All posts by william-davis

Oxford University has issued a press release announcing plans for a new clinical trial to raise HDL cholesterol and reduce heart attack risk. 20,000 participants will be enrolled in this substantial effort. The agent? Niacin.

How is that new? Well, this time niacin comes with a new spin.

Dr. Jane Armitage, formerly with the Heart Protection Study that showed that simvastatin (Zocor) reduced heart attack risk regardless of starting LDL, is lead investigator. She hopes to prove that niacin raises HDL cholesterol and thereby reduces heart attack risk. But, this time, niacin will be combined with an inhibitor of prostaglandins that blocks the notorious "flushing" effect of niacin.

The majority of Track Your Plaque participants hoping to control or reverse coronary plaque take niacin. Recall that niacin (vitamin B3)is an extremely effect agent that raises HDL, dramatically reduces small LDL, shifts HDL particles into the effective large fraction, reduces triglycerides and triglyceride-containing particles like IDL and VLDL. Several studies have shown that niacin dramatically reduces heart attack. The HATS Study showed that niacin combined with Zocor yielded an 85-90% reduction in heart attack risk and achieved regression of coronary plaque in many participants.

In our experience, approximately 1 in 20 people will really struggle using niacin. Flushes for these occasional people will be difficult or even intolerable. Should Dr. Armitage's study demonstrate that this new combination agent does provide advantages in minimizing the hot flush effect, that will be a boon for the occasional Track Your Plaque participant who finds conventional niacin intolerable.

But you already have access to niacin, an agent with an impressive track record even without this new study. And you have a reasonably effective prostaglandin inhibitor, as well: aspirin. Good old aspirin is very useful, particularly in the first few months of your niacin initiation to blunt the flush.

Although this study is likely to further popularize niacin and allow its broader use, it's also a method for the drug companies to profit from an agent they know works but is cheap and available.

You don't have to wait. You already have niacin and aspirin available to you.

"I just got a heart scan!" declared Eric to his doctor. He handed the report to him.

"Oh my. Your score is 154." The doctor paused, then looked at Eric with a serious look on his face. "If we're going to understand whether or not you're in danger, you'll need a heart catheterization."

I've seen this happen countless times. How can I say this diplomatically? THIS IS WRONG!! In my view, it's absolutely criminal for this to happen. Physician ignorance, profiteering, whatever--it is wrong.

There's very few reasons why someone who has no symptoms should go directly to the cath lab for a procedure. (A rare exception might be an exceptional quantity of plaque in the left mainstem artery, e.g., >100. This is highly unusual.)

Even a nuclear stress test (e.g., thallium) at this level of scoring is only 10-15% likely to be abnormal. That means 85-90% likelihood of being normal. There's rare reasons to perform a heart catheterization in a person with no symptoms and an entirely normal stress test. The vast majority of people like Eric do not need a heart catheterization to discern risk.

If Eric's doctor had been up-to-date on the published literature on the prognostic value of heart scans, he could have advised Eric what the risks were--without a catheterization. Many doctors simply don't want to be bothered. Or, they opt for the more profitable method--a hospital procedure.

Always discuss your heart scan with your doctor--but be armed with information in case your doctor is uninformed or unscrupulous. Unfortunately, that's not uncommon. The Track Your Plaque program is your advocate, a source for unbiased information.

Jake had an abdominal aneurysm identified--by accident.

While getting a CT scan of his abdomen for unexplained abdominal pain, a 4.4 cm aneurysm was discovered. Jake's abdominal pain eventually passed without explanation, but he was left with this aneurysm.

Jake's primary care doctor referred him to a surgeon. "It's too small to require surgery right now. Wait a few years and it'll probably get bigger. When it gets to around 5.5 cm, that'll be the time to operate. Let's schedule an abdominal ultrasound or CT scan every 6 months."

Jake then got himself a heart scan. His high score of 879 then led him to my office. Lipoprotein testing, a stress test, correction of his lipoprotein patterns, changes in lifestyle followed. One year later, Jake's heart scan score was unchanged.

How about his abdominal aneurysm? 4.2 cm--a modest quantity of regression. When Jake's surgeon learned of the change, he just shrugged. "Okay, we'll just watch it from here."

Shockingly, the conversation surrounding aneurysms is just like the one Jake received: Let's just watch it grow until you need surgery.

If you've every seen anyone have abdominal aneurysm surgery, you know it is an awful, painful, barbaric process with high risk for major complications like kidney failure and loss of the legs. Waiting for an aneurysm to grow is a lousy solution. Surgeons point out that, although surgery is imperfect, it's better than the alternative: rupture, which is catastrophic with a 50% chance of dying.

But what about stopping the growth of the aneurysm? Or even reversing, or shrinking, it?

Surgeons say it can't be done. Yet we've done it--many times. And it's not that difficult.

The steps to take are very similar to that in the Track Your Plaque program for coronary plaque regression, with a few different strategies. Suppression of inflammation, for instance, plays a more important role and blood pressure must be abolutely normal, even during exercise.

More to come on this important topic in the future, including an upcoming Special Report on the www.cureality.com membership website.

I saw two instances of dramatic coronary plaque regression today.

John, a 53-years old mechanical lift operator, dropped his heart scan score from 479 to 323--a 32% regression of coronary plaque volume!

Eric, a 50-year consulting engineer, dropped his heart scan score from 668 to 580--a 13% reduction.

Both men did nothing special beyond the principles advocated in the Track Your Plaque program. Recall that, without preventive efforts, your heart scan score is expected to increase by 30% per year. Both men are well on their way to freedom from risk of coronary "events".

Two less people to feed the revenue-hungry hospital procedure system! We need many more like them.

Art's first CT heart scan in March, 2006 yielded a concerning score of 1336. He felt fine--no chest discomfort, no breathlessness, etc.

Art agreed to take the statin cholesterol drug his primary care doctor prescribed. He also agreed to take the fish oil, niacin, and some of the nutritional supplements that we advised. But Art just couldn't bring himself to make the commitment to lose weight.

At the start of his program, Art--at 5 ft. 8 inches--was 40 lbs overweight (212 lb). This was important since his blood sugar wavered in the pre-diabetic range, going as high as 130 mg. (The American Diabetes Assn. defines diabetes as a blood glucose of 126 mg or greater.)

One year later, Art's lipid and lipoprotein values were corrected to perfection. But he still weighed in at a hefty 209 lbs--essentially no change. His blood sugar likewise hovered in the 120's.

I felt Art need to be prodded, so I asked him to undergo another heart scan. His score: 1935--a 600 point increase, or 45%!

Only now has Art begun to comprehend to power of diabetes and pre-diabetes to fan the flames of plaque growth. Recent published data, in fact, show that the majority of recently diagnosed diabetics already have well-established coronary artery disease.

Don't let this happen to you. Do not dismiss diabetic patterns as they will catch up to you. If Art can lose the 30-40 lbs in the abdominal weight that is creating the diabetic pattern, he will likely succeed in stopping plaque growth. Otherwise, it's just a matter of time before his heart attack, stent, or bypass.

Marta is a smart lady. She's worked in hospital laboratories for the last 23 years and knows many of the ins and outs of lab tests and their implications.

After years of being told that her cholesterol was acceptable, she needed to undergo urgent bypass surgery after experiencing severe breathlessness that proved to be a small warning heart attack at age 57. But this made Marta skeptical of relying on cholesterol to identify heart disease risk.

I met Marta two years after her bypass surgery when she was seeking better answers. And, indeed, she proved to have several concealed sources of heart disease: small LDL particles, Lipoprotein(a), intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL--a very important abnormality that means she is unable to clear dietary fats from her blood), among others. But she was also mildly diabetic with a blood sugar of 131 mg (normal < or = 100 mg). This had not been previously recognized.

As I'm a cardiologist and our program focuses on reversal and control of coronary plaque, I asked Marta to return to her primary care doctor to continue the conversation about diabetes. She was a bit frightened but followed through.

"Well, you're not urinating excessively. And your long-term measure of blood sugar, hemoglobin A1C, is still normal. I wouldn't worry about it. We'll just watch it."

I guess I should know better. What the poor primary care doctor doesn't know is that pre-diabetes and mild diabetes are potent risks for heart disease. In fact, some of the most explosive rates of plaque growth occur when these patterns are present. It's well established that risk for heart attack in a diabetic is the same as that of someone who's already suffered a prior heart attack--very high risk, in other words.

Marta's primary care doctor's advice would be like inquiring about cancer and the doctor says "Let's just wait until it's metastatic--then we'll start to worry." Of course, this is insane.

Pre-diabetes and mild diabetes should not be ignored or just "watched". Even though the blood sugar itself may not be high enough to endanger you, the hidden patterns underlying your body's unresponsiveness to insulin creates a torrent of hidden coronary risk.

For better answers, Track Your Plaque members can read "Shutting Off Metabolic Syndrome" at http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_dp001metabolic.asp on the www.cureality.com website. ("Metabolic syndrome" is the name commonly given to the constellation of abnormalities associated with pre-diabetes and diabetes.)

It may sound silly, but after someone succeeds in stopping their heart scan score from increasing or reduces their score, I warn them to not get smug. Let me explain.

I'll tell you about Jack. I met Jack a few years ago after he had a heart scan at age 39. His score: 1441! A score this high at his age obviously puts him in the 99th percentile. Also recall that a score >1000 carries a 25% annual risk for heart attack.

This captured Jack's attention. At the start, his lipoproteins were disastrous with numerous abnormal patterns. Jack committed to the program. After one year, his lipoproteins were around 80-90% corrected towards perfection. He'd lost 27 lbs, was exercising six days a week, and felt great.

Jack's repeat score one year later: 1107--over a 300 point drop! A huge success. He was ecstatic.

Unfortunately, work and life in general distracted him. Jack allowed himself to drift back to old habits, indulging in fast food 2 or 3 times a week, slacking on exercise such that it became sporadic, half-hearted efforts, and regained 15 lbs. He even failed to show up for appointments and we lost contact for two years.

One day, Jack simply decided to see where he stood, so he got himself another heart scan. The score: 2473--over a doubling from his reduced score.

The message: Long-term consistency is key, even after you've achieved control over your score. Stick with your program--and don't get smug!

If you're on holiday from work today, make sure you're not on holiday from your health, too.

Too often, people come back to the office telling me that the holidays simply got out of hand--cookouts, picnics, family gatherings, etc.--and they simply couldn't avoid overeating, overdrinking, sitting around--and gaining 3-5 lbs in a weekend. (Our record is 10 lbs in a weekend!)

I don't want to harp on this issue and ruin your holiday, but I can't stress how important it is that you don't allow this to happen to you. Weight gained in a brief space of time has exceptionally destructive effects. Ever see the movie "Super Size Me"? It's an entertaining and well-done yet graphic portrayal of the damaging effects of rapid weight gain.

Enjoy your time off. Relax, enjoy your family and friends--but continue to pay attention to choosing the right foods, don't overeat, take time out to do something (or several things) physical. It'll pay off hugely in the long run.

Although not a perfect test, carotid ultrasound is an exceptionally easy and accessible test. Using high-frequency sound, clear images are available for most people.

I say it's not perfect because the way it's done in 2006 makes it a non-quantitative test. It is a qualitative test. In other words, you may find out that there's a 30% blockage ("stenosis"), at the far end of the common carotid artery on the right side. Unfortunately, this gives you an isolated measure of diameter of the plaque compared to the artery. What it does not tell you is what the volume of the entire plaque is. That's a far more accurate measure (and one that is incorporated into your heart scan score, by the way).

Nonetheless, carotid ultrasound is easy, very safe, and available in most hospitals and many clinics. One difficulty: most insurance companies will not allow you to go through a carotid ultrasound scan as a "screening" procedure, i.e., a test just to see if you have a carotid plaque. They will generally pay if you're having symptoms of a stroke or "mini-stroke" (transient ischemic attack, or "TIA"), have an abnormal sound in your carotid ultrasound detected by your doctor (a carotid "bruit"), or some other unusual indications. Sometimes, a resourceful physician will muster up a diagnosis based on something in your history (e.g., left arm numbness, a common and often benign complaint that can also signal stroke).

Another option are the mobile scanners or some hospital services that offer carotid screening, usually for a very modest price. Drawback: Sporadic availability, difficulty in obtaining serial scans, and imprecise reporting since it's viewed as a screening test. But it's better than nothing.

My hope is that, as screening services using safe imaging techniques like ultrasound propagate and increase in direct availability to the public, you'll be able to circumvent the obstacles imposed by your insurance company and even, sometimes, your doctor. But try your doctor first.

Rose, a 64-year old woman, just had a 70% carotid blockage identified by a screening ultrasound. When the result was given to her doctor, he prescribed Lipitor and told Rose that an ultrasound would be required every year. She would need carotid surgery, an "endarterectomy", if the blockage worsened.

"Can't I reduce the amount of blockage I have?" asked Rose.

"No. Once you've got it, it doesn't get any better."

Is this true? Once you've got carotid plaque, you can only expect it to get worse and it can't be reduced?

This is absolutely not true. In fact, compared to coronary plaque, carotid plaque is easier to reduce!

Of course, the Track Your Plaque program is designed to help you control or reduce coronary plaque. But, in our experience, people who have both coronary and carotid plaque will show far greater and faster reduction of carotid plaque. Dramatic reductions are sometimes seen. I've personally seen 50-70% blockages reduced to <30% on many occasions.

The requirements to achieve reduction of carotid plaque are very similar to the approach we use to reduce coronary plaque. One difference is that hypertension may play a more important role with carotid plaque and needs to be reduced confidently to the normal range before carotid plaque is controlled.

I find it shocking that the attitude like the one provided by this physician continue to prevail. Unlike coronary plaque, which has a relatively small body of scientific literature documenting how it can be reduced, carotid plaque actually enjoys a substantial clinical literature. Part of the reason is that the carotids are more easily imaged using ultrasound. (Heart structures can be seen with ultrasound, but not the coronary arteries.)

Numerous agents have been shown to contribute to reduction of carotid plaque: statin drugs, niacin, fish oil, the anti-diabetic "TZD" drugs (Actos, Avandia), several anti-hypertensive drugs, vitamin E, pomegranate juice, and several others.

It outrages me to hear stories like this. Rose is not the only one.

Don't accept the flip dismissals or the over-enthusiastic referral for carotid procedures. Insist on a conversation about plaque regression.

Note: Although I am a vigorous advocate of atherosclerotic plaque regression, this does not mean that if you have a severe (70% blockage or greater), or if there are symptoms from your carotid disease, that you should engage in a program of reversal. You must always take the advice of your doctor if your safety is in question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think of these chains of logic?

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

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

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

Try this one:

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

Ouch!

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

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

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

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

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

Pomegranate juice, 8 oz:

Sugars, total 31.50 g

Sucrose 0.00 g

Glucose (dextrose) 15.64 g

Fructose 15.86 g

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

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

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

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Honeydew melon:

Sugars, total 51.97 g

Sucrose 15.87 g

Glucose 17.15 g

Fructose 18.94 g

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

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g

Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons

Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient

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

A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

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

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

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

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

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

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

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

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The media frenzy

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

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

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

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

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

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

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

Non-CT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

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

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

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

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

--No lipoprotein(a)

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

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

I therefore asked Matt to:

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

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

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

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

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

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

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

Large new clinical study launched to study. . .niacin

The dark side of CT heart scans

The dirty little secret about aneurysms

Heart scan scores dropping like stones!!

Pre-diabetes: An explanation for explosive coronary plaque growth

Who cares if you're pre-diabetic?

Don't get smug!

Holidays are dangerous!

More on carotid plaque...

Carotid plaque can be shrunk

Thyroid: Be a perfectionist

Nutrition Syllogism

Is pomegranate juice healthy?

Honeydew melon

Where do you find fructose?

Do heart scans cause cancer?

Goodbye, fructose

The statin-free life

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone