorer the thyroid function (the higher the TSH or the lower the T3 and T4) and the higher the LDL cholesterol, the more LDL drops with thyroid correction.

(For those of you minding LDL particle size, such as Track Your Plaque Members, the "dominant" LDL species will drop: If you are genetic small LDL, small LDL will drop. If you have mostly large LDL because of being wheat-free and sugar-free, then large LDL will drop.)

One of the problems is that many healthcare providers blindly follow what the laboratory says is "normal" or the "reference range," which is usually nothing more than a population average (actually the mean +/- 2 standard deviations, a common method of developing references ranges). In other words, a substantial degree of low thyroid function, or hypothyroidism, can be present when your doctor adheres to the reference range provided by the laboratory.

What does it mean to achieve ideal thyroid status? My list includes:

--Normal oral temperature of 97.3 F first upon arising. (The thyroid is the body's thermoregulatory organ.)
--TSH 1.0 mIU/L or less
--Free T3 upper half "normal" range
--Free T4 upper half "normal" range
--You feel good: mental clarity, energy, upbeat mood. You lose weight when you try.

Iodine replacement should be part of any thyroid health effort. Iodine is not an optional trace mineral, no more than vitamin C is optional (else your teeth fall out). The only dangers to iodine replacement are to those who have been starved of iodine for many years; increase iodine and the thyroid can over-respond. I've seen this happen in 2 of the last 300 people who have supplemented iodine.

In my view, neglecting T3 replacement is absurd. While it is not clear to me why many otherwise healthy people have low T3 at the low range of "normal" or even in the below-normal range, people feel better and have better health--faster weight loss, reduced LDL, reduced triglycerides, they are happier and enjoy more energy--when T3 is increased to the upper half of the reference range. (Crucial question: Why is the 5'-deiodinase enzyme that converts T4 to T3 inhibited, resulting in reduced free T3? What is in our diets or environment that is exerting this effect? I don't have answer, but we sorely need one.)

It pays to be a perfectionist when it comes to thyroid. Not only do you feel better, but LDL cholesterol can drop with a statin-like magnitude, but with none of the adverse effects.

If interested, Track Your Plaque offers fingerstick blood spot testing that you can perform in your own home. Each test kit will test for: TSH, free T3, free T4, along with a thyroid peroxidase antibody (a marker for Hashimoto's thyroiditis, an autoimmune inflammatory condition of the thyroid).

Nutrition Syllogism

21. July 2009 William Davis (21)

What do you think of these chains of logic?

Cyanide is a potent lethal poison; carbon monoxide is a less lethal poison.
Therefore: plenty of carbon monoxide is good.

Having uterine cancer is a bad thing. Having uterine fibroids is a less bad thing.
Therefore: plenty of uterine fibroids are good.

These are obvious examples of seriously flawed logic. Students of logic and philosophy will recognize the above erroneous sequences as examples of the twisted arguments often used to persuade an argumentative opponent of the logic of a premise. As long ago as 335 B.C., Greek philosopher, Aristotle, recognized the pitfalls of thinking in such arguments. You think we’d know better by now.

Try this one:

White enriched flour is a bad for health; whole grains are less bad for health.
Therefore: plenty of whole grains are good for health.

Ouch!

In the 1960s, we all ate hot dogs on white buns, white flour Wonder Bread® sandwiches, Mom made cookies and cupcakes with white flour. Then, during the 1970s and 1980s, clinical studies were performed demonstrating that whole wheat and whole grains reduced colon cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease compared to white flour. In other words, add back fiber and B vitamins and health benefits develop: No argument here.

Therefore: whole grains must be good for health. Further, lots of whole grains?unlimited quantities of whole grains many times per day, every day?must be even better. Even the USDA says so on their nutrition pyramid, with 8-11 servings of grains per day, 4 of which should be whole grains, at the widest portion of the pyramid.

But what happens when you follow this logic through and fill your diet with whole grains?

Look around you and it’s easy to see: Appetite increases, people become obese, blood sugar increases, diabetes develops, HDL cholesterol plummets, triglycerides skyrocket, inflammatory patterns (e.g., c-reactive protein, or CRP) increase, small LDL (the number one cause for heart disease in the obese U.S.!) shoots through the roof.

I would no more fill my diet with “healthy whole grains” than I would close my garage door with the car running.

Is pomegranate juice healthy?

19. July 2009 William Davis (20)

Pomegranate juice, 8 oz:

Sugars, total 31.50 g

Sucrose 0.00 g

Glucose (dextrose) 15.64 g

Fructose 15.86 g

In your quest to increase the flavonoids in your diet, do you overexpose yourself to fructose?

Remember: Fructose increases LDL cholesterol, apoprotein B, small LDL, triglycerides, and substantially increases deposition of visceral fat (fructose belly?). How about a slice of whole grain bread with that glass of pomegranate juice? The Heart Association says it's all low-fat!

(Coming on the Track Your Plaque website: A full in-depth Special Report on fructose in all its glorious forms and whether this is truly an issue for your health. Fructose tables and the scientific data to establish a safe "threshold" value will be included.)

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Honeydew melon

18. July 2009 William Davis (4)

Honeydew melon:

Sugars, total 51.97 g

Sucrose 15.87 g

Glucose 17.15 g

Fructose 18.94 g

Because sucrose is half fructose (the other half is glucose), there are approximately 26 grams of fructose per one-half honeydew melon.

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Where do you find fructose?

14. July 2009 William Davis (25)

Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g

Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons

Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient

Ingredients: High Fructose Corn Syrup, Vinegar, Concentrated Tomato Juice (Water, Tomato Paste), Water, Modified Food Starch, Salt, Honey, Contains Less Than 2% of Molasses, Natural Flavor, Paprika, Spice, Mustard Flour, Guar Gum, Red 40.

A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient

Ingredients: Tomato puree (water, tomato paste), high fructose corn syrup, vinegar, salt, water dried onions, contains less than 2% of black pepper, modified food starch, citric acid, dried parsley, dried garlic, xanthan gum, caramel color, potassium sorbate and calcium disodium EDTA as preservatives, molasses, corn syrup, sugar, spices, tamarind, natural flavor

Do heart scans cause cancer?

14. July 2009 William Davis (3)

Another in a series of data extrapolations that attempt to predict long-term cancer risk from medical radiation exposure was published in the July 13, 2009 Archives of Internal Medicine, viewable here.

Over the years, I've fussed about the radiation dose used by some centers for CT heart scans. (Note: I'm talking about CT heart scans, not CT coronary angiograms, an entirely different test with different radiation exposure.) In the "old" days, when electron-beam devices (EBT) were the best on the block, the old single-slice CT scanners (the predecessor of the current 64-slice MDCT scanners) exposed patients to ungodly quantities of radiation, while the EBT devices required very small quantities (0.5 mSv or about the equivalent of 4 standard chest x-rays or one mammogram).

But CT technology has advanced considerably. While EBT has been phased out (although it was an exceptional technology, GE acquired the small California manufacturer, then promptly scrapped the operation; you can guess why), multi-detector CT (MDCT) technology has improved in speed, image quality, and radiation exposure.

While it has improved, radiation exposure still remains an issue. The authors of the study applied the scanning protocols used at three hospitals and those in several CT heart scan studies, then calculated radiation exposure. They found a more than ten-fold range of exposure, from 0.8 mSv to 10.5 mSv. (All scanners were MDCT, none EBT.)

That's precisely what I've been worrying about: In the rapid rush to develop new devices, radiation exposure has often been a neglected issue. While some scan centers do an excellent job and take steps to minimize exposure, others barely lift a finger and consequently expose their patients to unnecessary radiation.

However, it's not as bad as it sounds. For one, the study included 16-slice MDCT scanners, a scanner type that I warned people to not use because of radiation. On the current most popular 64-slice devices, much lower radiation exposure is possible, on the order of 0.8-1.2 mSv routinely--if the center takes the effort.

This study, while eye-opening, will achieve some good: CT heart scans are here to stay. But the day-to-day practice of heart scanning should be:

1) standardized
2) conducted with radiation exposure as low as possible, preferably <0.8 mSv

To read more about this issue, below I've reprinted a 2007 full Track Your Plaque Special Report, CT Heart Scans and Radiation: The Real Story.

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

“My personal opinion is that many patients today who are receiving multiple CT scans may well be getting at least comparable doses to subjects that have now developed malignancies from x-ray radiation received in the 1930s and '40s. And, similar to those days when the doses were unknown, the dose that patients receive today over a course of years of multiple CT scans is also completely unknown . . .

“I recommend that all healthcare providers become familiar with the concept that 1 in 1000 CT studies of the chest, abdomen, or pelvis may result in cancer.”

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

Is this just hype to generate headlines? Or is the truth buried in the enormous marketing clout of the medical device industry, among which the imaging device manufacturers reign supreme?

It’s been over 110 years since radiation was first used for medical imaging. Over those years, it has had its share of misadventures.

In the 1930s and 1940s, before the dangers of radiation were recognized, shoe shoppers had shoes fitted using an x-ray device of the foot to assess fit. High doses of radiation were used to shrink enlarged tonsils and extinguish overactive thyroid glands. Attitudes towards radiation were so lax that doctors commonly permitted themselves to be exposed without protection day after day, year after year, until an unexpected rise in blood cancers like leukemia was observed. As recently as the 1970s and 1980s, cancers like Hodgkins’ disease were treated with high doses of radiation, also leading to radiation-induced diseases decades later.

Not all radiation is bad. Radiation can also be used as a therapeutic tool and even today remains a useful and reasonably effective method to reduce the size, sometimes eliminate, certain types of cancer. Forty percent of people with cancer now receive some form of radiation as part of their treatment (Ron E 2003).

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

Estimates vary, but most experts estimate that medical imaging provides approximately 15% of total lifetime exposure. In other words, radiation exposure from medical imaging is simply a small portion of total exposure that develops over the years of life. Exposure can be much higher, however, in a specific individual who undergoes repeated radiation imaging or treatment of one sort or another.

For all of us, exposure to medical radiation is part of lifetime exposure from multiple sources, added to the radiation we receive from the world around us. Just by living on earth, we are exposed to radiation from space and naturally-occurring radioactive compounds, and receive somewhere around 3.0 mSv per year (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). (Doses for radiation exposure are commonly expressed in milliSieverts, mSv, a measure that reflects whole-body radiation exposure.) People living in high-altitude locales like Colorado get exposed to an additional 30–50% ambient radiation (1.0–1.5 mSv more per year).

Much of the information on radiation exposure comes from studies like the Life Span Study that, since 1961, has tracked 120,000 Japanese exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs dropped in 1945 (Preston DL et al 2003). Although regarded as a high-dose exposure study for obvious reasons, there are actually thousands of people in this study who were exposed to lesser quantities of radiation (because of distance from the bomb sites) who still display a “dose-response” increased risk for cancer many years later in life. Radiation exposures of as little as 5–20 mSv showed a slight increase in lifetime risk.

Occupational and excessive medical exposure to radiation also provides a “laboratory” to examine radiation risk. Miners exposed to radon gas; patients exposed to the imaging agent, Thorotrast, containing radioactive isotope thorium dioxide and used as an x-ray contrast agent in the 1930s and 1940s and possesses the curious property of lingering in the body for over 30 years after administration; radium injections administered between 1945 and 1955 to treat diseases like ankylosing spondylitis and tuberculosis, all provide researchers an opportunity to study the long-term effects of various types of radiation exposure over many years (Harrison JD et al 2003).

The excess exposure of workers and several hundred thousand nearby residents to the Mayak nuclear plant in Russia has also revealed a “dose-response” relationship, with increasing exposure leading to more cancers, including leukemia and solid cancers of the bone, liver, and lung (Shilnikova NS et al 2003). Nuclear waste released into the Techa river between 1948 and 1956 contaminated drinking water used by over 100,000 Russians. A plant explosion in 1957 also released an excess of radiation into the atmosphere, yielding exposure via inhalation. Some sources estimate that at least 272,000 people have been affected by radiation from the Mayak plant. This unfortunate situation has, however, yielded plenty of data on radiation exposure and its long-term effects.

It’s also been known for several decades that people who receive therapeutic radiation for treatment of cancer, even with the reduced doses now employed, are subject to increased risk of a second cancer consequent to the radiation treatment.

From experiences like this, radiation experts estimate that an exposure of 10 mSv increases a population’s risk for cancer by 1 in 1000 (Semelka RC et al 2007).

This question was recently thrust into the spotlight with publication of a study from Columbia University in New York suggesting that a 20-year old woman would be exposed to a lifetime risk of cancer as high as 1 in 143 consequent to the radiation received during a CT coronary angiogram. (Important note: This was estimated risk from a CT coronary angiogram, not a simple heart scan that we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program.) The risk at the low end of the spectrum would be in an 80-year old man (because of the shorter period of time to develop cancer), with a risk of 1 in 5017. If “gating” to the EKG is added (which many scan centers do indeed perform nowadays), risk for a 60-year old woman is estimated at 1 in 715; risk for a 60-year old male, 1 in 1911 (Einstein AJ et al 2007). This study generated some criticism, since it did not directly involve human subjects, but used “phantoms” or x-ray dummies to simulate x-ray exposure. Nonetheless, the point was made: CT coronary angiograms in current practice do indeed expose the patient to substantial quantities of radiation, sufficient to pose a lifetime risk of cancer.

The media frenzy

The NY Times ran an article called With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests in which they stated:

"According to a new study, the per-capita dose of ionizing radiation from clinical imaging exams in the United States increased almost 600 percent from 1980 to 2006. In the past, natural background radiation was the leading source of human exposure; that has been displaced by diagnostic imaging procedures, the authors said."

“This is an absolutely sentinel event, a wake-up call,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., principal investigator for the study, by the National Council on Radiation Protection. “Medical exposure now dwarfs that of all other sources.”

Radiation is a widely used imaging tool in medicine. Although CT scans of the brain, bones, chest, abdomen, and pelvis account for only 5% of all medical radiation procedures, they are responsible for nearly 50% of medical radiation used. It’s been known for years that increasing radiation exposure increases cancer risk over many years, but the boom of newer, faster devices that provide more detailed images has opened the floodgates to expanded use of CT scanners.

But before we join in the hysteria, let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

Head CT 1 – 2 mSv
Pelvis CT 3 – 4 mSv
Chest CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen/pelvis CT 8 – 11 mSv
Coronary CT angiography 5 – 12 mSv

Non-CT

Hand radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Chest radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Mammogram 0.3 – 0.6 mSv
Barium enema exam 3 – 6 mSv
Coronary angiogram 5 – 10 mSv
Sestamibi myocardial perfusion (per injection) 6 – 9 mSv
Thallium myocardial perfusion (per injection) 26 – 35 mSv

Source: Cynthia H. McCullough, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

A plain, everyday chest x-ray, providing less than 0.1 mSv exposure, provides about the same quantity of radiation exposure as flying in an airplane for four hours, or the same amount of radiation from exposure to our surroundings for 11–12 days. Similar exposure arises from dental x-rays.

If you have a heart scan on an EBT device, then your exposure is 0.5-0.6 mSv, roughly the same as a mammogram or several standard chest x-rays.

With a heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, exposure is ideally around 1.0-2.0 mSv, about the same as 2-3 mammograms, though dose can vary with this technology depending on how it is performed (gated to the EKG, device settings, etc.)

CT coronary angiography presents a different story. This is where radiation really escalates and puts the radiation exposure issue in the spotlight. As Dr. Cynthia McCullough's chart shows above, the radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms is 5-12 mSv, the equivalent of 100 or more chest x-rays or 20 mammograms. Now, that's a problem.

The exposure is about the same for a pelvic or abdominal CT. The problem is that some centers are using CT coronary angiograms as screening procedures and even advocating their use annually. This is where the alarm needs to be sounded. These tests, as wonderful as the information and image quality can be, are not screening tests. Just like a pelvic CT, they are diagnostic tests done for legitimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

It’s also worth giving second thought to any full body scan you might be considering. These screening studies include scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. These scans, performed for screening, expose the recipient to approximately 10 mSv of radiation (Radiological Society of North American, 2007). Debate continues on whether the radiation exposure is justified, given the generally asymptomatic people who generally undergo these tests.

Always be mindful of your radiation exposure, as the NY Times article rightly advises. However, don't be so frightened that you are kept from obtaining truly useful information from, for instance, a CT heart scan (not angiography) at a modest radiation cost.

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

Unfortunately, practicing physicians and those involved in providing CT scans are generally unconcerned with radiation exposure. The majority, in fact, are entirely unaware of the dose of radiation required for most CT scan studies and unaware of the cancer risk involved. It is therefore up to the individual to insist on a discussion of the type of scanner being used, the radiation dose delivered (at least in general terms), the necessity of the test, alternative methods to obtain the same diagnostic information, all in the context of lifetime radiation exposure.

Our concerns about radiation exposure all boil down to concern over lifetime risk for cancer, a disease that strikes approximately 20% of all Americans. Many factors contribute to cancer risk, including obesity, excessive saturated fat intake, low fiber intake, lack of vitamin D, repeated sunburns, excessive alcohol use, smoking, exposure to pesticides and other organochemicals, asbestos and other industrial exposures, electromagnetic wave exposure, and genetics. Radiation is just one source of risk, though to some degree a controllable one.

Some people, on hearing this somewhat disturbing discussion, refuse to ever have another medical test requiring radiation. That’s the wrong attitude. It makes no more sense than wearing lead shielding on your body 24 hours a day to reduce exposure from the atmosphere. Taken in the larger context of life, radiation exposure is just one item on a list of potentially harmful factors.

It is, however, worth some effort to minimize radiation exposure over your lifetime, particularly before age 60, and by submitting to high-dose testing only when truly necessary, or when the potential benefits outweigh the risks. Thus, with heart scans and CT coronary angiography, some thought to the potential benefits of knowing your score or the information gained from the CT angiogram need to be considered before undergoing the test. Often the practical difficulty, of course, is that your risk for heart disease simply cannot be known until after the test.

In our view, in the vast majority of instances a simple CT heart scan can serve the simple but crucial role of quantifying risk for heart attack and atherosclerotic plaque. CT heart scans yield this information with less than a tenth of the radiation exposure of a CT coronary angiogram. In people without symptoms and a normal stress test, there is rarely a need for CT coronary angiography with present day levels of radiation exposure. Perhaps as technology advances and the radiation required to generate images is reduced, then we should reconsider.

Early experiences are suggesting that the newest 256-slice scanners, now being developed but not yet available, will cut the dose exposure of 64-slice CT angiograms in half (from 27.8 mSv to 14.1 mSv in a recent Japanese study). The 256-slice scanners will allow scanning that is faster over a larger area in a given period of time.

Thankfully, the scanner manufacturers are increasingly sensitive to the radiation issue and have been working on methods to reduce radiation exposure. However, it still remains substantial.

References:
Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007 Jul 18;298(3):317–323.

Harrison JD, Muirhead CR. Quantitative comparisons of cancer induction in humans by internally deposited radionuclides and external radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 2003 Jan;79(1):1–13.

Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzyky M et al. Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. Circulation 2006;113:1305–1310.

Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard J, Saini S. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619–628.

Mayo JR, Aldrich J, Müller NL. Radiation exposure at chest CT: A statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2003; 228:15–21.

Mori S, Nishizawa K, Kondo C, Ohno M, Akahane K, Endo M. Effective doses in subjects undergoing computed tomography cardiac imaging with the 256-multislice CT scanner. Eur J Radiol 2007 Jul 10; [Epub ahead of print].

Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Ron E, Mabuchi K. Dose response and temporal patterns of radiation-associated solid cancer risks. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):43–46.

Ron E. Cancer risks from medical radiation. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):47–59.

Shilnikova NS, Preston DL, Ron E et al. Cancer mortality risk among workers at the Mayak nuclear complex. Radiation Res 2003 Jun;159(6):787–798.

Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, Huda W. Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007 May;25(5):900–9090.

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

Goodbye, fructose

12. July 2009 William Davis (35)

A carefully-conducted study by a collaborative research group at University of California-Berkeley has finally closed the lid on the fuss over fructose vs. glucose and its purported adverse effects.

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation--3% increased intra-abdominal fat with glucose; 14.4% with fructose. (Intraabdominal fat is the variety that blocks insulin responses and causes diabetes and inflammation.)

2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol but double the increase for Apoprotein B (an index of the number of LDL particles, similar to NMR LDL particle number).

3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, compared to 13.3% with glucose.

4) While glucose (curiously) reduced the net postprandial (after-eating) triglyceride response (area under the curve, AUC), fructose increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.

The authors propose that fructose specifically increases liver VLDL production, the lipoprotein particle that yields abnormal after-eating particles, increased LDL, and provides building blocks to manufacture small LDL particles. The authors also persuasively propose that fructose metabolism, unlike glucose, is not inhibited (via feedback loop) by energy intake, i.e., it's as if you are always starving.

Add to this the data that show that fructose increases uric acid (that causes gout and may act as a coronary risk factor), induces leptin resistance, causes metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes), and increases appetite, and it is clear that fructose is yet another common food additive that, along with wheat, is likely a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic.

Fructose is concentrated, of course, in high-fructose corn syrup, comprising anywhere from 42-90% of total weight. Fructose also composes 50% of sucrose (table sugar). Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose).

Also, beware of low-fat or non-fat salad dressings (rich with high-fructose corn syrup), ketchup, beer, fruit drinks, fruit juices, all of which are rich sources of this exceptionally fattening, metabolism-bypassing, LDL cholesterol/small LDL/ApoB increasing compound. Ironically, this means that many low-fat foods meant to reduce cholesterol actually increase it when they contain fructose in any form.

When you hear or say "fructose," run the other way, regardless of what the Corn Refiners Association says.

The statin-free life

8. July 2009 William Davis (20)

Matt came to me because his doctor couldn't reduce his LDL cholesterol.

His doctor had prescribed Zocor (simvastatin), Lipitor, Crestor, even pravastatin, all of which resulted in incapacitating muscle aches and weakness within a week of starting. No surprise, Matt had a jaundiced view of statin drugs.

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

--72% of LDL was small LDL, a moderately severe pattern. (This means that small LDL comprised 112 mg/dl of the total 155 mg/dl LDL; large LDL comprised 43 mg/dl--small LDL was the problem.)

--HDL 42 mg/dl --Triglycerides 133 mg/dl

--No lipoprotein(a)

Beyond lipoproteins, Matt proved severely deficient in vitamin D with a starting level of 18 ng/ml.

Matt's doctor had advised that he avoid salt, as his blood pressure had been borderline high. His thyroid assessment disclosed a TSH of 3.89 mIU/ml with thyroid hormones free T3 and free T4 in the lower half of the normal range.

I therefore asked Matt to:

--Eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars to reduce small LDL
--Add iodine
--Supplement 6000 units of an oil-based vitamin D preparation
--Take fish oil to provide at least 1800 mg EPA + DHA per day
--Take Armour Thyroid 1 grain per day

Several months later on this program, Matt had a repeat basic lipid panel:

--LDL 82 mg/dl--a 47% reduction

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

--Triglycerides 60 mg/dl--a 55% decrease

In addition, vitamin D was 66 ng/ml, TSH was <1.0 mIU/ml with free T3 and free T4 in the upper half of the "reference range." Matt also felt great.

While the numbers could be slightly better, Matt had made tremendous progress towards achieving perfect values.

There you have it: Marked correction of cholesterol values, no statin drugs involved.

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

5. July 2009 William Davis (29)

Even if you’re not interested in building big muscles like a bodybuilder, there are health benefits to increasing muscle mass: increased bone density, better balance, and fewer injuries. Greater muscle mass means higher metabolic rate, improved insulin responsiveness, lower blood sugar. The inevitable loss of muscle mass of aging can lead to frailty, an increasingly common situation for the elderly. Muscle loss be reversed, health improved as a result.

Since its introduction in 1994, creatine has exploded in popularity, particularly among bodybuilders and athletes interested in gaining muscle mass and strength. But creatine is not just for young weight lifters. If you are just interested in increasing muscle mass for its health benefits, then creatine is something to consider.

A study of creatine supplementation in men, average age 70 years, demonstrated that, when creatine was combined with strength training, it increased muscle mass 250% better than placebo (7.26 lb muscle vs 2.86 lb muscle), along with improved leg strength and endurance. The same group also demonstrated 3.2% increased bone density (measured using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) after 12 weeks in participants taking creatine with strength training, while the control (no strength training, no creatine) group decreased by 1.0%.

Benefits are not confined to men. Similar results were observed in another study that included women (age 65 and older), with outcomes in females comparable to males. This is especially important for females, given the common development of osteopenia and osteoporosis in postmenopausal females.

Other studies have shown that benefits are maintained after stopping creatine supplementation.

The most popular form of creatine is the monohydrate, generally taken as a “loading” phase of 15-20 grams per day (generally split into 3-4 doses of 5 grams) for 5-7 days, followed by weeks to months of 2-5 grams per day.

An alternative form, polyethylene glycosylated creatine (PEG-creatine) provides similar effects at one-fourth to one-half the dose of creatine, i.e., 1.25-2.5 grams per day.

Despite previous concerns about kidney toxicity with prolonged use, another study showed that athletes taking creatine for up to 21 months have shown no adverse effects on kidney function, lipid (cholesterol) values, or other basic health measures.

Having healthy muscle mass doesn't make you bulge like a bodybuilder. With modest efforts at strength training, augmented with creatine supplementation, you have a wonderful tool to feel better, reduce injury, increase bone density, and combat abnormal insulin resistance, not to mention accelerate weight loss, since lean muscle mass consumes energy.

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

2. July 2009 William Davis (19)

There has been a lot of debate over whether or not “bio-identical” hormones, i.e., hormones identical to the human form, are superior to non-human forms dispensed by the drug industry.

The FDA is currently taking steps to clamp down on availability of bioidentical hormones and their claims of superiority, despite a groundswell of grassroot support for them. The argument has pitted anti-aging practitioners and the public, as well as the likes of Oprah and Suzanne Somers, against Big Pharma and the FDA, the two forces trying to squash the bioidentical hormone movement.

Regardless of what heavy-handed approach the FDA takes, we already have access to hormones identical to the original human form. It requires no prescription and yields downstream hormones that the human body recognizes as human.

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

Pregnenolone is the first biochemical step in the conversion of dietary cholesterol (yes-cholesterol!) to numerous other hormones. Pregnenolone is the source of the hormones that lie at the center of the bioidentical hormone controversy: estrogens, progesterone, and testosterone. We therefore already have our own over-the-counter, non-prescription form of bioidentical hormones.

Supplemental pregnenolone increases estrogens (mildly), progesterone, and testosterone. Prenenonlone supplementation simply provide more of the basic substrate for hormone production. The increase in hormones is usually modest, not as vigorous as direct hormone replacement like, say, testosterone or progesterone topical creams. But pregnenolone can be useful when small to moderate increases are desired, such as for reduction of Lp(a). A theoretical downside is that pregnenonlone can also convert to cortisol, the adrenal gland hormone that regulates fluid and blood pressure. However, I've not seen any measurable increase in cortisol with low doses of pregnenonlone and limited data suggest that it does not. Pregnenolone also converts to the other adrenal gland hormone, DHEA; I call DHEA "the hormone of assertiveness," since some people who take too much pregnenolone (or direct DHEA) acquire excessive assertiveness.

The key to pregnenolone supplementation is to proceed gradually and begin with a small dose, e.g., 5 mg every morning. Hormonal assessment is best conducted periodically to assess the effects and to determine whether a dose adjustment is in order.