At a presentation at the American College of Cardiology meetings in New Orleans yesterday (March 27, 2007), Dr. Arthur Agatston declared "I have been doing CT for many years, and I have never seen regression."

Whooooaaaa. Wait a minute here. I have great respect for the work Dr. Agatston has done over the years. He is, after the originator of the scoring algorithm that allows us to score CT heart scans (though a more accurate measure, the volumetric score, is the one we often use behind closed doors because of modestly increased accuracy and reproducibility). His diet program, the South Beach Diet, has achieved enormous success and is indeed an effective approach for both weight loss and correction of many weight-related causes of heart disease.

But he has never seen regression? Why would this be when we see it all the time? When we see heart scan scores drop 30%, it's hard to believe that with some savvy he has never seen regression (drop in score).

I can only attribute the difference to the more intensive endpoints we advocate (e.g., 60-60-60 for lipid values); the incorporation of adjuncts like fish oil, vitamin D, l-arginine; attention to non-cholesterol issues and intensified treatments for each. I doubt that the populations we see differ substantially.

As much as I admire Dr. Agatston's accomplishments, I believe that he is behind the times on this issue. No regression is so starkly different from the Track Your Plaque experience. I believe that relying only on statin drugs and diet will slow but will not stop plaque growth. It will also rarely, if ever, drop your score.

Attention to detail and a little insight into better preventive strategies really pays off. While not everyone in the Track Your Plaque experience will drop their score, a substantial number do. Many more slow plaque growth dramatically. And, as time goes on, our track record gets stronger and stronger.

The results of the long-awaited COURAGE Trial were announced today at the American College of Cardiology meetings in New Orleans.

In this trial, 2200 participants with stable coronary disease (i.e., not unstable, in which heart attack or death is imminent) were randomly assigned ("randomized") to either angioplassty/stent or "maximal medical therapy." Medical therapy means such things as aspirin, beta blocker drugs, and statin cholesterol drugs. There was virtually no difference between the groups in rate of heart attack and death from heart disease over a period of up to 7 years.

These results have caused a stir in the media and my colleagues, trying to sort out of the implications. However, I think there's one observation in particular worth making for those of us who tend to scoff at the conventional approach to coronary disease. That is, 1 of 5 people had a heart attack or died from heart disease in both groups. That's a lot. Even more ended up with a procedure (angioplasty, stent, or bypass). In other words, the "maximal medical therapy" instituted in participants was hardly a success. Though angioplasty and stenting failed to prove superiority, both really stunk. Both permitted a lot of catastrophes to occur.

"Maximal medical therapy," in other words, is a laughable concept. It doesn't include raising HDL, suppressing small LDL, reducing Lipoprotein(a), addressing inflammatory issues. It does not include omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, nor does it address the severe degrees of vitamin D deficiency that are proving, in the Track Your Plaque experience, to be among the most potent causes of atherosclerotic plaque known. It includes a sad attempt at diet, as advocated by the American Heart Association, a diet that, in my view, causes heart disease and is distorted by the powerful political and financial influence of food manufacturers.

If the trial were to be done again, I'd like to see the "maximal medical therapy" arm be represented by a more effective program like the Track Your Plaque approach.

Margaret is 73. She's a very good 73. She loves children and works full-time in a daycare. She manages her own household, goes to dinner at least once each week with one or more of her adult children. She is slender and has never been in the hospital--until she developed an abnormal heart rhythm called atrial fibrillation.

Most people who develop atrial fibrillation do so with no immediate identifiable cause. However, Margaret has been a widow since her husband died 15 years ago of a heart attack. She was therefore especially frightened of any heart issues in her own health. Her doctor also raised the question of whether atrial fibrillation might represent the first hint of future heart attack.

So we advised a CT heart scan. Score: zero, or no detectable plaque whatsoever. This put Margaret's risk for heart attack as close to zero as humanly possible. (Nobody is truly at zero risk for heart attack for a number of reasons. One reason is that people do irrational things like take cocaine or amphetamines, or they take too much decongestant medication, all of which can trigger heart attack.)

The heart scan settled it. Margaret has the sort of atrial fibrillation which likely simply develops as a result of "wear and tear" on the heart's electrical impulse conducting system and it has nothing to do with coronary heart disease or heart attack.

As that MasterCard commercial goes: Cost of a heart scan: About $200. Peace of mind: priceless.

If you're a participant in the Track Your Plaque program for atherosclerotic plaque regression, you are at the cutting edge of health.

Few physicians give this issue any thought. Chances are, for instance, that if you were to bring up the subject of reversal of heart disease to your primary care physician, you'd get a dismissive "it's not possible," or " Yeah, it's possible but it's rare."

Ask a cardiologist and you might make a little more progress. He/she might tell you that Lipitor 80 mg per day or Crestor 40 mg per day might achieve a halt in plaque growth or a modest reduction of up to 5-6%. If they've tried this strategy, they would likely also tell you that hardly anybody can tolerate these doses for long due to muscle aches. I'd estimate that 1 of 10 of my colleagues would even be aware of these studies.

Both groups are, however, reasonably adept at diagnosing chest pain, an everyday occurrence in hospitals and offices. Chest pain, for them, is a whole lot more interesting. It holds the promise of acute catastrophe and all its excitement. It also holds the key to lots of hospital revenues. Did you know that 80% of all internal medicine physicians are now employees of hospitals? They're also commonly paid on an incentive basis. More revenues, more money.

Ask Drs. Dean Ornish or Caldwell Esselstyn about reversal of heart disease and they will tell you that a very low-fat diet (<10% of calories)can do it. That's true if you use a flawed test of coronary disease like heart catheterization (angiograms) or nuclear stress tests (Ornish calls them "SPECT"). It would be like judging the health of the plumbing in your house by the volume of water flowing out the spigot. It flows even when the pipes are loaded with rust.

In the Track Your Plaque experience, extreme low-fat diets (i.e., high wheat, corn, and rice diets) grotesquely exagerrate the small LDL particle size pattern, among the most potent triggers for coronary plaque growth. This approach also makes your abdomen get fatter and fatter and inches you closer to diabetes. Triglycerides go up, inflammation increases.

If you were able to measure the rust in the pipes, that would be a superior test. You can measure the "rust" in your "pipes," the atherosclerotic plaque in your coronary arteries, using two methods: CT heart scans or intracoronary ultrasound. Take your pick. I'd choose a heart scan. It's safe, accurate, inexpensive. I've performed many intracoronary ultrasounds for people in the midst of heart attacks or some other reason to go to the catheterization laboratory. But for well people, without symptoms, who are interested in identifying and tracking plaque? That's the place for heart scans.

In our program, 18-30% reductions in heart scan scores are common.

Burt came to me last week. He'd received a stent a few months earlier. He'd been feeling fine except for some fatigue. A nuclear stress test proved equivocal, with the question of an abnormal area of blood flow in the bottom (inferior wall) of the heart.

"The doctor said I had a 50% blockage. Even though it wasn't really severe, he said I'd be better off with a stent, just in case."

Just in case what? What justification could there be for implanting a stent "just in case"? (The artery that was stented did not correspond to the area of questionable poor blood flow on the nuclear stress test.)

Just in case of heart attack? If that's the case, what about the several 20 and 30% blockages Burt showed in other arteries? The cardiologist was apparently trying to prevent the plaque "rupture" that results in heart attack by covering it with a stent. Why stent just one when there were at least 7 other plaques with potential for rupture?

That's the problem. And that's why stents do not prevent heart attack (unless the stent is implanted in the midst of heart attack, when the rupturing plaque declares itself.) Of course, when no plaque is in the midst of rupturing, as with Burt, there's no way to predict which plaque will do so in future. Since only one plaque was stented, there is a 7 out of 8 chance (87.5%) that the wrong plaque was chosen. And that's assuming that there aren't plaques not detected by catheterization angiogram; there commonly are. The odds that the right plaque was chosen would be even lower.

In other words, stenting one blockage that is slightly more "severely blocked" in the hopes of preventing heart attack is folly. If it's not resulting in symptoms and blood flow is not clearly reduced, a stent can not be used to prevent plaque rupture. A stent is not a device to be used prophylactically. It is especially silly when an approach like ours is followed, since plague progession is a stoppable process.

Note: This issue is distinct from the one in which symptoms and/or an abnormal stress test show clearly reduced blood flow and flow is restored by implantation of a stent. While some controversies exist here, as well, a stent implanted under these circumstances may indeed provide some benefit.

This issue came up twice this week.

Bill is a busy accountant. Two years ago, just after the tumult of the 2005 tax season was over, he got a CT heart scan. His score: 398. At age 53, this was a significant score. His internist did the usual: prescribed a statin (Zocor), told him to cut the fat in his diet, and be sure to exercise. (Yawn.)

Since then, Bill quit preparing tax returns and migrated to a less harried job in corporate accounting. It took two years since his heart scan for Bill to start thinking that perhaps his doctor's advice wasn't enough. If it was, he realized, everyone on a statin drug who made these minimal lifestyle changes would be cured of heart attack risk. Clearly not the case.

So Bill enrolled in the Track Your Plaque program. Our first step: Get another heart scan.

Bill was surprised. "Why another scan? I already had one!"

I explained to Bill that atherosclerotic plaque is like money: it grows in percentages, just like money in a bank account or in a mutual fund. If, for instance, you deposit $500 in a mutual fund and it yields 5% return, then after one year you will have $550. One year later, you will have 5% x $550, or $605. Another year: $665. In other words, growth is not 10% of the original amount you deposited. Growth is compounded, year over year. That's why money, when compounded, can grow so quickly.

Atherosclerotic plaque and your CT heart scan score do the same thing: they grow by a percentage of the current plaque quantity. In fact, we use the compound interest equation to calculate the annualized rate of plaque growth. But plaque grows at the extraordinary rate of 30% per year, on average. Imagine that was the rate of return on your money. You'd be the richest man or woman on earth.

Back to Bill. Now Bill, in his defense, was on a statin drug and did make modest efforts towards a (mis-guided) low-fat diet and walking four days per week. If, on a second CT heart scan, his score was:

398--No change. That's a success, since the expected rate of increase of 30% has been stopped. However, on his current program, this is highly unlikely. (I've seen it happen just once ever out of about 2000 people.)

250--Pop the cork on your champagne, because Bill needs to celebrate. He has substantially reversed his plaque. Highly unlikely on the current effort.

525 --The score is higher by 30%, so it has slowed, but it surely hasn't stopped. This is the most typical result on the sort of program Bill is following.

The message: Don't delay after your first heart scan score. It plaque grows like money with a huge return, there's no time like the present to take the steps to regain control.

Firefighters are twice as likely to die from a heart attack in the line of duty than are policemen, and three times more likely than EMTs.

That's among the headlines run today because of a report in the New England Journal of Medicine documenting a dramatically higher risk for heart attack for fire fighters putting out fires. The above headline is from an excellent report run on NPR radio. You can listen to the webcast at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047656.

The story sparked comments from experts insisting that all fire fighters should have physicals, should be in better physical condition, should be covered by health insurance (the NPR report said that 1 out of 4 fire fighters lack health insurance). Judging from the indisputable risk firefighters encounter, these are all good ideas.

But if you've been following my blog or the Track Your Plaque program, you know that physicals alone are hopeless exercises for identifying hidden heart disease. Among the solutions: identify whether or not heart disease is present in the first place--do a CT heart scan.

In fact, several local fire companies in my area have done just that: insisting that all firefighters undergo a heart scan. When groups of people like firefighters arrange for heart scans, they gain the advantage of doing so en masse, thereby allowing many scan centers to offer a dramatically reduced price to the city, town, or village that is paying for them. I've even seen many firefighters scanned at no cost.

It would also help to have health insurance, be physically fit, and have a stress test (an exception to my view that stress tests are also useless to screen asymptomatic people for heart disease). But a CT heart scan would settle the question quickly, easily, undeniably, and inexpensively.

This question comes up around once a week:

My CT heart scan score is ____. Wouldn't I be better off just getting a bypass (or stent, etc.) and getting it over with? If I know that heart attack is in my future, why not just get it over with?

The most recent source of this question was the wife of a patient. Jack had a heart scan score of 92 in 2005. He made very little effort to correct his causes, permitting pre-diabetic patterns to persist, failed to correct vitamin D, etc. and a repeat heart scan score showed a dramatic rise to 264.

Jack's wife asked whether he should just have a bypass.

There are several problems with this line of reasoning:

1) Bypass surgery does not reduce the long term risk for heart attack.

2) The risk of bypass surgery often outweighs the risk of an asymptomatic heart scan score.

3) Bypass surgery is a temporary "fix," a fancy Band Aid for a disease that progresses after the procedure. One bypass typically prompts another, and another...

4) Bypassing arteries that have vigorous blood flow often causes the bypass graft to not "take" and close within the first few days.

Thankfully, nobody in his right mind has proposed that we perform prophylactic bypass operations.

Of course, hospitals and surgeons would jump at the chance to perform procedures in anybody with some threshhold heart scan score. It would double or triple their business overnight. At $70,000 or more per procedure, they would dance in glee. Of course, you and I would pay for their new burst of wealth by a sharp increase in our health insurance premiums. Not only that, the people who underwent the procedure would not benefit.

I'm seeing more and more people taking 80 mg of Lipitor per day. For the most part, these are people who come in for another opinion after a stent or heart attack and are prescribed the drug during their hospitalization.

This practice is based on the results of the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 (PRavastatin Or atorVastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) trial, and the Reversal of Atherosclerosis with Aggressive Lipid Lowering (REVERSAL) trial, both reported in 2005. In the PROVE IT Trial, 4,000 people experiencing heart attacks were treated with Lipitor (atorvastatin), 80 mg, or Pravachol (pravastatin), 40 mg. There was a reduction in events like recurrent heart attack from 13.1% in the Pravachol group to 9.6% in the Lipitor group. In the REVERSAL Trial, the Lipitor group also showed no plaque growth compared to the Pravachol group, which did progress, with disease tracked by intracoronary ultrasound.

I believe that many of my colleagues took the bait. In a half-hearted effort to reduce events and trend towards better coronary plaque control, writing a prescription for 80 mg rather than a lower dose has become increasingly popular.

Some problems: Despite the favorable tolerance to high dose Lipitor in these trials, I don't know anybody who can tolerate 80 mg per day for more than a few months in real life. In my experience, people inevitably end up with intolerable muscle aches.

Also, I believe it is folly to believe that we can regress coronary plaque on a broad scale by just using one drug that addresses only a single cause (i.e., LDL cholesterol). Yes, drug companies would argue that the statin drugs are so wonderful because of their so-called "pleiotropic", or non-lipid, effects like reducing inflammation. I have seen regression of plaque once using Lipitor alone. We struggle to reduce coronary plaque using a multi-faceted approach. It is highly unlikely that Lipitor alone at a 80 mg dose will be sufficient in most people to regress plaque. How about lipoprotein(a)? Or vitamin D deficiency? Lipitor has no effect on these patterns and people do not regress just by taking statin agents.

In early February, the FDA approved orlistat, formerly known as prescription Xenical, for over-the-counter sale. Orlistat is a blocker of fat absorption.

The new OTC version will be called "Alli" (pronounced like "ally") and will come at a dose of 60 mg to be taken three times a day with meals. Prescription Xenical came as a 120 mg tablet. However, the company claims that the reduced dose sacrifices only 5% in reduced fat absorption, dropping from 30% with Xenical to 25% with Alli. It will cost in the neighborhood of $1 to $2 per day, or $30-60 per month, far less expensive than the $110-150 for the prescription form.

Does it work? Is it worth the money? Clinical trials document around 5-10 lbs lost over a 3 to 6 month period, 50% greater than using diet and exercise alone.

Our experience is that it works, though inconsistently. Results depend heavily on how reliant you are on fat calories. If you were to follow a low-fat diet while on the drug, you likely will lose little or no weight, since there's little fat absorption to block. However, I have witnessed more substantial weight loss of 10-20 lbs. in people who follow a higher fat intake in their diet, e.g., a traditional American diet. However, these people gain the weight back immediately because they've made no effort to modify food choices.

It is messy. Even though the clinical trials claims modest inconvenient effects like gas and greasy stools, I have found that it is, without fail, a very annoying product that results in crampiness and frequent messy stools in nearly everybody.

The company has created a glitzy website that you can view at www.myalli.com and promises to provide a personalized program and support for registrants when it is up and running by summer 2007.

I think that's a good idea, since the drug itself is no more than a temporary fix unless it's combined with long-term diet changes. However, the website, I believe, oversells the value of the drug with a drug company's usual over-the-top hints and innuendoes without actually coming out with straight pitches of the truth.

Beware of the vitamin D-blocking effect of Orlistat. The period of time you take it may be a time to resort to some modest sun exposure (10-15 minutes; be careful not to burn), rather than than oil-based vitamin D capsules, in order to avoid the inevitable vitamin D plunge in blood level.

I am not a fan of orlistat, having seen it tried many times with minimal success. However, it is another option for those who are really struggling. Personally, I would try fasting or some of the other strategies we've detailed on the www.cureality.com website before I resorted to orlistat.

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.

"I have never seen regression"

COURAGE to do better

Value of a zero heart scan score

You're at the cutting edge

A stent--just in case

How will you know your score dropped?

Firefighters Face Added Risk of Fatal Heart Attack

Prophylactic bypass surgery?

Lipitor 80 mg

Orlistat for weight loss

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