All posts by william-davis

Imagine you contract pneumonia.

You have a fever of 103, you’re coughing up thick, yellow sputum, breathing is getting difficult. You hobble to the doctor, who then fails to prescribe you antibiotics. You get some kind of explanation about unnecessary exposure to antibiotics to avoid creating resistant organisms, yadda yadda. So you make do with some Tylenol®, cough syrup, and resign yourself to a few lousy days of suffering.

Five days into your illness, you’ve not shown up for work, you’re having trouble breathing, and you’re getting delirious. An emergency trip to the hospital follows, where a bronchoscopy is performed (an imaging scope threaded down your airway) and organisms recovered for diagnosis. You’re put on a ventilator through a tube in your throat to support your breathing and treated with intravenous antibiotics. Delayed treatment permits infection to escape into the fluid around your lungs, creating an “empyema,” an extension of the infection that requires insertion of a tube into your chest through an incision to drain the infection. You require feeding through a tube in your nose, since the ventilator prevents you from eating through your mouth. After 10 days, several healing incisions, and a hospital bill totaling $75,000, you’re discharged only to be face eights weeks of rehabilitation because of the extreme toll your illness extracted. Your doctor also advises you that, given the damage incurred to your lungs and airways, you will be prone to more lung infections in the future, and similar situations could recur whenever a cold or virus comes long.

A disease treatable by taking a two week, $20 course of oral antibiotics at home has been converted into a lengthy hospital stay that generated extravagant professional fees, testing, and costly supportive care. You’ve lost several weeks of income. You’re weak and demoralized, frightened that the next flu or virus could mean another trip to the hospital.

Such a scenario would be unimaginable with a common infection like pneumonia, or it would be grounds for filing a malpractice lawsuit. But, as horrific as it sounds in another sphere of healthcare, it is, in effect, analogous to how heart disease is managed in current medical practice.

First, you’re permitted to develop the condition. It may require years of ignoring the telltale signs, it may require your unwitting participation in unhealthy lifestyle choices. Palliative treatments that slow, but don't stop, the progression of disease are prescribed like cholesterol drugs. The process then eventuates in some catastrophe like heart attack or similar unstable heart situation, at which point you no longer have a choice but to submit to major heart procedures. That’s when you receive your heart catheterization, coronary stents, bypass, defibrillators, etc. and you're proudly declared a "success" of medical technology.

Of course, none of these procedural treatments cures the disease, no more than a Band Aid® heals the gash in your leg. The conditions that were present that created your heart disease continue, allowing a progressive disease to worsen. At some point, you will need to return to the hospital for yet more procedures when trouble recurs, which it inevitably does.

A coronary bypass operation costs, on average $85, 653 (AHA 2008 Update; based on 2004 data). That doesn't include the $25,433 cost for the heart catheterization performed by a cardiologist to provide the surgical roadmap of your coronary arteries. If there are any complications of your procedure, then your hospital bill may total a substantially higher figure.

$85, 653 is just the upfront financial pay-off. Over the long run, your life is actually worth far more to the cardiovascular healthcare system because no heart procedure yields a permanent fix. In fact, repeated reliance on the system is the rule.

In fact, over 90% of people who enter the American cardiovascular healthcare system do so through a revolving door of multiple procedures over several years. It is truly a rare person, for instance, who undergoes a coronary bypass operation, never to be seen again the wards of the hospital because he remains healthy and free of catastrophe. A much more familiar scenario is the man or woman who undergoes two or three heart catheterizations, receives 3,4, or 6 stents, followed a few years later by a heart bypass, pacemaker, defibrillator, as well as the tests performed for catastrophe management, such as nuclear stress test, echocardiogram, laboratory blood analysis, and consultation with several specialists. Re-do bypass surgeries--a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th bypass--now comprise 25% of all bypass procedures.

The total revenue opportunity is many-fold higher than the initial 80-some thousand dollars, but instead totals hundreds of thousands of dollars per person.

What motivation can there possibly be to 1) identify coronary disease early, when in its asymptomatic stage, then 2) identify its causes, then 3) correct the causes, and finally 4) shut off the disease? You and I can accomplish this with a few hundred dollars of cost, perhaps a few thousand over many years (to cover costs of fish oil, vitamin D, niacin, and whatever else it takes to stop the expression of the disease). Nobody therefore profits substantially from your prevention effort--except you.

Then what if nobody told you that heart disease could be managed this way? That's what I mean by "disease engineering."

I stumbled on a great interview with cardiothoracic surgeon, Dr. Steven Gundry, on Jimmy Moore's Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show. (Or, cut and paste: http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/dr-steven-gundry-part-1-episode-179/)

Dr. Gundry has some fun ways of looking at eating and health. I found his comments on the activation of genes (discussed at a very light, non-scientific level) useful. He argues that when humans consume sugar-containing foods, the signal received by the body is that winter is approaching and it's time to build up fat stores in anticipation of the food shortages of cold weather. He finds parallels for this phenomenon in other species. Of course, for humans, winter (in the form of extended calorie deprivation) never comes. In fact, you might argue that, given our excessive reliance on grains, corn, and sugars, that we are, in effect, always in anticipation of a winter that never comes.

I've not read Dr. Gundry's books, but I found this light interview a lot of fun.

Yet another patient came to my office today saying, "My primary doctor said that I should stop taking fish oil. He say's that I don't need it because I take Crestor."

The woman was in tears, confused and frightened over a potential disagreement between her doctors.

Is this true? If someone takes a statin drug, like Crestor, Lipitor, Zocor (simvastatin), pravachol, or lovastatin, they don't need to take anything else because the statin drug is so powerful that it eliminates risk?

No. Not even close to the truth.

First of all, let's accept that virtually the entire body of statin drug literature--hundreds of studies, billions of dollars spent--was paid for by the drug industry. It's no news that studies paid for by the sponsor are likely to favor the sponsor. Imagine Ford sponsored a study of Ford vs. GM cars vs. Toyota, paying $10 million to fund the effort. Guess who is likely to come out on top? "Studies show that Ford makes the best car in America." (Sorry, I don't mean to pick specifically on Ford. It's just a widely-recognized brand.)

So that means that the statin literature likely overestimates the benefit of statin drugs. Even so, it's clear from the hundreds of studies performed that the best we can hope for by taking statin drugs is a reduction of heart attack and death from heart attack of 30-35%--best case. That doesn't sound like elimination of risk to me.

What are the incremental benefits of adding omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil added to statins? The best data originate with the JELIS Trial (Effects of eicosapentaenoic acid on major coronary events in hypercholesterolaemic patients (JELIS): a randomised open-label, blinded endpoint analysis), in which 19,000 Japanese participants (who already have a high omega-3 intake from diet, usually ranging from 1800-3000 mg per day) experienced a 19% reduction (relative reduction) in cardiovascular events.

GISSI Prevenzione demonstrated a 28% reduction in heart attack, 45% reduction in death from heart attack with fish oil.

Omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil also:

--Reduce triglycerides dramatically
--Accelerate after-eating clearance of digestive by-products, i.e., they correct post-prandial abnormalities
--Modify the character (fragmentation potential, structural strength) of plaque
--Raise HDL modestly

If you buy your fish oil from Sam's Club, Costco, or other discounter, a healthy dose of fish oil might cost you $3 per month. Compare that to the $120 per month average cost of a statin agent. Why is there even a discussion over this?

Sadly, the doctor on Main Street, U.S.A, is the unwitting puppet of the pharmaceutical industry. The pretty drug company representative with nice legs and a cute smile promises lunch, dinner and . . who knows what else? Wink. The fifty-something, hairline-receding doctor can't resist. "Of course I'll prescribe your drug!"

Don't kid yourself: The drug industry knows precisely how to manipulate the behaviors of the deliverers of their products.

So, do statin drugs make omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil irrelevant? Absolutely not.

It's all about trying to inch closer and closer--not to reduction--but to elimination of risk for heart disease.

What role do emotions play in HDL cholesterol?

I’ve often observed a peculiar phenomenon: People who come to the office or hospital in the midst of a difficult emotional situation-e.g., stress at home, financial struggles, hospitalization (usually an unhappy occasion)- can show dramatic drops in HDL cholesterol. Not uncommonly, HDL drops 20 or more mg/dl.

Take Agnes’s case. Agnes had to go to the hospital for an elective procedure, one she’d been dreading for months. Previously, Agnes had been proud of the fact that she’d incrased HDL from 42 mg/dl range all the way up to 71 mg/dl. She accomplished this dramatic increase by eliminating wheat and cornstarch from her diet (which helped her lose 24 lbs), taking vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, exercise, 2 oz of dark chocolate per day, and a glass of red wine with dinner.

Although I wouldn’t have bothered checking a cholesterol panel for such a procedure, the hospital had a checklist that included a cholesterol panel regardless of necessity. (Such checklists are common in hospitals, meant to ensure that certain basic issues are not overlooked.)

Agnes’ HDL: 29 mg/dl-a 42 mg drop.

Agnes will recover and her HDL will rebound, but the same effect can occur with other stressful situations, such as death in the family, financial worries, marital stress, etc., as well as physical illness.

Interestingly, the opposite may also hold true: Low HDL may increase risk for depression and stress. A study from Finland of 124 depressed persons, for instance, showed a 240% increased likelihood of depression in those with lower HDL cholesterols.

In other words, there seems to be a curious interdependence between HDL and emotions.

Why? Does it represent the indirect effect of adrenaline, cortisol, or other “stress hormones”? Do factors that relate to low HDL, such as unhealthy diet full of carbohydrates and physical inactivity, also tend to cultivate depression?

It certainly seems to be a chicken-egg situation, with one often leading to the other.

Moral of the story: Maintaining a sense of optimism and engaging in activities that bring you satisfaction and enjoyment can help raise HDL, as can strategies such as those followed by Agnes. Avoiding unnecessarily stressful situations can help. HDL is important, since higher levels are associated with much reduced risk for heart disease . . . and perhaps depression.

Plaquology: A new term.

Plaquology: def: (plaque-: atherosclerotic plaque; -ology: study of.) The study of atherosclerotic plaque, originating in the early 21st century during the time period when the material underlying atherosclerosis gained recognition as a measure superior to "risk factors" for cardiovascular disease. Previous to the plaque concept, blood measures of cholesterol and adverse lifestyle habits, such as smoking and sedentary lifestyle, alone had been used to predict potential for cardiovascular events. With acceptance of the concept of plaque measurement, the concept of risk factors was abandoned.

Look it up in the current Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, or Webster's Dictionary, and I'm afraid that you still won't find plaquology . . . but you should.

I'm currently rewriting many parts of the Track Your Plaque book. The rewriting process has caused me to review just how much we've learned these past few years. One of the phenomena that fascinates me is that we now have non-medical people--teachers, software people, engineers, bankers, bed and breakfast owners, retired businesspeople, etc.--all discussing the finer points of coronary atherosclerotic plaque--plaquology--what constitutes plaque, what triggers plaque inflammation, how to quantify potential for plaque rupture or plaque quiescence, what effect various treatments have on plaque composition and behavior, etc.

We now have a legion of Plaquologists!

I'm very proud of our Plaquologists. Having devoted themselves to the study of plaque, their level of knowledge now exceeds that of 99% of practicing physicians, including my colleagues, the cardiologists. While cardiologists spend their day squashing/cutting/vaporizing plaque, they are no more experts in plaquology than a carpenter is an expert in trees. More often than not, cardiologists view plaque as just something that gets in their way, rather than the quantifiable, modifiable, reversible material that we can exert control over.

One of the software tools currently in the works for the Track Your Plaque website is a certification process. Members will be able to gain a "certification" in various topics relevant to plaquology, such as plaque quantification, lipoprotein testing, and nutritional supplements.

How about a Doctor of Plaquology?

Since the publication of the extraordinary HUNT Study relating the entire spectrum of thyroid function and heart issues, I have been vigorously and systematically examining thyroid function in numerous patients.

While there's no news in relating flagrant low thyroid function with triggering heart disease in several forms, the cut-off between low thyroid and normal thyroid has been a matter of dispute for decades.

In the early 20th century, low thyroid function wasn't diagnosed until someone gained 40 lbs, displayed extravagant amounts of edema (water retention) in the legs and huge bags under the eyes, hair fell out in clumps, and often eventually proved fatal. At autopsy, these unfortunates also showed advanced and extensive quantities of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Low thyroid is usually diagnosed on the basis of the blood test, thyroid stimulating hormone, or TSH. TSH is a pituitary gland hormone responsible for stimulation of thyroid function. When thyroid function flags, the pituitary increases TSH release. Thus, a high TSH signals lower thyroid hormone levels.

The difficulty is in distinguishing normal thyroid function from low thyroid function judged by TSH levels. As the years have passed, in fact, the cut-off for "normal" TSH has drifted lower and lower.

The HUNT Study, I believe, clinches the argument: A TSH of 1.5 or lower, perhaps even 1.0 or lower, is desirable to eliminate the excess cardiovascular risk provided by an underactive thyroid, not to mention feel better: more energetic, clearer thinking, greater well-being.

Having now applied this renewed appreciation for thyroid, I have come to believe that:

--Low thyroid function, even subtle levels, are rampant and far more common than ever previously thought. In my office practice, the case could be made that several people per day are marginally or mildly hypothyroid (low in thyroid).
--Restoration of optimal thyroid levels facilitates correction of lipid measures, especially LDL cholesterol and, to a lesser degree, lipoprotein patterns dependent on the insulin axis such as triglycerides and small LDL. It's a lot happier way to correct lipids than statins.

I don't discount the value of feeling better. People who feel better--more energetic, more upbeat, clearer thinking--tend to do better in health overall. If thyroid restoration is a part of that equation, then greater attention should be paid to this facet of health on our way to optimal heart health.

Though I sometimes feel like an endocrinologist dispensing desiccated thyroid (rarely the synthetic T4), I believe that this has been a previously neglected and important part of our effort to achieve coronary plaque stabilization and reversal.

"I shall never have smallpox for I have had cowpox; I shall never
have an ugly pockmarked face."

Such was the idle comment made by a milkmaid to Edward Jenner in 1768 when Jenner was 19, a remark that later prompted his investigations into using isolates of cowpox injected into humans as the first vaccination against the devastations of the European epidemic of smallpox.

(A caricature of Jenner administering cowpox vaccine to people, causing them to sprout bovine appendages. Image courtesy Wikipedia and the Library of Congress.)

When I look back, something similar has happened here.

Although the Track Your Plaque program is intended to stop and reverse coronary plaque using the only available means of tracking coronary plaque, i.e., heart scans, an unintended panel of benefits follow:

--People lose weight, often dramatically
--People gain greater energy
--Thinking is clearer, emotions more stable
--Sleep is deeper
--Bone density increases
--Physical strength and coordination improve
--Winter blues dissipate
--Blood sugar drops dramatically
--Blood pressure drops

Cholesterol (lipid) panels also settle to values that most physicians deem impossible or impractical, given our target of 60:60:60, i.e., LDL 60 mg/dl or less, HDL 60 mg/dl or higher, triglycerides 60 mg/dl or less. And medications are not always necessary to achieve these values. (When I show these values to my colleagues, they declare them flukes, unobtainable only in select people with high doses of medications.)

I didn’t set out to find the next weight loss solution, nor the key to boundless energy. My goal was "simpler": create a program of heart health. I am, after all, a cardiologist.

I was so intently focused on achieving incremental improvements over the steps leading to heart disease prevention that I failed to recognize the profound phenomena that accompanied it: people were quicker, smarter, thinner, and healthier.

In other words, I believe that we have inadvertently created a program of super health and performance.

Ironically, most people don't want to talk about heart disease, let alone reversal of heart disease. They do want to talk about getting thinner, feeling more energetic, living longer, better cholesterol values, etc.

Perhaps there's a lesson in this.

I recently provided an interview for Livin' La Vida Low Carb's irrepressible Jimmy Moore.

Jimmy runs a fun set of blogs, webcasts, and the like to broadcast this message of reducing carbohydrates in the diet. He credits his 210 lb weight loss to a strict low-carbohydrate and exercise program.

For the interview, just go to The Livin' the Vida Low Carb Show, Episode 185, or click here.

And click here for Part 2

For more of Jimmy Moore's spin on the entire low-carbohydrate diet experience, he maintains several popular blogs, including Carb Wire and The Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Blog.

In response to the recent Heart Scan Blog poll,

Have you experienced fatigue and mental fogginess with stopping wheat, i.e., "wheat withdrawal"?

the 104 respondents said:

Yes, I have experienced it: 26 (25%)

No, I stopped wheat and did not experience it: 65 (62%)

I'm not sure: 3 (2%)

I haven't tried it but plan to: 7 (6%)

I haven't tried it and don't plan to: 3 (2%)

So 25% of respondents reported experiencing the fatigue and mental fogginess of wheat withdrawal. This is similar to what I observe in my practice.

I counsel many patients to consider the elimination of wheat, as well as cornstarch products, in an effort to regain control over:

--Weight
--Appetite
--Low HDL
--High triglycerides
--Small LDL
--High blood sugar
--High blood pressure

All of these issues respond--often dramatically--to elimination of wheat and cornstarch.

Why would there be undesirable effects of eliminating wheat?

One clear issue is that elimination of wheat and other sugar-equivalents deprives your body of glucose. Your body then needs to resort to fatty acid metabolism to generate energy. Apparently, some people are inefficient at this conversion, having subsisted on carbohydrates for the last few decades of their lives. However, as fatty acid metabolism kicks in, energy generation improves. That is my (over-)simplified way of reasoning it through.

However, are there other explanations behind the mental fogginess, drop in energy, and overwhelming sleepiness? Some readers of this blog have suggested that, since opioid-like sequences (i.e., amino acide sequences that activate opiate receptors) are present in wheat, perhaps withdrawal from wheat represents a lesser form of opiate withdrawal. I find this a fascinating possibility, though I know of no literature devoted to establishing a cause-effect relationship.

Whatever the mechanism, I find it very peculiar that this food widely touted by the USDA, American Heart Association, and other agencies actually triggers a withdrawal syndrome in approximately 25% of people. Spinach does not trigger withdrawal. Nor does flaxseed, olive oil, almonds, and countless other healthy foods.

Then why would whole wheat grains be lumped with other healthy foods?

"Treat the patient, not the test."

That is a common "pearl" of medical wisdom often passed on during medical training.

It refers to the fact that we should always view any laboratory or imaging test in the context of the live, human patient and not just treat any unexpected value that doesn't seem to make sense.

I raise this issue because it recently came up on a discussion on the Track Your Plaque Forum. A Member with a high heart scan score of around 1100 was advised by his doctor that it should be ignored, because he'd prefer to treat the patient, not the test. The patient is apparently slender, physically active, and entirely without symptoms, with favorable cholesterol values as well. The high heart scan score didn't seem to jive with the appearance of the patient, as viewed by this doctor.

This common phrase is meant to impart wisdom. It is a reminder that we treat real people, not just a jumble of laboratory values.

But the unspoken part of the equation is that judgment needs to be applied. A well looking person who shows an unexpected rise in white blood cell count could just have a screwy result, or could have leukemia. Liver tests (AST, ALT) that top 400 could represent a fluke, or dehydration incurred during a long workout, or hepatitis from a long ago blood transfusion.

Yes, treat the patient. But don't be an idiot and entirely dismiss the signficance of an unexpected laboratory or imaging test. A heart scan score of 1100 should be as readily dismissed as discovering a white blood cell count of 90,000 (normal is less than 12,000), or a 5 cm mass in the lung. The absence of symptoms or the failure of conventional risk factors to suggest causation is insufficient reason to dismiss the concrete findings of a test.

In this particular person, dismissing the significance of the heart scan finding by suggesting that the doctor should treat the patient, not the test, is tantamount to:

--Colossal ignorance
--Malpractice
--A certain sentencing of the hapless patient to future major heart procedures, heart attack or death (20-25% likelihood every year, or a virtual certainty over the next 5 years).

There is an ounce of wisdom in this old medical pearl. But there's also plenty of room for a knuckleheaded doctor to misconstrue and abuse its meaning for the sake of covering up his/her ignorance, laziness, or lack of caring.

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.

Disease Engineering

Dr. Steven Gundry on The Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show

Does fish oil ADD to statin therapy?

HDL: “H” is for “happy”

Plaquology

Thyroid perspective update

Accidental Health

Livin' La Vida Low Carb interview

Wheat withdrawal: How common?

Treat the patient, not the test

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