Cholesterol follies 11. January 2008 William Davis (5) Rudy is a 59-year old man. He's had three heart catheterizations, two of which resulted in stent implantations. Obviously, Rudy should be the beneciary of a prevention program. His basic cholesterol values: Total cholesterol 164 mg/dl--pretty good, it seems. LDL cholesterol 111 mg/dl--Wow! Not too bad. HDL cholesterol 23 mg/dl--Uh oh, that's not too good. Triglycerides 148 mg/dl--By national (NCEP ATP-III) guidelines, triglycerides of 150 mg/dl and below fall within the desirable range. So we're left with an apparently isolated low HDL cholesterol, nothing more. On the surface, it doesn't seem all that bad. Of course, we need to keep in mind that this pattern landed Rudy in the hospital on several occasions and prompted several procedures. Should we rely on these results? How about Rudy's lipoproteins? Here they are (NMR; Liposcience):LDL particle number 2139 nmol/l--Representing an effective LDL of 213--over 100 mg higher than the standard value (above) suggests.Small LDL particles 2139 nmol/l--In other words, 100% of all Rudy's LDL particles are small. (Thus, weight-based measures of LDL cholesterol fail to tell us that he has too many small particles.)Large HDL 0 (zero) mg/dl--Rudy has virtually no functional HDL particles. If we had relied only on Rudy's standard cholesterol values, we would have focused on raising HDL. However, lipoprotein analysis uncovered a smorgasbord of additional severe patterns. The high LDL particle number comprised 100% of small particles is especially concerning. Truly, conventional cholesterol testing is a fool's game, one that time and again fails to fully uncover or predict risk for heart disease. One look at Rudy's lipoproteins and it becomes immediately obvious: This man is at high risk for heart disease and the causes are clear. Of course, many physicians and insurance companies argue that the added information provided by this portion of the lipoprotein test added around $70 more to the expense. When you see results like this, is there even a choice?
Equal calories, different effects 9. January 2008 William Davis (15) A great study was just published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology:Metabolic effects of weight loss on a very-low-carbohydrate diet compared with an isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet in abdominally obese subjects. 88 obese adults with metabolic syndrome were placed on either of two diets:1) A very low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet (VLCHF): 4% calories from carbohydrates (truly low-carb); 35% protein; 61% fat, of which 20% were saturated. In the first 8 weeks, carbohydrate intake was severely limited to <20 grams per day, then <40 grams per day thereafter. 2) A high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (HCLF): 46% calories from carbohydrates; 24% protein; 30% total fat, of which <8% were saturated. Both diets were equal in calories (around 1400 calories per day--rather restrictive) and participants were maintained on the program for six months. At the end of the six month period, participants on the VLCHF diet lost 26.4 lb, those on the HCLF diet 22.2 lbs (though the difference did not reach statistical significance). Thus, both approaches were spectacularly successful at weight loss. Surprisingly, blood pressure, blood sugar, insulin and insulin sensitivity (a measure called HOMA) were all improved with both diets equally. Thus, these measures seemed to respond more to weight loss and less to the food composition. Lipids differed between the two diets, however:VLCHF:Total cholesterol: initial 208.4 mg/dl final 207.7 mg/dlLDL: initial 125 mg/dl final 123 mg/dlHDL: initial 55 mg/dl final 64.5 mg/dlTriglycerides: initial 144 mg/dl final 74 mg/dlApoprotein B: initial 98 mg/dl final 96 mg/dlHCLF Total cholesterol: initial 208.4 mg/dl final 187.5 mg/dlLDL: initial 126 mg/dl final 108 mg/dlHDL: initial 51 mg/dl final 54.5 mg/dlTriglycerides: initial 157.6 mg/dl final 111 mg/dlApoprotein B: initial 100 mg/dl final 95 mg/dlSome interesting differences became apparent:--The VLCHF diet more effectively reduced triglycerides and raised HDL. --The HCLF diet more effectively reduced total and LDL. --There was no difference in Apo B (no statistical difference).The investigators also made the observation that individual responsiveness to the diets differed substantially. They concluded that both diets appeared to exert no adverse effect on any of the parameters measured, both were approximately equally effective in weight loss with slight advantage with the carbohydrate restricted diet, and that lipid effects were indeed somewhat different. What lessons can we learn from this study? I would propose/extrapolate several:When calories are severely restricted, the composition of diet may be less important. However, when calories are not so severely restricted, then composition may assume a larger role. When calories are unrestricted, I would propose that the carbohydrate restriction approach may yield larger effects on weight loss and on lipids when compared to a low-fat diet. The changes in total cholesterol are virtually meaningless. Part of the reason that it didn't drop with the VLCHF diet is that HDL cholesterol increased. In other words, total cholesterol = LDL + HDL + trig/5. A rise in HDL raises total cholesterol. Despite no change in Apo B, if NMR lipoprotein analysis had been performed (or other assessment of LDL particle size made), then there would almost certainly have seen a dramatic shift from undesirable small LDL to less harmful large LDL particles on the VLCHF diet, less change on the HCLF diet. The lack of restriction of saturated fat in the VLCHF that failed to yield adverse effects is interesting. It would be conssistent with the re-analysis of saturated fat as not-the-villain-we thought-it-was put forward by people like Gary Taubes (Good Calories, Bad Calories). In the Track Your Plaque experience, small LDL is among the most important measures of all for coronary plaque reversal and control. Unfortunately, although this study was well designed and does add to the developing scientific exploration of diet, it doesn't add to our insight into small LDL effects. But if I had to make a choice, I'd choose the low-carbohydrate, high-fat approach for overall benefit.
Is skinny necessary for reversal? 6. January 2008 William Davis (19) Nothing we do in the Track Your Plaque program guarantees that coronary atherosclerotic plaque or your heart scan score is reduced or reversed. But everything we do weighs the odds in your favor of successfully achieving reversal: correction of lipoprotein patterns, uncovering hidden patterns like Lp(a), vitamin D, being optimistic--it all tips the scales in your favor. But how necessary is it to be skinny, meaning somewhere near your ideal weight? It is important, but not as important as it used to be. Let me explain. I used to tell people that plaque would not regress unless ideal weight was achieved and all the parameters of abdominal obesity and metabolic syndrome were corrected. This includes blood pressure, blood sugar, low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, and high c-reactive protein. Curiously, though, as we've gotten better and better at reducing coronary calcium scores, I've been finding that complete correction of all parameters, including achieving ideal weight, don't seem to be as necessary to achieve plaque reversal. I almost hate to say this, but I've even witnessed significant drops in heart scan scores in people with body mass indexes (BMI) of 30--obese. The necessary change doesn't seem to be weight, per se, but the consequences of weight. In other words, if you remain overweight, but blood sugar, HDL, small LDL, etc. have shown substantial improvement, then reversal is still achievable. Then is it okay to be fat or overweight? Reducing weight to ideal weight does indeed tip the scales in your favor, since it represents an observable, perceptible measure of all associated patterns. Dropping weight can also minimize the need for efforts to correct the consequences of overweight--you might need less niacin, fish oil, exercise, blood pressure medication, etc. to succeed at plaque reversal. Achieving ideal weight may also provide benefits like reduced risk of cancers and degenerative diseases of the hips and knees. But, to my recent surprise over the last two years, achieving ideal weight is not an absolute requirement to achieve reversal. This is contrary to what some others say. For instance, in an upcoming interview with Dr. Joel Fuhrman on the Track Your Plaque website, Dr. Fuhrman argues that 10% body fat for males, 22% body fat for females, accelerates plaque and symptom reversal. Dr. Fuhrman is author of Fasting and Eating for Health, Eat to Live, and a new upcoming 2-part book, Eat for Health, and proponent of high-nutrient vegetarian diets and fasting. Dr. Fuhrman has been helpful in teaching us some important lessons on how to apply periodic fasting to accelerate plaque reversal. So, which is it, fat or skinny? If given a choice (which everyone has), I'd choose skinny. But, provided all the parameters associated with overweight are corrected, then remaining overweight doesn't necessarily mean that you can't still succeed at plaque reversal. If you are interested in knowing what your ideal weight is, there are a number of software calculators and tables available, including the HealthCentral.com calculator and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute BMI Calculator. Image courtesy Wikipedia.Copyright William Davis, MD 2008
MESA Study: Track Your Plaque-Lite? 4. January 2008 William Davis (11) The long-awaited data analyses from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) are finally making it to press. The MESA Study is an enormously ambitious and important study of 6800 people, 45 to 84 years old, that includes white, black, Hispanic, and Chinese participants from six communities around the U.S. (Forsyth County, NC; Northern Manhattan and the Bronx, NY; Baltimore and Baltimore County, Md; St Paul, Minn; Chicago, Ill; and Los Angeles County, California.) Participants had no history of heart disease at enrollment. All underwent a heart scan (either EBT or multi-detector heart scans) at the start. It is therefore the largest prospective study involving heart scans ever performed. It is, not unexpectedly, yielding some fascinating observations relevant to the Track Your Plaque program. The MESA study is, incidentally, funded by the non-commercial, publicly-funded National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and is therefore presumably free of commercial bias. Among the most recent publications is Risk factors for the progression of coronary artery calcification in asymptomatic subjects: Results from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) In this analysis of 5700 of the MESA participants, a repeat heart scan was obtained an average of 2.4 years after the first. Conventional risk factors for heart disease were obtained at the start (see below for details under Measurement of Covariates.)After analyzing the data and risk factors assessed, such as age, sex, race, blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), presence of diabetes, blood sugar, and family history of heart disease, two questions were asked:1) What risk factors predict heart scan scores?2) What risk factors predict progression (i.e., increase) in heart scan scores?(The second question is particularly relevant to us and the Track Your Plaque experience.) The MESA analysis showed that essentially all the risk factors assessed correlated with both the initial heart scan score, as well as the rate of progression. No surprises here.But the most eye-opening finding was that the conventional risk factors assessed explained only 12% of the variation and progression in heart scan scores (coefficient of determination, or R squared, = 0.12.) In other words:--Conventional risk factors like LDL cholesterol, diabetes, and excess weight explain only a tiny fraction of why someone develops coronary atherosclerotic plaque as represented by a heart scan score. --The great majority of risk for a high heart scan score remains unexplained by conventional risk factors.--The great majority of risk for progressive increase in heart scan scores also remains unexplained by conventional risk factors. In light of the MESA analysis, it's no surprise that strategies like reducing LDL cholesterol with statin drugs fails to prevent most heart attacks. It's no surprise that conventional prevention programs that talk about "knowing your numbers," eating a "balanced" or low-fat diet, etc., fail miserably to prevent the vast majority of heart attacks and heart procedures. MESA confirms what we've been saying these past few years: If you want control over coronary heart disease, you won't find it in Lipitor, a low-fat diet, and other limited conventional notions of risk. Correction of conventional risk factors like cholesterol and blood pressure are, in a word, a failure. I wouldn't even call the conventional approach Track Your Plaque-Lite. They don't even come close.If conventional risk factors can explain only 12% of the reason behind heart disease, we've got to look elsewhere to understand why you and I develop this process. Measurement of CovariatesInformation on demographics, smoking, medical conditions, and family history was collected by questionnaire at the initial examination. Height and weight were also measured at the baseline examination, and blood was drawn for measurements, including lipids, inflammation, fasting glucose, fibrinogen, and creatinine. Resting blood pressure was measured 3 times in the seated position, and the average of the last 2 measurements was used in the analysis. Medication use was determined by questionnaire. Additionally, the participant was asked to bring to the clinic containers for all medications used during the 2 weeks before the visit. The interviewer then recorded the name of each medication, the prescribed dose, and frequency of administration from the containers.Copyright 2008 William Davis,MD
Risks for coronary disease 2008 31. December 2007 William Davis (27) According to conventional thinking, there are identifiable risks for coronary disease and heart attack. These risk factors are: * smoking * high blood pressure * high blood cholesterol and excessive saturated fat intake * diabetes * being overweight or obese * physical inactivityI'd agree with all the factors listed (though I would argue about the importance of high blood cholesterol and saturated fat; they are not as important as commonly made to be.)Is the list complete? From the unique perspectives gained in the Track Your Plaque program, I'd offer a significantly different list. Trying to stop or reduce coronary atherosclerotic plaque and heart scan scores makes you a whole lot smarter about what works and what doesn't work. So, in addition to the risk factors listed above, I would add: * Small LDL particles--Lots of small LDL particles is MORE important than high LDL. * High blood pressure with exercise * Excessive wheat intake and other processed carbohydrates--An issue of explosive importance today. Wheat creates large numbers of small LDL particles, among other adverse effects. * Vitamin D deficiency--Among the most powerful risks I know of. It belongs at the top of the list. * Vitamin K2 deficiency * Low HDL cholesterol * Blood sugar >100 mg/dl * High triglycerides--While some argue about whether triglycerides are a risk that behaves independently of patterns like low HDL, they are neglecting the potent force of this risk. Sure, it occurs in tandem with low HDL (usually, though not always), but it is a factor that can leave you with risk even when HDL is raised to healthy levels. * Lipoprotein(a)--It is eminently, positively crystal clear that lipoprotein(a) is a powerful risk for heart disease. The lack of a profitable treatment keeps it hidden in the shadows. * Pessimism--Be happy, do better. Be a constantly angry, frustrated, complaining sourpuss and you are more likely to succumb to heart disease, cancer, or other undesirable fate. These are the risk factors that we address through the Track Your Plaque program, a list that yields a far more powerful and comprehensive approach to control over coronary plaque/atherosclerosis, sufficient to achieve reversal in many (though not in all) instances. I view the list of conventional risk factors as a "no brainer" list. Sure, smoking is a risk factor. But there are virtually no smokers in the Track Your Plaque program. If you smoke, you clearly don't care enough to engage in a high-intensity prevention program like this. Saturated fat? Perhaps, but the battlefield of heart disease is riddled with the bodies of those who employed this as their sole strategy and failed catastrophically. Diabetes, hypertension, and overweight all represent a continuum of risk; the solutions offered in the conventional scheme (i.e., low-fat diet, etc.) make these patterns worse, not better.The conventional response to heart disease risk is trapped somewhere in 1973 and has not changed in over 30 years. Heart disease continues to be a growth industry for hospitals and the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. The "official" organizations continue to deliver an antiquated, outdated message. If you want heart disease, follow the American Heart Association diet. If you want established heart disease to get worse, follow the American Heart Association diet. If you want diabetes or, if you already have diabetes or pre-diabetes, if you want it to worsen and develop organ damage (eyes, kidneys, nervous system, etc.), then follow the American Diabetes Association diet. USDA food pyramid? Loosen your belt!The list of conventional risk factors for heart disease is woefully inadequate. If that is as far as your prevention program takes you, heart disease will not be controlled or prevented. At best, it might be slowed; at worst--and more likely--it might be accelerated.
Food sources of vitamin K2 27. December 2007 William Davis (46) Vitamin K2 is emerging as an exciting player in the control and possible regression of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Only about 10% of dietary vitamin K intake is in the K2 form, the other 90% being the more common K1. The ideal source of K2 is natto, the unpalatable, gooey, slimy mass of fermented soybeans that Japanese eat and has been held responsible for substantial decreases in osteoporosis and bone fractures of aging. Natto has an ammonia-like bouquet, in addition to its phlegmy consistency that makes it virtually inedible to anyone but native Japanese. I say that the conversation on vitamin K2 is emerging because of a number of uncertainties: What form of vitamin K2 is best (so-called MK-4 vs. MK7 vs. MK-9, all of which vary in structure and duration of action in human blood)? What dose is required for bone benefits vs. other benefits outside of bone health? Why would humans have developed a need for a nutrient that is created through fermentation with only small quantities in meats and other non-fermented foods? Much of the developing research on vit K2 is coming from the laboratories of Drs. Vermeer, Geleijnse, and Schurgers at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands, along with several laboratories in Japan, the champions of K2.MK-7 and MK-8,9,10 come from bacterial fermentation, whether in natto, cheese, or in your intestinal tract; MK-4 is naturally synthesized by animals from vitamin K1. While natto is the richest source of the MK-7 form, egg yolks and fermented cheeses are the richest sources of the MK-4 form. Chicken contains about 8 mcg MK-4 per 3 1/2 oz serving; beef contains about 1 mcg. Egg yolks contain 31 mcg MK-4 per 3 1/2 oz serving (app. 6 raw yolks). Hard cheeses contain about 5 mcg MK-4 per 3 1/2 oz serving, about 70 mcg of MK-8,9; soft cheeses contain about 30% less. Natto contains about 1000 mcg of MK-7, 84 mcg MK-8, and no MK-4 per 3 1/2 oz serving. Feta cheese Thanks to the research efforts of the Dutch and Japanese groups, several phenomena surrounding vitamin K2 are clear, even well-established fact: --Vitamin K2 supplementation (via frequent natto consumption or pharmaceutical doses of K2) substantially improves bone health. While K2 by itself exerts significant bone density/strength increasing properties in dozens of studies, when combined with other bone health-promoting agents (e.g., vitamin D3, prescription drugs like Fosamax and calcitonin), an exaggerated synergy of bone health-promoting effects develop. --The MK-4 form of vitamin K2 is short-lived, lasting only 3-4 hours in the body. The MK-7 form, in contrast, the form in natto, lasts several days. MK-7 and MK-8-10 are extremely well absorbed, virtually complete. --Bone health benefits have been shown for both the MK-7 and MK-4 forms. --Coumadin (warfarin) blocks all forms of vitamin K. Interestingly, farm-raised meats and eggs do not differ from factory farm-raised foods in K2 content. (But please do not regard this as an endorsement of factory farm foods.) Another interesting fact: Since mammals synthesize a small quantity of Vit K2 forms from vitamin K1, then eating lots of green vegetables should provide substrate for some quantity of K2 conversion. However, work by Schurgers et al have shown that K1 absorption is poor, no more than 10%, but increases significantly when vegetables are eaten in the presence of oils. (Thus arguing that oils are meant to be part of the human diet. Does your olive oil or oil-based salad dressing represent fulfillment of some subconscious biologic imperative?) If we believe the data of the Rotterdam Heart Study, then a threshold of 32.7 micrograms of K2 from cheese yields the reduction in cardiovascular events and aortic calcification.It's all very, very interesting. My prediction is that abnormal (pathologic) calcium deposition will prove to be a basic process that parallels atherosclerotic plaque growth, and that manipulation of phenomena that impact on calcium depostion also impact on atherosclerotic plaque growth. Vitamins D3 and K2 provide potential potent means of at least partially normalizing these processes. As the data matures, I am going to enjoy my gouda, Emmenthaler, Gruyere, and feta cheeses, along with a few egg yolks. I'm going to be certain to include healthy oils like olive and canola with my vegetables. All images courtesy Wikipedia. Copyright 2007 William Davis, MD
Track Your Plaque: Naughty or nice? 24. December 2007 William Davis (6) Among the many wonderful surprises we've had at Track Your Plaque this holiday season was a letter from Santa Claus himself!It seems that Santa, like the rest of us, has been busy surfing the web for useful health information the last few months. He was struck with this curious discussion we've been having about "wheat belly" and all the unhealthy consequences of wheat products in our diet. He writes:"I wouldn't have believed it myself, except that my waist size has grown four inches in as many years. Sure, I'm known for my healthy girth, but now even Mrs. Claus calls me fat!"I was open to new ideas when I came across this crazy discussion about eliminating wheat from your diet. So I said, "What have I got to lose?" Well, four weeks later and 12 lbs lighter, I'm convinced. Now comes the tough part: I've got to deliver all the toys and resist all those cookies the children put out for me. I wonder if wheat makes reinde 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