All posts by william-davis

Estrogens and CT heart scan scores

2. 7月 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. 6月 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. 6月 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. 6月 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. 6月 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. 6月 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. 6月 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. 6月 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. 6月 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. 6月 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.

Let me float an idea

25. February 2008 William Davis (0)

I'd like to float an idea.

The Track Your Plaque program is a fee-for-membership website. We chose this method of covering our costs--website development, graphics, software coding, etc.--since we do not accept advertising. I do believe that not having any advertising on our website has kept us impartial and unbiased--we mean what we say and not because we are selling something.

But there's a downside to assessing a membership fee: It limits the number of people who are willing or able to access the information. It also limits the dissemination of these concepts, due to such phenomena as limited content exposure to internet search engines.

Actos, Avandia, and vitamin D

22. February 2008 William Davis (16)

Up until a few years ago, if a patient showed signs of the metabolic syndrome/pre-diabetes, or early diabetes, I would often prescribe one of the drugs, Actos (pioglitazone) or Avandia (rosiglitazone), known as the thiazolidinediones, or TZD's for short. Although I do not manage diabetes, I was witnessing a flood of patients with pre-diabetic patterns that inhibited correction of lipoprotein patterns. So I saw the TZD's as a means of potentially assisting with correction of these abnormalities.

My rationale back then was that many people with metabolic syndrome struggled to raise HDL cholesterol, reduce triglycerides, reduce small LDL, reduce the inflammatory measure c-reactive protein (CRP), as well as reduce blood sugars towards the normal range. The TZD's partially corrected these phenomena.

But over the last 2 1/2 years, I haven't written a single prescription for these agents since I've added vitamin D to the regimen.

Vitamin D in my experience in the Track Your Plaque approach:

--Raises HDL--far more than the TZD's ever did.

--Reduces small LDL

--Reduces triglycerides

--Reduces c-reactive protein

--Reduces blood pressure

--Reduces blood sugar

In other words, vitamin D appears to not only reproduce many of the effects of the TZD's, but exceeds the effects. The effects are often so wonderful that I've taken many people off their TZD's.

Vitamin D, of course, also provides numerous benefits for bone health, reduction of cancer risk, and other health benefits that the TZD's simply cannot compete with. Vitamin D also lacks the quite substantial side-effects of TZD's: water retention and weight gain (around 8 lbs in the first year of treatment), possible increase in risk for heart attack (Avandia), definite increased likelihood of congestive heart failure in those prone to it.

How about cost? Actos goes for about $2 per pill (30 mg tablet). Vitamin D in the gelcap form (the only form we use) costs around $0.05 per capsule--5 cents. That's a 40-fold difference in price for what I would regard as an inferior--substantially inferior--product.

Throw into the mix a dramatic reduction or elimination of wheat products and other high-glycemic index foods, and all the phenomena of the metabolic syndrome and its associated lipoprotein patterns show even more improvement or full reversal.

In fact, with this approach we are seeing record-setting magnitudes of correction of these parameters every day. Getting HDL, for instance, into the 60 mg/dl or 70 mg/dl range has never been so easy.

What if heart scans become obsolete?

19. February 2008 William Davis (3)

What will we do if or when CT heart scans become outdated and something better comes along?

Heart scans are, after all, our principal tool for detection and precise quantification of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. They provide the basis for the Track Your Plaque program: serial heart scans to track progression or regression of coronary plaque.

So what the heck will we do if heart scans become obsolete, if some other technology proves superior for precise lengthwise quantification of coronary plaque?

Simple: Then we will convert to that measure.

Say, for instance, that in 5 years, MRI advances to the point where it is quick and precise, despite the rapid motion of the heart that has, in past, caused this technology to stumble for plaque quantification. Instead of obtaining a heart scan score of, say, 350, instead an MRI might yield information like:

Calcium volume: 350 cubic mm
Soft plaque elements: 200 cubic mm
Fibrous tissue: 700 cubic mm

In other words, while a CT heart scan provides a calcium score that serves as a surrogate measure of total plaque volume, perhaps the next wave of technology will directly measure total plaque volume.

Don't CT coronary angiograms already measure total plaque volume?

No, they definitely do not. At present, the best they can do is visualize the non-calcific elements and suggest the diameter reduction created by plaque at a specific point. Thus, results like "50% blockage in the mid-left anterior descending." What they do not provide is a lengthwise total volume of plaque and all its elements. Perhaps some software manipulation in future will yield such information (and I think it will, though I personally have been unable to accomplish it).

So neither the Track Your Plaque program nor the Heart Scan Blog are necessarily bound to heart scans. But heart scans, in 2008, remain the number one best tool for plaque quantification that is easy, precise, available, and inexpensive. For those reasons, CT heart scans continue to serve as the basis for these programs, and not CT angiograms, MRI, or other non-quantitative technology.

Scare tactics

19. February 2008 William Davis (17)

Does the media engage in scare tactics?

Read the headlines in local newspapers, and you'd believe that your friends and neighbors are dropping like flies, all victims of heart attacks.

I occasionally peruse the headlines run in newspapers and magazines around the U.S. by subscribing to a feed service through Google. For the phrase, "heart attack," you can get a sample of what is being said around the country about people having heart attacks.

What continues to impress me is just how far off a truly constructive and helpful message the media provides every day. Not only are they guilty of delivering a flawed message, they also favor headlines and stories that scare the heck out of people. "This could happen to you!"

Is it just the quest for headlines that grab readers' attentions? Is there some complicity with the medical systems that pay significant advertising revenues for their heart disease programs and hospitals?

I doubt such complicity exists to any substantial degree. But the fact remains: Every day across the U.S., the media does an effective job of scaring the heck out of the public--enough for you to run to your doctor or hospital to find out if you, too, could fall victim to heart disease. A stress test, perhaps heart catheterization, three stents or bypass often results.

In effect, these headlines make great hospital PR, an inducement that flushes out the patient highly motivated to pursue further costly heart testing--whether or not it's needed.

A sampling:

Stress test could help prevent sudden heart attack

DAWN ZERA Times Leader Correspondent

Bob Schultz, 67, was feeling a persistent pain in his back, which he was pretty sure was caused by working on a deck for his son’s home.

But after the deck was finished, the pain was still there.

“It was nagging, but not enough to hurt,” Schultz said.

He visited his primary care physician, thinking maybe some muscle relaxants would be prescribed. The doctor sent him to a clinic in Tunkhannock to do a complete body CAT scan, and then had Schultz do a stress test. The on-site cardiac stress testing at a Geisinger Medical Group office in Tunkhannock showed that things did not look good: Schultz had a blockage. He was scheduled for a cardiac catheterization.

It was a surprise; a heart problem had not even crossed Schultz’s mind as a possible cause of his back pain.

“I had good cholesterol, have been the same weight for years, and had excellent blood pressure,” Schultz said.

He went for the catheterization at Geisinger Wyoming Valley, and there doctors discovered Schultz’s condition was even more serious. He had three blockages – 99 percent, 95 percent and between 80 and 90 percent.

“It shocked the living daylights out of everyone. It was surreal,” Schultz said.

The catheterization turned into open heart surgery that very same day.

The surgery was on a Tuesday, and he was home by Sunday. He never even had time to fully think about having the operation. And he had never experienced the typical warning signs of a heart problem, such as chest pain or shortness of breath.

“The doctors said I had the worst alarm system they’d ever seen,” Schultz said. “They probably saved my life, with me not knowing I had a problem.”

It also made him think about his brother, who had had been in good health but suddenly died in his 40s of a suspected heart attack.

“We never had any heart problems in our family, so we never believed it. But now I think, geez, it probably was true,” Schultz said.

His experience has served as a cautionary tale for friends and family. Just this past month, a friend specifically requested a stress test for himself.

“It sets off alarms in your circle. People think ‘if it can happen to him, it could happen to me,’ ” Schultz said. “It triggered people to think about what could happen to them.”

Firefighter Saves Heart-Attack Victim on D.C. Court

ABC News

A 30-year-old man suffered a heart attack while playing basketball on a D.C. court.

That's when a Brian Long's firefighter training kicked into action. The 25-year-old D.C. firefighter's team had just finished their pick-up league game Friday evening at Lafayette Elementary School's basketball court when the man stumble to the ground.

"He ran a few feet and collapsed again so I turned him over and I looked at him his eyes rolled back and he just stopped breathing," Long said.

Long began performing chest compressions and soon he was joined by Anthony Gadson, a pharmaceutical sales representative, who learned CPR years ago and starting assisting with mouth to mouth resuscitation.

"If that were me, somebody would've done the same thing for me, so I feel like I did what I was supposed to do," Gadson explained.

While Long and Gadson worked to keep the victim's heart going, all the players and spectators, including teammate and league commissioner Bob Johnson, gathered around the lifesaving effort.

"We gathered in a circle and one of the wives of one of the players just led us in this huge prayer," said Johnson.

"It makes me feel great," Long told ABC 7/NewsChannel 8. "I am just glad that I am a D.C. Firefighter."

Free Drugs After Heart Attack Would Save Money, Lengthen Lives
More patients would take recommended medications, study says

By Ed Edelson

MONDAY, Feb. 18 (HealthDay News) -- Eliminating the cost of medications for people who have heart attacks would lead to longer lives and lower overall medical costs, new research suggests.

"These are highly effective medications that are relatively inexpensive, and the events they are designed to prevent are extremely expensive," said study author Dr. Niteesh K. Choudhry, a researcher in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. His report is published in the Feb. 19 issue of Circulation.

The study covered four drugs commonly prescribed after heart attacks -- aspirin, beta blockers, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and statins. Use of those drugs is relatively low under the current system, in which people share the cost with Medicare or other health insurance plans, Choudhry said. For example, only 46 percent of people take beta blockers after heart attacks, and only 50 percent take cholesterol-lowering statins. Less than 20 percent of heart patients used all four of the medications, according to the study.

The model set up by Choudhry and his colleagues doesn't assume a major increase in compliance with prescriptions, because "cost is just one reason why patients do not take medications," he said, adding that relying on previous studies of drug cost and use, the model assumes an increase of about 14 percent, with perhaps 64 percent of people taking the medicines if they were free.

The result would be an increase in average survival after a heart attack, from the present 8.21 quality-adjusted life years to 8.56 years. "That is small in an absolute sense, but in an aggregate sense, it is very large," Choudhry said.

And medical costs over a lifetime would go down, from the current $114,000 to $111,600, the study added.

"This study adds to a growing body of research showing how important it is to reduce or eliminate patient co-payment for drugs," said Robert M. Hayes, president of the Medicare Rights Center in New York. "Medicare should take the lead in forging the creation of drug coverage that allows patients to get the medications their doctors consider vital."

"It certainly makes sense from the medical point of view," said Dr. Richard A. Stein, a professor of medicine at New York University. "Studies have shown that giving even middle-income people free drugs improves outcome. The greatest benefit will go to people in the lower socioeconomic and immigrant population."

But the study is theoretical, Stein noted. "One would like to see some real-world trial to determine whether this works in fact, whether providing free drugs without co-payment would make a difference, he said.

Such a study has begun at Harvard, Choudhry noted. His group is working with a major health insurer, not Medicare, in a trial that assigns some people to get medications without cost, while others will get the standard co-payment.

"It will take several years for us to get answers," Choudhry said. But similar investigations are being started by other medical insurers and corporations, he added.

The idea is potentially applicable to some other chronic conditions, such as congestive heart failure and diabetes, Choudhry noted. And, if the use of recommended medications after a heart attack goes up more than predicted by the model, "the cost savings would be phenomenal," he said.

More information

To learn about how to stay on your statins, consult the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Heart Attack Threatens Young, Old

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -- Nearly 1.2 million men and women suffer a heart attack every year in the United States, according to the American Heart Association. However, not all of the victims are old.

Brian Connell considers himself a lucky guy. At the age of 39, he's physically active, he has a high-level job, and he is also a heart attack survivor. "I know I was overweight and obviously had some other risk factors against me," said Connell. "I wish I did more to prevent it, certainly."

Connell is doing plenty of things now. He met with a nutritionist and changed his diet. He gets regular exercise and takes medication to control his cholesterol. He also gets regular checkups.
Click here to find out more!

Cardiologist Jeffrey Popma said it's not unusual to see younger heart attack patients. "We have dozens of patients in our system every year who have been under 40 years old who have suffered a major heart attack," said Dr. Popma.

Popma said getting medical help quickly is the key to survival. Connell said that is what made all the difference for him. And when people ask him if that was his first heart attack, Connell said he is quick to tell them it was his last heart attack.

Copyright 2008 by TurnTo23.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved.

The messages I take from such stories:

1) Get yourself to a hospital ASAP for any symptoms even vaguely suspicious of heart disease, because they will know what to do. You'll be doomed if you don't.

2) Hospitals and doctors are expert at saving you from the brink of disaster. The process, once you enter, is rapid and smooth and you will be eternally grateful.

3) Medicines save lives. You're going to die if you don't take medication.

As I've often said, one of the toughest battles of all in health and heart disease is sorting out fact from fiction. Unfortunately, the media continues to propagate the scare tactics that support the status quo of procedural heart care. Wittingly or unwittingly, they serve a $400 billion dollar a year gargantuan industry that remains hungry for growth.

Lost in the headlines are the messages that could have been included, like:

Heart disease detectable decades before disaster

Or:

"Heart disease preventable, reversible, and--curable?"

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Which statin is best?

17. February 2008 William Davis (6)

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.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Lipoprotein(a)--neglected and unappreciated

16. February 2008 William Davis (2)

Lipoprotein(a), or just Lp(a) to its close friends and neighbors, is among the most underappreciated and neglected of causes of coronary plaque. It's the Rodney Dangerfield of lipoproteins.

Lp(a) rarely gets diagnosed before people come to my office. They've often been through the ringer: doctors have thrown their hands up in frustration because of poor response to "standard" treatment (AKA statin drugs); the patient doesn't understand why they might be thin and active yet have the high blood pressure of someone 70 lbs heavier; they have heart disease despite wonderful cholesterol values.

One blood test and the answer becomes clear: They have Lp(a). It explains all these phenomena.

They why don't more physicians order this simple test? Why don't we hear more about this prevalent (1 in 5 people with coronary plaque have it) genetic pattern that accelerates risk for heart disease?

There are a number of reasons. But I believe the most powerful reason is simply that there is no big revenue-generating drug to treat it. Statins reduce LDL cholesterol to the tune of $27 billion dollars a year (2007 revenue). There's no such blockbuster for Lp(a). Of course, Niaspan represents the relatively anemic attempt to commercialize a pharmaceutical treatment for Lp(a), but side-effects and the lack of FDA trials for the Lp(a)-reducing indication have stalled its commercial success. (Efforts to block the flush with various products, by the way, may re-invigorate niacin as a pharmaceutical agent. The drug companies smell money here.)

Another reason for Lp(a)'s unpopularity: Though there are mounds of data that document--without question--that Lp(a) is an important risk for coronary disease and other forms of atherosclerotic disease, we lack treatment trials. For instance, niacin vs. placebo for 5 years, then count the number of heart attacks and deaths. We have numerous, repetitive, overlapping, redundant trials with statins adhering to this design. We have none for niacin and the treatment of Lp(a).

Niacin is also a pain in the neck for your doctor. He/she rapidly tires of the calls about the crazy and disconcerting flushing with niacin. Most are unaware that proper hydration reduces or eliminates the flush for the majority of people. It takes too much time and energy to educate people. (By the way, prescription Niaspan makes no mention of purposeful hydration. They only suggest the nonsensical "Take with a low-fat snack," i.e., snacks that actually counter the therpaeutic effects of niacin. What they should be saying is "take with a high-fat snack" like raw almonds, foods that facilatate the benefits of niacin.)

Should someone concoct a successful pharmaceutical treatment for Lp(a), it will make the news, headlines in health magazines and health sections of the newspaper will blare about how important Lp(a) is. Yet it has been there all along, frustrating people and their physicians.

In the Track Your Plaque experience, Lp(a) clearly 1) correlates with heart scan scores, 2) correlates with progression of heart scan scores without treatment, and 3) poses special challenges for treatment. Interestingly, some of our biggest failures have been with Lp(a), as well as some of our biggest successes. (Our current record holder for the largest percentage reduction in heart scan score has Lp(a).)

If you have coronary plaque, or if there is family risk of heart disease, then Lp(a), in my view, is an absolutely essential factor to test for. Yes, treatment poses challenges. But once you know who your enemy is, then you can focus your efforts on it. Not knowing whether or not you have it leaves your efforts unfocused and generally flawed.

Track Your Plaque Members, be sure to read our in-depth Special Report, Unique Treatments for Lipoprotein(a) Reduction.

Copyright 2008 William Davvis, MD

Wheat-free and still fat

15. February 2008 William Davis (14)

Readers of The Heart Scan Blog know that I preach a diet that contains foods with low glycemic index to control weight, raise HDL, and reduce triglycerides, blood sugar, and small LDL.

A crucial aspect of a low glycemic index approach is to sharply reduce, preferably eliminate, wheat products.

I pick on wheat specifically because it has come to dominate the American diet. Look at the shelves in the supermarket: aisle after aisle of processed wheat products. The bread shelves alone in some of the grocery stores in my neighborhood are 40 feet long, six shelves high. There's also breakfast cereals, granola products, cookies, cakes, baking products, pretzels, crackers, pasta, and on and on.

Wheat products like these are tasty and they're addicting--literally. Test animals given processed wheat will eat more and gain more weight. Wheat fails to trigger satiety. So laboratory mice--and you and I--eat and eat, because eating wheat stimulates appetite, creates a hunger for more wheat, and a vicious cycle ensues. Eliminating wheat, on the other hand, results in dramatic drop in appetite, substantial weight loss, followed by correction of the metabolic disruptions it created.

A quick Google search for "gluten-free" turns up a startling array of wheat-free, gluten-free, yet high glycemic index products. The breakfast cereal pictured, for instance, can do as much damage as most wheat containing products--though it won't cause gluten enteropathy (also known as "celiac disease").

The product shown contains:

Brown rice flakes, rice bran, evaporated cane juice, brown rice syrup, raisins, cinnamon, gum arabic, vanilla, molasses, ground flaxseed, rosemary extract.

A 1/2-cup serving contains:
Total Carbohydrate 31g
Dietary Fiber 5g
Sugars 8g

And I'll bet that most people eat a lot more than a half-cup serving.

But you and I are not laboratory mice. If deprived of wheat, many people will then seek out processed rice products (rice cakes, Rice Krispies), processed cornstarch or cornmeal products (tacos, cornbread, many processed foods using these products for texture or thickness), or other products labeled "gluten-free."

Going wheat-free for our purposes is not about avoiding the gluten in wheat. It is about seizing control of appetite, eliminating a food that disrupts insulin responses, reduces HDL, raises triglycerides, and creates small LDL particles. But this applies to processed corn, rice, and other high glycemic index foods, as well.

So, occasionally, someone will declare, "I've eliminated wheat! Now I only eat rice, corn, and I've discovered all the gluten-free alternatives!"

Unfortunately, they've traded one evil for another. So it's not just about wheat. It's really about reducing or minimizing foods that mess up metabolic responses and lead to coronary plaque growth. Wheat is the biggest culprit and so I focus on it. However, you could easily transfer far less popular rice and corn products into center stage and allow them to wreak all the health damage of wheat.

Going wheat-free for our atherosclerotic plaque-control purposes is not the same as going gluten-free. So be careful of the distinction.

Wheat-free gummi bears:

Contents:
Organic dehydrated cane juice, organic corn malt syrup, organic juice concentrates (may contain organic apple, organic apricot, organic aronia, organic carrot, organic cranberry, organic elderberry, organic lemon or organic red beet), organic spinach powder, organic apple pectin, citric acid, natural fruit flavors.

Virtually pure sugar--yet wheat-free.

Wheat-free rice bread

Ingredients:
White rice flour, water, honey, soy oil, natural gum, salt, yeast, natural gum

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Heart disease is reversible

13. February 2008 William Davis (10)

In a previous post, Take this survey: I double-dare you, I posed a challenge:

Ask your doctor: Is heart disease reversible? Their answer:

1) No. Heart disease is definitely not reversible.

2) Yes, in rare instances, like lightning striking twice.

3) Yes, of course it is! Let's talk about how to do it!

I predicted that few readers of this blog would respond. I also predicted that the few who did would respond with the first answer, Heart disease is definitely not reversible. After all, in nearly all medical practices, the only parameters routinely followed to track risk for heart disease are LDL cholesterol and blood pressure. A measure of the disease itself (i.e., coronary atherosclerotic plaque) is not followed. So how can your doctor actually tell whether heart disease is reversed or not? When I engage in this conversation with colleagues, it goes no farther than rolled eyes or a snort. In my experience, talking about reversal of heart disease is a wasted effort.

To my great surprise, this simple survey received a total of 177 responses. Even more surprising, 122 (69%) of respondents chose number 3, claiming that their doctor said that heart disease is reversible.

Overall results:

1--31 responses (17.5%)

2--24 responses (13.5%)

3--122 responses (69%)

Now wait a minute: Where is the disconnect? Why are doctors saying that heart disease is reversible, yet not following this concept in practice? Contrary to the survey results, I have yet to meet a patient who said their doctor was trying to reverse their heart disease. Of course, this may be a skewed population, but I find it hard to believe that the prevailing view is that heart disease is reversible.

Anyway, this simple survey cannot settle the why or how, nor can it suggest just how prevalent this opinion is.

I am encouraged by these results. If true, it means that the message that heart disease is a reversible process is spreading. It may be make-believe heart disease reversal as preached by Dr. Dean Ornish or claimed by statin drug manufacturers. It may be the hocus-pocus of practices like chelation, or scams like nattokinase. But perhaps the seed of this notion has been planted in the minds of the medical community.

I'd be interested in hearing from the respondents who reported that their doctor said heart disease is reversible. How exactly are they going about achieving reversal?

Looking for health in all the wrong places

12. February 2008 William Davis (11)

The American public now has unprecedented freedom to explore new directions in health.

Never before have we had the enormous resources now available to add to our health experience: nutritional supplements, endless books on health and diet, the internet, online discussion groups, insurance products to permit spending on self-directed health services like medical savings accounts and flex-spending. The Track Your Plaque program is just one facet of this emerging and exciting area of self-empowerment in health. Compare what you can achieve with such a program with the situation of just 25 years ago, when the most you might get to reduce your risk for heart disease was to take the (largely ineffective) drug cholestyramine, probucol, and a low-cholesterol, low-fat diet.

Unfortunately, it also means that people have unrestrained potential to be tripped up, to be misled down some dead end of health that fails to accomplish desired goals, maybe even dangerous. The more freedom we have, the greater the choices, the more room we have to screw up.

Among the unproductive strategies I've witnessed recently:

--Nattokinase--The staying power of this scam continues to shock me. There is no rational basis for its use. A woman today declared that she would like to stop the warfarin that she was taking to prevent stroke from atrial fibrillation by taking nattokinase. This would be a mistake that could cost her a major and disabling, even fatal, stroke. Though warfarin is far from perfect, it at least achieves its goal of reducing stroke risk. Nattokinase does not. Nattokinase does nothing but make money for the people who sell it.

--Poly-nutritional supplements. You've heard of polypharmacy, the phenomenon of taking numerous medications with overlapping effects and side-effects, usually because of multiple doctors, each prescribing drugs without knowledge or interest in what colleagues are prescribing. I'm seeing the same phenomenon with supplements: 20,30, or more supplements per day, all in the hopes of heightening health. A focused few supplements is, in my view, superior to a shotgun approach of trying to improve health by taking hawthorne, silymarin, chrysin, calcium, Chinese herbs, and 25 other supplements.

--Chelation--Based on the notion that heavy metal toxicity causes heart disease; removal of heavy metals cures it. I've read some of the books on chelation, in addition to the slim scientific data, to decide whether there was anything to it. In my view, it is a complete and utter scam. It does make money for its practitioners, however. That's not to say that heavy-metal chelation doesn't have a role in health--it does. But it serves no purpose in coronary disease prevention and control.

--Colonic purges--Achieved by a number of routes, some oral, others via enema. Promotions for purging are often accompanied by a pile of scum that apparently lined somebody's intestinal tract. Purges purportedly, well, purge it from the intestine. This is also plain nonsense. There is no such toxic scum lining anybody's intestinal tract. However, if calorie restriction or a fast results inadvertently from the effort, perhaps some good comes from it.

--Statin drug alternatives--The unprecedented $27 billion dollar a year success of the statin drug industry, accompanied by the enormous marketing push by their manufacturers, has spawned an entire industry of statin alternatives. They range from red yeast rice, to guggulipid, to various concoctions of sterol esters, Chinese herbs, chitosan, and a variety of others. Some actually do reduce cholesterol a few points. Preparations like red yeast rice even pose a side-effect profile not too different from the prescription statin agents. Unfortunately, even among those agents that work, the effects tend to be small to trivial. While I am no lover of statin drugs nor the statin drug industry, I find these preparations to be anemic imitators. You'd be better off with raw nuts and ground flaxseed than wasting your money on these cheap imitations.

--Worries about liver toxicity--A day doesn't go by that I don't have at least several questions about suffering toxic liver effects from niacin, vitamin D, statin drugs, etc. I have treated thousands of patients for heart disease in its various stages and forms and have used many different strategies. How many times have I seen serious liver toxicity? A handful of times and usually from either mis-use of the agent or drug, or in a person with several other coexisting diseases. (Other serious health conditions, like kidney failure, raise the toxicity of drugs and supplements.) Liver toxicity in the vast majority of otherwise healthy people is close to being a non-concern.

Readers of The Heart Scan Blog and of the Track Your Plaque website know that I celebrate expansion of knowledge and information access to the public. However, I am concerned that the flip side of this growing self-empowerment is expanding potential for mistakes. It reminds me of an attorney friend, who, when diagnosed with prostate cancer, explored all manner of alternative treatments, from laetrile to heavy metal chelation to high-dose lycopene tablets. At the initial stage of diagnosis, his cancer was readily treatable. He now has widely metastatic cancer.

Maintain an open mind, but think before you commit to some crazed claim of cure, some "secret" to health, somebody's brazen but concealed attempt at steering profits in their direction.

With freedom comes responsibility. Otherwise, you might be looking for love . . .oops, I mean health . . . in all the wrong places.

Track Your Plaque APB

9. February 2008 William Davis (7)

I'm posting this intriguing comment from the Track Your Plaque Member Forum because I would like to speak to the Member who posted it.

The Member said:

I tested at 965 last year, and while I have followed the TYP diet and nutraceutical recommendations, I was totally unprepared for my first repeat scan (at the same lab/machine) on January 29, 2008. My result was 4.0, and at first I assumed the rating scale had been changed.

I then noted that 3 of the big four arteries received scores of 0, which means the same in any scale, and that four nodules had disappeared from the scan field.

Wow!!

If this is true, it would represent the biggest success in the Track Your Plaque program--ever! It would be an incredible story to tell, to convince the public and medical community that it is indeed possible, and a cause for popping a bottle of champagne! It would also represent what I would regard as essentially a cure for coronary atherosclerosis, a virtual elimination.

While we have plenty of success in stopping the progression or reducing heart scan scores, we do not have 100% success. I wish we did. The Track Your Plaque program is, to some degree, a work in progress. We learn from experiences, continually adjust to obtain the results we desire. Even as it stands today, the Track Your Plaque program is superior to any program of heart disease prevention known--by a long stretch. But it's not infallible, it's not foolproof.

That's all the more reason I would like to communicate with the Track Your Plaque Member who posted this comment. I would also like permission to view the heart scans themselves. (I can't obtain them nor view them without the individual's permission.) While we often have difficulty judging reversal just by looking at heart scans, presumed reversal to this profound degree should be obvious, even to the naked eye.

I would like to know--in detail--precisely what steps were taken and whether there was anything unique about this person's medical history or in the program they followed. This is all in an effort to learn and help others do the same.

If you are the Member who posted this comment, I would like to hear more. Please post your further thoughts on the Track Your Plaque Member Forum, or privately through our Contact page . Or e-mail us at contact@cureality.com.

Conventional therapy vs. alternative therapy

11. March 2008 William Davis (5)

Rose is a 75-year old woman, mother of four, grandmother of many more.

Rose's story started after a heart attack 18 months ago that resulted in two stents. She was advised to follow an American Heart Association diet and take Lipitor. However, some months later, after her fourth stent, she became disilluioned in the conventional approach to heart disease and sought alternative therapies to help reduce or reverse her heart disease.

She found an alternative health practitioner who advised chelation, antioxidant vitamins for "excessive oxidation," and several homeopathic preparations.

Nothing was said about diet or exercise. Nothing was said about the baked flour products and pastries that occupied at least two meals every day. Nothing was said about the candies she indulged in several times per day, nor the soft drinks. Nothing was said about the wildly fluctuating blood sugars, poorly controlled by an oral diabetes agent. Thirty pounds of weight gain over the past 5 years with no exercise or physical activity? No comment here, too.

In short, Rose was the "graduate" of the conventional approach, as typically offered nationwide thousands of times a week. She was also the recipient of the insight of at least one alternative health practitioner, eager to reject conventional notions of how to achieve heart health.

So I then met her. She was experiencing chest pains every day, several times per day. Blood pressure over 200. At 5 ft, 3 inches, weight: 186 lbs.

Initial laboratory results:

HDL cholesterol 42 mg/dl
LDL 132 mg/dl
Triglycerides 263 mg/dl
Blood sugar 173 mg/dl

You can fill in the rest. In short, Rose was a disaster. Despite the attentions of several professionals from both the conventional as well as alternative camps, she was careening rapidly towards failure. She'd been given various crutches, Band-Aids, and salves, none of which resulted in any possibility of long-term relief from her aggressive disease.

My point: As I've said previously, all we want is truth. We want effective, rational approaches that yield real benefit. A stent? All that provides is temporary restoration of blood flow. Statin agents? They do indeed reduce LDL cholesterol. But what if Rose has 8, 9, or 10 other causes of heart disease unaffected by the statin drug? It will do little or nothing.

Nobody had addressed many of the root causes of Rose's disease: insulin resistance, high triglycerides, inactivity, obesity, hypertension (and identifying the reasons why her blood pressure was so high), vitamin D deficiency (virtually guarantted to be severe), junk foods including the ones known as "whole grains."

My message: Success in heart disease, as well as all aspects of health for that matter, doesn't necessarily have to come from an "alternative" approach, nor a "conventional" approach. It comes from applying what is truly effective, regardless of what label someone applied to it.

I would no sooner trust my health and life to an alternative health practitioner hawking unusual herbs and remedies than I would submit to a heart catheterization, three stents, followed by a statin drug. There's small benefit in both approaches, but none are the best. You've got to look elsewhere for that.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

The JELIS Trial

9. March 2008 William Davis (5)

The Japan eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS) is a clinical trial that all Track Your Plaquers should know about.

This enormous trial followed a simple design:

Japanese men, between 40-75 years, and Japanese postmenopausal women aged <75 years with total cholesterol 250 mg/dl or greater were enrolled. A total of 18,645 subjects (mean age, 61 years; 31% male) participated: 36% had hypertension, 15% had diabetes, and 20% had coronary disease (history of heart attack or heart procedure). Average starting total cholesterol 275 mg/dl; LDL 180 mg/dl. All participants were treated with pravastatin 10 mg/day or simvastatin 5 mg/day; approximately half also received the omega-3, EPA, 1800 mg/day, in addition to one of the statin drugs.

Treatment resulted in an average LDL reduction of 26% in all participants; the group taking EPA experienced an additional 10% reduction in triglycerides. All major cardiovascular events were tracked and tabulated, including sudden cardiac death, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina pectoris, coronary artery bypass surgery, and coronary angioplasty.

After nearly five years, 3.5% of statin-only participants experienced an event; 2.8% of statin + EPA experienced an event. The (often misleading and frequently abused value) "relative reduction" was therefore 19%.

There are several features that make the JELIS trial interesting:

--There were an unusually low number of cardiovascular events in the entire group, lower than nearly all American and European trials of similar design. This likely points to the greater burden of atherosclerotic heart disease in the U.S. compared to Japan. Rates in comparable U.S.-based trials usually range from 6-14%, sometimes more.

--Both the participants without identified heart disease at enrollment and those with heart disease at enrollment obtained a similar magnitude of beneficial reduction in cardiovascular events.

--There was an unusual preponderance of women--69%--unlike most other trials of cardiovascular events. We might therefore argue that JELIS most conclusively showed that benefits of EPA are most confidently demonstrated for females.

--A fish oil preparation containing only EPA was used, rather than the usual EPA + DHA. There are discussions from some corners that argue that DHA is more important than EPA, e.g., algae sources. However, JELIS would argue that EPA does play a role. Is EPA with DHA better, worse, or no different? Unfortunately, there are insufficient data--large, randomized data like JELIS--to help us. Recall that GISSI Prevenzione used a combination of EPA and DHA, as have virtually all other trials examining the effects of fish oil. Also, keep in mind that the epidemiologic observations of the cardiovascular benefits of eating fish suggest that the naturally-sourced omega-3s--a combination of EPA and DHA--are associated with benefit.

--It's surprising that any difference at all was demonstrated, given the high intake of fish in the Japanese. In fact, blood levels of EPA in participants before taking EPA was five-fold higher than in western populations.

One potential difficulty: The study was funded by the manufacturer of the EPA preparation used, Mochida Pharmaceutical Company. We all know what that can do to results.

Nonetheless, the JELIS trial is a study that adds to the emerging wisdom in fish oil.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Omega-3 MUST be from fish oil

7. March 2008 William Davis (14)

Despite my rants in this blog and elsewhere, at least once a day I'll have a patient say, "I cut back (or eliminated) my fish oil because I get my omega-3s from _______ (insert your choice of flaxseed oil, walnuts, yogurt, mayonnaise, bread, etc.)."

(See prior Heart Scan Blog post: Everything has omega-3.)

When I point out to them that the "omega-3s" in these products are not the same as the EPA and DHA from fish oil, they invariably declare, "But it says so here on the label: 'Contains 200 mg of omega-3 fatty acids'!"

Apparently, some of my colleagues have even endorsed this concept of replacing the omega-3s from fish oil with these "alternatives."

It's simply not true. The linolenic acid that is being labeled as omega-3, while it may indeed provide health benefits of its own, cannot replace the EPA and DHA that fish oil provides.

The most graphic example of the differences between the two classes of oils is in people with a condition called familial hypertriglyceridemia. People with this condition have triglyceride levels of 400, 600, even thousands of mg/dl--very high. Fish oil, usually providing EPA and DHA doses of 1800 mg per day and higher, reduce triglycerides dramatically. A person with a starting triglyceride level of, say, 900 mg/dl, may take 2400 mg of EPA and DHA from fish oil and triglycerides plummet to 150 mg/dl. This person then decides to replace fish oil with a linolenic acid source like flaxseed oil. Triglycerides? 900 mg/dl--no effect whatsoever.

Familial hypertriglyceridemia represents an exagerrated example of the differences between the two oils. Even if you don't have this genetic condition, the differences between the oils still apply.

EPA and DHA are activators of the enzyme, lipoprotein lipase, that accelerates clearance of triglycerides from the blood. Linolenic acid from flaxseed oil, walnuts, and other food sources does not. EPA and DHA block after-eating (post-prandial) accumulation of food by-products that can contribute to coronary and carotid plaque. Linolenic acid does not. EPA and DHA block platelets, reduce fibrinogen, and exert other healthy blood clot-inhibiting effects. Linolenic does not.

The 11,000-participant GISSI-Prevenzione Trial that showed 28% reduction in heart attack, 45% reduction in cardiovascular death with omega-3s used . . . fish oil.

The 18,000 participant JELIS trial that showed 19% reduction in cardiovascular events when omega-3s were added to statin therapy used . . . fish oil. (Actually, in JELIS, they used only EPA wtihout DHA.)

Linolenic acid is not a waste, however. It may exert anti-inflammatory benefits of its own, for instance. But it exerts none of the triglyceride-modifying effects of EPA or DHA.

EPA and DHA from fish oil and linolenic acid from foods each provide benefits in their own way. Ideally, you include both forms of oils--fish oil and linolenic acid sources--in your daily diet and obtain full benefit from each separate class. But they are not interchangeable.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Osteoporosis and coronary calcium

4. March 2008 William Davis (9)

Several studies over the years have demonstrated a curious paradox:

People with more osteoporosis (thin bones) tend to be more likely to have coronary disease (heart attacks). They also tend to have higher heart scan scores (more coronary calcification as an index of atherosclerotic plaque).

People with more coronary disease and higher heart scan scores tend to have more osteoporosis.

In other words, regardless of which way you tackle the question--osteoporosis first or heart disease first--it leads to the same conclusion: Both conditions are somehow related.

I realize I harp an awful lot on this whole vitamin D issue. But, even after correcting the vitamin D blood levels of many hundreds of people, I remain enthusiastic as ever about the untapped potential of this fascinating factor.

So I couldn't resist showing this amazing comparison of how the long-term effect can be quite graphic.

The first scan is from a 46-year old man and shows normal coronary arteries without calcium and normal density of the vertebra (a common and reliable place to measure bone density).

The second image is from a 79-year old man with both severe coronary calcification (and therefore severe coronary disease) and severe osteoporosis.

It makes you wonder if the disordered metabolism of calcium through vitamin D deficiency allows transport of calcium away from bone and into coronaries. This has, however, been shown to not be the case. Instead, they are separate processes, each under local control, but sharing a common pathophysiology (causative factors).

An intriguing question: Would the 79-year old still look like the 46-year old had he begun increasing his vitamin D intake at, say, age 30?

About comment responses and moderation

2. March 2008 William Davis (10)

Just a brief word about my responses to reader comments:

I appreciate the many often insightful and interesting reader comments I receive to the Heart Scan Blog. However, managing them and responding to them has simply become impossible, due to time demands.

I'm afraid that I am unable to answer questions seeking medical advice; this is for your doctor, who knows you and can diagnose and prescribe. I cannot.

I'm also unable to engage in lengthy debates; I've had commenters become very angry when I was unable to engage in lengthy conversations on some topic. Nor am I able to do Google or literature searches for commenters, or review studies, papers, or other materials.

I would urge any readers who wish to engage in in-depth discussions about these issues, talk about lipoproteins, heart disease reversal, etc. to do so on the Track Your Plaque Forums. Yes, it is a fee-for-membership website, a model that has become necessary to pay for the services we provide (not pay me).

I wish that I could answer all the concerns and questions that come my way, but it's simply physically impossible doing so while maintaining a full-time very busy cardiology practice, developing the Track Your Plaque website (which is becoming an enormous responsibility), publishing scientific data, maintaining hospital responsibilities, and spending time with my wife and family. We're all busy and I'm no different. I'm afraid that it's my responses to blog comments that I will have to sacrifice.

I invite commenters to continue to comment on these posts, as I've learned many new things by reading them and find them helpful feedback. And I do read them. Should an especially helpful comment be made, I will feature it in a new blog post, rather than respond directly.

"Flying in the fog"

2. March 2008 William Davis (3)

I received this wonderful response to The Heart Scan Blog post Hammers and Nails:

I am 65 years old. I had a stent inserted in the "widow-maker" artery (80% blockage) a year ago. I had passed out a couple of times (heart rate dangerously low - 30s). I rode to the hospital in an ambulance. Tests revealed short LBBB episodes; mild mitral regurgitation, mild tricuspid regurgitation. Catherization showed 3 vessel CAD. I was told that a medicated stent was absolutely necessary given the situation; regardless, I have to accept that. A pacemaker was installed to prevent bradycardia and keeps heart rate from dropping below 60. I have 20% L distal main blockage and 90% lesion of the high first obtuse marginal at the takeoff. The right coronary had 60% posterior lateral branch stenosis.

Since then I have reduced TG from 360 to 60, LDL from 89 to 82 (although a few months ago it was in the mid-70s), and increased HDL from 30 to 46. I went from 265lbs to 190lbs and hope to eventually get to 180lb this Spring. I did it by progressing from walking to trotting (slow run) and dietstyle changes (low-GI veggies, fruits, etc.) .

On a recent visit the cardiologist said the the LDL needs to be 70 or below to "freeze" the 90% blockage and gave me a prescription for Lipitor. I asked if there were alternatives, like diet, supplements, etc. He admitted that he did not know about those alternative but did know Lipitor. When the only tool you have is a hammer then everything is a nail. I understand that the 90% blockage is important but will not take the Lipitor to achieve the 12 points reduction. Seems like an overkill.

I asked him if there was a way to evaluate my current condition. I was told there was no way. Basically, if I have no symptoms, good. If I have symptoms then it will have to be evaluated. Death could be the only symptom. I swear he was about to say bypass surgery ($$$$$$!) was inevitable. Something is wrong with this "fly-in-the-fog-and-hope-you-don't- hit-a-mountain" approach. Hope is not a strategy!

I am confident that I can reduce LDL to below 70 based on eliminating wheat-products in my diet plus increasing oat bran in my diet. I also take fish oil daily (EPA/DHA-2g). I am looking for a new cardiologist. I just recently purchased your book and find it very instructive. In the meantime I have an appointment with my primary care physician to discuss implementing the Track Your Plaque program. I realize that the one stent will skew the scan numbers but can be used as a baseline number.

Phenomenal weight loss! That alone has likely cut this man's risk in half. But is that it? Is the cardiologist correct--take Lipitor and hope for the best?

Of course not. There are many additional strategies to employ. Eliminating wheat from the diet is an excellent idea: HDL will skyrocket, triglycerides drop even further, small LDL will drop like a stone, blood sugar and blood pressure will drop. He will have more energy, get rid of afternoon energy slumps, sleep better.

He has already added fish oil. If his cardiologist did not mention this, I would say he was guilty of malpractice. The data supporting the addition of fish oil to the treatment program of anyone with heart disease is overhwelming. GISSI Prevenzione: 11,000 participants--28% reduction in heart attack, 45% reduction in death from heart attack. The Japanese JELIS trial of 18,645 participants--19% reduction in dangerous heart events. It's also clear that omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil also compound the benefits of statin agents, should this man choose to begin Lipitor.

Vitamin D brought to normal blood levels is his next "secret weapon" that will further boost his lipids and lipoproteins further into not just "normal" territory, but beyond belief. Even though we aim for 60-60-60 for LDL-HDL-triglycerides in the Track Your Plaque program, adding vitamin D can yield numbers you've never seen before. It's not uncommon, for instance, to see a 10 or 20 mg/dl jump in HDL.

Identify all other hidden causes of coronary plaque. If all the causes have not been fully identified, how can anyone hope to gain full control over coronary plaque growth?

Re: LDL cholesterol of 89 mg/dl at the start. Of course, this is a calculated value, not measured. Because HDL was low and triglycerides high at the start of his program, this means that true LDL--if actually measured--was probably more like 180 to 250 mg/dl, and it was probably nearly all small. So his cardiologist might have advised a helpful treatment, though for the wrong reasons.

Our reader has gone a long way on his own in creating his own prevention program. But there's yet more to do, particularly if the goal is reversal. It is shocking to me that a man like our reader, clearly articulate and motivated, gets virtually no advice beyond "take Lipitor" after all the procedural benefits have been reaped.

Even though one artery can no longer be "scored" due to the presence of the metallic stent, a heart scan would still be invaluable for long-term tracking purposes, just as we advocate in the Track Your Plaque program.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Goodbye, Dr. Jarvik

29. February 2008 William Davis (0)

HeartWire, the news service of www.theheart.org, posted the following report:

Pfizer pulls Lipitor ads featuring Dr Robert Jarvik in HeartWire

New York, NY - After a series of questions and attacks over its choice of Dr Robert Jarvik to endorse Lipitor in a series of TV commercials, Pfizer has announced that it is withdrawing the ads. As previously reported by heartwire, Jarvik invented the first artificial heart, but he is not a cardiologist, nor does he hold a medical license—factors that drew criticism from detractors and made him and Pfizer a target of a US House Committee on Energy and Commerce investigation into celebrity endorsements in direct-to-consumer advertisements.

In a January 2008 statement, committee chair Rep John D Dingell (D-MI) observed: "Dr Jarvik's appearance in the ads could influence consumers into taking the medical advice of someone who may not be licensed to practice medicine in the United States. Americans with heart disease should make medical decisions based on consultations with their doctors, not on paid advertisements during a commercial break."

Complaints about Jarvik went up a notch this month when the latest ad in the series depicted the inventor rowing a racing scull across a lake, despite the fact that Jarvik himself does not row and the commercial used a body double.

This is typical pharmaceutical industry sleight-of-hand, now you see it, now you don't, that has come to define their policies. And this is just the stuff that comes to light because of some obvious blunders. We can only begin to imagine what sorts of other shenanigans have been swept under the rug, especially adverse effects of drugs that never made it to the light of publication.

Is this just another example of how direct-to-consumer advertising has backfired? I now have patient after patient tell me that they have been so overwhelmed and fed up with TV and magazine ads for drugs that they

Other media outlets have reported that Jarvik was guaranteed $1.35 million for the ads and that Pfizer spent $258 million on Lipitor advertisements between January 2006 and September 2007.

Hammers and nails

28. February 2008 William Davis (4)

I'm sure you've heard the old saying that,

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

It couldn't be truer than in heart procedures (the man with the hammer) and heart disease (the nail).

What does it take in 2008 to become an interventional cardiologist trained in all the techniques of angioplasty, stenting, intracoronary ultrasound, etc.? Start with your undergraduate degree (4 years), then medical school (another 4 years), then training in internal medicine (3 years), then general cardiology taining (3 years), then an additional year in interventional cardiology. Each step along the way also involves competing for these spaces, a process that requires much time, money, and sweat.

The total time investment is 15 years after high school. Many if not most college students graduate with debt. Pile on the substantial cost of medical school. Training after medical school pays a modest salary, enough for a single person. Many trainees by then have spouses and a family, would like to buy a house, have bills to pay. (I managed to buy my first house for $69,000 in Columbus, Ohio and paid my mortgage by sleeping only every other night and moonlighting on my off nights.)

By the time the interventional cardiologist-in-training finishes his/her 15 years, they are hungry for a hefty increase in income. After such a time and money investment, I do believe that there is at least some justification for generous income for the years of work involved.

Back to our hammer and nail metaphor. Not only do we now have a man or woman with a hammer, but a really expensive hammer that required a substantial amount of effort to obtain. Now, our hapless hammer-bearer is desperate to see everything in sight as a nail.

You're seen in consultation by this fresh interventional cardiologist in practice for only a few years. Guess what he/she advises? Go straight to the catheterization laboratory, of course. Throw in the fact that insurance reimbursement is most generous for heart procedures, far more than for consulting in the office, doing a stress test, or other simpler, non-invasive tests, and the incentives are clear.

The system, you see, is set up to follow such a path. The path to the cath lab is heavily incentivized, paths in the other direction discouraged, disparaged, or just ignored.

My message: Don't get nailed.

What is abnormal?

27. February 2008 William Davis (1)

What is abnormal?

You'd think that the answer would be easy and straightforward.

However, consider these instances of medical findings that I have witnessed fall repeatedly into the "normal" category:

Diameter of the thoracic aorta: 4.5 cm

Mild coronary plaque by heart catheterization

Carotid plaque of 30-50%

Why isn't a thoracic aorta (the big artery in your chest) of 4.5 cm normal? Because it can be expected to increase in diameter by about 2.5 mm (0.25 cm) per year. Even at its current diameter, it means that stroke risk is greater, since enlarged aortas are diseased aortas that commonly accumulate atherosclerotic plaque with potential to fragment and shower debris to the brain. It means that high blood pressure and/or cholesterol/lipoprotein abnormalities have been uncorrected for years that have allowed the aorta to enlarge.

How about "mild coronary plaque"? Followers of the Track Your Plaque program already know the answer to this one. Mild plaque does not mean mild risk. In fact, most plaques that cause heart attack are mild plaques, not severe blockages. While severe blockages can provide symptom warning and are detected by stress tests, it's the mild blockages that rupture without symptom warning and cause heart attack. So "mild coronary plaque" is no less dangerous than severe coronary plaque.

Likewise, carotid plaque of 30-50%, while it doesn't justify surgery, can grow within just a few years to a severity that allows it to fragment and shower debris to the brain, i.e., a stroke. As with the enlarged aorta, it means that multiple causes of carotid plaque are likely active, including high blood pressure and cholesterol or lipoprotein abnormalities.

Then why would any of these findings be labeled "normal"?

Simple. In the minds of many physicians, if a condition doesn't pose immediate risk, or if it doesn't qualify for surgical "correction," then it is labeled "normal" or "mild."

Thus, an aorta of 4.5 cm cannot justify surgical replacement until it achieves a diameter of 5.5 cm. It is therefore labeled "normal."

"Mild coronary plaque" does not justify insertion of stents or performance of bypass surgery. It must therefore be "normal."

Carotid plaque over 70% is surgically removed, but not 30-50%. 30-50% is therefore "normal."

The tragedy is that many "normal" or "mild" findings, if cast in the proper light, could lead to corrective strategies that could prevent danger long-term or keep surgery from becoming necessary.

The enlarged aorta, for instance, could be stopped and an aneurysm (defined as 5.5 cm or greater) could be prevented, along with dramatically reducing risk for stroke. Carotid plaque, more so than coronary plaque, is a controllable and manipulable condition that should trigger a program of prevention and reversal. Instead, it usually generates advice to have another ultrasound in a year to see if it has yet achieved severity sufficient to justify surgery.

Of course, "mild coronary plaque" is the reason for the Track Your Plaque approach, a chance to seize control over this disease years or decades before procedures are necessary and reduce danger now, not years from now.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Niacin and hydration

27. February 2008 William Davis (12)

Many people know about niacin's curious effect of the "hot flush," a feeling of warmth that covers the chest and neck, occasionally the entire body.

However, many people are unaware of the fact that hydration can block this effect. In fact, many people who were not advised of this will come to the office describing miserable experiences with niacin--hot flushes that last for hours, intolerable itching, etc.--only to experience little or none of these effects with generous hydration.

The vast majority of the time, two 8-12 oz glasses of water when the hot flush occurs will eliminate the flush within a few minutes.

Sometimes, the hot flush will occur many hours after taking niacin. Nine times out of ten, this delayed effect is also due to poor hydration. For instance, you might be engrossed in your work and forget to keep up with fluid demands. Or, it may be warm and you've lost fluids through sweating. That's when you begin to feel the hot flush creep up on you.

The cure: Lots of water. In this situation, in which you have allowed dehydration to develop, it may require more than two big glasses. Relief from the flush may also take more time, but it still works nearly every time.

On those rare occasions when water by itself is insufficient, then an adult (325 mg), uncoated aspirin or 200 mg ibuprofen can also be used to accelerate relief.

Why go to some much bother? Well, niacin remains the best agent we have for reduction of small LDL, raising HDL (although vitamin D is proving to be a powerful competitor in this arena), and reducing lipoprotein(a). How much do statin drugs contribute to these effects? Very little, if at all.

Several drug manufacturers are also working on "antidotes" to the hot flush effect of niacin that will be packaged within the niacin tablet. Naturally, it will also boost the cost up many times higher.

In the meantime, if or when you experience the niacin hot flush, just think: Put out the "fire" with plenty of water.

Why an RDA for vitamin D?

24. January 2009 William Davis (10)

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

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

14-18 years
Male 200 IU
Female 200 IU

19-50 years
Male 200 IU
Female 200 IU

51-70 years
Male 400 IU
Female 400 IU

71+ years
Male 600 IU
Female 600 IU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bargains for Armour Thyroid

23. January 2009 William Davis (10)

We use Armour thyroid almost exclusively. I take it myself.

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

However, there are substantial price disparities in different pharmacies.

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

Walgreen's: $36.00

Walmart: $9.54

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

Heart scan mis-information on WebMD

22. January 2009 William Davis (3)

If you want information on how prescription drugs fit into your life, then go to WebMD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. January 2009 William Davis (9)

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

USA Today: Study: 11M more should get statins

MedPage: JUPITER Findings Could Boost Statin Use by 20%

Health Day: Millions More Americans Might Be Placed on Statins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dangerous mis-information on vitamin D

16. January 2009 William Davis (12)

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

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

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

Simple Steps
Do Your D!

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

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

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

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

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

Let me list the mistakes in this piece:

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

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

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

Ms. Austin fell for it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Tale of Two LDL's

15. January 2009 William Davis (10)

Kurt, a 50-year old businessman with a heart scan score of 323, had a :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Niacin scams

12. January 2009 William Davis (0)

In the Track Your Plaque program, we often resort to niacin (vitamin B3 or nicotinic acid) to:

--Raise HDL cholesterol
--Reduce the proportion of small LDL particles
--Shift HDL towards the healthy larger fraction (HDL2b or "large")
--Reduce lipoprotein(a), the most aggressive risk factor known

But niacin comes with a crazy "hot flush," a warm, prickly feeling that usually envelops the upper chest, neck and face that is, without a doubt, annoying. Around 1 in 20 people simply cannot tolerate any amount of niacin >100 mg, while others have no problem even into the 3000 mg per day or more range. (Tolerance to niacin is genetically determined, governed by the rapidity of metabolism to the niacin metabolite, nicotinuric acid.)

The niacin flush has spawned an entire panel of niacin-like scams, agents that sound like niacin or may even contain niacin, but exert no beneficial effect whatsoever:

Flush-free niacin--I have previously posted on this useless but ubiquitous preparation that often costs several times more than conventional niacin. Flush-free niacin, or inositol hexaniacinate, does indeed contain niacin, but it is not released in the human body. You simply pass it out down the toilet, where this preparation belongs in the first place.

Nicotinamide--Also called niacinamide. While the nicotinamide/niacinamide forms of vitamin B3 can be used to treat B3 deficiency ("pellagra"), they do not reproduce the lipid and lipoprotein effects of niacin. For our purposes, they are useless.

Niacin-containing heart-healthy supplements--These are the multi-supplements that contain a little of everything that might be beneficial for the heart, but none at a dose that provides genuine benefit. Don't throw your money away.

There's also a prescription niacin, Niaspan, that costs 20-fold more than the best over-the-counter preparation, Sloniacin. Niaspan has yielded hundreds of millions of dollars for the pharmaceutical industry. Your money, in my view, is far better spent on Sloniacin (around $12-14 per bottle of 100 tablets of 500 mg).

For more on niacin, here's an article I wrote for the Life Extension Magazine people a while back: Using Niacin to Improve Cardiovascular Health.

Deja vu all over again?

10. January 2009 William Davis (8)

HeartHawk brought a report and debate on The Heart.Org website to my attention:

Screening for risk factors or detecting disease? Debate divides the CV community. After landing on theheart.org, paste this onto your URL address:article/883239.do. (Full address: http://www.theheart.org/article/883239.do. I don't know why, but I couldn't go there directly.)

Some interesting comments:

Dr. Jay Cohn (University of Minnesota):

"They're saying that we can't identify disease very effectively so let's just stick with risk factors, which we know are very poorly predictive and nonspecific. It boggles my mind as to why they won't open up their minds to the importance of moving forward in finding better strategies to identify the disease that we are treating. It's very strange. They criticize these disease markers because they are not predictive of events, but they are looking at very short-term outcomes. We're interested in lifetime risk. We're screening people in their 40s who are concerned about morbid events in their 60s and 70s, and no trials are going to track them that long."

"You have to accept the pathophysiologic reality that heart attacks don't occur in the absence of coronary disease, and coronary disease doesn't occur in the absence of endothelial dysfunction and vascular disease, all of which now can be identified."

". . . Can we as a society and as a profession accept the idea that there is a link between the vascular abnormalities and the events? "And that that linkage is tight enough that it should allow us to accept slowing of progression of the vascular abnormalities as an adequate marker for slowing disease progression, without waiting for events to occur? As soon as you use the word surrogate, people jump up and say we have all these markers that we know don't work well—things like premature ventricular contractions [PVCs] on the electrocardiogram, LDL, HDL—but those are not the markers we're talking about. We're talking about structural and functional changes in the blood vessel and in the heart."

Wow. The idea may be starting to catch on.

As an interesting aside, Cohn et al use a 10-test panel to screen for vascular disease:

"Named for the center's benefactor, the Rasmussen score includes tests for large and small artery elasticity (compliance), resting blood pressure, blood-pressure response to moderate treadmill exercise, optic fundus photography, carotid intimal-media thickness (IMT), microalbuminuria, electrocardiography, left ventricular (LV) ultrasonography for LV volume and mass, and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP). Each test result is scored out of 10 for low, intermediate, or high risk, and the combined results yields a score that Cohn et al believe is more predictive than any of the existing standalone tests."

The counterarguments in this debate were provided by Dr. Philip Greenland (Northwestern University), who repeated his oft-used argument that, while he accepts that vascular disease can be identified, no one has proven that measuring it improves outcomes:

"We do have that evidence for risk-factor screening. Even though people criticize risk-factor assessment because it is not sensitive enough or not accurate enough, the interesting and curious thing is that we actually have evidence that if you go to the trouble of screening for risk factors and treating them, patients have better outcomes. We do not have that evidence for any of these other tests."

An interesting debate ensues that includes Track Your Plaque friend, Dr. William Blanchet, who characteristically argues persuasively in favor of broad screening for coronary disease with coronary calcium scoring:

"If we were doing our jobs in primary prevention, we would not need to look at improved intervention and secondary prevention to reduce coronary death."

Here's a shock: Dr. Melissa Shirley-Walton, the cardiologist who previously preached the "cath lab on every corner" argument seems to have undergone a change of heart:

"What if I walked up to a gentleman and said, "you are at risk for CAD, take a statin", to which he replies, "I'm afraid of those meds". BUT if he sees his calcium score........he is then convinced to be pro-active. What is so wrong with that? What is so wrong with allowing him to spend 250.00 US out of pocket in order to save the US 150,000.00 US later on?

No hard endpoints you say with intensive therapy for primary prevention? What about extrapolating from trials for secondary prevention like HATS? ARBITER2? And what exactly is the true definition of secondary prevention? Is it truly primary prevention if we already have intima thickness abnormalities, or fatty streaks? That would more likely fall under secondary prevention by today's new standards.

So, I'm all for any visual aid that will encourage compliance with life style change, necessary medical therapy and followup. If the patient is willing to spend 250.00$ to get a calcium score, so be it. Better yet, why not lower the price so everyone can have the option if they are motivated enough to seize an opportunity?"

I have to admit that I thought that Dr. Blanchet was wasting his time trying to persuade Shirley-Walton et al, but perhaps he is having an impact, though having hammered away at them for the last year or so.

These arguments, for me, eerily echo many previous debates I've heard. But I am encouraged by the more favorable treatment the notion of atherosclerosis screening is receiving. Just 5 years ago, all coronary calcium scoring would have received from the conventionalists is "more clinical studies are needed."

So perhaps the cardiology and medical worlds are inching slowly towards broad acceptance of screening for coronary and vascular disease.

BUT, screening is not sufficient. What do you do with the information?

Here is where the conventional-thinkers stop. The question that seems to occupy them: Perhaps we should screen people for hidden coronary and vascular atherosclerosis so we can better decide who needs a statin drug or a procedure.

I would pose a different challenge: We should screen people for hidden coronary and vascular atherosclerosis so we can better decide who needs to engage in an intensive program of disease reversal using natural means and as little medication and procedures as possible.

Well, perhaps in time.

Lead to Gold: The alchemy of transforming nutritional-supplement-to-medication

9. January 2009 William Davis (25)

Here's a recipe to make hundreds of millions of dollars. Others have done it and you can do it, too!

1) Identify a nutritional supplement that works.

Find some agent deemed to fall within the broad allowances of the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act . However, because this agent is already in the public domain and is essential non-patent-protectable, you may need to develop some patent protectable aspect of its production, application, or encapsulation. This patent-protected aspect may or may not provide genuine advantage, but that's not your concern. Your concern is protecting your investment and providing the appearance of exclusivity.

2) Identify a medical indication for your product.

Choose a disease or condition that is likely to yield unquestioned efficacy, e.g., omega-3 fatty acids to reduce high triglycerides in people with familial hypertriglyceridemia (triglycerides >500 mg/dl). While this will restrict your ability to make market claims, it will not restrain your ability to sell or allow use of your agent for "off-label" applications. In fact, there are methods to surreptitiously promote the use of your product for off-label use, such as hiring experts to discuss the science behind your product with doctors who can prescribe your product. Ideally, your product's primary indication will provide a substantial market on its own to justify your investment. However, the eventual off-label sales can be substantial, even outstripping the sales generated through your primary indication.

3) Obtain at least $230 million to pay for the clinical trials required to obtain FDA approval.

You will also have to raise the capital to build the business to manufacture, distribute, and sell your product.

4) After FDA approval is obtained, your business is up and running, and distribution begins, start bashing the non-FDA-approved nutritional products that stand to compete in your market.

You could point out that only your product has actually passed through the rigorous FDA process. You could make claims regarding purity, potency, "approved by your doctor," etc., whether or not there is any truth behind the claim.

5) Buy that second vacation home in Aspen and the corporate jet you've been dreaming about! After all the risks you've taken, you deserve it!

That's it, plain and simple. It is a tried-and-true formula that has been applied many times.

It is a formula like this that brought Lovaza-brand omega-3 fatty acids to market, Niaspan brand of niacin, ergocalciferol form of vitamin D, Folbee (prescription combination B vitamins), with a slightly different spin for Synthroid (since the Armour Thyroid it is meant to replace is not a nutritional supplement, but a low-cost, generic thyroid replacement).

Whatever you do, don't EVER run a head-to-head comparative trial of your agent versus the nutritional supplement competition. For instance, NEVER compare Lovaza to supplemental fish oil capsules, matched milligram-for-milligram for EPA and DHA content. NEVER compare Niaspan to over-the-counter Sloniacin. NEVER compare Armour Thyroid to Synthroid. You never know what you might find. (Psssssttt! They might be equivalent!)

The formula is not a foolproof road paved with riches, however. There have been market failures, as well. Folbee, for instance, is hardly a household name. So there's risk involved, no question about it. But, should it all work out, the payoff can be big, VERY big, as it has been for Niaspan and Lovaza.

So, start thinking about how you might follow this formula for:

1) Cholecalciferol (vitamin D3)--e.g., for osteopenia, low HDL, or high c-reactive protein
2) Vitamin K2--also for osteopenia
3) Magnesium--for suppression of ventricular arrhythmias (especially Torsade de Pointes)
4) Iodine--for goiter and iodine deficiency
5) Vitamin C--for uric acid reduction

Who said you can't turn lead into gold?

Irvingia and Leptin Resistance: Fact or fiction?

7. January 2009 William Davis (0)

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.

Newer posts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
...
121
122
Older posts