Super size me in little bits and pieces

17. October 2006 William Davis (1)


Alvin came into the office for consultation on his cholesterol values: LDL 198 mg/dl, HDL, 43 mg/dl, triglycerides 143 mg/dl. He says that he doesn't really try to choose healthy foods but he restricts his overall calorie intake by following the Weight Watcher's exchange approach.

Every morning, 7 days a week, Alvin eats a Sausage McMuffin for breakfast. He justified this by skipping lunch to make up for the 450 calories in the Sausage McMuffin, and not eating anything until dinner.

Can this work? Can you eat foods with unhealthy ingredients but make up the excessive calories by cutting back elsewhere?

The nutritional composition of McDonald's Sausage McMuffin includes 27 grams of total fat (10 gm saturated); 255 mg cholesterol; 950 mg sodium; 31 gm carbohydrate; 2 grams fiber. In other words, it's essentially the same as butter with sugar on it--pure fat, processed wheat, with little fiber or nutritive value.

For Alvin, this is an extremely unhealthy way to eat. His lipid patterns are just the tip of the iceberg: multiple hidden factors are also at work to create heart disease, atherosclerosis in other territories outside the heart, diabetes, high blood pressure, and cancer.

I think the effects are not much different than what Morgan Spurlock achieved in his Super Size Me documentary, but in little bits and pieces. Eating at McDonald's "restaurants" three times a day yielded frightening changes in his lipids, liver function, kidney function, not to mention his appearance and the way he felt. Alvin is doing the same thing, though in less dramatic fashion.

I see this very frequently: people mimicking the experience of Spurlock, just a little at a time, with overindulgence in processed fats and starches.

When you seen a set of Mcdonald's golden arches (or any fast food restaurant, for that matter), run as fast as you can in the other direction. Such indulgences, even in small bits and pieces, still creates a mess of your health.

View from the precipice

15. October 2006 William Davis (0)

Many people, upon first learning of their CT heart scan score, feel like they're on the edge of a sharp drop. It can feel like you're facing a vast, unknown abyss. At the bottom, all those dreaded things that can happen to you: heart attack, heart failure, hospitals, even dying.

I've encountered this "deer in the headlights" look many times. It truly can be frightening to hear that your heart scan score is 300, or 500, or whatever.

What I find truly frightening, however, is when your score prompts the usual array of misinformation commonly dispensed by physicians: "That's so bad you need a heart catheterization", "Nobody knows why people get calcified plaque", or "Reversal is impossible". All absolute bunk.

Let your fear motivate you to do something about your risk for heart disease. Aim for reversal of your coronary plaque and seek out the tools to achieve this. It is possible and, in fact, we do it all the time. I can't claim 100% success, but the majority of people who engage in an effort like the Track Your Plaque program to reverse coronary plaque succeed. Even a substantial slowing of plaque growth from the expected 30% per year is better than submitting to the conventional approach.

At the very least, get both LDL and HDL cholesterol around 60 mg/dl. This alone is a major plus in reducing the risks associated with your heart scan score. It doesn't guaranteee reversal, but it sure tips the odds in your favor.

Organic Rice Krispies?

13. October 2006 William Davis (0)


Breakfast cereal manufacturing giant, Kelloggs, is launching a line of three cereals that will carry the "organic" designation: Organic Rice Krispies, Organic Raisin Bran, and Organic Frosted Mini-Wheats.

This reminds me of the advertisements I've seen for "fresh fried chicken", or "fresh from the can", or "contains only pure cane sugar". How about organic tobacco? Would that make cigarettes healthier?

The TV ad ends with the slogan "Childood is calling!" Oh, those marketers are a shrewd, clever bunch. I worry that they're so clever that most people will fall for these ludicrous tricks.

Don't fall for these thinly-shrouded marketing shenanigans. Organic? Who cares. These foods remain unhealthy whether or not they contain pesticide residues. Take a look at the nutritional composition: Rice Krispies, organic or not, is sugar to your body. It is the sort of food that creates pre-diabetes, diabetes, makes us fat, and fans the flames of lipoprotein patterns like small LDL, VLDL, and postprandial particles, all of which is like throwing cow manure on the weed patch of your coronary plaque.

Nuts as functional foods

13. October 2006 William Davis (0)
Food manufacturers gave nuts a bad name when they started adding evil ingredients to them. "Party mix", "honey-roasted", mixed nuts, etc., are made with added hydrogenated oils, salt, sugar, excessive quantities of raisins, or other added ingredients that turned a healthy food--nuts--into something that made us fat and hypertensive, raised LDL, dropped HDL, and raised blood pressure.

But nuts themselves are, for the most part, very healthy foods. The very best are nuts with a brown fiber coating like almonds, walnuts, and pecans. Nearly all nuts also come rich in monounsaturated oils similar to that in olive oil. Although calorie-dense, nuts tend to be very filling and slash your appetite for other foods. I have never seen anyone gain weight by adding raw nuts to their diet. In fact, I find adding raw nuts cuts craving for sweets.

Nuts are also among the most concentrated sources of magnesium, containing around 150 mg per 1/2 cup serving. As most Americans are at least marginally if not severely deficient in magnesium, this really helps. Magnesium deficiency is a prominent aspect of "metabolic syndrome" and resistance to insulin.




Some nuts have added benefits like the l-arginine content of almonds or the linolenic acid content of walnuts. However, I think the real health "punch" comes from the fiber and monounsaturate content.

Add 1/4-1/2 cup of raw almonds, walnuts, or pecans per day to your diet and what can you expect? The effects that I see every day that are relevant to plaque control/heart scan score-reducing efforts include:

--Reduction in LDL--usually a 20 mg/dl drop, sometimes more.

--Reduction in triglycerides, especially if nuts replace processed carbohydrate calories. This may be because the fiber and monounsaturate content of nuts reduces blood sugar and the effective glycemic index of any accompanying foods.

--Modest blood pressure reduction.

--Though somewhat inconsistent, partial suppression of the dreaded small LDL particle pattern. We struggle with turning off the small LDL pattern in some people, and raw nuts can provide a real advantage.

If that isn't enough, the fiber content also makes your bowels regular.

Unless there's some reason to avoid nuts (e.g., allergy), nuts should be a part of your heart scan score reducing program. Shop around, as prices can vary wildly. I've been paying $12.99 for a 3 lb bag of raw almonds from Sam's Club, though I've seen almonds elsewhere for up to $12.99 per pound.

For additional commentary, go to one of my favorite Blogs, http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com. The Fanatic Cook's recent post, The Season for Walnuts , provides additional discussion on walnuts and the recent study showing how they improve "endothelial function". The nutritionist behind this Blog has fabulous insights into food, including the concept of "functional foods", i.e., using foods as a treatment tool. She is also unfailingly entertaining.

Can you tell the difference?

12. October 2006 William Davis (0)
Stan is 55 years old. He feels fine, is in moderately good physical condition. His LDL cholesterol is 135 mg/dl, HDL 43 mg/dl, triglycerides 167 mg/dl, total cholesterol 211 mg/dl.

Can you tell me whether Stan has heart disease or not?

How about Charles? Charles has an LDL cholesterol of 127 mg/dl, HDL of 44 mg/dl, triglycerides of 98 mg/dl, and total cholesterol of 191 mg/dl. He is also reasonably fit and feels fine. Can you tell whether Charles has heart disease?

If you can't, don't feel bad. Neither can your doctor. But this is the folly of using cholesterol for risk prediction.

Stan's heart scan score: 0

Charles' heart scan score: 978

Look even more closely at Stan's and Charles' cholesterol numbers. Is there some fine distinction we overlooked? What if we calculated total cholesterol to HDL ratio? Or LDL/HDL ratio?

No matter how you squeeze it, shake it, beat it with a stick, you simply cannot use cholesterol numbers to predict heart disease in specific individuals. Yes, the higher your LDL cholesterol and lower your HDL, the higehr your total cholesterol to HDL ratio, the greater the likelihood of heart disease. But you can simply cannot tell in a specific individual at a specific point in time. If you've seen your doctor puzzle over the numbers, understand that he/she is trying to make sense out of something that doesn't make sense, no matter how hard he/she tries.

You simply need to measure the disease itself: get a CT heart scan, the only measure of atherosclerotic coronary plaque that you have access to.

By the way, if you haven't seen it yet, go to the Track Your Plaque website (www.cureality.com) to see the news piece reporting the American Heart Association's much overdue position statement on CT heart scanning. The AHA has finally released a statement which, in effect, provides their "official" endorsement. Blocked by political shenanigans behind the scenes for several years, the guidelines finally made it to press. The only real difference it makes to me is that my patients may finally get their heart scans paid for by insurance, once the insurance companies realize that it's getting tougher and tougher to dodge their responsibility.

Statin agents and muscle aches

11. October 2006 William Davis (2)
How common are muscle aches with the statin drugs?

It depends on who you ask. If you ask the drug manufacturers, they will tell you no more than 2% of people who take them. They back this up with the experience in tens of thousands of people in published clinical trials.

What if we ask people who take them outside of clinical trials. How many then? I estimate, from my large experience, over 80%! In other words, muscle aches are inevitable in nearly everyone who takes them. The longer you take them, the higher your dose, the more likely muscle aches are going to be.

Why the disconnect between published data and real-world experience? I really don't know. In some instances, the differences are dramatic. The ASTEROID trial, for instance, in which Crestor, 40 mg, was given for two years, only resulted in 8% of people dropping out because of side-effects. My experience: everybody--nobody can tolerate this dose for any length of time.

Let me qualify what "muscle aches" mean. It means achiness and/or weakness, usually mild, occasionally moderate to severe, worse upon awakening and less with use. It can affect many muscles or it can involve only one. Rarely is it incapacitating but it is commonly annoying and frightening. It commonly shows up as gradually diminishing strength with exercise. Strength usually returns promptly upon stopping the offending drug.

"Rhabdomyolysis", or true muscle destruction is, fortunately, very unusual in otherwise well people. People with abnormal kidney function, diabetes, and other concurrent illnesses are somewhat more prone. But in reality, rhabdomyolysis is unusual. I've personally seen it twice, both in people sick for other reasons.

Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) supplementation has been a godsend for us. At least 4 out of 5 people who require statins and develop muscle aches respond favorably, but it requires 100 mg per day. The preparation must be oil-based to work, not powder in a capsule which exerts no effect. Some people get by with less; some require as much as 300 mg per day. I've had favorable experiences with the CoQ10 from Sam's Club, GNC, Vitamin Shoppe, and Life Extension (www.LEF.org).

The Track Your Plaque target for LDL cholesterol is 60 mg/dl. Many people do indeed use statins to achieve this level, the level of LDL that amplifies your chances of heart disease reversal, i.e., reduction of heart scan score. The only drawback that I'm aware of with CoQ10 replacement is cost. Beyond this, it's a benign supplement that even supplies higher energy for some people who take it.

More catheterizations would make me happy!

11. October 2006 William Davis (0)
I received this fax today from a cardiologist seeking a position:

"I would prefer to perform as many interventions [stents, angioplasties, etc.] as possible..."

That about sums it up, doesn't it? The goal of this young man, trained in major universities including Columbia University, Harvard, and Emory, is not to pursue an avenue of investigation or healthcare that yields real answers. His goal is to perform as many procedures as possible.

This attitude is deeply ingrained in cardiologists. It's also shared by all procedural medical specialties: the drive to do more and more procedures. It's not because it does more good for the public, but it fulfills a primitive impulse to spread your influence, enlarge your territory, and--of course--make more money.

Personally, I find this impulse repulsive. The fact that this young cardiologist looking for a position is willing to make this statement out in the open demonstrates how widely accepted this attitude is. Imagine your cancer surgeon, looking for a new job, said, "I'm looking to remove as many tumors as I can."

My colleagues have lost sight of the fact that we're trying to reduce or eliminate disease, not enrich our pockets or service some primitive impulse to beat others at our game.

"I hate fish oil!"

9. October 2006 William Davis (1)
I get this comment occasionally, usually from the fishy belching that can occur, rarely because of other crazy effects like rash, fishy body odor, etc.

In the vast majority, fish oil is a benign but wonderfully effective agent. Track Your Plaque followers know that fish oil, starting at 4000 mg per day of a standard 1000 mg capsule preparation, dramatically reduces triglycerides and thereby raises HDL, partially suppresses small LDL, and is the best agent available for reducing postprandial (after eating) abnormalities like IDL and certain VLDL fractions.

However, an occasional person (about 1 in 20) just doesn't like the effects. Are there alternatives? Fish oil packs such a wallop of beneficial effects that can not be replaced by any other single agent or lifestyle practice. For this reason, we have a number of easy strategies to enhance your tolerance for fish oil. (Of course, if your and/or you doctor determine that you're allergic to fish oil, then you should indeed avoid it; thankfully, this is rare.)

Helpful strategies include:

--Refrigerate fish oil capsules--this cuts back on fish belching.
--Take only with meals. This also may increase fish oil's benefits on suppressing after-eating lipoprotein abnormalities.
--Take an enteric-coated preparation--this delays breakdown of the tablet/capsule, making fishy belching less of an issue. Sam's Club has an inexpensive preparation.
--Take liquid fish oil. Usually orange or lemon flavored, liquid fish oil may be a faint fishy taste and odor, but usually not as prominent as the capsules. There's also less stomach upset.
--Coromega--a paste form of fish oil available at health food stores or through http://www.coromega.com. Coromega tastes fruity and comes in little squeeze envelopes.
--Frutol--Pharmax, a British company, makes another fruity fish oil that is non-oily and tastes like apricot. It's actually fairly reasonably priced, too. However, it is hard to find. The only way I know to get is to go online at www.pharmaxllc.com. You may have to actually order through a health care provider.

When using any preparation of fish oil, the best way to determine your dose is to add up the EPA and DHA content. For instance, if you use a fish oil liquid that contains 320 mg EPA and 240 mg DHA per teaspoon, you will need two teaspoons a day to achieve the equivalent of our starting dose of 1200 mg of EPA+DHA, usually provided by 4000 mg total in 4 capsules. Note that some lipid and lipoprotein disorders will require higher doses, e.g., 1800 mg EPA+DHA for high triglycerides (>200 mg/dl) or high IDL.

Sudden death in athletes

6. October 2006 William Davis (0)
A recent report in the Journal of the American Medical Association details how a group in the Veneto region of Italy cut back on the incidence of sudden cardiac death in athletes by a simple screening program.



You can read the abstract of the article at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/296/13/1593.

Although sudden death in athletes is still a rare event, it is especially tragic when it happens. In this population, the incidence was 3.6 deaths per 100,000 athletes aged 12 to 35 years. By implementing a simple screening program that involved only a physical examination and an EKG, an astounding 89% reduction in sudden death was documented.

What lessons does this hold for those of us interested in coronary plaque reversal? Beyond the obvious lesson of pointing out the great benefit of simple screening of athletes, I believe that it tells us the value of simple screening tools for heart disease in general. It is my strong belief that, if we were to implement CT heart scans among the broad population of men 40 years and over, women 50 years and over--without regard to cholesterol or other relatively lame risk identifiers--we could slash the risk for heart attack and death 90% or more. Putting CT heart scans into the hands of the public makes your coronary risk obvious. It takes the guesswork out of risk predictors like cholesterol and high blood pressure.

But heart scans are already available, you say! Yes, of course they are. But the lack of insurance reimbursement continues to be a restricting factor for many people, despite the number of lives that could be potentially saved and the money that would be saved in the long run by reducing need for major heart procedures. The continuing resistance to prevention by my cardiology colleagues and the persistent ignorance of primary care physicians also remain major impediments.

But it's getting better. You don't have to be chained by ignorance. Put your CT heart scan to good use.

My heart scan was wrong!

6. October 2006 William Davis (0)


Tom came into the office ready for a confrontation.

Tom's wife insisted that he see me to discuss the implications of his CT heart scan score of 459. At age 50, this was clearly bad news that placed Tom in the 99th percentile (worst 1% of men in his age group).

But Tom had already undergone a stress test. There had apparently been a small abnormality, and a heart catheterization had been performed by another cardiologist. "They told me they didn't need to do anything. No stent, no ballon, no bypass, nothing!"

I asked, "Did they tell you that there was any plaque or blockages seen?"

"Yeah, but he said it was nothing. So the heart scan was wrong!"

I've been here many times before. I explained to Tom that, no, his heart scan was not wrong. All the tests he'd undergone siimply provided a different perspective on the same disease. You could say:

--The stress test, being a test of blood flow, may have been abnormal because of the abnormal constrictive behavior of arteries containing plaque, known as "endothelial dysfunction", because the inner lining of arteries (the endothelium) control the tone of the artery. Abnormal constriction in arteries with plaque is quite common.

--The catheterization simply showed that no plaque had collected in a configuration to block flow, thus no stent, etc., since flow was normal. But there was indeed plaque.

All three tests were right; none were wrong. They all provided a little different perspective on the same process. Of course, I favor the heart scan as the means to identify, precisely measure, and track the atherosclerotic plaque in your arteries. The stress test is too crude and only measures flow, the catheterization is not something you'd want to undergo year after year. Catheterization also is too crude a measure to precisely track plaque growth or reversal.

So I explained to Tom that, even though a stent or similar procedure was unnecessary, he remained at substantial risk for heart attack due to plaque "rupture". In fact, Tom's heart attack risk was 5% per year, or approximately 50% over the next decade. That is, indeed, substantial. In fact, you might say that, of the three tests Tom underwent, only the heart scan revealed his true risk.

I had a heart attack--and I don't know why!

25. October 2006 William Davis (0)
Kevin came to my office for another opinion.

A husband and father of two teenagers, Kevin had his first heart attack at age 39. Kevin received two stents to his right coronary artery. The entire process took place in a flurry with little explanation over 48 hours, start to finish.

He smoked a pack of cigarettes a day, but the only history of heart disease in his family was his father, who, also a smoker, had his heart disease uncovered in his late 70s.

His internist subsequently prescribed Zocor even though Kevin's LDL cholesterol was a relatively unimpressive 128 mg/dl.

Kevin subsequently asked his cardiologist, "Where did I get the heart disease from?"

"Cigarettes. And genetics. You can quit the first. There's nothing you can do about the second." End of explanation.

This left Kevin frightened and demoralized. If much of the cause of his heart disease couldn't be identified, why bother quitting smoking? Why not enjoy what time he had left?

Kevin was understandably shocked when I told him that genetic causes were 1)identifiable, 2)quantifiable, and 3) correctable.

Kevin's full lipoprotein analysis subsequently showed the most dire combination that commonly accounts for coronary disease in young people: Lp(a) with small LDL particles. This, along with smoking, fully accounted for this young father of two's heart disease.

Along with starting Kevin on a new program for correction of his patterns, I also persuaded him to get a heart scan. What usefulness is a heart scan after the fact? Plenty. Even though Kevin's right coronary was no longer "scorable" because the steel in the stent obscured our measurements, the two remaining unstented arteries would still yield a score. This provides a baseline for future comparison. Even after a stent, Kevin could "track his plaque".

Butter basics

24. October 2006 William Davis (3)
There’s lot of confusion about butter, margarines, and their substitutes. Butter/margarine substitutes that avoid the negative aspects and provide modest health benefits are available, but I find that people confuse what's what. So here’s a brief primer.


Butter--Avoid it. Plain and simple. Butter is a rich source of saturated fat. Of 11.5 grams total fat per tablespoon, 7.3 grams are saturated. It is not better than margarine, contrary to simple-minded reports from some media sources. Butter raises LDL cholesterol, raises blood pressure, and has been related to various cancers.

Margarine--Not better than butter, arguably worse. Some argue that the trans-fatty acids, or hydrogenated oils, used to solidify vegetable oils to make margarine solid are worse than butter. In addition to the ill-effects of butter, margarine reduces HDL and raises cancer risk, perhaps even more than saturated fats. Hydrogenation yields a very unnatural structure that modifies cellular behavior of the sort that may promote the appearance of cancer cells. More recently, however, some of the major manufacturers, like Blue Bonnet, have produced soft spread products without hydrogenation. These are reasonable substitutes when used sparingly.

Smart Balance--This is a product made with canola oil, a source of monounsaturates (the best oil source after omega-3s), but manufactured without hydrogenation and therefore has no trans-fats. It does have, in my view, a bit too much saturated fat (1.5 gm per tbsp. in the 37% Light Spread; 2.5 gm per tbsp in the 67% regular spread). This is a reasonable product to use in small quantities.

There is also a Smart Balance Omega PLUS product that contains added flaxseed oil and sterol esters. I do not recommend this product because of the sterol content (see below). I also object to the manufacturers who label their products “rich in omega-3s” when they mean linolenic acid (in flaxseed), which is converted to a trivial quantity of omega-3s. Linolenic acid may pose unique benefits of its own, but it should not be listed as an omega-3 source.

Benecol--This is a butter substitute that contains stanol esters, a substance that reduces total and LDL cholesterol. Two tablespoons a day reduces LDL around 20 mg/dl, more or less depending on your starting cholesterol.
There’s a light and regular spread. The light contains 20 calories less per tablespoon but somewhat less monounsaturates, but the same LDL-reducing stanol esters. The manufacturer does hydrogenate the oils, yielding 0.5 mg trans-fats per tablespoon--a small drawback.

Take Control--Similar to Benecol, but made with sterol esters. Take Control also reduces LDL cholesterol. However, data from several high-quality studies from Finland suggest that sterol esters may, in some people, be absorbed into the blood. This is potentially concerning. There is a rare disease called sitosterolemia that results in coronary disease in teenagers and young adults in their 20s from increased absorption of sterol esters. While you can’t acquire this genetic disease, some people have the capacity to absorb sterol esters from their intestines very efficiently. I find it very disturbing and I suggest that you stay away this product and other sterol-containing products like HeartWise orange juice and Smart Balance Omega PLUS until the issue is clarified and safety assured.

Brummel and Brown--A blend of vegetable oils (soybean and partially hydrogenated soybean) with calories and fats reduced by blending in yogurt. This is an okay product. The hydrogenation yields trans-fats below the FDA required declaration limit of 1.0 mg.
There’s also 1.0 mg each of saturated and monounsaturated fats. The calories are relatively low as a consequence of the added yogurt, only 45 calories per tablespoon. This makes the Brummel and Brown a reasonable choice.


Other products are making their way out to supermarkets. Look for the type of oil used. Canola, olive, and flaxseed are the best. Also look for trans-fats and saturated fat content; both should be low, preferably <1.0 mg per tablespoon, ideally none.

The best choice among the above products in my view is Benecol, though it’s also the most expensive. It will yield substantial drops in LDL cholesterol. All the products in our informal tastings taste a lot like butter, or at least as well as we can remember what butter tasted like! The key with all of these products is use in moderation, since they all provide between 45?80 calories per tablespoon.

Let Dr. Friedewald rest in peace

24. October 2006 William Davis (1)
In the 1960s, doctors struggled with the concept of cholesterol and its relationship to heart disease. It was becoming clear that higher levels of cholesterol were predictive of heart disease. It was also becoming clear that the low-density fraction of cholesterol, or LDL, was somewhat better than total cholesterol in predicting heart attack.

Cholesterol was easily measurable in the 1960s. LDL was not. So, Dr. Friedewald, a noted lipid researcher at the National Institutes of Health, proposed an easy method to calculate LDL cholesterol from total choleseterol, HDL, and triglycerides:

LDL cholesterol = Total cholesterol – HDL cholesterol – triglycerides/5

This simple manipulation would put LDL cholesterols into the hands of the practicing physician and the American public. Dr. Friedewald recognized that this calculation only represented an approximation of LDL cholesterol and that it was thrown off, sometimes substantially, by any abnormal rise in triglycerides or reduction in HDL. But it served its purpose at an age when most doctors hadn’t even heard of cholesterol and the public was still sold on whole milk and “farm-fresh” butter, and Chesterfields were the cigarette choice of most doctors.



The world has since changed. Most doctors have heard about cholesterol and, along with the public, have been drowned in drug company marketing for cholesterol-reducing drugs. Most people with some level of common sense and health awareness no longer use butter or whole milk, and no longer believe that the brand of cigarette you choose can be healthy. But we’re still using Dr. Friedewald’s original calculation for LDL cholesterol. When you get an LDL cholesterol from your clinic, doctor, or hospital, >99% of the time it is obtained using Dr. Friedewald’s calculation.

Is it because there’s nothing better available? No, it’s not. There’s two reasons why your neighborhood primary care physician or cardiologist is still using this dinosaur of testing called LDL:

1) The lag in science to practice is 20 years. Accept that most primary care doctors are 20 years behind the times on many issues, LDL cholesterol included.

2) Insurance companies vigorously discourage testing beyond conventional lipids. The array of objections we get from insurance companies is mind-boggling. It would be funny if human life and finances weren’t at stake. These “new” tests are “experimental”, “unproven”, not endorsed by standard guidelines, not approved by some internal committee, or simply “We don’t know what this test is” ?we’ve heard them all.

What are the tests that are superior to Dr. Friendewald’s calculated LDL? There are several, listed here in order of best to worst:

1) LDL particle number--the value generated by NMR lipoprotein testing. This is the gold standard, most reliable test available, and the one I recommend.

2) Apoprotein B--More widely available even from conventional laboratories in hospitals. Not as accurate as NMR LDL particle number, but a pretty good choice. Apo B is the principal protein in LDL, VLDL, and IDL particles, and so it’s a better reflector of risk from all of these lipoprotein fractions, not just LDL.

3) “Direct” LDL--This is LDL that is actually measured. Unfortunately, it ignores the issues of LDL size and has some other pitfalls, but it’s still better than calculated LDL

4) Non-HDL cholesterol--So-called because it incorporates all undesirable cholesterol-containing lipids except good HDL, thus “non-HDL”. This is another calculation, though better than LDL (because it sums up the risk from other apoprotein B-containing lipoproteins). Non-HDL is calculated from Total cholesterol – HDL. It’s therefore available from any standard lipid panel. It’s little used in everyday practice, however, because most people and their physicians find it confusing.

5) Friedewald calculated LDL--You can see that calculated LDL is last on a list of choices. Yet this is the measure that doctors use day in, day out. It’s the measure that drug companies base billions of dollars of revenue and profits on.

It’s an everyday occurrence in my office that calculated LDL is 89 mg/dl, but the real value is somewhere between 160 and 200 mg/dl. That’s a big difference. Imagine your realtor tells you your house’s estimated value is $200,000 and that’s what you sell it for to an eager buyer. After closing, you find out your house was really worth $300,000. You’d be upset. But that’s what you’re often getting with LDL cholesterol?a bum deal.

It’s part of the reason people will say, “My doctor said my cholesterol was fine and that no cause for my heart disease can be found. He said it was genetic.” In reality, they could have sky-high LDL cholesterol revealed by LDL particle number or apoprotein B.

Use LDL cholesterol in a pinch when you’ve got nothing else. It’s also helpful to gauge any treatment effect of diet, functional foods, drugs, etc. But it is a seriously flawed tool to diagnose your initial level of risk.

The key to losing weight

23. October 2006 William Davis (0)
I saw three people this past week, all of whom set off on an effort to lose substantial quantities of weight. And all seriously needed to.

All three started with at least 70 lbs. excess weight; all showed substantial weight-sensitive lipoprotein patterns like low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, VLDL, and pre-diabetic levels of blood sugar. They also all shared high blood pressure.

All three also had high heart scan scores. Kate’s score was just over 1200. Tom, a 58-year old real estate developer, had a score of nearly 600. Susan, the youngest of the three at 52, had a heart scan score of 377¾99th percentile at this age. Losing weight was an absolute requirement for their plaque control program. Because their lipoprotein abnormalities and pre-diabetic patterns were triggered by weight, weight loss would provide powerful correction. Each and every one of them would need to lose much of their excess weight¾at least 50 lbs¾if they hoped to halt the relentless progression of their heart scan scores.

All three of them returned after 6-8 weeks, and all had lost between 17-24 lbs: spectacular results.

There’s no secret to weight loss. Each of them achieved their weight loss in slightly different ways. But they also shared several critical ingredients in their weight-loss efforts:

1) All three dramatically slashed their intake of wheat flour-containing foods and other processed carbohydrates and did so consistently. All also avoided the usual high-fat, high caloric-density foods like butter, margarine, fried foods, greasy foods, nuts roasted in oil, etc. They concentrated on vegetables, salads, raw nuts, lean proteins (inc. turkey, chicken, fish, lean red meats, low-fat cottage cheese and yogurt).

2) They stopped using food as a reward or as a consolation tool.

3) Exercise for one hour a day at least 5 days a week. The exercise in 2 of 3 of these people was just walking. It wasn’t strenuous, it wasn’t expensive. The women both liked walking with friends or their spouse. Tom followed a more common male path of more strenuous work on his treadmill, elliptical, and biking at the fitness club. But they all did it religiously and missed rare sessions.

4) They refrained from any and all alcoholic beverages. Yes, there are some advantages to 1-2 glasses of wine per day, but it stalls weight loss efforts.

5) They didn’t allow themselves any major indiscretions. There were no binges, major pig-outs at weddings, barbecues, or all-you-can-eat buffets. They did allow themselves an occasional “treat” but did so in small portions.

That’s it. But for most people, that’s simply too much. Adhering to an effort to lose dramatic weight requires day-after-day consistency. Nobody can lose the equivalent of 70,000 calories (20 lbs.) just by skipping a meal, a 20-minute walk, skipping the mashed potatoes at dinner.

It can be done. You’ve just got to be consistent about it.

How can I get my lipoproteins tested?

20. October 2006 William Davis (0)
This question came up on our recent online chat session and comes up frequently in phone calls and e-mails.

If lipoprotein testing is the best way to uncover hidden causes of coronary heart disease, but your doctor is unable, unknowledgeable, or unwilling to help you, then what can you do?

There are several options:

1) Get the names of physicians who will obtain and interpret the test for you. Go to the websites for the three labs that actually perform the lipoprotein tests: www.liposcience.com (NMR); www.berkeleyheartlab.com (electropheresis or GGE); www.atherotech.com (VAP or centrifugation). None of them will provide you with the names of actual physicians. They will provide you with the name of a local representative who will know who the doctors in your area who are well-acquainted with their technology. I prefer this route to just having a representative identify a laboratory in your area where the blood sample can be drawn, because you will still need a physician to interpret the results¾this is crucial. The test is of no use to you unless someone interprets it intelligently and understands the range of treatment possibilities available. Don’t be persuaded by your doctor if he/she agrees to have the blood drawn but has never seen the test before. This will be a waste of your time. That’s like hoping the kid next door can fix your car just because he says he fixed his Mom’s car once. Interpretation of lipoproteins takes time, education, and experience.
2) Seek out a lipidologist. Lipidologists are the new breed of physician who has sought out additional training and certification in lipid and lipoprotein disorders. Sometimes they’re listed in the yellow pages, or you can search online in your area.
3) Contact us. I frankly don’t like doing this because I feel that I can only provide limited information through this method. I provide a written discussion of the implications and choices for treatment with the caveat to discuss them with your doctor, since I can’t provide medical advice without a formal medical relationship. We also charge $75 for the interpretation. But it’s a lot better than nothing.
4) Make do with basic testing. Basic lipids along with a lipoprotein(a), C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, and homocysteine would provide a reasonable facsimile of lipoprotein testing. You’ll still lack small LDL and postprandial (after-eating) information, but you can still do reasonably well if you try to achieve the Track Your Plaque targets of 60-60-60.

In 20 years, this will be a lot easier. But for now, you can still obtain reasonably good results choosing one of the above alternatives.

What do you think about those heart scans?

20. October 2006 William Davis (1)
52-year old Jerry came in for a stress test. He displayed the usual apprehension: fidgeting while he sat on the bed, examining his surroundings, asking lots of questions.

“Your doctor asked you have have a stress test?” I asked.

“All the males in my family have had heart attacks by age 56, so my doctor suggested I have a stress test,” Jerry explained.

Jerry went on to tell me that he had exercised vigorously this morning for 45 minutes without symptoms. He had, in fact, gone surfing just several weeks earlier and described how aerobically challenging it was keeping up with the 20 year olds. “But I did it!” he proudly declared.

As he neared the end of his brisk walk on the treadmill, Jerry asked, “What do you think about those heart scans?”

Jerry had asked his primary care physician the same question. His doctor had apparently told him that they were just a gimmick. “We’ll get you a real test.”

Of course, Jerry’s stress test proved entirely normal. The likelihood of an abnormal stress test with his history of vigorous exercise was <2%. I explained to Jerry that not getting heart scan would be a mistake. In fact, a heart scan was the only easily obtainable test that would uncover hidden heart disease. In truth, the stress test was a waste of time—and an unneeded exposure to radiation.

If Jerry’s heart scan score turned out to be zero, great! He was probably spared the genes from the other males in his family, and his risk of heart attack in the next decade was nearly zero.

If his heart scan turned out be 1000, then an urgent scramble to uncover the causes and correct them to create a truly effective prevention program would be crucial for his long term health. Or, perhaps his score lies somewhere in between, but Jerry would then know how far along he stood on his way to heart disease.

Don’t be a victim of the ignorance of your doctor. Despite all the attention heart scans have received, the majority of doctors remain miserably, inexcusably in the dark. I say inexcusable because CT heart scans can uncover the number one killer of Americans, the number one cause of all deaths in any primary care physician’s practices, and it’s laughably easy. How can a physician not advise patients on the value of heart scans?

If given a choice and you’re without symptoms, a heart scan is far and away the superior test.

Olive oil for gourmets

19. October 2006 William Davis (0)
"The finest extra-virgin olive oils should not be used as a medium for hot cooking, but rather as a condiment or a finisher on top of your favorite savory foods. They are expensive, but if stored properly they will last for up to a year..."

You all know that olive oil is among the preferred oils to use: rich in monounsaturates, low in saturates, high in polyphenols.




For a fascinating perspective for the olive oil gourmet, go to www.npr.org, the website for National Public Radio. (Scroll down to the article or enter olive oil into their site search.) Their article, "Like fine wines, fine olive oils boast subtle joys" provides an insightful discussion on squeezing maximum enjoyment out of this wonderful "functional food".

As we emerge from the mis-directed low-fat craze of the past 20 years, we're re-discovering the joys of healthy oils. You'll find some great thoughts here

Vitamin D must be oil-based

18. October 2006 William Davis (10)
As part of the Track Your Plaque coronary plaque reversal program, we advocate vitamin D supplementation. Vitamin D has been shown to reduce blood sugar and reduce pre-diabetic tendencies, reduce blood pressure (it's a renin antagonist, a blood pressure hormone), it's far more important for bone health than calcium, and it may help prevent colon cancer, prostate cancer, and multiple sclerosis.

And, oh yes, it may facilitate coronary plaque regression.

One lesson I've learned is that vitamin D MUST be taken as a oil-based capsule or gelcap. You'll recognize it as a transparent or translucent, sometimes opaque, capsule. The list of ingredients may say something like "cholecalciferol [vitamin D] in a base of soybean oil", indicating that the active ingredient is oil-based. Oil-based vitamin D3 skyrockets blood levels of 25-OH-vitamin D3 in to the normal range reliably and easily.


Tablets are a different story. These are generally white powdery tablets. The rise in blood levels of vitamin D3 are minimal, sometimes none. Women will often say "I get vitamin D with my calcium tablets."


People taking this form almost always have blood levels of vitamin D that are low, as if they were taking nothing.
If you're going to take vitamin D, the oil-based tablets are the way to go. They're not necessarily any more expensive. We've had good experiences with the Nature's Life 2000 unit capsule, as well as preparations from Life Extension. We have had negative experiences with the preparations from GNC, Sam's Club, and Walgreen's, all tablets and non-oil-based.

When is LDL cholesterol NOT LDL cholesterol?

18. October 2006 William Davis (0)
Darlene had a high LDL cholesterol, at times as high as 200 mg/dl. Her primary care doctor first tried Mevacor, then Pravachol, then Zocor, then Lipitor. Every statin drug failed to reduce Darlene's LDL below 160 mg/dl, even when maximum doses were used. The higher doses also resulted in nearly intolerable muscle aches and weakness.

When we sent Darlene's blood sample off for lipoprotein analysis, a surprise came back: she had a high lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a). This explained a lot.

LDL cholesterol is not always just LDL cholesterol. One of the particles that can masquerade as LDL is Lp(a). Darlene's story is typical of many people who've had high cholesterol levels poorly responsive to the statin drugs. That's because their LDL conceals Lp(a), which does not respond to these agents. LDL cholesterol does drop some because there's also some real LDL mixed in.

A poor response to statin agents or to nutritional strategies to reduce LDL is a tip-off that Lp(a) may be hidden. The answer: just measure Lp(a)! If you and your doctor don't measure it, you won't know whether or not you have it. Rather than a statin drug, we put Darlen on niacin. Not only did her Lp(a) drop, but her LDL also plummeted.

What is a desirable triglyceride level?

17. October 2006 William Davis (0)

Though well-intended, the National Cholesterol Education Panel's Adult Treatment Panel, or ATP-III, (whew!) guidelines for cholesterol have been responsible for loads of misinformation.

The intention was to educate the internist or family doctor who treats sore throats, performs Pap smears, administers pneumovax vaccine, treats arthritic knees---and dabbles in heart disease prevention. The ATP-III guidelines are the "Cholesterol for Dummies" approach.

What standard guidelines definitely do not represent are the ideal values to achieve. They do not ensure protection from heart disease. This is particularly true of the ATP-III advice to keep triglycerides at or below the "desirable" level of 150 mg/dl.

In the Track Your Plaque program, we ask "What is necessary to tip the odds in favor of coronary plaque regresion or reduction of heart scan score?" This is not achieved with a triglyceride of 150. In fact, triglycerides at this level are associated with flagrant abnormalities of lipoprotein patterns. It usually means that processed carbohydrates, particularly wheat products, are occupying too prominent a role in your food choices. It could mean that you're making excessive use of processed foods containining high-fructose corn syrup. It will not respond to a low-fat diet. It will, however, respond vigorously to fish oil.

Triglycerides are a crucial aspect of your plaque control program. We aim for 60 mg/dl or less. The ideal level is actually 45 mg/dl. At this level, all abnormal triglyceride-containing lipoproteins finally go away.
All posts by william-davis

Wheat "debate" on CBC

11. October 2011 William Davis (29)
"Many Canadians plan warm buns, stuffing and pie for their Thanksgiving meals tonight. But I'll speak with a cardiologist who thinks we have no reason to be thankful for any food that contains wheat. William Davis says our daily bread is making us fat and sick."

That's the introduction to my recent interview and debate on CBC, the Canadian public radio system, aired on the Canadian Thanksgiving. Arguing the other side was Dr. Susan Whiting, an academic nutritionist. (I use the word "arguing" loosely, since she hardly argued the issues, certainly hadn't read the book, but was content to echo the conventional line that whole grains are healthy and cutting out a food group is unhealthy.)

I do have to give credit to the Canadian media, including the CBC, who have been hosting some rough-and-tumble discussions about the entire wheat question despite Canada being a world exporter of wheat. I recently participated in another debate with a PhD nutrition expert from Montreal who, in response to my assertion that the genetically-altered high-yield, semi-dwarf strains have changed the basic composition of wheat, argued that the creation of the 2-foot tall semi-dwarf strain was a convenience created so that farmers could see above their fields--no kidding. I stifled my laugh. (The semi-dwarf variants were actually created to compensate for the heavy seed head that develops with vigorous nitrate fertilization that buckles 4 1/2-foot tall wheat stalk, making harvesting and threshing impossible, a process farmers call "lodging." The 2-foot tall semi-dwarf thick, stocky stalk is strong enough to resist lodging.)

In short, debating the nutrition "experts" on this question has been tantamount to arguing with a school age child on the finer points of quantum physics. There has not yet been any real objection raised on the basic arguments against modern genetically-altered wheat. Modern semi-dwarf wheat is, and remains, an incredibly bad creation of the genetics laboratories of the 1970s. It has no business on the shelves of your grocery store nor on the cupboards in your home.

Carrot Cake

5. October 2011 William Davis (14)
This is among my favorite recipes from the Wheat Belly book. I reproduce it here for those of you who read the Kindle or audio version and therefore didn't get the recipes.

I made this most recently this past weekend. It was gone very quickly, as even the 13-year old gobbled it up.

(I reduced the sour cream in this version from 8 to 6 oz to reduce cooking time. Also, note that anyone trying to avoid dairy can substitute more coconut milk, i.e., the thicker variety, in equivalent quantities.)

Makes 8-10 servings



 

 

 

 

 

 

Ingredients:
Cake:
2 cups carrots, finely grated
1 cup chopped pecans
1 cup coconut flour
1 tablespoon ground flaxseed
2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
1 teaspoon allspice
1 teaspoon nutmeg
1 teaspoon baking powder
2 tablespoons freshly grated orange peel
Sweetener equivalent to ½ cup sugar (e.g., 4 tablespoons Truvia)
½ teaspoon sea salt
4 eggs
1/2 cup butter or coconut oil, melted
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
½ cup coconut milk
6 ounces sour cream

Icing:
8 ounces cream cheese or Neufchâtel cheese, softened
1 teaspoon lemon juice
1 tablespoon Truvía or 1/8 teaspoon stevia extract powder or ¼ cup Splenda

Preheat oven to 325° degrees F. Grate carrots and set aside.

Combine coconut flour, flaxseed, cinnamon, nutmeg, baking powder, orange peel, sweetener, and salt in large bowl and mix by hand.

Put eggs, butter or coconut oil, vanilla coconut milk, and sour cream in mixing bowl; mix by hand. Pour liquid mixture into dry pecan/coconut flour mixture and blend with power mixer until thoroughly mixed. Stir carrots and pecans in by hand with spoon. Pour mixture into greased 9- or 10-inch square cake pan.

Bake for 60 minutes or until toothpick withdraws dry. Allow to cool 30 minutes.

Place Neufchâtel cheese in bowl. Add lemon juice and sweetener and mix thoroughly. Spread on cake.

Why wheat makes you fat

1. October 2011 William Davis (32)
How is it that a blueberry muffin or onion bagel can trigger weight gain? Why do people who exercise, soccer Moms, and other everyday people who cut their fat and eat more "healthy whole grains" get fatter and fatter? And why weight gain specifically in the abdomen, the deep visceral fat that I call a "wheat belly"?

There are several fairly straightforward ways that wheat in all its varied forms--whole wheat bread, white bread, multigrain bread, sprouted bread, sourdough bread, pasta, noodles, bagels, ciabatta, pizza, etc. etc.--lead to substantial weight gain:

High glucose and high insulin--This effect is not unique to wheat, but shared with other high-glycemic index foods (yes: whole wheat has a very high-glycemic index) like cornstarch and rice starch (yes, the stuff used to make gluten-free foods). The high-glycemic index means high blood glucose triggers high blood insulin. This occurs in 90- to 120-minute cycles. The high insulin that inevitably accompanies high blood sugar, over time and occurring repeatedly, induces insulin resistance in the tissues of the body. Insulin resistance causes fat accumulation, specifically in abdominal visceral fat, as well as diabetes and pre-diabetes. The more visceral fat you accumulate, the worse insulin resistance becomes; thus the vicious cycle ensues.

Cycles of satiety and hunger--The 90- to 120-minute glucose/insulin cycle is concluded with a precipitous drop in blood sugar. This is the foggy, irritable, hungry hypoglycemia that occurs 2 hours after your breakfast cereal or English muffin. The hypoglyemia is remedied with another dose of carbohydrate, starting the cycle over again . . . and again, and again, and again.

Gliadin proteins--The gliadin proteins unique to wheat, now increased in quantity and altered in amino acid structure from their non-genetically-altered predecessors, act as appetite stimulants. This is because gliadins are degraded to exorphins, morphine-like polypeptides that enter the brain. Exorphins can be blocked by opiate-blocking drugs like naltrexone. A drug company has filed an application with the FDA for a weight loss indication for naltrexone based on their clinical studies demonstrating 22 pounds weight loss after 6 months treatment. Overweight people given an opiate blocker reduce calorie intake 400 calories per day. But why? There's only one food that yields substantial quantities of opiate-like compounds in the bloodstream and brain: wheat gliadin.

Leptin resistance--Though the data are preliminary, the lectin in wheat, wheat germ agglutinin, has the potential to block the leptin receptor. Leptin resistance is increasingly looking like a fundamental reason why people struggle to lose weight. This might explain why eliminating, say, 500 calories of wheat consumption per day yields 3500 calories of weight loss.

And, as in many things wheat, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Despite all we know about this re-engineered thing called wheat, eliminating it yields health benefits, including weight loss, that seem to be larger than what you'd predict with knowledge of all its nasty little individual pieces.

Just who is "Real Facts 2000"?

29. September 2011 William Davis (38)
This is an example of what seems to be developing over at Amazon.com, posted as a "book review":

The author has no credentials, no credibility, just a small cult of terribly misinformed followers. Don't be fooled by the high volume screech against wheat and grains. Allegations of "secret ingredients in wheat" to make you eat more, or comparisons to cigerettes. Seriously?! For over 8000 years wheat has sustained and grown human kind, oh and it tastes good when mixed with a little water and yeast. Every nutritionist and serious medical professional will tell you that bread is the most economical and safe source of essential nutrients. In fact, bread is handed out in natural disasters because it sustains life without food safety issues or requiring refrigeration. And now, suddenly it will kill you. Comical! This book is such a bone headed, misinformed way to just scare people into not eating.

As for secret ingredients, humm, apparently the author is ignorant of the food laws that regulate everything that goes into food and on food labels. Unlike some enforcement agencies, the FDA has some serious teeth behind its enforcement. As for frankenwheat, again seriously?! Wheat, due to its ubiquitous presence in the world is treated as sacrosant from any GMO research or development.

If you need real, science based information on healthy eating, check out [...] and leave this book and its cult in the compound.

If you recognize the wording and tone, you will readily recognize the footprints of the Wheat Lobby here. "Terribly misinformed followers"? . . . Hmmm. "Food laws"? I didn't realize that eating more "healthy whole grains" was a . . . law?

Make no mistake: There are people and organizations who have a heavy stake in your continued consumption of the equivalent of 300 loaves of bread per year. There are people and organizations (read: pharmaceutical industry) who have a big stake on the "payoff" of your continued consumption of "healthy whole grains."

This is not a book review; this is part of a concerted, organized campaign to discredit a message that needs to be heard.

Anybody from the media listening?

Almonds are the new wheat

29. September 2011 William Davis (31)
Once you eliminate this genetically-altered Frankengrain called modern wheat, the diet should center around vegetables, nuts, healthy oils like olive and coconut, fish, meats, cheese, olives, avocados and other real whole foods. This is, in fact, the diet that I have advocated in my heart disease prevention practice, as well as my online program for prevention and reversal of heart disease.

But what if you'd like a piece of cheesecake or a nice slice of dessert bread---but you don't want to gain two pounds, spend 48 hours in the bathroom suffering with diarrhea and cramps, 3 weeks of joint pains and leg swelling, wade through mental "fog," anxiety, and rage just because you had that momentary indulgence---as you would with wheat?

That's why I've been focusing on recipes that allow you to have something familiar, e.g., chocolate coconut bread or biscotti, but using ingredients that will not generate the metabolic contortions triggered by wheat.

On perusing these recipes, you will notice that there are recurring ingredient themes. Many of the same ingredients pop up time and again. Among the most frequent, versatile, user-friendly, and tasty: Almonds.

You can use almonds as ground whole almonds, ground blanched almonds for a finer texture, ground roasted almonds, almond butter (though, for maximum health benefits, I prefer the ground whole almonds). Ground almonds allow you to recreate muffins, breads, scones, pizza crust, pie crust, biscotti, and cookies with health benefits that exceed that of whole wheat---but with none of the downside: no weight gain, no high blood sugar, no triggering of small LDL particles (#1 cause of heart disease in the U.S.), no accumulation of visceral fat, no appetite stimulation.

In short, you just have your chocolate almond biscotti or mocha cupcake and enjoy it, no health price to pay. So I call almonds the new wheat, except better.

Being regular is dangerous to your health

25. September 2011 William Davis (21)
No, I'm not referring to your daily morning ritual in the bathroom. I'm talking about heart rate.

Counterintuitively, a perfectly regular heart rate is a marker of poor health. People with perfect regularity of heart rate have more heart attacks, for instance.

Regularity of heart rate occurs more commonly in people with hypertension and other metabolic derangements, and it signals increased risk for both heart attack and death. A perfectly regular heart rate, i.e., no variation in the time interval from beat to beat, suggests that the parasympathetic nervous system, the component of automatic ("autonomic") nervous system control that is associated with the relaxation response, feelings of well-being, quiet, and relaxation, is weak. It also means that the opposing sympathetic nervous sytem that regulates the "fight or flight," adrenaline-like response is allowed to be dominant. Dominance of the sympathetic over the parasympathetic system generates regularity of heart rate. Heart rate also tends to be faster, e.g., 85 beats per minutes rather than 55 or 60 beats per minute. So perfect regularity, as well as increased rate, is undesirable.

What we want is irregularity of heart rate. But not irregularity that occurs chaotically with no rhyme or reason. More precisely, we want variability in heart rate. And we want variability to occur in synchrony with breathing, i.e., the respiratory cycle.

The ideal response is:

1) increase in heart rate with inspiration

2) decrease in heart rate with expiration.

Heart rate in healthy people typically varies 15-20 beats per minute within the respiratory cycle, e.g., 60 bpm at end-exhalation, 80 bpm at end-inspiration.

Restoration of increased heart rate variability is associated with reduced blood pressure, reduced blood sugars (HbA1c), reduced inflammatory markers and cortisol (associated with stress), even an increase in DHEA levels. Feelings of well-being and calm also develop.

Among the strategies to consider to restore heightened heart rate variability and slowed heart rate include:

--Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation
--Exercise
--Weight loss
--Deep breathing exercises
--Meditation, prayer, and biofeedback

For our Track Your Plaque purposes, we are folding in the HeartMath strategies, i.e., use of a heart rate monitor that calculates heart rate variability in the context of respiratory cycle. If you've not already done so, take a look at the two Special Reports devoted to this topic on the Track Your Plaque website.

You mean weight loss is hazardous to your health?

23. September 2011 William Davis (11)
In my last Heart Scan Blog post, What is this wacky thing called weight loss?, I discussed how weight loss is associated with distortions in cholesterol and blood sugar values that can be very confusing, often leading your doctor to wrongly and unnecessarily prescribe drugs--since he/she likely rarely sees weight loss.

Blog reader, Donald K., posted his enlightening story:

I experienced this very thing.

After losing serious weight from the eliminating wheat, processed, and sugary foods (1 year in total) I lost 130 pounds. When I was nearly finished I went to see my doctor. He wanted to put me on statins. I explained to him how the data does not support application to me (no evidence of heart disease) and I got the mantra about standards of practice, etc, etc. I held my ground and decided I am much happier eating dairy, eggs, grass fed beef, wild caught fish, and as much raw foods (nuts, veggies, fruits) as my body desires to treat my health parameters.

Maintaining weight, it is easy. My BMI (23 down from 40) has remained constant for a few months now. You are right: metabolic processes definitely change. I no longer have sensations of glucose fluctuations or an uncontrolled appetite. I can only imagine the improved hormone regulation and metabolic communication going on inside my body.

The symptoms from obesity, all gone. Goodbye sleep apnea, hypertension, hemorrhoids, arrhythmias, gastroinestinal disruptions, smelly body, chaffing thighs, and others not mentioned. The positive effects are just as dramatic, but I don’t want to ramble on.

Weight loss? What is it? Getting your life back!

Brace yourself: If you are following the nutrition advice posted here and in the Track Your Plaque program, or the discussion I've initiated in Wheat Belly, then you may find yourself in the very same health predicament as Donald. Arm yourself to protect yourself against the drug-wielding ways of doctors. No, weight loss to achieve ideal weight is definitely not bad for health. But your doctor's misinterpretation of its effects can be!

What is this wacky thing called "weight loss"?

20. September 2011 William Davis (41)
I've discussed this before, but it has proven such an (encouragingly!) frequent issue that I thought it was worth discussing once again.

What happens when you lose weight?

The process of weight loss is characterized by multiple shifts in metabolic patterns that can be confusing. To the uninitiated eye, weight loss can look like a disastrous distortion in metabolism. The naive doctor on seeing your lab values, for instance, might insist you take a statin drug, a fibrate like Tricor (to reduce triglycerides or increase HDL), or simply berate you for your bad health habits--when it's actually a good thing you've accomplished.

So when you lose weight, say, 30 pounds in 3 months, what have you accomplished?

Energy stored as fat, especially from visceral fat stores, is mobilized into the bloodstream. It floods the bloodstream as fatty acids and triglycerides. These fatty acids and triglycerides don't occur in isolation, but interact with other particles and metabolic patterns. The resulting blood patterns include:

--Increased triglycerides--An increase in triglycerides, for instance, from 90 mg/dl to 200 mg/dl in the midst of weight loss is common.

--Reduced HDL--The flood of triglycerides leads to increased degradation of HDL, thus a drop. A drop in HDL from, say, 40 mg/dl to 27 mg/dl--very frightening to people--is exceptionally common.

--Increased blood sugar--The flood of fatty acids and triglycerides results in insulin resistance, leading to higher blood sugars. It is not uncommon for someone with pre-diabetes to develop diabetic-range blood sugars, or a non-diabetic to show pre-diabetic blood sugars.

--Increased small LDL particles--Though small LDL is highly variable during weight loss. When it does happen, it's probably from the interaction of VLDL (triglycerides) with LDL particles and the reaction that overloads LDL particles with triglycerides and conversion to small LDL particles.

So why don't doctors often recognize these patterns when a patient loses weight? Because they rarely see it. Most of my colleagues are accustomed to having patients come back with weight gain, getting heavier and heavier each time. Lose weight? Impossible! So they just don't recognize weight loss effects when they see it. As followers of The Heart Scan Blog know, a frequent conversation around here is "Am I too skinny?" or "How do I stop losing weight?"

The solution: Be patient. Be patient and wait about two months after a weight plateau has been achieved. That's when the numbers "settle down" and you see marked drops in triglycerides, increases in HDL, drops in blood sugar, reductions in small LDL.

As with many things, it's all about timing.

Why small LDL particles are the #1 cause of heart disease in the US

15. September 2011 William Davis (77)
Ask your doctor: What is the #1 cause of heart disease in the US?

Let's put aside smoking, since it is an eminently modifiable risk and none of those crazies read this blog anyway. What will your doctor say? Most like he or she will respond:

High cholesterol or high LDL cholesterol

Too much saturated fat

Obesity

Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca and their kind would be overjoyed to know that they can add your doctor to their eager following.

I'd tell you something different. I would tell you that small LDL particles are, by far and away, the #1 cause for heart disease. I base this claim on several observations:

--Having run over 10,000 lipoprotein panels (mostly NMR) over the past 15 years, it is a rare person who does not have a moderate, if not severe, excess of small LDL particles. 50%, 70%, even 90% or more small LDL particles are not rare. Over the course of a year, the only people who show no small LDL particles are slender, athletic, pre-menopausal females.

--In studies in which lipoproteins have been quantified in people with coronary disease, small LDL particles dominate, just as they do in my office. Here's a 2006 review.

--Small LDL is largely the province of people who consume carbohydrates, such as the American population instructed to "cut fat and eat more healthy whole grains." Conventional diet advice has therefore triggered an expllosion in small LDL particles.

--When fasting triglycerides exceed 60 mg/dl, small LDL particles increase as a proportion of total LDL particles. This includes the majority of the US population. (This ignores postprandial, or after-eating, triglycerides, which also contribute to small LDL formation.)

If you were to read the data, however, you might conclude that small LDL affects a minority of people. This is because in most studies small LDL categorize it as either "pattern B," meaning exceeding some arbitrary threshold of percentage of small LDL particles, versus "pattern A," meaning falling below that same arbitrary threshold.

Problem: There is no consensus on what percentage of small LDL particles should mark the cutoff between pattern A vs. pattern B. In many studies, for instance, people with 50% small LDL particles are called "pattern A."

If, instead, we were to set the bar lower to identify this highly atherogenic (atherosclerotic plaque-causing) particle at, say, 20-30% of total, then the number or percentage of people with "pattern B" small LDL particles would go much higher.

I see this play out in my office and in the online program, Track Your Plaque, every day: At the start eating a low-fat, grain-filled diet with lots of visceral fat ("wheat belly") to start, they add back fat and cut out all wheat and limit carbohydrates. Small LDL particles plummet

Even moore from Jimmy Moore

14. September 2011 William Davis (8)
The ubiquitous and irrepressible Jimmy Moore posted even more commentary about the Wheat Belly phenomenon here, what he calls "The Wheat Belly Bonanza."

Is low-carb really, at its core, little more than elimination of wheat? Sure, corn, rice, and sugar exert deleterious effects. But the dominant effect--by far--is the elimination of wheat. So is the low-carb movement really, at its core, a wheat-elimination movement?

Food (non-wheat-containing, of course) for thought.
All posts by william-davis

Thyroid: Be a perfectionist

27. July 2009 William Davis (18)
If you'd like to reduce LDL cholesterol with nearly as much power as a statin drug, think thyroid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nutrition Syllogism

21. July 2009 William Davis (21)
What do you think of these chains of logic?

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



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


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

Try this one:

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


Ouch!

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

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

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

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

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

Is pomegranate juice healthy?

19. July 2009 William Davis (20)

Pomegranate juice, 8 oz:

Sugars, total 31.50 g

Sucrose 0.00 g

Glucose (dextrose) 15.64 g

Fructose 15.86 g




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

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


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

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Honeydew melon

18. July 2009 William Davis (4)

Honeydew melon:

Sugars, total 51.97 g

Sucrose 15.87 g

Glucose 17.15 g

Fructose 18.94 g

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



Image courtesy Wikipedia

Where do you find fructose?

14. July 2009 William Davis (25)
Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g




Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons



Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient
Ingredients: High Fructose Corn Syrup, Vinegar, Concentrated Tomato Juice (Water, Tomato Paste), Water, Modified Food Starch, Salt, Honey, Contains Less Than 2% of Molasses, Natural Flavor, Paprika, Spice, Mustard Flour, Guar Gum, Red 40.



A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient
Ingredients: Tomato puree (water, tomato paste), high fructose corn syrup, vinegar, salt, water dried onions, contains less than 2% of black pepper, modified food starch, citric acid, dried parsley, dried garlic, xanthan gum, caramel color, potassium sorbate and calcium disodium EDTA as preservatives, molasses, corn syrup, sugar, spices, tamarind, natural flavor

Do heart scans cause cancer?

14. July 2009 William Davis (3)
Another in a series of data extrapolations that attempt to predict long-term cancer risk from medical radiation exposure was published in the July 13, 2009 Archives of Internal Medicine, viewable here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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




CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

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

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

Richard C. Semelka, MD
Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology
University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill



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

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

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

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


Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The media frenzy

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

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

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

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

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


Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

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


Non-CT

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

Goodbye, fructose

12. July 2009 William Davis (35)
A carefully-conducted study by a collaborative research group at University of California-Berkeley has finally closed the lid on the fuss over fructose vs. glucose and its purported adverse effects.

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

The statin-free life

8. July 2009 William Davis (20)
Matt came to me because his doctor couldn't reduce his LDL cholesterol.

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

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

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

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

--No lipoprotein(a)

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

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

I therefore asked Matt to:

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


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

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

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

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

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

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

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

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

5. July 2009 William Davis (29)
Even if you’re not interested in building big muscles like a bodybuilder, there are health benefits to increasing muscle mass: increased bone density, better balance, and fewer injuries. Greater muscle mass means higher metabolic rate, improved insulin responsiveness, lower blood sugar. The inevitable loss of muscle mass of aging can lead to frailty, an increasingly common situation for the elderly. Muscle loss be reversed, health improved as a result.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

2. July 2009 William Davis (19)
There has been a lot of debate over whether or not “bio-identical” hormones, i.e., hormones identical to the human form, are superior to non-human forms dispensed by the drug industry.

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

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

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

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

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

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