American Heart Association stamp of approval 2. June 2007 William Davis (8) The American Heart Association (AHA) has a program called the Heart-Check Mark, an "approval" process that permits a food manufacturer to affix the AHA logo and stamp of approval on various food products. A company simply makes application to the AHA. The application and product details are reviewed and then approved or turned down. To date, 106 companies have obtained the AHA stamp of approval on 768 products. What kinds of products are on the approved list? Here's a sample:--Honey Bunches of Oats--Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats --Cocoa Puffs cereal--Cookie Crisp cereal ("The great taste of chocolate chips in every bite!")There are 764 others. If you doubt this, just go to the store and take a look at the product containers. What the heck is going on here? Most of us with any judgment know that these products are pure sugar. They may contain "no more" than 15-40 grams sugar per sugar, but the principal products--corn, wheat, fructose--mean that these products are, in effect, nearly pure sugar. Yet they carry the AHA stamp of approval. What do products like this cause? It's a long list but the major effects include:--Obesity--Diabetes--Drop in HDL--Rise in triglycerides--Small LDL particles--Heightened inflammation (i.e., C-reactive protein)--Mental cloudinessNeed I go on? Why are products like these and many others deserving of the AHA heart-check approval? Because they lack high fat and saturated fat (3.0 grams, 1.0 grams respectively, by AHA criteria). In other words, just lacking these ingredients means that, to the AHA, they qualify as "heart healthy." By that same line of reasoning, many candy bars are "heart healthy", as are many cookies and cupcakes. What's the reason behind this extraordinary absurdity? Is the AHA stupid? There may be many reasons, but one very suspicious fact becomes immediately obvious when you realize these endorsements product a substantial revenue source for the AHA, since companies must pay for the right to use the heart-check approval mark. Also, just look at the major contributors (millions of dollars) to the AHA: ConAgra, General Mills, Kraft, etc.) You get the picture.Does this make the AHA evil? Not necessarily. But it seriously erodes credibility. it also should make you very leery of any advice that comes from such an agency that is reluctant to bite the food manufacturer hands that feed it.In my view, we simply cannot rely on the AHA for genuine, unbiased heart health advice.
"Your heart scan score means nothing" 1. June 2007 William Davis (7) Charles was visibly confused. He'd gotten his CT heart scan after hearing one of the local scan center's ads on the radio. His score 2773, obviously in the 99th percentile for any age. "Do you think the score means anything? My primary doctor said that it was meaningless because it was all in the deep wall of the artery. He said that it has nothing to do with risk for heart attack. As long as I feel good, he says don't do anything."What exactly did his doctor mean, in the "deep wall of the artery"?What the doctor is referring to is the fact that some people with a long history (many years) of diabetes or kidney failure (also for many years) tend to develop calcium deposits in the media, or muscular layer of arteries. The media is the tissue thin layer just below the intima, the most inner layer of arteries that we usually associate with atherosclerotic plaque and the layer that is most prone to calcium accumulation that we score on heart scans.Aging, generally into your late 70s, 80s, and onwards, also increases the likelihood of medial calcification. Lastly, longstanding deficiency of vitamin D encourages medial calcification.Is there any way to distinguish intimal vs medial calcification on a heart scan? No, there is not. Having read many thousands of CT heart scans, I can tell you that there is no practical way in 2007 to tell the difference. Then how did this doctor "know" that Charles' calcium was "deep walled" or medial? Simple: He didn't. This was yet another example of ignorance based on old thinking. Unfortunately, he did Charles a serious disservice by dismissing his heart scan score that predicted a 25% per year risk for heart attack. Interestingly, whether calcium is intimal as in atherosclerotic plaque, or medial, both are strongly associated with risk for heart attack. In other words, if calcium is confined to the intima, heart disease risk is present. If calcium is limited to the media, risk is still present. In all practicality, the only difference we make of the intima vs. media argument (that is, when the distinction has been made by some other means like intracoronary ultrasound, the test that is truly necessary to distinguish the two patterns) is that medial calcification may be more powerfully related to vitamin D deficiency. Thus, someone with heavy medial calcification may require closer attention to maintaining a perfect year-round blood level of 25-OH-vitamin D3. But that's the only practical difference.
Vitamin D toxicity? 30. May 2007 William Davis (3) "My primary care doctor said to stop the vitamin D because it's toxic. So I stopped it and I just take a multivitamin. He said that a multivitamin and two glasses of milk a day was all I needed."So proclaimed Eleanor to me. This happens around once every week by doctors frightened of the vitamin D. So I reminded Eleanor that, before starting vitamin D supplementation, her blood level of 25-OH-vitamin D3 had been 17 ng/ml--severe deficiency. On 4000 units per day (oil-based gelcap), her blood level had been 37 ng/ml--still deficient, below the desirable range of 50-60 ng/ml. That's the dose Eleanor's doctor had declared "toxic."When exactly does deficiency develop? There's not full agreement on this, but Dr. Michael Holick of Boston University, among the most experienced and insightful authorities on vitamin D, states that toxicity is more likely when blood levels exceed 150 ng/ml (Nutr Clin Pract. 2007 Jun;22(3):297-304).In other words, Eleanor and her doctor should not be concerned with toxicity, but with the persistent levels of deficiency she is suffering. Some authorities call the behavior of vitamin D "bi-phasic": Deficiency is toxic, excessive levels are toxic. We're really just trying to achieve a middle ground in vitamin D levels that are above deficiency but below toxicity. In reality, deficiency is exceptionally common. In fact, it's the rule around here (northern U.S.), with >95% of everybody we check severely deficient in winter, mildly-moderately deficient in summer. Very few people approach normal levels year round without supplementation. Toxicity, on the other hand, is exceedingly rare. I have seen it once in a woman who was taking a toxic dose of 50,000 units a day on the instructions of her (mis-guided) doctor. Thankfully, no ill-effects developed from this little "experiment."So, it's not toxicity that is the overwhelmingly common worry, but deficiency, severe and sustained.
Non-profit hospitals 30. May 2007 William Davis (0) Take a look at your local hospital and you're likely to notice several curious things:1) It is likely non-profit, meaning it enjoys a non-profit status with the Internal Revenue Service and enjoys the tax benefits of not paying taxes on profits. This provides an advantage to tax-protected hospitals. 70% or more of hospitals in the U.S. are "non-profit."2) Non-profit or no, many hospitals operate under the guise of a religious affiliation, e.g., St. Mary's Hospital, Trinity Hospital, All Saints', Jewish Hospital, etc. 3) Executives in non-profit hospitals can make capitalistic salaries. One CEO of a Milwaukee hospital took home $3.7 million dollars in salary last year. That's not including the very substantial perks and business interests in the spin-off businesses the hospital owns, including pharmacies, drug and medical device disitributors, even a venture capital division. "Non-profit" does not have to mean that executives within the operation can't benefit handsomely. That same hospital system spends over $10 million dollars in a year in local marketing for TV ads, print advertising, etc. Ads are slick and professionally produced. Make no bones about it: These are "non-profit" for tax purposes only . They are for-profit in every other sense of the phrase, including rich rewards for the insiders.Guess how those fat executive salaries and large marketing budgets are paid for? That's right: the 12-inch incision in your chest; the four stents, defibrillator, and repeated nuclear stress tests; the revolving door of hospitalization after hospitalization that typifies the "heart patient" experience. See the hospital for what it is: In the 21st century, it is no longer a charitable operation worthy of your volunteer time and donations. It is a business no different than Home Depot, IBM, or--Enron. Yes, they do perform needed services, as well. But the perverse equation that often determines who needs hospitalization and who doesn't, who needs a heart procedure and who doesn't, is not always based on necessity but on financial return. Just ask the CEO.
What's the best lipoprotein test? 29. May 2007 William Davis (5) This is a frequent question from Track Your Plaque Members and others interested in improving their heart disease prevention program beyond that of simple-minded cholesterol testing. I obtain lipoprotein testing every day on patients. I can tell you with the confidence of having done thousands of these tests that plain, old-fashioned cholesterol testing is like relying on riding a scooter to work compared to an 8-cylinder modern automobile. The scooter might get you there, but any rain, snow, or long distance to travel and you can just forget it. All too often, lipoprotein testing uncovers abnormalities that standard cholesterol testing simply fails to uncover. So, among the various lipoprotein tests available, which is best?There are three commercial tests available today:1) Gel electropheresis (GGE)--often known by its "brand" name as the Berkeley lipoprotein profile, after Berkeley HeartLabs. GGE uses a gel with an electric field applied to cause lipoproteins to migrate, based on particle size and charge. 2) Vertical auto-profile (VAP)--a form of centrifugation, or high-speed spinning of blood plasma to separate lipoprotein particles.3) Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)--the idea of putting plasma in an NMR (also known as MRI) device to characterize blood proteins. All three tests do an excellent job. All are competitively priced. All have validating data--lots of it--to justify their broad use (though health insurers, in their vast wisdom, would still have you believe that the tests are "experimental"). But is one better? Having done many of all three (though least of VAP), I am partial to Liposcience's NMR. (By the way, I receive no fees from Liposcience to use their test, nor to promote it in any way.) I believe NMR is superior in a few ways:1) I believe that the LDL particle number is the best way to truly quantify LDL, better than apoprotein B and "direct" LDL. 2) It provides what I believe to be more accurate small LDL measures. 3) It provides intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), a post-prandial, or after-eating, measure not available on the other two. Perhaps I'm biased because I use the NMR most frequently. But I've used it because I felt it yielded superior, more clinically believable, data. In truth, all three laboratories do an excellent job and you'd be served fine by obtaining any of the three. But my heart goes to NMR.
Vitamin K2, aspirin, fish oil and blood thinning 27. May 2007 William Davis (12) An interesting question came up from one of our Track Your Plaque Members on the Forum. "I am now taking 9 mg of vitamin K1 and 1000 mcg of K2.Does taking this supplement with this much K1 have a counteracting effect on the thinning/anticlotting properties of aspirin and fish oil that I also take?"Great question (along with lots of other greater discussions we have on the Forum.) The answer: Vitamin K should have no effect on the platelet-blocking effects of aspirin or fish oil. The majority of blood clot inhibiting effects of aspirin and fish oil arise from their ability to keep blood platelets from "clumping" (just like the TV commercials for Plavix). Vitamin K, on the other hand, participates in the liver production of blood clotting factors (like II, VII, IX, and X, among others for you curious ones). Thus, vitamin K-dependent clotting factors and platelet-blocking are two separate pathways to forming blood clots. Some of us refer to the difference as "red clots" from the vitamin K pathway and "white clots" from the platelet pathway, since they really do have this different physical appearance. The vitamin K2 conversation, like that about vitamin D, is fascinating for its potential to provide the missing link between the tightly-tied fortunes of bone health and atherosclerosis. Why is someone with a high CT heart scan score far more likely to have osteoporosis? Vitamin D and K2 deficiency may provide the missing link for many people.
Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in Stents, defibrillators, and other profit-making opportunities 16. April 2006 William Davis (2) As a practicing cardiologst, every day I receive a dozen or more magazines or newspapers targeting practicing physicians, not to mention the hundreds of letters, postcards, invitations to "talks", etc. that I receive. All of these materials share one common goal: To get the practicing cardiologist/physician to insert more of a manufacturer's stents, defibrillators, prescribe more of their drugs, etc. This is a highly effective and profitable area. Pfizer's Lipitor, for instance, generated $12.2 billion just last year alone. This kind of money will fund an extraordinary amount of marketing. I'm on the www.heart.org mailing list, a website for cardiologists. I'd estimate that 90% or more of their content is device-related: discussions of situations in which to insert stents, the expanding world of implantable devices, the ups and downs of various drugs. Rarely are discussions of healthy lifestyles, exercise, nutritional supplements, part of the dialogue. How can you protect yourself from the brainwashed physician, flooded with visions of all the devices he can put in you, all the drugs that can "cure" your disease? Simple: information. Be better informed. Ask pointed questions. The idiotic lay press tells you to ask a doctor about his education. That's not generally the problem. Some of the best educated doc's I know are also the most flagrantly guilty of profiteering medicine. Ask your doctor about his/her philosphy about the use of medications, devices, etc. If their word is God, take it or leave it, run the other way. Will radiation kill you? 16. April 2006 William Davis (4) Several people have asked me lately if radiation is truly dangerous. These conversations were sparked by an editorial comment made on a column I wrote for Life Extension Magazine's April, 2006 issue on "Three ways to detect hidden heart disease". Among the methods that were discussed in this piece was, of course, CT heart scanning. Anyone who is involved with CT heart scans Quickly recognizes the spectacular power of this test to uncover hidden, unsuspected heart disease, literally within seconds. In 2006, there's really nothing like it for the every day person to have hidden heart disease detected and precisely quantified. Yet, the "rebuttal" to my article claimed that the broad use of heart scans was only my personal view and that, in truth, radiation kills people.NONSENSE! If an ovarian cancer is discovered by a CT scan of the abdomen, is that unwise use of radiation? If pneumonia or lung cancer is discovered on a chest x-ray with minimal radiation exposure, have we performed a disservice. Of course not. In fact, these are often lifesaving applications of radiation. Can radiation be used unwisely with excessive exposure? Of course. The 64 slice CT angiograms are just an example of this. Dr. Mehmet Oz announced on Oprah recently that this was a test to be used for broad screening of women for heart disease. This is wrong. The radiation required for a full 64 slice CT angiogram test is truly excessive for a screening application. You wouln't want to get breast cancer from your mammogram, would you? The radiation from a 64-slice CT angiogram is similar to that of a heart catheterization in the hospital--too much for screening. This is not to be confused with a CT heart scan for a calcium score performed on a 64 slice device. I think this can be performed with acceptable radiation exposure. Think about what would happen, for instance, if you had your heart disease undetected, had a heart attack, and went to the hospital? During your hospitalization, you'd likely get five chest x-rays, a heart catheterization, perhaps one or more nuclear imaging tests, maybe even a full CT scan (with far more radiation than a screening heart scan). The amount of radiation of a heart scan is trivial compared to what you obtain in a hospital.So take it all in perspective. The low level of radiation required for a simple heart scan (not an angiogram) does not by itself substantially add to your lifetime risk of radiation exposure. It may, in fact, save your life or reduce your life long exposure to radiation. Are you using bogus supplements? 16. April 2006 William Davis (0) I consider nutritional supplements an important, many times a critical,part of a coronary plaque control program. But use the wrong brand or use it in the wrong way, and you can obtain no benefit. Occasionally, you can even suffer adverse effects. Take coenzyme Q10, for instance. (Track Your Plaque Members: A full, in-depth Special Report on coenzyme Q10 will be on the website in the next couple of weeks.) Take the wrong brand to minimize the likelihood of statin-related muscle aches, and you may find taking Lipitor, Zocor, Crestor, etc. intolerable or impossible. However, take a 100 mg preparation from a trusted manufacturer in an oil-based capsule, and you are far more likely to avoid the inevitable muscle aches. (Though, of course, consult with your doctor, for all it's worth, if you develop muscle aches on any of these prescription agents.)Unfortunately, you and I often don't truly know for a fact if a bottle from the shelf of a health food store or drugstore is accurately labeled, pure, free of contaminants, and efficacious. One really great service for people serious about supplements is the www.consumerlab.com website. They are a membership website (with dues very reasonable) started by a physician interested in ensuring supplement quality. Consumer Lab tests nutritional supplements to determine whether it 1) contains what the label claims, and 2) is free of contamination. (I have no reason to pitch this or any other site; it's just a great service.) They recently found a supplement with Dr. Andrew Weil's name on it to have excess quantities of lead! What Consumer Lab does not do is determine efficacy. In other words, they do a responsible job of reporting on what clinical studies have been performed to support the use of a specific supplement. However, true claims of efficacy of supplement X to treat symptom or disease Y can only come with FDA approval. Supplements rarely will be put through the financial rigors of this process. If you're not a serious supplement user, but just need a reliable source, we've had good experiences with:--GNC--the national chain--Vitamin Shoppe--also a national chain --www.lifeextension.com or www.lef.org--A great and low-priced source, but they do charge a $75 annual membership that comes with a subscription to their magazine, Life Extension (which I frequently write for) and several free supplements that you may or may not need. Again, I'm not pitching them; they are simply a good source.--Solgar--a major manufacturer--Vitamin World--Nature's Bounty--SundownThere are many others, as well. Unfortunately, it's only the occasional manufacturer or distributor that permits unnacceptable contamination with lead or other poisons, or inaccurately labels their supplement (e.g., contains 1000 mg of glucosamine when it really contains 200 mg). I have not come across any manufacturer/distributor who has systemtically marketed uniformly bad products. It really helps to have someone to lean on 16. April 2006 William Davis (0) Among my patients are several husband and wife teams, both of whom have heart disease by some measure. Several couples, for instance, consist of a huband who's received a stent, survived a heart attack, or has some other scar of the conventional approach. The wives generally have a substantial heart scan score in the several hundred range. There are a few couples for which the roles are reversed: wife with bypass, heart attack, etc. and husband with a substantial quantity of coronary plaque by CT heart scan. From them all, however, I've learned the power of teamwork. When both wife and husband (or even "significant other") are committed to the effort of controlling or reversing heart disease risk, the likelihood of success is magnified many-fold. Everything is easier: shopping for and choosing foods, incorporating supplements in the budget, taking vacations with a healthy focus, following through and sticking with your program. Several of the couples have succeeded in obtaining regression of plaque for both man and woman. Both have reduced their heart scan scores and, as a result, dramatically reduced the potential for future heart attack and procedures. Unfortunately, I will also see the opposite situation: One spouse committed to the program but the other indifferent. They may say such things as "You can't control what happens in the future." Or, "There's no way you can get rid of risk for heart disease. My doctor says it's hereditary." Or, "I've eaten this way since I was a kid. I'm not changing now for you or for anybody else." Such negative commentary can't help but erode your commitment to health. Most of us recognize these sorts of comments as self-fulfulling and self-defeating. What should you do if you have an unsupportive partner? Not easy. But it really can help to seek out a supportive partner, whether it's a friend, relative, or other significant person in your life. Of course, not everybody can find such a person. Perhaps that's another way our program can help. I'd like to hear from anyone who does obtain substantial support of someone close, or if you are struggling to do so. Five foods that can booby trap your heart disease prevention program 14. April 2006 William Davis (0) There are several foods that commonly come up on people's lists of habitual foods that are truly undesirable for a heart disease prevention program. Curiously, people choose these foods because of the mis-perception that they are healthy. My patients are often shocked when I tell them that they are not healthy and are, in fact, detrimental to their program.I'm not talking about foods that are obviously unhealthy. You know these: fried foods, greasy cheeseburgers, French fries, bacon, sausage, etc. Nearly everyone knows that the high saturated fat content, low fiber, and low nutritional value of these foods are behind heart disease, hypertension, and a variety of cancers. I'm talking about foods that people say they eat because they view them as healthy--but they're not. Here's the list:1) Low-fat or non-fat salad dressings--Virtually all brands we've examined have high-fructose corn syrup as one the main ingredients. What does high fructose corn syrup do? Triggers sugar cravings, makes your triglycerides skyrocket (causing formation of abnormal lipoproteins like small LDL), and causes diabetes. The average American now ingests nearly 80 lbs of this evil sweetener per year. You're far better off with olive, canol, grapeseed, or flaxseed based salad dressings. 2) Breakfast cereals--If you've been following these discussions, you know that the majority of breakfast cereals are sugar. They may not actually contain sugar, but they contain ingredients that are converted to sugar in your body. They may be cleverly disguised as healthy--Raisin Bran, Shredded Wheat, etc. 3) Pretzels--"A low-fat snack". That's right. A low-fat snack that raises blood sugar like eating table sugar from the bowl. 4) Margarine--Forget this silly argument about which is worse, butter or margarine. Which is worse, strychnine or lead? Both are poisons to the human body. Who cares which is worse? Fortunately, there are now healthy "margarines" like Smart Balance and Benecol that lack the saturated fat or hydrogenated fat of either. 4) Bananas--Bananas are not all that intrinsically unhealthy. The problem is that people will say to me, "Oh sure, I eat fruit. Two bananas a day." What I hear is "I don't really eat fruit with high nutrient value, fiber, and reduced sugar release. I reach for only bananas which yield extreme sugar rises in my blood and are low fiber." Aren't they high in potassium? Yes, but there are better sources. Cut back if you are a banana freak. Why the mis-perceptions? A holdover from the low-fat diet days and marketing from food manufacturers are the principal reasons. Of course, foods are meant to be enjoyed, but be informed about it. Choose foods for the right reasons, not because of some cleverly-crafted marketing campaign. Breakfast of champions? 12. April 2006 William Davis (1) I spend time every day educating or reminding patients that breakfast cereals are not health foods. I see jaws drop in shock when I tell them that, in my opinion and despite the marketing claims, Cheerios, Raisin Bran, Shredded Wheat, and the like do not yield health benefits. In fact, they do the the opposite: dramatically raise blood sugar and trigger an adverse cascade of events that eventually leads to diabetes and heart disease. Why the health claims in advertising? Because these products contain insoluble fiber, the sort that makes your bowels regular. Yes, your bowels are important to health, too. But the benefits end there. Breakfast cereals are a highly refined, processed food that are not good for your plaque control program. What they are is a highly profitable, multi-billion dollar business, deeply entrenched in American culture ("They'rrrre grrrrrreat!"--Tony the Tiger; "There's a whole scoop of raisins in every box of Post Raisin Bran!" Bet you remember them all.)I find it particularly upsetting when I see the stamp of approval from the American Heart Association on some products. Gee, if the Heart Association says it's good for you, it must be true! Don't you believe it. The American Heart Association relies on corporate donations, just like any other charity. If you must eat breakfast cere
Stents, defibrillators, and other profit-making opportunities 16. April 2006 William Davis (2) As a practicing cardiologst, every day I receive a dozen or more magazines or newspapers targeting practicing physicians, not to mention the hundreds of letters, postcards, invitations to "talks", etc. that I receive. All of these materials share one common goal: To get the practicing cardiologist/physician to insert more of a manufacturer's stents, defibrillators, prescribe more of their drugs, etc. This is a highly effective and profitable area. Pfizer's Lipitor, for instance, generated $12.2 billion just last year alone. This kind of money will fund an extraordinary amount of marketing. I'm on the www.heart.org mailing list, a website for cardiologists. I'd estimate that 90% or more of their content is device-related: discussions of situations in which to insert stents, the expanding world of implantable devices, the ups and downs of various drugs. Rarely are discussions of healthy lifestyles, exercise, nutritional supplements, part of the dialogue. How can you protect yourself from the brainwashed physician, flooded with visions of all the devices he can put in you, all the drugs that can "cure" your disease? Simple: information. Be better informed. Ask pointed questions. The idiotic lay press tells you to ask a doctor about his education. That's not generally the problem. Some of the best educated doc's I know are also the most flagrantly guilty of profiteering medicine. Ask your doctor about his/her philosphy about the use of medications, devices, etc. If their word is God, take it or leave it, run the other way.
Will radiation kill you? 16. April 2006 William Davis (4) Several people have asked me lately if radiation is truly dangerous. These conversations were sparked by an editorial comment made on a column I wrote for Life Extension Magazine's April, 2006 issue on "Three ways to detect hidden heart disease". Among the methods that were discussed in this piece was, of course, CT heart scanning. Anyone who is involved with CT heart scans Quickly recognizes the spectacular power of this test to uncover hidden, unsuspected heart disease, literally within seconds. In 2006, there's really nothing like it for the every day person to have hidden heart disease detected and precisely quantified. Yet, the "rebuttal" to my article claimed that the broad use of heart scans was only my personal view and that, in truth, radiation kills people.NONSENSE! If an ovarian cancer is discovered by a CT scan of the abdomen, is that unwise use of radiation? If pneumonia or lung cancer is discovered on a chest x-ray with minimal radiation exposure, have we performed a disservice. Of course not. In fact, these are often lifesaving applications of radiation. Can radiation be used unwisely with excessive exposure? Of course. The 64 slice CT angiograms are just an example of this. Dr. Mehmet Oz announced on Oprah recently that this was a test to be used for broad screening of women for heart disease. This is wrong. The radiation required for a full 64 slice CT angiogram test is truly excessive for a screening application. You wouln't want to get breast cancer from your mammogram, would you? The radiation from a 64-slice CT angiogram is similar to that of a heart catheterization in the hospital--too much for screening. This is not to be confused with a CT heart scan for a calcium score performed on a 64 slice device. I think this can be performed with acceptable radiation exposure. Think about what would happen, for instance, if you had your heart disease undetected, had a heart attack, and went to the hospital? During your hospitalization, you'd likely get five chest x-rays, a heart catheterization, perhaps one or more nuclear imaging tests, maybe even a full CT scan (with far more radiation than a screening heart scan). The amount of radiation of a heart scan is trivial compared to what you obtain in a hospital.So take it all in perspective. The low level of radiation required for a simple heart scan (not an angiogram) does not by itself substantially add to your lifetime risk of radiation exposure. It may, in fact, save your life or reduce your life long exposure to radiation.
Are you using bogus supplements? 16. April 2006 William Davis (0) I consider nutritional supplements an important, many times a critical,part of a coronary plaque control program. But use the wrong brand or use it in the wrong way, and you can obtain no benefit. Occasionally, you can even suffer adverse effects. Take coenzyme Q10, for instance. (Track Your Plaque Members: A full, in-depth Special Report on coenzyme Q10 will be on the website in the next couple of weeks.) Take the wrong brand to minimize the likelihood of statin-related muscle aches, and you may find taking Lipitor, Zocor, Crestor, etc. intolerable or impossible. However, take a 100 mg preparation from a trusted manufacturer in an oil-based capsule, and you are far more likely to avoid the inevitable muscle aches. (Though, of course, consult with your doctor, for all it's worth, if you develop muscle aches on any of these prescription agents.)Unfortunately, you and I often don't truly know for a fact if a bottle from the shelf of a health food store or drugstore is accurately labeled, pure, free of contaminants, and efficacious. One really great service for people serious about supplements is the www.consumerlab.com website. They are a membership website (with dues very reasonable) started by a physician interested in ensuring supplement quality. Consumer Lab tests nutritional supplements to determine whether it 1) contains what the label claims, and 2) is free of contamination. (I have no reason to pitch this or any other site; it's just a great service.) They recently found a supplement with Dr. Andrew Weil's name on it to have excess quantities of lead! What Consumer Lab does not do is determine efficacy. In other words, they do a responsible job of reporting on what clinical studies have been performed to support the use of a specific supplement. However, true claims of efficacy of supplement X to treat symptom or disease Y can only come with FDA approval. Supplements rarely will be put through the financial rigors of this process. If you're not a serious supplement user, but just need a reliable source, we've had good experiences with:--GNC--the national chain--Vitamin Shoppe--also a national chain --www.lifeextension.com or www.lef.org--A great and low-priced source, but they do charge a $75 annual membership that comes with a subscription to their magazine, Life Extension (which I frequently write for) and several free supplements that you may or may not need. Again, I'm not pitching them; they are simply a good source.--Solgar--a major manufacturer--Vitamin World--Nature's Bounty--SundownThere are many others, as well. Unfortunately, it's only the occasional manufacturer or distributor that permits unnacceptable contamination with lead or other poisons, or inaccurately labels their supplement (e.g., contains 1000 mg of glucosamine when it really contains 200 mg). I have not come across any manufacturer/distributor who has systemtically marketed uniformly bad products.
It really helps to have someone to lean on 16. April 2006 William Davis (0) Among my patients are several husband and wife teams, both of whom have heart disease by some measure. Several couples, for instance, consist of a huband who's received a stent, survived a heart attack, or has some other scar of the conventional approach. The wives generally have a substantial heart scan score in the several hundred range. There are a few couples for which the roles are reversed: wife with bypass, heart attack, etc. and husband with a substantial quantity of coronary plaque by CT heart scan. From them all, however, I've learned the power of teamwork. When both wife and husband (or even "significant other") are committed to the effort of controlling or reversing heart disease risk, the likelihood of success is magnified many-fold. Everything is easier: shopping for and choosing foods, incorporating supplements in the budget, taking vacations with a healthy focus, following through and sticking with your program. Several of the couples have succeeded in obtaining regression of plaque for both man and woman. Both have reduced their heart scan scores and, as a result, dramatically reduced the potential for future heart attack and procedures. Unfortunately, I will also see the opposite situation: One spouse committed to the program but the other indifferent. They may say such things as "You can't control what happens in the future." Or, "There's no way you can get rid of risk for heart disease. My doctor says it's hereditary." Or, "I've eaten this way since I was a kid. I'm not changing now for you or for anybody else." Such negative commentary can't help but erode your commitment to health. Most of us recognize these sorts of comments as self-fulfulling and self-defeating. What should you do if you have an unsupportive partner? Not easy. But it really can help to seek out a supportive partner, whether it's a friend, relative, or other significant person in your life. Of course, not everybody can find such a person. Perhaps that's another way our program can help. I'd like to hear from anyone who does obtain substantial support of someone close, or if you are struggling to do so.
Five foods that can booby trap your heart disease prevention program 14. April 2006 William Davis (0) There are several foods that commonly come up on people's lists of habitual foods that are truly undesirable for a heart disease prevention program. Curiously, people choose these foods because of the mis-perception that they are healthy. My patients are often shocked when I tell them that they are not healthy and are, in fact, detrimental to their program.I'm not talking about foods that are obviously unhealthy. You know these: fried foods, greasy cheeseburgers, French fries, bacon, sausage, etc. Nearly everyone knows that the high saturated fat content, low fiber, and low nutritional value of these foods are behind heart disease, hypertension, and a variety of cancers. I'm talking about foods that people say they eat because they view them as healthy--but they're not. Here's the list:1) Low-fat or non-fat salad dressings--Virtually all brands we've examined have high-fructose corn syrup as one the main ingredients. What does high fructose corn syrup do? Triggers sugar cravings, makes your triglycerides skyrocket (causing formation of abnormal lipoproteins like small LDL), and causes diabetes. The average American now ingests nearly 80 lbs of this evil sweetener per year. You're far better off with olive, canol, grapeseed, or flaxseed based salad dressings. 2) Breakfast cereals--If you've been following these discussions, you know that the majority of breakfast cereals are sugar. They may not actually contain sugar, but they contain ingredients that are converted to sugar in your body. They may be cleverly disguised as healthy--Raisin Bran, Shredded Wheat, etc. 3) Pretzels--"A low-fat snack". That's right. A low-fat snack that raises blood sugar like eating table sugar from the bowl. 4) Margarine--Forget this silly argument about which is worse, butter or margarine. Which is worse, strychnine or lead? Both are poisons to the human body. Who cares which is worse? Fortunately, there are now healthy "margarines" like Smart Balance and Benecol that lack the saturated fat or hydrogenated fat of either. 4) Bananas--Bananas are not all that intrinsically unhealthy. The problem is that people will say to me, "Oh sure, I eat fruit. Two bananas a day." What I hear is "I don't really eat fruit with high nutrient value, fiber, and reduced sugar release. I reach for only bananas which yield extreme sugar rises in my blood and are low fiber." Aren't they high in potassium? Yes, but there are better sources. Cut back if you are a banana freak. Why the mis-perceptions? A holdover from the low-fat diet days and marketing from food manufacturers are the principal reasons. Of course, foods are meant to be enjoyed, but be informed about it. Choose foods for the right reasons, not because of some cleverly-crafted marketing campaign.
Breakfast of champions? 12. April 2006 William Davis (1) I spend time every day educating or reminding patients that breakfast cereals are not health foods. I see jaws drop in shock when I tell them that, in my opinion and despite the marketing claims, Cheerios, Raisin Bran, Shredded Wheat, and the like do not yield health benefits. In fact, they do the the opposite: dramatically raise blood sugar and trigger an adverse cascade of events that eventually leads to diabetes and heart disease. Why the health claims in advertising? Because these products contain insoluble fiber, the sort that makes your bowels regular. Yes, your bowels are important to health, too. But the benefits end there. Breakfast cereals are a highly refined, processed food that are not good for your plaque control program. What they are is a highly profitable, multi-billion dollar business, deeply entrenched in American culture ("They'rrrre grrrrrreat!"--Tony the Tiger; "There's a whole scoop of raisins in every box of Post Raisin Bran!" Bet you remember them all.)I find it particularly upsetting when I see the stamp of approval from the American Heart Association on some products. Gee, if the Heart Association says it's good for you, it must be true! Don't you believe it. The American Heart Association relies on corporate donations, just like any other charity. If you must eat breakfast cere