Cholesterol follies

11. January 2008 William Davis (5)
Rudy is a 59-year old man. He's had three heart catheterizations, two of which resulted in stent implantations. Obviously, Rudy should be the beneciary of a prevention program.

His basic cholesterol values:

Total cholesterol 164 mg/dl--pretty good, it seems.

LDL cholesterol 111 mg/dl--Wow! Not too bad.

HDL cholesterol 23 mg/dl--Uh oh, that's not too good.

Triglycerides 148 mg/dl--By national (NCEP ATP-III) guidelines, triglycerides of 150 mg/dl and below fall within the desirable range.


So we're left with an apparently isolated low HDL cholesterol, nothing more. On the surface, it doesn't seem all that bad.

Of course, we need to keep in mind that this pattern landed Rudy in the hospital on several occasions and prompted several procedures.

Should we rely on these results? How about Rudy's lipoproteins?

Here they are (NMR; Liposcience):

LDL particle number 2139 nmol/l--Representing an effective LDL of 213--over 100 mg higher than the standard value (above) suggests.

Small LDL particles 2139 nmol/l--In other words, 100% of all Rudy's LDL particles are small. (Thus, weight-based measures of LDL cholesterol fail to tell us that he has too many small particles.)

Large HDL 0 (zero) mg/dl--Rudy has virtually no functional HDL particles.


If we had relied only on Rudy's standard cholesterol values, we would have focused on raising HDL. However, lipoprotein analysis uncovered a smorgasbord of additional severe patterns. The high LDL particle number comprised 100% of small particles is especially concerning.

Truly, conventional cholesterol testing is a fool's game, one that time and again fails to fully uncover or predict risk for heart disease. One look at Rudy's lipoproteins and it becomes immediately obvious: This man is at high risk for heart disease and the causes are clear.

Of course, many physicians and insurance companies argue that the added information provided by this portion of the lipoprotein test added around $70 more to the expense.

When you see results like this, is there even a choice?

Equal calories, different effects

9. January 2008 William Davis (15)
A great study was just published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology:

Metabolic effects of weight loss on a very-low-carbohydrate diet compared with an isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet in abdominally obese subjects.

88 obese adults with metabolic syndrome were placed on either of two diets:

1) A very low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet (VLCHF): 4% calories from carbohydrates (truly low-carb); 35% protein; 61% fat, of which 20% were saturated. In the first 8 weeks, carbohydrate intake was severely limited to <20 grams per day, then <40 grams per day thereafter.

2) A high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (HCLF): 46% calories from carbohydrates; 24% protein; 30% total fat, of which <8% were saturated.

Both diets were equal in calories (around 1400 calories per day--rather restrictive) and participants were maintained on the program for six months.

At the end of the six month period, participants on the VLCHF diet lost 26.4 lb, those on the HCLF diet 22.2 lbs (though the difference did not reach statistical significance). Thus, both approaches were spectacularly successful at weight loss.

Surprisingly, blood pressure, blood sugar, insulin and insulin sensitivity (a measure called HOMA) were all improved with both diets equally. Thus, these measures seemed to respond more to weight loss and less to the food composition.

Lipids differed between the two diets, however:


VLCHF:
Total cholesterol: initial 208.4 mg/dl final 207.7 mg/dl

LDL: initial 125 mg/dl final 123 mg/dl

HDL: initial 55 mg/dl final 64.5 mg/dl

Triglycerides: initial 144 mg/dl final 74 mg/dl

Apoprotein B: initial 98 mg/dl final 96 mg/dl


HCLF
Total cholesterol: initial 208.4 mg/dl final 187.5 mg/dl

LDL: initial 126 mg/dl final 108 mg/dl

HDL: initial 51 mg/dl final 54.5 mg/dl

Triglycerides: initial 157.6 mg/dl final 111 mg/dl

Apoprotein B: initial 100 mg/dl final 95 mg/dl


Some interesting differences became apparent:
--The VLCHF diet more effectively reduced triglycerides and raised HDL.
--The HCLF diet more effectively reduced total and LDL.
--There was no difference in Apo B (no statistical difference).

The investigators also made the observation that individual responsiveness to the diets differed substantially. They concluded that both diets appeared to exert no adverse effect on any of the parameters measured, both were approximately equally effective in weight loss with slight advantage with the carbohydrate restricted diet, and that lipid effects were indeed somewhat different.


What lessons can we learn from this study? I would propose/extrapolate several:

When calories are severely restricted, the composition of diet may be less important. However, when calories are not so severely restricted, then composition may assume a larger role. When calories are unrestricted, I would propose that the carbohydrate restriction approach may yield larger effects on weight loss and on lipids when compared to a low-fat diet.

The changes in total cholesterol are virtually meaningless. Part of the reason that it didn't drop with the VLCHF diet is that HDL cholesterol increased. In other words, total cholesterol = LDL + HDL + trig/5. A rise in HDL raises total cholesterol.

Despite no change in Apo B, if NMR lipoprotein analysis had been performed (or other assessment of LDL particle size made), then there would almost certainly have seen a dramatic shift from undesirable small LDL to less harmful large LDL particles on the VLCHF diet, less change on the HCLF diet.

The lack of restriction of saturated fat in the VLCHF that failed to yield adverse effects is interesting. It would be conssistent with the re-analysis of saturated fat as not-the-villain-we thought-it-was put forward by people like Gary Taubes (Good Calories, Bad Calories).

In the Track Your Plaque experience, small LDL is among the most important measures of all for coronary plaque reversal and control. Unfortunately, although this study was well designed and does add to the developing scientific exploration of diet, it doesn't add to our insight into small LDL effects. But if I had to make a choice, I'd choose the low-carbohydrate, high-fat approach for overall benefit.

Is skinny necessary for reversal?

6. January 2008 William Davis (19)
Nothing we do in the Track Your Plaque program guarantees that coronary atherosclerotic plaque or your heart scan score is reduced or reversed.



But everything we do weighs the odds in your favor of successfully achieving reversal: correction of lipoprotein patterns, uncovering hidden patterns like Lp(a), vitamin D, being optimistic--it all tips the scales in your favor.

But how necessary is it to be skinny, meaning somewhere near your ideal weight?

It is important, but not as important as it used to be. Let me explain.

I used to tell people that plaque would not regress unless ideal weight was achieved and all the parameters of abdominal obesity and metabolic syndrome were corrected. This includes blood pressure, blood sugar, low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, and high c-reactive protein. Curiously, though, as we've gotten better and better at reducing coronary calcium scores, I've been finding that complete correction of all parameters, including achieving ideal weight, don't seem to be as necessary to achieve plaque reversal.

I almost hate to say this, but I've even witnessed significant drops in heart scan scores in people with body mass indexes (BMI) of 30--obese.

The necessary change doesn't seem to be weight, per se, but the consequences of weight. In other words, if you remain overweight, but blood sugar, HDL, small LDL, etc. have shown substantial improvement, then reversal is still achievable.

Then is it okay to be fat or overweight?

Reducing weight to ideal weight does indeed tip the scales in your favor, since it represents an observable, perceptible measure of all associated patterns. Dropping weight can also minimize the need for efforts to correct the consequences of overweight--you might need less niacin, fish oil, exercise, blood pressure medication, etc. to succeed at plaque reversal. Achieving ideal weight may also provide benefits like reduced risk of cancers and degenerative diseases of the hips and knees. But, to my recent surprise over the last two years, achieving ideal weight is not an absolute requirement to achieve reversal.

This is contrary to what some others say. For instance, in an upcoming interview with Dr. Joel Fuhrman on the Track Your Plaque website, Dr. Fuhrman argues that 10% body fat for males, 22% body fat for females, accelerates plaque and symptom reversal. Dr. Fuhrman is author of Fasting and Eating for Health, Eat to Live, and a new upcoming 2-part book, Eat for Health, and proponent of high-nutrient vegetarian diets and fasting. Dr. Fuhrman has been helpful in teaching us some important lessons on how to apply periodic fasting to accelerate plaque reversal.

So, which is it, fat or skinny?

If given a choice (which everyone has), I'd choose skinny. But, provided all the parameters associated with overweight are corrected, then remaining overweight doesn't necessarily mean that you can't still succeed at plaque reversal.

If you are interested in knowing what your ideal weight is, there are a number of software calculators and tables available, including the HealthCentral.com calculator and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute BMI Calculator.


Image courtesy Wikipedia.

Copyright William Davis, MD 2008

MESA Study: Track Your Plaque-Lite?

4. January 2008 William Davis (11)
The long-awaited data analyses from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) are finally making it to press.

The MESA Study is an enormously ambitious and important study of 6800 people, 45 to 84 years old, that includes white, black, Hispanic, and Chinese participants from six communities around the U.S. (Forsyth County, NC; Northern Manhattan and the Bronx, NY; Baltimore and Baltimore County, Md; St Paul, Minn; Chicago, Ill; and Los Angeles County, California.) Participants had no history of heart disease at enrollment. All underwent a heart scan (either EBT or multi-detector heart scans) at the start. It is therefore the largest prospective study involving heart scans ever performed. It is, not unexpectedly, yielding some fascinating observations relevant to the Track Your Plaque program. The MESA study is, incidentally, funded by the non-commercial, publicly-funded National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and is therefore presumably free of commercial bias.

Among the most recent publications is Risk factors for the progression of coronary artery calcification in asymptomatic subjects: Results from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) In this analysis of 5700 of the MESA participants, a repeat heart scan was obtained an average of 2.4 years after the first. Conventional risk factors for heart disease were obtained at the start (see below for details under Measurement of Covariates.)

After analyzing the data and risk factors assessed, such as age, sex, race, blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), presence of diabetes, blood sugar, and family history of heart disease, two questions were asked:

1) What risk factors predict heart scan scores?

2) What risk factors predict progression (i.e., increase) in heart scan scores?

(The second question is particularly relevant to us and the Track Your Plaque experience.)

The MESA analysis showed that essentially all the risk factors assessed correlated with both the initial heart scan score, as well as the rate of progression. No surprises here.

But the most eye-opening finding was that the conventional risk factors assessed explained only 12% of the variation and progression in heart scan scores (coefficient of determination, or R squared, = 0.12.) In other words:

--Conventional risk factors like LDL cholesterol, diabetes, and excess weight explain only a tiny fraction of why someone develops coronary atherosclerotic plaque as represented by a heart scan score.

--The great majority of risk for a high heart scan score remains unexplained by conventional risk factors.

--The great majority of risk for progressive increase in heart scan scores also remains unexplained by conventional risk factors.


In light of the MESA analysis, it's no surprise that strategies like reducing LDL cholesterol with statin drugs fails to prevent most heart attacks. It's no surprise that conventional prevention programs that talk about "knowing your numbers," eating a "balanced" or low-fat diet, etc., fail miserably to prevent the vast majority of heart attacks and heart procedures.

MESA confirms what we've been saying these past few years: If you want control over coronary heart disease, you won't find it in Lipitor, a low-fat diet, and other limited conventional notions of risk. Correction of conventional risk factors like cholesterol and blood pressure are, in a word, a failure. I wouldn't even call the conventional approach Track Your Plaque-Lite. They don't even come close.

If conventional risk factors can explain only 12% of the reason behind heart disease, we've got to look elsewhere to understand why you and I develop this process.



Measurement of Covariates
Information on demographics, smoking, medical conditions, and family history was collected by questionnaire at the initial examination. Height and weight were also measured at the baseline examination, and blood was drawn for measurements, including lipids, inflammation, fasting glucose, fibrinogen, and creatinine. Resting blood pressure was measured 3 times in the seated position, and the average of the last 2 measurements was used in the analysis. Medication use was determined by questionnaire. Additionally, the participant was asked to bring to the clinic containers for all medications used during the 2 weeks before the visit. The interviewer then recorded the name of each medication, the prescribed dose, and frequency of administration from the containers.


Copyright 2008 William Davis,MD

Risks for coronary disease 2008

31. December 2007 William Davis (27)
According to conventional thinking, there are identifiable risks for coronary disease and heart attack. These risk factors are:

* smoking
* high blood pressure
* high blood cholesterol and excessive saturated fat intake
* diabetes
* being overweight or obese
* physical inactivity

I'd agree with all the factors listed (though I would argue about the importance of high blood cholesterol and saturated fat; they are not as important as commonly made to be.)

Is the list complete?

From the unique perspectives gained in the Track Your Plaque program, I'd offer a significantly different list. Trying to stop or reduce coronary atherosclerotic plaque and heart scan scores makes you a whole lot smarter about what works and what doesn't work.

So, in addition to the risk factors listed above, I would add:

* Small LDL particles--Lots of small LDL particles is MORE important than high LDL.
* High blood pressure with exercise
* Excessive wheat intake and other processed carbohydrates--An issue of explosive importance today. Wheat creates large numbers of small LDL particles, among other adverse effects.
* Vitamin D deficiency--Among the most powerful risks I know of. It belongs at the top of the list.
* Vitamin K2 deficiency
* Low HDL cholesterol
* Blood sugar >100 mg/dl
* High triglycerides--While some argue about whether triglycerides are a risk that behaves independently of patterns like low HDL, they are neglecting the potent force of this risk. Sure, it occurs in tandem with low HDL (usually, though not always), but it is a factor that can leave you with risk even when HDL is raised to healthy levels.
* Lipoprotein(a)--It is eminently, positively crystal clear that lipoprotein(a) is a powerful risk for heart disease. The lack of a profitable treatment keeps it hidden in the shadows.
* Pessimism--Be happy, do better. Be a constantly angry, frustrated, complaining sourpuss and you are more likely to succumb to heart disease, cancer, or other undesirable fate.


These are the risk factors that we address through the Track Your Plaque program, a list that yields a far more powerful and comprehensive approach to control over coronary plaque/atherosclerosis, sufficient to achieve reversal in many (though not in all) instances.

I view the list of conventional risk factors as a "no brainer" list. Sure, smoking is a risk factor. But there are virtually no smokers in the Track Your Plaque program. If you smoke, you clearly don't care enough to engage in a high-intensity prevention program like this.

Saturated fat? Perhaps, but the battlefield of heart disease is riddled with the bodies of those who employed this as their sole strategy and failed catastrophically.

Diabetes, hypertension, and overweight all represent a continuum of risk; the solutions offered in the conventional scheme (i.e., low-fat diet, etc.) make these patterns worse, not better.

The conventional response to heart disease risk is trapped somewhere in 1973 and has not changed in over 30 years. Heart disease continues to be a growth industry for hospitals and the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. The "official" organizations continue to deliver an antiquated, outdated message.

If you want heart disease, follow the American Heart Association diet. If you want established heart disease to get worse, follow the American Heart Association diet. If you want diabetes or, if you already have diabetes or pre-diabetes, if you want it to worsen and develop organ damage (eyes, kidneys, nervous system, etc.), then follow the American Diabetes Association diet. USDA food pyramid? Loosen your belt!

The list of conventional risk factors for heart disease is woefully inadequate. If that is as far as your prevention program takes you, heart disease will not be controlled or prevented. At best, it might be slowed; at worst--and more likely--it might be accelerated.

Food sources of vitamin K2

27. December 2007 William Davis (46)


Vitamin K2 is emerging as an exciting player in the control and possible regression of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Only about 10% of dietary vitamin K intake is in the K2 form, the other 90% being the more common K1.

The ideal source of K2 is natto, the unpalatable, gooey, slimy mass of fermented soybeans that Japanese eat and has been held responsible for substantial decreases in osteoporosis and bone fractures of aging. Natto has an ammonia-like bouquet, in addition to its phlegmy consistency that makes it virtually inedible to anyone but native Japanese.

I say that the conversation on vitamin K2 is emerging because of a number of uncertainties: What form of vitamin K2 is best (so-called MK-4 vs. MK7 vs. MK-9, all of which vary in structure and duration of action in human blood)? What dose is required for bone benefits vs. other benefits outside of bone health? Why would humans have developed a need for a nutrient that is created through fermentation with only small quantities in meats and other non-fermented foods?

Much of the developing research on vit K2 is coming from the laboratories of Drs. Vermeer, Geleijnse, and Schurgers at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, along with several laboratories in Japan, the champions of K2.

MK-7 and MK-8,9,10 come from bacterial fermentation, whether in natto, cheese, or in your intestinal tract; MK-4 is naturally synthesized by animals from vitamin K1. While natto is the richest source of the MK-7 form, egg yolks and fermented cheeses are the richest sources of the MK-4 form.

Chicken contains about 8 mcg MK-4 per 3 1/2 oz serving; beef contains about 1 mcg. Egg yolks contain 31 mcg MK-4 per 3 1/2 oz serving (app. 6 raw yolks). Hard cheeses contain about 5 mcg MK-4 per 3 1/2 oz serving, about 70 mcg of MK-8,9; soft cheeses contain about 30% less. Natto contains about 1000 mcg of MK-7, 84 mcg MK-8, and no MK-4 per 3 1/2 oz serving.











Feta cheese

Thanks to the research efforts of the Dutch and Japanese groups, several phenomena surrounding vitamin K2 are clear, even well-established fact:

--Vitamin K2 supplementation (via frequent natto consumption or pharmaceutical doses of K2) substantially improves bone health. While K2 by itself exerts significant bone density/strength increasing properties in dozens of studies, when combined with other bone health-promoting agents (e.g., vitamin D3, prescription drugs like Fosamax and calcitonin), an exaggerated synergy of bone health-promoting effects develop.



--The MK-4 form of vitamin K2 is short-lived, lasting only 3-4 hours in the body. The MK-7 form, in contrast, the form in natto, lasts several days. MK-7 and MK-8-10 are extremely well absorbed, virtually complete.

--Bone health benefits have been shown for both the MK-7 and MK-4 forms.

--Coumadin (warfarin) blocks all forms of vitamin K.





Interestingly, farm-raised meats and eggs do not differ from factory farm-raised foods in K2 content. (But please do not regard this as an endorsement of factory farm foods.)

Another interesting fact: Since mammals synthesize a small quantity of Vit K2 forms from vitamin K1, then eating lots of green vegetables should provide substrate for some quantity of K2 conversion. However, work by Schurgers et al have shown that K1 absorption is poor, no more than 10%, but increases significantly when vegetables are eaten in the presence of oils. (Thus arguing that oils are meant to be part of the human diet. Does your olive oil or oil-based salad dressing represent fulfillment of some subconscious biologic imperative?)

If we believe the data of the Rotterdam Heart Study, then a threshold of 32.7 micrograms of K2 from cheese yields the reduction in cardiovascular events and aortic calcification.

It's all very, very interesting. My prediction is that abnormal (pathologic) calcium deposition will prove to be a basic process that parallels atherosclerotic plaque growth, and that manipulation of phenomena that impact on calcium depostion also impact on atherosclerotic plaque growth. Vitamins D3 and K2 provide potential potent means of at least partially normalizing these processes.

As the data matures, I am going to enjoy my gouda, Emmenthaler, Gruyere, and feta cheeses, along with a few egg yolks. I'm going to be certain to include healthy oils like olive and canola with my vegetables.


All images courtesy Wikipedia.

Copyright 2007 William Davis, MD

Track Your Plaque: Naughty or nice?

24. December 2007 William Davis (6)


Among the many wonderful surprises we've had at Track Your Plaque this holiday season was a letter from Santa Claus himself!

It seems that Santa, like the rest of us, has been busy surfing the web for useful health information the last few months. He was struck with this curious discussion we've been having about "wheat belly" and all the unhealthy consequences of wheat products in our diet.

He writes:

"I wouldn't have believed it myself, except that my waist size has grown four inches in as many years. Sure, I'm known for my healthy girth, but now even Mrs. Claus calls me fat!

"I was open to new ideas when I came across this crazy discussion about eliminating wheat from your diet. So I said, "What have I got to lose?" Well, four weeks later and 12 lbs lighter, I'm convinced. Now comes the tough part: I've got to deliver all the toys and resist all those cookies the children put out for me. I wonder if wheat makes reindeer fat, too?

"Anyway, thanks to your program I'm back to my old weight again. Doc says my blood sugar and blood pressure are also back down to normal. Thanks, Track Your Plaque! (You'll find something extra special under the tree this year.)"

And so it goes. I'm tempted to put Santa's testimonial on our homepage, but I think that may be tooting our own horn a bit too much.

Have a wonderful holiday!

Vitamin D: Treatment for metabolic syndrome?

21. December 2007 William Davis (44)
Metabolic syndrome is that increasingly common collection of low HDL cholesterol, high triglycerides, high blood sugar, and high pressure that now afflicts nearly 1 in 4 adults, rapidly gaining ground to 1 in 3. Beyond these surface factors, metabolic syndrome also creates small LDL particles, VLDL, intermediate-density lipoproteins (IDL), increased imperceptible inflammation measured as higher c-reactive protein, and greater blood clotting tendencies. Metabolic syndrome is usually, though not always, associated with a big tummy ("beer belly," though I call it "wheat belly").

In short, metabolic syndrome creates a metabolic mess that leads to dramatic increases in heart disease, vascular disease and stroke, and cancer. The medical community has been paying increasingly greater attention to this condition because of its booming prevalence and because of the big bucks invested in "education" by the manufacturers of the diabetes and pre-diabetes drugs, particularly makers of Actos and Avandia.

But here's a curious observation:

Replacement of vitamin D to healthy levels (we aim for 50-60 ng/ml, or 125-150 nmol/l) yields:

--Higher HDL
--Lower triglycerides
--Lower blood sugar
--Reduced c-reactive protein
--Reduced blood pressure
--Reduced small LDL
--Enhanced sensitivity to insulin

(Whether blood clotting and effects on IDL should be added to this list is uncertain.)

It's obvious: Vitamin D is proving to be a very important and powerful corrective influence on many of the facets of the metabolic syndrome. In fact, I would go as far as saying that, side by side, vitamin D yields nearly the same effect as prescription drugs Actos and Avandia--without the extravagant cost (nearly $200 per month), leg swelling, congestive heart failure and heightened heart attack risk (with Avandia), and average 8 lb weight gain. Of course, vitamin D also provides benefits beyond metabolic syndrome like facilitation of coronary plaque regression, increased bone density, reduced arthritis, and reduced risk of several cancers.

You'd think that agencies like the American Diabetes Association (ADA) would be all over vitamin D like white on rice. Yet they remain curiously quiet about the entire issue. (That should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the behavior and politics of this organization, the same outfit that has widely propagated the ADA diet, a program that accelerates diabetes and its complications. In my view, the ADA is an embarassment.)



For a really great story and video on vitamin D that includes a terrific interview with vitamin D guru and Track Your Plaque friend, California psychiatrist Dr. John Cannell, go to What's the Real Story on Vitamin D?. While the video will yield little new to readers of The Heart Scan Blog or Track Your Plaque members, it just feels really good to see a well-made, high-class video production echoing many of the things we've been talking about these past two years.

Appetite stimulants

20. December 2007 William Davis (17)
Ever have days when you just can't seem to get enough to eat, your stomach gnawing just a hour after a meal? We all get them, some more than others. Other days, you can be content with a few simple foods and hunger is subdued, temptation easy to control.

Why such contrasts on different days?

A major part of the reason can be the presence of appetite stimulants, factors that trigger appetite beyond rational control. The list of common appetite stimulants includes:

--Sleep deprivation--A very important factor. Lack of sleep drives tremendous appetite, and often for the wrong foods (processed carbohydrates). I personally have experienced my most shamefully indulgent days when sleep-deprived. The solution is obvious: Sleep. Another factor that is based purely on personal observation is that of waking mid-phase. In other words, waking up while you're still enjoying the deeper phases of sleep (e.g., phase 3,4, or REM). This can oddly disrupt your day and your impulse control. I usually try and time sleep to increments of 90 minutes to coincide with the average duration of the full cycle of sleep. For example, 7 1/2 hours is better than 8 hours, since the extra half hour puts your square into a deeper sleep cycle.

--Excessive caffeine--Caffeine stimulates stomach acid. This triggers the impulse to eat . . . and eat and eat.













Image courtesy Wikipedia

--Aspirin and other anti-inflammatory agents--If you take aspirin (as many of our Track Your Plaquers do), then beware of the gastritis that can develop. Like excessive caffeine, it also triggers the impulse to eat, likely a protective mechanism, since food sops up excess acid. I ask patients to take periodic breaks from aspirin, e.g., a week off every two or three months, to allow the stomach to heal. Alternatively, an occasional dose of acid-suppressing medication is a safe practice, e.g., Pepcid AC 10-20 mg; Prilosec 10-20 mg.

--Wheat-containing foods--Followers of The Heart Scan Blog know my feelings on this. Wheat is a potent appetite stimulant: Eat something containing wheat like a pretzel or whole wheat bagel, and you want more. You may want more immediately, or a little later when your blood sugar plunges after the wheat-driven insulin surge. Solution: Dump the wheat, one of the most unhealthy food groups around.

--Alcohol--Though perhaps not a direct appetite-stimulating effect, the loss of impulse-control with alcoholic drinks can lead to overindulgence, often in the worst foods. Just beware.

--Hanging around with heavy people. Remember peer pressure? It can be subliminal. People with poor eating habits provide the silent message that it's okay to yield to impulse, overeat, overindulge, and choose the wrong foods.

--Stress--Whether through cortisol stimulation or other means, stress triggers appetite in some people. If you experience this and must give in, reach for raw nuts or nuts, rather than wheat snacks or chips. The effect will be minimal, perhaps even beneficial, rather than the bloating, appetite-stimulating, fattening effect of crackers, chips, or pretzels. This may be the same phenomenon as taking prescription steroids like prednisone.

--Short dark days, long nights--In other words, winter. Though just an anecdotal observation, I am convinced that vitamin D supplementation is an effective antidote to this effect. The short, dark days just don't bother you as much, perhaps not at all, and there's no impulse for comfort foods.


How about appetite suppressants? In this list I would include 1) raw nuts--especially almonds, walnuts, pecans, and pistachios, the sort with a fibrous covering and rich in monounsaturates, 2) other sources of plentiful healthy oils, e.g, use more olive oil in your salad or add it to hummus for your veggie dip, 3) space-occupying fibers such as glucomannan, inulin (such as in Fiber Choice), and psyllium seed products. Counteracting the above appetite stimulants like sleep deprivation is, of course, important.

The coming wheat frenzy, otherwise known as the holidays, is an especially important time to be aware of these effects. Eat, drink, and be merry--but with rational impulse control not driven by subconscious appetite stimulants.

"Heart scans are experimental"

18. December 2007 William Davis (25)
Let me warn you: This is a rant.

It is prompted by a 44-year old woman. She has a very serious lipoprotein disorder. Her family experiences heart attacks in their 40s and 50s. I asked for a heart scan. Her insurance companied denied it.

This is nothing new: heart scans, like mammograms, have not enjoyed reimbursement from most insurers despite the wealth of data and growing acceptance of this "mammogram" of the heart.

However, 10 minutes on the phone, and the "physician" (what well-meaning physician can do this kind of work for an insurance company is beyond me) advised me that, while CT heart scans for coronary calcium scoring are not covered, CT coronary angiograms are.

Now, I've been witnessing this trend ever since the big players in CT got involved in the game, namely Philips, Siemens, Toshiba, and GE. These are enormous companies with hundreds of billions of dollars in combined annual revenues. They, along with the lobbying power of cardiology organizations like the American College of Cardiology, have gotten behind CT coronary angiograms. This is most likely the explanation of why CT coronary angiograms have rather handily obtaining insurance reimbursement. Interestingly, the insurance company I was speaking to is known (notorious?) for very poor reimbursement practices.

A CT heart scan, when properly used, generates little revenue, a few hundred dollars to a scan center, barely enough to pay for a device that costs up to $2 million. However, CT coronary angiograms, in contrast, yield around $2000 per test. More importantly, they yield downstream revenues, since CT angiograms are performed as preludes to conventional heart catheterizations, angioplasty, stents, bypass surgery, etc. Now we're talking tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars revenue per test.

What puzzles me is that much of that increased cost comes out of the insurance company. Why would they support such tests if it exposes them to more costs? I'm not certain. It could be the greater pressures exerted by the big CT companies and powerful physician organizations. I seriously doubt that the insurance companies truly believe that heart scans for coronary calcium scoring are "experimental" while CT coronary angiograms are "proven." If all we did was compare the number of clinical studies that validate both tests, we'd find that the number of studies validating heart scans eclipses that of coronary angiograms several fold. Experimental? Hardly.

The smell of money by physicians eager to jump on the bandwagon of a new revenue-producing procedure is probably enough to have them lobby insurers successfully. In contrast, plain old heart scans just never garnered the kind of vigorous and vocal support, since nobody gets rich off of them.

If CT coronary angiograms are sufficiently revenue producing that my colleagues and the CT scanner manufacturers have managed to successfully lobby the health insurers, even one as financially "tight" as the one I spoke to today, well then I take that as testimony that money drives testing, as it does the behavior of hospitals, many of my colleagues, and can even force the hand of insurers.
Vitamin D toxicity

Vitamin D toxicity

6. February 2008 William Davis (26)
It is the craziest thing.

The notion of vitamin D being easily and readily toxic has grabbed hold of many people, including my colleagues who were taught that vitamin D was toxic in medical school based on the skimpiest (and often misinterpreted) observations in a handful of unusual cases.

In my practice and in the Track Your Plaque program, we routinely use doses of 2000-10,000 units per day, occasionally more. We are guided by blood levels of 25(OH) vitamin D3. I have personally never witnessed vitamin D toxicity.

Here's an interesting graph from Dr. Reinhold Vieth. Those of you familiar with the vitamin D argument know that Dr. Vieth is among the few genuine gurus in the vitamin D world.



















From Vieth R. Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations, and safety. Am J Clin Nutr 1999;69:842-856. (Full text is available without charge.)

In the graph, the X's represent toxicity; circles fall within the non-toxic range. (Toxicity is generally defined as a level sufficient to raise blood calcium levels, "hypercalcemia.") Note that the 25(OH) vitamin D3 levels are given in nmol/L; to convert to ng/ml units that are customary in the U.S., divide the nmol/L value by a factor of 2.5.

You will notice that toxicity is virtually unheard of until the dose exceeds 10,000 units per day. Beyond 10,000 units per day, the curve heads upward sharply and toxicity does become a possibility, though not an absolute (since there are circles above 10,000 units).

You may also notice that the curve is relatively flat from vitamin D doses between 200 units and 10,000 units (log scale on x axis; arithmetic scale on y), the range of most common doses for vitamin D supplementation.

Another perspective on vitamin D blood levels is to examine the blood levels of people who are young and obtain plentiful sun exposure. Lifeguards, for instance, have blood levels of 84 ng/ml (210 nmol/L) without ill-effect. (Sun exposure cannot generate vitamin D toxicity, because of a feedback safety mechanism in skin.) While this may not represent an ideal level since they represent an extreme, it does provide reassurance that such levels are non-toxic. I also point out these levels occur in the youthful since most people lose 75% or more of vitamin D activating capacity in the skin by their 70s. Most of us over 40 are kidding ourselves if we think that a suntan provides sufficient vitamin D.

Keep in mind that it is not necessarily the dose of vitamin D that is toxic, but the blood level it generates. I take 10,000 units of vitamin D as a gelcap per day to maintain my blood level between 50-60 ng/ml (125-150 nmol/L). This strategy helps me keep my HDL in the 70-80 mg/dl range, my blood sugar around 90 mg/dl, my blood pressure <120/80, and I no longer experience colds nor winter "blues."


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD
Tags :

Comments (26) -

  • mike V

    2/6/2008 5:19:00 PM |

    Dr D:
    I take up to 4000 IU per day depending on season and have recently had a zero CTA scan, so I personally have high confidence in vitamin D3.
    From time to time I see references to the possibility that excessive D can produce soft tissue/arterial calcification in some people. I understand of course that Vitamin K2 menaquinone is an essential partner in proper calcium homeostasis.
    Are you completely without concern at the blood levels discussed?, or should people with marginal kidney performance or other moderate metabolic conditions be cautious?
    Would appreciate your thoughts.
    MikeV

  • mtflight

    2/6/2008 5:31:00 PM |

    Where does one get 10,000 IU caps?

    I take 4000 IU capsules from Carlson Labs (called "Solar Gems")--the oil in the caps is fish oil, so that's a plus, and my multivitamin has 1,000 IUs.


    P.S. Thanks for the blog, I'm a big fan!

  • Dr. Davis

    2/6/2008 9:33:00 PM |

    There are clearly groups of people who should work with their doctor when it comes to vitamin D, particularly people with kidney disease or dysfunction; history of kidney stones; glandular diseases like hyperparathyroidism; a history of high calcium.

  • MrSardonicus

    2/6/2008 9:58:00 PM |

    If taking 4,000 IU of Vitamin D a day increases one's HDL by a relatively small number -- say, 10 -- but it's still low, what do you think is the likelihood hiking the amount will further increase HDL?

    Also, do you take calcium with your Vitamin D?

  • Dr. Davis

    2/6/2008 10:01:00 PM |

    I have never seen 10,000 capsules. I'm hoping somebody comes out with such a preparation. I wasn't aware of the 4000 unit capsules. Thanks for the tip!

  • Dr. Davis

    2/6/2008 10:04:00 PM |

    I would not advise taking more vit D just to raise HDL.

    Blood level of vit D is the parameter to assess vit D adequacy. I would regard a rise in HDL as a fortuitous side phenomenon.

  • Brandon

    2/6/2008 11:00:00 PM |

    “…and I no longer experience colds nor winter "blues."

    Careful, this sort of personal testimonial lends to sounding more like a “nutritional guru” instead of medical professional examining scientific evidence.

    I’m not saying you’re incorrect, it may be your experience and it may be absolutely true, but a stick to the clinical facts. You’re talents are better suited to being a “medical watchdog” than a “dietary duck.”

  • Anonymous

    2/7/2008 12:19:00 AM |

    Dear Dr. Davis,
    I would love your opinion of my doctor's protocol regarding my recent diagnosis of osteopenia in my hips (t-scores -1.1 and -1.2 femoral neck, my spine was normal, -0.2).  I'm a 56 year old woman, 115 pounds, just went through menopause, taking Zocor and Lotrel (high cholesterol and hypertension both run in my family), I exercise regularly.  My doctor said he wanted to see how well I absorb Vit D, so he ordered a blood test, however, he ordered the D1,25 test (results 35 pg/mL), NOT D25 which I understand is a truer biomarker.  He prescribed Vitamin D, Calcitriol, one 0.025 capsule per day for one month, with no restrictions on my Calcium/Vit D intake through supplements, after which he said to return for another Vitamind D blood test (another D1,25).  I've read that Calcitriol can cause hypercalcemia.  I've also read that D1,25 will not tell you how well you're absorbing Vitamin D.  Based on that, I felt I was wasting my time and risking hypercalcemia, so I stopped taking the Calcitriol.  Should I tell my doctor that he ordered the wrong blood test?  Also, which prescription Vit D should I be taking? I have no other health issues.  Thank you, Dr. Davis.
    Ruthie

  • Dr. Davis

    2/7/2008 12:58:00 AM |

    Thank you, but I disagree.

    I add my experiences to that of probably over 1000 patients in the last two years who have shared similar effects.

  • Dr. Davis

    2/7/2008 1:00:00 AM |

    Hi, Ruthie-

    Lots of issues. However, it sounds like your doctor is simply toeing the conventional line of prescription drugs. It may be time to either prod your doctor to get up to date on vitamin D, or to find a doctor willing to engage in the discussion.

  • Anonymous

    2/7/2008 1:27:00 AM |

    Do you know if any one is making or developing an at home vitamin D3 testing product?

  • Dr. Davis

    2/7/2008 2:55:00 AM |

    Wouldn't that be wonderful?!

    Unfortunately, I do not know of any such commercially available product. However, it would be a tremendous boon to this movement of self-empowerment in health care that I see coming for the future.

  • Anonymous

    2/7/2008 5:36:00 AM |

    I am taking vitamin D3 two softgels of 2000 IU each daily, one in the morning and one in the evening. I want to know if I get the same effect if I take two softgels together instead of taking one twice a day. Thanks.

  • Anne

    2/7/2008 9:12:00 AM |

    Hi Ruthie,

    I'm 54 and diagnosed with osteoporosis (T scores -3.7 in hips and -3.1 lumbar spine). I've been prescribed calcium supplements (as well as Strontium Ranelate) but I've found that I'm very intolerant to the calcium, no matter whether I try calcium citrate, calcium carbonate or calcium amino acid chelate, so since Christmas I've stopped all calcium supplements and upped my vitamin D3 intake to 4000iu per day (not prescription, I wish it was then it wouldn't be so expensive...vitamin D costs a lot in the UK, much more than the US) so that I absorb my dietary calcium as well as possible. I feel very confident that this will work, especially in view of a previous blog from Dr Davis about calcium:http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/calcium-chaos_22.html

    Plus logic tells me that it is not lack of calcium that causes osteoporosis but other factors. People in third world countries such as Africa on suboptimal diets have very low levels of dietary calcium but they don't usually get osteoporosis...they get more sunshine (vitamin D) and do much more physical work. I'm doing plenty of weight resistance exercise now !

    bw's
    Anne

  • Dr. Davis

    2/7/2008 1:03:00 PM |

    Yes, no difference.

  • moblogs

    2/7/2008 2:25:00 PM |

    bio-tech-pharm.com supply D3 in 1k, 5k and 50k capsules, and with delivery rates that are reasonable for those out of the US.
    I've been taking 5k for the past 2 weeks and don't feel bad on it, but will be getting blood levels checked within a season to see if I'm personally responding correctly.
    The 400IU average was just based on preventing rickets.

  • hoosierville

    2/7/2008 7:03:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
    I've had great results from increasing my vitamin D intake with regards to my lung capacity. I'm a recovering smoker with moderate copd and, after being hospitalized for pneumonia, am finally recovering to a point where I can almost run up and down steps. I attribute this to my "D" supplements which I began taking about a month ago. I can take deep breaths for the first time in years.

    My question is about the supplements themselves. I see very expensive D3 tablets and then I see the regular vitamin D. Is one better than the other? Is there a great deal of difference? Thanks.

  • jabs28

    2/8/2008 6:05:00 PM |

    I am surprised to see how many people are gettingtheir their Vitamin D requirements with supplements.  Go out into the sun WITHOUT sunscreen for 10-15 minutes a day and then supplement the rest.  Remember it also takes about 40 glasses of milk to equal 4000 iu's of Vitamin D.  You can get that from about 15 minutes of sun exposure depending on your age and ethnicity.  The more melanin in your skin, the longer you need to expose it.

  • Anonymous

    2/8/2008 6:10:00 PM |

    The capsules I take (the Solar Gems) are 6 cents a 4000 IU softgel:

    http://www.vitacost.com/Carlson-Solar-D-Gems-Vitamin-D

  • hoosierville

    2/9/2008 2:25:00 PM |

    Jabs,
    I live in Indiana. It's going to be 6 degrees out in just a few minutes. We haven't seen the sun in weeks. What do you suggest, tanning beds? I'll do it but not until I hear that they're safe. Be reasonable, not everyone lives where they can get natural sunlight. I think that's part of the Vitamin D deficiency problem.

  • TedHutchinson

    2/10/2008 9:08:00 PM |

    I have been taking the same 5000iu Biotech capsules Moblogs uses.
    I was 147.5nmol - 59ng when tested at the end of summer (UK latitude 53) although I did not take a D3 on days when I knew I would be able to get near full body sun exposure at midday.

    As others have reported, I also have not had a cold or flu over the winter (so far and still touching wood) others I am regularly in contact with have been unlucky.
    (I also did not need to get my SADLIGHT down from the attic this winter)

  • MattWheeler

    2/11/2008 3:26:00 AM |

    Something in the my 7 month TYP program (6000iu D3 gelcap, Slo-Niacin 1.5g, 3g+ fishoil, low wheat-suger) has really helped with joint pain I have had for 8 years.  This has allowed me to lift weights 3 times per week and thus reduced my bodyfat from 27 to 19 percent.  I look and feel much better.  I am 51, male at 215 lbs.

  • Anonymous

    2/11/2008 10:00:00 PM |

    Oh, is it because I take vitamin D3 that even with people dropping like flies around me (with colds, flu, etc) I never get sick? I have always thought it surprising that I tend not to get these things, given that I do have a number of autoimmune conditions. I have only ever used tablets (1000IU 1/day) and my vitamin D3 (250H) level is 52ng/mL.

    However, my vitamin D2 (250H) level is <4ng/mL and my vitamin D (1,25) level is only 24pg/mL (normal range 22-67). Should I (and is it possible to?) do anything to increase those levels?

  • Anonymous

    12/3/2008 2:51:00 PM |

    * * D2 v. D3 * *
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/92952.php

    * * D2 vs. lupus vulgaris * *
    ("administered in alcoholic solution is key" to success of therapy)
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1583253&blobtype=pdf

  • George Mclaughlin

    10/9/2010 12:37:54 AM |

    Very interesting article. I find myself concerned about the side effects of vitamin D supplements, as opposed to sunlight-derived vitamin D.

    I'd love to hear your thoughts on this article, which appears to be quite well cited:

    http://www.raw-food-health.net/Vitamin-D-Toxicity.html

  • buy jeans

    11/2/2010 8:39:57 PM |

    In my practice and in the Track Your Plaque program, we routinely use doses of 2000-10,000 units per day, occasionally more. We are guided by blood levels of 25(OH) vitamin D3. I have personally never witnessed vitamin D toxicity.

Add comment

Loading
All posts by william-davis

CIS: Carbohydrate intolerance syndrome

28. January 2009 William Davis (28)
Carbohydrate intolerance comes in many shades and colors, shapes and sizes.

I call all of its varieties the Carbohydrate Intolerance Syndrome, or CIS. (Not to be confused with CSI, or Crime Scene Investigation . . . though, come to think of it, perhaps there are some interesting parallels!)

At its extreme, it is called type II diabetes, in which any carbohydrate generates an extravant increase in blood sugar, followed by the domino effect of increased triglycerides, reduction in HDL, creation of small LDL, heightened inflammation, etc. and eventually to kidney disease, coronary atherosclerosis, neuropathies, etc.

An intermediate form of carbohydrate intolerance is called metabolic syndrome, or pre-diabetes. These people, for the most part, look and act like diabetics, though their reaction to carbohydrate intake is not as bad. Blood sugar, for instance, might be 125 mg/dl fasting, 160 mg/dl after eating. The semi-arbitrary definition of metabolic syndrome includes at least three of the following: HDL <40 mg/dl in men, <50 mg/dl in women; triglycerides 150 mg/dl or greater; BP 135/80 or greater; waist circumference >40 inches in men, >35 inches in women; fasting glucose >100 mg/dl.

This is where the conventional definitions stop: Either you are diabetic or have metabolic syndrome, or you have nothing at all.

Unfortunately, this means that the millions of people with patterns not severe enough to match the standard definition of metabolic syndrome are often neglected.

How about Kevin?

Kevin, a 56 year old financial planner, is 5 ft 7 inches, 180 lbs (BMI 28.2). His basic measures:

HDL 36 mg/dl
Triglycerides 333 mg/dl
BP 132/78
Waist circumference 34 inches
Blood sugar 98 mg/dl

Kevin meets the criteria for metabolic syndrome on only two of the five criteria and therefore does not "qualify" for the diagnosis.

Kevin's basic lipids showed LDL 170 mg/dl, HDL 36 mg/dl, triglycerides 333 mg/dl.

But take a look at his underlying lipoprotein patterns (NMR):

LDL particle number 2231 nmol/L (equivalent to a "true" LDL of 223 mg/dl)
Small LDL 1811 nmol/l
Large HDL 0.0 mg/dl


In other words, small LDL constitutes 81% of all LDL particles (1811/2231), a severe pattern. Large HDL is the healthy, protective fraction and Kevin has none. These are high-risk patterns for heart disease. These, too, are patterns of carbohydrate intolerance.

Foods that trigger small LDL and reduction in healthy, large HDL include sugars, wheat, and cornstarch. Kevin is carbohydrate-intolerant, although he lacks the (fasting) blood sugar aspect of carbohydrate intolerance. But he shows all the underlying lipoprotein and other metabolic phenomena associated with carbohydrate intolerance.

We could also cast all three conditions under the umbrella of "insulin resistance." But I prefer Carbohydrate Intolerance Syndrome, or CIS, since it immediately suggests the basic underlying cause: eating carbohydrates, especially those that trigger rapid and substantial surges in blood sugar.

CIS is the Disease of the Century, judging by the figures (both numbers and humans) we are seeing. It will dominate healthcare in its various forms for many years to come.

The first treatment for the Carbohydrate Intolerance Syndrome? Some would say the TZD class of drugs like Avandia. Others would say a DASH or TLC (American Heart Association) diet. How about liposuction, twice-daily Byetta injections, or even the emerging class of drugs to manipulate leptin and adiponectin? How do "heart healthy" foods like Cheerios and Cocoa Puffs fit into this? (Don't believe me? The American Heart Association says they're heart healthy!)

The first treatment for the Carbohydrate Intolerance Syndrome is elimination of carbohydrates, except those that come from raw nuts and seeds, vegetables, occasional real fruit (not those green fake grapes), wine, and dark chocolates.

Making sense out of lipid changes

27. January 2009 William Davis (9)
Maggie had been doing well on her program, enjoying favorable lipids near our 60-60-60 targets (HDL 60 mg/dl or greater, LDL 60 mg/dl or less, triglycerides 60 mg/dl or less). Last fall, her last set of values were:

Total cholesterol: 149 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol: 67 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol: 73 mg/dl
Triglycerides: 43 mg/dl

The holidays, as with most people, involved a frenzy of indulgent eating: Christmas cookies, cakes, pies, stuffing, potatoes, candies, etc.

Maggie returned to the office 6 pounds heavier with these values:

Total cholesterol: 210 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol: 124 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol: 57 mg/dl
Triglycerides: 144 mg/dl

In other words, holiday indulgences caused an increase in LDL cholesterol, a reduction in HDL, an increase in triglycerides, an increase in total cholesterol.

What happened?

At first glance, many of my colleagues would interpret this as fat indulgence and/or a "need" for statin drug therapy.

Having done thousands of lipoprotein panels, I can tell you that, beneath the surface, the following has occurred:

--Overindulgence in carbohydrates from the goodies triggered triglyceride (actually VLDL) formation in the liver, released into the blood.
--Increased triglycerides and VLDL triggered a boom in conversion of large LDL to small LDL (since triglycerides are required to form small LDL particles) via cholesteryl-ester transfer protein (CETP) activity.
--Increased triglycerides and VLDL interacted with HDL particles, causing "remodeling" of HDL particles to the less desirable, less protective small particles, which do not persist as long in the blood, resulting in a reduction of HDL.

The critical factor is carbohydrate intake. This triggered a domino effect that is often misintepreted as excessive fat intake or a genetic predisposition. It is nothing of the kind.

I discussed this phenomenon with Maggie. She now knows to not overindulge in the holiday snacks in future and will revert promptly back to her 60-60-60 values.

How to Give Yourself Hashimoto's Thyroiditis: 101

25. January 2009 William Davis (18)
I borrowed this from the enormously clever Dr. BG at The Animal Pharm Blog.


How to Give Yourself Hashimoto's Thyroiditis: 101

--lack of sunlight/vitamin D/indoor habitation
--mental stress
--more mental stress
--sleep deprivation... (excessive mochas/lattes at Berkeley cafes)
--excessive 'social' calendar
--inherent family history of autoimmune disorders (who doesn't??)
--wheat, wheat, and more wheat ingestion ('comfort foods' craved in times of high cortisol/stress, right? how did I know the carbs were killing me?)
--lack of nutritious food containing EPA DHA, vitamin A, sat fats, minerals, iodine, etc
--lack of play, exercise, movement (or ?overtraining perhaps for Oprah's case)
--weight gain -- which begins an endless self-perpetuating vicous cycle of all the above (Is it stressful to balloon out for no apparent reason? YES)


If you haven't done so already, take a look at Animal Pharm you will get a real kick out of Dr. BG's quick-witted take on things.


We are systematically looking for low thyroid (hypothyroidism) in everyone and findings oodles of it, far more than I ever expected.

Much of the low thyroid phenomena is due to active or previous Hashimoto's thyroiditis, the inflammatory process that exerts destructive effects on the delicate thyroid gland. It is presently unclear how much is due to iodine deficiency in this area, though iodine supplementation by itself (i.e., without thyroid hormone replacement) has not been yielding improved thyroid measures.

I find this bothersome: Is low thyroid function the consequence of direct thyroid toxins (flame retardants like polybrominated diphenyl ethers, pesticide residues in vegetables and fruits, bisphenol A from polycarbonate plastics) or indirect toxins such as wheat via an autoimmune process (similar to that seen in celiac disease)?

I don't know, but we've got to deal with the thyroid-destructive aftermath: Look for thyroid dysfunction, even in those without symptoms, and correct it. This has become a basic tenet of the Track Your Plaque approach for intensive reduction of coronary risk.

Framing

24. January 2009 William Davis (0)
Heart health without a 12" incision



Heart health for less than $44,483 (Cost of a coronary stent according to the American Heart Association 2008 Update)



Track Your Plaque: A drug-free zone



Why an RDA for vitamin D?

24. January 2009 William Davis (10)
The Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) of the Institute of Medicine is charged with setting the values for the Recommended Daily Allowances of various essential nutrients. However, when it comes to vitamin D, the FNB decided that "evidence is insufficient to develop an RDA and [an Adequate Intake, AI] is set at a level assumed to ensure nutritional adequacy."

The National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements lists the AI's for various groups of people:

14-18 years
Male 200 IU
Female 200 IU

19-50 years
Male 200 IU
Female 200 IU

51-70 years
Male 400 IU
Female 400 IU

71+ years
Male 600 IU
Female 600 IU


A reconsideration is apparently being planned in near-future that will (hopefully) incorporate the newest clinical data on vitamin D.

My question: Who cares what the FNB decides? Let me explain.

I monitor blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D to assess the 1) starting level of vitamin D without supplementation, and 2) levels while on supplementation, preferably every 6 months (during sunny weather, during cold weather). I have done for the past 3 years in over 1000 people.

The requirement for vitamin D dose in adults, in my experience, ranges from as low as 1000 units per day to as high as 20,000 units per day, rarely more. The vast majority of women require 5000 units per day, males 6000 units per day to maintain a blood level in the desirable range. (I aim for 60-70 ng/ml.) A graph of the distribution of vitamin D needs in my area (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) is a bell curve, a curve more heavily weighted towards the upper vitamin D dose range.

Need for vitamin D to achieve the same blood level is influenced by age, sex, body size, race, presence or absence of a gallbladder, as well as other factors. But needs vary, even among similar people. For instance, a 50-year old woman weighing 140 lbs might need 4000 units per day to achieve a blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D of 65 ng/ml. Another 50-year old woman weighing 140 lbs might need 8000 units to achieve the same level, and 4000 units might increase her level to only 38 ng/ml. Two similar women, very different vitamin D needs. The differences can be striking.

Being a hormone--not a vitamin, as it was incorrectly labeled--vitamin D needs to be tightly regulated. We should have neither too little nor too much. I would liken it to thyroid hormones, which need to be tightly regulated for ideal health.

Now the FNB, in light of new data, wants to set new AI's, or even RDA's, for vitamin D for the U.S. This is an impossible--impossible--task. There is no way a broad policy can be crafted that serves everyone. It is impossible to state that all men or women, categorized by age, require X units vitamin D. This is pure folly and it is misleading.

The only rational answer for the FNB to provide is to declare that:

It is not possible to establish the precise need for vitamin D in a specific individual because of the multiplicity of factors, only some of which are known, that determine vitamin D needs. Individual need can only be determined by assessing the blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D prior to initiation of replacement and periodically following replacement to assess the adequacy of replacement dose. Continuing reassessment is recommended (e.g., every 6-12 months), as needs change with weight, lifestyle, and age.

Sure, it adds around $100-150 per year per person for lab testing to assess vitamin D levels. But the health gains made--reduced fractures, reduced incidence of diabetes, reduced colon, breast, and prostate cancer, less depression, reduced heart attack and heart procedures--will more than compensate.

Bargains for Armour Thyroid

23. January 2009 William Davis (10)
We use Armour thyroid almost exclusively. I take it myself.

I am thoroughly convinced that, for at least 70% of people requiring thyroid replacement, the added T3 component makes a world of difference compared to isolated T4: More energy, greater alertness, better mental clarity, better weight loss, larger effects on lipoprotein(a).

However, there are substantial price disparities in different pharmacies.

For instance, in Milwaukee, a one month supply of 1 grain (60 mg) tablets costs:

Walgreen's: $36.00

Walmart: $9.54


That's a considerable price difference of nearly 400%. It therefore always pays to do a little bit of shopping.

Heart scan mis-information on WebMD

22. January 2009 William Davis (3)
If you want information on how prescription drugs fit into your life, then go to WebMD.

But, if you are looking for information that cuts through the bullcrap, is untainted by the heavy-handed tactics of the drug industry, or doesn't support the "a heart catheterization for everyone" mentality, then don't go there.

A Heart Scan Blog reader turned up this gem on the WebMD site:

Should I have a coronary calcium scan to check for heart disease?

In their report, they list some reasons why a heart scan should not be obtained:

Most of the time, a physical exam and other tests can give your doctor enough information about your risk for heart disease.

You've got to be kidding me. What tests are they talking about?

EKG? An EKG is a crude test that tells us virtually nothing about the coronary arteries or risk for heart attack. It is helpful for heart rhythm disorders and other abnormalities, but virtually useless for coronary disease unless a heart attack is underway or has already occurred.

Cholesterol? What level of cholesterol tells you whether you have heart disease? Tim Russert, for instance, had the same cholesterol values 5 years before his death as on the day of his death. How would cholesterol have told his doctor that heart disease was present? Does an LDL cholesterol of 180 mg/dl tell you that someone has heart disease, while a value of 130 mg/dl does not?

Stress test? You mean like the normal stress test Bill Clinton had 3 months before his near-fatal collapse? Stress tests are a gauge of coronary flow, not of coronary atherosclerosis. Huge amounts of coronary plaque can be present while a stress test--flow--remains normal.

No, a physical exam does not uncover hidden heart disease. The annual physical is, in fact, a miserable failure for detection of hidden heart disease.


You already know that your risk for heart disease is low or high. The test works best in people who are at medium risk but have no symptoms.

This bit of fiction comes from a compromise statement in the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association "consensus" document detailing the role of heart scans in heart disease detection. Because conventional thinkers don't like the idea of very early detection in seemingly "low risk" people, nor do they like the idea of diabetics and smokers getting a heart scan because it's "obvious" that they are already at high risk, the middle ground was taken: Scan only people at "intermediate risk."

What the heck is "intermediate risk"? Are you intermediate risk?

In real life, using standard criteria (e.g., Framingham scoring) to decide who is low-, intermediate-, or high-risk fails to identify over 1/3 of people with heart disease, while subjecting many without heart disease (plaque) to needless treatment (meaning statins, since that's the only real preventive treatment on most doc's armamentarium).

Another fact: Heart scans are quantitative, not just normal or abnormal. Your heart scan score could be 5, it could be 150, it could be 500, or 5000---it makes a world of difference. The risk of someone with a score of 5000 is at very different risk than someone with a score of 5. It also provides much greater precision in determining a specific individual's risk.



The test could give a high score even if your arteries aren't blocked. This might lead to extra tests that you don't need.

This is true--if you doctor has no idea what he's doing.

This is like saying that you should never take your car to the repair shop because all mechanics are crooks. If you have an unscrupulous cardiologist who tells you that your heart scan score of 25 means you are a "walking time bomb" and heart catheterization is necessary to determine whether you "need" a stent . . . well, this is no different than the shady mechanic who advises you that your car's engine needs to be rebuilt for $3000, when all you really needed was a few new spark plugs.

Coronary plaque is coronary plaque, and all coronary plaque has potential for rupture (heart attack)--even if it doesn't block flow. This is true at a score of 10, or 100, or 1000--all plaque is potentially rupture-prone, though the more plaque you have, the greater the likelihood.


Not all blocked arteries have calcium. So you could get a low calcium score and still be at risk.

They're missing the point: ANY calcium score carries risk, so a low score should not be interpreted as having no risk. But, just because a procedure like stenting or bypass surgery is not necessary to restore flow, it does not mean that risk for plaque rupture is not present--it is.

Any heart scan score should be taken seriously, meaning sufficient reason to engage in a program of heart disease prevention.

Although not perfect, coronary calcium scoring remains the easiest, most accessible, and least expensive means for identifying and quantifying coronary atherosclerosis--whether or not WebMD and drug industry money endorse them.

Heart disease prevention for the helpless, ignorant, or non-compliant

19. January 2009 William Davis (9)
The media outlets are gushing with the "research"/marketing spinoff of the JUPITER trial, an analysis conducted by Dr. Erica Spatz of Yale University, that suggests that statin use should be expanded to many millions more Americans.

USA Today: Study: 11M more should get statins

MedPage: JUPITER Findings Could Boost Statin Use by 20%

Health Day: Millions More Americans Might Be Placed on Statins

WebMD: More May Benefit From Cholesterol Drugs: Study Shows More Would Qualify for Statin Treatment if Levels of C-Reactive Protein Are Considered


You may recall that the JUPITER trial (discussed previously in a Heart Scan Blog post) studied the cardiovascular event risk in people with "normal" LDL cholesterols (calculated, of course, not measured) of 130 mg/dl or less, along with increased c-reactive protein, a crude inflammatory measure, of 2.0 mg/dl or greater. A 54% (relative) reduction in cardiovascular events occured in the group taking Crestor 20 mg per day.

What I see is a confluence of events that have brought us to the "statin drugs are necessary for everybody" mentality:

--The low-fat diet advice of the last 40 years has increased non-fat or low-fat foods that increase LDL, since removing fat from the diet provokes small LDL particle production and increases the inflammatory measure, c-reactive protein (CRP).

--The proliferation of "healthy whole grains" in the diet have also caused an enormous boom in small LDL particles, which is interpreted to the uninformed as "high cholesterol." It has also provoked CRP substantially.

--The advice to reduce salt intake has brought a broad re-emergence of iodine deficiency. When thyroid hormone production flags due to lack of iodine, LDL cholesterol (both large and small) increase.

--Our lives, which are increasingly conducted indoors, have worsened the already substantial vitamin D deficiency. While deficiency of vitamin D primarily reduces HDL cholesterol and increases triglycerides, it can also cause an increase in small LDL and a large increase in CRP.


In other words, a collection of events have converged to provide the appearance of high LDL cholesterol and high CRP. This creates the appearance of a "need" for statin drugs. The JUPITER trial now exploits both the LDL-reducing and CRP-decreasing effects of statins.

I view the foisting of Crestor via the JUPITER argument on the public as taking full advantage of the helpless situation many Americans find themselves in: Reduce fat intake, eat more healthy whole grains and . . . cholesterol and CRP skyrocket! "You need Crestor! See, I told you it was genetic," says the doctor after attending the nice AstraZeneca-sponsored drug dinner.

The notion of using a drug like Crestor to suppress inflammatory patterns is absurd. There are far better, easier, cheaper ways to achieve this goal, along with dramatic reduction in cardiovascular risk. But, to the ignorant, the helpless, or non-compliant with real change in diet and lifestyle, then Crestor does serve a purpose.

I can only hope that the excessive pushing of statin drugs on the public will sooner or later trigger a revolt.

Dangerous mis-information on vitamin D

16. January 2009 William Davis (12)

Please be aware of the ignorant propagating information they have no business talking about.

This is one such example, a newsletter from pop exercise guru, Denise Austin.

Although I'm sure she means well, I have a problem with people who have little to no experience acting as experts, often simply repeating something they heard or read somewhere else. This has become particular problem with the internet, in which bad information can get repeated thousands of times, gaining a veil of "truth" through its repetition. I don't mean to pick specifically on Ms. Austin, since she joins a growing rank of pseudo-experts on vitamin D and other topics, but she provides a good example of how far wrong mainstream information can be.



Simple Steps
Do Your D!

Calcium often gets all the glory when it comes to bone health. But calcium wouldn't benefit your bones much without its partner, vitamin D!

Why? Vitamin D helps your body absorb calcium and keeps your bones strong; without enough vitamin D, the bones become weak and brittle, a condition called rickets in children, and osteomalacia in adults. Adults from 19 to 50 need 200 IU (international units) per day, while those from 51 to 70 need 400 IU daily. Those over 70 need 600 IU per day.

Unfortunately, not too many foods contain vitamin D naturally. (Tuna and sardines canned in oil are exceptions.) The good news is that many foods are now regularly fortified with vitamin D, including milk, some yogurts, margarines, and cereals. You can check the Nutrition Facts panel on packages and containers to see which products contain vitamin D. It should be listed after vitamins A and C, along with the percentage of the Daily Value that a serving of the food contains. The Daily Value (a standardized amount) for vitamin D is 400 IU, so if your milk has 25 percent of the Daily Value, it provides 100 IU per serving.

Your skin can also make vitamin D using sunlight — you need about a half hour of exposure to the midday sun twice a week to make enough. However, because of the increasing incidence of skin cancer in recent years, many experts are wary about recommending sun exposure.

So take a closer look at milk, yogurt, cereal, and margarine selections when you're doing your weekly shopping, and stock up on brands that are fortified with vitamin D. Challenge yourself to consume one source of vitamin D at least three days in the coming week! If you cannot eat or do not like any foods that contain vitamin D or are fortified with it, talk with your health care provider ASAP about taking a supplement. Your bones will thank you for it!



Let me list the mistakes in this piece:

Adults from 19 to 50 need 200 IU (international units) per day, while those from 51 to 70 need 400 IU daily. Those over 70 need 600 IU per day.

This is the same non-information that was the advice originally offered by the Food and Nutrition Board based on a best guesstimate due to lack of data. It is clear from newer data that doses required for full restoration of vitamin D are in the thousands of units. (My personal dose for full restoration of vitamin judged by serum levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D is 8000 units per day.)

The information coming from the Food and Nutrition Board is about as good as the information coming from the USDA (you know, that "government" agency meant to represent the interests of ConAgra, Cargill, and Big Farming) and the American Heart Association (that represents consensus opinion from data 20 years out of date and now arm-in-arm with Big Food like General Mills, Kraft, and Nabisco). These agencies and the advice they offer has, over the past few years, become increasingly irrelevant and outdated. It is the Information Age, in which ulterior motives are becoming more readily exposed, yet they still operate by the rules of the Industrial Age and deliver a message that serves their own purposes.

Ms. Austin fell for it.


The good news is that many foods are now regularly fortified with vitamin D, including milk, some yogurts, margarines, and cereals.

First of all, what is a "diet expert" doing advocating industrial foods? Cereals, in particular, are among the worst foods on the supermarket shelves, whether or not they are fortified. Candy bars can be fortified, too; that doesn't make them any better for you.

The vitamin D added to these foods is, more often than not, the ergocalcferol, or D2, form that is woefully ineffective. And the dose added is trivial, usually in the 100-200 unit range per serving. The same goes for the milk, an inadequate source that we don't even factor into total intakes because of the low quantity.


Your skin can also make vitamin D using sunlight — you need about a half hour of exposure to the midday sun twice a week.

Nope. This might be true for a young person below age 30 in a southern environment. It is NOT true for the majority of people in northern climates and anyone over age 30 or 40, since we lose most of the capacity to activate vitamin D in the skin as we age. A deep, dark Florida tan does not necessarily mean that vitamin D has been activated. See A tan does not equal vitamin D. Here in Wisconsin, where, despite this darn cold winter, does enjoy wonderfully warm and beautiful summers, the average vitamin D dose need ranges from 4000-8000 units per day in summer, slightly more in winter.

By the way, it is not calcium that is instrumental to bone health. It is vitamin D. Calcium is the passive bricks and mortar of bones, while vitamin D is the bricklayer, the determinant of calcium's fate, the master control of bone health. Calcium supplementation becomes almost immaterial when vitamin D is restored.

I praise Ms. Austin for her hard work, trying to help fat Americans lose weight. But please ignore her advice on vitamin D, along with the numbing repetition of this mis-information that will likely propagate from other exercise gurus, dietitians, and pseudoexperts.

A Tale of Two LDL's

15. January 2009 William Davis (10)
Kurt, a 50-year old businessman with a heart scan score of 323, had a :

--Conventional (calculated) LDL of 128 mg/dl
--Real measured LDL 241 mg/dl.


Laurie, a 53-year old woman who underwent a coronary bypass operation last year (before I met her), had a:

--Conventional LDL of 142 mg/dl
--Real measured LDL was 85 mg/dl.


(By "real, measured" LDL, I'm referring to LDL particle number in units of nmol/L obtained through NMR lipoprotein testing and dividing by 10, or just dropping the last digit to convert the value to mg/dl. This technique was arrived at by comparing the population distributions of these two parameters, LDL particle number and calculated LDL. This is the gold standard in my view. Similar numbers can be obtained by measuring apoprotein B, direct LDL, or calculated non-HDL, with diminishing reliability from first to last.)

In other words, Kurt's conventional LDL underestimated real LDL by 88%. Laurie's conventional LDL overestimated real LDL by 40%.

Interestingly, Laurie's doctor had insisted she take Lipitor for a high LDL cholesterol. Her real LDL was, in fact, low to begin with and benefits of a statin drug would be little to none. (Remember, in our Track Your Plaque approach, multiple other treatments are included, such as omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, vitamin D normalization, and wheat elimination, strategies that yield benefits that others expect to obtain with statins.) Laurie's real cause of her heart disease proved to have nothing to do with LDL cholesterol, but involved lipoprotein(a) and thyroid issues.

Kurt proved to have a severe preponderance of small LDL particles--the worst kind of LDL, while Laurie had none--a benign pattern.

Then how can anyone make sense of the conventional, calculated LDL cholesterol that is generally (95% of the time) provided? If accuracy can stretch to plus or minus 80% . . . you can't. Conventional LDL is a miserably inaccurate number. The problem is that obtaining a superior number requires a step or two more testing and insight, something most busy primary care doc's simply don't have in the midst of a day filled with arthritis, bronchitis, diarrhea, belly aches, and seborrhea.

Yet conventional--I call it "fictitious"--LDL serves as the basis for this $27 billion (annual revenues) industry selling statin drugs.

This is meant to be neither an argument in favor of nor against statin drugs. However, it is plain as day that any study designed to reduce LDL cholesterol will be hopelessly clouded by calculated LDL imprecision. A calculated LDL of, say, 143 mg/dl might really be 187 mg/dl, or it might be 74 mg/dl--you can't tell by looking just at LDL. Yet billions of dollars of research and billions of dollars of healthcare costs are based on the treatment of this number.

This reminds me of the mark-to-market accounting magic that helped topple Wall Street.

I don't think that the statin world is poised for such a huge downfall. But I do see this as a source of enormous dilution of the effects of statin drugs. People who barely stand to benefit get the drugs, while others who might truly benefit are treated inadequately. It provides fuel to the growing idea that reducing LDL cholesterol fails to truly provide benefit.

I am no lover of statin drugs nor drugs in general. But I am a fan of knowing the truth. Despite my bashing of the drug industry (and make no mistake: the drug industry is a cutthroat, profit-seeking, do-anything-to-increase-sales industry), I do believe that there is a role for statin drugs (though far smaller than $27 billion per year). But the usual method of selecting people for treatment is pure fiction. The ATP-III cholesterol treatment guidelines? An anemic attempt to apply structure to meaningless values.

You and I do not need to subscribe to this sort of non-quantitative nonsense.