The “Heart Healthy” scam

27. July 2008 William Davis (1)
Like many scams, this one follows a predictable formula.

It is a formula widely practiced among food manufacturers, ever since food products began to jockey for position based on nutritional composition and purported health benefits.

First, identify a component of food, such as wheat fiber or oat bran, that confers a health benefit. Then, validate the healthy effect in clinical studies. Wheat fiber, for instance, promotes bowel regularity and reduces the likelihood of colon cancer. Oat bran reduces blood cholesterol levels.

Second, commercialize food products that contain the purported healthy ingredient. Wheat bran becomes Shredded Wheat, Fiber One, and Raisin Bran cereals and an endless choice of “healthy” breads. Oat bran becomes Honey Bunches of Oats, Quaker’s Instant Oatmeal, and granola bars. Even if many unhealthy components are added, as long as the original healthy product is included, the manufacturer continues to lay claim to healthy effects.

Third, as long as the original healthy ingredient remains, get an agency like the American Heart Association to provide an endorsement: “American Heart Association Tested and Approved.”

The last step is the easiest: just pay for it, provided the product meets a set of requirements, no matter how lax.

You will find the American Heart Association certification on Quaker Instant Oatmeal Crunch Apples and Cinnamon. Each serving contains 39 grams carbohydrate, 16 grams sugar (approximately 4 teaspoons), and 2.5 grams fat of which 0.5 grams are saturated. Ingredients include sugar, corn syrup, flaked corn, and partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil. Curiously, of the 4 grams of fiber per serving, only 1 gram is the soluble variety, the sort that reduces cholesterol blood levels. (This relatively trivial quantity of soluble fiber is unlikely to impact significantly on cholesterol levels, since a minimum 3 grams of soluble fiber is the quantity required, as demonstrated in a number of clinical studies.) Nonetheless, this sugar product proudly wears the AHA endorsement.

Thus, a simple component of food that provides genuine benefit mushrooms into a cornucopia of new products with added ingredients: sugar, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, carageenan, raisins, wheat flour, preservatives, hydrogenated oils, etc. What may have begun as a health benefit can quickly deteriorate into something that is patently unhealthy.

There’s a clever variation on this formula. Rather than developing products that include a healthy component, create products that simply lack an unhealthy ingredient, such as saturated or trans fats or sodium.

Thus, a ¾-cup serving of Cocoa Puffs cereal contains 120 calories, no fiber, 14 grams (3 ½ teaspoons) of sugar—but is low in fat and contains no saturated fat. Proudly displayed on the box front is an American Heart Association stamp of approval. It earned this stamp of approval because Cocoa Puffs was low in saturated, trans, and total fat and sodium. Likewise, Cookie Crisp cereal, featuring Chip the Wolf, a cartoon wolf in a red sweater (“The great taste of chocolate chip cookies and milk!”), has 160 calories, 26 grams carbohydrate and 19 grams (4½ teaspoons) of sugar per cup, and 0 grams fiber—but only 1.0 gram fat, none saturated, thus the AHA check mark. (Promise margarine, made with hydrogenated vegetable oil and therefore containing significant quantities of trans fats, was originally on the list, as well, but removed when the trans fat threshold was added to the AHA criteria.)

It is this phenomenon, the sleight of hand of taking a healthy component and tacking on a list of ingredients manageable only by food scientists, or asserting that a product is healthy just because it lacks a specific undesirable ingredient, that is a major factor in the extraordinary and unprecedented boom in obesity in the U.S. Imagine the chemical industry were permitted such latitude: “Our pesticide is deemed safe by the USDA because it contains no PCBs.” Such is the ill-conceived logic of the AHA Heart-Check program the "Heart Healthy" claims.

It’s best we keep in mind the observations of New York University nutritionist and author of the book, Food Politics, Marion Nestle, that “food companies—just like companies that sell cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, or any other commodity—routinely place the needs of stock holders over considerations of public health. Food companies will make and market any product that sells, regardless of its nutritional value or its effect on health. In this regard, food companies hardly differ from cigarette companies. They lobby Congress to eliminate regulations perceived as unfavorable; they press federal regulatory agencies not to enforce such regulations; and when they don’t like regulatory decisions, they file lawsuits. Like cigarette companies, food companies co-opt food and nutrition experts by supporting professional organizations and research, and they expand sales by marketing directly to children, members of minority groups, and people in develop countries—whether or not the products are likely to improve people’s diets.”

Qualms over just how heart-healthy their products are? Doubtful.

Exploitation of trust

25. July 2008 William Davis (5)
Once upon a time, the tobacco industry was guilty of conducting a widespread, systematic, highly organized campaign to deliver their product to as much of the unsuspecting public as possible.

As clinical data mounted linking smoking and health problems like cancer and heart disease, tobacco producers labored fiercely to counter these claims despite darkening public sentiment. When individual company executives were questioned on why they continued to perpetuate the industry’s scandalous practices, the invariable justification offered was “Well, I had to pay my mortgage.” That tidy ends-justifies-the-means rationalization has a familiar ring when you examine the behavior of those in the heart "industry."

Things are not what they seem. The hospital, once an institution to serve the sick, a place for clergy, volunteers, and other altruists, has evolved into a business serving a thriving bottom line. You are the “product” they seek. The cardiologist, ostensibly in the service of alleviating heart disease, instead seeks to grow his checkbook by performing procedures that have nothing to do with lessening the burden of heart disease. He dives into the water to save drowning victim after drowning victim, but fails to simply toss in the life preserver that has been close at hand all along.

The woeful family practitioner, who is expected to bear undue responsibility for the broad spectrum of health, ignorantly permits heart disease to grow under his or her nose and, by default, allows heart disease to become the exclusive province of the proceduralist. Worse, the family practitioner or internist in the employ of the hospital (a situation that has quietly grown to encompass 80% of all primary care physicians) labors to fatten hospital business by directing patients into hospital services. The comparative lowly incomes of the primary care physician are substantially supplemented by participating in this huge revenue-generating machine called heart care.

The astounding grasp of the system has caused one of every 10 adults in the U.S. to have undergone a heart procedure. The lemming-like procession to the hospital creates a crowd mentality among some sectors of the frightened public. “My friends and neighbors have all had bypass operations. Sooner or later I guess it’s going to be my turn.”

Tragically, the system has grown through the exploitation of trust. The faith we have in doctors, hospitals, and the institutions and people associated with healthcare has been subverted into the service of profit. Many practitioners and institutions choose to operate under the guise of doing good, but instead capitalize on the public’s willingness to accept as fact the need for major heart procedures and all its associated costly trappings.

Bait and switch

24. July 2008 William Davis (0)
"When banks compete, you win.”

The TV ad opens with a 60-something man sitting in his living room, talking to a three-piece suit-clad, 30-something banker. The older man is explaining to the dismayed younger man why he’s going to use Lending Tree loan service for a home loan.

“But Dad, I’m you’re son!” the younger whines.

Many of Lending Tree’s clients have collaborated in filing a multi-million dollar class action suit against the company, claiming “bait and switch” tactics. They claim that home buyers are lured by low interest rates or low closing costs on a home loan. Once the buyer concludes the hassle of filling out numerous forms, the suit accuses Lending Tree of making a switch to a costlier loan.

Bait and switch is among the oldest con games around. If you’ve ever bought a car from a car dealer, chances are you’ve had your own little brush with this deception. The ad promises the SUV you’ve wanted for only $299 per month. Only, once you get there, the salesman informs you that only a limited number of special deals were available and they’ve run out. But he’s still got a really good deal right over here!

Most of us recognize that we’ve been hookwinked. Yet we still go along and buy a car from the dealer.

What if it’s not a sleazy salesman behind the pitch, but a physician. If it’s hard to resist the sales pitch at the car dealership, it can be near impossible to ignore the advice of your doctor. But the truth is often loud and clear: in many instances, it is a genuine, bona fide, and fully-certified scam.

Among the most common bait-and-switch heart scams: Your cholesterol is high. The sequence of subsequent testing is well-rehearsed. “Gee, Bob, I’m worried about your risk for heart disease. Let’s schedule you for a nuclear stress test.”

The stress test, like 20% or more of them, is “falsely positive,” meaning abnormal even though there’s nothing wrong with you. Another 30% are equivocal, not clearly abnormal but also not clearly normal. Now up to 50% of people tested “need” a heart catheterization in the hospital to clarify this frightening uncertainty. You might end up with a stent or two, even bypass surgery. Your simple $20 cholesterol panel has metamorphosed into $100,000 in hospital procedures.

That familiar sequence is followed thousands of times, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

If a disease lacks a procedure . . . create one

24. July 2008 William Davis (1)
Congestive heart failure is among the most common diagnoses in the hospital nowadays.

Congestive heart failure is the result of injury to the heart muscle such as that occurring during heart attack, viral infections of the heart (myocarditis), poorly controlled high blood pressure, and a smattering of other rare causes. Eight million Americans with congestive heart failure account for over one million hospital admissions annually (AHA Update, 2007). It has become so common, in fact, that it has ranked as number one cause for hospital admission for the last several years.

Heart failure is a frightening condition causing the sufferer to gasp for breath. Excess fluid accumulates in the lungs, amplifying the work of breathing and imparting a feeling of unease. Some heart failure sufferers struggle to the point of blacking out or requiring mechanical ventilation on a respirator.

There are a number of standard treatments for heart failure that usually rapidly rescue the patient from the brink of respiratory failure. These generally consist of intravenous diuretics that force the kidney to clear excess water rapidly, medications to increase heart muscle strength, and other treatments. It’s not uncommon for a heart failure patient to drop 10–20 lbs. in water weight with treatment. The treatments are quite effective for the majority of patients with rapid relief of the breathlessness generally obtained within hours.

However, the problem with congestive heart failure is not generally the rapidity or effectiveness of acutely providing relief, it is the chronic recurring nature of the disease. Someone can come to the hospital, obtain prompt treatment with relief of the breathlessness within 48–72 hours, only to return to the hospital in several weeks with a recurrence of the same process.

As common as congestive heart is in hospitals, it has also presented the perennial problem: how to convert this frequent reason for hospitalization into a profit opportunity. Some people who experience heart failure will undergo the usual sequence of heart procedures of heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery, valve surgery, etc. But, because heart failure tends to be a repeatedly recurring event, even patients tire of the “need” for heart procedures. Then how can more heart failure occurrences be converted into profitable events?

A unique principle operates in the medical device market: If a disease lacks a procedure . . . create one.

Several problems are solved by such a principle. First, procedures are much more generously reimbursed by insurers than standard medical care without procedures. Two, the physician is provided an opportunity to also bill at a higher level. Third, patients often love the more dramatic, heroic nature of procedures, whether or not there is true benefit.

To the rescue of the poorly reimbursed area of congestive heart failure walks a Minnesota company called CHF Solutions, Inc., manufacturers of the Aquadex device.

Cost? $14,500 plus $900 per filter every time a patient gets one treatment. The Aquadex works by a decades-old process called ultrafiltration, used for many years but used principally for kidney failure not severe enough to require regular dialysis. New York cardiologist Howard Levin simply adapted the process, using smaller catheters inserted into the arm veins, in 2000. As in conventional ultrafiltration, blood is taken from the body from a catheter, passed through a filter that removes excess water, then returned to the body.

This is a serious effort. Dr. Levin raised $51 million in venture backing on top of $12 million seed capital. The device sailed through the Food & Drug Administration in June 2002, since it was labeled a newer form of ultrafiltration, thereby obtaining approval through the FDA’s 501k rule, a minor modification of existing technology. (Many truly technologically unique devices do come to market and therefore require the full process of FDA approval, a generally lengthy and costly process for devices. However, there’s another way: bill a device as “substantially equivalent” to an existing technology and the approval process is relatively quick and easy.)

In an industry publication, Cath Lab Digest, Dr. Levin was interviewed in February, 2003, and proclaimed, “We can treat many of the symptoms of heart failure, but we’re a long ways off from a cure. That’s why new technologies are so exciting, such as LVADs for the very sickest heart failure patients; biventricular pacing for the small subset of patients who seem to benefit from it; and simplified ultrafiltration such as the System 100 that can be applied to a broad range of congestive heart failure patients with fluid overload. “

What does this have to do with heart scans and heart disease reversal? Nothing-directly. I highlight this phenomenon because it caricatures how things work in medicine and health care in general, more so in cardiovascular diseases in which the profit motive is especially deeply ingrained. Focus on a need, then generate a profitable treatment for it. Profits are what drive growth, marketing, sales, and expansion into new revenue-generating niches.

Sadly, the reverse principle does not work: Replace profitable procedures with unprofitable strategies, regardless of their effectiveness. Replacing coronary angioplasty and coronary stent implantation, or bypass surgery, with intensive prevention efforts is no easy matter. Just witness the enormous resistance to the concept of early heart disease detection achieved with heart scans. A day doesn’t go by without a major media outlet bashing heart scans, or confusing them with CT coronary angiograms with claims of excessive radiation.

But the mounting volume of criticisms against heart scans also means that they are gaining some traction in mainstream thinking. But will there be a day when they replace the need for profitable procedures? I believe they will, when coupled with a powerful program of prevention, but don’t hold your breath.

Blood sugar lessons from a Type I diabetic

23. July 2008 William Davis (15)
A friend of mine is a Type I, or childhood onset, diabetic. He's had it for nearly 50 years, since age 6. He's also in the health industry and is a good observer of detail.

He made the following interesting comments to me recently when talking about the effects of various foods on blood sugar:

"When I eat normally, like some vegetables or salad and meat, I dose up to 10 units of insulin to control my blood sugar.

"If I eat a turkey sandwich on two slices of whole wheat, I usually dose 15 units. The bread makes my blood sugar go to 300 if I don't.

"If I eat a Cousins's Sub [a local submarine sandwich chain], I dose 15 units. The bread really makes my blood sugar go up.

"I can only eat a Quarter Pound from McDonald's once a year, because it make my blood sugar go nuts. I dose 15-20 units before having it, and I feel like crap for two days afterwards.

"If I eat Mexican food, I have to dose 15-20 units. For some reason, it's gotten worse over the years, and I need to dose higher and higher.

"Chinese food is the absolute worst. I dose 20-25 units before eating Chinese. I'll often have to dose more afterwards, because my blood sugar goes so berserk."


Nothing beats the real-world observations on the impact of various foods on blood sugar than the observations of people with Type I diabetes. All the insulin they get is in a syringe. Dosing needs to match intake.

Personally, though I love the taste of Americanized Chinese food, I've always been suspicious of what exactly goes into these dishes. But I was unaware of the blood sugar implications.

The impact of Mexican I believe can be attributed to the cornstarch used in the tacos and tortillas, though I also wonder if there are other starches being snuck in, as well.

Lessons about omega-3s from Japan

23. July 2008 William Davis (7)














Image courtesy of apc33.

Japan provides a useful "laboratory" for studying the effect of a culture that relies heavily on eating fish.

The JELIS Trial, the topic of a previous Heart Scan Blog post, showed that supplementation with the single omega-3 fatty acid, EPA, 1800 mg per day (the equivalent of 10 capsules of 'standard' fish oil that contains 180 mg per day of EPA, 120 mg of DHA) significantly reduced heart attack in a Japanese population. Interestingly, this benefit was additive to the already substantial intake of omega-3 fatty acids among the general Japanese population, a population with a fraction of the heart attacks found in western populations like the U.S. (approximately 3% over 5 years in Japanese compared to several-fold higher in a comparable American group).

While there may be genetic and other cultural and lifestyle reasons behind the dramatically reduced cardiovascular risk in Japanese, it is undeniably at least partially due to the increased intake of omega-3 fatty acids from fish. Incidentally, the purported benefits of omega-3 fatty acids provide a vigorous counter-argument to the idea that all humans should be vegetarians.

Anyway, if we were to take some lessons from the Japanese and their greater habitual intake of omega-3 fatty acids from fish, they might include:

--Rural and coastal Japanese are the sub-populations with the highest reliance on fish, about a quarter-pound a day. (Gives new meaning to the idea of a "Quarter Pounder," doesn't it?) This is at least five-times greater than the intake of an average American.

--Likewise, the blood level of omega-3s in the blood of Japanese is 5-fold higher than in Americans.

--The average intake of omega-3s (EPA + DHA) among a broadly-selected population of Japanese is 850 mg per day (320 mg EPA; 520 mg DHA). Intake ranges from 300 mg per day all the way up to 3100 mg per day.

--Greater omega-3 intake (EPA + DHA) is associated with lesser carotid intimal-medial thickness, an index of body-wide atherosclerosis.

--Japanese have far less heart attack and stroke despite greater prevalence of smoking (nearly half of Japanese) and drinking.

--Total fat intake (percent of calories) is nearly identical between Americans and Japanese. It's the proportion of fat calories from omega-3 that is greater, the proportion of omega-6 that is less in Japanese.


The Japanese eat their fish in ways that we do not: As sashimi (raw, as with sushi in its various forms like Nigiri and Chirashi); fried in tempura; shaved, dried fish sprinkled on about anything you can imagine (it's not as bad as it sounds); as a snack, as in dried cuttlefish (which you can purchase in packages as a portable, sweetened fish that you eat on-the-run--I know it sounds awful, but don't poke fun at it until you've tried it); in "soups" with soba noodles. Fish is commonly consumed with rice and soy sauce, as well as other soy-based foods, such as tofu, miso (soy bean paste), or natto. 


I believe that there are some lessons to take from the Japanese and their fish-consuming habits:

1) An omega-3 fatty acid intake of at least 1000 mg per day yields measurable cardiovascular benefits. 

2) Despite the fears over mercury and pesticide residues in fish, this seems to not have played out to be a real-life effect in the Japanese, who consume five-fold greater quantities of fish. 

3) My mother was right after all when she encouraged us to eat more fish. 


DIRECT Study result: Low-carb, Mediterranean diets win weight-loss battle

19. July 2008 William Davis (14)
Drs. Iris Shai and colleagues released results of a new Israeli study, the Dietary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trial (DIRECT) Trial, that compared three different diet strategies. Of those tested, a low-carbohydrate diet was most successful at achieving weight loss.

You can find the full-text of the study on the New England Journal of Medicine website.

322 participants followed one of three diets over two year period. Compared head-to-head, the (mean) weight loss in each group was:

• 2.9 kg (6.4 lbs) for the low-fat group
• 4.4 kg (9.7 lbs) for the Mediterranean-diet group
• 4.7 kg (10.3 lbs) for the low-carbohydrate group

(Average age 52 years at start; average body-mass index, or BMI, 31.)

The conclusion was that the low-carb diet performed the best, with 60% greater weight loss, with the Mediterranean diet a close second.


The diets

The low-fat diet was based on the American Heart Association diet, with 30% of calories from fat (10% from saturated fat) and food choices weighted towards low-fat grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes and limited additional fats, sweets, and high-fat snacks; calorie intake of 1500 kcal per day for women and 1800 kcal per day for men was encouraged.

The Mediterranean diet was a moderate-fat diet rich in vegetables, with reduced red meat, and poultry and fish replacing beef and lamb. Total calories from fat of 35% per day or less was the goal, with most fat calories from olive oil and a handful of nuts. Like the low-fat program, calories were limited to 1500 kcal per day for women, 1800 kcal per day for men.

The low-carbohydrate diet was patterned after the popular Atkins’ program, with 8% participants achieving the ketosis that Dr. Atkins’ advocated as evidence that a fat-burning metabolism was activated, rather than sugar-burning as fuel. For the 2-month “induction phase,” 20 grams of carbohydrates per day was set as the goal, followed by 120 grams per day once the weight goal was achieved. Unlike the other two diets, calories, protein and fat were unlimited.


Weight loss, lipids, inflammation

You can see from the weight loss graph that the low-carb approach exerted the most dramatic initial weight loss. Interestingly, much of the weight-loss benefit was lost as the carbohydrate intake increased, by study design, back to 120 mg per day. However, the other two diet approaches showed similar phenomena of “giving back” some of the initial weight loss.

The low-carbohydrate diet exerted the greatest change in cholesterol, or lipid, panels: increased HDL 8.4 mg/dl vs. 6.3 mg/dl on low-fat; the triglyceride response was the most dramatic, with a reduction of 23.7 mg/dl vs. 3.7 mg/dl on low-fat. Interestingly, the LDL cholesterol-reducing effect of all three diets was modest, with the most reduction achieved by the Mediteranean diet.

The inflammatory measure, C-reactive protein (CRP), was reduced most effectively by the low-carb and Mediterranean diets, least by the low-fat diet. HbA1c, a measure of long-term blood sugar, dropped significantly more on the low-carb diet.

When the final dietary composition was examined, interestingly, there really were only modest differences among the three diets, with 8% less calories from carbs, 8% greater calories from fat, comparing low-carb to low-fat, with Mediterranean intermediate.



Taken at face value, this useful exercise quite clearly shows that, from the perspective of weight loss and correction of metabolic parameters like triglycerides, HDL,CRP, and blood sugar, low-carbohydrate wins hands down, with Mediterranean diet a close second.

It also suggests that a return to a carbohydrate intake of 120 mg/day allows a partial return of initial weight lost, as well as deterioration of metabolic parameters after the initial positive changes.

Although the study has already received some criticism for such potential flaws as the modest number of Atkins’ followers achieving ketosis (8%), suggesting lax adherence, and the reintroduction of the 120 mg/day carbohydrate advice, I can suspect that these may have been compromises drawn to satisfy some Institutional Review Board. (Whenever a study is going to be conducted involving human subjects, a study needs to pass through the review of an Institutional Review Board, or IRB. IRB’s, while charged to protect human subjects from experimental abuses, also tend to be painfully conservative and will block a study or demand changes even if they are not dangerous, but just veer too far off the mainstream.)


However, several unanswered questions remain:

1) How would the diets have compared if the carbohydrate restriction were continued for a longer period, or even indefinitely? (The divergences would likely have been dramatic.)
2) Will low-carb exert the same cardiovascular event reduction that the Mediterranean approach has shown in the Lyon study and others?
3) Are there effects on health outside of the measures followed that differ among the three diets, such as cancer? (I doubt it, especially given the modest real differences over time. But this will be the objection raised by various "official" organizations.)


I would further propose that:

Low-fat diets are dead

The AHA will cling to their version of low-fat diet, based on difficulty in changing course for any large, consensus-driven organization, not to mention the substantial ($100’s of millions) revenues derived from endorsing low-fat manufactured products. The AHA will also point to the lack of difference in LDL cholesterol among the three, since they cannot get beyond the fact that there’s more to coronary risk—a lot more—than LDL.


Off-the-shelf diets achieve off-the-shelf results

If you just need a T-shirt, a medium might fit fine. But if you’d like a nicely fitting suit or dress, then tailoring to your individual proportions is needed. When aiming towards maximizing benefits on lipoproteins and coronary risk, none of these diets achieve the kinds of changes we often need for coronary plaque reversal, as in the Track Your Plaque program. That requires making dietary changes that exert maximal effects on lipoprotein patterns.

Do I sell heart scans?

18. July 2008 William Davis (12)
I came across a criticism of the Track Your Plaque program recently that suggested that it was nothing more than a program to sell CT heart scans.

Huh?

I suppose if you say that the Track Your Plaque program is nothing more than a way to sell heart disease prevention, omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, vitamin D, better nutrition, and better identification of causes of heart disease . . . well, I believe that would be true.

But is the program a "front" to sell heart scans?

No, it is not, nor has it ever been.

I've heard about these peculiar suspicions about the program before. Though I've never taken them seriously, let me clear up any lingering uncertainty:


--I have no relationship with any heart scan center, scanning facility, or hospital other than to interpret heart scans.

I do not own a scanner, I have no financial interest in a scanner or scanning center, nor have I ever had any interest. I also have no plans to do so in the future. Let business people in the imaging business do that. I want no part of it. I have seen what these people go through and, frankly, I want no part of it, nor do I want the appearance that I am advocating scans to make money. I'm accused of trying to make money from scans even when I do not have any financial interest!


--I do not sell heart scans or imaging packages, nor have I ever done so.

You can't buy a scan through Track Your Plaque, The Heart Scan Blog, or through me. To me, heart scans are simply a measuring tool to identify the extent of coronary plaque, as well as a tracking tool to follow its course. Without it, there would be no Track Your Plaque. But there is also no alternative. The closest alternative would be carotid intimal-medial thickness, a technique, while useful, is a distant second choice to indirectly gauge coronary plaque by examining the thickness of the carotid lining (not carotid plaque). Perhaps in 10 years, a better measure to gauge and track coronary plaque will emerge that has superior aspects over CT heart scanning. If reasonable, safe, accessible, and quantitative, then Track Your Plaque may adopt that technology as its measuring tool.

Track Your Plaque is not about heart scanning; Track Your Plaque is about measuring and tracking plaque that, in 2008, is still best accomplished with CT heart scans.


--I make loads of money from heart scans and Track Your Plaque.

Yeah, right.

Track Your Plaque is a volunteer venture for my team; none of us get paid a penny for doing all we do, including me. We charge a membership fee on the website (somewhere around $6-7 a month) to pay our expenses, such as code writing for our proprietary software (much of it remains under development), printing costs, modest legal costs, the costs of doing business (e.g., accountant). Despite the fact that Track Your Plaque and the Heart Scan Blog occupies a substantial part of the day of the Track Your Plaque team, none of us are reimbursed for our time. I do believe, however, that this concept is so enormously powerful that it will, someday, pay us all enough to allow us to devote more time and effort to it.

Personally, I can't wait to devote more time and effort to this concept that is simple, logical, and effective. More research is needed, more development is needed, more discussion is needed. Right now, it is all accomplished outside of our busy schedules, including my full-time cardiology practice. I continue to have 7 am procedures, middle-of-the-night calls, weekend hospital rounds and emergencies (though virtually none of these are the patients involved in prevention, but the "other" people: atrial fibrillation, elderly heart failure patients, rhythm disorders, cardiomyopathies, pulmonary hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, the non-compliant).


--The book, Track Your Plaque, is a gimmick to sell you a heart scan.

No, it's a program that relies on this technology. But there's no special deal, no discounts, no steering to heart scan centers that I have a special arrangement with. No such thing exists, nor has there ever been such an arrangement.


I've heard it all. Early on, when I was helping my friend, Steve Burlingame and his wife, Nancy, set up Milwaukee Heart Scan, I helped by providing medical oversite, education of physicians and public, and interpreting heart scans. After all, in the "early days," nobody knew anything about heart scans. It was a long, hard climb against ignorance, habit, entrenched thinking, stubbornness, and stupidity. I've been paid next to nothing for all this. I told Steve long ago that, given the extraordinary expenses of maintaining an independent scanning center, that he should first pay his expenses, pay his technologists, receptionists, and nurse, pay himself, then pay me for reading scans if he had any money left over. Most of the time, Steve had nothing left over and I was paid nothing.

So, while some of my colleagues were assuming that I was rolling in money from "promoting" heart scans, the reality was that I was doing nearly everything for free. (It certainly wasn't the high life I was living; I don't drive a Mercedes, take fancy vacations, none of that. In fact, I work about 51 weeks a year.)

Why do I do this if it doesn't yield a big flow of money? Because I believe in it as a superior path to the conventional. If I were simply interested in making more money--I wouldn't do it. I would simply do what all my cardiology colleagues are doing: more heart catheterizations, more angioplasties and stents, learning how to do carotid stents, iliac stents, peripheral angioplasty, renal stents, acquiring the skills to put in defibrillators, new device insertion like umbrellas in the interatrial septum, etc. There's plenty more money in that. It's also not that hard. I know, because that is my background: high-risk cardiac interventions. That's what I was trained to do, that's what I did from a number years, until I started to see that this was nothing more than "putting out fires" in people who became increasingly ill and reliant on bail-out procedures. It makes lots of money, but it is also fundamentally wrong.

So, no, I do not sell heart scans, nor is the Track Your Plaque program or The Heart Scan Blog meant to promote heart scans except as a tool for tracking this disease.

That's it, pure and simple.

Plaque is the new cholesterol

17. July 2008 William Davis (3)
Which is more important: cholesterol or coronary plaque?

Ask what Dr. Michael Eades' calls "statinators," and you will likely receive a befuddled look. Or, you might receive comments like "Measuring plaque has never been shown to reduce mortality."

While risk factors for heart disease are important, no doubt (my office practice is about half lipid consultation and complex hyperlipidemia management), for many they have become an end in themselves. In other words, LDL cholesterol in particular dominates thinking so much that it has caused many to exclude the fact that plaque---coronary atherosclerotic plaque---is the disease itself.

Dozens of studies, from the St. Francis Heart Study to the 25,000-participant UCLA registry, to the recently-released MESA database (ethic differences, women, as well as superiority to carotid measures) have repeatedly shown that heart scan scores (coronary artery calcium scores) are superior to conventional risk factors (usually via the Framingham risk score) for predicting future heart attack and other events. And the differences are not minor incremental differences. The predictive power of plaque measurement via heart scanning is multiples better: 4 times, 10 times, 20 times or more in various subgroups.

Much of what we do in medicine is not based on long-term studies of outcome, pitting some diagnostic measure or treatment against placebo. It is already standard practice to measure plaque via heart catheterization, crudely via stress testing, and increasingly popular CT coronary angiography. None of these methods have been subjected to studies comparing testing vs. not testing in a large population, followed by some program of prevention to assess differences in mortality, heart attack, and other events.

Why should heart scan be held to such a standard?

Dr. Scott Grundy, lipid guru and one of the experts who sat on the Adult Treatment Panel-II for lipid management guidelines, recently stated [emphasis added]:

"Imaging has at least 3 virtues. It individualizes risk assessment beyond use of age, which is a less reliable surrogate for atherosclerosis burden; it provides an integrated assessment of the lifetime exposure to risk factors; and it identifies individuals who are susceptible to developing atherosclerosis beyond established risk factors. Also of importance, in the absence of detectable atherosclerosis, short-term risk appears to be very low."

Well said, and from a vocal statinator, to boot.

Sadly, Dr. Grundy goes on to say how plaque imaging can serve to better determine who will benefit from statin drug use.

Of course, you and I know that there is far more to reduction of cardiovascular risk applied to a framework of serial plaque quantification ("tracking plaque"!) than statin drugs. I doubt that a man as intelligent as Dr. Grundy truly believes this. I suspect that he is simply stating what he knows what will be published without resistance in the standard medical literature, trying to achieve a modest incremental success just by raising consciousness about heart scanning and plaque imaging: first things first.

Maybe next will be a plaque-tracking, or even a plaque-reducing, mainstream conversation, just like the one we've been conducting for the past four years.

Track Your Plaque success story blows it

17. July 2008 William Davis (3)
Joe was a Track Your Plaque Success Story. With a starting heart scan score of 278, he dropped it 12 months later to 264, a 5% reduction. Though not a huge reduction, Joe's risk for a heart attack or other coronary event was virtually zero. I was very proud of Joe.

Among the culprit lipoprotein patterns that caused Joe's plaque was lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a). Niacin was therefore crucial to his program. It was among the principal reasons he dropped his heart scan score and reduced his risk for heart attack so dramatically.

Since he retired, Joe has been freewheeling around the country, traveling and having a great time. He consequently stopped thinking about his heart disease and Lp(a). He also tired of the occasional hot flushes he'd experienced with niacin. Though the flushes were promptly aborted by drinking two glasses of water, he simply didn't want to be bothered.

So when Joe saw this interesting and tantalizing "flush-free niacin" on the store shelf, he grabbed it.

Joe came back to the office. His blood pressure was 190/94, so high that he was having occasional chest pains from it (which can happen when something called "left ventricular diastolic dysfunction" develops from hypertension). His lipoprotein patterns were terrible, including a big upward jump in Lp(a) and drop in HDL. So I asked him to have another heart scan right away: Score 371, a 40% increase. In other words, his program went down the toilet.

Why?

Simple: Flush-free niacin. I've said it before (No flush = No effect and No flush niacin kills) and I'll say it again:

Flush-free or No-flush niacin is a complete, unadulterated, completely ineffective SCAM.

Flush-free or no-flush niacin is not a substitute for niacin. Joe is yet another example of how dangerous this scam can be. It turned one of our great success stories into a failure.

Please, please, please do not fall for this misleading and potentially dangerous scam product. While the product itself is not intrinsically dangerous, it denies you the benefits of the real thing: niacin.

Thankfully, the mistake in Joe's program was caught before a heart attack or other catastrophe. He did manage to pass a stress test, though with a flagrantly out-of-control blood pressure response. We'll get him back on track--but with niacin, the real thing.
All posts by william-davis

D2 and D3 are two different things

3. September 2009 William Davis (15)
Helena posted this instructive comment in response to the Heart Scan Blog post, Weight loss and vitamin D. It illustrates the confusion common among physicians and pharmacists on the differences between D2 and D3.

(Edited slightly for clarity.)

Not many weeks ago a colleague of mine (let’s call him Eric) asked me if I knew the difference between D2 and D3 and I told Eric that D2 comes from irradiated mushrooms and D3 comes from wool. In other words, D3 is the same kind of vitamin as humans get from the sun. Humans just don’t get enough and we can’t produce it on our own, like the sheep can. (D3 is natural for humans, D2 is not.)

After telling Eric this, he asked me how he would know what he is taking and I gave him the medical definitions of them both (D2 = Ergocalciferol; D3 = Cholecaliciferol). Since I was aware that he had gotten his Vitamin D by prescription, I told him “I am 99.9% sure that you are taking D2, but I would be thrilled to find out I am wrong.”

Eric called his pharmacy right away and got the answer I was expecting: ergocalciferol. On confronting the person Eric was talking to, the answer he got back was that Ergocalciferol is the only Vitamin D they are giving out.

A week later, Eric had a new appointment with his doctor and decided to ask him about the D2/D3 issue. The doctor said he knew that there was a difference in them both, but could not say what, not even the basic facts I mentioned above. But the doctor stamped a post-it with what he had sent to the pharmacy just to show Eric. “Vitamin D3; 50,000IU tab” is what the stamp said.

Eric, off course, got confused and was starting to believe that the pharmacy had made a mistake by giving him Ergocalciferol (D2) since the doctor had given him D3, or at least that is what was stamped on the little note he had.

Today, after getting a refill of his Vitamin D he also got and kept all his paperwork that came along with it. Still believing that stamp the doctor had given Eric earlier, he asked me to double and triple check that my definition of D2 and D3 was correct. I did, just for my own sanity, and I was still right.

One of the sheets Eric brought me today was the “Patient Education Monograph” sheet stating the drugs and how to use it and so on. The thing that jumped out the most to me was this:

Generic Name: Vitamin D – Oral
Common Brand name(s): Drisdol, Maximum D3
Identification: PA140 Green Oval Capsule

This is the Drug Eric was given: Vitamin D 1.25 MG softgel; Generic name: Ergocalciferol

My researching mind went into high concentration mood and I started to dig. And this is what I found:

The brand name Drisdol is Ergocalciferol (D2), not D3. The Brand name Maximum D3 seems to be hard to find out there in cyber space as a brand name. But the ones I found that were called Maximum D3 seems to be the real stuff, however none of them required a prescription.

When trying to find out through the identification number on the pills (PA140) I now know for sure that Eric is taking Vitamin D2 and not the preferred Vitamin D3. The brand name, Drisdol, had the identification W on one side and D92 on the other, but it is still Ergocalciferol.

The only conclusion I can draw from all this is that the medical industry does not know or care about the difference in D2 and D3 – it is all same to them. And as long as the pharmacies only give out D2 it does not matter what the doctor prescribe anyway.

I know that people are most likely to be prescribed a D2 pill than to be told to buy over-the-counter D3. But it was almost heart breaking to see the letter D and number 3 right next to the drug Drisdol, as we know is a D2 vitamin. It just didn’t make sense to me that they can be labeled as the same type of medication, when we know it is not!


Incredible.

Why prescribe plant form D2 when you can get perfectly reliable, safe, effective D3--the human form, at the health food store for about $6?

Once again, it's the peculiar false bias of physicians and pharmacists: If it's prescription, it must be good; if it comes from a health food store, it must be bogus.

Humans need human vitamin D. Plain and simple.

For more on the D2 vs. D3 issue, see the Heart Scan Post, The case against vitamin D2.

Weight loss: Different causes, different solutions

1. September 2009 William Davis (8)
Heart Scan Blog reader, Kris, related this enlightening story of weight loss (slightly edited for clarity).

Kris learned that excess weight is gained through multiple causes. The solutions are therefore multiple, not just one change in diet or two.


I started studying about my thyroid issue much earlier and did lose some weight. But ever since I started following Dr. Davis’s blog, it has given me confidence that I was on the right track. I did have my thyroid and iodine figured out from other sources, but Dr. Davis helped me to understand the issues with not only the thyroid but vitamin D3, fructose, fish oil, niacin, wheat etc. I have lost 43lb in last 14 months.

It seems to me that there are certain percentages of weight connected with different issues. For example, after I gave up alcohol and sugar, I lost about 14lbs from total weight of 243lbs, weight came down to about 229lb. Then it stopped at 229lb, even though I was in the gym almost 5 to 6 days a week with full workouts.

After I changed my thyroid medication to natural thyroid hormones (took synthetic T4 for over 10 years), the weight dropped down further 13lbs or so in matter of few days, shape of the face changed from moon shape/double chin to ordinary long face. Then it kind of stopped at around 213-216 lbs.

After giving up wheat, reducing carbs, increasing protein intake (whey protein, chicken etc. no soya, no fructose) the weight came down another 14lbs. Now it is around 200-202lbs and I am over 6.2 tall with heavy set of bones.

I feel better than I have ever in my life. More stamina, more clarity/no fog, more confidence and 99% of the time relaxed and being able to see the situation from multiple angles.

I use to be able to drink a liter or more jack denial without a problem in one evening but now can’t stand half a can of beer (I miss JD). Drinking alcohol makes me sick. I sleep well and if I wake up in the middle of the night, I have no problem going back to sleep. No more out of breath stair climbing at all.

One other thing: I used to be the most attractive meal to the mosquitoes, but not anymore. This year I haven’t been bitten once. I take my dog to the park everyday and I do not use any mosquito repellent, what a relief. I don’t know if it is because of thyroid, iodine, wheat or something else. Skin texture has changed dramatically. I do not use full soap or shampoo, 20% borax, 10 percent of my soap or shampoo for scent and rest water, mixed in a 500ml bottle. No more dandruff, dry skin, pimples for me.

Dr. Davis I am thankful to people like you who have the ability to see beyond what you have been taught and have the guts to say the way it is. Most of us work to make living on daily basis but some make their living while spreading their knowledge to save lives. Dr Davis you are one of those few people. Please keep it going.

Calling all losers!

29. August 2009 William Davis (14)
I'd like to invite anyone who has followed the Track Your Plaque Break the Weight Barrier program to consider posting their stories and photos on the Heart Scan Blog.

Because our focus is prevention and reversal of coronary heart disease, we have not made an effort to catalog the weight loss experience that people have while on the program. For many, weight loss has been substantial. (Several people this week alone have reported weight loss of 9 to 46 lbs in the past 6 months.)

It would be helpful to hear and see these results.

For those of you who don't mind having a story and photo on this Blog, please come back in future to post your results. You will find this post by entering "weight loss" into the site-specific search bar at the top of the page.

Weight loss and vitamin D

28. August 2009 William Davis (28)
At the start of her program, Penny's 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level showed the usual deficiency at 22 ng/ml.

She supplemented with 8000 units of vitamin D. Another 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level several months later showed a level of 67.8 ng/ml, right on target.

But Penny also began our diet, including the elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, and, over 6 months, lost 34 lbs.

Now a much trimmer 146 lbs (still more to go!), another vitamin D blood level: 111 ng/ml.

Penny's weight loss means that the vitamin D is distributed in a smaller total volume, particularly a lower volume of fat.

This is a common phenomenon with substantial weight loss: lose weight and the need for vitamin D is reduced. The reduction in dose is roughly proportion to the weight lost. Vitamin D should therefore be reassessed with any substantial change in weight of, say, 10 lbs or more, either up or down, because of the influence of fat on vitamin D blood levels.

Some references on this effect:

Men and women over age 65:
Adiposity in relation to vitamin D status and parathyroid hormone levels: a population-based study in older men and women.

Obese women:
Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations in obese women: their clinical significance and relationship with anthropometric and body composition variables

Obese children:
Hypovitaminosis D in obese children and adolescents: relationship with adiposity, insulin sensitivity, ethnicity, and season.

African-Americans:
Relationship of vitamin D and parathyroid hormone to obesity and body composition in African Americans.

Although the bulk of the effect is most likely due to sequestration by fatty tissue, perhaps less sun exposure in obese people also contributes:
Body mass index determines sunbathing habits: implications on vitamin D levels.

Grasscutting, fertilizer, and healthcare

25. August 2009 William Davis (23)
A guy named Jeff, a 60-something, taciturn, "How 'bout dem Brewers?" kind of guy, cuts my grass.

Once a week, Jeff drives over his rust-rimmed 1994 Chevy pickup and trailer, unloads his ride mower, and cuts the grass. For his 40 minutes of work, I pay him $35.

For $35, all he does is cut the grass--no trimming, no picking up debris, no working in the garden, no fertilizing, no weeding. Just cutting the grass. Occasionally, Jeff has proven to be a useful resource for peculiar problems. Last year, I had a drainage problem that he helped solve and two years ago he helped diagnose a tree disease that was killing a tree in the backyard; it's now recovered.

To save money, and because I like to work in the yard, I do the rest. I trim the edges, I fertilize the grass, plant new flowers and trees, fix damaged areas, trim wild branches.

In my view, my relationship with Jeff, a limited, as-needed relationship, in which I ask him to help with specific issues but I manage the rest myself, is how I believe that healthcare should also be conducted.

Your doctor should be like Jeff: Perhaps not taciturn, but an as-needed resource available while you do much of the work.

My simple relationship with Jeff is, I believe, the healthcare model of the future. You manage your own cholesterol issues, your own basic thyroid issues, supplement and monitor your vitamin D levels, use diet to suit your needs, order blood tests when necessary, even obtain basic imaging tests like heart scans, carotid ultrasound, bone density testing. Your doctor is a resource, near by when and if you need him or her: guidance when needed, an occasional review of what you are doing, someone to consult when you fracture an ankle.

What your doctor is NOT is a paternal, "do what I say, I'm the doctor," or a "You need these tests whether you like it or not" holder of your health fate.

It is a model of healthcare that will evolve over the next 20-30 years, only in its infancy now.

While we started Track Your Plaque as just a resource for in-depth information on prevention and reversal of coronary heart disease, I now see it as something much greater: a prototype for the emerging concept of self-directed health.

Enough for now. I've got some tomatoes to pick.

Iodine deficiency is REAL

21. August 2009 William Davis (30)
Like many health-conscious people, Kurt avoids salt. In fact, he has assiduously avoided salt ever since his heart attack back in 1995.

Lately, Kurt had become tired, often for little or no reason. His thyroid panel:

TSH 4.2 mIU/L (0.27-4.20)
Free T3 1.74 pg/ml (2.50-4.30)
Free T4 1.05 ng/dl (0.9-1.7)

Kurt's TSH of 4.2 mIU/L is sufficient to increase LDL cholesterol by 20-30% and increase the (relative) risk for heart attack 3-fold.

Kurt's thyroid was also palpably enlarged. While it was just barely visible--just a minor bulge in the neck (in the shape of a bowtie), it could be clearly felt when I examined him.

I asked Kurt to add 500 mcg of iodine every day. Three months later, another thyroid panel showed:

TSH 0.14 mIU/L (0.27-4.20)
Free T3 2.50 pg/ml (2.50-4.30)
Free T4 1.1 ng/dl (0.9-1.7)

Kurt's thyroid function normalized to nearly ideal levels just with iodine replacement. (The free T3, while improved, remains low; an issue for another day!)

I see this response with some frequency: low-grade goiter and apparent hypothyroidism (low thyroid function) that responds, at least partially, to iodine replacement. In Kurt's case, iodine replacement alone normalized his thyroid measures completely.

With improved thyroid measures, Kurt also felt better with renewed energy and a 22 mg/dl reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Make no mistake: Iodine deficiency is real. While most of my colleagues have dismissed iodine deficiency as a relic of the early 20th century and third world countries, you can also find it in your neighborhood.

Fish oil for $780 per bottle

19. August 2009 William Davis (16)
At prevailing pharmacy prices, one capsule of prescription Lovaza fish oil costs $4.33 each.

Yes, you heard right: $4.33 per capsule.

What do you get for $4.33 per capsule? By omega-3 fatty acid content, you get 842 mg EPA + DHA per capsule.

I can also go to Sam's Club and buy a bottle of their Triple-Strength fish oil with 900 mg omega-3 fatty acids per capsule at $18.99 per bottle of 180 capsules. That comes to 10.5 cents per capsule. That puts the price of fish oil from Sam's Club at 97.6% less cost compared to Lovaza for an equivalent quantity of omega-3 fatty acids.

What if we repriced Sam's Club's Triple-Strength and brought it "in line" with what we pay for Lovaza? That would put the value of one bottle of Sam's Club Triple-Strength fish oil at $780 per bottle.

I take patients off Lovaza every chance I get.

Organic really IS better

16. August 2009 William Davis (18)
If you have any doubts about the value of organic foods vs. conventionally-grown foods, then take a look at the findings from a USDA--Yes, USDA--sponsored study.

In this study, the nutritional content of organic vs. conventionally-grown blueberries were compared. Ironically, these observations come from the USDA's Genetic Improvement of Fruits and Vegetables Laboratory of the Produce Quality and Safety Laboratory.

Their findings (all values expressed as weight per 100 grams fresh weight blueberries, or a bit less than 1/4 cup):


Total phenol content (e.g, flavonoids):

Organic: 319.3 mg
Conventional: 190.3 mg

Organic blueberries had 68% greater phenol content.


Total anthocyanins (an important class of flavonoids):

Organic: 131.2 mg
Conventional: 82.4 mg

Organic blueberries had 59% greater anthocyanin content.


Antioxidant capacity (ORAC):

Organic: 46.14 mg
Conventional: 30.8

Organic blueberries had 50% greater antioxidant capacity.


Flavonoids suspected to carry unusually potent health effects--malvidin, delphinidin, myricetin, and quercetin--were all contained in greater proportions in the organically-grown blueberries, also. These flavonoids are demonstrating pharmacologic-level health effects in preliminary studies.

Why a genetics laboratory? After all , the study findings came out heavily in favor of non-genetic, organic farming methods of growing produce. It certainly must have at least given pause to the vocal group within agriculture and the USDA that have long argued that organic produce is no different. I suspect that the laboratory will now try to recreate the nutritional value of organic through genetic manipulation of cultivars grown using conventional methods.

Regardless of the motivations behind the study, we see that there is no comparison: organic blueberries are superior in nutritional value to those grown with conventional pesticides and herbicides. While the study addressed only blueberries, the dramatic difference makes it likely that similar differences exist in other fruits and vegetables.

Coming on the Track Your Plaque website: An in-depth Special Report on the health effects of anthocyanins.

Do you really need calcium?

12. August 2009 William Davis (0)
Why are we advised to take calcium supplements?

Men and women are advised to take calcium because it has been shown to reduce blood pressure modestly. Women, in particular, can stall the deterioration of bone strength (mineralization) by taking calcium supplements, 1200-1300 mg per day, and eating calcium-rich foods like dairy products.

Is that all true?

It is true insofar as we remain vitamin D deficient. A funny thing happens when you fully replete vitamin D: Intestinal absorption of calcium as much as quadruples. That means your body will efficiently absorb the calcium in broccoli and spinach.

Is it still necessary to force-feed your body megadoses of calcium once vitamin D has been repleted? I don’t think so.

While the evidence is indirect, several observations point towards the lack of necessity of calcium once vitamin D is addressed.
For instance:

Women who take calcium, 1200 mg per day, with vitamin D, 800 units per day, double their five-year risk for heart attack, according to a New Zealand study.

Men who take calcium, 1200 mg per day, with vitamin D, 800 units per day, also may substantially increase heart attack risk.

Bone density increases more with vitamin D than with calcium. Calcium may not even be necessary to increase bone mineralization, since there are data to suggest that vitamin D can accomplish this by itself.

Calcium suppresses parathyroid hormone, PTH. That is, in fact, how calcium stalls (usually does not reverse) bone mineral loss-not by adding calcium to bone, but by suppressing PTH release. (PTH causes bone demineralization.) Vitamin D suppresses PTH to a far greater degree than calcium.

What is needed is a broad reconsideration of the advice everyone is getting to take calcium. In an age when more and more people are appreciating the power of vitamin D supplementation to achieve normal blood levels, there may be danger ahead for those who fail to address their calcium overdosing.

The case against vitamin D2

11. August 2009 William Davis (40)
Why would vitamin D be prescribed when vitamin D3 is available over-the-counter?

Let's review the known differences between vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) and vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol):

--D3 is the human form; D2 is the non-human form found in plants.

--Dose for dose, D3 is more effective at raising blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D than D2. It requires roughly twice to 250% of the dose of D2 to match that of D3 (Trang H et al 1998).

--D2 blood levels don't yield long-term sustained levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D as does D3. When examined as a 28-day area under the curve (AUC--a superior measure of biologic exposure), D3 yields better than a 300% increased potency compared to D2. This means that it requires around 50,000 units D2 to match the effects of 15,000 units D3 (Armas LA et al 2004).

--D2 has lower binding affinity for vitamin D-binding protein, compared to D3

--Mitochondrial vitamin D 25-hydroxylase converts D3 to the 25-hydroxylated form five times more rapidly than D2.

--As we age, the ability to metabolize D2 is dramatically reduced, while D3 is not subject to this phenomenon (Harris SS et al 2002).




From Armas LA, Hollis BW, Heaney RP 2004


While there are dissenters on this view, the bulk of evidence suggests that D2 is an inferior form of D3.

Then why is D2 prescribed by many doctors when the natural, human, and superior D3 is available over-the-counter?

You already know the answer: Much of your doctor's education did not come from scientific lectures nor from reading scientific studies. It came from the pretty drug representative in the waiting room who hands the doctor reprints of the "studies" performed by the drug industry to support the use of their drugs. There is no such nutritional supplement representative in the waiting room. This preference for the "drug" D2 over the supplement D3 also stems from the inherent preference of physicians for things they can control, whether or not there is proof of superiority.

In my view, there is absolutely no reason to take vitamin D2 over D3 except to enrich the drug industry.