Cureality | Real People Seeking Real Cures

In my last post, I blogged about how we must not confuse marketing with truth. They are often two different things.

A patient I saw today was absolutely convinced that his fish oil was the best available in the world: purer, uncontaminated by mercury or pesticides--"not like that other crap on the shelves." I asked him how he knew this. "They say so," he proudly declared.

Do you recognize this? He fell for the marketing. While there may be some truth in the manufacturer's claims, you can't believe it from the mouth of the manufacturer. True judgements about quality and purity have to come from an independent source like Consumer Reports, Consumer Lab, or the FDA.

But the FDA doesn't regulate the quality and purity of nutritional supplements. On the positive side, this has allowed supplement manufacturers to keep costs down, not having to navigate arcane and complex regulatory restrictions.

On the negative side, a fair number of supplement manufacturers get away with 1) producing supplements that fail to contain the stated amounts of ingredients, occasionally containing none of the essential ingredient(s), 2) contain contaminants like lead, and 3) make extravagant and often unfounded claims like "superior", "more effective", and "purer". (DHEA, for instance, is a particular landmine of poor quality. I recently suggested that a patient take DHEA; despite consistently taking 50 mg of a specific brand for several months, the blood level of DHEA-S didn't budge one bit--there was likely little or none in the capsule.)

The Fanatic Cook at http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com has posted some very insightful discussions on this issue and the proposed FDA regulations of supplements. They're worth perusing.

I really wish regulation weren't necessary and that the industry could have policed itself. But it clearly has failed and perhaps federal oversight is not such a bad thing, as long as the FDA regulations restrict themselves to oversight over quality and purity and not to efficacy. It's the efficacy regulation that could hogtie innovation in supplement development.

I often remind people: Don't confuse marketing with the truth.

Today, I spent a total of probably an hour and a half dissuading patients that some crazed piece of marketing trying to sell them something was not the same as truth.

I spent approximately 40 minutes alone with a woman who was absolutely convinced that:

--Nattokinase would cure her of all heart disease. It does not. Despite the promising health benefits of natto and vitamin K2 supplementation, nattokinase is a scam with no basis in science nor logic.

--Niacin destroys your liver and homeopathic remedies are superior. Quite simply, homeopathy = quackery. No rational thinking scientist endorses the utter nonsense practiced in this strange and outrageous set of practices that requires you to suspend all reason.

--Sufficient vitamin D is obtainable through a "potent" multivitamin. I know of no multivitamin preparation that even begins to provide the dose of vitamin D that is actually required by adults, nor is it absorbed since these D preparations are powder based.

--Fish oil will poison you with mercury. Accordingly, one brand of fish oil claims to be the only safe form. Those of you following these posts, or the reports of the USDA and FDA, as well as the reports of Consumer Reports and Consumer Lab (www.consumerlab.com) know that, unlike fish itself, there is no mercury in fish oil capsules.

--All coronary atherosclerotic heart disease is caused by heavy metal poisoning. Thus chelation with EDTA represents a cure for heart disease.

People are inundated with marketing that promise extravagant cures, remove need for any medication, make you smarter, sexier, thinner, and on and on.

If you see a TV ad for Ford that says they make the best cars in the U.S., do you immediately run out and put a For Sale sign on your GM car and buy a Ford? No, of course not. You recognize the ad for what it is: marketing. It may be true, but a TV commercial is not enough to convince you.

Then why would an ad promising extraordinary cures for cancer or heart disease convince you that this is true? It should not. Marketing ads should only serve to alert you to the possibility of value or benefit, but should never-- never--stand alone as proof. Take marketing for what it is: marketing of a product or service, not a scientific report, not a factual report, not news.

Marketing is advertising. Period.

Several facts on erectile dysfunction and coronary plaque:

If you have erectile dysfunction, there's at least a 50% chance you also have coronary plaque.

If you have coronary plaque by a CT heart scan, there's a 50% chance you have erectile dysfunction.

If you have symptomatic coronary disease (chest pains, breathlessness, prior heart attack), there's a 90% chance you also have erectile dysfunction.

Coronary disease is characterized by a dysfunctional state of the "endothelium", or inner lining of the coronary arteries. Erectile dysfunction is characterized by dysfunction of the endothelium of the penile circulation. Same phenomenon, different territories. (There are other differences, of course, but the two conditions share this fundamental phenomenon.)

If you have any doubts about the physiologic effects of the supplement, l-arginine, just give it a try if you have erectile dysfunction. The erection enhancing effects alone should convince you that a genuine artery-dilating effect is exerted by this very powerful nutritional supplement.

If l-arginine fails by itself to restore full erectile capacity, there are additional strategies, both nutritional and medical, that you can consider.

Our newest Track Your Plaque Special Report on erectile dysfunction is coming out any day now.

As a sequel to my last post, just how often can we blame an isolated high LDL cholesterol as the cause of coronary plaque and a heart scan score?

In other words, how often does someone prove to have only LDL cholesterol as the cause of a heart scan score . . . and nothing else? No low HDL, small LDL, lipoprotein(a), a post-prandial (after-eating) intermediate-density lipoprotein, inflammatory responses, phospholipase A2, high triglycerides, vitamin D deficiency, etc.

Rarely. In fact, I can truly count the number of people who have only LDL cholesterol as their sole cause of coronary atherosclerotic plaque on one hand. It is really an infrequent situation.

Far more commonly, people have 5, 6, 7 or more reasons for coronary plaque.

Thus, the idea that a statin drug to reduce LDL will cure heart disease is completely folly. It does happen--but rarely. I think I've seen it happen twice. Much more commonly, a program that addresses all the causes of coronary plaque yields far superior benefits.

In my view, an effort to identify all the causes is relatively easy, makes far better sense, and provides you much greater assurance that you will succeed in conquering heart disease and removing its evil influence from your life.

Judging from the conversations I hear from colleagues, what I hear from the media, and drug company advertising, you'd think that heart disease has one cause--a deficiency of statin drugs.

As their thinking goes, if you have coronary disease, you need a statin drug (Lipitor, Zocor, Crestor, pravachol, etc.). If you have progressive coronary disease, you need more statin drug. If you have a heart attack while on a statin drug, you need even more statin drug.

Some "experts" have even proposed that we do away with LDL cholesterol and we just give everybody a statin drug at high doses.

Does this make any sense to you?

Doesn't it make better sense that if someone has progressive heart disease or heart attack while on a statin drug, then target the other causes largely unaffected by a statin drug? Perhaps if LDL cholesterol remains high on the statin drug, then a higher dose is justified. But more often than not, it's not a high LDL on statin drugs that responsible, it's other causes. And there's many of them: low HDL, VLDL, IDL, Lp(a), deficiency of omega-3 fatty acids, inflammatory processes, vitamin D deficiency, among others. (An important exception to this is when the conventional calculated LDL substantially underestimates true LDL as measured by LDL particle number by NMR, apoprotein B, or 'direct' LDL.)

Imagine someone has pneumonia. After 2 weeks of antibiotics, they are only partly better. The solution: a higher dose of the same antibiotic--but never question if it was the right antibiotic in the first place. That's what is going on in heart disease.

The doctors have been brainwashed into believing this $22 billion dollar per year bit of propaganda. The drug companies actively try to recruit the public into believing the same. Don't fall for it.

The statin drugs do indeed have a role. But they are not the complete answer. More of the same when disease progresses makes no sense at all.

I often get questions about the mercury content in fish oil. I've even had patients come to the office saying their primary care doctor told them to stop fish oil to avoid mercury poisoning.

Manufacturers of fish oil also make claims that this product or that ("super-concentrated", "pharmaceutical grade", "purified", etc.) is purer or less contaminated than competitors' products. The manufacturers of the "drug" Omacor, or prescription fish oil, have added to the confusion by suggesting that their product is the most pure of all, since it is the most concentrated of any fish oil preparation (900 mg EPA+DHA per capsule). They claim that "OMACOR is naturally derived through a unique, patented process that creates a highly concentrated, highly purified prescription medicine. By prescribing OMACOR® (omega-3-acid ethyl esters), a prescription omega-3, your doctor is giving you a concentrated and reliable omega-3. Each OMACOR capsule contains 90% omega-3 acids (84% EPA/DHA*). Nonprescription omega-3 dietary supplements typically contain only 13%-63% EPA/DHA."

How much truth is there in these concerns?

Let's go to the data published by the USDA, FDA, and several independent studies. Let's add to that the independent (and therefore presumably unbiased) analyses provided by Consumer Reports and Consumer Labs (www.consumerlab.com). How much mercury has been found in fish oil supplements?

None.

This is different from the mercury content of whole fish that you eat. Predatory fish that are at the top of the food chain and consume other fish and thereby concentrate organic methyl mercury, the toxic form of mercury. Thus, shark, swordfish, and King mackerel are higher in mercury than sardines, herring, and salmon.

The mercury content of fish oil capsules have little to do with the method of processing and much more with the animal source of oil. Fish oil is generally obtained from sardines, salmon, and cod, all low in mercury. Fish oil capsules are not prepared from swordfish or shark.

Thus, concerns about mercury from fish oil--regardless of brand--are generally unfounded, according to the best information we have. Eating whole fish--now that's another story for another time. But you and I can take our fish oil to reduce triglycerides, VLDL, IDL, small LDL, and heart attack risk without worrying about mercury.

The basic dose we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program is 1200 mg per day of EPA + DHA, the essential omega-3 fatty acids.

1200 mg EPA+DHA is generally obtainable by taking 4 capsules of 1000 mg of fish oil, since the majority of preparations contain 180 mg EPA and 120 mg DHA per capsule.

But how will you know if a higher dose wouldn't be even better?

The principal parameter to look at is triglycerides. If triglycerides remain above 60 mg/dl, we usually consider increasing fish oil.

Another measure that's very important is intermediate-density lipoprotein, or IDL, also called "remnant lipoproteins" on a VAP panel. Persistence of any IDL or remnant lipoproteins is reason to consider more fish oil. Most commonly, if there is some persistence of either, we increase fish oil to 6000 mg per day of a standard preparation, or 1800 mg/day of EPA+DHA.

The only time we see persistence of IDL or remnant lipoproteins with this higher dose is when triglycerides are really high. If starting triglycerides are, for instance, 500 mg/dl, then even this higher dose may be insufficient. This is when more highly concentrated preparations of fish oil may be necessary, occasionally even the prescription form, Omacor. (We currently use Omacor only when high doses of EPA+DHA are required, most because of its outrageous cost. Two capsules per day costs around $120 per month; three capsules per day to provide 1800 mg/day of EPA+DHA costs $180 per month. I think this is outrageous and so we use it only when absolutely necessary.)

You might even argue that a higher dose of 1800 mg EPA+DHA, or 6000 mg of a standard capsule, might be preferable for more assured reduction of heart attack risk--even when triglycerides and IDL are perfectly under control. I wouldn't argue with you. But you won't observe any measurable feedback that tells you that a heightened effect is being obtained. I take that dose myself, in fact, despite the fact that elimination of wheat products and weight loss was sufficient to drop my triglycerides to the target level. I figure it's a small additional effort for added peace of mind.

If you are new to the Track Your Plaque program and would like to jump start your effort, or if you are struggling with losing weight and excess weight is a part of the situation that created your CT heart scan score, then don't forget about fasting.

Fasting is the cessation of eating. However, recall from the Track Your Plaque Special Report, Fasting: Fast Track to Control Plaque at http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_04-012fasting.asp, there are many variations on fasting that permit some intake of healthy foods. (Thus, they are not, in the strict sense, "fasting". Accurate or no, there are variations that may be more palatable or do-able in the real world by real people.)

My personal favorite method to fast is to use a low-sugar, low-fat soy milk such as Light Silk, available at most major grocery stores. This high-protein, low-fat, low-sugar soy milk takes the edge off hunger and provides a minimal quantity of calories. A minimum of 72 hours is required for substantial results. (My one reservation about this brand of soy milk is that the Fanatic Cook claims that the manufacturer, Dean Foods, is a factory farm operation that abuses livestock--a discussion for another day.)

Fasting yields more than weight loss. It refreshes your appreciation for food. It reawakens you to the amount and quality of food you've been putting in your body. Fasting also allows you to recognize just how bad you might feel from the diet you were eating.

You also emerge from a fast with a reduced appetite and a renewed sense of appreciation for food. It makes the discipline of healthy eating a lot easier when you break your fast.

I tell people that fasting is not punishment. It is a form of enlightenment, of re-experiencing food and life. Fasting allows you to "catch up" on all the indiscretions you've been guilty of over the years.

It also provides enormous advantage in gaining control over coronary plaque.

If you haven't already done so, I'd urge you to peruse the wonderfully insightful, sophisticated, and biting commentary provided by the Fanatic Cook Blog at http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com.

She (I assume it's a she) has been discussing the proposed Safe Food Act recently, an effort to address all the dangers in foods that have come to attention lately, like melamine in pet food and E. coli in bagged spinach. Her most recent post is:

Nebraska Farm Bureau Thinks Food Safety Act Bad Idea, the latest in a series of posts exploring this issue.

I'd like to know who the Fanatic Cook is, or "Bix" as she calls herself. (I assume it's a "she" but I don't really know that for a fact.) I've corresponded with her and she prefers to remain anonymous for unspecified reasons. I'd like to know who this person is both for a more secure sense of credibility, as well as I'd simply like to know who can write so intelligently and why. I suspect that she's a professional nutrition scientist or something along those lines, since the level of insight into many scientific issues is quite impressive. Her Blogs will make great material for a book, if compiled and organized. Watch out for this one.

Erectile dysfunction (ED), previously known as "impotence," and coronary atherosclerotic plaque go hand in hand.

A recent study in men with advanced coronary disease showed that 93% experienced ED. The participants in the Track Your Plaque program, for the most part, do not have advanced coronary atherosclerosis, but have an earlier form detected by a CT heart scan.

What proportion of men with asymptomatic coronary plaque as measured by a CT heart scan have ED? Around 50%. In other words, it's not a rare occurrence.

The conversation about ED (and even its renaming from impotence) really gained momentum with the development of ED-drugs like Viagra and Cialis. The drugs are reasonably effective and safe. However, you will hear little about all the strategies that can either precede your need for these drugs and/or enhance your response to these drugs if the response is partial. That part of the conversation, of course, doesn't yield loads of drug company revenues.

One of the most helpful and specific nutritional supplements available that can partially restore the nitric oxide-deficiency of ED is l-arginine. L-arginine is the body's source of nitric oxide (NO), the master dilator (relaxing agent) for all arteries of the body. NO dilates penile arteries, it dilates coronary arteries. Lack of NO disables the penile capacity for erection and encourages growth of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Track Your Plaque Members are already familiar with l-arginine as a facilitator of coronary plaque regression.

We will detail the supplements that you can use safely in your Track Your Plaque program to both enhance erectile function if you suffer ED, as well as impact positively on coronary health, in an upcoming and detailed Special Report on the www.cureality.com website.

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.

This caught my eye:

Niaspan, prescription niacin, now sold by Abbott Laboratories, is now promoting its advantages in regressing coronary plaque:

In patients with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) and hypercholesetgerolemia, Niaspan (niacin), in combination with a bile acid-binding resin, is indicated to slow progression or promote regression of atherosclerotic disease.

And the new slogan: "Get regressive."

Interestingly, the new marketing campaign is based on relatively old data. They base this new claim on 3 studies:

1) Cholesterol-Lowering Atherosclerosis Study (CLAS)--a 1987

Lew has coronary plaque with a heart scan score of 393. At age 53, that's in the 90th percentile (higher score than 90% of men in his age group).

On our search for causes of his coronary plaque, we identify low HDL of 41 mg/dl, high triglycerides of 202 mg/dl, small LDL (83% of total), calculated LDL of 133 mg/dl, and severe vitamin D deficiency with a starting blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D of 19 ng/ml.

His c-reactive protein: 4.1 mg/dl--above the cut-off of 2.0 mg/dl that the pharmaceutical industry is targeting as a mandate for statin therapy, particularly given the JUPITER data.

Lew instead eliminates wheat and other small LDL-provoking foods and, as a result, loses 28 lbs in 3 months; adds omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil; supplements vitamin D sufficient to increase his blood level to 70 ng/ml.

Along with dramatic correction of his starting abnormalities, his c-reactive protein: 0.4 mg/dl--no statin drug.

In my view, increased CRP is nothing more than a surrogate for the inflammatory phenomena that arise from high-carbohydrate diets, overweight, and small LDL. Correct those and CRP drops off a cliff. In fact, it is exceptionally rare for CRP to not drop to very low levels following this formula.

I believe that CRP is one more item on the list of reasons--the house of cards--the pharmaceutical industry is building to persuade us to take more and more statin drugs. LDL not low enough? Take more statin. Diabetic with low cholesterol? Take a statin. Inflammation? Take a statin.

Enough already.

Our at-home blood tests are proving a hit.

So far, vitamin D is the number one most popular test, no surprise.

Second--to my surprise--is DHEA. I would have predicted it would have been thyroid testing.

Our male and female hormone panels are also proving popular.

I've personally been using the thyroid and vitamin D testing to monitor my levels. I increased my Armour thyroid based on a low free T3 value, while my vitamin D was perfect at 77 ng/ml on 8000 units vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) per day.

The process of performing the blood spots is straightforward. The finger pricks are virtually painless using the automatic spring-loaded finger stick devices:

The number of blots to make depends on how many tests you'd like. Just a vitamin D test requires 2 blots. If 6 or more tests are ordered at a time, then all 12 blots should be made. (Two spring-loaded lancets are provided in each kit.)

If you are interested in any of our at-home blood tests, go here.

Our own Heart Hawk has posted an editorial on about blood spot testing on Health Central:

Simple, affordable home blood testing is a real game-changer in the arena of informed, self-directed healthcare. For the first time broad access to home blood testing, on a scale similar to that enjoyed by persons who routinely test their blood sugar, is available to virtually everyone and it removes doctors as the gatekeepers of these tests. Even private insurance companies and Medicare are beginning to understand the potential for improving healthcare and decreasing costs and are slowly beginning to expand coverage of home blood testing much as they do for diabetics or persons taking anti-coagulants.

People ask, "If I need iodine, should I go back to iodized salt?"

First of all, how did this notion of iodized salt originate?

In 1924, J. Edgar Hoover was appointed head of the FBI, Marlon Brando and Doris Day were born, and Calvin Coolidge was elected President of the United States. Half of American households had a car, while 1 in 4 Americans were illiterate.

In the 1920s, cities were a fraction of their current size and a third of the U.S. population, or 36 million people, lived in small rural communities.

Goiters were also wildly prevalent in 1924. Up to a third of the population in some areas of the country, particularly the Midwest, suffered from goiters, thyroid glands that enlarged due to lack of iodine.

Goiters were not only unsightly, but sometimes grotesque, causing a visible bulge in the front of the neck. Occasionally, they would grow so big that it compressed adjacent structures, like the trachea, and would have to be surgically removed. Goiters were commonly associated with thyroid dysfunction, especially low thyoid or hypothyroidism, that resulted in low IQ's in schoolchildren, debilitation in adults. Women of childbearing age delivered retarded children.

So iodine deficiency in early 20th century America was a big problem. How to solve this enormous public health problem in a large nation without television, few radios, no internet, with a largely rural and often illiterate population?

Thus was iodized salt born, a simple, technologically available solution that could be implemented on a large scale nationwide at low cost. The FDA chose this route in 1924, figuring that it was the best way to ensure that most Americans could obtain sufficient iodine through liberal use of iodized salt. Public health officials urged Americans to use salt. Morton's salt label proudly bore the slogan "Help keep your family goiter free!"

It worked. Goiters largely became a thing of the past.

How about today? The American Heart Association recommends limiting salt, recently announcing that they would like to limit intake to 1500 mg per day. The American Medical Association has been lobbying the FDA to set lower salt limit guidelines. The FDA has been clamping down on food manufacturers to reduce the quantity of salt in processed foods.

Why limit salt? The concern is that there are segments of the population (not all) that are salt sensitive, particularly African Americans, people with certain genetic forms of high blood pressure, conditions that cause water retention, and any degree of heart or kidney failure. Salt in these peoplem, in fact, can be disastrous.

So adding iodine to salt was the solution to epidemic goiter. And it worked.

But salt is not a perfect solution, just one that served its purpose back in 1924. What we need is a 21st century solution.
You will find that in the various iodine supplements at your health food store. My favorite is kelp--inexpensive, available, and a form that mimics the way Japanese people obtain iodine (though by eating seaweed, rather than with tablets).

Image of kelp courtesy Wikipedia

Judging from what we know about vitamin D, it is highly probable that it confers substantial protection from viral infections, including swine flu.

Dr. John Cannell of the Vitamin D Council (www.vitamindcouncil.com) first connected the dots, identifying the possibility of an influence of vitamin D on incidence of flu.

In 2006, Dr. Cannell reports noticing that the patients in his psychiatric ward in northern California were completely spared from the influenza epidemic of that year, while plenty of patients in adjacent wards were coming down with flu. Dr. Cannell proposed that the apparent immunity to flu in his patients may have been due to the modest dose of 2000 units vitamin D per day he had prescribed that the patients in other wards had not been given. (Since the hospital was run by the state of California, Dr. Cannell apparently had only so much leeway with vitamin D dosing.) While it’s not proof, it’s nonetheless a fascinating and compelling observation.

A similar conclusion was reached in a recent analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey demonstrating that the higher the vitamin D blood level, the less likely respiratory infections were.

Personally, I used to suffer through 2 or 3 episodes of a runny nose, sore throat, hacking cough, fevers and feeling crumby every winter. Over the last 3 years since I’ve supplemented vitamin D, I haven’t been sick even once. The past two years I didn’t bother with the flu vaccine, since I suspected that my immunity had been heightened: no flu either winter.

And so it has been with the majority of my patients. Since I began having patients supplement vitamin D to achieve normal blood levels (we aim for 60-70 ng/ml), viral and bacterial infections have become rare.

New research is uncovering myriad new ways that vitamin D enhances natural immune responses to numerous infections, including tuberculosis, bacteria such as those causing periodontal disease and lung infections, and viruses like the influenza virus. Enhanced immunity against cancer is also an intensive area of research on vitamin D.

Will vitamin D supplementation sufficient to achieve desirable blood levels confer sufficient immunity to swine flu should it come to your door? From what we know and what we’ve seen in the few years of vitamin D experience, I think it will in the majority. But I do believe that we should still heed public health warnings to avoid contact with others, minimize exposure to crowds, avoid travel to affected areas, etc.

The results of the latest Heart Scan Blog poll are in.

The question: How has your LDL been measured? The 187 responses broke down as:

I have only had a conventional calculated value
108 (57%)

NMR LDL particle number
35 (18%)

Apoprotein B
21 (11%)

Direct LDL cholesterol
21 (11%)

Non-HDL cholesterol
8 (4%)

I don't know what you're talking about
23 (12%)

Remember the TV game show, To Tell the Truth? Celebrities would have to guess which of three guests represented the real person, such as the notorious con man, Frank Abagnale, Jr., or Mad Magazine publisher, William M. Gaines (who stumped celebrity Kitty Carlisle, heard to exclaim, "I never figured it was him. I mean look at the way he's dressed. I was looking for someone who ran a very successful magazine, so I thought it couldn't be him!")

The celebrities playing the game were permitted to ask the three guests a series of questions, hoping to discern who was the real person vs. the two impostors. At the end, each celebrity had to guess who was truly the person of interest. "Will the real Frank Abagnale, Jr. please stand up!"

If we were to act as the celebrities in our LDL game, we quickly discover some telling facts:

--Conventional LDL cholesterol (the only value 57% of our poll respondents have had) is calculated, not measured. LDL is calculated using the 40-year old Friedewald calculation.

--Directly measured LDL cholesterol (the value 11% of respondents had) is just that: directly measured. It eliminates some of the uncertainties of calculated LDL.

--Apoprotein B-Every LDL and VLDL particle produced by the liver contains one apoprotein B molecule. ApoB therefore provides a crude particle count measure of LDL and VLDL particles. Of course, it includes VLDL and is not completely the same as just an LDL measure. Some lipid authorities Like Dr. Peter Kwiterovich have advocated that apoB replace calculated LDL, and that calculated LDL essentially be discarded.

--Non-HDL cholesterol--I mention this more for completeness. Hardly anybody uses this crude value in practice--Indeed, only 4% of our poll respondents had this measure/calculation. Non-HDL is simply total cholesterol minus HDL cholesterol = Non-HDL cholesterol. It is thus a combination of cholesterol in LDL and VLDL (triglycerides), similar to apoprotein B. While, like apoB, it is a bit different in that it includes VLDL, it has proven a superior measure of risk.

--LDL particle number--In my view, this is the gold standard for LDL and risk measurement, obtained by only 18% of our poll respondents. LDL particle number is proving superior for discriminating who is truly at risk for a cardiovascular event, particularly when metabolic syndrome or diabetes is part of the picture, i.e., when HDL and triglycerides are considerably distorted, leading to substantial corruption of calculated LDL.

While 18% is a minority, it still represents growth in recognition that conventional calculated LDL cholesterol is an unreliable, inaccurate, and outdated value. If the real LDL were to stand up, I believe that it is LDL particle number that would spring to its feet.

We already know that vitamin D reduces inflammatory processes, since several markers, including c-reactive protein and IL-6 have previously been shown to drop substantially with vitamin D. Inflammation underlies coronary atherosclerotic plaque growth, as well as plaque rupture that triggers heart attack.

A German group has now shown that the important inflammatory marker, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), is also reduced by vitamin D supplementation. Many studies have implicated increased TNF levels in promoting cancer.

In this study, a modest vitamin D dose of 3320 units (83 micrograms) was given vs. placebo. The 25-hydroxy D level reached in the treated group was 34.2 ng/ml (85.5 nmol/L), which resulted in a 26.5% reduction in TNF compared with 18.7% reduction (?) in the placebo group.

Vitamin D supplementation enhances the beneficial effects of weight loss on cardiovascular disease risk markers.

Zitterman A, Frisch S et al.

BACKGROUND: High blood concentrations of parathyroid hormone and low concentrations of the vitamin D metabolites 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] and calcitriol are considered new cardiovascular disease risk markers. However, there is also evidence that calcitriol increases lipogenesis and decreases lipolysis.
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the effect of vitamin D on weight loss and traditional and nontraditional cardiovascular disease risk markers in overweight subjects.
DESIGN: Healthy overweight subjects (n = 200) with mean 25(OH)D concentrations of 30 nmol/L (12 ng/mL) received vitamin D (83 microg/d) or placebo in a double-blind manner for 12 mo while participating in a weight-reduction program.
RESULTS: Weight loss was not affected significantly by vitamin D supplementation (-5.7 +/- 5.8 kg) or placebo (-6.4 +/- 5.6 kg). However, mean 25(OH)D and calcitriol concentrations increased by 55.5 nmol/L and 40.0 pmol/L, respectively, in the vitamin D group but by only 11.8 nmol/L and 9.3 pmol/L, respectively, in the placebo group.

(Calcitriol = 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D.)

Knowing your vitamin D blood level is crucial, as individual need for vitamin D varies widely from one person to the next. You can get your vitamin D tested at home by going to Grassroots Health or the Track Your Plaque Marketplace.

It all started back in the 1960s, when ape-watching anthropologists, Drs. Jane Goodall and Richard Wrangham, observed chimps foraging for a specific variety of leaf, which they consumed whole while wrinkling their noses in presumed disgust. Subsequent study showed that the leaves contained a powerful anti-parasitic compound.

A similar observation followed in 1987 by Dr. Michael Huffman from the University of Kyoto. During his year of living in the jungles of Tanzania, he observed chimpanzees in their native habitat. On one unexpected morning, he observed a female chimp, Chausiku:

“Chausiku goes directly to and sits down in front of a shrub and pulls down several new growth branches about the diameter of my little finger. She places them all on her lap and removes the bark and leaves of the first branch to expose the succulent inner pith. She then bites off small portions and chews on each for several seconds at a time. By doing this, she makes a conspicuous sucking sound as she extracts and swallows the juice, spitting out most of the remaining fiber. This continues for 17 minutes, with short breaks as she consumes the pith of each branch in the same manner.”

Dr. Michael Huffman’s description of Chausiku documents a fascinating example of animal self-medication what some call "zoopharmacognosy."
In this instance, the chimpanzee, weak, clutching her back in pain, and listless, was ingesting the leaves of the plant, Vernonia amygdalina, to purge an intestinal parasite. She recovered by the next morning.

Vernonia leaves have since been found to contain over a dozen potential anti-parasitic compounds. Chimps in this region commonly suffer infestations of parasites like Strongyloides fuelleborni (thread worm), Trichuris trichiura (whip worm), and Oesophagostomum stephanostomum (nodular worm). They have somehow stumbled onto a treatment that they administer themselves.

Chimpanzees have inhabited earth for over 6 million years. Who knows how long they and other primates have practiced some form of self-medication.

If chimpanzees can do it, I believe that we, as human primates, can also practice a similar form of self-directed health--homopharmacognosy?

Image courtesy Wikipedia

In honor of Earth Day, I thought I'd highlight the unexpectedly high carbon costs of activities in hospitals, specifically the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

A patient enters the cath lab. The groin is shaved using a plastic disposable razor, the site cleaned with a plastic sponge, then the site draped with an 8 ft by 5 ft composite paper and plastic material (to replace the old-fashioned, reusable cloth drapes). A multitude of plastic supplies are loaded onto the utility table, including plastic sheaths to insert into the femoral artery (which comes equipped with a plastic inner cannula and plastic stopcock), a multi-stopcock manifold that allows selective entry or removal of fluids through the sheath, a plastic syringe to inject x-ray dye, plastic tubing to connect all the devices (total of about 5 feet), and multiple plastic catheters (3 for a standard diagnostic catheterization, more if unusual arterial anatomy is encountered).

All these various pieces come packed in elaborate plastic (polyethylene terephthalate or other polymers) containers, which also come encased in cardboard packaging.

Should angioplasty, stenting, or similar procedure be undertaken, then more catheters are required, such as the plastic "guide" catheters that contain a larger internal lumen to allow passage of angioplasty equipment. An additional quantity of tubing is added to the manifold and stopcock apparatus, as well as a plastic Tuohy-Borst valve to permit rapid entry and exit of various devices into the sheath.

Several new packages of cardboard and plastic are opened which contain the angioplasty balloon, packaging which is usually about 4 feet in length. The stent likewise comes packaged in an 18-inch or so long package with its own elaborate cardboard and plastic housing.

At the conclusion of the procedure, another cardboard/plastic package is opened, this one containing the closure device consisting of several pieces of plastic tubes and tabs.

If the procedure is complicated, the number of catheters and devices used can quickly multiply several-fold.

By the conclusion of the procedure, there are usually two large, industrial-sized trash bins packed full of cardboard, plastic packaging, and discarded tubing and catheters. The trash is so plentiful that it is emptied following each and every procedure. None of it is recycled, given the contamination with human body fluids.

That's just one procedure. The amount of trash generated by these procedures is staggering, much of it plastic. I don't know how much of the U.S.'s annual plastic trash burden of 62 billion pounds (source: EPA) originates from the the cath lab, but I suspect it is a big number in total.

So if you are truly interested in reducing your carbon footprint and doing your part to be "green," avoid a trip (or many) to the cath lab.

What if the system to provide heart care has already gotten as big as it should be?

Worse (for hospitals), what if it’s already far larger than it needs to be? Can the system continue to increase revenues if they’ve already attained titanic proportions and outgrown demand? After all, darn it, there are only so many sick people around.

Hospital administrators might have to face an unpleasant choice: downsize to strip excess capacity and suffer the consequences in a competitive market, or . . . fabricate demand for their services.

Like the Dustin Hoffman and Robert DeNiro characters in the movie, Wag the Dog, about how two media-manipulators divert public attention away from a Presidential sex scandal by fabricating a war, spin is everything. It’s enough to sidetrack public attention from a scandal, obscure a truth, send us on a useless detour.

If healthcare for the heart isn’t driven by need, but many still desire to reap the benefits of the procedure-focused system, why not increase the perceived need?

That’s precisely the course that many hospital systems have chosen to follow. If the market you serve has been tapped to its full potential, then grow the market.

Imagine if a company like General Motors were to operate this way. In 2006, for instance, GM sold 9.1 million automobiles. If GM executives were to decide that they’d like to outstrip Toyota by boosting sales by 10% to 10 million, how would they do it? They would first have to determine whether it was feasible to grow demand for their product. If deemed possible, the company would need to ramp up manufacturing capacity to anticipate increased demand. If they miscalculate, GM could be stuck with a costly surplus and have to swallow the costs, maybe selling leftovers at a loss. (We don’t mean to pick specifically on GM; they’re a fine company as far as we’re concerned. This is just a hypothetical illustration.)

But what if a company could concoct some sort of scheme to persuade the car-buying public that they just had to have their cars or trucks? In other words, they could, in effect, create demand for their products.

As perverse as it sounds, that is exactly what occurs in healthcare for heart disease. The system long ago exceeded the necessary level of infrastructure to maintain a high-quality level of care accessible to most Americans. Instead, it continues to grow through a distortion of perception, delivering more services of increasing complexity to larger and larger numbers of people.

The size of the market is therefore a manipulable thing, something that can be massaged and cultivated. There are a variety of clever ways to exaggerate the need for heart procedures.

Why not raise the alarm for heart disease every chance you get? When a local sports figure survived a heart attack here in Milwaukee, St. _____ marketing department was right there, broadcasting the process in TV ads after his recovery. What could be more American than baseball, apple pie . . . and St. _____ Hospital? After his hospital discharge, the 57-year old local icon was shown on the sidelines with his team, back on the job, and at home with family, all beaming, just three months after a bypass operation. “I received only the very best care at St. _____ Hospital. They treated me like family. St. _____ doctors and nurses are the best!” Predictably, a two-month long spike in hospital testing followed filled with people worried whether they, too, might be in imminent danger. Several local cardiologists boasted of the many sports figures who came through the stress testing and heart catheterization labs, though virtually all checked out to be fine.

Though it can serve a legitimate purpose in some situations, stress tests are the ultimate example of a heart scam built on the perception of danger. Pull people in with promises of reassuring them whether or not they have heart disease, only to provide murky results that usually do no such thing. The pitfalls of the test are turned to advantage. The all too common equivocal or mildly abnormal result can be converted into a hospital procedure. (Imagine you could perform such alchemy on the uncertain calculations on your income taxes.)

With millions of stress tests performed every year and the push to perform more and more screening tests, the market has, in effect, been expanded—even though no increase in the disease itself has actually occurred.

Beware: As the scramble for heart patients intensifies, you are going to feel like you are being pulled closer and closer into the jaws of this hungry monster called the American cardiovascular healthcare machine.

(Lack of ) Quality of nutritional supplements

Marketing and truth are not the same

More on erectile dysfunction

High LDL cholesterol--only

Heart disease = statin deficiency

Fish oil and mercury

How much omega-3s are enough?

Repentance for past sins

A fanatic for Fanatic Cook

Erectile dysfunction and coronary plaque

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

"Get regressive"

CRP House of Cards

At-home blood tests

"Help keep your family goiter free"

Thumb your nose at swine flu

Will the real LDL please stand up?

Vitamin D and inflammation

Even monkeys do it

Cath lab energy costs

Wag the Dog