Fat and fiber composition of nuts

30. November 2008 William Davis (16)


From Mukuddem-Petersen J, Oosthuizen1 W, Jerling JC. J Nutr 2005.



If you haven't yet done so, adding raw nuts to your health program yields a broad panel of health benefits.

Contrary to conventional advice, nuts can be eaten in unlimited quantities. Provided they are raw--unroasted, unsalted (since salting only accompanies roasted nuts), not roasted in unhealthy oils like hydrogenated cottonseed or soybean (very common)--they do not make you fat, regardless of the quantity consumed. Beer nuts, honey-roasted nuts, mixed nuts roasted in unhealthy oils with salt added are either fattening or exert other unhealthy effects (e.g., hypertension, rise in Lp(a), and cancer from the hydrogenated fats).

Some notable observations from the chart:

--Hazelnuts and macadamians are the richest in monounsaturates
--Walnuts are the richest in the omega-6 linoleic acid, while also richest in the "omega-3" linolenic acid.
--From a fat composition standpoint, raw cashews and dry roasted peanuts aren't so bad.
--Pistachios figure pretty favorably in this analysis, rich in monounsaturates.
--Coconuts are unusually rich in saturated fat, though about half is lauric acid--an issue for future conversation.



Here's a listing of the fiber composition of nuts per 1 oz serving (about a handful):

Almonds (24 nuts) 3.5 g
Brazilnuts, dried (6-8 nuts) 2.1 g
Cashew nuts, dry roasted, with salt added (18 nuts) 0.9 g
Hazelnuts or filberts 2.7 g
Macadamia nuts, dry roasted, with salt added (10-12 nuts) 2.3 g
Mixed nuts, dry roasted, with peanuts, with salt added 2.6 g
Peanuts, all types, dry-roasted, without salt 2.3 g
Pecans (20 halves) 2.7 g
Pine nuts, dried 1.0 g
Pistachio nuts, dry roasted, with salt added (47 nuts) 2.9 g
Walnuts, English (14 halves) 1.9 g

Data courtesy USDA Nutrient Database


Note that almonds are the winners with 3.5 grams fiber per ounce, pistachios a close second. Pine nuts and cashews place last on the fiber content chart.

Not addressed by the charts is protein content of nuts, as well as the low sugar content, all additional beneficial aspects of nuts. Nuts are also a moderate source of magnesium (though seeds like pumpkin and sunflower shine in the magnesium content area).

Rather than micromanage the specific fat and fiber content of your diet, why not get a little of the good of everything on the list and just mix and match the nuts? (Mixed and matched on your own, of course, not a hydrogenated cottonseed oil nut mixture).

Flush-free niacin kills

29. November 2008 William Davis (12)
Here, I re-post a conversation I've posted before, that of the scam product, "no-flush" niacin, also known as "flush-free" niacin.

I find this issue particularly bothersome, since I have a patient or two each and every week who forgets the explicit advice I gave them to avoid these scam products altogether. Despite costing more than conventional niacin, they exert no effect, beneficial or otherwise. Niacin--the real thing--exerts real and substantial beneficial effects. No-flush or flush-free does nothing except drain your wallet. I continue to marvel at the fact that supplement manufacturers persist in selling this product. Ironically, it commands a significant premium over other niacin forms.

They are outright scams that should be avoided altogether.


My former post, No-flush niacin kills:

Gwen was miserable and defeated.

No wonder. After a bypass operation failed just 12 months earlier with closure of 3 out of 4 bypass grafts, she has since undergone 9 heart catheterization procedures and received umpteen stents. She presented to me for an opinion on why she had such aggressive coronary disease (despite Lipitor).

No surprise, several new causes of heart disease were identified, including a very severe small LDL pattern: 100% of LDL particles were small.

Given her stormy procedural history, I urged Gwen to immediately drop all processed carbohydrates from her diet, including any food made from wheat or corn starch. (She and her husband were shocked by this, by the way, since she'd been urged repeatedly to increase her whole grains by the hospital dietitians.) I also urged her to begin to lose the 30 lbs of weight that she'd gained following the hospital dietitians' advice. She also added fish oil at a higher-than-usual dose.

I asked her to add niacin, among our most effective agents for reduction of small LDL particles, not to mention reduction of the likelihood of future cardiovascular events.

Although I instructed Gwen on where and how to obtain niacin, she went to a health food store and bought "no-flush niacin," or inositol hexaniacinate. She was curious why she experienced none of the hot flush I told her about.

When she came back to the office some weeks later to review her treatment program, she told me that chest pains had returned. On questioning her about what she had changed specifically, the problem became clear: She'd been taking no-flush niacin, rather than the Slo-Niacin I had recommended.

What is no-flush niacin? It is inositol hexaniacinate, a molecule that indeed carries six niacin molecules attached to an inositol backbone. Unfortunately, it exerts virtually no effect in humans. It is a scam. Though I love nutritional supplements in general, it pains me to know that supplement distributors and health food stores persist in selling this outright scam product that not only fails to exert any of the benefits of real niacin, it also puts people like Gwen in real danger because of its failure to provide the effects she needed.

So, if niacin saves lives, no-flush niacin in effect could kill you. Avoid this scam like the plague.

No-flush niacin does not work. Period.


Disclosure: I have no financial or other relationship with Upsher Smith, the manufacturer of Slo-Niacin.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

CT coronary angiography is NOT a screening procedure

28. November 2008 William Davis (3)
I've recently had several hospital employees tell me that their hospitals offered CT coronary angiograms without charge to their employees.

Among these hospital employees were several women in their 30s and 40s.

Why would young, asymptomatic, pre-menopausal women be subjected to the equivalent of 100 chest x-rays or 25 mammograms? Is there an imminent, life-threatening, symptomatic problem here?

All of these women were without symptoms, some were serious exercisers.

There is NO rational justification for performing CT coronary angiography, free or not.

What they really want is some low-risk, yet confident means of identifying risk for heart disease. Cholesterol, of course, is a miserable failure in this arena. Framingham risk scoring? Don't make me laugh.

Step in CT coronary angiography. But does CT coronary angiography provide the answers they are looking for?

Well, it provides some of the answers. It does serve to tell each woman whether she "needs" a heart procedure like heart catheterization, stent, or bypass surgery, since the intent of CT angiography is to identify "severe" blockages, sufficient to justify heart procedures.

Pitfalls: Because of the radiation exposure, CT angiography is not a procedure that can be repeated periodically to reassess the status of any abnormal findings. A CT angiogram every year? After just four years, the equivalent of 400 chest x-rays will have been performed, or 100 mammograms. Cancer becomes a very real risk at this point.

CT angiography is also not quantitative. Sure, it can provide a crude estimation of the percent blockage--the value your cardiologist seeks to "justify" a stent. But it does NOT provide a longitudinal (lengthwise) quantification of plaque volume, a measure of total plaque volume that can be tracked over time.

What's a woman to do? Simple: Get the test that, at least in 2008, provides the only means of gauging total lengthwise coronary plaque volume: a simple CT heart scan, a test performed with an equivalent of 4 - 10 chest x-rays, or 1 - 2.5 mammograms.

Perhaps, in future, software and engineering improvements will be made with CT coronary angiography that reduce radiation to tolerable levels and allows the lengthwise volume measurement of plaque. But that's not how it's done today.

The Wheat Deficiency Syndrome

26. November 2008 William Davis (21)
Beware the dreaded Wheat Deficiency Syndrome.

Like any other syndrome, you can recognize this condition by its many tell-tale signs:

--Flat abdomen
--Rapid weight loss
--High energy
--Less mood swings
--Better sleep
--Diminished appetite
--Reduced blood sugar
--Reduced blood pressure
--Reduced small LDL and total LDL
--Increased HDL
--Reduced triglycerides
--Reduced C-reactive protein and other inflammatory measures


Of course, you could choose to cure yourself of this syndrome simply by taking the antidote: foods made with wheat flour, like bread, breakfast cereals, pastas, pretzels, crackers, and muffins.

All the signs of the syndrome will then disappear and you can have back your protuberant abdomen, irrational mood swings, exagerrated appetite, higher blood sugar, etc.

The Framingham Crap Shoot

22. November 2008 William Davis (2)
The Framingham risk score is a risk-assessment tool that has become the basis for heart disease prediction used by practicing physicians.

The Framingham system determines that:

· 35% of the adult population in the U.S., or 70 million, is deemed “low-risk.” Low-risk is defined as the absence of standard risk factors for heart disease; low-risk persons have no more than a 1-in-20 chance (5%) of dying from heart disease in the next 10 years. Physicians are advised by the American Heart Association (AHA) and its experts that no specific effort at risk reduction is necessary.

· 25%, or approximately 50 million, U.S. adults are deemed “high-risk,” based on the presence of 2 or more risk factors. High-risk persons experience a 20%-30% likelihood of heart attack in the next 10 years. People at high-risk are candidates for preventive efforts according to the guidelines set by the Adult Treatment Panel-III (Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults; ATP-III) for cholesterol-reducing statin drug treatment and for “lifestyle-modifying” advice.

· The remaining 40% of the adult population, or 80 million people, are judged “intermediate-risk,” with the likelihood of heart attack between 5-20% over the next 10 years. This group should receive preventive advice and might be considered for statin drug treatment.


Let’s do some arithmetic. By the above scheme, the low-risk population will experience 3,500,000 heart attacks over the next decade, or 350,000 heart attacks per year.

The intermediate-risk population (without preventive treatment) will experience 8,000,000 heart attacks over the 10-year time period, or 800,000 per year.

The high-risk population, the group most likely to receive standard advice on diet, exercise, and be prescribed statin cholesterol drugs, will have their risk reduced by 35% by preventive efforts over the 10-year period. This means that heart attacks over 10 years will be reduced from 12,500,000 to 8,125,000 by standard prevention efforts, or reduced to 812,500 heart attacks per year.

These numbers are no secret. They are well known facts that have simply come to be accepted by the medical community. In other words, the standard approach to heart attack prediction makes the fact that two million people will succumb to cardiovascular events in the next year no mystery. This exercise in prediction is coldly accurate when applied to a large population.

The problem is that this approach cannot reliably distinguish which individuals will have a heart attack from those who will not.

From 100 people chosen at random, for instance, the numbers game played above will not confidently identify who among those 100 will have a heart attack, who will not, who will develop anginal chest pains and end up with stents or bypass surgery, or who will die. We just know that some of them will. Some people at high risk will have a heart attack, some people at intermediate risk will have a heart attack, some people at low risk will have a heart attack.

For any specific individual (like you or me), it’s a crap shoot.

That's why precise individual measurement of cardiovascular risk is required for real risk assessment, not applying broad statistical observations and forcing them to conform to the unique life of a specific individual, particularly risk calculators with as few risk parameters as the Framingham risk score.

At what score should a heart catheterization be performed?

21. November 2008 William Davis (2)
That's easy: NONE.

(Although I've addressed this previously, the question has come up again many times and I thought it'd be worth repeating.)

In other words, no heart scan score--100, 500, 1000, 5000--should lead automatically to procedures in someone who underwent a heart scan but has no symptoms.

This question is a common point of confusion.

In other words, is there a specific cut-off that automatically triggers a need for catheterization?

In my view, there is no such score. We can't say, for instance, that everybody with a score above 1000 should have a catheterization. It is true that the higher your score, the greater the likelihood of a plaque blocking flow. A score of 1000 carries an approximately 25-30% likelihood of reduced blood flow sufficient to consider a stent or bypass. This can nearly always be settled with a stress test. Recall that, despite their pitfalls for uncovering hidden heart disease in the first place, stress tests are useful as gauges of coronary blood flow.

But even a score of 1000 carries a 70-75% likelihood that a procedure will not be necessary. This is too high to justify doing heart catheterizations willy-nilly.

Unfortunately, some of my colleagues will say that any heart scan score justifies a heart cath. I believe this is absolutely, unquestionably, and inexcusably wrong. More often than not, this attitude is borne out of ignorance, laziness, or a desire for profit.

Does every lump or bump justify surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy on the chance it could represent cancer? Of course not. There is indeed a time and place for these things, but judgment is involved.

In my view, no heart scan score should automatically prompt a major heart procedure like heart catheterization in a person without symptoms. If a stress test is normal, signifying normal coronary flow (and there are no other abnormal phenomena, such as abnormal left ventricular function), then there is no defensible rationale for heart procedures. Heart procedures like stents and bypass cannot prevent heart attacks in future; they can only restore flow when flow is poor, or stop the heart attack that is about to occur.

However, EVERY heart scan score above zero is a reason to engage in a program of prevention.

"It's genetic"

17. November 2008 William Davis (17)
At 53, Sam had been through the wringer with heart disease. After his first heart attack at age 50, he'd undergone four heart catheterizations, 5 stents, and, most recently, a bypass operation. He came to us to see if there was a better solution.

After hearing Sam's story, I asked,"Did your doctors suggest to you why you had heart disease?"

"Well, they said it was genetic, since my father went through the same thing in his early 50s, though he died after his second heart attack at age 54. They said it was bad luck and nothing could be done about it."

Though Sam's case is more dramatic than most, I hear this argument every day: Risk for heart disease is genetic.

It's true: There are indeed multiple reasons for inheriting causes for coronary heart disease, genes that heighten inflammatory responses, oxidative responses, modify lipoprotein particles, increase blood pressure, etc. There has even been some excitement over developing chromosomal markers for heightened risk.

That's all well and fine, but what can we do about it today?

In practical life, many inherited genetic patterns can be expressed in ways that you and I can identify--and correct. They are not chromosomal markers, but end products of genetic patterns. (Although there are indeed identifiable chromosomal markers, they have not yet led to meaningful treatments to my knowledge.)

These readily identifiable patterns include:

--Lipoprotein(a)--Clearly genetically transmitted, passed from mother or father to each child with a 50% likelihood, then you onto your children if you have it.

--Small LDL--Although small LDL is amplified by high-carbohydrate diets and obesity, it can also occur in slender people who do not indulge in carbohydrates --i.e., a genetic tendency. Or, it can be a combination of poor lifestyle magnifying the genetic tendency for small LDL.

--Low HDL--Particularly the extremes of low HDL below 30 mg/dl. (Although, interestingly, I am seeing more of these people, though not all, respond to vitamin D replacement. Perhaps an important subgroup of low HDL people are really Vitamin D Receptor (VDR) variants.)

--ApoE--Two variants are relevant: ApoE2 and ApoE4. In my experience, it's the E2 that carries far greater significance, though the data are somewhat scanty. ApoE4 people are more sensitive to the fats in their diet (greater rises in LDL with fats; thus, some people advocate a tighter saturated fat restriction with this pattern, though I am not convinced that is the best solution), while ApoE2 people are exceptionally sensitive to carbohydrates, develop extravagant increases in triglycerides, and are very diabetes-prone with even the most minimal weight gain. If two "doses" of the E2 gene are present (homozygotic), then the tendencies are very exagerrated. E4 people are also subject to greater likelihood of Alzheimer's, though it is not a certain risk in a specific individual.

--Postprandial disorders--We use the fasting intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL) as an easy, obtainable index of the ability to clear after-eating byproducts of meals from the blood. Increased IDL has been related to increased coronary, carotid, and aortic aneurysmal disease.

--Hypertriglyceridemia-i.e., increases in triglycerides, While not all forms of high triglycerides confer risk for atherosclerosis, many do, particularly if associated with IDL, small LDL, increased LDL particle number and/or apoB.


There are more, but you get the point. There are clear-cut genetically-transmitted reasons for greater risk for cardiovascular disease. Some, like lipoprotein(a), yield very high risk. Others, like increased triglycerides, yield mixed levels of risk.

Importantly, all of these patterns--ALL--are identifiable and are treatable. Treatment may not always be the easiest thing, but they are treatable nonetheless. While lipoprotein(a), for instance, is the most difficult pattern to correct in the above list, I remind everyone that our current "record holder" for reversal of plaque and heart scan scores--63% reduction--has lipoprotein(a) that we corrected.

If you've been told that your risk for cardiovascular disease or coronary plaque is "genetic" and thereby uncorrectable and hopeless, run the other direction as fast as you can. Get another opinion from someone willing to take the modest effort to tell you precisely why.

Tim Russert Revisited

16. November 2008 William Davis (7)
A Heart Scan Blog reader brought this piece by Dr. MacDougall to my attention.

Dr. MacDougall created a fictitious posthumous conversation between himself and the late Tim Russert. MacDougall paints a picture of a hardworking, hard-living man who adhered to an overindulgent lifestyle of excessive eating. He concludes that a vegetarian, low-fat diet would have saved his life.

Beyond being disrespectful, I would differ with Dr. MacDougall’s assessment. In fact, I’ve heard an interview with Mr. Russert’s primary care physician in which the doctor claimed that Mr. Russert had been counseled on the need for a low-fat diet and, in fact, adhered to it quite seriously. Far from being an overindulgent, overeating gourmand, he followed the dictates of conventional dietary wisdom according to the American Heart Association. The low-fat diet articulated by Dr. MacDougall is simply a little more strict than that followed by Mr. Russert.

What exactly could Mr. Russert have done to prolong his life? Several basic strategies:

--Added fish oil. This simple strategy alone would have reduced the likelihood of dying suddenly by almost half.

--Eliminated wheat and cornstarch—Mr. Russert developed diabetes in the last few years of his life. By definition, diabetes is an inability to handle sugars and sugar-equivalents. Wheat and cornstarch yield immediate and substantial surges in blood sugar greater than table sugar; elimination causes weight to plummet, blood sugar to drop, and diabetes (at least in its early phases) can be eliminated in many people, particularly those beginning with substantial excess weight.

Just those two strategies alone would more than likely have avoided the tragic death that brought Mr. Russert’s wonderful life and career to an abrupt end.

Of course, he could have even taken his heart health program even further, as we do in the Track Your Plaque program. While the conversation has focused on how to avoid tragic events like sudden cardiac death, why not take it a step farther and ask, "How can coronary plaque be measured, tracked, and reversed?"

In that vein, Mr. Rusert could have restored vitamin D to normal levels; identified all hidden sources of heart disease using lipoprotein testing (though he had small LDL without a doubt, given his generous waist size, HDL of 36 mg/dl and high triglycerides); considered niacin. Simple, yet literally lifesaving efforts, that make reversal much more likely.

Those simple steps, in fact, would have tipped the scales heavily in Mr. Russert’s favor, making a heart attack and/or sudden death from heart disease exceptionally unlikely.

Water: Bottled vs. tap

16. November 2008 William Davis (4)
The Fanatic Cook has a great post discussing the findings of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) on the quality of bottled water.

The full text of the study from the EWG can be viewed here.

They report that "the bottled water industry promotes an image of purity, but comprehensive testing by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reveals a surprising array of chemical contaminants in every bottled water brand analyzed" . . . After analyzing 10 brands, they conclude that "tests strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted. Given the industry's refusal to make available data to support their claims of superiority, consumer confidence in the purity of bottled water is simply not justified."

"EWG's study has revealed that bottled water can contain complex mixtures of industrial chemicals never tested for safety, and may be no cleaner than tap water. Given some bottled water company's failure to adhere to the industry's own purity standards, Americans cannot take the quality of bottled water for granted. Indeed, test results like those presented in this study may give many Americans reason enough to reconsider their habit of purchasing bottled water and turn back to the tap."


For these reasons, as well as environmental reasons (plastic bottles filling up dumpsites), I think it is becoming clearer and clearer that bottled water is something we should only use in a pinch, not habitually.

Can CRP be reduced?

13. November 2008 William Davis (17)
The JUPITER study has sparked a lot of discussion about c-reactive protein, or CRP.

If we follow the line of reasoning that prompted this study, reducing CRP may correlate with reduction of cardiovascular events. Thus, in the JUPITER study, Crestor 20 mg per day reduced cardiovascular events by nearly half.

From a CRP perspective, starting values were 4.2 mg/dl in the Crestor group of the trial, 4.3 mg/dl in the placebo group. After 24 months, CRP in the Crestor group was 2.2 mg/dl, 3.5 mg/dl in the placebo group, representing a 37% reduction.

Now, in our Track Your Plaque program--an experience that has yielded the virtual ELIMINATION of cardiovascular events--we aim for a CRP level of 1.0 mg/dl or less, ideally 0.5 mg/dl or less. The majority of people achieve these ambitious levels. In fact, it is a rare person who does not.

How do we achieve dramatic reductions in CRP? We use:

--Weight loss through elimination of wheat and cornstarch--This yields impressive reductions.

--Vitamin D--I have no doubt whatsoever of vitamin D's capacity to exert potent anti-inflammatory effects. I am not entirely sure why this happens (enhanced sensitivity to insulin, reduced expression of tissue inflammatory proteins like matrix metalloproteinase and others, etc.), but the effect is profound.

--Elimination of junk foods--like candies, cookies, pretzels, rice cakes, potato chips, etc.

--Exercise--Amplifies the benefits of diet on CRP reduction.

--Not allowing saturated fats to dominate--Yes, yes, I know. The demonization of saturated fat conversation has been largely replaced by the Taubesian saturated fat has not been confidently linked to heart disease conversation. But controlled feeding studies, in which a single component of diet is manipulated (e.g., saturated vs. monounsaturated vs. polyunsaturated fat) have clearly shown that saturated fats do activate several factors in the inflammatory response.

--Fish oil--Though I am a firm believer in the huge benefits of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation/restoration, the anti-inflammatory effect is modest from a CRP perspective. However, there are anti-inflammatory benefits beyond that of simple CRP (via normalization of eicosanoid metabolism and other pathways).

--Weight loss--A BIG effect. Weight loss drops CRP like a stone. The CRP-reducing effect is especially large if achieved via carbohydrate reduction.

Of course, this is much more complicated than taking a pill. But it is effective to achieve health benefits outside of cardiovascular risk, is enormously useful as part of a weight loss effort, and doesn't cost $1400 per year like Crestor.

In short, if CRP reduction is the goal, it certainly does not have to involve Crestor.

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.

Roger's near-miss CT angiogram experience

27. June 2009 William Davis (13)
Heart Scan Blog reader, Roger, described his near-miss experience with CT coronary angiograms.

Hoping to obtain just a simple CT heart scan, he was bullied to get a CT coronary angiogram instead. Roger held strong and just asked for the test that we all should be having, a CT heart scan.


I posted yesterday that I was about to have my first CT heart scan...well, it was an interesting experience for reasons I coudn't possibly have anticipated. Dr. Davis has commented in the past on the confusion in the media about the difference between a CT calcium score scan, and a CT angiography, the latter requiring a far higher dose of radiation. I assumed this was a source of confusion only among patients and lay folks, but, lo and behold, I discovered today that doctors--or at least their helpers--can be just as confused.

Here's my story:

After checking in, I asked the receptionist to see if she had any information on whether my medical insurance was covering the scan. She called someone, and I heard her say over the phone, "He's here for a CT angiogram." At that point my ears perked up. I explained I wasn't here for a CT angiogram, only a regular CT scan. "Well, do you want to call your doctor and talk about this?" she asked. No, I said, I would like to ask one of their folks to verify exactly what test my doctor had ordered. As luck would have it, the technician was walking by at that point. "Is this a CT angiogram?" the receptionist asked. "No, it's just a CT calcium score scan" was the reply. But apparently the technician had been unclear herself, and had called my doctor just to verify. In other words, the "default" procedure they were accustomed to doing at this august Houston vascular clinic was a CT angiogram.

In fact, my appointment was even listed on their calendar as a "CT angiogram." For all I know, my insurance will be billed for the same. Later, during the procedure, the technician acted surprised I wasn't doing the "full test." I explained I had minimal risk factors (actually only one, an HDL of 34 a couple of years ago, which has since been raised to 50 partly as a result of taking advice from this site), but that my doctor was progressive (he is an MD for the Houston Astros) and thought it was a good idea since there is heart disease in my immediate family. My doctor did indeed prescribe only a CT calcium score scan, but it seems to have been an order that this clinic, at least, wasn't all that used to seeing.

So, I guess the message is: we have a lot of educating to do. Had I not been a faithful reader of these pages, I certainly wouldn't have known what kind of test I was about to get, or what questions to ask!

As for the heart scan itself, a piece of cake. If you can hold your breath, you can take this test. Just be sure it is the right one!


Why the "push" towards CT coronary angiograms and not "just" a CT heart scan? Well, I know it's shocking but it's . . . money!

CT coronary angiograms yield around $1800-$4000 per test. CT heart scans yield somewhere around $200. Though the scan center support staff might not care too much about the money themselves, their administrators likely make the cost distinctions clear to them.

Another reason: Most scan center staff, ironically, don't understand what a heart scan means, nor do they understand how it might serve to launch a program of prevention. They do understand that severe blockage by CT angiogram "needs" to be stented or bypassed. So they push patients towards things they understand.

Nobody makes money from CT heart scans, just as nobody makes money from a mammogram. Heart scans also don't lead to heroic, "lifesaving" procedures. They just lead to this sleepy, unexciting, inexpensive thing called prevention.

The Myth of Prevention: Letter to the Wall Street Journal

25. June 2009 William Davis (20)




The June 20-21, 2009 Wall Street Journal Weekend Journal featured a provocative front page article written by physician, Dr. Abraham Verghese:

The Myth of Prevention

While eloquently written, I took issue with a few crucial points. Here is the letter I sent to the Editor at Wall Street Journal:


Dear Wall Street Journal Editor,

Re: Dr. Abraham Verghese’s article, The Myth of Prevention in the June 20-21, 2009 Weekend Journal.


I believe a more suitable title for Dr. Verghese’s article would be: “The Myth of What Passes as Prevention.”

As a practicing cardiologist, I, too, have witnessed firsthand the systemic “corruption” described by Dr. Verghese, the doing things “to” people rather than “for” them. Heart care, in particular, is rife with this form of profit-driven health delivery.

There is a fundamental flaw in Dr. Verghese’s otherwise admirable analysis: He assumes that what is called “prevention” in mainstream medicine is truly preventive.

Dr. Verghese makes issue of the apparent minor differences between preventing a condition and just allowing a condition to run its course. Prostate cancer screening is one example: Men subjected to repeated screenings have little length-of-life advantage over men who just allow their prostate to suffer the expected course of disease.

What if, instead, “prevention” as practiced today is nothing more than a solution that has been adopted in mainstream practice to suit yet another doing “to” strategy than doing “for”? In the prostate cancer example, PSA and prostate exam screenings often serve as little more than a means of harvesting procedures for the local urologist.

That’s not prevention. It is a prototypical example of “prevention” being subverted into the cause of revenue-generating procedures.

I submit that Dr. Verghese has fallen victim to the very same system he criticizes. His views have unwittingly been corrupted by the corrupt profit-driven system he describes.

What if, instead, prevention were just that: prevention or elimination of the condition. What if “prevention” of prostate cancer eliminated prostate cancer? What if heart disease “prevention” prevented all heart disease? What if this all proceeded without regard for profit or revenue-generating procedures, but just on results?

Dr. Verghese specifically targets heart scans or coronary calcium scoring, a test he likens to “miracle glow-in-the-dark minnow lures,” calling them “moneymakers.” Yes, when subverted into a corrupt algorithm of stress test, heart catheterization, stent, or bypass, heart scans are indeed a test used wrongly to “prevent” heart disease.

But what if the risk insights provided by heart scans prompt the start of a benign yet effective “prevention” program that inexpensively, safely, and assuredly prevents--in the true sense of the word--or eliminates heart disease? Then I believe the differences in mortality, quality of life, and costs would be substantial. Such strategies exist, yet do not necessarily include prescription drugs and certainly do not include the aftermath of heart catheterization and bypass surgery. Yet such programs fail to seize the limelight of media attention with no new high-tech lifesaving headline nor a big marketing budget to broadcast its message.

The problem in medicine is not prevention and its failure to yield cost- and life-saving results. It is the pervasively profit-driven mindset that keeps true preventive strategies from entering mainstream conversation. It is a repeat of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis’ late 19th-century pleads for physicians to wash their hands before delivering babies to reduce puerperal sepsis, ignominious advice that earned him life and death in an asylum. We are essentially continuing to deliver children with unwashed hands because there is no revenue-generating procedure to clean them.

No, Dr. Verghese, the economic and medical failings of preventive strategies are not at fault. The failure of the medical system, in which everyone is bent on seizing a piece of the financial action for himself, has resulted in the failure to support the propagation of true preventive strategies that could genuinely save money and lives.

President Obama’s goal of cultivating preventive practices in medicine can work, but only if the profit-motive for “prevention” does not serve as the primary determinant of practice. Results-driven practices that are applied without regard to profit have the potential to yield the sorts of cost-saving and life-saving results that can reduce healthcare costs.


William Davis, MD
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Medical Director, The Track Your Plaque Program (www.cureality.com)
Blog: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com

A victory for SHAPE, CT heart scans, and doing what is RIGHT

24. June 2009 William Davis (7)
The efforts of Texas House of Representatives Rep. Rene Oliveira and the SHAPE Guidelines committee have paid off: The Texas legislature passed a bill that requires health insurers to cover CT heart scans.

(NOTE: Don't make the same mistake that the media often makes and confuse CT heart scans with CT coronary angiography: two different tests, two different results, two different levels of radiation exposure. The difference is discussed here.)

Track Your Plaque previously reported the release of the SHAPE Guidelines, an ambitious effort to open CT heart scanning to people who would benefit from a simple screening test for coronary disease. Rep. Rene Oliveira initially introduced the bill in 2006, after having a heart scan uncovered extensive coronary plaque that resulted in coronary bypass surgery.

The bill requires that health-benefit providers cover the cost of CT heart scans (and carotid ultrasound) in men between the ages of 45-76, women 55-76, as well as anyone with diabetes or at "intermediate-risk" or higher for coronary disease by Framingham risk score.

The usual panel of cardiology knuckleheads stepped to the media podium, expressing their incredulity that something as "unvalidated" as heart scans could gain the backing of legislative mandate. Heartwire carried this comment:

"Contacted by heartwire, Dr Amit Khera (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas) confirmed there are still no comprehensive, adequately powered studies showing that these screening tests lead to better outcomes. In a phone interview, Khera said he has major concerns about how physicians will use these tests, particularly primary-care physicians. "I gave a talk last week to primary-care doctors, and there were probably 250 people in the room, and when I asked how many people had ordered a calcium scan, just one person raised a hand. . . . Most people don't even know what to do with the Framingham risk score, so they're going to follow an algorithm that they don't know how to follow to order a test result that they don't know what to do with."

It's the same criticisms hurled at heart scans over the years despite literally thousands of studies validating their application.

Studies have conclusively shown that:

--Coronary calcium scores generated by a CT heart scan outperform any other risk measure for coronary disease, including LDL cholesterol, c-reactive protein, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure.
--Coronary calcium scores yield a graded, trackable index of coronary risk. Scores that increase correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular events; scores that remain unchanged correlate with much reduced risk.
--A coronary calcium score of zero--no detectable calcium--correlates with extremely low 5-year risk for cardiovascular events.
--Coronary calcium scores correlate with other measures of coronary disease. Heart scans correlate with coronary angiography, quantitative coronary angiography, carotid ultrasound (intimal-medial thickness and plaque severity), ankle-brachial index, and stress tests, including radionuclide (nuclear) perfusion imaging.

The reluctance of my colleagues to embrace heart scans stems from two issues, for the most part:

1) No study has yet been performed showing that knowing what the score is vs. not knowing what the score is changes prognosis. That's true. But it is also true of the great majority of practices in medicine. While many wrongs don't make a right, the miserable and widespread failure of other coronary risk measures, like LDL cholesterol or c-reactive protein, to readily and reliably detect hidden coronary disease creates a gaping void for improved efforts at early detection. If your LDL cholesterol is 140 mg/dl, do you or don't you have coronary disease? If your doctor's response is "Just take a statin drug anyway" you've been done a great disservice. (If and when this sort of study gets done, its huge cost--outcome studies have to be large and last many years--it will likely be a statin study. It is unlikely it will include such Track Your Plaque strategies that help reduce heart scan scores, like vitamin D and correction of small LDL particles.)

2) Fears over overuse of hospital procedures triggered by heart scans. This is a legitimate concern--if the information provided by a heart scan is misused. Heart scans should never--NEVER--lead directly to heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery. Heart scans do not change the indications for performing revascularization (angioplasty, stents, bypass). Just because 20% of my cardiology colleagues are more concerned with profit rather than patient welfare does not invalidate the value of the test. Just because the mechanic at the local garage gouged you by replacing a carburetor for $800 when all you need was a new spark plug does not mean that we should outlaw all auto mechanics. Abuse is the fault of the abuser, not of the tool used to exercise the abuse.


All in all, while I am not a fan of legislating behavior in healthcare, the blatant and extreme ignorance of this simple tool for uncovering hidden heart disease makes the Texas action a huge success for heart disease prevention. I hope that this success will raise awareness, not just in Texas, but in other states and cities in which similar systemic neglect is the rule.

Remember: CT heart scans are tools for prevention, not to uncover "need" for procedures. They serve as a starting point to decide whether or not an intensive program of prevention is in order, and I don't mean statin vs. no statin.

Though not a multi-million dollar statin drug study, I have NEVER seen a heart attack or "need" for procedure in any person who has stopped progression or reduced their heart scan score. A small cohort from my practice was reported:

Effect of a Combined Therapeutic Approach of Intensive Lipid Management, Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation, and Increased Serum 25 (OH) Vitamin D on Coronary Calcium Scores in Asymptomatic Adults.

Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M.

The impact of intensive lipid management, omega-3 fatty acid, and vitamin D3 supplementation on atherosclerotic plaque was assessed through serial computed tomography coronary calcium scoring (CCS). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with statin therapy has not been shown to reduce or slow progression of serial CCS in several recent studies, casting doubt on the usefulness of this approach for tracking atherosclerotic progression. In an open-label study, 45 male and female subjects with CCS of >/= 50 without symptoms of heart disease were treated with statin therapy, niacin, and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides /=60 mg/dL; and vitamin D3 supplementation to achieve serum levels of >/=50 ng/mL 25(OH) vitamin D, in addition to diet advice. Lipid profiles of subjects were significantly changed as follows: total cholesterol -24%, low-density lipoprotein -41%; triglycerides -42%, high-density lipoprotein +19%, and mean serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels +83%. After a mean of 18 months, 20 subjects experienced decrease in CCS with mean change of -14.5% (range 0% to -64%); 22 subjects experienced no change or slow annual rate of CCS increase of +12% (range 1%-29%). Only 3 subjects experienced annual CCS progression exceeding 29% (44%-71%). Despite wide variation in response, substantial reduction of CCS was achieved in 44% of subjects and slowed plaque growth in 49% of the subjects applying a broad treatment program.

Sleep: A to Zzzzzzzzzz

23. June 2009 William Davis (5)
Take a look at the results from the Heart Scan Blog's most recent reader poll (399 respondents):

How many hours do you sleep per night (on average)?


9 or more hours per night
15 (3.7%)

8-9 hours per night
72 (18%)

7-8 hours per night
152 (38.1%)

6-7 hours per night
111 (27.8%)

5-6 hours per night
38 (9.5%)

Less than 5 hours per night
11 (2.8%)


Like many issues in health, too much or too little of a good thing can present undesirable consequences.

Too much sleep: While psychologists and sleep researchers advise us that at least 9 hours are required to fully eliminate sleep "debt" and achieve optimal vigilance and mental performance, epidemiologic studies have shown increased mortality with this quantity of sleep.

Too little sleep: Getting less than 7 hours habituallly increases blood sugar, appetite, inflammatory measures, and encourages weight gain. Mortality is also increased, just as with sleeping too much. It is also associated with increased likelihood of a positive heart scan score.

7-8 hours per night from a health viewpoint is that Goldlilocks "just right" value: just enough to not erode mental performance substantially, but not so little that inflammatory, insulin-disrupting, and appetite-increasing effects develop.

Of our 399 respondents in the poll, 56.1% (38% + 18%) slept what appears to be an optimal amount for health. While only 3.7% slept too much (9 hours or more), the remaining 40.1% slept too little.

Our informal poll confirms what most of us observe in everyday life: The majority of people shortchange sleep in order to meet the demands of their high-pressure, squeeze-as-much-as-possible-into-every-day lives. But not paying off your sleep "debt" is like not paying the mortgage for a couple of months. You wouldn't expect your friendly neighborhood bank to say, "Oh, you forgot to pay your mortgage? Forget about it. Just pay next month's." Sure, fat chance. But if you don't pay off your sleep "debt," you will pay it back with health.
All posts by william-davis

CRP and Jupiter

11. November 2008 William Davis (15)
What is C-reactive protein (CRP)?

It is a blood-borne protein that originates in the liver and serves as an index of the body's inflammatory state. It is triggered by yet another inflammatory signal molecule, interleukin-6.

What triggers this cascade of inflammatory markers? Any inflammatory stimulus, such as being overweight, lack of exercise, vitamin D deficiency, viral illness no matter how trivial, any inflammatory disease like arthritis, small LDL, high triglycerides, poor diet rich in processed foods, resistance to insulin, any injury, incipient diabetes, hidden cancer, lack of education (no kidding), etc.

In other words, many, many conditions, from trivial to serious, trigger increased inflammatory markers like CRP.

A recent analysis (Genetically elevated C-reactive protein and ischemic vascular disease of persons with genetically elevated levels of CRP) suggests that CRP does not, by itself, cause atherosclerotic disease. CRP is therefore simply a marker for conditions that heighten inflammatory responses.

The AstraZeneca people sponsored the enormous JUPITER study of the statin drug, Crestor, that has been causing a stir, mostly glowing pronouncements of how the world would be a better place if everyone took Crestor.

In JUPITER, nealry 18,000 people (men 50 years and over, women 60 years and over) took 20 mg per day Crestor for two years. Participants all had starting LDL cholesterols in the "normal" range of no higher than 130 mg/dl and elevated CRP of 2 mg/dl or greater.

Crestor treatment resulted in 44% reduction in nonfatal heart attack, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, revascularization (bypass surgery, stents) and death from cardiovascular causes. The reduction in nonfatal heart attack was most marked at 55%.

Admittedly, these are impressive results. Benefits held true for both males and females. At the very least, JUPITER should put to rest some of the fringe arguments that statins do not reduce cardiovascular events. They do. There is no sense in arguing against that. While we might argue about the value of statins in various subsets of people, there is no doubt that they do indeed exert a significant effect.

However, contrary to the hype and broad pronouncements of my colleagues, my concerns are:

1) Rather than shotgun the inflammatory response with a statin drug regardless of cause, doesn't it make more sense to ask why a specific individual has an increased CRP in the first place? For instance, if the answer is vitamin D deficiency, doesn't correction of the deficiency make more sense? (Vitamin D by itself reduces CRP around 60%--more than statin drugs.) Not to mention you obtain all the extraordinary benefits of vitamin D restoration, such as reduced cancer risk, increased bone density, relief from winter "blues," rise in HDL, etc. How about junk foods, obesity, and unrelated inflammatory conditions? Would we therefore indirectly be treating obesity with Crestor?

2) Crestor 20 mg per day, contrary to the study and to many statin studies, will not be tolerated for long by the majority. Muscles aches are not common--they are inevitable, sometimes incapacitating. While JUPITER showed 15% of both treatment and placebo groups experienced muscle effects--no different--this is wildly contrary to real life.

3) While there was a 55% reduction in the number of heart attacks, there continued to be a substantial number of heart attacks in the Crestor treatment arm. Clearly, reduction of CRP with Crestor, while helpful, is not a cure.

I view studies like JUPITER as simply an interesting piece of semi-scientific evidence, tainted to an unknown degree by commercial interests (including those of Dr. Paul Ridker, one of the principal investigators). It is not a mandate to use Crestor carte blanche in people with elevations of CRP.

My interpretation of these data in a practical sense is that Crestor 20 mg per day as sole therapy is useful in a disinterested, non-compliant patient who is unwilling to make substantial changes in lifestyle and nutrition. Helpful? Yes, but hardly an invitation for the world to take Crestor.

I believe that doesn't include any of the readers of this blog.

Nutritional approaches: Large vs. small LDL

11. November 2008 William Davis (13)













It is now a rare person who does not have at least some proportion of their LDL cholesterol as small particles. I estimate that, of the people who come to the office or report their data on the Track Your Plaque website, 90% have at least 40-50% small LDL particles. Some people have 100% small LDL particles. The sample NMR lipoprotein report shows the result for someone with a severe small LDL pattern (the tallest red bar labeled 1354 nmol/L, compared to the 74 nmol/L of the tiny red bar of large LDL.)

The nutritional approach for small vs. large LDL differs. Small LDL particles are most sensitive to carbohydrate intake; large LDL particles are more sensitive to saturated fats.

The conventional "heart healthy" diet that restricts saturated fat reduces large LDL but exerts no effect on small LDL. Thus, a diet that is restricted in saturated fat and weighed more heavily with "healthy whole grains" triggers small LDL particles. Followers of the conversations here recognize that small LDL particles are flagrant triggers for coronary plaque; they have, in fact, become the number one most common cause for heart disease in the U.S.

When you have lipoproteins tested, you can therefore gauge the likely result obtained when specific dietary changes are made. Follow the low saturated fat advice, large LDL will drop modestly, but small LDL skyrockets.













(Image courtesy Liposcience, Inc.)


Eliminate sugars, wheat, and cornstarch and you will see small LDL plummet (along with total LDL).

As an aside, my personal observation is that the "need" for statin cholesterol drugs can be reduced dramatically by paying attention to this important LDL size distinction.

Factory hospitals

8. November 2008 William Davis (8)
Twenty years ago, the American farming industry experienced a dilemma: How to grow more soybeans, corn, or wheat from a limited amount of farmland, raise more cattle and hogs in a shorter period of time, fatter and ready for slaughter within months rather than years?













(Image courtesy Wikipedia)

The solution: Synthetically fertilize farmland for greater crop yield; “factory farms” for livestock in which chickens or pigs are crammed into tiny cages that leave no room to turn, cattle packed tightly into manure-filled paddocks. As author Michael Pollan put it in his candid look at American health and eating, The Omnivore’s Dilemma:


“To visit a modern Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) is to enter a world that for all its technological sophistication is still designed on seventeenth-century Cartesian principles: Animals are treated as machines—“production units”—incapable of feeling pain. Since no thinking person can possibly believe this anymore, industrial animal agriculture depends on a suspension of disbelief on the part of the people who operate it and a willingness to avert one’s eyes on the part of everyone else. . .”


Pollan goes on to argue that the cultural distance inserted between the brutal factory farm existence of livestock and your dinner table permits this to continue:


“. . .the life of the pig has moved out of view; when’s the last time you saw a pig in person? Meat comes from the grocery store, where it is cut and packaged to look as little like parts of animals as possible. The disappearance of animals from our lives has opened a space in which there’s no reality check on the sentiment or the brutality . . .”


The same disconnect has occurred in healthcare for the heart. The emotional distance thrust between the hospital-employed primary care physician, the procedure-driven cardiologist, the crammed-into-a-niche electrophysiologist (heart rhythm specialist) or cardiothoracic surgeon whose principal concerns are procedures—with an eye always towards litigation risk—mimics factory farms that now litter the landscape of the Midwest. The hospitals and doctors who deliver the process see us less as human beings and more as the next profit opportunity.

The “factory hospital” has allowed the subjugation of humans into the service of procedural volume, all in the name of fattening revenues. Never mind that people are not (usually) killed outright but subjected to a succession of life-disrupting procedures over many years. But whether livestock in a factory farm or humans in a factory hospital, the net result to the people controlling the process is identical: increased profits.

The system doesn’t grow to meet market demand, but to grow profits. The myth that allows this growth is perpetuated by the participants who stand to gain from that growth.

See hospitals for what they are: businesses. Despite most hospitals retaining "Saint" in their name, there is no longer anything saintly or charitable about these commercial operations. They are ever bit as profit-seeking as GE, Enron, or Mobil.

Medicare and The Law of Unintended Consequences

5. November 2008 William Davis (6)
This post carries on the line of conversation begun in The Origins of Heart Catheterization: Part I and Part II.



While Dr. Sones labored in the relative obscurity of his catheterization laboratory, the American public was experiencing a crisis in healthcare availability, particularly among the over-65 age group. The population of elderly in the U.S. was growing rapidly. Between 1950 and 1963, their ranks grew from 12 million to 17.5 million. The cost of hospital care was also increasing 6.7% annually, several times the rate of increase in the cost of living of the time. From 1950 to the day of Dr. Sones’ discovery, the average cost for a day in the hospital jumped from $29 to $40. As a result, private health insurance carriers were forced to increase rates, driving premiums higher and farther out of reach for many. Half of all elderly were uninsured. Many feared that, while the sophistication of medical services advanced, healthcare was becoming increasingly unavailable to many, perhaps most, Americans.

The pivotal contribution that ignited wide dissemination of healthcare technology didn’t come from a physician, nor someone in healthcare. It was spurred by a nearly-forgotten bureaucrat. Without the behind-the-scenes laboring of this one man, the present healthcare system might be quite different.

It was largely the work of Nelson H. Cruikshank, an ordained Methodist minister with a Master of Divinity degree and veteran of battling for rights of the elderly and poor deprived of health care. For 10 years, Cruikshank served as director of the AFL-CIO's Social Security Department and had been instrumental in getting the Social Security Disability act passed. Working on the side of organized labor but maintaining the public demeanor of a church pastor, Cruikshank gained a reputation as a fighter for the working man, one who didn’t back down from a political brawl. In an interview regarding the question of corporate-retained earnings for capital investment, he blasted the practice, calling it "taxation by corporation without representation. Through prices paid for consumer goods, buyers are providing capital for industries over which they have no control and from which they receive no dividends” (Time Magazine, Dec. 20, 1948).

For years, Cruikshank lobbied tirelessly on behalf of American unions to bring the new national healthcare bill, known as Medicare, to a vote on the floor of Congress. Numerous efforts at a national program had languished for a decade before Medicare was drafted, and the Medicare legislation remained bottlenecked for years in committees. Cruikshank’s relentless and forceful persuasion was instrumental in finally bringing the bill to a vote. Among the most vocal opponents Cruikshank parried was the American Medical Association (AMA), terrified that the new program would lead to loss of control over healthcare delivery and reimbursement. The AMA labeled Medicare "the most deadly challenge ever faced by the medical profession."

Cruikshank proved how tough he was when he faced off with Dr Morris Fishbein, then president of the AMA, in a radio debate. Oscar R. Ewing, attorney and Democratic political organizer under the Truman administration, offered these reminiscences of the debate:

“Dr. Fishbein described the horrible confusion that existed in the [government-run] British Health Service that had recently been established in Britain. He told of the utter confusion that he found existed when he was in England a few weeks previously; that there were long queues in every doctor's office, that doctors were overburdened with paper work; that a mother who wanted an extra allowance of milk for her sick child had to get a doctor's prescription for it and then go to the Health Department for permission to buy the milk. Dr. Fishbein painted a picture of complete confusion.

“After Dr. Fishbein had described all these horrible details he found existing when in England a few weeks earlier, Mr. Cruikshank pulled out this particular diary [published in a nationally-syndicated column called “Dr. Fishbein's Diary” ] of Dr. Fishbein in which he described his last visit to London. He had arrived in London Friday morning and that afternoon had gone out to spend the weekend with Lord and Lady so-and-so at their country place; that he'd come back to London Monday morning, had stopped by the Health Department to pick up some papers, and had gone on to catch the noon plane for Paris. So the questioner then asked, "Well, is your appraisal of the British Health Service based on those few hours in London?" The question was a stinger and pretty much discredited Dr. Fishbein.”

(Interview by Mr. J.R. Fuchs, April 29, 1969; Harry S. Truman Library Archives)



Cruikshank went on to point out that Dr. Fishbein had indeed never visited the offices of British general practitioners and had spent his brief stay in the company of British aristocracy, attending the Olympics, then making the rounds of Parisian night clubs. Fishbein stumbled through the remainder of the interview, trying unsuccessfully to cover up his gaff. Dr. Fishbein was forced out of his post as AMA president by his peers shortly following the humiliating episode.

Largely due to the years of behind-the-scenes maneuvering by Mr. Cruikshank, on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Social Security Amendment that enacted the Medicare program. The legislation that survived into law included Medicare Part A, the portion of the program providing payment for hospital-based diagnostic and treatment services, and Medicare Part B, allowing payment for office-based services and outpatient diagnostic tests.

Finally, after decades of political battles, a national healthcare bill had been passed. Although benefits were restricted to only those eligible for Social Security benefits, it represented a start, a first step toward greater access to healthcare for the broader American public.

At first, the full implications of the Medicare program were not apparent. But as healthcare technology advanced, including that sparked by Sones’ innovation in coronary imaging, Medicare, much as engineered in large part by Nelson Cruikshank, proved a bonanza of payment for heart procedures. Medicare also set the pace for the payment for procedures by non-government, private health insurance.

Thus the stage was set. Thanks to Medicare, over the next 40 years cardiovascular healthcare services, yielding generous revenue for practitioners and hospitals, exploded on the scene, much to the surprise of many, including the AMA. When then president of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. Charles Fisch, was asked how the passage of Medicare affected cardiology, he replied, “It made cardiologists rich, as simple as that” (American Cardiology: The History of a Specialty and Its College, W. Bruce Fye, MD). Indeed, from its introduction in 1965 to 1980, Medicare payments for health claims ballooned 10-fold from $9.6 billion to $105.7 billion, a substantial portion of which went to pay for cardiology claims.

Little did Nelson Cruikshank, ministerial defender of the working man, anticipate that the Medicare he helped engineer would prove to be the catalyst for explosive growth of the modern cardiovascular healthcare system. Ironically, the program of healthcare-for-all that Cruikshank envisioned has, over the last 40 years, soured into a self-serving system that has been corrupted by the profit motive.

In too many instances, it’s a system that uses the working man as its victim, rather than its beneficiary.

Quieting the insulin storm

1. November 2008 William Davis (15)
The cycle of eating, satiety, and hunger is largely driven by insulin and blood sugar responses.

For instance, if I eat a bowl of Cheerios, my blood sugar will surge to 140 mg/dl or higher (how high depending on insulin sensitivity). The flood of sugar from this Frankenfood triggers the release of insulin; blood sugar then settles back down.

The decline in blood sugar back down to normal or below normal powerfully triggers hunger. Variable degrees of shakiness, mental fogginess, and irritability also commonly occur. Most people experience this to some extent; some experience an exagerrated version called "reactive hypoglycemmia" and can suffer peculiar personality changes, irrational and even violent behavior.

Foods made with wheat or cornstarch raise blood sugar higher and faster than table sugar. Accordingly, blood sugar and insulin swing more widely with these food: highs are higher, lows are lower. People who therefore follow the standard mantra of "eat plenty of healthy whole grains" therefore experience a 2-3 hour long cycle of eating, brief satiety, and recurrent hunger. Cravings for snacks, impulsive eating, and overeating all occur during the period when blood sugar has dropped and hunger is powerfully triggered.

Eliminating this up and down fluctuation is therefore key to regaining control over appetite, losing weight, reducing small LDL and triglycerides, reducing blood sugar, and putting out the fires of inflammatory responses.

You can accomplish this by:

1) Eliminating foods that trigger the exagerrated rises in blood sugar--Wheat, cornstarch, polished rices, white and red potatoes, and candy.

2) Adding a healthy oil to every meal--a strategy that prolongs satiety and helps suppress sugar-insulin fluctuations.


The ful nuts and bolts details of this diet will be released with the New Track Your Plaque Diet. Part I has already been released; part II is coming any day on the Track Your Plaque website.

Scare tactics

31. October 2008 William Davis (0)
"You're a walking time bomb."

"I can't be responsible for what happens to you."

"Your blockage is in the artery called the 'widow-maker.'"




Familiar lines? These are the well-rehearsed warnings commonly used by cardiologists to persuade a patient to undergo a procedure (heart catheterization and all that follow).

Something happens when you hear these words about your health. Most people's resolve to explore alternatives, get another opinion, think it over, promptly crumbles when they hear these words. These particular warnings have been time-tested and are surprisingly effective.

Unlike many other conditions, heart disease does indeed result in catastrophic events without warning. Unlike, say, cancer, heart disease can wreak damage suddenly. That's all true.

What bothers me is the vigor with which the opportunity for hospital procedures is pursued.

The thinking is that hospitals procedures = saving a life. In the vast majority of people, this is nonsense. Procedures like heart catheterization, stents, bypass, do save lives if someone is in the throes of a catastrophe. The problem is that most people who undergo procedures are not in the midst of catastrophe and have every hope of avoiding it altogether with some simple efforts towards prevention.

Imagine this conversation: "Yes, Mr. Smith, you do have heart disease, Even though you have no symptoms and your stress test is normal, I believe that we should 1) identify the causes of your heart disease, then 2) correct them. Of course, if you don't want to engage in this prevention process, then there may be a point at which heart procedures may be necessary. But I believe that you have great hopes of avoiding them and avoiding heart attack."

Self-Directed Testing

28. October 2008 William Davis (3)
In the last Heart Scan Blog post, I listed the poll results on success vs. failure in trying to obtain requested blood work through doctors. The results of that informal poll revealed that a substantial number of people encounter resistance to one degree or another in trying to obtain blood tests.

But the world of self-directed testing is growing. In addition to your ability to circumvent your doctor by getting your own blood work done, you can now:

--Obtain many imaging tests on your own--Heart scans can be obtained without your doctor's involvement, for instance. The ultrasound screening services, like that offered by Lifeline, mobile services that provide carotid, abdominal aorta, and osteoporosis screening services; full body scans, and others.
--Identify and treat some conditions--Internet information has gotten quite powerful to assist individuals in recognizing when a condition might be present. (However, this is also a landmine for trouble if not properly used.)
--Genetic testing--While just in its infancy, direct-to-consumer genetic testing is now offered by two outfits that I'm aware of.
--Unusual laboratory tests--e.g., heavy metals, omega-3 fatty acid content, cancer markers.

One drawback to the emerging world of self-directed testing: There is no insurance coverage. However, this will become less and less of an issue as time passes, since it is clear that most Americans will need to bear a greater portion of healthcare costs in future, since some conventional services may even be rationed for cost containment; higher copays and the emergence of medical savings accounts, providing the individual with more control over how healthcare dollars are spent; competition in self-directed healthcare services, which will reduce costs. Imagine, for instance, several more direct-to-consumer services to obtain blood tests appear. They will need to compete on price and service.

While my colleagues are terrified of the potential for abuse of such tests, my reaction is the opposite: I am enormously excited by the potential for individuals to seize more and more control over their health.

Of course, with greater freedom comes greater responsibility. But the long-term net result will be, in my view, a healthier, more satisfied healthcare consumer with reduced healthcare costs.

Self-testing

26. October 2008 William Davis (9)
Here are the results of the latest Heart Scan Blog poll (84 respondents):


When you ask your doctor to perform a specific blood test, does he/she:


Do it without question?
38 (44%)


Do it but express reservations?
25 (29%)


Do it very grudgingly?
13 (15%)


Refuse outright?
9 (10%)



I was encouraged that 44% of respondents are/were able to obtain the blood work they requested without resistance. Sadly, however, the majority do either encounter reluctance or outright resistance.

Why would your doctor impose barriers to your ability to obtain laboratory tests? Well, several potential reasons:

1) He/she feels that they are charged with your health safety, and you might be led down a misleading, potentially dangerous path.

2) He/she feels that the tests are truly unnecessary and that you will be wasting the money of the "system."

3) He/she doesn't understand the tests, or is unfamiliar with them.

4) He/she feels that the doctor should be in complete control, not you. How dare you try to usurp the doctor-as-dictator of your health!


In reality, number 1 is understandable but rarely occurs. I have indeed have had requests, though rare, for outrageously inappropriate tests for the issue at hand, usually due to a misinterpretation of some information by the patient.

I'm not sure how often number 2 truly is. For instance, it is not uncommon for the doctor to have an ownership stake in the laboratory. There are several large primary care groups in Milwaukee who are notorious over-users of laboratory tests, with extraordinary batteries of dozens of tests every few months on the flimsiest reasons , clearly motivated by . . . money. On the other hand, there are physicians who do consciously try and order tests rationally and cost-effectively. I suspect that this is a minority.

I feel quite confident that number 3--your doctor's ignorance--is probably the most common reason he/she is reluctant or refuses to allow you access to a test. Most respondents I suspect are referring to many of the tests that I have been advocating, such as lipoprotein testing, lipoprotein(a), and vitamin D blood levels. I am uncertain how any of these could be construed to be dangerous. But ignorance of the value of these tests is rampant and resistance is nearly always based on not having explored these issues and having no appreciation for their importance. Of course, the beleaguered primary care physician is, no surprise, inundated by so much information across such a wide range that he/she has become expert at nothing, barely able to even deliver the full scope of genuine up-to-date primary services any longer. My colleagues, the cardiologists. . . well, you know my feelings about their attitudes: If it doesn't make money, then why should I bother? Devote months or years studying something that doesn't ring the cash register?

I see this dilemma as yet more evidence of the growing disenchantment with the doctor-as-gatekeeper model, the centuries old paternalistic "I will tell you what to do and you will do it." It worked when the doctor was educated and had access to knowledge you could never realistically obtain because you couldn't read, or you were too poor to afford books and education, or because medical information was made privy only to select people.

It's not that way anymore: The information you have access to is the same information my colleagues and I have access to: a level playing field. Along with the changing rules of the game, the game itself must eventually change.

I believe that people should have access to self-testing. Indeed, there is a growing industry of direct-to-consumer laboratory testing, such as that offered by Life Extension and LabSafe . For the most part, these offer tests without potential insurance reimbursement.

But the landscape is changing: We are just beginning a new age of self-empowerment, self-directed healthcare.

Whenever I say this, some people are angered that the majority of people will be too lazy, stupid, or poor to join the movement. What I am not saying is that we should agitate to make the system a patient-only directed process and completely remove the doctor. What I am saying is that the patient should and will play an increasingly important role in determining the content and direction of his/her care, especially as the patient becomes far more knowledgeable about issues relevant to his/her health.


The new tools of health measurement

If there were a new mantra of the new science of insight into health and long life, it would be “measure, measure, and measure.”

Never before in history have we had access to the analytical, laboratory, imaging, quantifying health tools that we have today. We can locate, scan, measure, all down as far as the level of basic codons of the genetic sequence.

The health-inquiring public has so far been permitted just a tip-of-the-tongue taste of these quantitative phenomena in such things as cholesterol values (“know your numbers!”) and blood pressure. Women now discuss their bone density scores over coffee, men their PSAs (prostate specific antigen).

But a curious irony has emerged: Like early 20th century males uncomfortable with women battling for suffrage, healthcare professionals, themselves comfortable with measurements and numbers, are distinctly uncomfortable when some of the same information falls into the hands of the healthcare consumer.

These phenomena play out in especially dramatic fashion in the world of heart health. The public now has broad access (many without a doctor’s order) to an extraordinary array of health measurement tools that can potentially yield enormous benefits for prevention of the most common conditions, information that can be applied by tracking over time.

Measures like heart scan scores, vitamin D blood levels, lipoprotein(a)--measures that most doctors have little or no interest in obtaining, yet they serve crucial roles in maintaining and tracking your health.

The new paradigm is emerging: the tools are getting better and better, they are becoming more accessible.

Increasing sales, growing the business

23. October 2008 William Davis (7)
I continue my portrayal of the fictional hospital, St. Matthews. Though fictional, it is based on real facts, figures, and situations.

Despite their success, administrators at St. Matthews’s Hospital continually fret over how to further expand their enterprise.

Market share can be increased, of course, by competing effectively with other hospitals, but that can be a tough arena. After all, St. Matthews’ competitors deliver pretty much the same services, and draw areas for patients overlap. The last thing the hospital wants is the appearance that heart care is a “cookie cutter” process, the same everywhere. In fact, this trend has hospital administrators wringing their hands. Two competing hospital systems in town recently launched multi-million dollar ad campaigns employing some of the same aggressive tactics St. Matthews’ marketers used successfully in past.

If St. Matthews is going to grow, new markets will need to be explored. What other strategies can a hospital system use to continue climbing the growth curve?

St. Matthews’ hospital administrators have drawn a number of lessons from other businesses. How about squeezing more procedures out of the population you already take care of? That’s an age-old rule of business: your easiest sales come from repeat customers. A former stent patient is going to “need” annual nuclear stress testing ($4000), more stents (about $25,000–39,000 per hospitalization), CT angiogram ($1800–2400), bypass surgery ($84,000), and so on. “Check-up” catheterizations, though clearly of little or not benefit to patients, are silently encouraged, yet another example of the bonanza of repeat procedures possible.

The lesson that “once a heart patient, always a heart patient” has been honed to an art form in business practices at St. Matthews and other hospitals like it. If you enter the system through your primary care physician or cardiologist, there’s an excellent chance you’ll end up with several procedures, diagnostic and therapeutic, over the ensuing years. Accordingly, St. Matthews provides a very attentive after-discharge follow-up program, complete with access to friendly people, phone centers, “support groups,” and even an occasional festive get-together, all in an effort to ensure future return to the system.

All in all, the St. Matthews Hospital System is a hugely successful operation. It provides jobs for thousands of area residents and provides high-tech, high-quality healthcare. Like any business—and no doubt about it, St. Matthews is a business with all the trappings of a profit-seeking enterprise—it grows to serve its own interests. The tobacco industry didn’t grow to its gargantuan proportions by doing good, but by selling a product to an unsuspecting public. So, too, hospitals.

Curiously, hospitals like St. Matthews continue to operate under the sheltered guise of not-for-profit institution with the associated tax benefits, ostensibly serving the public good. This means that all end-of-year excess revenues are re-invested and not distributed to investors. But non-profit does not mean that individuals within the system can’t benefit, and benefit handsomely. Under St. Matthews’ non-profit umbrella, many businesses thrive: 35 pharmacies, extended care facilities to provide care after hospital discharge, drug and medical device distributors, even a venture capital arm to fund new operations. The financial advantage conferred by “non-profit” status has permitted the hospital to compete with other, for-profit businesses, at a considerable advantage. For this reason, attempts have been made over the years to strip them of what some believe is an unfair advantage; all have failed.

While profits may not fall to the bottom line, money does indeed get paid out to many people along the way. Executives, for instance, pay themselves generous salaries and consulting fees, often from several of the entities in this complex business empire. Physicians are brought in as “consultants” or are awarded “directorships” for hundreds of thousands of dollars per year—Director of Research, Director of Cardiovascular Services, etc. Don’t forget the $3.7 million dollar annual salary paid to the CEO.

Hospitals and doctors have a vested interest in preserving this financial house of cards. They will fiercely battle anyone or anything that threatens the stream of cash. During a recent meeting of important doctors at St. Matthews Hospital, one cardiologist bravely voiced his concern that bypass surgery was performed too freely on too many patients in the hospital. The doctor was promptly and quietly asked to remove himself from the meeting. Several days later, he received a letter announcing his dismissal from the committee.

The silent conspiracy conducted by hospitals and cardiologists serves their own purposes better than the good of the public. Under the guise of good works, hospitals continue to promote strategies which are, for the most part, outdated, inefficient, inaccurate, and expensive. But that’s the rub. Expensive to you and your insurance company means more money for the recipient: your hospital and cardiologist, and the powers that support them. All this occurs while the real solutions that are of benefit to the public continue to be overlooked, hidden in the shadows.

Top Doctor

23. October 2008 William Davis (2)
Dr. Robert Connors is the hospital’s most prized cardiologist.

Practically a fixture in the cath lab, he generates more revenues for the hospital than any of his colleagues. Last year alone, he performed over 1500 procedures, bringing in $18 million dollars to the cath lab, $27 million to the hospital. Dr. Connors is very good at what he does: 55-years old, he has been involved in high-tech heart care since the “early days,” 25 years ago, when hospital procedures really took off.

During his career, he has personally performed over 25,000 heart procedures and has built a reputation as a skilled operator of complex coronary procedures. Because of his skills, he enjoys a vigorous flow of referrals for procedures from dozens of primary care physicians. His skill has also earned him referrals from cardiologist colleagues who seek his abilities for difficult cases.

On any day, Dr. Connors typically schedules up to 12 procedures. His entire day is spent in the cath lab, usually from 7 am until 6 pm. He meets many patients for the first time on the catheterization laboratory table as staff shave their groin, preparing for the procedure. Much of the procedure itself is not even performed by Dr. Connors, but by one or another cardiologists-in-training, a “fellow,” or member of the fellowship the hospital proudly maintains as a clinical teaching institution. Nor will Dr. Connors talk to most patients at the close of the procedure. He leaves that to either the fellow or a nurse. Dr. Connors views himself as a procedural specialist, not someone who has to take care of patients. He gave up seeing patients in his office over 10 years ago.

Dr. Connors’ procedural enthusiasm gained him the attention of drug and medical device manufacturers. Because Dr. Connors lectures widely and advises colleagues, his comments can dramatically alter perceptions of the value of a technology. He has, on many occasions, catapulted an unpopular device to most-asked-for among colleagues, bringing millions in revenues to the manufacturer. One particularly lucrative arrangement he made around 10 years ago involved a “closure” device, a $400 single-use plug used to close the access site made during heart catheterizations. By swaying his colleagues at St. Matthews Hospital, 50 orders per day (one per procedure) tallied $20,000 every day, $7.1 million dollars per year for the manufacturer. Although he’d used other devices on the market, the 5,000 shares of stock he was offered encouraged him to issue glowing comments to colleagues on the superiority of this specific brand of closure device. Now over 90% of all catheterizations at St. Matthews conclude with the device manufactured by the company in which Dr. Connors maintains partial ownership.

Negative comments, on the other hand, topple other products when Dr. Connors sees fit to pan them. For this reason, device and drug manufacturers run straight to Dr. Connors to gain his good graces as soon as possible after a product is released into the market. Because the competition is just as likely to do the same, it has often come down to a bidding war, the company providing the most lucrative arrangement most likely to win.

Thus, Dr. Connors proudly boasts of how many times he has flown to Hawaii, Europe, and other exotic locations at industry expense. He also boasts of how, for $100,000 paid to him for a “consulting fee,” he can overturn the choice of products lining hospital shelves. As the hospital’s annual budget for coronary devices will top $84,000,000 this year, device manufacturers regard the sum paid Connors as a profitable investment.

Despite his lofty status in the hospital, Dr. Connors has long expressed a love-hate relationship with St. Matthews. While he enjoys his work and has made a more than comfortable income, he has long felt that the hospital administration didn’t truly appreciate his contributions. Five years ago, he therefore demanded that he be made “Director of Research.” After all, he had hired a nurse to help him coordinate enrollment of patients into several device trials brought to him by medical device manufacturers. When he encountered an initial lukewarm response from hospital administrators, he threatened to take his “business” elsewhere to a competing hospital. St. Matthews’ administrators gave in. They provided him with the title he wanted, along with $100,000 annual “stipend.”

True story, though names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Is Dr. Connors just an “outlier” among colleagues who toe a more conservative line? Or does his brand of commercial enterprise in hospital heart care represent the ideal that they seek, brazenly and ambitiously seeking to expand the procedural solution to heart disease to the exclusion of patient care and real human interaction?
All posts by william-davis

For the sake of convenience: Commercial sources of prebiotic fibers

3. May 2015 William Davis (0)
Our efforts to obtain prebiotic fibers/resistant starches, as discussed in the Cureality Digestive Health Track, to cultivate healthy bowel flora means recreating the eating behavior of primitive humans who dug in the dirt with sticks and bone fragments for underground roots and tubers, behaviors you can still observe in extant hunter-gatherer groups, such as the Hadza and Yanomamo. But, because this practice is inconvenient for us modern folk accustomed to sleek grocery stores, because many of us live in climates where the ground is frozen much of the year, and because we lack the wisdom passed from generation to generation that helps identify which roots and tubers are safe to eat and which are not, we rely on modern equivalents of primitive sources. Thus, green, unripe bananas, raw potatoes and other such fiber sources in the Cureality lifestyle.

There is therefore no need to purchase prebiotic fibers outside of your daily effort at including an unripe green banana, say, or inulin and fructooligosaccharides (FOS), or small servings of legumes as a means of cultivating healthy bowel flora. These are powerful strategies that change the number and species of bowel flora over time, thereby leading to beneficial health effects that include reduced blood sugar and blood pressure, reduction in triglycerides, reduced anxiety and improved sleep, and reduced colon cancer risk.

HOWEVER, convenience can be a struggle. Traveling by plane, for example, makes lugging around green bananas or raw potatoes inconvenient. Inulin and FOS already come as powders or capsules and they are among the options for a convenient, portable prebiotic fiber strategy. But there are others that can be purchased. This is a more costly way to get your prebiotic fibers and you do not need to purchase these products in order to succeed in your bowel flora management program. These products are therefore listed strictly as a strategy for convenience.

Most perspectives on the quality of human bowel flora composition suggest that diversity is an important feature, i.e., the greater the number of species, the better the health of the host. There may therefore be advantage in varying your prebiotic routine, e.g., green banana on Monday, inulin on Tuesday, PGX (below) on Wednesday, etc. Beyond providing convenience, these products may introduce an added level of diversity, as well.

Among the preparations available to us that can be used as prebiotic fibers:

PGX

While it is billed as a weight management and blood sugar-reducing product, the naturally occurring fiber--α-D-glucurono-α-D-manno-β-D-manno- β-D-gluco, α-L-gulurono-β-D mannurono, β-D-gluco-β- D-mannan--in PGX also exerts prebiotic effects (evidenced by increased fecal butyrate, the beneficial end-product of bacterial metabolism). PGX is available as capsules or granules. It also seems to exert prebiotic effects at lower doses than other prebiotic fibers. While I usually advise reaching 20 grams per day of fiber, PGX appears to exert substantial effects at a daily dose of half that quantity. As with all prebiotic fibers, it is best to build up slowly over weeks, e.g., start at 1.5 grams twice per day. It is also best taken in two or three divided doses. (Avoid the PGX bars, as they are too carb-rich for those of us trying to achieve ideal metaobolic health.)

Prebiotin

A combination of inulin and FOS available as powders and in portable Stick Pacs (2 gram and 4 gram packs). This preparation is quite costly, however, given the generally low cost of purchasing chicory inulin and FOS separately.

Acacia

Acacia fiber is another form of prebiotic fiber.  RenewLife and NOW are two reputable brands.

Isomalto-oligosaccharides

This fiber is used in Quest bars and in Paleo Protein Bars. With Quest bars, choose the flavors without sucralose, since it has been associated with undesirable changes in bowel flora.

There you go. It means that there are fewer and fewer reasons to not purposefully cultivate healthy bowel flora and obtain all the wonderful health benefits of doing so, from reduced blood pressure, to reduced triglycerides, to deeper sleep.

Disclaimer: I am not compensated in any way by discussing these products.

How Not To Have An Autoimmune Condition

20. April 2015 William Davis (0)

Autoimmune conditions are becoming increasingly common. Estimates vary, but it appears that at least 8-9% of the population in North America and Western Europe have one of these conditions, with The American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association estimating that it’s even higher at 14% of the population.

The 200 or so autoimmune diseases that afflict modern people are conditions that involve an abnormal immune response directed against one or more organs of the body. If the misguided attack is against the thyroid gland, it can result in Hashimoto’s thyroiditis. If it is directed against pancreatic beta cells that produce insulin, it can result in type 1 diabetes or latent autoimmune diabetes of adults (LADA). If it involves tissue encasing joints (synovium) like the fingers or wrists, it can result in rheumatoid arthritis. It if involves the liver, it can result in autoimmune hepatitis, and so on. Nearly every organ of the body can be the target of such a misguided immune response.

While it requires a genetic predisposition towards autoimmunity that we have no control over (e.g., the HLA-B27 gene for ankylosing spondylitis), there are numerous environmental triggers of these diseases that we can do something about. Identifying and correcting these factors stacks the odds in your favor of reducing autoimmune inflammation, swelling, pain, organ dysfunction, and can even reverse an autoimmune condition altogether.

Among the most important factors to correct in order to minimize or reverse autoimmunity are:

Wheat and grain elimination

If you are reading this, you likely already know that the gliadin protein of wheat and related proteins in other grains (especially the secalin of rye, the hordein of barley, zein of corn, perhaps the avenin of oats) initiate the intestinal “leakiness” that begins the autoimmune process, an effect that occurs in over 90% of people who consume wheat and grains. The flood of foreign peptides/proteins, bacterial lipopolysaccharide, and grain proteins themselves cause immune responses to be launched against these foreign factors. If, for instance, an autoimmune response is triggered against wheat gliadin, the same antibodies can be aimed at the synapsin protein of the central nervous system/brain, resulting in dementia or cerebellar ataxia (destruction of the cerebellum resulting in incoordination and loss of bladder and bowel control). Wheat and grain elimination is by far the most important item on this list to reverse autoimmunity.

Correct vitamin D deficiency

It is clear that, across a spectrum of autoimmune diseases, vitamin D deficiency serves a permissive, not necessarily causative, role in allowing an autoimmune process to proceed. It is clear, for instance, that autoimmune conditions such as type 1 diabetes in children, rheumatoid arthritis, and Hashimoto’s thyroiditis are more common in those with low vitamin D status, much less common in those with higher vitamin D levels. For this and other reasons, I aim to achieve a blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 60-70 ng/ml, a level that usually requires around 4000-8000 units per day of D3 (cholecalciferol) in gelcap or liquid form (never tablet due to poor or erratic absorption). In view of the serious nature of autoimmune diseases, it is well worth tracking occasional blood levels.

Supplement omega-3 fatty acids

While omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA, from fish oil have proven only modestly helpful by themselves, when cast onto the background of wheat/grain elimination and vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids compound anti-inflammatory benefits, such as those exerted via cyclooxygenase-2. This requires a daily EPA + DHA dose of around 3600 mg per day, divided in two. Don’t confuse EPA and DHA omega-3s with linolenic acid, another form of omega-3 obtained from meats, flaxseed, chia, and walnuts that does not not yield the same benefits. Nor can you use krill oil with its relatively trivial content of omega-3s.

Eliminate dairy

This is true in North America and most of Western Europe, less true in New Zealand and Australia. Autoimmunity can be triggered by the casein beta A1 form of casein widely expressed in dairy products, but not by casein beta A2 and other forms. Because it is so prevalent in North America and Western Europe, the most confident way to avoid this immunogenic form of casein is to avoid dairy altogether. You might be able to consume cheese, given the fermentation process that alters proteins and sugar, but that has not been fully explored.

Cultivate healthy bowel flora

People with autoimmune conditions have massively screwed up bowel flora with reduced species diversity and dominance of unhealthy species. We restore a healthier anti-inflammatory panel of bacterial species by “seeding” the colon with high-potency probiotics, then nourishing them with prebiotic fibers/resistant starches, a collection of strategies summarized in the Cureality Digestive Health discussions. People sometimes view bowel flora management as optional, just “fluff”–it is anything but. Properly managing bowel flora can be a make-it-or-break-it advantage; don’t neglect it.

There you go: a basic list to get started on if your interest is to begin a process of unraveling the processes of autoimmunity. In some conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis and polymyalgia rheumatica, full recovery is possible. In other conditions, such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis and the pancreatic beta cell destruction leading to type 1 diabetes, reversing the autoimmune inflammation does not restore organ function: hypothyroidism results after thyroiditis quiets down and type 1 diabetes and need for insulin persists after pancreatic beta cell damage. But note that the most powerful risk factor for an autoimmune disease is another autoimmune disease–this is why so many people have more than one autoimmune condition. People with Hashimoto’s, for instance, can develop rheumatoid arthritis or psoriasis. So the above menu is still worth following even if you cannot hope for full organ recovery

Five Powerful Ways to Reduce Blood Sugar

4. April 2015 William Davis (0)
Left to conventional advice on diet and you will, more than likely, succumb to type 2 diabetes sooner or later. Follow your doctor’s advice to cut fat and eat more “healthy whole grains” and oral diabetes medication and insulin are almost certainly in your future. Despite this, had this scenario played out, you would be accused of laziness and gluttony, a weak specimen of human being who just gave into excess.

If you turn elsewhere for advice, however, and ignore the awful advice from “official” sources with cozy relationships with Big Pharma, you can reduce blood sugars sufficient to never become diabetic or to reverse an established diagnosis, and you can create a powerful collection of strategies that handily trump the worthless advice being passed off by the USDA, American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, or the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

Among the most powerful and effective strategies to reduce blood sugar:

1) Eat no wheat nor grains

Recall that amylopectin A, the complex carbohydrate of grains, is highly digestible, unlike most of the other components of the seeds of grasses AKA “grains,” subject to digestion by the enzyme, amylase, in saliva and stomach. This explains why, ounce for ounce, grains raise blood sugar higher than table sugar. Eat no grains = remove the exceptional glycemic potential of amylopectin A.

2) Add no sugars, avoid high-fructose corn syrup

This should be pretty obvious, but note that the majority of processed foods contain sweeteners such as sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup, tailored to please the increased desire for sweetness among grain-consuming people. While fructose does not raise blood sugar acutely, it does so in delayed fashion, along with triggering other metabolic distortions such as increased triglycerides and fatty liver.

3) Vitamin D

Because vitamin D restores the body’s normal responsiveness to insulin, getting vitamin D right helps reduce blood sugar naturally while providing a range of other health benefits.

4) Restore bowel flora

As cultivation of several Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria species in bowel flora yields fatty acids that restore insulin responsiveness, this leads to reductions in blood sugar over time. Minus the bowel flora-disrupting effects of grains and sugars, a purposeful program of bowel flora restoration is required (discussed at length in the Cureality Digestive Health section.)

5) Exercise

Blood sugar is reduced during and immediately following exercise, with the effect continuing for many hours afterwards, even into the next day.

Note that, aside from exercise, none of these powerful strategies are advocated by the American Diabetes Association or any other “official” agency purporting to provide dietary advice. As is happening more and more often as the tide of health information rises and is accessible to all, the best advice on health does not come from such agencies nor from your doctor but from your efforts to better understand the truths in health. This is our core mission in Cureality. A nice side benefit: information from Cureality is not accompanied by advertisements from Merck, Pfizer, Kelloggs, Kraft, or Cadbury Schweppes.

Cureality App Review: Breathe Sync

7. March 2015 William Davis (0)


Biofeedback is a wonderful, natural way to gain control over multiple physiological phenomena, a means of tapping into your body’s internal resources. You can, for instance, use biofeedback to reduce anxiety, heart rate, and blood pressure, and achieve a sense of well-being that does not involve drugs, side-effects, or even much cost.

Biofeedback simply means that you are tracking some observable physiologic phenomenon—heart rate, skin temperature, blood pressure—and trying to consciously access control over it. One very successful method is that of bringing the beat-to-beat variation in heart rate into synchrony with the respiratory cycle. In day-to-day life, the heart beat is usually completely out of sync with respiration. Bring it into synchrony and interesting things happen: you experience a feeling of peace and calm, while many healthy phenomena develop.

A company called HeartMath has applied this principle through their personal computer-driven device that plugs into the USB port of your computer and monitors your heart rate with a device clipped on your earlobe. You then regulate breathing and follow the instructions provided and feedback is obtained on whether you are achieving synchrony, or what they call “coherence.” As the user becomes more effective in achieving coherence over time, positive physiological and emotional effects develop. HeartMath has been shown, for instance, to reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure, morning cortisol levels (a stress hormone), and helps people deal with chronic pain. Downside of the HeartMath process: a $249 price tag for the earlobe-USB device.

But this is the age of emerging smartphone apps, including those applied to health. Smartphone apps are perfect for health monitoring. They are especially changing how we engage in biofeedback. An app called Breathe Sync is available that tracks heart rate using the camera’s flash on the phone. By tracking heart rate and providing visual instruction on breathing pattern, the program generates a Wellness Quotient, WQ, similar to HeartMath’s coherence scoring system. Difference: Breathe Sync is portable and a heck of a lot less costly. I paid $9.99, more than I’ve paid for any other mainstream smartphone application, but a bargain compared to the HeartMath device cost.

One glitch is that you need to not be running any other programs in the background, such as your GPS, else you will have pauses in the Breathe Sync program, negating the value of your WQ. Beyond this, the app functions reliably and can help you achieve the health goals of biofeedback with so much less hassle and greater effectiveness than the older methods.

If you are looking for a biofeedback system that provides advantage in gaining control over metabolic health, while also providing a wonderful method of relaxation, Breathe Sync, I believe, is the go-to app right now.

How did Cureality get its start?

27. July 2014 William Davis (0)



In the Cureality program, we embrace information and strategies that empower you in health without drugs, without hospitals, without procedures. We convert your doctor from director of healthcare to your assistant in health. He or she is there when you need help, but you largely direct your own health future.

How did we gain the know-how, information, tools, even chutzpah to take on such an ambitious project?

It started around 10 years ago with the awkwardly named Track Your Plaque program. In fact, some of the current followers of the Cureality program are former Track Your Plaque members, having learned of the wonderful list of strategies that can be adopted to gain better control over, even reverse, coronary atherosclerotic plaque and risk for heart attack. They also learned that something special happens when you engage with other people with similar interests, all sharing ideas, insights, and resources to get the self-directed health job done. Over time, what started out as simply a source of better information for coronary health evolved into a self-directed coronary disease management program. We never set out to create something as wildly ambitious as a do-it-yourself-at-home coronary disease risk management program, but that is how it inadvertently turned out.

How we went from Information Provider to Health Empowerment Program

So we never intended to take on something so seemingly impossible as managing coronary risk on your own. But, because we armed people with such empowering, profound insights into better ways to manage their heart disease risk beyond “don’t smoke, cut saturated fat, be active, and take a statin drug”—the typical advice offered by doctors—they returned after an interaction with their doctors disappointed: doctors often declared such strategies unnecessary, or the doctor didn’t understand them—even when there were clear-cut clinical data already available to support their use. In other words, the patients—everyday people, not experts—knew more than their doctors. 

This flip-flop in the balance of knowledge made for some very interesting stories, like “Harold” (not his real name) who, having survived a heart attack and received a stent, was told by his doctor to cut his fat intake, eat more whole grains, exercise, take aspirin and a beta blocker drug, and reduce his cholesterol values with a statin drug. Upon learning all the additional information from the Track Your Plaque program, Harold returned to his doctor and asked “I’m not so ready to just go along with this idea of ‘reducing cholesterol’ to address heart disease risk. Because my goal is to gain as much control over coronary disease as possible, maybe even reverse it, I’d like to address some additional issues that I believe may be important. I’d like to have my advanced lipoproteins drawn to measure the proportion of small LDL particles I have, whether I have lipoprotein(a), an omega-3 fatty acid index and 25-hydroxy vitamin D level, and a thyroid assessment. Oh, and I believe I should also have an assessment of my inflammation status, perhaps a c-reactive protein and phospholipase A2, and my blood sugar status measured with a fasting glucose, insulin, and hemoglobin A1c.” Harold’s doctor was dumbfounded and speechless. Rather than reveal his ignorance, his doctor advised Harold that none of that was necessary, sending him on his way and telling him that he was fine.

But this left Harold with a sour taste in his mouth, having engaged in many online discussions with people who had followed conventional advice that resulted in more heart attack, more heart procedures—the conventional answers simply did not work. He also discussed his situation with people who had successfully obtained the additional information he sought, added it to their program and enjoyed dramatically improved health, including freedom from more heart attacks, heart symptoms, and heart procedures, as well as improved overall health. So Harold found an easy way to obtain the testing on his own. Within a couple of weeks, he returned to his online community and shared all his information. Within moments, he was provided useful discussion to help him understand the values, all leading to changes in nutrition, nutritional supplement choices, how and where to get the simple tools necessary, such as iodine and vitamin D supplements. He even entered his data, choosing which values he was willing to share with others, which remained private, allowing him to compare his own follow-up values several months later. Engaged in this process, self-directed but collaborative, he witnessed marked transformations in his health. Not only did he never again—over several years—ever re-develop heart symptoms nor require any more trips back to the cath lab, he lost weight, reversed a pre-diabetic sugar profile, improved his cholesterol values without drugs, got rid of the acid reflux symptoms he endured for many years, dropped his blood pressure to normal, enjoyed better mood, energy, and sleep. Slender, healthier, all accomplished without his doctor. 

Harold returned to his doctor for a routine follow-up. Slender, energetic, without complaints, on no drugs except the aspirin for his stent, the basic laboratory assessment his doctor ordered in front of him, his doctor admitted,” Well, I don’t know how you’re doing it, but these values look like a 20-year old substituted his blood for yours. They’re unbelievable. What drugs are you taking to do this?” “No drugs,” Harold replied, “I’m following a program to reverse heart disease, but it means doing some things that are different from conventional solutions.” His doctor closed their meeting with the signature response of doctors nationwide: “Well, I don’t understand what you are doing, but just keep doing it.”

Yes, Harold knew more about how to control heart disease than his doctor, more than his cardiologist. The cardiologist knew how to insert a stent or defibrillator. But deliver information that empowered Harold in all aspects of health from head to toe, while also dramatically reducing, perhaps eliminating, his coronary disease risk? As you now know, that is not what conventional healthcare does, nor is it interested in doing so, as it would relinquish control and threaten to cut off this hugely profitable revenue stream that drives “healthcare.”

Having managed to inadvertently create a self-directed coronary risk management program with such spectacular results and in probably one of the most difficult areas of all—heart disease—it became clear that a similar approach could be even more easily applied to many other areas of health, such as weight loss, bone health, cholesterol and blood pressure issues, diabetes and pre-diabetes, hormonal health, autoimmune conditions, and others. You can do it when empowered by safe, effective information, and supported by a community of sharing and collaboration. We don’t fire our doctors; they are there when we need them when, for instance, we get injured or catch pneumonia, or as an occasional resource. But doctors should no longer be able to get away with neglect, misinformation, or blindly directing you to the next revenue-generating procedure because you are empowered by the information and support you receive in Cureality.

As we get more effective in delivering this information and new tools to you, just imagine what we can accomplish in this new age of information and self-empowerment. The future for us is bright with ambitions for better interactive tools with Cureality expert staff, better ways to crowd source health answers, provide more engaging community conversation, all while the health insights that help accomplish our self-directed health goals get better and better. Each person that joins Cureality helps make this service more effective because your wisdom, insights, and experience are added to the collective knowledge. We are more powerful together than we are as individuals.

If you are already a Cureality Member, please add your comments and questions to the growing conversation. If you are not a Member, consider joining our discussions, as each new voice gets us closer and closer to better answers to take back control over health.

Power in Numbers

25. June 2014 William Davis (0)


In his book, The Wisdom of Crowds, author James Surowiecki begins with the story of an ox judging competition in which 800 people—not ox experts nor breeders, just ordinary people attending a county fair—were asked to guess the weight of the ox. The competition was conducted by a scientist, Francis Galton, who held a low opinion of the intelligence of the average person, remarking that “the stupidity and wrong-headedness of many men and women being so great as to be scarcely credible.” He hoped to prove, by examining the various guesses, that the average person had no idea of how to judge the real answer. After all participants casted their written votes, Galton tallied up the total and averaged the result: 1,197 pounds—just one pound off from the real weight of 1,198 pounds. Few individuals actually guessed the correct weight themselves but, when the opinions of many were combined, the result was near-perfect.

Crowds can also be a source of irrational behavior, panic, and stampede. Witness any modern football or soccer game, for instance, in which fights break out over an issue as minor as a disputed call or a heckle. Or go back through history to the countless events when mass hysteria ruled, such as the Salem Witch Trials or Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds radio broadcast.

Let’s put aside examples of mass emotional chaos of the sort that causes crowds to stampede store doors on Black Friday. Let’s focus instead on conscious, considered, thoughtful opinions. We all accept that there are as many opinions on issues as there are people, not uncommonly with widely divergent views. But can we, as Galton’s famous experiment did, combine the opinions of many and come away with some fruitful insight—the correct answer? Just as the people participating in Galton’s experiment were not experts, so Cureality participants—a crowd-sourced collection of opinions—are not experts. If we were to poll everyone to identify their area of expertise or experience, it would likely include finance, the retail industry, raising children, or teaching—but not health. Yes, we have experts curating the direction of content, but we also crowd-source collective opinion.

Right now, Cureality is based on existing science, the philosophy of self-directed health, combined with guidance and community to help the participant along in the sometimes complex world of health questions. But as our processes and procedures improve, can we—like Galton’s ox weight guessers—come away with coalescent wisdom, answers to our health questions, near-perfect solutions to health conditions that have eluded the “experts” for centuries?

I think that we can. No, I know that we can. We enter a new age in information and harness the power of the crowd-sourcing of solutions, even when no single individual has the complete answer herself.

What is Cureality all about?

27. May 2014 William Davis (1)

“Looking over your medical record, Nancy, I’m a bit concerned about your risk for osteoporosis and hip fracture. It looks like your mom had a hip fracture at age 67. Is that right? ”

“Yes, she did,” Nancy responded. “And her life was never quite the same for the 15 years she lived after that.

“You’re 53 year old. Bone thinning develops over many years. Let’s get you scheduled for a bone scan.”

Two weeks later:

“Your z-score is 1.5, Nancy. This means you’ve got a mild form of osteoporosis called ‘osteopenia.’ Here: This is a prescription for alendronate, what used to be called Fosamax.”

“Aren’t there side-effects with that drug? A friend of mine said that her mom had a leg fracture from it.”

“Well, yes. All prescription drugs have potential side-effects. They’re rare, but they can happen and we can’t predict it. Besides leg fracture, there’s something called jaw osteonecrosis in which the jawbone dies and has to be surgically replaced. But would you rather run the risk of a hip fracture?”

“Before we jump to drugs, aren’t there natural things I could do first?”

(Big sigh.) “You can take calcium, but that only helps a bit. You’ve got to make a choice: Take the drug or risk a hip fracture.”

“I’m going to explore some natural remedies on my own first.”

Nancy’s dialogue with her doctor is fictional but based on similar encounters that occur thousands of times every day nationwide. Identify a problem, prescribe a drug. Natural remedies? “They don’t work.” “I don’t know anything about that.” “None of that is proven.” “I only practice evidence-based medicine.” You’ve probably heard a few of these explanations yourself if you ever question the wisdom of conventional medical care.

Each of Nancy’s fictitious interactions were no more 10 minutes long. If she is like most people, she will have one or two such interactions over the course of a year, unless she develops some acute illness. So she’s got something like 20-30 minutes per year to compress all of her “health” advice into the time allotted. 20-30 minutes per year to discuss bone health, nutrition, blood sugar issues, cholesterol issues, blood pressure, female issues, and all the other facets of health. Perhaps she has developed some chronic gastrointestinal complaints, too, and an odd rash on her elbows, maybe headaches a few times per week that she didn’t have before. Regardless, she’s going to have to make do with those few minutes, likely receiving one or more prescriptions or imaging procedures for each.

Such is the nature of modern healthcare: Provide the minimum interaction, address only a few, perhaps no more than one, problem, then prescribe a drug. This is, more often than not, wrong. Plain wrong. Tragically, awfully, unethically, unnecessarily wrong.

Let’s pick up again with Nancy. Upon learning of her osteopenia and long-term risk for hip fractures of the sort that changed her mom’s life and health irretrievably, Nancy started searching for solutions. Not only did she discover that, yes, there are indeed a number of safe and effective ways to deal with osteopenia. She also learned that such strategies have even been examined in clinical trials, some of the strategies pitted head-to-head with drugs and performed on a par, sometimes better, than prescription drugs. She also found that there are online communities that she could join and discuss her health situation with people all sharing the same health interests. During one such interaction at the start of her effort, when she was still a bit unsure and tentative, a woman she didn’t know but who shared a similar interest in restoring bone health, commented to Nancy, “Don’t sweat it, Nancy. I was in your shoes a little over a year ago. I followed a program for bone health: vitamin D, vitamin K2, magnesium, I made sure that I included leafy green vegetables at least once or twice per day, and I added strength training for a few minutes twice per week. I started with osteoporosis. My most recent bone density test showed that I reversed it completely—it’s entirely normal! So hang in there and be sure to share your questions and concerns with us here.”

THAT is what Cureality is all about. Cureality fills the gap of knowledge in health that is not being provided in a few minute-long medical interaction. Cureality reveals the astounding amount of credible, safe, scientific information that allows you to participate, sometimes take over completely, various aspects of health. You don’t have to fire your doctor; these efforts supplement the information and advice you obtain (or don’t obtain) in the doctor’s office. While critics may sometimes say that this can be dangerous or that misdiagnoses and dangerous treatments might be risked, our experience is the exact opposite: People do better by taking the reins of health themselves, choosing to use the health care system for acute or catastrophic illness—but not necessarily for health.

Our fictional woman, Nancy, returns to her doctor one year later after undergoing a repeat bone scan. The doctor opened her chart, clearly expecting to scold her for her foolhardy and careless attitude. Instead, he was speechless. After a pause, he said, “I don’t know how you did it, but your bone density is now normal, the density of a healthy 30-year old woman. Just continue doing what you’re doing.” He closed the chart and walked out.

Yes: “Just continue what you are doing”—not “Please tell me what you did so that I might learn something new,” or “Where did you learn about such strategies? I knew nothing about this!” Just “do what you’re doing.” Too often, that is the response you get that defines what modern health care has become.

You don’t want that kind of health care. Sure, it’s reassuring to know that the doctor and hospital are there in case you injure yourself or develop pneumonia. But obtain day-to-day health advice of the sort that keeps you slender, keeps blood pressure normal, maintains normal insulin and blood pressure responses, helps keep bowel health ideal, can even be used to reverse conditions such as autoimmune joint pain, diabetes, osteoporosis, or skin rashes, while costing next to nothing and yielding health care benefits for you and your family in multiple areas of health? That is the kind of health care you want.

That’s why we developed Cureality.


William Davis, MD
Author of #1 New York Times Bestseller Wheat Belly: Lose the wheat, lose the weight and find your path back to health, The Wheat Belly Cookbook, and Wheat Belly 30-Minute (or Less!) Cookbook published by Rodale, Inc.  
Author, Track Your Plaque: The only heart disease prevention program that shows how the new CT heart scans can be used to detect, track, and control coronary plaque

Omega-3 fatty acids likely NOT associated with prostate cancer

18. July 2013 William Davis Omega-3 fatty acids (6)
A weakly constructed study was reported recently that purportedly associated higher levels of omega-3 fatty acid blood levels and prostate cancer. See this CBS News report, for instance.

Lipid and omega-3 fat expert, Dr. William Harris, posted this concise critique of the study, exposing some fundamental problems:

First, the reported EPA+DHA level in the plasma phospholipids in this study was 3.62% in the no-cancer control group, 3.66% in the total cancer group, 3.67% in the low grade cancer group, and 3.74% in the high-grade group. These differences between cases and controls are very small and would have no meaning clinically as they are within the normal variation. Based on experiments in our lab, the lowest quartile would correspond to an HS-Omega-3 Index of <3.16% and the highest to an Index of >4.77%). These values are obviously low, and virtually none of the subjects was in “danger” of having an HS-Omega-3 Index of >8%. So to conclude that regular consumption of 2 oily fish meals a week or taking fish oil supplements (both of which would result in an Index above the observed range) would increase risk for prostate cancer is extrapolating beyond the data.

This study did not test the question of whether giving fish oil supplements (or eating more oily fish) increased PC risk; it looked only a blood levels of omega-3 which are determined by intake, other dietary factors, metabolism and genetics.

The authors also failed to present the fuller story taught by the literature. The same team reported in 2010 that the use of fish oil supplements was not associated with any increased risk for prostate cancer. A 2010 meta-analysis of fish consumption and prostate cancer reported a reduction in late stage or fatal cancer among cohort studies, but no overall relationship between prostate cancer and fish intake. Terry et al. in 2001 reported higher fish intake was associated with lower risk for prostate cancer incidence and death, and Leitzmann et al. in 2004 reported similar findings. Higher intakes of canned, preserved fish were reported to be associated with reduced risk for prostate cancer. Epstein et al found that a higher omega-3 fatty acid intake predicted better survival for men who already had prostate cancer, and increased fish intake was associated with a 63% reduction in risk for aggressive prostate cancer in a case-control study by Fradet et al). So there is considerable evidence actually FAVORING an increase in fish intake for prostate cancer risk reduction.

Another piece of the picture is to compare prostate cancer rates in Japan vs the US. Here is a quote from the World Foundation of Urology:

"[Prostate cancer] incidence is really high in North America and Northern Europe (e.g., 63 X 100,000 white men and 102 X 100,000 Afro-Americans in the United States), but very low in Asia (e.g., 10 X 100,000 men in Japan).”

Since the Japanese typically eat about 8x more omega-3 fatty acids than Americans do and their
blood levels are twice as high, you’d think their prostate cancer risk would be much higher...
but the opposite is the case.

Omega-3 fatty acids are physiologically necessary, normalizing multiple metabolic phenomena including augmentation of parasympathetic tone, reductions of postprandial (after-meal) lipoprotein excursions, and endothelial function. It would indeed make no sense that nutrients that are necessary for life and health exert an adverse effect such as prostate cancer at such low blood levels. (Recall that an omega-3 RBC index of 6.0% or greater is associated with reduced potential for sudden cardiac death.)

I personally take 3600 mg per day of EPA + DHA in highly-purified, non-oxidized triglyceride form (Ascenta Nutrasea liquid) that yields an RBC omega-3 index of just over 10%, the level that I believe the overwhelming bulk of data suggest is the ideal level for humans.

Are statins and omega-3s incompatible?

18. June 2013 William Davis (4)
French researcher, Dr. Michel de Lorgeril, has been in the forefront of thinking and research into nutritional issues, including the Mediterranean Diet, the French Paradox, and the role of fat intake in cardiovascular health. In a recent review entitled Recent findings on the health effects of omega-3 fatty acids and statins, and their interactions: do statins inhibit omega-3?, he explores the question of whether statin drugs are, in effect, incompatible with omega-3 fatty acids.

Dr. Lorgeril makes several arguments:

1) Earlier studies, such as GISSI-Prevenzione, demonstrated reduction in cardiovascular events with omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, consistent with the biological and physiological benefits observed in animals, experimental preparations, and epidemiologic observations in free-living populations.

2) More recent studies (and meta-analyses) examining the effects of omega-3 fatty acids have failed to demonstrate cardiovascular benefit showing, at most, non-significant trends towards benefit.

He points out that the more recent studies were conducted post-GISSI and after agencies like the American Heart Association's advised people to consume more fish, which prompted broad increases in omega-3 intake. The populations studied therefore had increased intake of omega-3 fatty acids at the start of the studies, verified by higher levels of omega-3 RBC levels in participants.

In addition, he raises the provocative idea that the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids appear to be confined to those not taking statin agents, as suggested, for instance, in the Alpha Omega Trial. He speculates that the potential for statins to ablate the benefits of omega-3s (and vice versa) might be based on several phenomena:

--Statins increase arachidonic acid content of cell membranes, a potentially inflammatory omega-6 fatty acid that competes with omega-3 fatty acids. (Insulin provocation and greater linoleic acid/omega-6 oils do likewise.)
--Statins induce impaired mitochondrial function, while omega-3s improve mitochondrial function. (Impaired mitochondrial function is evidenced, for instance, by reduced coenzyme Q10 levels, with partial relief from muscle weakness and discomfort by supplementing coenzyme Q10.)
--Statins commonly provoke muscle weakness and discomfort which can, in turn, lead to reduced levels of physical activity and increased resistance to insulin. (Thus the recently reported increases in diabetes with statin drug use.)

Are the physiologic effects of omega-3 fatty acids, present and necessary for health, at odds with the non-physiologic effects of statin drugs?

I fear we don't have sufficient data to come to firm conclusions yet, but my perception is that the case against statins is building. Yes, they have benefits in specific subsets of people (none in others), but the notion that everybody needs a statin drug is, I believe, not only dead wrong, but may have effects that are distinctly negative. And I believe that the arguments in favor of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, EPA and DHA (and perhaps DPA), make better sense.



DHA: the crucial omega-3

22. May 2013 William Davis (5)
Of the two omega-3 fatty acids that are best explored, EPA and DHA, it is likely DHA that exerts the most blood pressure- and heart rate-reducing effects. Here are the data of Mori et al in which 4000 mg of olive oil, purified EPA only, or purified DHA only were administered over 6 weeks:



□ indicates baseline SBP; ▪, postintervention SBP; ○, baseline DBP; •, postintervention DBP; ⋄, baseline HR; and ♦, postintervention HR.

In this group of 56 overweight men with normal starting blood pressures, only DHA reduced systolic BP by 5.8 mmHg, diastolic by 3.3 mmHg.

While each omega-3 fatty acid has important effects, it may be DHA that has an outsized benefit. So how can you get more DHA? Well, this observation from Schuchardt et al is important:

DHA in the triglyceride and phospholipid forms are 3-fold better absorbed, as compared to the ethyl ester form (compared by area-under-the-curve). In other words, fish oil that has been reconstituted to the naturally-occurring triglyceride form (i.e., the form found in fresh fish) provides 3-fold greater blood levels of DHA than the more common ethyl ester form found in most capsules. (The phospholipid form of DHA found in krill is also well-absorbed, but occurs in such small quantities that it is not a practical means of obtaining omega-3 fatty acids, putting aside the astaxanthin issue.)

So if the superior health effects of DHA are desired in a form that is absorbed, the ideal way to do this is either to eat fish or to supplement fish oil in the triglyceride, not ethyl ester, form. The most common and popular forms of fish oil sold are ethyl esters, including Sam's Club Triple-Strength, Costco, Nature Made, Nature's Bounty, as well as prescription Lovaza. (That's right: prescription fish oil, from this and several other perspectives, is an inferior product.)

What sources of triglyceride fish oil with greater DHA content/absorption are available to us? My favorites are, in this order:

Ascenta NutraSea
CEO and founder, Marc St. Onge, is a friend. Having visited his production facility in Nova Scotia, I was impressed with the meticulous methods of preparation. At every step of the way, every effort was made to limit any potential oxidation, including packaging in a vacuum environment. The Ascenta line of triglyceride fish oils are also richer in DHA content. Their NutraSea High DHA liquid, for instance, contains 500 mg EPA and 1000 mg DHA per teaspoon, a 1:2 EPA:DHA ratio, rather than the more typical 3:2 EPA:DHA ratio of ethyl ester forms.

Pharmax (now Seroyal) also has a fine product with a 1.4:1 EPA:DHA ratio.

Nordic Naturals has a fine liquid triglyceride product, though it is 2:1 EPA:DHA.





All posts by william-davis

Dr. Michael Eades on the Paleolithic diet

18. February 2009 William Davis (16)
Dr. Michael Eades has posted an absolutely spectacular commentary on the Paleolithic diet concept:

Rapid health improvements with a Paleolithic diet

The post was prompted by publication of a study that tried to recreate a Paleolithic-like diet experience over a brief study period:

Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet.

Dr. Eades discussion is wonderfully insightful and comprehensive and there's little to say to improve on his discussion.

I'd make one small point: From what I see in my experience, the improvements in lipid patterns seen in the brief period of this study are very likely to have been primarily due to the removal of wheat. Followers of this blog know that wheat elimination is among the most powerful cholesterol-reducing strategies available.

What vitamin D form?

15. February 2009 William Davis (36)
In response to questions regarding why don't vitamin D tablets work, here are my observations.

When I first started correcting vitamin D levels around 3 1/2 years ago, people would begin with starting 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood levels of around 20 ng/ml.

Taking, say, 6000 units vitamin D as tablets over 3 months yielded blood levels of 24-30 ng/ml. Taking 6000 units in an oil-based form, and blood levels would commonly be 60-70 ng/ml.

In other words, tablets are very poorly absorbed. I also saw very erratic absorption with tablets, with tremendous variation in blood levels.

I witnessed this effect many times. I finally began telling patients to avoid the tablets altogether. It's simply not worth it. Taking dose X of tablets, you cannot predict what the blood level of vitamin D will be.

Now, you can sometimes make the tablets get absorbed by either taking with a teaspoon of oil (e.g., olive, flaxseed) or taking with an oil-rich meal. However, I am uncertain just how consistent the absorption is under these circumstances, not having done this enough times to know.

Oil-filled gelcaps are no more expensive than tablets (or perhaps a dollar more). Health food store employees and pharmacists don't know this. I have had many patients come to the office claiming they changed to tablets because that's all their health food store or pharmacy carried and the person behind the counter assured them it was the same. Blood level of vitamin D to confirm: right back down to the starting level or near it--little or no absorption.

The only way to know whether a preparation is absorbed is to check a blood level. But, in my experience, having checked vitamin D blood levels thousands of times, gelcaps never fail; tablets fail over 80% of the time.

Vitamin D for the pharmaceutically challenged

14. February 2009 William Davis (20)
Most Heart Scan Blog readers already know:

Your doctor has been brainwashed by the pharmaceutical industry.

Your doctor more than likely has spent the better part of his or her career in the Guantanamo Bay of healthcare, water-boarded by seductive sales representatives, enticed with promises of fame and riches, threatened with ostracism from the clubby internal halls of healthcare if--gasp!--he or she didn't subscribe to the "rule" that only drugs are good, anything else is bad.

The same FDA-approval-is-necessary-to-be-good brand of nonsense is gaining popularity among my colleagues who, having caught some mention (on the Today Show, Oprah, or similar source of medical information), hope to join the vitamin D hoopla.

People will proudly declare that they are taking a high dose of vitamin D: 50,000 units once per week.

No. They are taking a barely useful form: D2, ergocalciferol.

Studies examining the reliability of the D2 form differ:

There's the Heaney study suggesting that D2 is less effective than D3:
Vitamin D2 is much less effective than vitamin D3 in humans

Then there's the Holick study showing they are equivalent:
Vitamin D2 is as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining circulating concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

My experience is more in line with the Heaney study: Little or no real effect with D2.

One particularly illustrative case I witnessed was a woman who was mistakenly prescribed D2 at 50,000 units per day. She told me that she'd been taking it for a year. I fully expected to see clear-cut signs of toxicity (e.g., high blood calcium levels). Curiously, she showed no signs of toxicity. Nor did she show any vitamin D at all in her blood: 25-hydroxy D level of zero--literally zero.

I've witnessed similar phenomena several times: plenty of vitamin D2 . . . very little vitamin D in the blood.

All in all, I suppose that D2 is better than No-D at all. But you are far better off joining the ranks of the pharmaceutically challenged and go with the stuff that really works: D3.

D3, or cholecalciferol, yields confident increases in blood levels. It is inexpensive, safe, and an exact copy of the human form of vitamin D. (Of course, gelcap or drops only, NEVER tablets.)

There is absolute NO reason to take vitamin D2, the form that sometimes works, sometimes doesn't, the facsimile plant form issued by the drug industry.

Why don't stents prevent heart attack?

12. February 2009 William Davis (11)


No study has ever documented that stents prevent future heart attack. But, in day-to-day practice, stents are frequently implanted for just this reason.

A little clarification. Stents do prevent heart attack--if the heart attack is already underway, either as an "acute myocardial infarction" or "unstable angina."

In other words, a plaque in a coronary artery can rupture just like a little volcano. Rather than spewing lava, the underlying plaque contents--fibrous tissue, inflammatory cells, cholesterol crystals, fatty material, debris--are exposed to flowing blood and trigger spasm of the artery and blood clot formation. A ruptured plaque is typically found in people who go to the emergency room with severe chest pain or have difficulty breathing.

A heart catheterization is performed, a severe (e.g., 90-100%--completely closed) is found. A stent in this situation is of clear-cut benefit.

What is not clearly beneficial is someone with no symptoms, symptoms only with physical activity that has been present for at least several months, or someone with a high heart scan score and no symptoms. In these circumstances, stent implantation does not reduce risk for future heart attack.

Why?



Take a look at this angiogram of a right coronary artery. You can seen plaque all along the artery (represented by areas that appear pinched off. There are at least 4 visible.)

Putting one 15 millimeter stent in the artery will only affect the area of artery stented. (Stents vary in length, but typically are 12-18 millimeters in length.) The right coronary artery is about 10 times or more this length. There are also two other arteries of similar length. A stent at one location will do nothing to affect the potential for rupture in any of the other plaque-laden areas.

Say a stent is implanted in the "worst" blockage in this right coronary artery, the plaque located at around 9 o'clock. What about all the other plaques? They can still rupture.

Why not put in many stents, say, 4 or 5, and stent all the visible plaques?

Two reasons: 1) Plaque you can't even see on an angiogram can still rupture, and 2) it is very costly (easily $30,000 at the very least), 3) incurs greater procedural risk, and 4) messes up the artery for future procedures, since a steel-lined artery that develops more disease in future will be more difficult to re-implant stents, bypass, or perform other procedural manipulations.

The point: Putting in stents does not reduce potential for plaque rupture in the entire artery.

What can prevent plaque rupture? That's the whole point of following an effective prevention program: prevent plaque rupture.

(Of course, this discussion cannot encompass the wide variety of potential situations that may cause your doctor to individualize your approach. Nonetheless, when advised to have an elective heart procedure, a healthy dose of skepticism and is clearly a good practice.)

Top image courtesy National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Low thyroid: What to do?

8. February 2009 William Davis (25)
I've gotten a number of requests for solutions on how to solve the low thyroid issue if either 1) your doctor refuses to discuss the issue or denies it is present, or 2) there are government mandates against thyroid correction unless certain (outdated) targets are met.

Oh, boy.

While I'm not encouraging anyone to break the laws or regulations of their country (and it's impossible to generalize, with readers of this blog originating from over 30 countries), here are some simple steps to consider that might help you in your quest to correct hypothyroidism:

--Measure your body temperature--First thing in the morning either while lying in bed or go to the bathroom and measure your oral temp. Record it and, if it is consistently lower than 97.0 degrees (Fahrenheit), show it to your doctor. This may help persuade him/her.(You can still be hypothyroid with higher temperatures, but if low temperatures are present, it is simply more persuasive evidence in favor of treatment).

--Supplement with iodine 150 mcg per day to be sure you are not iodine deficient. This is becoming more common in the U.S. as people avoid iodized salt. It is quite common outside the U.S. An easy, inexpensive preparation is kelp tablets.

--Show your doctor a recent crucial study: The HUNT Study that suggests that cardiovascular mortality begins to increase at a TSH of only 1.5 or greater, not the 5.5 mIU usually used by laboratories and doctors.

--Ask people around you whether they are aware of a health practitioner who might be willing to work with you, or at least have an open mind (sadly, an uncommon commodity).

Also, see thyroid advocate and prolific author, Mary Shomon's advice on how to find a doctor willing to work with you. Yes, they are out there, but you may have to ask a lot of friends and acquaintances, or meet and fire a lot of docs. It shouldn't be this way, but it is. It will change through public pressure and education, but not by next week.

Another helpful discussion from Mary Shomon: The TSH Normal Range: Why is there still controversy? You will read that even the endocrinologists (a peculiarly contentious group) seethingly debate what constitutes normal vs. low thyroid function.

Also, you might remind a resistant health practitioner that guidelines are guidelines--they are not laws that restrain anyone. They are simply meant to represent broad population guidelines that do not take your personal health situation into consideration.

Which statin drug is best?

8. February 2009 William Davis (7)
I re-post a Heart Scan Blog post from one year ago, answering the question: Which statin drug is best?

I still get this question from patients in the office and online, nearly always prompted by a TV commercial. So let me re-express my thoughts from a year ago, which have not changed on this issue.


The statin drugs can indeed play a role in a program of coronary plaque control and regression.

However, thanks to the overwhelming marketing (and lobbying and legislative) clout of the drug manufacturing industry, they play an undeserved, oversized role. I get reminded of this whenever I'm pressed to answer the question: "Which statin drug is best?"

In trying to answer this question, we encounter several difficulties:

1) The data nearly all use statins drugs by themselves, as so-called monotherapy. Other than the standard diet--you know, the American Heart Association diet, the one that causes heart disease--it is a statin drug alone that has been studied in the dozens of major trials "validating" statin drug use. The repeated failure of statin drugs to eliminate heart disease and associated events like heart attack keeps being answered by the "lower is better" argument, i.e., if 70% of heart attacks destined to occur still take place, then reduce LDL even further. This is an absurd argument that inevitably encounters a wall of limited effects.

2) The great bulk of clinical data examining both the incidence of cardiovascular events as well as plaque progression or regression have all been sponsored by the drug's manufacturer. It has been well-documnted that, when a drug manufacturer sponsors a trial, the outcome is highly likely to be in favor of that drug. Imagine Ford sponsors a $30 million study to prove that their cars are more reliable and safer. What is the likelihood that the outcome will be in favor of the competition? Very unlikely. Such is human nature.

If we were to accept the clinical trial data at face value and ignore the above issues, then I would come to the conclusion that we should be using Crestor at a dose of 40 mg per day, since that was the regimen used in the ASTEROID Trial that achieved modest reversal of coronary atherosclerotic plaque by intravascular ultrasound.

But I do not advocate such an ASTEROID-like approach for several reasons:

1) In my experience, nobody can tolerate 40 mg of Crestor for more than few weeks, a few months at most. Show me someone who can survive and tolerate Crestor 40 mg per day and I'll show you somebody who survived a 40 foot fall off his roof--sure, it happens, but it's a fluke.

2) The notion that only one drug is necessary to regress this disease is, in my view, absurd. It ignores issues like hypertension, metabolic syndrome, inflammatory phenomena, lipoprotein(a), post-prandial (after-eating) phenomena, LDL particle size, triglycerides, etc. You mean that Crestor 40 mg per day, or other high-intensity statin monotherapy should be enough to overcome all of these patterns and provide maximal potential for coronary plaque reversal? No way.

3) Plaque reversal can occur without a statin agent. While statin drugs may provide some advantage in the reduction of LDL, much of the benefit ends there. All of the other dozens of causes of coronary atherosclerotic plaque need to be addressed.

So which statin is best? This question is evidence of the brainwashing that has seized the public and my colleagues. The question is not which statin is best. The question should be: What steps do I take to maximize my chances of reversing coronary atherosclerotic plaque?

The answer may or may not involve a statin drug, regardless of the subtle differences among them.

Dr. Nancy Sniderman, heart scans on Today Show

5. February 2009 William Davis (6)
While shaving this morning, I caught the report by NBC medical expert, Dr. Nancy Sniderman, about her coronary plaque and CT coronary angiogram.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy




Those of you in the Track Your Plaque program or who follow The Heart Scan Blog know that we should tell Dr. Sniderman and her doctor that:

She has done virtually nothing that will stop an increasing heart scan score! In fact, Dr. Sniderman is now following the "prevention program" that is eerily reminiscent of Tim Russert's program! We all know how that turned out.

It is pure folly to believe that a combination of Lipitor, exercise, and a "healthy diet" (usually meaning a low-fat diet--yes, the diet that promotes heart disease) will stop the otherwise relentless increase in heart scan score.

Dr. Sniderman, please consider:

1) Having the real causes of your coronary plaque identified. (It is highly unlikely to be just LDL cholesterol, though the drug industry is thrilled that you believe this.)

2) Ask yourself (or, if your doctor knew what she was doing, ask her): Why do I have heart disease? LDL cholesterol is insufficient reason--virtually nobody I know has high LDL cholesterol as the sole cause. LDL cholesterol is, at most, one reason among many others, but is insufficient as a sole cause.

3) What is your vitamin D status? Crucial!

4) What is your thyroid status?

5) Fish oil--a must!

6) Do you have lipoprotein(a)? Small LDL?

Just addressing the items on the above checklist would put you on a far more confident path to stop your heart scan score from increasing.

If you were to repeat your heart scan score, my prediction: Your score will be higher by 18-24% per year.

My personal experience with low thyroid

3. February 2009 William Davis (31)
Something happened to me around October-November of last year.

I usually feel great. Ordinarily, my struggles are sleeping and relaxing. As with most people, I have too many projects on my schedule, though I find my activities stimulating and fascinating.

I blasted through a very demanding November, trying to meet the needs of a book publisher. This involved sleeping only a few hours a night for several days on end, all after a full day of office practice and hospital duties.

But it was getting tougher. My concentration was becoming more fragmented. Getting things done was proving an elusive goal. Exercise became a real chore.

Although I usually force myself to go to sleep, I was starting to fall asleep before my usual bedtime, and I was sleeping longer than usual.

It's been a tough winter in Wisconsin. Let's face it: It's Wisconsin. But it's been tough even for this region, with weeks of temperatures consistently below 10 degrees. Even so, I was having a heck of a time keeping warm. Extra shirts, socks, soaking my hands in hot water--none of it worked and I was freezing.

So I had my thyroid values checked:

Free T3: 2.6 pg/ml (Ref 2.3-4.2)
Free T4: 1.20 ng/dl (Ref 0.89-1.76)
TSH: 1.528 uUI/ml (Ref 0.350-5.500)

Normal by virtually all standards. I measured my first morning oral temperature: 96.1, 96.3, 95.9. Hmmmm.

My experience coincided with the Track Your Plaque and Heart Scan Blog conversations about low thyroid being enormously underappreciated, with the newest data on thyroid disease suggesting that a TSH for ideal health is probably 1.5 mIU or less. (More about that: Is normal TSH too high? and Thyroid perspective update .

Could this simply be a case of medical student-oma in which every beginning medical student believes he has every disease he learns about?

Despite the apparently "normal" thyroid blood tests, I took the leap and started taking Armour thyroid, beginning at 1/2 grain (30 mg), increasing to 1 grain (60 mg) after the first week.

Within 10 days, I experienced:

--Dramatic restoration of the ability to concentrate
--A boost in mood. (In fact, the last few blog posts before I replaced thyroid reflect my deepening crabbiness.)
--Large increase in energy, now restored to old levels
--Need for less sleep
--I'm warm again! (It's still <20 degrees, but I get easily stay warm while indoors.)

I am absolutely, positively convinced of the power of thyroid. I am further convinced from the clinical data, patient experiences, and now my own personal experience, that low levels of hypothyroidism are being dramatically underappreciated and underdiagnosed.

I shudder to think of what my life would have been like 6 months or a year from now without correction of thyroid hormone.

Now, the tough question: Why the heck is this happening to so many people?

Speaking availability

3. February 2009 William Davis (5)
Just a quick announcement:

If you would like to hear more about the concepts articulated in The Heart Scan Blog or in the Track Your Plaque program, I am available to speak to your group.

Among the possible topics:

Return to the Wild: Natural Nutritional Supplements That Supercharge Health
Why this apparent "need" for fish oil and other heart-healthy supplements? I discuss why some nutritional supplements make perfect sense when we are viewed in the context of primitive humans living modern lives, while other supplements do little.


Shrink Your Tummy . . .or, Why Your Dietitian is Fat!
Weight loss doesn't have to involve calorie counting, deprivation, or hunger pangs. But the conventional "rules" for weight loss and health have to be broken.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Extraordinary Heart Health
Heart health is something that you can seize control over, something identifiable, correctable, and . . . reversible. Much of this can be achieved with little or no medication, nor procedures. I detail all the enormously empowering lessons learned through the Track Your Plaque program.


I can also present in-depth yet entertaining discussions on the power of vitamin D, natural cholesterol control, screening for heart disease, and similar topics covered in the blog.

To learn more, just e-mail us at contact@trackyourplaque, or call my office at 414-456-1123.

Learn how to eat from Survivorman

31. January 2009 William Davis (22)

Look no farther than Discovery Channel to learn how humans were meant to eat.

The Survivorman show documents the (self-filmed) 7-day adventures of Les Stroud, who is dropped into various remote corners of the world to survive on little but ingenuity and will to live. Starting without food or water, the Survivorman scrapes and scrambles in the wilderness for essentials to survive in habitats as far ranging as the Ecuadorian rainforest to sub-arctic Labrador.

What does Survivorman have to do with your nutrition habits?

Everything. The lessons we can learn by watching this TV show are plenty.

Survivorman plays out the life we are supposed to be living: slaughtering wild game with simple handmade tools and his bare hands, identifying plants and berries that are safe to eat, trapping fish, scavenging the kill of other predators. He's even resorted to eating bugs and caterpillars, particularly following several days of unsuccessful hunting and scavenging.

What is notable from the Survivorman experience is what is absent: In the steppe, desert, tundra, or jungle, you will not find bread, fruit drinks, or Cheerios. You won't find farm-fattened, corn-fed livestock with meat marbled with fat.

Imagine the result of such an experience for us, drawn out over 6 months. Even an obese, diabetic, gluttonous, XXX dress size 350-lb woman would return a lean 105 lbs, size 0, non-diabetic, fully able to run miles in the wild tracking game.

Survivorman's quiet desperation of living in the wild, preoccupied with worries over where his next meal might be found, is a stark contrast to the bloated, shelves stacked floor-to-ceiling supermarkets, and our modern society's all-you-can-eat several times per day lifestyle.

Am I advocating selling the car and house and chucking modern society for the "safety" of the jungles of Borneo?

No, of course not. I am advocating taking a lesson from the clever experiment conducted by Mr. Stroud, a return-to-the-wild experience that should teach us something about how perverse our modern nutritional lives have become.

Does staying up late make you fat?

3. marzo 2009 William Davis (5)
Lack of sleep makes you crabby.

But can staying up late make you fat? Or diabetic? Or increase heart disease risk?

Can forcing your body to ignore its evolutionarily-programmed day-night/sleep-wakefulness cycle also distort health, even when sleep is adequate?

Yet another study adds to the growing clinical literature documenting the lack of sleep, or, in this case, the "violation" of circadian rhythms that occurs with unpredictable or shifting sleep patterns.

In this small study of 10 men and women, forcing them to sleep on an unnatural 28-hour per "day" schedule, causing a dyssynchrony with natural day-night cycles, yielded increased glucose (blood sugar) levels, poor response to insulin, increased blood pressure. It also led to a decrease in leptin levels, a phenomenon that can trigger increased appetite.

Such circadian misalignment was meant to recreate the distorted day-night cycles of shift workers, a group that is unusually prone to diabetes and heart disease. This study further confirms that there are indeed unhealthy physiologic consequences of defying normal day-night sleep cycles.

This study suggests that, not only is sufficient sleep important for health, but the predictability and concordance with normal circadian cycles is also important.

Add to this previous studies demonstrating an association with sleep deprivation and low HDL/high triglycerides (Kaneita Y, et al 2008) and increased likelihood of having a positive heart scan (coronary calcium) score (King CR et al 2008), and it is increasingly clear that sleep is a crucial factor for overall health. It may even be a helpful strategy to control weight.

A full report on the importance of sleep is planned for the Track Your Plaque website.

Vitamin D Project: Grassroots Health

3. marzo 2009 William Davis (24)
Here's an interesting project a Track Your Plaque Member brought to my attention: Grassroots Health.

Carole Baggerly, Director of GrassrootsHealth, is a breast cancer survivor who has engineered an impressive project to collect and tabulate vitamin D blood levels in thousands, perhaps millions of people, over the next 5 years. Anyone can participate at a cost of $30 twice a year to get a vitamin D home test kit. (A fingerprick is required. I've tried the test kit--it's easy and painless to use.) They simply ask you to provide some basic health information that will be accumulated and analyzed.

Here's a graph they feature on their website showing the vitamin D blood levels distributed among the first 300 participants:











(Click to enlarge.)

Ms. Baggerly is apparently working with vitamin D pioneer, Dr. Reinhold Vieth, of the University of Toronto.

This sounds like a really great idea. Should you enroll, please come back here and let us know about your experience.

Statin Diary

1. marzo 2009 William Davis (17)
Here are a sampling of some of the comments I've received from people taking statin drugs:


Barkeater said:

On Lipitor since 1997, and pretty sure I had no side effects. Hey, I am a man, I don't complain.

Work has gotten real challenging (but they pay me well). At age 52, 2 years ago, I was fed up with working hard, cranky, and wanted to quit. Very low tolerance for frustration. A year ago, I hit a low spot again, but knowing that quitting was not an option, I started pestering my wife about things married people quarrel about other than money. No matter how great she was, every month or so I would get in a complete funk about it. Meanwhile, my brother had an MI, freaking me out, so at my doctor's suggestion I doubled the Lipitor dose (to 40 mg a day), bringing LDL below 100 and total chol. to 162 (40% below what God's original design of me produced). Plus, I ached a lot after exercise with severe "arthritis" in my hip, and these pains took days to go away, and still I got mad every few weeks at my wife and otherwise into a depressed funk (one morning I wrote an essay about suicide, which was much on my mind). Mood swings could be sudden.

She finally asked whether it might be the Lipitor, which I dismissed as very unlikely because I wanted to believe I was controlling my anger and depression better at that point (not really so) and besides everyone knows that statins have very few side effects. But, I did poke around a bit, and saw that kooky internet people seemed to have a lot of statin side effects, including depression. So, I thought I would quit, as an experiment. Like the JUPITER study, the results were so stunning I had to end the experiment in just 48 hours, except unlike JUPTIER, the clear result was that statins are nasty poisins that were ruining my life. I quickly concluded that no statin would again pass my lips. Depression, gone immediately (I am now 45 days off Lipitor). Relationship with wife, great (maybe "saved" is the word). Athletic performance, vastly better (adjusted for my modest natural abilities), with aches reduced vastly. Ability to withstand frustration, zoomed way way up. I feel totally different, and better; I think of my high cholesterol as my friend, protecting my from the abyss.

The other exciting thing is that I was depending on Lipitor to prevent heart disease, but I see now that it was only a raffle in which I had one ticket, with 75 or 100 other ticket holders in the NNT raffle (to prevent a survivable coronary in the next ten years, but not to prevent death -- that is not a prize in this raffle). There are obviously way better things I can do for prevention, at low cost and no negative side effects (plenty of positive ones, though).

I feel ten years younger. I refer to quitting Lipitor as my "miracle cure." I feel a moral obligation to warn others.



Anonymous said:

It was the craziest thing, my elbows felt like they needed to pop but couldn't. I was taking 20mgs of Zocor, and the first couple of months the elbows were fine, but one day I realized they hurt and wouldn't pop. I enjoy tennis and will occasionally shoot baskets with the boys - working elbows are a requirement for both sports. I told my doctor the problem and he said to stop taking Zocor, and after two weeks he will have me try a different statin. Avoiding Zocor brought relief. After a week of being statin free the elbows stopped aching.

I havn't gone back to my doctor to receive a prescription for that new statin. After learning more about heart disease prevention from this site and others, my starting LDL was low to begin with right around 80, and so decided to take a different natural approach to lower my LDL and more importantly for me raise HDL. I cleaned up my diet and began taking nutritional supplements. It worked, today cholesterol levels are great, and I have working elbows.



Tom said:

Two weeks after I started 10mg/day of Lipitor I developed tinnitus. I had never noticed a ringing in my ears before and now all of a sudden it was LOUD. After three months I saw my doctor for a cholesterol retest (it went way down) and complained of the tinnitus. He said he hadn't heard of this side effect, but I told him the web said 2% complain of it. He suggested I go to 5mg/day to see if it helped. I tried this for a few months, then went totally off for a few weeks, and the tinnitus got better, but never went away. I'm still on a 5mg dose after 9 months and I still have tinnitus. My fear is that the damage is done and the tinnitus will never go away.



Veedubmom said:

I got sun sensitivity from taking Simvastatin. Wherever my skin is exposed to the sun, it turns red and starts itching intensely and my skin looks like giant hives. I have to wear long sleeves, gloves, turtlenecks, etc.



Jegan said:

I was on Lipitor, but as a result of a recent study, asked to go on Simvastatin. I too have never suffered tinnitus until taking statins. I perceive it most at night. It sounds either like a pure high pitched white noise, or often like being stuck in an aviary with a million high pitched birds. I did not suffer any pains, but I clearly am more forgetful. I also feel depressed, and really don;t care about anything... Paying bills, family, cleaning, you name it. Also, my rosacea seems to act up a lot more.



Terri SL said:

Statin side effects are, in my personal experience, vastly under-reported. What Dr. in practice takes the time to fill out FDA complaint forms or contacts independent researchers about a pts. side effects? What pt. even knows that they can do so, whether their Dr. wants them to or not? No surprise about that 80% if you've taken statins!

I've personally taken two different statins (Pravachol, Zocor/Vytorin) and developed horrendous muscle aches even while taking CoQ-10 200 mgs. daily in divided dose. I also experienced mental fuzziness, gait instability and near complete GI shutdown, when Dr. doubled statin dosage against my protests. Stop the drug = complete reversal within ~three days!

What seems to be consistent is the dosage of the statin... the higher the dose, or the more potent the statin (Lipitor, Crestor), the greater the chance of adverse side effects. The other consistency is that Drs. out there in practice are not recommending CoQ-10 to their patients on statins, or at least that has been my experience.


Am I advocating that everyone stop their statin drug? No, I am not.

What I am advocating is that statins be used carefully, after all efforts at correction of lipid/lipoprotein patterns have been made, with an assessment of true coronary risk (not such nonsense as the Framingham score). A more reasonable application of statin drug prescription would shrink the market from its current $27 billion to a tiny fraction of that.

These drugs can be useful but are miserably and tragically overused.
For a discussion of an alternative to statins for LDL cholesterol reduction, see my post, Which is better?

How apathy saved a life

28. febrero 2009 William Davis (7)
John from California left this comment recently on my Wacky statin effects post. He tells such a vivid, compelling story that I had to pass it on.



I started taking statins a couple of years ago. A friend told me that he heard that they caused Alzheimers-like symptoms. I didn't think that I exhibited any effects like that, so I pretty much ignored it, except to raise the issue with my doctor.

During the last two years, I gradually lost interest in pretty much everything. It wasn't that I was forgetful, I just didn't much care about anything. Didn't care about my hobbies, quit my job, only paid bills when I felt like it, left a rental property vacant for 1 1/2 years and other similar issues.

I am normally a pretty active person with lots of pursuits. When I spoke to my doctor about my 'lack of interest and motivation', she suggested putting me on testosterone and later a mood enhancer. (I'm 60 and I lost my wife to breast cancer about 3 years ago, so I guess the thinking was either that I was going through male menopause or just depressed over her passing.)

Although I never had the muscle aches or liver problems that are considered the side effects of statins, gradually I began to feel weaker (not uncommon at 60) and more lackadaisical in my approach to bills and responsibilities. I also began suffering continual intense tinnitus and insomnia. I became crankier and more vehement in my dealings with other people and dangerously aggressive while driving.

Oddly enough, my lack of concern with paying bills led to the pharmacist telling me that Blue Shield had canceled me. Although I could easily have called the doctor for a prescription for $5 statins through KMart, I just couldn't be bothered, so I discontinued my medication.

It's been about 2 1/2 weeks since my prescription ran out. Within 4 days I began feeling better and my thinking became clearer. I no longer have tinnitus, my good mood has returned and I actually accept life's small annoyances again. Finally, I feel better physically and am more motivated. (Unfortunately, now I have to clean up all the financial garbage I've accumulated in the last year or so.)

If you take statins and begin to suffer any of the symptoms that I've noted above. Tell your doctor to take you off for a month. If your symptoms improve, you'll know why.

Although I no longer have medical insurance, one requirement of the coverage was that my cholesterol be controllable with statins. I'd rather have a heart attack or stroke and die than to go back to being the useless walking zombie that I was.

Imagine the consequences of of everyone take a statin drug, even "putting it in the water," advocated by some of my colleagues.

Make no mistake about it: The widespread, indiscriminate use of statin drugs is not without profound implications for many people. The popular notion of "the more statin agent, the better" that has propagated, thanks to the billions of dollars spent on marketing and "research," will lead to more unfortunate experiences like John.

Statins are drugs with real effects and very real side-effects.

Wheat hell

27. febrero 2009 William Davis (17)


Can including wheat in your diet create hell on earth?

Was The Inferno nothing more than Danté’s prediction for the state of the U.S. diet circa 2009?

I’m kidding on The Inferno allusion, but the American diet nonetheless sure does create an inferno of unhealthy phenomena.

If we define hell on earth as constant, nagging pain and discomfort; energy depleted sufficient to impair daily function; chronic bloating and diarrhea; leg swelling, peculiar rashes; progression of a multitude of diseases ranging from annoying all the way to fatal . . . well, that’s a pretty bleak picture.

I have indeed witnessed it all. Inclusion of wheat products in the human diet in many (not all--I'd estimate 70% of people) yields devastating health effects. In a few, it shortens life. In the majority, it leads to a slow, miserable hell of inflammatory diseases like arthritis, coronary disease, and cancer.

I have also witnessed dramatic reversal of these phenomena with complete removal of wheat from the diet.

(For clarity, I am not only referring to gluten sensitivity, the immune reaction gone haywire that plagues people with celiac disease. Celiac disease is indeed another variety of wheat-induced hell on earth, but there’s far more to it than that.)

Among the effects I’ve seen with wheat removal:

--Increased clarity of thought—I can vouch for this effect personally. Focus, concentration, the capacity for prolonged application of effort is restored with elimination of wheat.

--ADHD—Marked improvement in attention deficit disorder can occur in children and adults with this focus-depriving condition. Elimination of sugars and cornstarch may be necessary for full effect. While it doesn’t seem to work in everybody, the effect is powerful enough?and the implications so profound?that it is worthy of consideration in any child with this condition.

--Improved bowel health?Many people plagued by chronic bloating, diarrhea, and urgency experience complete relief. In its most extreme form, it is expressed as celiac disease. But there are a larger number of people who do not have celiac who are plagued by this lesser form of intestinal intolerance.

--Weight loss?Patients have told me that they were actually frightened when they eliminated wheat, meaning weight dropped so rapidly that they thought something was wrong. Nothing is wrong. The weight loss simply represents the removal of this bizarre, unphysiologic trigger of appetite, blood sugar, insulin, and weight gain.


Relevant to heart health, wheat elimination effects include:

--LDL cholesterol reduction?Yes, I know that it’s not what the “official” agencies say. “Reduce fat, reduce saturated fat and cholesterol will drop.” That’s barely true; reductions of saturated fat reduce LDL cholesterol, but rarely more than 20 mg/dl. In contrast, elimination of wheat yields LDL reductions of 40, 50, even 100 mg/dl. And the type of LDL reduced is the small particle variety, the kind mostly likely to lead to heart disease. (Cutting fat generally reduces large LDL, the more benign form.)

--Triglyceride reduction?Triglyceride reductions of 50, 100, even 1000 mg/dl can be achieved with elimination of wheat (though elimination of cornstarch, sugars, and other processed carbohydrates may be necessary for full benefit).

--HDL increase?A variable response, but increase of 5-10 mg/dl are common.

--Reduced inflammation?This phenomenon expresses itself in a number of ways, including dramatic reductions of the common inflammatory marker, c-reactive protein. While the media focuses on the JUPITER trial of rosuvastatin’s (Crestor) ability to reduce CRP 50-60%, wheat elimination can easily match this?without drugs.


What's more, you just feel better. Less commonly, I've seen arthritis (both common osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis), skin rashes, and sleep disorders improve. I've had pre-diabetics become non-pre-diabetics, diabetics become non-diabetics.

It's not so much whether that food is carbohydrate-rich or protein-rich. It really comes down to calories, a very simple message.'
— Dr. Frank Sacks

While some advocate the notion that only calories count and diet composition makes no difference, I offer this possibility: Whether or not weight is lost by diet, there can be enormous health effects independent of weight based on the composition of diet. Inclusion or exclusion of wheat is one such crucial factor.


Image courtesy Wikipedia, The Eighth Circle of Hell.

Unique vitamin D observations

21. febrero 2009 William Davis (47)
It seems not a single day passes that I don’t learn something new about this unique hormone (mis)named “vitamin D.”

From its humble beginnings recognized only as the factor responsible for bone maturation (with deficiency leading to childhood rickets), vitamin D now commands a recognized role in almost every conceivable aspect of health and disease.

Among the unique observations I’ve made over the past several years, having corrected vitamin D in well over 1000 people:

--Ankylosing spondylitis—This fairly rare genetic disease programs a peculiar solidification of the spinal column that leads to disabling restriction of spinal mobility, accompanied by incapacitating pain. A physician came to my office after reading my Life Extension summary of vitamin D’s cardiovascular benefits, After reading it, he put himself on vitamin D 10,000 units per day and verified “therapeutic” levels with a blood test. He came to my office (he requested a consultation) and proudly showed me his near-normal spine flexibility that, until approximately 2 months earlier, had left him rigid and unable to even tie his shoes. He also reported that the chronic pain that had left him completely dependent on anti-inflammatory agents and narcotics was nearly entirely gone.

--Aortic valve disease—The list of people with either aortic valve stenosis (stiffness) or insufficiency (leakiness) that develops later in life (not congenitally deformed or bicuspid aortic valves) continues to grow. Not everyone responds, but some of the cases I’ve seen have been nothing short of miraculous. One man had severe aortic valve insufficiency (severe leakiness). After one year of vitamin D, 8000 units per day that yielded a blood level of 67 ng/ml, the insufficiency was down to a minimal level. Before vitamin D, I had never witnessed “spontaneous” reversal of aortic valve disease before.

--Chest pain—Not the chest pain of heart disease, but a chronic gnawing, toothache-like pain in the sternum that is relieved within days of initiating vitamin D. I don’t know precisely why this happens, but I speculate that, with vitamin D deficiency, there is disordered calcium metabolism, and perhaps the sternal pain represents cellular (osteoclastic) activity that is eroding sternal calcium for the purpose of maintaining blood calcium, since intestinal absorption of calcium is poor. Replace vitamin D and the abnormal calcium uptake ceases. Just my guess.

--Relief from claustrophobia—This one has me stumped. But one man’s vivid description of his previously terrifying experiences in elevators and other enclosed spaces, now entirely gone raises some fascinating questions. For instance, how much psychological disease is nothing more than the expression of disordered metabolism from vitamin D deficiency?

--Immunity from viral infections--I first learned of this association from Dr. John Cannell of the Vitamin D Council (www.vitamindcouncil.com). Dr. Cannell recounts his experience with the 2006 flu epidemic in the hospital in northern California, where he is a psychiatrist charged with the health of 200 inpatients held in closed wards. While the flu spread like wildfire to the patients in all the other wards, the 200 patients in Dr. Cannell’s ward failed to contract a single episode of flu while taking 2000 units of vitamin D per day.

I was a little skeptical at first, having been disappointed by the failure of several nutritional agents like zinc, vitamin C (perhaps, at best, a minimal effect). Now, three years into my vitamin D experience, I am absolutely convinced that Dr. Cannells’ early observation was correct: Vitamin D enhances immunity enormously. Not only have I personally not had a virus in several years, the majority of my staff and patients have been happily free of viral infections. There have been a few, to be sure. But the usual winters of hacking, coughing, and sneezing in the office have become largely a memory. It is a rare person who comes to the office with viral symptoms.


With new lessons being learned every day, it is inevitable that other fascinating new vitamin D observations have yet to be made.

Dr. Michael Eades on the Paleolithic diet

18. febrero 2009 William Davis (16)
Dr. Michael Eades has posted an absolutely spectacular commentary on the Paleolithic diet concept:

Rapid health improvements with a Paleolithic diet

The post was prompted by publication of a study that tried to recreate a Paleolithic-like diet experience over a brief study period:

Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet.

Dr. Eades discussion is wonderfully insightful and comprehensive and there's little to say to improve on his discussion.

I'd make one small point: From what I see in my experience, the improvements in lipid patterns seen in the brief period of this study are very likely to have been primarily due to the removal of wheat. Followers of this blog know that wheat elimination is among the most powerful cholesterol-reducing strategies available.

What vitamin D form?

15. febrero 2009 William Davis (36)
In response to questions regarding why don't vitamin D tablets work, here are my observations.

When I first started correcting vitamin D levels around 3 1/2 years ago, people would begin with starting 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood levels of around 20 ng/ml.

Taking, say, 6000 units vitamin D as tablets over 3 months yielded blood levels of 24-30 ng/ml. Taking 6000 units in an oil-based form, and blood levels would commonly be 60-70 ng/ml.

In other words, tablets are very poorly absorbed. I also saw very erratic absorption with tablets, with tremendous variation in blood levels.

I witnessed this effect many times. I finally began telling patients to avoid the tablets altogether. It's simply not worth it. Taking dose X of tablets, you cannot predict what the blood level of vitamin D will be.

Now, you can sometimes make the tablets get absorbed by either taking with a teaspoon of oil (e.g., olive, flaxseed) or taking with an oil-rich meal. However, I am uncertain just how consistent the absorption is under these circumstances, not having done this enough times to know.

Oil-filled gelcaps are no more expensive than tablets (or perhaps a dollar more). Health food store employees and pharmacists don't know this. I have had many patients come to the office claiming they changed to tablets because that's all their health food store or pharmacy carried and the person behind the counter assured them it was the same. Blood level of vitamin D to confirm: right back down to the starting level or near it--little or no absorption.

The only way to know whether a preparation is absorbed is to check a blood level. But, in my experience, having checked vitamin D blood levels thousands of times, gelcaps never fail; tablets fail over 80% of the time.

Vitamin D for the pharmaceutically challenged

14. febrero 2009 William Davis (20)
Most Heart Scan Blog readers already know:

Your doctor has been brainwashed by the pharmaceutical industry.

Your doctor more than likely has spent the better part of his or her career in the Guantanamo Bay of healthcare, water-boarded by seductive sales representatives, enticed with promises of fame and riches, threatened with ostracism from the clubby internal halls of healthcare if--gasp!--he or she didn't subscribe to the "rule" that only drugs are good, anything else is bad.

The same FDA-approval-is-necessary-to-be-good brand of nonsense is gaining popularity among my colleagues who, having caught some mention (on the Today Show, Oprah, or similar source of medical information), hope to join the vitamin D hoopla.

People will proudly declare that they are taking a high dose of vitamin D: 50,000 units once per week.

No. They are taking a barely useful form: D2, ergocalciferol.

Studies examining the reliability of the D2 form differ:

There's the Heaney study suggesting that D2 is less effective than D3:
Vitamin D2 is much less effective than vitamin D3 in humans

Then there's the Holick study showing they are equivalent:
Vitamin D2 is as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining circulating concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

My experience is more in line with the Heaney study: Little or no real effect with D2.

One particularly illustrative case I witnessed was a woman who was mistakenly prescribed D2 at 50,000 units per day. She told me that she'd been taking it for a year. I fully expected to see clear-cut signs of toxicity (e.g., high blood calcium levels). Curiously, she showed no signs of toxicity. Nor did she show any vitamin D at all in her blood: 25-hydroxy D level of zero--literally zero.

I've witnessed similar phenomena several times: plenty of vitamin D2 . . . very little vitamin D in the blood.

All in all, I suppose that D2 is better than No-D at all. But you are far better off joining the ranks of the pharmaceutically challenged and go with the stuff that really works: D3.

D3, or cholecalciferol, yields confident increases in blood levels. It is inexpensive, safe, and an exact copy of the human form of vitamin D. (Of course, gelcap or drops only, NEVER tablets.)

There is absolute NO reason to take vitamin D2, the form that sometimes works, sometimes doesn't, the facsimile plant form issued by the drug industry.

Why don't stents prevent heart attack?

12. febrero 2009 William Davis (11)


No study has ever documented that stents prevent future heart attack. But, in day-to-day practice, stents are frequently implanted for just this reason.

A little clarification. Stents do prevent heart attack--if the heart attack is already underway, either as an "acute myocardial infarction" or "unstable angina."

In other words, a plaque in a coronary artery can rupture just like a little volcano. Rather than spewing lava, the underlying plaque contents--fibrous tissue, inflammatory cells, cholesterol crystals, fatty material, debris--are exposed to flowing blood and trigger spasm of the artery and blood clot formation. A ruptured plaque is typically found in people who go to the emergency room with severe chest pain or have difficulty breathing.

A heart catheterization is performed, a severe (e.g., 90-100%--completely closed) is found. A stent in this situation is of clear-cut benefit.

What is not clearly beneficial is someone with no symptoms, symptoms only with physical activity that has been present for at least several months, or someone with a high heart scan score and no symptoms. In these circumstances, stent implantation does not reduce risk for future heart attack.

Why?



Take a look at this angiogram of a right coronary artery. You can seen plaque all along the artery (represented by areas that appear pinched off. There are at least 4 visible.)

Putting one 15 millimeter stent in the artery will only affect the area of artery stented. (Stents vary in length, but typically are 12-18 millimeters in length.) The right coronary artery is about 10 times or more this length. There are also two other arteries of similar length. A stent at one location will do nothing to affect the potential for rupture in any of the other plaque-laden areas.

Say a stent is implanted in the "worst" blockage in this right coronary artery, the plaque located at around 9 o'clock. What about all the other plaques? They can still rupture.

Why not put in many stents, say, 4 or 5, and stent all the visible plaques?

Two reasons: 1) Plaque you can't even see on an angiogram can still rupture, and 2) it is very costly (easily $30,000 at the very least), 3) incurs greater procedural risk, and 4) messes up the artery for future procedures, since a steel-lined artery that develops more disease in future will be more difficult to re-implant stents, bypass, or perform other procedural manipulations.

The point: Putting in stents does not reduce potential for plaque rupture in the entire artery.

What can prevent plaque rupture? That's the whole point of following an effective prevention program: prevent plaque rupture.

(Of course, this discussion cannot encompass the wide variety of potential situations that may cause your doctor to individualize your approach. Nonetheless, when advised to have an elective heart procedure, a healthy dose of skepticism and is clearly a good practice.)

Top image courtesy National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
All posts by william-davis

Estrogens and CT heart scan scores

2. July 2007 William Davis (1)
A recent study from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), the large study that originally showed no reduction in heart attack with use of estrogens in postmenopausal females, has just published a new study.

In this new effort, women who took Premarin (horse estogens) had up to 61% lower CT heart scan scores. This new study was confined to the women from the original WHI study who had entered the study between the ages of 50-59 years (average 55 years old), since this was the significant subgroup of women who actually showed a reduction in heart attack risk, whereas other groups showed no benefit or a slightly increased risk.

For a full discussion of this fascinating result, see the Track Your Plaque report, Can estrogen reduce CT heart scan scores? at http://cureality.com/library/fl_06-017estrogen.asp. (This report is open to both Track Your Plaque Members and non-Members.)

I truly wish that the issues surrounding female hormone replacement were clearer. This new perspective adds just another interesting twist on a strategy that too many people, in my view, dismissed too readily with the initial WHI results.

To add to an already confusing situation, the WHI study was sponsored by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Premarin, and many of the investigators participating in the study obtained financial compensation from Wyeth. On the one hand, we have to give credit to the company and the investigators for publishing the initial study that panned the effects of Premarin. On the other hand, it makes any positive data somewhat suspect, particularly since there is a far less costly and probably superior preparation called human estrogens.

Incidentally, Wyeth is also behind the maddening FDA petition to prevent "compounding" pharmacies from dispensing human hormones like estrogen unless made by a drug manufacturer. They hide behind claims of concerns over safety. Nonsense. This is pure profiteering and protection of their enormously profitable franchise and has nothing to do with public safety. If there were genuine concerns that the compounding pharmacies, around for decades with an excellent reputation, pose safety issues, why not just lobby for improved oversite?

If only we had data like WHI that used human estrogens and human progesterone. I suspect that we'd see bigger, better effects with less of the ill effects peculiar to the cross-species use of Premarin and the synethetic progestin, Provera.

The wheat-free life

30. June 2007 William Davis (10)
"There's nothing else I can do with my diet," declared Whitney, a 53-year old university faculty member.

"I don't eat meat. I never eat fried foods. I can't remember the last time I used butter. My idea of having a treat is a handful of blueberries. What else can I do?"

Whitney was clearly frustrated. With a CT heart scan score of 264, she was worried that trouble was just around the corner. Her lipoprotein panel had demonstrated a severe small LDL pattern, with 70% of all LDL particles in the small category. HDL was also low at 41 mg/dl.

"What did you eat for breakfast?" I asked.

"Same as always: Either Fiber One cereal or Shredded Wheat. No sugar, just skim milk. Sometimes I have some orange juice, fresh-squeezed of course."

"How about lunch?"

"If I brown-bag it, I'll usually have a reduced-fat turkey breast sandwich on whole grain bread. About once a week, I'll have a whole wheat bagel--no cream cheese, of course."

"Dinner?"

"Sometimes I have chicken--skinless--with a vegetable, corn, or salad. I love pasta, but I always use whole wheat."

"How about snacks?"

"I try not to snack. But, when I'm desperate, I usually grab some Triscuits or pretzels."

The problem with Whitney's diet was clear: Too many sugar-equivalents, otherwise known as wheat. I suggested that her diet was far too heavily laden with wheat products. She seemed skeptical. "But this is as low-fat as I can get! Now you're going to take away wheat?"



What happens when you eliminate wheat from your diet?

Several predictable, consistent changes can be observed:


--HDL cholesterol goes up.

--Triglycerides go down.

--Small LDL particles are reduced.

--LDL cholesterol drops (the amount dropped depends on the proportion of small LDL pattern)

--Blood sugar drops.

--Blood pressure drops.

--C-reactive protein (an index of imperceptible inflammation) drops.


In addition to these measurable changes, several perceptible improvements often develop: more energy, less afternoon "slump," better sleep, sometimes less rashes.

Since Whitney was skeptical, I suggested a simple 4 week "experiment": Eliminate wheat products entirely for 4 weeks and see for herself what happens. I also warned her that, while I believe that elimination of wheat is a great strategy, she could negate the benefits by indulging in candy, soft drinks, and other junk products. It would therefore be necessary to maintain an otherwise healthy diet.

So Whitney gave it a try for 4 weeks. To make up for the dropped calories, she increased her reliance on vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, nuts, seeds, and healthy oils.

After losing 6 lbs over the 4 weeks without otherwise trying, she was convinced. She was further convinced when we reassessed her laboratory work: HDL went up 10 mg/dl; triglycerides down 120 mg/dl; blood sugar dropped from 112 mg/dl (pre-diabetic) to 95 mg/dl (normal). Several months later, we checked her lipoproteins. Small LDL had dropped to around 30% of total LDL--a big improvement.

It's contrary to conventional wisdom. It's counter to the USDA Food Pyramid. It's certainly not what the American Heart Association says. It could potentially disrupt the economics and politics of the enormously powerful food industry.

But, more often than not, the results are impressive to phenomenal.

Death of a $7 billion industry

28. June 2007 William Davis (8)
Vitamin D has taken its place as a crucial ingredient for coronary plaque control and control of CT heart scan scores.

Vitamin D replacement is also crucial for bone health, particularly the prevention of osteoporosis. But conversations about vitamin D replacement to true healthy levels is notably absent from the conversation on treatment and prevention of osteoporosis. Yes, you will find a small dose of vitamin D in calcium tablets and in multivitamins. Those of us who check blood levels of 25-OH-vitamin D3 in patients will tell you: They don't work. These are unabsorbable forms of vitamin D and at trivial doses. There was an attempt to give this issue a little cursory attention when a small dose of vitamin D was added to Fosamax (Fosamax D).

There are an estimated 50 million Americans with various degrees of osteoporosis. It's numbers like this that make the drug manufacturers salivate. Osteoporosis treatment is also chronic. This is among the holy grails of the drug industry: developing agents for widespread ailments that require long-term treatment that extends over years. That's a lot more profitable than 10 days of antibiotics that are over and done with in one treament course.

The osteoporosis market now stands at $7 billion per year and is expected to grow 6-7% per year, according to industry analysts. Drugs like Fosamax, Evista, and Actonel will eventually be replaced by Boniva, Eclasta, and bazedoxifene, and later by AMG-172 and balicatib. Monthly costs for these drugs can be $70 or more per month, sometimes several hundred dollars. (Experience has shown that the introduction of new drugs does not necessarily mean that other drugs will drop in price.)

Here's a clinical trial I'd like to see performed: Vitamin D restored to healthy levels of 50-100 ng/ml over an extended period and compared to a group treated with placebo. My prediction is that there will be dramatic differences in bone density. (Small studies have been performed, but no large, long-term trials of the sort that would yield real firepower.) Or, how about vitamin D to true therapeutic levels over 5 years compared head-to-head with one of the drugs. My prediction: little difference.

Vitamin D also provides an enormous panel of health benefits beyond restoration of bone density, like rise in HDL, drop in triglycerides, facilitation of control over CT heart scan scores, drop in fracture risk, drop in blood pressure and C-reactive protein, reduction in risk for colon, prostate, and breast cancer. None of the drugs can hope to provide any of these effects, except a drop in fracture risk.

Vitamin D usually costs around $2 per month. I doubt that such trials will be performed. If I were a manufacturer of osteoporosis drugs and my career success was dependent on the increasing revenues of these drugs, I would be quaking in my shoes, hoping that the public does not learn what a powerful tool good old vitamin D is. But if you are an individual just looking for health tools, vitamin D is, in my view, amongst the most powerful natural, nutritional tools you have available with outsized health benefits.

Lose weight and HDL goes . . . down

27. June 2007 William Davis (2)
Steve started with a miserable HDL cholesterol of 27 mg/dl. As expected, the low HDL was associated with all its evil friends: small LDL, deficiency of healthy, large HDL, high triglycerides, VLDL, and a pre-diabetic blood sugar.

Steve committed to a strict diet of reduced processed carbohydrates like wheat products, reduced meat and saturated fats. He relied on vegetables, fruit, lean proteins, and healthy oils. Over a 6 month period, he lost an impressive 39 lbs. He proclaimed that he hadn't felt this good in 30 years.

We rechecked his HDL: 25 mg/dl.

"I don't get it!" Steve declared, understandably.

There's a curious phenomenon with HDL. If you lose weight, HDL goes up--but not right away. Steve had lost a substantial quantity of weight and was continuing to lose weight when the blood work was obtained. While HDL does indeed rise with weight loss, it doesn't do so immediately. In fact, in the first two or so months after significant weight lost, HDL goes down.

Why? I don't really have an explanation, but it is a very consistent effect.

Losing weight towards ideal weight is truly an effective strategy for raising HDL. But we need to be patient. If you've lost many pounds like Steve did, then waiting at least two months after weight has stabilized may be necessary to fully gauge the effect on raising HDL.

Addictive Foods

25. June 2007 William Davis (3)
Kraft Foods, Inc. is manufacturer of Kool Aid, Oscar Mayer, Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, Velveeta, Honey Maid Grahams, and hundreds of other processed food products. Post cereals also falls under the umbrella of Kraft with products like Raisin Bran, Post Toasties, and Fruity Pebbles. Annual revenues in 2006 for Kraft: $34.4 billion. A big operation with enormous influence over our eating habits.

Nabisco is manufacturer of Oreos, Ritz Crackers, Chips Ahoy and many others. Like Kraft/Post, it is also a big player.

While Nabisco was owned for several years by tobacco giant RJ Reynolds, in 2000 it was acquired by Philip Morris, another big tobacco manufacturer.

More recently in Spring, 2007, Philip Morris (now called Altria--you'd change your name, too, if it was synonymous with dirt) spun off its Kraft subsidiary for a big profit. However, the management structures remain intertwined.

In other words, despite the shuffling of shares, the two industries, big tobacco and big food, are in many respects one and the same.

Is it any surprise that the same industry that made billions of dollars pushing addictive nicotine products responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is now intimately involved with addictive products produced and marketed by the processed food industry?

If you believe that food manufacturers are innocently and honestly conducting their businesses, simply think back to the testimony provided in front of Congress during the tobacco industry hearings. Broad deception, concealed truths, and outright lies were commonplace. There was no conscience involved. This was about money--and lots of it.

Why should the processed food industry, intimate with the tobacco industry, be any different?

If you want control over heart disease and your heart scan score, buy produce and buy local. Spend your time in the produce aisle, not the cereal or chip aisle. Unprocessed food, unadorned by bright labels, cartoon animals, American Heart Association endorsements, that's what we should seek.

Heart Scan Curiosities #7

25. June 2007 William Davis (1)



Here's a situation that crops up once in a while, occurring in perhaps 2% of heart scans.

The white within the circled area represents calcium, and thereby atherosclerotic plaque, situated immediately at the "mouth", or opening, of the the right coronary artery. What is somewhat unusual is that this plaque is not principally coronary, but aortic. That is, the plaque is mostly situated in the large vessel called the aorta. The three coronary arteries arise from the aorta.

In this instance, the aortic plaque involves the mouth of the right coronary artery. (In views not shown, the plaque also extends into the artery as well.) I call this a "double whammy" because the same plaque can post risk for heart attack and stroke.

Generally, aortic plaques pose risk for stroke. When aortic plaque fragments, little bits and pieces can travel upward to the brain and block an artery, thus a stroke.

In the coronaries, disrupted ("ruptured") plaques don't generally shower debris, but permit blood clot formation, resulting in heart attack.

This plaque, however, poses the theoretical risk of both heart attack and stroke because of its strategic location.

Should a plaque like this be handled any differently? I don't think so. But it does provide another reason to take atherosclerotic plaque in any artery seriously.

The nutrition counterculture

23. June 2007 William Davis (2)
When we look back over our American nutritional history over the last 50 years, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that much of the innovation in nutrition did not come from official agencies like the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, the FDA, the USDA, or the AMA.

Instead, it came from the popular culture. It came from bold, extravagant claims made by maverick figures like Ancel Keys, Nathan Pritikin, Dean Ornish, and Robert Atkins. Of course, some ideas have now fallen by the wayside, dismissed in a broad American "experiment" as ineffective, impractical, or kooky. But it permitted experimentation on an extraordinary scale with millions of people following a particular strategy at a time.

The advice of the official agencies tended to be reactionary. When nutritional deficiencies (remember those?) of the early 1900s were prevalent, they issued advice on food choices to help alleviate deficiencies. When deficiency transformed into excess after World War II, "smart" food choices from food groups and "sensible eating" became the theme.

Unfortunately, the advice was always adulterated by the enormous influence of various special interests, anxious to protect their national franchise. Powerful groups like the meat industry, wheat producers, and the dairy industry all made sure they had a big hand in crafting and influencing what was told to the American people.

The result: the advice offered by official groups has always represented the compromise of what some agency wished to convey to the people and the very powerful input of industry. What if the government decided to advise us what automobile to buy? Imagine the uproar in the auto industry when Washington tells us to buy Toyota for fuel economy and reliability. How long would that advice last?

That's why almost no knowledgeable adult follows the advice of the USDA, the National Academy of Sciences, or the Food Pyramid. I believe that we all intuitively recognize that the advice is watered-down, sometimes silly, sometimes downright unhealthy.

Nonetheless, the national experiment in diet that has taken place since 1950 has led to a collective wisdom of what is good and what is bad. The most productive conversations on nutrition therefore take place outside of the USDA and Washington. It occurs, instead, in places like bookstores, websites, and the media. Of course, there's lots of misinformation and profiteering in these sectors, as well. But like the enormous force unleashed by the collective wisdom of those contributing to the Wikipedia phemonenon, we've zig-zagged to something closer to the truth than ever uttered by an official agency.

Prescription vitamin D

23. June 2007 William Davis (32)
Niacin:

Over-the-counter: $2-5 per month
Prescription: $120 per month


Fish oil:

Over-the-counter: $3-6 per month
Prescription: $120 per month


Vitamin D:

Over-the-counter: $2 per month
Prescription: $70 per month



With vitamin D in particular, the prescription form is vastly inferior to the over-the-counter preparation. This is because the prescription form is ergocalciferol, or vitamin D2, not the effective human form, vitamin D3 or cholecalciferol.

When you're exposed to sun, what form of vitamin D is activated in the skin? It's all vitamin D3, no vitamin D2 whatsoever. Vitamin D3 is also far more effective than D2. People taking D3 (as long as it's oil-based) easily obtain healthy levels of vitamin D in the blood. People taking 50,000 units per day of D2 (the recommended quantity) remain miserably deficient, with minor increases in vitamin D blood levels. In short, D2 barely works at all. D3 works easily and effectively.

Moreover, D2 is the plant-based form. It is a form not found naturally in humans. D3 is the mammalian form, the same found in humans that exerts all its biologic benefits.

Then why is the prescription form of vitamin D2 (brand names Driscol and Calciferol) more expensive?

It's the same old pharmaceutical industry scam: Look for something patent protectable, regardless of whether it's superior to the non-patent protectable product, then sell it for exagerated profits. Though it is inferior and the science and clinical experience prove that it's inferior, you can still fool lots of people, including prescribing physicians. So what if you only make $50 or $100 million?

Don't fall for it. Prescription doesn't necessarily mean superior. In fact, the prescription form may be significantly inferior, as with vitamin D2. But the pharmaceutical industry carries such power and persuasion, who's going to know?

Nutrition activist Mike Adams

20. June 2007 William Davis (1)












I borrowed the above comic from the website of nutritionist, more properly nutrition activist and author, Mike Adams. His website, www.newstarget.com, was a pleasant surprise.

I was actually looking for some thoughts on pharmaceutical advertising and its pervasive and destructive effects and came across one of Adam's reports, Pharmaceutical television advertising is a grand hoax at http://www.newstarget.com/021526.html. The piece is a rant against the pharmaceutical industry's constant bombardment of the media, who have also been co-opted into their service, enticed by the enormous advertising revenues the drug industry brings.

But I was surprised to find an insightful, informative website on health issues, particularly healthy eating that rejects the manufactured food industry's intensive effort to persuade us to eat their products. While I don't agree with everything Adams has to say, his website provides some great food for thought. He also provides lots of downloadable information.

There's also some great laughs at his poke at the pharmaceutical industry with his Disease Mongering Engine at http://www.newstarget.com/disease-mongering-engine.asp, in which you get to create your own diseases. I got a real kick out of this.

CT scans and radiation exposure

19. June 2007 William Davis (8)


The NY Times ran an article called

With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests at

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/health/19cons.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1182254102-vQpytpx6W/Z9gvAaNPDZvA



“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.”


Where do CT heart scans fall?

Let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:



Typical effective radiation dose values

Computed tomography Milliseverts (mSv)

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 Milliseverts (mSv)

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


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.

A heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, your exposure is 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 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 legimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

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.



Detail on radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms on multidetector devices can be found at 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, one of several studies on this issue.