Here I go again.

While I will try to keep this blog on topic, i.e., coronary heart disease prevention and reversal using nutritional and other natural strategies, I believe that a "critical mass" of frequently asked, though off topic, questions keep cropping up.

One such question revolves around Coumadin, or warfarin.

Somehow, my Nattokinase scam blog post draws traffic about Coumadin. I tried to make the point that a conventional blood thinning agent like Coumadin that undoubtedly has undesirable side-effects cannot be replaced by an agent that has an uncertain track record. In the case of nattokinase, no track record.

To illustrate how far wrong the "nattokinase as replacement for Coumadin" idea can go, here is a question from Anna:

I came across your blog while perusing.

I am a bit bummed because I have been on Coumadin (warfarin) for around 22 years since I was 6 years old. I have a mechanical heart valve (St. Jude's), as I have heart-related issues, including hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy.

Well, it is just that the warfarin seems to interact with nearly everything. I feel like I can not get the nutrients my body requires. I desire to consume more raw foods and vegan foods, though I do not want anything to damage my heart valve or risk a stroke/heart attack or internal bleeding.

I have been underweight the majority of my life, malnourished , currently am still somewhat underweight, though enjoying food again, as I had what mimicked Crohn's Disease for several years (horrendous pain), from which I am in remission now. I was diagnosed with osteoporosis, which may or may not be caused from consuming warfarin.

Is it possible to get off of warfarin and effectively keep my blood thinned ? I currently take 1.5 mg to 2 mg dosage. Does the warfarin destroy Vitamin K and if so does that mean while on warfarin I never get the Vitamin K nutrients even if I did consume foods with it in it?

Thank you
Anna

No, sorry, Anna. Stopping Coumadin with your unique issues, i.e., a prosthetic mechanical heart valve (likely mitral, judging by your history of hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy, in which the patterns of blood flow ejected from the heart disrupt the natural mitral valve function) and cardiomyopathy, can be fatal. Without blood thinning, the mechanical heart valve can trigger blood clot formation, since it is a foreign object implanted into the bloodstream.

There are no natural alternatives available with track records confident enough to bet your life on. Aspirin nor Plavix are blood thinners, but platelet inhibitors. These two agents, while they work for other forms of arterial (but not venous) blood clot inhibition, will not work for your unique situation.

Likewise, a purported oral lytic agent like nattokinase should not be substituted for Coumadin. Even if there was plausible science behind it, you should demand substantial evidence that it provides at least blood thinning equivalent to Coumadin. Should a blood clot, even a small one, form in or around the prosthetic valve, the valve can stop working within seconds. This can lead to death within minutes.

I believe it would be foolhardy to bet your life based on the marketing--let me repeat: MARKETING--of a "nutritional supplement" by supplement manufacturers eager to make a buck.

Nor are there any other nutritional supplements that can safely replace the Coumadin. I wish that were NOT true, as I am no stranger to the long-term dangers of Coumadin and I am a big believer, in general, in nutritional supplements. I am a BIGGER believer, however, in the truth. Weighing the options available to us today, there really is no rational choice but to remain on Coumadin.

By the way, I tell my patients to eat a substantial amount of green vegetables while they take Coumadin. I know that conventional advice is to reduce or eliminate green vegetables due to their content of Coumadin-antagonizing vitamin K. I think this is wrong, also. Green vegetables are the best foods on earth. They reduce risk for cancer, diabetes, bone disease, and coronary heart disease.

To obtain the benefits of green vegetables without mucking up your blood thinning (your "protime" or International Normalized Ratio, INR), I advise my patients who take Coumadin to eat green vegetables--but do so every day in relatively consistent quantities, so that the protime or INR is not disrupted and remains reasonably constant. It may mean that your total dose of Coumadin may be somewhat higher, e.g., 3 or 4 mg instead of 2 mg, but the dose is immaterial outside of blood thinning. That way, you obtain all the wonderful health benefits of green vegetables while maintaining fairly consistent blood thinning/protime/INR. Coumadin does not block all the health benefits of vegetables, only those related to vitamins K1 and K2.

With regards to protecting yourself from the osteoporosis promoting effects of Coumadin, I would be sure to follow a program of natural bone health, such as the one I discussed in Homegrown osteoporosis prevention and reversal. You will have to be extra careful, however, with the vitamin K2. Ideally, you have a doctor knowledgeable about vitamin K2 who can assist you in managing K2 intake while on Coumadin. This is something you can definitely NOT manage on your own. (I am a big believer in self-managed care, but this is way beyond the limit.)

Lastly, it is my belief that anyone with an inflammatory bowel condition, such as Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis, should absolutely, positively, and meticulously AVOID WHEAT and all other gluten sources (such as rye, barley, and oats). Even if you test negative for celiac markers (e.g., anti-gliadin antibodies, emdomysium and transglutaminase antibodies), the enhanced intestinal permeability will allow wheat proteins, such as gluten, to gain ready entry into the bloodstream. Not to mention that wheat should have no place in the human diet anyway, in my view.

I don't like to stray too far off course from discussions of heart disease and related issues in this blog. But the question of bone health comes up so often that I thought I'd discuss the strategies available to everybody to stop, even reverse, osteoporosis.

Coronary atherosclerotic plaque and bone health are intimately interwoven. People who have coronary plaque usually have osteoporosis; people who have osteoporosis usually have coronary plaque. (The association is strongest in females.) The worse the osteoporosis, the greater the quantity of coronary plaque, and vice versa. The two seemingly unconnected conditions share common causes and thereby respond to similar treatments.

Incredibly, rarely will your doctor tell you about these strategies. Your doctor orders a bone density test, the value shows osteopenia or osteoporosis, and a drug like Fosamax or Boniva is prescribed. As many people are learning, drugs like this can be associated with severe side-effects, such as jaw necrosis (death of the jaw bone), a dangerous and disfiguring condition that leads to loss of teeth and disfigurement, followed by reconstructive surgery of the jaw and face. These are not trivial effects.

Note that drugs are approved by the FDA based on assessment of efficacy and safety, NOT proven equivalence or superiority to natural treatments.

In order of importance (greatest to least), here are strategies that I believe are important to regain or maintain bone health. Indeed, I have seen many women increase bone density using these strategies . . . without drugs of any sort.

1) Vitamin D restoration--Vitamin D is the most important control factor over bone calcium metabolism, as well as parathyroid function. As readers of this blog already know, gelcap forms of vitamin D work best, aiming for a 25-hydroxy vitamin level of 60-70 ng/ml. This usually requires 6000 units per day, though there is great individual variation in need.

2) Vitamin K2--If you lived in Japan, you would be prescribed vitamin K2. While it's odd that K2 is a "drug" in Japan, it means that it enjoys the validation required for approval through their FDA-equivalent. Prescription K2 (as MK-4 or menatetranone) at doses of 15,000-45,000 mcg per day (15-45 mg), improves bone architecture, even when administered by itself. However, K2 works best when part of a broader program of bone health. I advise 1000 mcg per day, preferably a mixture of the short-acting MK-4 and long-acting MK-7. (Emerging data measuring bone resorption markers suggest that lower doses may work nearly as well as the high-dose prescription.)

3) Magnesium--I generally advise supplementation with the well-absorbed forms, magnesium glycinate (400 mg twice per day) or magnesium malate (1200 mg twice per day). Because they are well-absorbed, they are least likely to lead to diarrhea (as magnesium oxide commonly does).

4) Alkaline potassium salts--Potassium as the bicarbonate or the citrate, i.e., alkalinizing forms, are wonderfully effective for preservation or reversal of bone density. Because potassium in large doses is potentially fatal, over-the-counter supplements contain only 99 mg potassium per capsule. I have patients take two capsules twice per day, provided kidney function is normal and there is no history of high potassium.

5) An alkalinizing diet--Animal products are acidic, vegetables and fruits are alkaline. Put them together and you should obtain a slightly net alkaline body pH that preserves bone health. Throw grains like wheat, carbonated soft drinks, or other acids into the mix and you shift the pH balance towards net acid. This powerfully erodes bone. Therefore, avoid grains and never consume carbonated soft drinks. (Readers of this blog know that "healthy, whole grains" should be included in the list of Scams of the Century, along with Bernie Madoff and mortgage-backed securities.)

6) Strength training--Bone density follows muscle mass. Restoring youthful muscle mass with strength training can increase bone density over time. The time and energy needs are modest, e.g., 20 minutes twice per week.

Note that calcium may or may not be on the list. If on the list at all, it is dead last. When vitamin D has been restored, intestinal absorption of calcium is as much as quadrupled. The era of force-feeding high-doses of calcium are long-gone. In fact, calcium supplementation in the age of vitamin D can lead to abnormal high calcium blood levels and increased heart attack risk.

These are benign and easily incorporated strategies. They are also inexpensive. I challenge any drug to match or exceed the benefits of this combination of strategies. Keep in mind that strategies like vitamin D restoration provide an extensive panel of health benefits that range far beyond bone health, an effect definitely NOT shared by prescription drugs.

The thoracic aorta lives happily within the chest.

The aorta is the main artery of the body that emerges from the heart, located just under the sternum. It is the "tree trunk" from which all the major arteries branch off to the rest of the body: the arms, brain, abdominal organs, pelvis, and legs. The aorta receives the high-pressure blood ejected directly out of the heart muscle.

However, there are evil forces in the body that work to weaken the aorta. When the aorta is weakened, it enlarges. Enlarged aortas also tend to grow atherosclerotic plaque. Plaque in the aorta poses long-term risk for stroke and and mini-strokes ("transient ischemic attacks," or TIAs), due to fragmentation.

There are many enlarged aortas in this world. I see at least several every week. It is fairly common, particularly in people with high blood pressure and cholesterol abnormalities, as well as those who are overweight. Smokers get it really bad.

Conventional thinking is that, once an aorta enlarges, it will inevitably continue to enlarge at the average rate of 2.0 mm per year (resulting in 1.0 cm enlargement over 5 years). For this reason, conventional discussions on the topic of thoracic aortic aneurysms all say something like "Enlarged aortas should be monitored yearly. Surgical replacement should proceed when the aorta reaches a diameter of 5.5 cm."

This is because an aortic diameter of 5.5 cm is associated with much greater likelihood that the aorta will rupture (fatal within minutes) or the internal lining will tear, a "dissection." The surgery is a major undertaking that involves opening the chest and usually replacing the aortic valve and inserting a synthetic aorta. The procedure is high-risk, especially if any branch arteries are involved.

So putting a stop to any further aortic enlargement is a worthwhile goal. Unfortunately, conventional thought is that there is nothing you can do to stop the inevitable growth of the thoracic aorta.

Nonsense. There are a number of efforts you can make to halt further increase in aortic diameter. (My experience in this is anecdotal and unpublished, but now numbers several hundred patients.)

There are two categories of factors that cause the aorta to increase in diameter:

1) Internal pressure--Think of blood pressure as the internal inflating pressure on this "balloon." Keeping the "inflating pressure," i.e., blood pressure, low exerts substantial effect on slowing growth of aortic diameter. I aim for normal BP or lowish BP (less than 130/80, preferably 100/70).

2) Factors that weaken the aortic wall--Processes like inflammation, glycation, lipoprotein deposition, and nutritional deficiencies will serve to weaken the supportive tissue of the aorta. For that reason, correction of lipoprotein abnormalities (e.g., small LDL and lipoprotein(a)), reductions in carbohydrate intake and thereby blood glucose/glycation, and "normalization" of vitamin D, vitamin C supplementation (for collagen crosslinking), and omega-3 fatty acids all play a role.

To push even farther, there may be additional advantage to following strategies that impair the production and activity of a crucial enzyme that lives within the aortic wall: matrix metalloproteinase, or MMP. MMP degrades the collagen and other supportive tissues within the aorta, weakening it and permitting expansion. Blocking MMP may prove to be among the most powerful new strategies to halt aortic expansion.

Compounds that have potential MMP-inhibiting effects include:
--Vitamin D--A substantial effect
--Resveratrol--One of the polyphenols from red wine
--Doxycycline--This old antibiotic often used for acne treatment has, in preliminary studies, shown important MMP-blocking effects and slowed aortic expansion.

Anyway, there you have it. A bit complicated, but a "recipe" that has failed me only rarely.

Here's an interesting example of what you might call "extreme carbohydrate intolerance."

May is a 44-year woman who has now had her 7th stent placed in her coronary arteries. She lives on a diet dominated by breads, breakfast cereals, muffins, rice, corn products, along with some real foods.

Her conventional lipid panel and other lab values:

Total cholesterol 346 mg/dl
Triglycerides: 877 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol: 22 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol: incalculable
(Recall that LDL cholesterol is usually a calculated, not a measured value. The excessively high triglycerides make the standard calculation invalid--more invalid than usual.)

Fasting blood glucose: 210 mg/dl
HbA1c (a reflection of previous 60-90 days average glucose): 7.2% (desirable 4.5% or less)
ALT (a "liver enzyme"): 438 (about five-fold normal)

At 5 ft even and 138 lbs (BMI 27.0), May appears small. But the modest excess weight is all concentrated in her abdomen, i.e., in visceral fat.

By lipoprotein analysis via NMR (Liposcience), May's LDL particle number was 2912 nmol/L, or what I would call a "true" LDL of 291 mg/dl. (Drop the last digit.) Of the 2912 nmol/L LDL particles, 2678 nmol/L, or 92%, were small.

The bad news: This pattern of extremely high triglycerides, extremely high LDL particle number, low HDL, predominant small LDL, and diabetes poses high-risk for heart disease--no surprise. It earned her 7 stents so far. (Unfortunately, she has made no effort whatsoever to correct these patterns, despite repeated advice to do so.)

The good news: This collection is wonderfully responsive to diet. LDL particle number, small LDL, triglycerides, blood glucose, and HbA1c drop dramatically, while HDL increases. Heart disease will at least slow, if not stop.

It's amazing how far off human metabolism can go while indulging in carbohydrates, particularly a genetically carbohydrate-intolerance person. (Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if May's diet, as bad as it seems to you and me, still fits within the dictates of the USDA food pyramid.) The crucial step in diet to correct this smorgasbord of disaster is elimination of carbohydrates, especially that from wheat, cornstarch, and sugars.

Heart Scan Blog reader and dietitian, Lisa Grudzielanek, provided this recipe in response to the post, What's for breakfast?

Lisa, by the way, is one of the rare dietitians who understands that organizations like the American Dietetic Association have made themselves irrelevant. She therefore advocates diet principles that work, not just echoing the idiocy that emanates from such organizations, often driven by economics more than science. Lisa works in the Milwaukee area and has proven a useful resource person for my patients who have required extra coaching in the Track Your Plaque diet principles.

Egg Bake
My favorite breakfast is what I call an "egg bake." Others may refer to it as a "quiche."

Take a variety of fresh vegetables. This time of year is great for farmers' markets.

I typically use fresh chopped organic spinach, bell peppers, red & white onions, scallions, broccoli, mushrooms, cherry tomatoes halved and, if desired, meat (nitrite-free ham or leftover chicken breasts).

1) Chop veggies and place in casserole dish.
2) Add meat and handful of cheese of your choice.
3) Scramble 8 eggs & little bit of milk & pepper.
4) Add to casserole dish and mix/coat veggies with egg mixture.
5) Put in oven at 450 degress for 30 minutes.

Yummy, ready to eat breakfast that is so easy for the work week.

If you eliminate wheat from breakfast and otherwise adhere to a low-carbohydrate dietary approach, what is there to eat for breakfast?

If you take out English muffins, bagels, all breakfast cereals, pancakes, waffles, and toast, what's left to eat?

Actually, there's plenty left to eat. It just may not look like the traditional American notion of "breakfast." (The traditional idea of breakfast was is, in part, due to the legacy of Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, who, in the latter part of the 19th century, ran a sanitarium in Battle Creek Michigan. He and his brother, Will Keith Kellogg, discovered the idea of turning grains into flakes, the birth of the breakfast cereal. Subscribe to the idea of breakfast cereal for breakfast and you subscribe to the ideas of a man who would administer four enemas for you today to cure your cancer or rheumatism.)

Here are a few ideas. By no means is this meant to be a comprehensive list, just a starting point for a few new breakfast food ideas.

--Eggs--Of course, eat the yolk. Eat three yolks. Scrambled, "fried," (not really deep-fried, of course), hard-boiled, poached, as an omelette. Add pesto, olive oil, vegetables, mushrooms, salsa.

--Ground flaxseed--As a hot cereal with your choice of water, milk (not my favorite because of insulin effects; the fat is immaterial), full-fat soy milk (yeah, yeah, I know), unsweetened almond milk. Add walnuts, blueberries, etc. Ground flaxseed is the only grain I know of that contains no digestible carbohydrates.

--Lunch and dinner--Yes, if you cannot have breakfast foods for breakfast, then have lunch and dinner, meaning incorporating foods you ordinarily regard as lunch and dinner foods into your day's first meal. This means salads, leftover chicken from last night, soup, raw vegetables dipped in hummus or guacamole, stir fry, etc.

--Cheese--For something quick, grab a chunk of gouda or emmentaler along with a handful of raw almonds, walnuts, or pecans. Because of the excess acidity of cheese (along with meats, among the most acidifying of foods), I usually try to include something like a raw pepper or avocado, foods that are net alkaline.

--Avocados--Cut in half, scoop out contents. They're quick and delicious, when available.

I hesitate to mention it, but I sometimes will have tofu, cubed and flavored with whatever is available--soy sauce, miso, pickled vegetables. My mother was Japanese, so I'm comfortable with this, though many people are not.

Anyway, that's a partial list that nonetheless can get you started on a wheat-free, low-carb breakfast.

If you are just starting out, you will notice a number of fundamental changes. You may first experience the characteristic "withdrawal" effect: mental fog and fatigue that lasts about a week. Energy then picks up, often substantially. This is followed by gradually reduced appetite: You will be far less hungry. You will require less food, less often, since appetite will be driven by physiologic need, not the appetite-stimulating properties of wheat (and cornstarch, high-fructose cornsyrup and sucrose).

By the way, do not skip breakfast unless it's part of an occasional fasting effort. Skip breakfast, wind down metabolism, get fat. I am impressed at how consistent skipping breakfast backfires in those who think that it helps you control weight.

I also welcome any suggestions on what you eat as part of your wheat-free, low-carb breakfast. (Thanks for the great suggestions on the last blog post, Anna.)

You've heard of wheat belly. How about wheat hip?

Recall that the innocent appearing wheat belly is actually a hotbed of inflammatory activity beneath the surface. The visceral fat of the wheat belly, i.e., fat kidneys, fat liver, fat intestines, fat pancreas, produces abnormal inflammatory signals, such as various interleukins, tumor necrosis factor, and leptin. These are the inflammatory signals that create insulin resistance and diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and cancer.

These same inflammatory mediators are able to enter the joint spaces, such as those in your hips, knees, and hands. This leads to osteoarthritis, the exceptionally common form of arthritis that affects 1 in 7 Americans. In particular, the level of leptin in joints mirrors that in blood, a phenomenon that has been associated with joint destruction.

The previously widely-held notion that arthritis is simply a wear-and-tear phenomenon due to the mechanical stress of excess weight is proving to be an oversimplification. Arthritis is also part of the carbohydrate-driven, weight-increasing, inflammatory condition of insulin resistance or metabolic syndrome.

Throw into this cytokine storm the fact that glycation, i.e., glucose modification of proteins, also causes cartilage destruction. The cells of human cartilage lack the ability to divide, so the cartilage cells you had at age 18 are the cartilage cells that you will hopefully still have at age 80. However, high blood sugars (glucose) glycate the proteins in cartilage. (Wheat raises blood glucose higher than almost all other foods, higher than a Milky Way bar, higher than a Snickers bar.) The process is irreversible and cumulative. Because cartilage has next to no capacity for repair or regeneration, it becomes brittle. Over years, it essentially crumbles, leading to the "bone on bone" that prompts conversations about total hip and total knee replacement.

So that ciabatta or blueberry muffin in your mouth takes you a step or two closer to joint destruction via heightened inflammation arising from the visceral fat of the wheat belly, worsened by glycation of high blood sugars after carbohydrate consumption.

My solution: Lose the ciabatta.

Consume wheat products, like poppyseed muffins, raisin bagels, and whole grain bread, and you trigger the 90- to 120-minute glucose-insulin cycle.

Blood glucose goes way up (more than almost any other known food), triggering insulin release from the pancreas. Glucose enters cells as a result, blood glucose plummets. You get hungry, shaky, and crabby, reach for another wheat or other sugar-generating food to start the roller coaster ride all over again.

Repetitive insulin triggering grows this thing I call a "wheat belly," the protuberant, hang-over-the-belt fat you see everywhere nowadays. Wheat belly fat is really visceral fat. Visceral fat means you have fat kidneys, fat intestines, fat pancreas, and fat liver, all causing the belly to protrude in the familiar way we've all come to recognize.

Visceral fat is special fat. Unlike the fat in the backside, thighs, or arms, visceral fat triggers inflammatory responses that are evident in such measures as tumor necrosis factor, interleukins, and leptin, as well as drops in the protective hormone, adiponectin.

Visceral fat also, oddly, triggers estrogen release. Estrogen triggers growth of breast tissue. That's why females with wheat bellies have up to four-fold (400%) greater likelihood of breast cancer.

Men also experience excess estrogen from the visceral fat wheat belly, causing "man boobs." This B-cup phenomenon means that inflammation is raging beneath the surface, all due to this thing you're wearing around your waist.

I wasn't aware until recently that male breast reduction surgery is a booming business growing at double-digit rates. So are special clothes to help men conceal their expansive breasts.

Perhaps the USDA is in cahoots with Playtex.

Joanne started with a 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 23 ng/ml--severe deficiency.

What made this starting value even worse was that it was drawn in August after a moderately sunny summer spent outdoors. (Last summer, not this summer.) It therefore represented her high for the year, since vitamin D levels trend lower as fall and winter set in. This suggests that her winter level was likely in the teens or even single digits. In addition, note that, at age 43, Joanne has lost much of her ability to activate vitamin D in the skin.

So I advised that she take 6000 units of an oil-based gelcap per day, a dose likely to generate the desired blood level, which I believe is 60-70 ng/ml.

Four months later, her 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 39.9 ng/ml--still too low. So I advised her to increase her dose to 10,000 units per day. Several months later, her 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 63.8 ng/ml--perfect.

However, on hearing that she was taking 10,000 units vitamin D per day, Joanne's primary care physician was shocked: "What? Stop that immediately! You're taking a toxic dose!" So Joanne called me to find out if this was true.

No, of course it's not true. It's not the dose that's toxic, but the blood level it generates. Although it varies, vitamin D toxicity, as evidenced by increased blood calcium levels, generally does not even begin to get underway until at least 120-130 ng/ml, perhaps higher. Rarely, a dose of 2000 units per day will generate a level this high. In others, it may require 24,000 or more units per day to generate such a high level.

So it's not the dose that's toxic, but the blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D it generates.

Provided you and/or your doctor are monitoring 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood levels, the dose is immaterial. It's the blood level you're interested in.

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).

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.

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:

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Can I stop my Coumadin?

Homegrown osteoporosis prevention and reversal

Your enlarged aorta

Extreme carbohydrate intolerance

What's for breakfast? Egg bake

What's for breakfast?

Wheat hip

Men's lingerie is on the second floor

Rerun

10,000 units of vitamin D

Thyroid: Be a perfectionist

Nutrition Syllogism

Is pomegranate juice healthy?

Honeydew melon

Where do you find fructose?

Do heart scans cause cancer?

Goodbye, fructose

The statin-free life

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone