All posts by william-davis

Carbohydrate intolerance comes in many shades and colors, shapes and sizes.

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

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

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

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

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

How about Kevin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened?

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

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

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

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

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

I borrowed this from the enormously clever Dr. BG at The Animal Pharm Blog.

How to Give Yourself Hashimoto's Thyroiditis: 101

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heart health without a 12" incision

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

Track Your Plaque: A drug-free zone

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There is no longer any doubt that lipoprotein(a) is a major causal factor in heart disease:

Meta-analysis (combined re-analysis) of 27 prospective studies:
Danesh J et al. Lipoprotein(a) and Coronary Heart Disease: Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies

Lp(a) and "subclinical" atherosclerosis
Brown SA et al. The relation of lipoprotein[a] concentrations and apolipoprotein[a] phenotypes with asymptomatic atherosclerosis in subjects of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study.

Lp(a) and oxidized LDL
Tsimikas S et al. Oxidized phospholipids, Lp(a) lipoprotein, and coronary artery disease.

Lp(a) predicts peripheral vascular disease
Valentine RJ et al. Lp(a) lipoprotein is an independent, discriminating risk factor for premature peripheral atherosclerosis among white men.

Peltier M et al.Elevated serum lipoprotein(a) level is an independent marker of severity of thoracic aortic atherosclerosis.

Lp(a) across various populations
Gambhir JK et al. Association between lipoprotein(a) levels, apo(a) isoforms and family history of premature CAD in young Asian Indians.

Weber M et al. Metabolic factors clustering, lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, lipoprotein (a) and apolipoprotein E phenotypes in premature coronary artery disease in French Canadians.

Lp(a) and stroke risk
Jurgens G et al. Lipoprotein(a) serum concentration and apolipoprotein(a) phenotype correlate with severity and presence of ischemic cerebrovascular disease.

Willeit J et al. Lipoprotein(a) and asymptomatic carotid artery disease. Evidence of a prominent role in the evolution of advanced carotid plaques: the Bruneck Study.

From just about any direction, Lp(a) has been conclusively associated with atherosclerotic disease. We have more than enough data proving association.

But there are two areas of desperate need:

1) Data on effective treatments.

2) Raising awareness of this widely unknown (among the public) and ignored (among health professionals) genetic condition.

Treatment remains a real struggle. In a recent detailed Track Your Plaque Special Report, Unique Treatment Strategies for Lipoprotein(a) Reduction, we summarized the treatment approaches that have some power to reduce Lp(a) and/or its potential for causing heart disease. But, even armed with an appreciation for the world's scientific literature on this genetic condition, full control remains difficult for many people.

Track Your Plaque's HeartHawk has Lp(a) and he has struggled with this pattern for the last several years. He details some of his thoughts in a recent blog post.

More research and clinical studies are required and we need it soon if we hope to gain better control over this genetic pattern that affects up to 20% of people with coronary or vascular disease. Much of the needed research is sophisticated, background work similar to that being done by Dr. Santico Marcovina at University of Washington, Dr. Angelo Scanu at the University of Chicago, and Dr. Sally McCormick in New Zealand.

However, much of the needed research also consists of brief clinical experiences that detail whether or not there is an effect of various potential agents. Larger experiences, for instance, with potential treatment agents such as various phospholipid fractions, acetylcysteine, antibiotic regimens, some hormonal treatments, etc. could be performed quickly and simply. These studies would not require the $20 or $30 million typically spent by a drug company for a study, nor the several hundred million dollars to gain FDA approval of a new agent. They would simply be examinations of existing agents. These studies still cost money, require expertise, staff, and equipment. But the cost is a tiny fraction of the drug industry's investment in research. But it also means that investment return is nil from a drug manufacturer's perspective. Yet there are literally dozens, perhaps hundreds, of agents that hold some promise but have not been thoroughly studied.

For instance, if a specific modification of the phosphatidylcholine molecule were to generate a substantial Lp(a) reducing effect, Merck, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca would yawn--it is non-patent protectable, cannot be protected from competitors through the costly FDA approval process, and therefore is simply not worth their investment--regardless of whether it works or not.

(This is yet another example of how the drug industry, as well as hospitals and many health professionals, have lost sight of their real mission: to alleviate disease, not to profit from sickness.)

HeartHawk and I have discussed on a number of occasions whether a Lipoprotein(a) Research Foundation should be formed, an organization that seeks to fund the smaller research efforts that may accelerate productive research in Lp(a) and perhaps yield useful strategies faster than hoping for somebody to simply stumble on a treatment, or wait for the drug industry to create a unique, patentable entity that returns billions.

I'd like to propose that our Track Your Plaque program begin to fund such an effort. But a lot more help will be needed, particularly to generate the money to fund genuine, high-quality research from high-quality researchers.

If any readers of the Heart Scan Blog have any thoughts or insights into this process of creating a foundation, we'd appreciate your input.

Since we are on the topic of the ASTEROID trial and rosuvastatin, I'd make one more point before I start to sound like I'm plugging this drug (which I definitely am not).

In an informative Roundtable Discussion (open to subscribers to the American Journal of Cardiology; sorry) amongst Dr. Steve Nissen, principal investigator behind ASTEROID; and Drs. Vincent Friedewald, Christie Ballantyne, P. Shah, and William Roberts, Dr. Nissen made some interesting comments:

Dr. Shah: In ASTEROID, was the magnitude of atheroma volume change seen across different levels of LDL-C and HDL-C?

Dr. Nissen: No. There was no plaque regression seen in the 17 persons with LDL-Cs >/= 100 mg/dl, and there was little change in persons with LDL-Cs of 70 to 100 mg/dl. Only in persons with LDLs less than or equal to 70 mg/dl was there significant regression. The study was not powered to look for an HDL-C(which increased by 14.7%)-raising effect.

Interesting. In other words, ASTEROID, in a fairly internally consistent way, suggests that the lower the LDL is reduced, the more likely plaque regression is obtained. This is consistent with the Track Your Plaque experience, in which we've advocated reducing (calculated) LDL cholesterol to 60 mg/dl for the past several years.

Unfortunately, the message that the ASTEROID Trial sponsors, AstraZeneca, as well as the roundtable discussion panel (later in the discussion) try to make is that there is something magical about Crestor, that it yields benefits superior to other statin agents or other means of reducing LDL.

I disagree with this message. In the Track Your Plaque experience, we do aim for a similar LDL target. But we also employ a number of other strategies. We have also succeeded in regressing plaque without use of any statin drugs (though, admittedly, many people do require statin drugs to obtain LDLs in this range). We also witness magnitudes of reversal that often far exceed that seen in ASTEROID.

The Rountable Discussion is unfortunately tainted, as is the ASTEROID Trial itself, with deep drug industry financial involvement of the Roundtable participants. In fact, the discussion begins with a listing of the financial disclosures of the participants, a listing that occupies a full column of a two-column page. The potential biases of the participants doesn't necessarily invalidate the arguments, but to me suggests that participants are more likely to argue in favor of the sponsor's drug, or that participants were chosen because of these biases.

Why bother to even mention the ASTEROID Trial in a venue (the Heart Scan Blog, that is) that purports to seek unvarnished, unbiased truth in coronary plaque reversal? Because useful information can sometimes be found in unlikely places. Just like the four-year old child who blurts out an unexpected pearl of wisdom, so it can happen with the gobbledy-gook that emerges from the drug industry.

Every once in a while, they are worth paying attention to.

The ASTEROID Trial reported in 2006 examined the effects of LDL cholesterol reduction using the statin drug, rosuvastatin (Crestor), with coronary atherosclerosis quantified and tracked with intracoronary ultrasound. The Track Your Plaque report, New study confirms: LDL of 60 mg reverses plaque, on the ASTEROID Trial provides commentary on the results.

Though I remain skeptical that a statin-only treatment strategy can reverse coronary plaque in the majority of people, I do believe that the AstraZeneca-sponsored ASTEROID Trial does add to the wisdom on heart disease management. More importantly, it has served to raise awareness among both the public and my physician colleagues that atherosclerosis is indeed a potentially reversible condition.

Specifically, the ASTEROID results confirm that, either directly or indirectly, LDL cholesterol reduction achieved with statin agents does correspond to increasing degrees of plaque reversal. The mean (calculated) LDL cholesterol achieved in ASTEROID was 60 mg/dl, the same as the Track Your Plaque suggested LDL target.

Though the ASTEROID Trial is not news, I stumbled on a chart posted on the ASTEROID Trial website that clearly highlights how a number of other studies beyond ASTEROID have fallen into this pattern:

The graph reveals a linear relationship: The greater the reduction in LDL cholesterol with statin drugs, the greater the plaque regression ("change in percent atheroma volume"). (Several other studies not included in the graph also cluster into the same linear relationship.)

I am no supporter of drug companies, nor a defender of their policies and practices. But I do believe that their data can serve to teach us a few lessons. For instance, here is an (cherry-picked, to be sure) example of intracoronary ultrasound cross-sectional images before and after two years of rosuvastatin, 40 mg daily:

The color-coded/outlined atherosclerotic coronary plaque is shown shrinking, while the "lumen," or the path for blood to flow, enlarges. The reduction in coronary plaque is irrefutable. (The small circle within the lumen with the white halo surrounding it is the ultrasound catheter.)

If you and I were to choose a single treatment approach to coronary disease reversal, then 40 mg of rosuvastatin is probably at the top of the list. However, in the Track Your Plaque program, we do not advocate a single treatment strategy. While the Crestor-only approach is relatively straightforward--one pill a day--few people, in my experience, can tolerate this dose for any length of time. Patients invariably have to stop the drug or reduce the dose severely due to muscle aches when I've had patients try it. Contrary to the ASTEROID results, in my experience the majority of people, perhaps all, eventually give up with this improbable "one-size-fits-all" scheme.

The Track Your Plaque approach, while more complicated and involves several nutritional supplements and strategies, in my view addresses more causes of coronary plaque, is better tolerated, and provides health benefits outside of just LDL cholesterol reduction. It also minimizes or eliminates the need for prescription medication.

Studies cited in graph:

1.Nissen S et al. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1253-1263.
2 Tardif J et al. Circulation 2004;110:3372-3377.
3 Nissen S et al. JAMA 2006;295 (13):1556-1565
4 Nissen S et al. JAMA 2004;292: 2217–2225.
5 Nissen S et al. JAMA 2004; 291:1071–1080

One ounce of raw almonds (about 23 nuts) contains:

6 grams protein

14 grams fat

6 grams carbohydrate

3.5 grams fiber

For a total of 163 calories per ounce.

(From the USDA Nutrient Database)

Calorie content of foods is determined by summing up the calories from each constituent: 1 gram of fat = 9 calories; 1 gram protein = 4 calories; 1 gram carbohydrate = 4 calories. Calorie content can also be directly measured using a device called a burn calorimeter, in which the amount of energy released from a specific food is measured by literally burning it and gauging precisely how much energy is released.

The problem with both of these methods is that it is assumed that all foods are digested with equal efficiency. That is, it assumes that a potato chip is as readily digested and absorbed as energy from table sugar, a pretzel, oatmeal, a piece of steak, or a handful of nuts. In real life, of course this is not true. Different foods are absorbed with varying efficiency.

For a long time I've suspected that some foods are very inefficiently absorbed. I've particularly suspected that raw nuts are relatively poorly absorbed and thus yield only a fraction of the calories ingested.

Among the studies recently reported at the Federation of the Association of Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) meetings I attended in San Diego this past week were several devoted to almonds.

One study, to my surprise, documented this phenomenon. In Manipulation of lipid bioaccessibility of almonds influences postprandial lipemia in healthy human subjects, it was determined that, of 100 calories ingested from the fat fraction of almonds, only about half was actually absorbed. The remaining half passed out in the stool. (They did this by collecting stool samples and comparing the fat composition after eating the different almonds prepartions. This is not discussed in the limited text of the abstract.) In addition, postprandial (after-eating) surges in triglycerides were much less with whole almonds compared to the oil separated from the nut (i.e., broken down into almond oil + defatted almond flour). The researchers attributed the difference to the inhibitory effects of the almond nut's "food matrix," or the structural properties of chewed foods.

Add to this the fact that, of 6 grams of carbohydrate per ounce of whole almonds, 3.5 grams are indigestible fibers. This means that 6 - 3.5 = 2.5 grams of digestible carbohydrates are present per ounce (assuming 100% release).

If we follow the reasoning that only about half the fat fraction of almonds are absorbed, and assume that the protein and carbohydrate (minus the indigestible fibers) are absorbed efficiently (100%), then we would re-calculate the calorie content of almonds to be 97 calories per ounce, or 40% less than calories calculated by composition or measured with a calorimeter.

If we were to assume that protein and carbohydrates were, like fats, inefficiently absorbed because of the effects of the food matrix, then one ounce of almonds yields 88 calories per ounce, or 46% less. This is, in fact, a likely scenario, since the food matrix is largely created by the cell wall and should impede digestive access to fat, protein, and carbohydrate equally.

My point? Almonds and other nuts at first appear to be calorically dense due to fat composition. However, this simplistic view of nuts is misleading because of the confounding effects of the food matrix. Stated differently: Whole foods yield less calories. And, judging by the postprandial triglyceride effects: Whole foods yield less undesirable effects, such as postprandial rises in triglycerides.

Some other observations with almonds included:

The effect of almonds on plasma lipids in persons with prediabetes This study confirmed the LDL-reducing and modest HDL-raising effects of almonds.

Almonds (Amygdalus communis L.) as a possible source of prebiotic functional food This curious observation suggests that almonds modify the bacterial flora of the intestinal tract in a positive way (like the cultures in yogurts).

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

An extraordinary thing happened about 2 1/2 years ago.

While we have been following the Track Your Plaque program for coronary plaque regression for nearly 10 years, about 2 1/2 years ago we witnessed an extraordinary surge in success--bigger, faster, and more frequent drops in heart scan scores.

Up until then, we did witness significant reversal of coronary plaque by heart scan scores. We were planning to publish the data to validate this approach, but then . . .

Heart scan scores starting dropping not just 2%, or 8% . . . but 24%, 30%, 50% and more. Why? I attribute the surge in success to the addition of vitamin D.

Unfortunately, it also meant that the preceding 8 or so years of data lacked experience with supplementing vitamin D. The hundreds of participants in the Track Your Plaque program had not, until then, included vitamin D in their program.

So I decided to start from scratch (from the standpoint of data collection, not for the participants). That also meant that the preceding years of experience went unreported, though even that data far exceeded the results of what is achieved in conventional heart disease prevention.

Thus, the data I presented at the Experimental Biology Proceedings (FASEB 2008) in San Diego this week included only experiences in the group of participants that included vitamin D in their program, with data collected until mid-2007. The number of experiences is therefore modest.

However, the Track Your Plaque experience, as reported, far exceeds any prior experience in coronary plaque regression.

The full abstract will be published in the Track Your Plaque website.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Many people complain about the size of fish oil capsules. Let's face it: They're usually big and kind of smelly.

Women in particular struggle with big capsules. This becomes a real problem when somebody requires high-dose fish oil for treatment of post-prandial (after-eating) abnormalities, high triglycerides, or lipoprotein(a), when 6 or more--occasionally up to the equivalent of 20--standard fish oil capsules are required.

I came across a small capsule alternative for people who struggle with the big capsules. It's a product called Learn from PharmaOmega, a source of super purified fish oil.

The Learn product is actually made for children, since omega-3 fatty acid supplementation has been linked with improved intellectual performance. But the small capsule size is convenient for women and other people who would like to avoid the big standard-sized capsules.

Each capsule is about 60% of the size of a standard fish oil capsule (the smaller capsule in the photo, next to a standard size fish oil capsule), yet contains 375 mg EPA + DHA per capsule, 25% more than standard capsules (which contain 300 mg per capsule). The ratio of of EPA:DHA is a little more heavily weighted towards EPA with a 5:2 ration, compared to 3:1 of standard capsules. The capsules are also faintly orange flavored and non-fishy.

Disclosure: I receive no compensation for discussing or promoting this product.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Jenny provided permission to reprint her very excellent introduction to low-carbohydrate eating for people with diabetes. You can also view the original version on her Diabetes 101 website.

Jenny is a stickler for monitoring the effects of blood sugar. We might take some lessons from her experiences for improving management of people with metabolic syndrome or borderline blood sugars. In other words, monitoring the blood sugar-raising effects of various foods and food portions can provide great feedback on what foods are preferable, what undesirable, given your physiology.

Even if you are not a diabetic, Jenny's discussion is must reading to gain a better understanding of food choices, particularly carbohydrates. Along with seizing control of health, she has also gained deep wisdom in how to best manage this disease and its physiology.

Introduction to low-carb nutrition for diabetics

It's carbohydrates that raise blood sugar.

Sugars and starches, not the fats that dietitians have been warning you about for so long. If you've been testing your blood sugar after meals, you've probably noticed that already and you are starting to understand why a healthy diabetes diet will have to be one that limits carbohydrates to an amount that doesn't push your blood sugar up over the level where you are damaging your body.

But if your previous experience with restricting carbohydrates involved doing a weight loss diet like Atkins or Protein Power, which worked well for you until you crashed off it entirely and gained back all the weight you'd lost, you may be hesitant to embark on another course of dieting that requires some carb restriction.

I've been there myself. I've done the extremely low carb diet Dr. Richard Bernstein recommends for months on end. I did Protein Power for 3 years. And I've gone on the "Eat all the carbs you didn't eat over the past three years all at once" diet, too. The following observations grew out of my 8 years of experience with learning how to make carb restriction work long-term.

Unlike much of what you've read before, there are no scholarly references for this section. It's based entirely on my own observations and the experience of many dozens of people who have participated in online discussion groups devoted to low carb dieting and diabetes.

Weight Loss Diets Usually Fail but Diabetes Diets Can't Afford To Fail

People who adopt a low carb diet to lose weight tend to start out with great enthusiasm, adapt extreme dieting strategies, swear they will never eat another piece of bread or french fry for the rest of their lives, lose some weight, stall out, burn out, and slink back to their old diets, where they gain back all the weight they lost and more.

This is not a surprise. People on any diet, including low calorie and low fat, do the same thing. The body is very resistant to weight loss and deeply buried instincts in our brains do everything they can to maintain our weights, no matter how unhealthy they might be.

But while this pattern of dieting may be tolerable for those who are dieting to shed a few pounds before their class reunion, it spells disaster for those who must change their diet in order to prevent the high blood sugars that result in amputation, blindness, kidney failure and heart attack death.

Low carbing for diabetes means low carbing for life, long after the thrill has worn off of eating that runny brie and steak. Despite the hype in the diet books, it is not easy, simple, and fun. I know only a handful of people who have been able to sustain a low carb lifestyle for more than five years. And that is after years of online participation in low carb groups.

What you'll find below is what I've found works for me. I used a low carb diet to control my blood sugar for more than five years and have gone through the whole cycle, from enthusiasm, to boredom, to burnout, to saying "To hell with it, we've all got to die some time!" to starting all over again determined to avoid the mistakes that sent me round the bend the first time.

How Many Grams of Carbs to Eat? As Many as Allow You to Reach Your Blood Sugar Targets

When people think about adopting a lower carb diet, their first question is almost always, "How many grams of carbs can I eat at each meal?" Most of the diet books will answer that question with a hard and fast number. Atkins, for example, tells you to start out with 20 grams a day. Protein Power starts you at 30 grams. And Dr. Bernstein suggests 6 grams for breakfast and snacks and 12 grams at lunch and dinner.

Adopting these very low carbohydrate limits will control your blood sugar very nicely. But over time, many people find that sticking to a diet this low in carbohydrate becomes impossible. That's why I'm going to ask you to throw away all those diet books and try a new approach to restricting carbs.

What you will do is to try the strategy used by the people from the alt.support-diabetes newsgroup who informally call themselves "The 5% Club" because their A1c test results fall in the 5% range which doctors consider normal: use your blood sugar meter after each meal to determine how many grams of carbs you can eat and still meet a healthy blood sugar target.

You will start out by measuring your blood sugar one and two hours after each meal. Write down what you ate and observe what it did to your blood sugar. If a meal allows you to reach your blood sugar targets, try eating it again on a different day and test it test again, possibly at a later time, to make sure that your good numbers weren't just a result of slow digestion.

If you end up too high after a meal, the next time you eat it, cut back on the portion size of the carbohydrate elements in the meal and test again. Do this until you can hit your targets, or flag the carbohydrate-containing foods in that meal as ones your body can't handle.

What you're doing here is creating what newsgroup activist Alan S. calls, "a low spike diet" rather than a low carb diet. He can achieve normal post meal blood sugars by eating as many as 30 or 40 grams of carbohydrates at a meal. Others will find that they need to eat a lot less than that amount to hit safe post-meal blood sugar targets.

Usually how much carbohydrate you can manage has something to do with your body size. The more you weigh, the less each gram of carbohydrate you eat will raise your blood sugar. Those of us whose weight is less than 150 lbs often find that we can eat between 12 and 20 grams of carbohydrate and still reach normal blood sugar targets without the help of medications, and that we can add perhaps another 10 or 20 grams more, with medications. People who are much heavier can often eat 30 or 40 grams per meal and still reach their blood sugar targets. In general, men can eat more carbohydrates and still reach their targets than can women, again, because of their larger body size.

How to Learn How Much Carbohydrate is in Your Food

To make this system work, it helps if you start to learn how many grams of carbohydrate are in the foods you eat. That way you won't have to test hundreds of foods once you've learned how a representative sample affect you.

The best way to learn how many grams of carbohydrates are in the different foods you eat is to read food labels carefully, invest in a nutritional guide like one of Connie Netzer's books of nutritional information, download nutrition software like LifeForm (http://www.lifeform.com) or use online calculators like Fit Day (http://www.fitday.com). Software and online sites will compute the amount of carbohydrates and other nutrients in your meal for you as long as you know the portion size.

Learn about Portion Sizes!
This brings up an important point: When you estimate how many grams of carbohydrate there are in a portion of food, it is very important to find out if the amount of food on your plate corresponds to the amount in the "one serving" listed on a label, in a book, or in your software.

The best way to do this is to invest in an electronic food scale and to weigh your foods for a few weeks until you get the hang of estimating portion size. You can get a good food scale at a gourmet kitchen shop for $25 to $40 dollars. This food scale may be the best nutritional investment you'll ever make.

Once you start using your scale, you will find that the muffin you bought at the coffee shop weighs 8 ounces, which is fully four times the 2 ounces that most food databases give as "one serving" of a muffin. When you read that a mythical 2 ounce portion of muffin contains 27 grams of carbohydrate you will realize why that 8 ounce coffee shop muffin with its 108 grams of carbohydrates sends your blood sugar into the psycho zone!

With ice cream, when you weigh your ice cream on a food scale, you'll quickly see that the "one portion" listed on the package turns out to be only a few teaspoons' worth. That bowl you've been considering as one portion of ice cream weighs in as four servings or 72 grams of carbohydrate and 600 calories, which may explain its damaging effect on both your blood sugar and your waistline.

This may sound like a lot of work, and when you first start, it is. But after you do it for a few weeks you'll find you have memorized the carbohydrate gram counts and the portion sizes for the foods you usually eat, and once you have tested your blood after eating these portion sizes, you won't have to test every time you eat a favorite meal, because you will know what it is going to do to your blood sugar.

Eating Away from Home

The biggest challenge you'll encounter as you start learning what you can eat will be eating away from home. You aren't going to be able to weigh restaurant foods nor can you look up the nutritional values of many restaurant offerings--though many of the common fast food outlets do provide nutritional information online--though often without listing portion sizes.

That makes it a very good idea to avoid starchy or sugary restaurant foods or, if you do eat them, to eat only a small portion of what you are offered. Measure your blood sugar an hour or two hours after eating if you aren't sure about how a restaurant food will affect you.

Fat and Carbs Eaten Together will Digest Slowly

Foods with a lot of fat in them take longer to digest than those without a lot of fat. This is why pizza and ice cream often give deceptively good readings on your meter. If you test a meal and see a reading that is too good to be true, be sure you test at 3 or four hours after eating.

The Truth About Pasta

Pasta was long recommended to people with diabetes as a food that would not raise blood sugar and you will still see it starring in many cookbooks and magazines intended for people with diabetes.

However, if you test pasta 4 or 5 hours after eating, you may get an unpleasant surprise. This is true with the so-called "low carb" pastas, too. These foods give you excellent readings at one and two hours because they are resistant to digestion so they don't turn into glucose right away. But five hours later, they do break down into glucose and when they do, the 52 grams of carbohydrates found in each 2 ounce serving of pasta will hit your blood stream with a nasty wallop. (Not to mention that you almost need a microscope to see a 2 ounce portion of pasta. Most people's idea of a portion of pasta is closer to 6 ounces--and 156 grams of carbohydrate!)

If you have pasta for dinner and don't see a peak 3 hours later, be sure to check your fasting blood sugar the next morning. You may see the blood sugar rise there, too.

Sugar Alcohol and "Sugar Free" Foods

The sugar alcohol used in so-called "sugar free" foods can also show up in your blood sugar an hour or two after you'd expect to see them, especially the maltitol used in "sugar-free" candy. At least half of the sugar in Maltitol does turn into glucose in your blood stream and it can raise your blood sugar, but the rise is delayed so you may miss it on testing. So if a "sugar free" food seems to be kind to your blood sugar, try testing it an hour or two after your first tests. Erythritol is the one sugar alcohol that usually does not show up in your blood sugar.

Dealing with Limited Blood Testing Supplies

In in ideal world, we'd all have all the testing supplies we needed to control our blood sugar, but in real life blood sugar test strips are very expensive and many insurers sharply limit the number of strips people with Type 2 diabetes can get each month.

Here are some strategies that can help you if your access to strips is limited.

If you only have 50 strips to get you through a month, plan out what you are going to test ahead of time. Pick one of your favorite meals, and test at 1 hour after eating the first time you eat it and 2 hours after eating the second. Do this with a couple different meals and see if there's a pattern as to when you see the highest reading--whether it is at one hour or two. Then choose another meal and test it at the time when you saw the highest reading in the earlier meal. If you ever get a surprisingly low reading, try testing an hour later or earlier, to make sure you aren't missing the peak.

Make the goal of your testing be learning how many grams of carbs you can tolerate in one meal. If you learn that 30 grams is your upper limit, use software and your scale to find portions of other foods that will also clock in at 30 grams or less. Test one or two of these, and if you see the result you expect, you don't have to test every time you eat these foods again.

Wal-mart sells a cheap and effective blood sugar meter with strips that cost one half as much as other vendors. Some drug stores also sell store brand meters with cheaper strips. If you need more strips, consider the $50 you pay for another 100 strips an investment in your health. It's far better to spend that $50 now, than to spend it on expensive doctor bills caused by complications you don't need to develop!

Keep the focus on Achieving your Blood Sugar Goals

By testing after meals, you'll learn how many grams of carbohydrate your own, unique, body can handle. And more importantly, you'll also be able to decide if you are going to be able to control through diet alone, of whether it is time to talk to your doctor about supplementing dietary control with drugs.

Many people are so excited to learn that they can achieve normal blood sugars by cutting way back on carbohydrates that they become zealots for low carb dieting. I've been there and I've done that. But it's important not to get too carried away with a "Carbs are Evil" mentality which makes it a matter of religious zeal never to let evil carbs cross your lips again. Like all conversions this one tends to fade out in time. And as we said at the start of this chapter, your ultimate goal is to maintain your blood sugar targets for the rest of your life. So the safest approach is to get the most blood sugar benefit you can out of restricting carbohydrates, but restrict them to a level you can maintain year in and year out.

Most importantly, I have learned it is best to treat carb restriction as a strategy, one of many, which used in combination with other strategies including medications if needed, can give you normal blood sugars, rather than the One and Only True Way. If you can be flexible and find more than one tool to help you meet your blood sugar targets, you are more likely to be able to maintain those excellent blood sugars for years to come.

Eliminate "Habit Carbs" and Concentrate on "Value Carbs"
When people think about restricting their carb intake they assume this means never eating any of their favorite foods again.

But for many of us, this doesn't have to be true. Why? Because a quick look at your daily carb intake will often reveal that the bulk of the carbohydrates you are eating are what I call "habit carbs." These are the carbs you eat without a second thought because they are there. Not because they taste good. Not because you couldn't live without them. Just because you're in the habit of eating them.

Here is a list of some prime "habit carbs."

Steam table mashed potatoes

Limp french fries

Squashy hamburger buns

Cardboard toast

Cold home fries

Stale boxed cookies

How many of these flavorless, starchy foods are you consuming everyday just because they're there? Probably more than you realize. So before you lift that fork-full to your mouth, ask yourself, "Is this food thrilling me?" If not, put it down. This should go a long way towards getting your carb intake down.

What I'd call "value carbs" are those carb-rich foods that really do mean something to you. I'm not going to lie to you. You are not going to be able to make them the mainstays of your diabetes diet. But by using the strategies describe below, you should be able to eat enough of these foods to keep yourself from feeling deprived--without destroying your health.

Don't Create "Forbidden Foods!"

If you are one of those people who could live happily on Purina People Chow, you can skip what follows. But if food has been important to you, and if you have hitherto had a long and emotionally satisfying relationship with food, or if, like me, baking from scratch was one of your favorite ways to show love and express creativity, restricting your carbohydrate input will mean that a whole lot of what you've been eating (and baking) up until now is suddenly, completely, off limits. I can't eat cake and get a healthy blood sugar level. Even with two different diabetes drugs in my system. I can't eat cake even with an insulin shot before I eat it. I love cake but there is no way I can eat more than a bite or two without seeing very high blood sugars and there is no way I can eat two bites of cake and be happy. The same goes for french fries and Thai noodles.

During the first enthusiastic weeks of exploring carb restriction most people deal with this kind of discovery by coming up with new recipes and finding new, delicious and healthy things they can substitute for old, high carb standards. They appreciate the way cutting way back on carbohydrates curbs their hunger and makes food much more manageable. This is good and it is why long term low carbing is possible. But our old favorite foods do not go away that easily.

If you decide that some food you have been eating and enjoying all your life will never again cross your lips, it is almost 100% guaranteed that you'll end up pigging out on that very same food at some time in the future, hating yourself, and even beginning a binge that can throw you completely off your diet for months.

It might not happen the first month you are restricting your carb intake or even the first year. It took me three years of low carbing to get to where I crashed off my stringent low carb diet. But eventually it happens, and because after almost a decade of counting my carbs I've learned that I will never lose my love for certain foods that don't love me, I've put a lot of time into finding a way of restricting my carbohydrate intake in a way that avoids the buildup those feelings of deprivation that eventually lead to long periods of unwise eating.

The key, for me, is to build safety valves into my diet. I don't call them "cheats" or "bad foods" for reasons I'll get into later. I call them "off plan" foods because they are not food I can make an ongoing part of my daily food plan. Because my goal is life-long blood sugar control, I accept that I will occasional eat "off plan" and that this is okay as long as I am meeting my blood sugar targets most of the time. "Good enough" control that I can adhere to year in and year out beats a few months of perfection followed by crashing off the diet entirely and ruining my health. Here is one way to approach doing this:

Do the Diet Straight for a Month or Two Before You Try Off-Plan Goodies

As you learn what foods raise your blood sugar and what foods don't, you will almost certainly find that there are a lot of foods you used to love that don't work for you anymore. Waffles for breakfast, coffee cake at coffee break, three slices of pizza with crust, a burger with a bun and a side of fries are just a few of the foods that it is almost certain will not allow you to meet your post-meal blood sugar targets.

As you keep using your meter to test what you eat, if you are like most people with diabetes you'll also learn that some of the so-called "low glycemic" foods and the supposedly "healthy" whole grains that nutritionists recommend for people with diabetes won't work either. Oatmeal and whole wheat bagels raise my blood sugar far too high, so does cracked whole wheat, whole wheat bread, and brown rice.

If the dietician tells you a food is good for you, but your meter tells you it is raising your blood sugar to a level that is high enough to cause complications, you will have to listen to your meter. Your meter will tell you what is safe to eat and for the first couple of months while you are learning how to get your blood sugar under control and how bring those high blood sugars down to normal levels you will have to accept that you can only eat those foods that don't cause spikes.

If you attempt to add in off-plan foods before you are solidly on-plan you may never really get into the swing of eating a diet that controls your blood sugars and you may not get to where your body learns to enjoy the lower carb foods that don't give you blood sugar swings.

But after you've gotten your blood sugar under control, nothing horrible will happen if you make room for a small portion of some high carb treat every now and then.

How to Add Off-Plan Foods to the Plan

If you've avoided bread for a couple months, the humble roll in that restaurant bread basket may start to call out to you with an irresistible siren song. If you give in and eat it, with each bite you may find yourself feeling as if you are doing something incredibly sinful--the way you might have felt if you had eaten a whole box of chocolates in the past.

That feeling is the sign that you're heading for trouble. You've created a "forbidden fruit" and sooner or later that forbidden fruit is going to get you. You may find yourself thinking about that roll, craving another, sneaking off to eat one where nobody knows you, or, alternatively, you may declare that you will never again eat a roll ever--and then ruin your Thanksgiving holiday when you go to Aunt Glenda's and refuse to eat even a single one of those wonderful rolls of hers you've eaten every year of your life which say, "This is the family Thanksgiving" to you.

It is far better to make a bit of room in your diet for high carb treats so that they don't build up a charge. If you do this, you'll find that they almost never taste as good as you remembered, and you'll be able to leave them behind without turning them into an object of obsession.

Just knowing that you can eat some specific off-plan food at some future time, when it is scheduled, makes it that much easier to say, "No thanks" to it, and maintain your healthy blood sugar the rest of the time.

How Often Can You Eat Off-Plan?
How often you have an off-plan food depends a lot on your dietary goals, how high your blood sugar is before you eat carbs, and whether you are willing to exercise after eating. It also depends greatly on what medications you are taking for your diabetes. Whatever I eat, I try to keep my blood sugar below 120 mg/dl (6.7 mmol/l) at 2 hours after any meal.

Forty minutes of cardiovascular exercise will burn off a lot of extra carbs, so if you exercise regularly, try to eat your high carb treat before you head for the gym.

If you're trying to lose weight, you may have to keep off plan treats few and far between. When I was actively losing weight on a low carb diet without medications I ate one off-plan meal about once every two weeks.

Once I reached my weight loss goal I loosened up a bit but I found it best to cycle between weeks of eating a strict very low carb diet, and then a week of eating slightly more carbs--but I tried very hard not to ever anything that would cause my blood sugar to be over 120 mg/dl (6.7 mmol/L) at 2 hours after a meal because doing so makes me feel rotten.

Throw Away the Vocabulary of Self-Destructive Dieting

When you eat something with carbs in it, don't think of it as a "cheat." Cheating is what you do when faced with an authority figure--your 9th grade math teacher or the IRS. But you are the one in control of what you eat. So when you eat something that is off-plan, you should stop thinking of it as "getting away with something" and treat it instead as something you've decided to do--for a reason that should be clear to you while you do it.

If you keep eating things that were not what you had intended, rather than beating yourself up, it's time to reconsider your food plan and figure out why it isn't working. Are you having trouble finding foods in restaurants that don't raise your blood sugar? Maybe it's time to bring your lunch along to work for a while, or to find new place to dine.

Are you bored with what you have been eating? Google for good low carb recipes you can try at home. There are thousands of them. If you use the Google Groups search and look for messages in alt.support.diet.low-carb that start with "REC" you'll find a treasure trove of ideas to try.

Keep the vocabulary of sin and guilt for the confessional. You're going to eat a lot of things in the years to come that will mess up your blood sugar. But if you are kind to yourself and dust yourself off after you mess up and keep on going, doing the best you can to hit your blood sugar targets, you may very well end up healthier than many people who do not have diabetes. The important thing is to keep at it, doing the best you can and forgiving yourself when the best you can do isn't as good as you wish it was.

Know Your Limits
I've learned the hard way I can't eat half a blueberry muffin, so I don't even try portion control for that particular food. I know blueberry muffins are trouble and I also know that I will eventually eat one. That's just how it is, so every blue moon or so I eat a blueberry muffin, experience the miserable high blood sugars that follow, and then remember why I don't eat muffins every day any more. What I don't do is fool myself that I can buy a muffin and only eat half. Everyone has a few foods that fall into this category. Treat them with caution!

Eat Off-Plan Foods Out of the House
I've learned the hard way that if a big box of something full of carbs is in the fridge, bad things are going to happen. So I try to eat my off-plan foods away from home. I eat my muffins or cookies at a coffee house. I have a slice of pizza at a pizzeria. I don't buy a box of muffins or a whole pizza and bring them home.

Getting this strategy to work requires that your whole family understand what's at stake. It took me a couple years of harping on what "complications" means, but by now, my family understands that if my blood sugar is too high, I'm damaging my body. They want to keep me around for a while, so they understand that there are some foods that shouldn't be brought into the house--ever.

When other family members want to have treats at home, they are kind enough to buy things I don't like. For example, if someone wants Ben & Jerry's they buy the Chunky Monkey flavor that I find revolting, not the New York Fudge. By the same token, when my kids lived at home, I didn't buy them the brands of cookies I can't resist. There are plenty of others cookies they liked that don't tempt me at all, and those were the ones in the cupboard.

Over the years the nondiabetic members of my family learned that no one is doing themselves a favor scarfing down 300 grams of fast acting carbohydrate every day--particularly not people with a family history of diabetes and heart disease!

Medications Can Help

I'm not a big fan of medications because I've learned the hard way that drug companies lie about side effects and some of these side effects are permanent and can ruin your life. But I learned the hard way, too, that some of us (like, say me) can't get normal blood sugars no matter how low our carb intake. For us, adding a diabetic drug or two to our daily regimen may be the only way we can get normal blood sugars without a life of tormenting self-denial.

Drugs I have found useful over the years include metformin, precose, and post-meal insulin shots. The new incretin drugs, Januvia and Byetta help some people make dramatic improvements in their blood sugar, but the way that they work makes it necessary to eat a slightly higher amount of carbohydrates with them because they only work when your blood sugar rises over a certain threshold. Even with these drugs (including Januvia) I've never been able to eat more than 120 grams of carbohydrates a day, but after many years of eating an extremely low carb diet--which was the only diet that would control my blood sugars--120 grams of carbs a day feels like a completely normal diet!

Be Aware of Rising Insulin Resistance

Some people may find that eating a low carb diet is not enough to control their blood sugar because they are very insulin resistant. Perhaps they have been diagnosed with PCOS, or have to take a drug, like Prednisone that increases insulin resistance. The book, Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution by Dr. Richard K. Bernstein, the distinguished diabetes doctor, recommends Metformin as an appropriate drug for patients on a low carb diet whose blood sugars are still not completely controlled. It isn't a cure by any means, just one more tool you can use to keep blood sugars under control, and if you limit your insulin resistance you may solve both weight and hunger problems that otherwise can derail your diet.

You can read more about the different drugs available to help control blood sugars HERE. Just remember that all these diabetes drugs work best when you combine them with some level of carbohydrate restriction. How much restriction? Test your meals one and two hours after eating, and your blood sugar meter will tell you exactly how much.

Top Medical Journal Publishes Landmark Study Showing Very Low Carb Diet Most Effective and Safest for Lipids etc.

In case you are still being given out-of-date medical or nutritional advice by people who tell you that a low carb/high fat diet will give you a heart attack, take a look at this recently published study, which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

This study found that an Atkins style low carb diet not only caused double the weight loss of the low fat diet at the end of one year, but it did not adversely affect cholesterol levels.

This finding, added to the Women's Health Initiative finding (after $40 million dollars of research) that low fat dieting does NOT prevent heart disease, should lay to rest any last fears you might have about the impact of cutting carbs on your health.

The findings of this study, are not news to anyone who has tried a low carb diet and stuck with it for any period of time, but they appear to amaze the entire medical community who continue to cling to their to the "Fat is Bad" religious belief long no matter what evidenced-based medical studies might come up with.

Bottom line: You can cut your carbs way down, replace carbs with fat, and await the better health this kind of eating will provide.

Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors Among Overweight Premenopausal Women: The A TO Z Weight Loss Study: A Randomized Trial.Christopher D. Gardner, PhD; Alexandre Kiazand, MD; Sofiya Alhassan, PhD; Soowon Kim, PhD; Randall S. Stafford, MD, PhD; Raymond R. Balise, PhD; Helena C. Kraemer, PhD; Abby C. King, PhD

Here's the summary of the WHI findings:

NIH News: News from the Women?s Health Initiative: Reducing Total Fat Intake May Have Small Effect on Risk of Breast Cancer, No Effect on Risk of Colorectal Cancer, Heart Disease, or Stroke

Here's a study that documents the effectiveness of lowering carbs and increasing fat and protein consumption for the control of blood sugar in the absense of weight loss:

Control of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes without weight loss by modification of diet composition. Nutrition & Metabolism 2006, 3:16.

To Get More Help with Making a Low Carbohydrate Diet Work

My "Low Carb Facts and Figures" site, which now shares this server, has more information I collected back in the days when I used a low carb diet for both weight loss and blood sugar control.

You'll find articles there that address a few of the issues people run into while eating a very low carb diet,which are not answered in a completely honest fashion by the people who sell diet books promising you can lose weight easily while gorging on all your favorite foods--which, sadly, is 99% of all authors writing diet books.

I stumbled onto Jenny Ruhl's Diabetes Update blog after I received several very insightful comments to this blog whenever I posted a discussion on diabetes or pre-diabetes/metabolic syndrome.

Who the heck was this commenter who clearly had deep insight into diabetic issues?

It turned out to be Jenny Ruhl, a woman who learned her lessons the hard way: by receiving a belated diagnosis of (an unusual form of) diabetes, then receiving plenty of mis-guided advice from physicians on diet and treatment. Reading her many blog posts and websites, you get the clear sense of how hard this individual worked to gain the depth of knowledge she's acquired, on a par or superior to most diabetes specialists.

And she minces no words in expressing her heartfelt and carefully considered opinions. But that's what I look for: people who are unafraid to voice opinions that may not be consistent with the flow of conventional thought, but ring true and prove effective.

Dr. Davis: From your blog and websites on diabetes, it is clear that you exceptionally knowledgeable in the world of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and related disorders. Can you give us a little background on how you came to this quest?

Jenny: Though I was told I was a "classic type 2" [diabetic] by my doctors, nothing I read about diabetes corresponded to my own experience. I knew my diabetes had not been caused by obesity because I'd been a normal weight all my life until my blood sugars went out of control at which point I developed ravenous hunger and gained a lot of weight very quickly.

I also wondered at the huge gap between what Dr. Bernstein said was a normal blood sugar and what my doctors told me was a safe blood sugar for a person with diabetes. The people I met who followed Bernstein's very low carb diet had much better blood sugars and far fewer complications, but my doctors dismissed this as irrelevant. So I decided to do some research to find out who to believe. I plunged into the medical journal articles that had recently been made available on the web to see if I could answer two questions: What causes diabetes? and "What does science actually know about what blood sugar levels damage organs?"

The result was the information that became the basis for the Blood Sugar 101 site. Initially, I attempted to sell it as a book, but editors told me that though what I'd learned was "fascinating" it would be "over the head" of the typical health book buyer who wanted simple explanations and if possible, a simplistic slant towards "cure." Fortunately, the very strong response and high traffic volume to the web site proved that, as I had thought, there are a lot of people who do want more than an oversimplified overview and who, given the information they needed, were able to make huge positive changes in their health.

Dr. Davis: What do you think your life would be like if you hadn't pursued this unique course?

Jenny: Possibly a lot shorter.

People in my family die of heart attacks in their 50s, probably from undiagnosed high blood sugars. The pattern of the type of diabetes I have is to have a normal fasting blood sugar and an extremely high post-meal blood sugar after consuming very few grams of carbohydrate. When doctors diagnose using only the fasting blood test, they miss those highs, which research is now finding to be a primary cause of heart disease.

I also would have been a lot fatter. My doctors told me that I was packing on 20 lbs a year due to "normal menopausal changes" and that there was nothing I could do about it. Lowering my carbs significantly dropped all the weight I had gained and I still weigh a lot less now than I did in 1998.

Dr. Davis: You've been a keen observer of the diabetes scene for some years. Have you discerned any important trends in both the public's perception of diabetes as well as how diabetes is managed in the conventional world?

Jenny: The huge difference I see is that, over the last decade, the online diabetes community has learned the value of cutting back on carbohydrates and shooting for truly normal blood sugar levels. So people who put some time into researching diabetes online and talking with those of us who have succeeded in avoiding complications will learn that they do not have to settle for very high blood sugars and deterioration their doctors think inevitable.

Unfortunately, the media have put most of their energy into promoting the discredited idea that diabetes is caused by gluttony and sloth and to promoting the equally discredited idea that people with diabetes should eat a high carbohydrate diet and avoid fat.

So for now there is a huge divide in the quality of life of those people with diabetes who educated enough to go out on the web and educate themselves and those who get their diabetes information from doctors. Sadly most doctors still encourage patients to eat low fat/ high carb diets, and counter the very high blood sugars this diet produces with oral drugs of questionable efficacy, while assuring patients they will be safe if they maintain blood sugar levels that meet the American Diabetes Association's recommendations, though a mass of research shows these are high enough to produce every single diabetic complication possible.

Dr. Davis: I understand that you've released a new book, Blood Sugar 101. How is your book unique in the world of diabetes books? Who should read Blood Sugar 101?

Jenny: Blood Sugar 101: What They Don't Tell You About Diabetes differs from other books in that it gives the reader a much deeper understanding of what is really going on in their bodies as their blood sugar control breaks down and what sciences knows about how abnormal blood sugars cause complications. Then it gives the reader the tools they need to find what diet and/or drug regimen will brings their own, unique, blood sugars down to a truly safe level.

Unlike some books, this one does not present a one-size-fits-all solution, but recognizes that Type 2 diabetes is really a catch-all diagnosis that covers a lot of disorders that behave quite differently. That is why what works for one person with diabetes may not work for another.

Because this book provides details available nowhere else about the physiology of diabetes and the drugs available to treat it, readers will find the information they need to work with their doctors to craft a regimen that brings their blood sugar into the range that preserves and improves their health.

Dr. Davis: Before we close, tell us a little about yourself outside of your diabetes advocate role.

Jenny: I live in rural New England and am a passionate gardener. I've been online since 1980 when I was part of the team at IBM that developed the first commercial email program, PROFS. I got involved in online discussion groups in 1987 and have been messaging on bulletin boards ever since.

I was a professional singer/songwriter in Nashville in my youth and spent my middle years as a bestselling author of books about consulting. Right now a lot of my energy goes into managing the financial and software side of a family business that makes hand made pocket tools for collectors.

Dr. Davis: Thank you for your great insights, Jenny!

True to form, Dr. John Cannell has published yet another wonderfully insightful Vitamin D Newsletter.

One item caught my eye, a response to a question about the Marshall Protocol. I, like Dr. Cannell, was inundated with questions about this so-called protocol, which amounts to little more than the unfounded speculations of a non-physician, actually someone not even involved in health care.

In all honesty, I blew the whole issue off after I read Dr. Marshall's rants. They smack of pure quackery, though from somebody who clearly has a command of scientific lingo. To Dr. Cannell's credit, he took the time and effort to construct a rational response in the latest issue of the newsletter. I reproduce his response here:

Dear Dr. Cannell:

I understand Dr. Marshall conducted a study and found vitamin D is bad for you. What kind of study did he do?

Mary, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Dear Mary:

I have been inundated with letters asking about Professor Marshall's recent "discovery." Some have written that to say they have stopped their vitamin D and are going to avoid the sun in order to begin the "Marshall protocol." The immediate cause of this angst is two publications, a press article in Science Daily about Professor Marshall's "study" (which is no study but simply an opinion) in BioEssays. Dr. Trevor Marshall has two degrees, both in electrical engineering. Before I begin, I want to again remind you that I am a psychiatrist who works at a state mental hospital. In my duty to full disclosure, I must say that I have known a lot of psychiatrists in my life and a few electrical engineers. If I knew nothing else of a disagreement between two people but their professions, I would believe the electrical engineer, not the psychiatrist.

In reading his two articles, Dr. Marshall's main hypotheses are simple. (1) Vitamin D from sunlight is different than vitamin D from supplements. (2) Vitamin D is immunosuppressive and the low blood levels of vitamin D found in many chronic diseases are the result of the disease and not the cause. (3) Taking vitamin D will harm you, that is, vitamin D will make many diseases worse, not better. If you read his blog, you discover that the essence of the Marshall protocol is: "An angiotensin II receptor blocker medication, Benicar, is taken, and sunlight, bright lights and foods and supplements with vitamin D are diligently avoided. This enables the body's immune system, with the help of small doses of antibiotics, to destroy the intracellular bacteria. It can take approximately one to three years to destroy all the bacteria." That is, Dr. Marshall has his "patients" become very vitamin D deficient.

Again, Dr. Marshall conducted no experiment and published no study. He wrote an essay. He presented no evidence for his first hypothesis (sunlight's vitamin D is different than supplements). From all that we know, cholecalciferol is cholecalciferol, regardless if it is made in the skin or put in the mouth. His second hypothesis is certainly possible and that is why all scientists who do association studies warn readers that they don't know what is causing what. Certainly, when low levels of vitamin D are found in certain disease states, it is possible that the low levels are the result, and not the cause, of the disease. Take patients with severe dementia bedridden in a nursing home. At least some of their low 25(OH)D levels are likely the result of confinement and lack of outdoor activity. However, did dementia cause the low vitamin D levels or did low 25 (OH)D contribute to the dementia? One way to look at that question is to look at early dementia, before the patient is placed in a nursing home. On the first day an older patient walks into a neurology clinic, before being confined to a nursing home, what is the relationship between vitamin D levels and dementia? The answer is clear, the lower your 25(OH)D levels the worse your cognition.

Wilkins CH, Sheline YI, Roe CM, Birge SJ, Morris JC. Vitamin D deficiency is associated with low mood and worse cognitive performance in older adults. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006 Dec;14(12):1032-40.

Przybelski RJ, Binkley NC. Is vitamin D important for preserving cognition? A positive correlation of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration with cognitive function. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2007 Apr 15;460(2):202-5. Epub 2007 Jan 8.

These studies suggest that the low 25(OH)D levels are contributing to the dementia but do not prove it. Only a randomized controlled trial will definitively answer the question, a trial that has not been done. So you will have to decide if vitamin D is good for your brain or not. Dr. Marshall seems to be saying demented patients should lower their 25(OH)D levels. Keep in mind, an entire chapter in Feldman's textbook is devoted to the ill effects low vitamin D levels have on brain function.

Brachet P, et al. Vitamin D, a neuroactive hormone: from brain development to pathological disorders. In Feldman D., Pike JW, Glorieux FH, eds. Vitamin D. San Diego : Elsevier, 2005.

It is true that in some diseases, high doses of vitamin D may be harmful. For example, in the early part of last century, the AMA specifically excluded pulmonary TB from the list of TB infections that ultraviolet light helps. They did so because many of the early pioneers of solariums reported that acutely high doses of sunlight caused some patients with severe pulmonary TB to bleed to death. Thus, these pioneers developed very conservative sun exposure regimes for pulmonary TB patients in which small areas of the skin were progressively exposed to longer and longer periods of sunlight. Using this method, sunlight helped pulmonary TB, often to the point of a cure. Furthermore, it is well known that sunlight can cause high blood calcium in patients with sarcoidosis. In fact, sarcoidosis is one of several granulomatous diseases with vitamin D hypersensitivity where the body loses its ability to regulate activated vitamin D production, causing hypercalcemia.

Cronin CC, et al. Precipitation of hypercalcaemia in sarcoidosis by foreign sun holidays: report of four cases. Postgrad Med J. 1990 Apr;66(774):307-9.

Furthermore, although medical science is not yet convinced, some common autoimmune diseases may have an infectious etiology. I recently spoke at length with a rheumatologist who suffers from swollen and painful joints whenever he sunbathes or takes high doses of vitamin D. As long as he limits his vitamin D input his joints are better. To the extent vitamin D upregulates naturally occurring antibiotics of innate immunity, sunlight or vitamin D supplements may cause the battlefield (the joints) to become hot spots. I know of no evidence this is the case but it is certainly possible.

However, If Dr. Marshall's principal hypothesis is correct, that low vitamin D levels are the result of disease, then he is saying that cancer causes low vitamin D levels, not the other way around. The problem is that Professor Joanne Lappe directly disproved that theory in a randomized controlled trial when she found that baseline vitamin D levels were strong and independent predictors of who would get cancer in the future. The lower your levels, the higher the risk. Furthermore, increasing baseline levels from 31 to 38 ng/ml reduced incident cancers by more than 60% over a four year period. Therefore, advising patients to become vitamin D deficient, as the Marshall protocol clearly does, will cause some patients to die from cancer.

Lappe JM, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.

I will not write again about Dr. Marshall's theories. No one in the vitamin D field takes him seriously. Personally, I admire anyone willing to swim against the tide and raise alternative theories. I have done the same with influenza and autism. However, I agree with the New York Times, An Oldie Vies for Nutrient of the Decade and Jane Brody's conclusion, "In the end, you will have to decide for yourself how much of this vital nutrient to consume each and every day and how to obtain it." I agree. You will have to decide for yourself.

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council

The American Heart Association (AHA) was kind enough to send me an e-mail headlining the breaking news from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) meetings underway in Chicago:

ISAR-REACT 3
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled, Multi-Center Trial (ISAR-REACT 3) of Bivalirudin Versus Unfractionated Heparin in Troponin-Negative Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions After Pre-Treatment With 600 mg of Clopidogrel

TRITON - TIMI 38 Stent Analysis
Prasugrel Compared to Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing PCI With Stenting: The TRITON - TIMI 38 Stent Analysis

Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Facilities without On-Site Cardiac Surgery (NCDR)

(And four other similar reports)

Let's meld the ACC headlines with the financial headlines:

July 2, 2007
The Medicines Company announces reacquisition of all marketing rights to bivalirudin, anticoagulant growing in use for coronary angioplasty and related procedures. 2008 sales anticipated to be in the $15-20 million range, to grow to $90-110 million, a growth rate of 50% per year.

November 20, 2007
Drug manufacturing giant, Eli Lilly, vies for a portion of the $5 billion (annual revenues) oral anti-platelet market, now occupied by Plavix, with its newer, but questionably better, agent, prasugrel.

Growth of the coronary angioplasty (percutaneous coronary intervention, or PCI) doesn't ordinarily make headlines, but the performance of specific companies within the industry does. Angioplasty and cardiac device maker (inc. the drug-coated stent, Taxus), Boston Scientific, for instance, announced record sales of $8.537 billion for 2007, an increase of $536 million. How to grow this market? We could always hope for more people with heart attacks or other unstable symptoms. Or, we could . . . increase the number of hospitals capable of PCI! Brilliant.

The money behind this push for procedures is staggering. It drives enormous marketing efforts, pays Washington lobbyists, pays for many nice dinners and trips for doctors who engage in the system, and pays for very costly research.

And the AHA and ACC are kind enough to let us know about these great pieces of news.

CIS: Carbohydrate intolerance syndrome

Making sense out of lipid changes

How to Give Yourself Hashimoto's Thyroiditis: 101

Framing

Why an RDA for vitamin D?

Bargains for Armour Thyroid

Heart scan mis-information on WebMD

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

Dangerous mis-information on vitamin D

A Tale of Two LDL's

Lipoprotein(a) Research Foundation

More on ASTEROID

LDL cholesterol, statins, and plaque regression

When is a calorie not a calorie?

Track Your Plaque data abstract

Small fish oil capsules

Low-carb eating for diabetes

Interview with an outspoken advocate of truth in diabetes

The Marshall Protocol and other fairy tales

Breaking news from the American College of Cardiology meetings