All posts by william-davis

Brian Wansink, author of Mindless Eating: Why we eat more than we think (see yesterday's Heart Scan Blog post), also has a Blog. Despite the bland advice offered on much of the Prevention Magazine and website, Wansink's Food Think Blog is a winner.

In a recent post, Wansink quotes a report from Science Daily that described a study he recently published in the Journal of Consumer Research. Wansink's study describes how just applying the label "healthy" to fast food choices increased consumers' calorie intake:

"When we see a fast-food restaurant like Subway advertising its low-calorie sandwiches, we think, 'It's OK: I can eat a sandwich there and then have a high-calorie dessert,' when, in fact, some Subway sandwiches contain more calories than a Big Mac."

In one study, Chandon and Wansink had consumers guess how many calories are in sandwiches from two restaurants. They estimated that sandwiches contain 35% fewer calories when they come from restaurants claiming to be healthy than when they are from restaurants not making this claim.

The result of this calorie underestimation? Consumers then chose beverages, side dishes, and desserts containing up to 131% more calories when the main course was positioned as "healthy" compared to when it was not--even though, in the study, the "healthy" main course already contained 50% more calories than the "unhealthy" one.

"These studies help explain why the success of fast-food restaurants serving lower-calorie foods has not led to the expected reduction in total calorie intake and in obesity rates," the authors write.

Interesting. In fact, I've had many patients say that they eat at Subway or similar chains and choose the "healthy" options. "That's got to be better than a cheeseburger and fries!" Perhaps not. (Of course, you can't leave Subway or other fast food operation feasting on wheat products.)

Wansink can be counted on for some truly fascinating observations into many behaviors that are subconscious but explain at least part of the reason why we're so fat. Though his Blog has a relatively short history of posts, there's lots of great commentary.

Pierre Chandon and Brian Wansink. "The Biasing Health Halos of Fast Food Restaurant Health Claims: Lower Calorie Estimates and Higher Side-Dish Consumption Intentions" Journal of Consumer Research, October 2007.

"Everyone--every single one of us--eats how much we eat largely because of what's around us. We overeat not because of hunger but because of family and friends, packages and plates, names and numbers, labels and lights, colors and candles, shapes and smells, distractions and distances, cupboards and containers. This list is almost as endless as it's invisible.

Invisible?

Most of us are blissfully unaware of what influences how much we eat . . . We all think we're too smart to be tricked by packages, lighting, or plates. We might acknowledge that others could be tricked, but not us. That is what makes mindless eating so dangerous. We are almost never aware that it is happening to us."

So opens Brian Wansink's book, Mindless Eating: Why we eat more than we think.

Wansink studies consumer behavior at Cornell University. He's the guy who scrutinizes in excruciating detail why we eat what we do, what factors determine what we eat like food color and smell, the company we keep, product packaging. He works without food industry funding, though there are plenty of researchers who do this sort of research funded by the likes of Kraft, Nabisco, and Kellogg's.

His book is packed full of the conclusions he and his team have come to over the years studying our buying and eating habits. While this information could (and is) be easily used by the food industry to coerce us to eat more and more, understanding many of the concepts Wansink talks about can also open your eyes to their clever tactics.

He especially details how our internal satiety signals fail us when external cues are present that easily trip us up. He talks about one experiment he ran in which soup bowls were rigged with concealed rubber tubes in the bottom that continually replenished the soup as the person consumed it. Thus, with the bowl continually refilled, the eater had no idea how much he or she had consumed. When the quantity of soup eaten from the endless bowl was compared to people eating from standard bowls, there was as much as a three-fold increase in the quantity and calories eaten.

Just be aware that, while Wansink is an expert in consumer eating behavior, he is not necessarily an expert in nutrition. Just as a card shark can show you lots of clever tricks to hoodwink your opponent, he might not be the best person to teach you how to play bridge.

For a great hint at some of the interesting and all-too-human observations Wansink makes, the online Prevention Magazine posted a brief video:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1155399889/bclid1171884988/bctid1113465050

We might not be able to stop Big Food from selling garbage foods, but we can at least be armed with insight into how we are subconsciously coerced into eating more.

Read the story online at http://www.courant.com/news/health/hc-luckydoc.artsep10,0,7572510.story?coll=hc_features_promo

I personally hate these stories, the ones that turn heart scans into drama by describing how someone had a heart scan, then turned out to have so much coronary plaque that they had to have bypass surgery.

But I point this one out because the story is related in an interesting way. It highlights the utter ignorance that operates in heart disease detection.

The story highlights how a 50-year-old, 5 ft 8, 150 lb slender, exercising neurologist underwent a CT coronary angiogram in a newly installed device in a Hartford, Connecticut hospital (not a heart scan) that detected entirely unsuspected severe and diffuse coronary disease. You know the rest: abnormal stress test, heart catheterization, bypass surgery of the hapless doctor-now-patient, followed by grateful patient saying things like "This machine saved my life."

It probably is true. You've seen these stories before. I've witnessed these sorts of headline-makers for the past decade. I remain surprised that it still happens.

The doctor is not some ignorant, uninformed man who can't even fill out his income tax forms. Yet how does a man like this walk around with life-threatening disease and not know it? Why does it still make headlines?

Anyway, despite all my jawing about heart scans and early heart disease detection, many physicians and the public remain in the stone age of heart disease. Even though this neurologist's story made headlines, the many other people who 1) identified their heart disease earlier with a simple heart scan, then 2) took action to put a stop to it, do not make headlines. But that's the way to go.

Why isn't the rest of the story being told? Why was this man's heart disease uncovered only in its late phases? Hartford, Connecticut is not some backwater. I've been there. It's a major city with large hospitals and a University Medical Center. But a professional with presumed knowledge of health and his doctor(s) allowed this to happen?

In other words, this is not a story of success, but of failure--failure to identify coronary disease years earlier when preventive action would have prevented bypass. But that's not such a compelling headline, is it?

As an aside, I'll bet you that this man has lipoprotein(a), a severe small LDL pattern, and severe deficiency of vitamin D. Correct these and it's unlikely he'll need bypass again. But that's kind of boring, isn't it?

I'd forgotten what a powerful report Peter Jennings and ABC News produced about the enormous deception perpetrated by the food industry and its effects on health until Dr. Joe Mercola posted the YouTube clips from the report on Mercola.com.

(This is not meant to be an endorsement of everything Dr. Mercola has to say. He says lots of things; I agree with only a fraction of it. But this is a gem.)

Although made in 2004, the report remains every bit as relevant today as it was then. It concerns me deeply that, despite reports like this being broadcast to Americans, the obesity epidemic continues unabated. In fact, it's worse just in the short three years since then.

Be aware of what the food industry is up to. They intensively market high profit margin foods to us--and especially our children--to increase sales. As Jennings points out, the U.S. government (USDA) is, for a variety of reasons both good and bad, complicit with this massive deception. While many media reports continue to focus on lack of exercise as the root cause for the obesity epidemic, it is really the active and purposeful selling of processed junk foods to Americans that is principally to blame.

By the way, how many of these foods proudly boast the American Heart Association Check Mark of approval?

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

In response to a discussion started by Track Your Plaque Member, Rich, on the Member Forum, I tracked down Dr. Joseph Prendergast, who had posted a video on his unique experiences, both personal and professional, with l-arginine.

Dr. Prendergast describes some of this in a brief webcast. Here, I quote Rich:

“This 90-second video by a Palo Alto physician (internal/endocrine, diabetes specialist) will totally blow your mind.

http://enews.endocrinemetabolic.com/2007/08/16-12-years.html

You will see in the link below that he reversed his personal atherosclerotic disease, diagnosed in abdominal aorta at age 37—completely reversed. He's now much older."

http://www.endocrinemetabolic.com/about/press/larginine.pdf

I contacted Dr. Prendergast to find out more.

Dr. Joseph Predergast is founder of the Endocrine Metabolic Medical Center in Palo Alto, California, focused on providing care for people with diabetes. In addition to the website, he provides Blogs and newsletters, though most of his conversation is about diabetes issues. Dr. Predergast’s website is located at http://www.endocrinemetabolic.com.

I asked Dr. Prendergast several questions about his l-arginine experience. His brief answers are below.

1) What dose of l-arginine have you employed in your patients and why this dose?

The dose is 3 - 6 grams as suggested by the Stanford Cardiovascular Research Department Chairman John Cooke. http://med.stanford.edu/profiles/John_Cooke/

2) I gather that you have preference for specific preparations of l-arginine. Can you say why some preparations seem superior to others in your experience?

I started with pharmaceutical l-arginine from the pharmacy. I gradually began to add components that would augment the power of the l-arginine and have gone through 12–15 different products. I have completely reversed my own very severe atherosclerosis discovered at age 37 and there has been less than 0.05% cardiovascular disease in my endocrine practice in almost 17 years. Both my exams were evaluated with CT technology. I am now using ProArgi9 Plus that includes several anti-aging components and will likely never switch. http://www.synergyworldwide.com/synergycorp/home.aspx

3) Are you employing any other unique practices in your patients to reduce cardiovascular events?

Withdrawing as many prescription drugs as possible.

Interesting. Of course, I also advocate l-arginine as a facilitator of atherosclerotic plaque regression, though I am not as ebullient about its use as Dr. Prendergast.

Instead, I see l-arginine as a method that yields forced normalization of “endothelial dysfunction,” the abnormal constriction and other effects that develop when abnormal lipoproteins and unhealthy food by-products are present in the circulation. Endothelial dysfunction is an inevitable accompaniment of plaque.

However, unlike Dr. Predergast’s experience, despite our use of doses higher than he uses, I have never seen plaque regression just using l-arginine alone. Nonetheless, it’s good to hear that others are seeing at least some positive effects.

By the way, we have also had some positive posts on our Forum about the ProArgi9 product he uses.

An interview with Dr. Dwight Lundell, cardiac surgeon and author of the new book, "The Cure for Heart Disease."

Dr. Lundell comes to us with a unique pedigree. He is a cardiothoracic surgeon practicing in the Phoenix, Arizona, area. Despite having performed thousands of coronary bypass operations, including numerous "off-pump" procedures earning him a place in the Beating Heart Hall of Fame and a listing in Phoenix Magazine’s Top Doctors for 10 years, more recently Dr. Lundell has turned his attentions away from traditional surgical treatment and towards prevention of heart disease and.

In particular, Dr. Lundell is a vocal advocate for omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil and conjugated linoleic acid, or CLA.

When I heard about Dr. Lundell’s unique perspectives, I asked him if he’d like to tell us a little more about his ideas. Here follows a brief interview with Dr. Lundell.

You’re a vocal advocate of the role of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil in heart disease prevention. Can you tell us how you use it?

In my book, I recommend 3 g of fish oil daily. This would normally yield about 1000 mg of EPA and DHA depending on the concentration of the supplement. This is approximately the dose that reduced sudden cardiac death by 50%, and all cause death, by 25% in patients with previous heart attack.

In patients with signs of chronic inflammation such as heart disease, obesity, arthritis, metabolic syndrome or depression or in those patients with elevation of CRP, I would recommend higher doses, 2000 to 3000 mg per day of EPA and DHA. The FDA has approved up to 3400 mg for treating patients with severely elevated triglycerides.

I personally take a 2000 mg EPA and DHA per day because I have calcium in my coronary arteries.

Of course, in the Track Your Plaque program we track coronary calcium scores. Do you track any measures of atherosclerosis in your patients to chart progression or regression?

Carotid ultrasound with measurement of IMT [intimal-medial thickness] has been shown to be a good surrogate marker for coronary disease, as has vascular reactivity in the arm. CT scanning with calcium scoring is a direct marker of coronary disease. CT does not differentiate between stable or unstable plaque but there is no good noninvasive way of doing this.

The dramatic value of CT scan calcium scoring is to demonstrate to people that they actually do have coronary disease and to motivate them to make the necessary lifestyle and nutritional changes to reduce it. CT scan with calcium scoring is a direct way to measure the progression or regression of coronary artery disease. If there is a choice between a direct measurement and indirect measurement, always choose the direct method.

Every patient treated with CLA in my clinic, experienced significant reductions in C-reactive protein. These patients were also on a weight-loss program, so I can't prove whether it was the CLA or the weight-loss that improved their inflammatory markers. In the animal model for arteriosclerosis, CLA has a dramatic effect of reducing and preventing plaque. This has not yet been proven in humans.

Normally, when people lose weight 20% or more of the loss is lean body mass (muscle) this lowers the metabolic rate and frustrates further weight-loss. My patient, from teenagers to retirees, lost no lean body mass and continued to have satisfactory weight-loss when CLA was used as part of the plan.

In reading your book, your use of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) as a principal ingredient struck me. Can you elaborate on why you choose to have your patients take CLA?

My enthusiasm for CLA is based on:

1) Safety?this is of paramount importance. Animal toxicity studies have been done, as well as multiple parameters measured in human studies, both of these are well reviewed recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2004:79(suppl)1132s). CLA, a naturally-occurring substance, is not toxic or harmful to animals or humans. The only negative report is by Riserus in Circulation (2002), where he found an elevated c- reactive protein; however, he used a preparation that is not commercially available and not found in nature as a single isomer.

2) Effectiveness?also critically important. A recent meta-analysis [a reanalysis of compiled data] in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2007; 85:1203-1211) demonstrated the effectiveness of CLA in causing loss of body fat in humans. The study also reconfirmed the safety of CLA.

Since we now know that atherosclerosis is an inflammatory disorder, any strategy that reduces low-grade inflammation without significant side effects would seem to be beneficial in the treatment and prevention of atherosclerosis. CLA not only has antioxidant properties, but it modulates inflammatory cascade at multiple points. CLA reduces PGE2 (in much the same way as omega-3) CLA also has been shown to reduce IL-2, tumor necrosis factor-alpha and Cox–2. It reduces platelet deposition and macrophage accumulation in plaques. It also has some beneficial effect in the PPAR [peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors, important for lipid and inflammatory-mediator metabolism] area.

Part of the effect of CLA may be because it reduces fat mass and thus the amount of pro-inflammatory cytokines produced by fat cells.

I reiterate and fully admit that CLA has not been shown to have any effect on atherosclerosis in human beings. However, the results in the standard animal models for atherosclerosis (rabbits, hamsters,APO-E knockout mice) are very dramatic.

From all I know, it appears that the effective dose for weight loss and the animal studies in atherosclerosis would be equal to about 3 g of CLA per day. The anti-inflammatory properties of CLA seem to work better in the presence of adequate blood levels of omega-3.

I’m curious how and why a busy cardiothoracic surgeon would transform his practice so dramatically. Was there a specific event that triggered your change?

The transition from a very busy surgical practice to writing and speaking about the prevention of coronary disease has not been particularly easy, but it has been very interesting. I can't really point to any specific epiphany, it was a general feeling of frustration that we were not making any progress in curing heart disease, which is what I thought I was doing when I began my medical career.

Of course, I enjoyed the technical advances, the dramatic life-saving things that you do and I did on a daily basis. American medicine is spectacularly good at managing crises and spectacularly horrible at preventing those crises.

The lipid hypothesis is old and tired, even the most aggressive statin therapy reduces risk of heart attack by about 30% in a relatively small subset of people. It's interesting that we're now looking at statins as an anti-inflammatory agent.

Thanks, Dr. Lundell. We look forward to future conversations as your experience with CLA and heart disease prevention and reversal develops!

More about Dr. Lundell's book, The Cure for Heart Disease can be found at http://www.thecureforheartdisease.net.

Note: We are planning a full Special Report on CLA for the Track Your Plaque website in future.

I was reminiscing the other day about what I was taught about heart disease in medical school some 20 years ago.

In the 1980s, the world was still (and remains) fascinated with this (then) novel "solution" to heart disease called coronary bypass surgery. As medical students, we all fought for a chance to watch a bypass operation being performed. And there was lots of opportunity. I was a medical student at St. Louis University School of Medicine, a center that boasted of a busy thoracic surgery service, performing up to 10 bypass operations every day.

Back then, coronary angioplasty was just a twinkle in Andreas Gruentzig's eye, still contemplating whether it was possible to put an inflatable device in the blockages of coronary arteries to re-establish blood flow. Risk detection for heart disease consisted of EKGs, screening for symptoms, detection of heart failure, and tests that are long forgotten in the dust bin of medical curiosities, tests like systolic-time intervals, phonocardiography (using amplified sound to detect abnormal heart sounds), and detailed physical examination. Treatment for heart attack involved nitroglycerin and extended bedrest. Bypass surgery would come after you recovered.

In other words, NONE of the tools we now use in the Track Your Plaque program for heart disease control and reversal were available just twenty years ago. There was no lipoprotein testing, no CT heart scans. Nobody recognized the power of omega-3 fatty acids (although epidemiologic observations were just beginning to suggest that eating fish might be the source of reduced risk for heart attack and cardiovascular death). Vitamin D? Why, that's in your milk so your babies don't get rickets.

So much of what we do today was not available then, nor were they even in the crystal ball of forward-looking people. I certainly had no idea whatsoever that I'd be talking and obsessing today about reversal of heart disease based on what I saw and learned back then.

Things have certainly come a long way and all for the better. The problem is that much of the world is stuck in 1985 and haven't yet heard that coronary disease is a manageable and reversible process. They've been sidetracked by the fiction propagated by the likes of Dr. Dean Ornish, the nonsense of low-fat diets aided and abetted by the food manufacturing industry and the USDA, the extravagant claims of some practitioners and the supplement industry. They haven't yet stumbled on the real-life experiences that are chronicled here in this Blog and the accompanying Track Your Plaque website.

Our program has been criticized for being too "high-tech," involving too many sophisticated measures like small LDL, lipoprotein(a) treatment, vitamin D blood levels. But when you see a woman reduce her heart scan score 63%, or a school principal's score plummet 51%, then that's reward in itself.

Just to keep my finger on the pulse of what is being said in the world of heart disease by the media, I subscribe to many publications.

Conversations abound about cholesterol, low-fat diets, now low-carb diets, not smoking, inflammation, etc. No doubt, these all have

Is there something fishy about fish oil?

27. January 2010 William Davis (0)

To be sure, there's plenty of misinformation out there about fish oil. Take a look at the swill that passes for health information on Woman's Day: On Call with Dr. Sandy: Fish Oil and Mercury:

Reader Question: My doctor recommended that I take a fish oil supplement, but I'm concerned about mercury. Is there any way to tell which brands are lowest in mercury content?

On Call Response: When it comes to OTC supplements, the answer is no. Though most fish oil supplements sold by major brands are probably safe, there's really no way to tell what's in the bottle or how much mercury it might contain.

Perhaps Dr. Sandy should read the many independent analyses performed on nutritional supplement fish oil, including those at Consumer Lab and Consumer Report before she offers her blind criticisms.

Lovaza vs fish oil supplements?

27. January 2010 William Davis (55)

Lovaza is the FDA-approved form of fish oil that is available only by prescription. It contains 842 mg of the omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA, per capsule.

The FDA application for Lovaza is viewable here on the FDA website. Interestingly, while there is plenty of the usual regulatory gobbledy-gook about toxicology, dose escalation, and efficacy in the extensive documentation, there is little said about the issue of contadff401699ca69b5c5ebac93_771428006dff401699ca69b5c5ebac93_ulTags">

run

Lou was recovering from his 3rd bypass operation. This third go-round left him weaker, slower, less quick on the rebound. In fact, he was lucky to have survived.

At 71 years old, Lou went a good 15 years since his second bypass, another 10 years prior to his first bypass at age 46.

In the days immediately following Lou's bypass, I had a chance to talk to his son, who stayed at his Dad's bedside while Lou struggled through post-op recovery.

"Did your Dad tell you about why this has happened, what caused his heart disease?" I asked.

"Sort of. He just said I should get checked," Lou's son, Aaron, replied.

"Did he mention the lipoprotein(a) pattern he has?"

"No. He never mentioned anything like that. He just said to get checked."

That's how it gets played out more often than not: Mom or Dad has a heart attack, stents, or (3rd) bypass, the children are told to get checked. Getting "checked" assumes that the doctor knows what to check for.

In Lou's case, the reason why he was in the hospital getting his 3rd (and final) bypass was lipoprotein(a), along with genetically-determined small LDL particles, low HDL, a postprandial (after-eating) disorder, hypertension, and borderline diabetes, not to mention vitamin D deficiency, omega-3 fatty acid deficiency, and marginal thyroid function. (Lou, a retired city employee, had showed only marginal interest in correcting these patterns. While he accepted medications, he proved unwilling to engage in the diet and nutritional supplement strategies required to correct his patterns.)

So Lou's 3rd bypass operation provided a moment of reflection for Aaron to ask: "Could I share the fate of my Dad?" With Lou's combination of genetic patterns, there was at least a 75% likelihood that he did. Sadly, going to his doctor would likely yield little more than a cholesterol panel, a question about smoking, and a prescription for Lipitor.

Just getting "checked" would be, more than likely, a recipe for disaster for Aaron: heart disease in his 40s or 50s. That's why you need to take control over this sad state of affairs and ask--no, insist--that an effort be made to determine whether you might share your parents' fate.

"This diet works great," Don declared. "But I think I've lost too much weight."

At 67 years old and 5 ft. 11 inches, Don began the program weighing 228 lbs (BMI 31.9). Because of high triglycerides, high blood sugar, high c-reactive protein, and excessive small LDL, I instructed Don to eliminate all wheat products from his diet, along with cornstarch and sweets. His intake of lean meats, eggs, vegetables, oils, raw nuts, etc. was unlimited.

Don now weighed 194 lbs, down 34 lbs over 6 months (BMI 27.1). Triglycerides, blood sugar, blood pressure, and well-being had improved dramatically; small LDL, however, had dropped only 30%--still room for improvement.

"My friends say I'm too skinny. They ask if I have cancer!"

I've heard this many times: Someone loses weight in a relatively short period of time and friends and family tell you you're too skinny. "It must be cancer. Nobody loses weight like that."

Unfortunately, many Americans have forgotten what normal looks like. Normal is certainly not a 190-lb, 5 ft 4 in woman, nor is it a 228 lb, 5 ft 11 inch man. But Americans have put on so much weight that the prevailing view of what constitutes "normal" weight has been revised upward. Normal is closer to what we see in old movies from the 1940s and '50s with people like Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed. That's what we are supposed to look like.

So Don actually remains mildly overweight but is judged as "too skinny," or even cancer-ridden, by friends and family.

Ignore such comments. As you lose pounds and approach a truly desirable weight, realize that you are returning to the normal state, not the vision of "normal" now held by most Americans.

Vitamin D is, without a doubt, the most incredible "vitamin"/prohormone/neurosteroid I have ever encountered. Frankly, I don't know how we got anything accomplished in health pre-D.

Unfortunately, people I meet rarely take their vitamin D in a way that accomplishes full restoration of vitamin D blood levels. It really isn't that tough.

Here's a list of common tripping points with vitamin D:

"I take vitamin D: 1000 units a day."
This is probably the most common mistake I see: Taking a dose that is unlikely to yield a desirable blood level. (We use 60-70 ng/ml of 25-hydroxy vitamin D as our target.) Most men and women require 6000 units per day to achieve this level. There is substantial individual variation, however, with an occasional person needing much more, a rare person requiring as little as 1000 units.

"I bought some vitamin D on sale. They were white tablets."
Time and again, patients in my office who initially have had successful vitamin D replacement, despite being reminded that only oil-based forms should be taken, switch to tablets. While they initially showed a 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level, for instance, of 67 ng/ml on 8000 units per day with an oil-based capsule, they switch to a tablet form and the next blood level is 25 ng/ml. In other words, tablets are very poorly or erratically absorbed.

I have had people use tablets successfully, however, by taking their vitamin D tablets with a teaspoon of oil, e.g., olive oil. Oil is necessary for full absorption.

"I'm going to Florida. I'll stop my vitamin D because I'm going to lay in the sun."
Wrong. 90% of adults over 40 years old have lost the majority of their ability to activate vitamin D in the skin. A typical response might be an increase in blood level from 25 to 35 ng/ml--a 10 ng increase with a dark brown tan.

There is an occasional person who, with sun exposure, increases blood levels substantially. This can occur in both fair-skinned and dark-skinned people, though I've never seen it happen in an African-American person. The occasional person who maintains the ability to convert vitamin D with sun exposure, or young people, should seasonally adjust their vitamin D dose, e.g., 6000 units winter, 3000 units summer, or some other regimen that maintains desirable blood levels. You can see that monitoring blood levels (we check levels every 6 months for the first 2 years) is crucial: You cannot know what your vitamin D needs are unless you assess 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels.

"I drink plenty of milk. I don't think I need to take vitamin D."
Oh, boy. This is so wrong on so many levels.

First of all, no adult should be drinking plenty of cow's milk. (A discussion for another day.) Second of all, cow's milk averages 70 units of vitamin D, often the D2 form (ergocalciferol), per 8 oz. Even if the FDA-mandated 100 units per day were present, an average adult dose of 6000 units would require 60 glasses of milk per day. Can you say "diarrhea"?

Likewise, other food sources of vitamin D, such as fish (300-400 units per serving) and egg yolks (20 units per yolk), are inadequate. This makes sense: Humans are not meant to obtain vitamin D from food, but from sun exposure over a large body surface area. And this is a phenomenon that is meant to occur only in the youthful, ensuring that nature takes its course and us older folks get old and make way for the young (i.e., unless we intervene by taking vitamin D supplements).

"My doctor said that my vitamin D blood level was fine. It was 32 ng/ml."
Let's face it: By necessity, your overworked primary care physician, who manages gout, hip arthritis, migraine headaches, stomach aches, prostate enlargement, H1N1, depression, etc., is an amateur at nearly everything, expert in nothing. Nobody can do it all and get it right. Likewise vitamin D. The uncertain primary care physician will simply follow the dictates of the laboratory form that specifies "30-100 ng/ml" as the "normal" or "reference range." Unfortunately, the laboratory often quotes population distributions of a lab measure, not an ideal or desirable level.

To illustrate the folly of population distributions of a measure, imagine you and I want to know what women weigh. We go to a local mall and weigh several thousand women. We tally up the results and find that women weigh 172 lbs +/- 25 lbs (the mean +/- 2 standard deviations). (That's true, by the way.) Is that desirable? Of course it isn't. Population average or population distribution does not necessarily mean ideal or desirable.

"My husband's doctor said he should take 4000 units per day. So I just take the same dose."
That would be fine if all adults required the same dose. However, All posts by william-davis

Thyroid: Be a perfectionist

27. July 2009 William Davis (18)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nutrition Syllogism

21. July 2009 William Davis (21)

What do you think of these chains of logic?

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

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

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

Try this one:

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

Ouch!

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

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

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

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

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

Is pomegranate juice healthy?

19. July 2009 William Davis (20)

Pomegranate juice, 8 oz:

Sugars, total 31.50 g

Sucrose 0.00 g

Glucose (dextrose) 15.64 g

Fructose 15.86 g

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

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

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

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Honeydew melon

18. July 2009 William Davis (4)

Honeydew melon:

Sugars, total 51.97 g

Sucrose 15.87 g

Glucose 17.15 g

Fructose 18.94 g

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

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Where do you find fructose?

14. July 2009 William Davis (25)

Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g

Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons

Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient

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

A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient

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

Do heart scans cause cancer?

14. July 2009 William Davis (3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

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

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

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

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

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

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

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

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The media frenzy

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

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

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

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

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

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

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

Non-CT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

Goodbye, fructose

12. July 2009 William Davis (35)

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

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The statin-free life

8. July 2009 William Davis (20)

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

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

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

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

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

--No lipoprotein(a)

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

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

I therefore asked Matt to:

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

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

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

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

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

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

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

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

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

5. July 2009 William Davis (29)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

2. July 2009 William Davis (19)

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

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

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

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

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

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

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

Why healthy can make us fat

Outsmarting the enemy

Test Of Scanner Saves A Doctor's Life

The great food industry deception

Dr. Joseph Prendergast and l-arginine

Dr. Dwight Lundell on omega-3s and CLA

High-tech heart attack proofing

It's all about plaque