All posts by william-davis

Conventional notions of heart healthy diets, such as that advocated by the American Heart Association, are largely based on observations of total and LDL cholesterol.

So, cut the saturated fat in the diet, cut the overall fat content, and replace them with polyunsaturated oils like safflower, corn, and vegetable oils and increase consumption of whole grains and total and LDL cholesterol show a modest downturn. Thus, diets like the American Heart Association Total Lifestyle Change approach advocate limiting total fat to no more 25 to 35% of calories and saturated fat to no more than 7% of calories.

If you loved Creamsicles as a kid, you'll love these Orange Cream Cookies. (Sorry, no photo: We ate them up before I realized we hadn't taken the photo. And, worse, we did it twice!)

Ingredients:
2 cups almond meal
2 tablespoons coconut flour
1 teaspoon baking soda
½ teaspoon sea salt
¼ cup golden raisins
½ cup chopped pecans
Sweetener equivalent to 1 cup sugar
2 tablespoons finely-grated orange rind
1 large egg
2 tablespoons coconut oil, melted
½ cup whipping cream (or coconut milk)
1 tablespoon vanilla extract

Preheat oven to 350º F.

Combine almond meal, coconut flour, baking soda, salt, raisins, pecans, sweetener and orange zest in bowl and mix.

In separate bowl, whisk egg, then add coconut oil, whipping cream, vanilla extract and mix together. Pour wet mix into dry and blend by hand thoroughly.

Spoon onto parchment paper-lined baking pan (or oiled pan) and flatten with spoon to ½-¾ inch thickness. Bake for 20-25 minutes or until toothpick withdraws dry.

I'm a cardiologist. I see patients with heart disease in the form of coronary artery disease every day.

These are people who have undergone bypass surgery, received one or more stents or undergone other forms of angioplasty, have survived heart attacks or sudden cardiac death, or have high heart scan scores. In short, I see patients every day who are at high-risk for heart attack and death from heart disease.

But I see virtually no heart attacks. And nobody is dying from heart disease. (I'm referring to the people who follow the strategies I advocate, not the guy who thinks that smoking a pack of cigarettes a day is still okay, or the woman who thinks the diet is unnecessary because she's slender.)

Two high-profile deaths from heart attacks occurred this week:

Davy Jones--The iconic singer from the 1960s pop group, the Monkees, suffered sudden cardiac death after a large heart attack, just hours after experiencing chest pain.

Andrew Breitbart--The conservative blogger and controversy-generating media personality suffered what was believed to be sudden cardiac death while walking.

It's a darn shame and it shouldn't happen. The tools to identify the potential for heart attack are available, inexpensive, and simple. The strategies to reduce, even eliminate, risk are likewise available, inexpensive, and cultivate overall health.

The followers of the Track Your Plaque program who

1) get a heart scan that yields a coronary calcium score (for long-term tracking purposes)
2) identify the causes such as small LDL particles, lipoprotein(a), vitamin D deficiency, and thyroid dysfunction
3) correct the causes

enjoy virtual elimination of risk.

The Wall Street Journal carried this report of a new proposed classification of the various forms of gluten sensitivity: New Guide to Who Really Shouldn't Eat Gluten

This represents progress. Progress in understanding of wheat-related illnesses, as well as progress in spreading the word that there is a lot more to wheat-intolerance than celiac disease. But, as I mention in the letter, it falls desperately short on several crucial issues.

Ms. Beck--

Thank you for writing the wonderful article on gluten sensitivity.

I'd like to bring several issues to your attention, as they are often neglected
in discussions of "gluten sensitivity":

1) The gliadin protein of wheat has been modified by geneticists through their
work to increase yield. This work, performed mostly in the 1970s, yielded a form
of gliadin that is several amino acids different, but increased the
appetite-stimulating properties of wheat. Modern wheat, a high-yield, semi-dwarf
strain (not the 4 1/2-foot tall "amber waves of grain" everyone thinks of) is
now, in effect, an appetite-stimulant that increases calorie intake 400 calories
per day. This form of gliadin is also the likely explanation for the surge in
behavioral struggles in children with autism and ADHD.
2) The amylopectin A of wheat is the underlying explanation for why two slices
of whole wheat bread raise blood sugar higher than 6 teaspoons of table sugar or
many candy bars. It is unique and highly digestible by the enzyme amylase.
Incredibly, the high glycemic index of whole wheat is simply ignored, despite
being listed at the top of all tables of glycemic index.
3) The lectins of wheat may underlie the increase in multiple autoimmune and
inflammatory diseases in Americans, especially rheumatoid arthritis and
inflammatory bowel diseases (ulcerative colitis, Crohn's).

In other words, if someone is not gluten-sensitive, they may still remain
sensitive to the many non-gluten aspects of modern high-yield semi-dwarf wheat,
such as appetite-stimulation and mental "fog," joint pains in the hands, leg
edema, or the many rashes and skin disorders. This represents one of the most
important examples of the widespread unintended effects of modern agricultural
genetics and agribusiness.

William Davis, MD
Author: Wheat Belly: Lose the wheat, lose the weight and find your path back to health

Never saw a headline like this? Neither have I. That's because it doesn't happen.

Cholesterol doesn't harm, maim, or kill. It is simply used as a crude--very crude--marker. It is, in reality, a component of the body, of the cell wall, of lipoproteins (lipid-carrying proteins) in the bloodstream. It is used a an indirect gauge, a "dipstick," for lipoproteins in the blood to those who don't understand how to identify, characterize, and quantify actual lipoproteins in the blood.

Cholesterol itself never killed anybody, any more than a bad paint job on your car could cause a fatal car accident.

What kills people is rupture of atherosclerotic plaque in the coronary arteries. For all practical purposes, you must have atherosclerotic plaque in order for it to rupture (much like a volcano erupts and spews lava). It's not about cholesterol; it's about atherosclerotic plaque. Plaque might contain cholesterol, but cholesterol is not the thing itself that causes heart attack and death.

So why do most people obsess about cholesterol? Good question. It is, at best, a statistical marker for the possibility of having atherosclerotic plaque that ruptures. High cholesterol = higher risk for heart attack, low cholesterol = lower risk for heart attack. But the association is weak and flawed, such that people with high cholesterol can live a lifetime without heart attack, people with low cholesterol can die at age 43.The same holds true for LDL cholesterol, you know, the calculated value based on flawed assumptions about LDL's relationship to total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and VLDL cholesterol.

A crucial oversight in the world of cholesterol: There are many other factors that cause atherosclerotic plaque and its rupture, such as inflammatory phenomena, calcium deposition, artery spasm, hemorrhage within the plaque itself, degradative enzymes, etc., none of which are suggested by cholesterol measures.

But one observation has held up, time and again, over the past 40 years of observations on coronary disease: The greater the quantity of coronary atherosclerotic plaque, the greater the risk of atherosclerotic plaque rupture. An increasing burden of atherosclerotic plaque along the limited confines of coronary arteries, just a few millimeters in diameter and a few centimeters in length, is like a house of cards: It's bound to topple sooner or later, and the bigger it gets, the less stable it becomes.

If you are concerned about future potential for heart disease and heart attack, don't get a cholesterol panel. Get a measure of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

After having my attentions pulled a thousand different directions these past 6 months, with the release of Wheat Belly and all the wonderful media attention it has attracted, I've decided to pick up here with a series of discussions about the fundamental issues important to the Track Your Plaque program and prevention and reversal of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

I fear the discussions at times have drifted off into the exotic. This is great because this is how we learn new lessons, but we can never lose sight of the basics, else we risk losing control over this disease.

Imagine you've got a beautiful new car. You wax it, gap the spark plugs, rotate the tires, etc. and it looks brand-new, just like it came off the dealer's lot. 50,000 miles pass, however, and you realize you've forgotten to change the oil. Ooops! In other words, no matter how meticulous the attention to transmission, tires, and paint job, neglect of the most basic responsibility can ruin the whole thing. We can't let that happen with heart health.

If we propose to reverse coronary atherosclerotic plaque, we've got to have something to measure. First, it tells us whether we have atherosclerotic plaque in the first place, the stuff that accumulates and blocks flow and causes anginal chest pains, and ruptures like a little volcano and causes heart attacks. Second, it gives us something to track over the years to know whether plaque has grown, stopped growing, or been reduced. Without such a measure, you will be driving without a speedometer or odometer, just guessing whether or not you've gotten to your destination.

Of course, the conventional approach to heart disease and heart attack is not to track atherosclerotic plaque in your coronary arteries, but to track some distant "risk factor" for atherosclerotic plaque, especially LDL cholesterol. But LDL cholesterol is flawed at several levels. First, it is calculated, not measured. The nearly 50-year old Friedewald equation used to calculate LDL cholesterol is based on several flawed assumptions, yielding a value that can be 20, 30, or 50% inaccurate as a rule, only occasionally generating a value close to the real value. (No point in publicizing this problem, of course: Why compromise a $27 billion annual cash cow?) It also ignores the effect of diet. (No, cutting fat does not reduce LDL for real, only the calculated value. Cutting carbohydrates, especially wheat--"healthy whole grains"--slashes measured LDL values like NMR LDL particle number and apoprotein B.)

But all risk factors are, at best, snapshots of the situation at that moment in time. They change from day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year. If you do something dramatic in health, like lose 50 pounds, you can substantially change your risk factors values, like LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol. But you may not modify the amount of atherosclerotic plaque in your heart's arteries.

Measuring the amount of atherosclerotic plaque in your heart's arteries is, in effect, a cumulative expression of the effects of risk factors up until the moment of measurement.

There are several stumbling blocks, however, in the concept of measuring coronary atherosclerotic plaque. We cannot measure all the unique components of plaque, such as fibrous tissue like collagen, or degradative enzymes like collagenases, or inflammatory proteins like matrix metalloproteinase, or the debris of hemorrhage and inflammation. We struggle to contemporaneously mix in measures of bloodborne inflammation, coagulation and viscosity, and physiological phenomena of the artery itself, like endothelial dysfunction, medial (muscle) tone, and adventitial fat.

So we are left with semi-static measures of total coronary atherosclerotic plaque like coronary calcium, obtainable via CT heart scans as a calcium "score." No, it is not perfect. It does not reflect that moment's blood viscosity, it does not reflect the inflammatory status of the one nasty plaque in the mid-left anterior descending, nor does it reflect the irritating sheer effects of a blood pressure of 150/95.

But it's the best we've got.

If anyone has something better, I invite you to speak up. Carotid ultrasound, c-reactive protein, ankle-brachial index, stress nuclear studies, myoglobin, skin cholesterol, KIF6 genotype . . . none of them approach the value, the insight, the trackability of actually measuring coronary atherosclerotic plaque. And the only method we've got to gauge coronary atherosclerotic plaque that is non-invasive and available in 2012? Yup, a good old CT heart scan calcium score.

I've seen a few heart attacks this past year . . . but none in the people who follow this program.

I saw a heart attack in a priest, a wonderful man who was unable to say "no" to his parishioners who insisted on bringing pies, cakes, and cookies every day.

I saw an impending heart attack in a 74-year old man, a football coach who thought the whole wheat-free, low-carb thing was some wacko trend. Four stents later, he's changed his mind.

A 69-year old woman had to be hospitalized for heart failure due to partial closure of an artery. She repeatedly told me that she simply could not follow the diet because it was "too restrictive."

There were a few others. Interestingly, all felt they were eating healthy, minimizing junk foods and avoiding fatty foods. None were wheat-free nor restricted carbohydrates.

In other words, in the people who follow the basic advice of the Track Your Plaque program to do such simple things as eliminate wheat, don't indulge in junk carbohydrates, normalize vitamin D status, supplement omega-3 fatty acids, supplement iodine and correct any thyroid dysfunction . . . well, they have no heart attacks.

Might-o’chondri-AL left this wonderful record of his lipoprotein experience in the comments to the last Heart Scan Blog post. It is a great example of what is achievable with diet and a few supplements . . . without drugs.

(A) Jan. 2011 1st ever NMR lipo-protein analysis was done after 4 months of consistent home food prep of pretty low fat (only olive oil and 1 tablespoon coconut oil daily) but plenty of whole wheat and half potatoes:
* LDL # of particles (P) = 1,676 in nmol/L————being a LDL cholesterol (C) reading of 139 mg/dL
* small LDL # P = 1,021 nmol/L —————yikes! you advise smLDL be less than 117 nmol/L
* HDL # of particles = 28.8 umol/L ————–being a HDL C reading of 45 mg/dL
* Triglycerides = 90 mg/dL ————– true, I never struggled with my weight

(B) May 2011 2nd NMR after another 4 months but added in more fat (1 teaspoon highly concentrated fish oil daily, 90% chocolate, handfulls of nuts, more olive oil and kept coconut oil at 1 tablespoon daily for a controlled experiment), added 500 mg Niacin 3 times a day (in stages up to1,500 mg. total daily), 6000 IU daily vitamin D, deliberately cut out all grains except for social politeness and substituted in daily Koji fermented brown rice (rustic Amazake):
** LDL # P……………= 976 nmol/L ——————————– being LDL C of 100 mg/dL
** small LDL # P …. = 96 nmol/L ——————————– nice surprise
** HDL # P ………… = 27.3 umol/L ——————————being an increase to HDL C of 64 mg/dL
** Triglycerides …… = 42 mg/dL ——————————– despite daily carbs over 150 gr. daily

(C) Dec. 2011 3rd NMR after another 7 more months thinking Doc’s advice is worthwhile I added in yet more fat (mainly daily 2 tablespoons of coconut oil, more 90% chocolate), bumped Niacin up to 1,000 mg twice a day (2,000 mg. total daily), cut out the Amazake, kept up the vitamin D adding daily vitamin K & daily ate main mid-day meal out as lunch on spicy Thai & Chinese fish/shrimp/soup/rice meals (my next control):
*** LDL # P ………. = 764 nmol/L ————— being LDL C of 107 mg/dL ( 2x coconut’s saturated fat)
***small LDL # P… = less than 90 nmol/L ——–surprised me NMR can’t count lower
***HDL # P ……… = 41.4 umol/L ——————– being an increase to HDL C of 88 mg/dL
*** Triglycerides ….= 43 mg/dL ——————- daily carbs below ~ 120 gr. & lost too much weight

Isn't that great? Spectacular job, Might!

MIght achieved values that are superior to that achievable with, say, a high-dose statin strategy. Statins only reduce total LDL particles, reducing small LDL in a non-selective way. And, of course, this diet does not cause muscle aches, memory loss, nor liver problems.

Something to consider: As the diet has become so effective, we can reduce our reliance on niacin. In fact, the benefits of niacin diminish substantially, as small LDL is reduced, HDL increased, triglycerides decreased, and postprandial lipoproteins subdued with the diet only.

Anybody following the discussions in these pages know that: Limiting carbohydrate intake reduces risk for coronary heart disease and heart attack.

First of all, why do conventional diets advocate restricting saturated and total fat? From the standpoint of surrogate markers of cardiovascular risk, cutting saturated and total fat reduces total cholesterol; reduces calculated LDL cholesterol; and may reduce c-reactive protein modestly (an index of inflammation). It also increases blood sugar and HbA1c (reflecting the prior 60 days blood sugars), increases glycation of the proteins of the body leading to cataracts, arthritis, and hypertension.

Problem: Total cholesterol is a combination of HDL cholesterol, an estimate of VLDL cholesterol (triglycerides), and LDL cholesterol. It is a composite of both "good" things (HDL) and "bad" things (LDL and VLDL). Cutting saturated and total fat results in reduced HDL, increased VLDL/triglycerides, and a reduction in calculated LDL. Pretty weak stuff. The last item, i.e., reduction in calculated LDL, is not even a real phenomenon. In fact, the net effect in most genotypes (genetic types) may be negative: increased heart disease risk.

In contrast, what is the effect of reducing carbohydrate without restricting fat? (In the approach I use, we start with elimination of the most destructive of carbohydrates, wheat, followed by reducing exposure to other carbohydrates, especially cornstarch and corn products, sugar, and oats.) If, say, we cut carbohydrate intake into the range of a truly low-carbohydrate diet of 10-15 grams per meal ("net" carbs, or total carbohydrates minus fiber), then we witness a number of metabolic transformations:

Reduced fasting triglycerides and VLDL
Reduced postprandial (after-eating) triglycerides, chylomicrons, and chylomicron remnants
Increased HDL and shift towards large HDL particles (presumably more protective)
Reduced small LDL particles
Reduced glycation and oxidation of small LDL particles
Reduced hemoglobin A1c
Reduced c-reactive protein and other inflammatory markers
Reduced blood pressure

By slashing carbohydrates, we also witness weight loss from visceral fat, reversal of pre-diabetes and diabetes, and reduced phenomena of glycation. And, if the wheat-free part of low-carb is maintained, you can also see marked improvement in gastrointestinal health, relief from joint pains, relief from leg edema, relief from migraine headaches, improved behavior and ability to concentrate in children with impaired learning, ADHD, and autism, better mood, deeper sleep. You will see multiple inflammatory and autoimmune diseases improve or completely relieved, such as rheumatoid arthritis and ulcerative colitis.

Having personally gone down the diabetic path and back by cutting the fat in my diet, now maintaining a HbA1c of 4.8% with fasting glucose 84 mg/d; (without medications), there should be no remaining doubt: Low-carb diets, especially if wheat-free, dramatically reduce the factors leading to heart disease; low-fat diets worsen the factors leading to heart disease.

Richer than a cookie, heavier than a muffin, brownies are ordinarily an indulgence that leaves you ashamed of your lack of restraint. Have one . . . or two or three, and you will surely pack on a pound of belly fat.

But these mocha walnut brownies, as with other recipes I provide, will not pack on the pounds. With no wheat to trigger appetite, nor any readily-digestible carbohydrate to generate blood sugar highs and lows, you can have a nice brownie or two or three and nothing bad happens: You don’t send blood sugar sky-high, don’t trigger formation of small LDL particles and triglycerides, you don’t trigger appetite, you don’t gain a pound of belly fat. You simply have your brownie(s) and enjoy them.

Serve these brownies plain or topped with cream cheese, natural peanut or almond butter, or dipped in coffee.

Ingredients:
8 ounces unsweetened baking chocolate (100% chocolate)
4 tablespoons coconut oil or butter, melted
2 large eggs, separated
½ cup coconut milk (or sour cream)
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
2 cups ground almonds
2 tablespoons coconut flour
1 cup chopped walnuts
¼ cup unsweetened cocoa powder
2 teaspoons instant espresso
Sweetener equivalent to 1 cup sugar or to taste (e.g., liquid stevia, Truvía, erythritol)

Preheat oven to 350º F.

Melt chocolate using double boiler method or in 15-second increments in microwave. Stir in melted coconut oil or butter.

In small bowl, beat egg whites until frothy. Add egg whites, egg yolks, coconut milk, and vanilla extract to chocolate mixture and mix thoroughly by hand.

In separate bowl, combine ground almonds, coconut flour, walnuts, cocoa powder, espresso, and sweetener. Mix thoroughly.

Add dry mix to chocolate mix and mix together thoroughly. If dough is too stiff, add additional coconut milk, one tablespoon at a time.

Place mixture in 9-inch baking pan and bake for 25 -30 minutes or until toothpick withdraws dry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think of these chains of logic?

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

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

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

Try this one:

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

Ouch!

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

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

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

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

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

Pomegranate juice, 8 oz:

Sugars, total 31.50 g

Sucrose 0.00 g

Glucose (dextrose) 15.64 g

Fructose 15.86 g

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

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

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

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Honeydew melon:

Sugars, total 51.97 g

Sucrose 15.87 g

Glucose 17.15 g

Fructose 18.94 g

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

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g

Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons

Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient

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

A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

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

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

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

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

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

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

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

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The media frenzy

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

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

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

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

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

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

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

Non-CT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

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

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

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

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

--No lipoprotein(a)

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

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

I therefore asked Matt to:

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

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

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

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

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

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

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

Diet by LDL

Orange Cream Cookies

Why are heart attacks still happening?

My letter to the Wall Street Journal: It's NOT just about gluten

60-year old man dies of high cholesterol

Back to basics: Coronary calcium

Myocardial infraction

Diet is superior to drugs

Low-carb is heart healthy

Mocha Walnut Brownies

Thyroid: Be a perfectionist

Nutrition Syllogism

Is pomegranate juice healthy?

Honeydew melon

Where do you find fructose?

Do heart scans cause cancer?

Goodbye, fructose

The statin-free life

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone