Have you lost at least 1/2 your weight, e.g., 300 lbs down to 150 lbs? If you have, I have a major national magazine editor looking to talk to you.

If you have gone wheat-free and/or followed the dietary advice offered here in The Heart Scan Blog or through the Track Your Plaque program and would be willing to share your story, please let me know by commenting below. While losing half your body weight is not necessarily a requirement for health, it makes an incredibly inspiring story for others.

If we use your story, I will set aside a copy of my soon-to-be-released book, Wheat Belly.

High-dose omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil has become the number one strategy for reduction of lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), in the Track Your Plaque program for gaining control over coronary plaque and heart disease risk.

The original observations made in Tanzanian Bantus in the Lugalawa Study by Marcovina et al first suggested that higher dietary exposure to fish and perhaps omega-3 fatty acids from fish were associated with 40% lower levels of Lp(a). Interestingly, higher omega-3 exposure was also associated with having the longer apo(a) "tails" on Lp(a) molecules, a characteristic associated with more benign, less aggressive plaque-causing behavior.

Of course, the 600+ fish- consuming Bantus in the study consumed fish over a lifetime, from infancy on up through adulthood. So what is the time course of response if us non-Bantus take higher doses of fish oil to reduce Lp(a)?

We have been applying this approach in the Track Your Plaque program and in my office practice for the past few years. To my surprise, the majority of people taking 6000 mg per day of omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA, will drop Lp(a) after one year. Some have required two years. Therefore checking Lp(a) after, say, 3 or 6 months, is nearly useless. (An early response does, however, appear to predict a very vigorous 1-2 year response.)

I'm sure that there is an insightful lesson to be learned from the incredibly slow response, but I don't currently know what it is. But this strategy has become so powerful, despite its slow nature, that it has allowed many people to back down on niacin.

There it is, sitting quietly tucked under your diaphragm, nestled beneath layers of stomach and intestines, doing its job of monitoring blood sugar, producing insulin, and secreting the digestive enzymes that allow you to convert a fried egg, tomato, or dill pickle into the components that compose you.

But, if you've lived the life of most Americans, your pancreas has had a hard life. Starting as a child, it was forced into the equivalent of hard labor by your eating carbohydrate-rich foods like Lucky Charms, Cocoa Puffs, Hoho's, Ding Dongs, Scooter Pies, and macaroni and cheese. Into adolescent years and college, it was whipped into subservient labor with pizza, beer, pretzels, and ramen noodles. As an adult, the USDA, Surgeon General's office and other assorted purveyors of nutritional advice urged us to cut our fat, cholesterol, and eat more "healthy whole grains"; you complied, exposing your overworked pancreas to keep up its relentless work pace, spewing out insulin to accommodate the endless flow of carbohydrate-rich foods.

So here we are, middle aged or so, with pancreases that are beaten, worn, hobbling around with a walker, heaving and gasping due to having lost 50% or more of its insulin-producing beta cells. If continued to be forced to work overtime, it will fail, breathing its last breath as you and your doctor come to its rescue with metformin, Actos, Januvia, shots of Byetta, and eventually insulin, all aimed at corralling the blood sugar that your failed pancreas was meant to contain.

What if you don't want to rescue your flagging pancreas with drugs? What if you want to salvage your poor, wrinkled, exhausted pancreas, eaking out whatever is left out of the few beta cells you have left?

Well, then, baby your pancreas. If this were a car with 90,000 miles on it, but you want it to last 100,000, then change the oil frequently, keep it tuned, and otherwise baby your car, not subjecting it to extremes and neglect to accelerate its demise. Same with your pancreas: Allow it to rest, not subjecting it to the extremes of insulin production required by carbohydrate consumption. Don't expose it to foods like wheat flour, cornstarch, oats, rice starch, potatoes, and sucrose that demand overtime and hard labor out of your poor pancreas. Go after the foods that allow your pancreas to sleep through a meal like eggs, spinach, cucumbers, olive oil, and walnuts. Give your pancreas a nice back massage and steer clear of "healthy whole grains," the nutritional equivalent of a 26-mile marathon. Pay your pancreas a compliment or two and allow it to have occasional vacations with a brief fast.

Bread, gluten-free or gluten-containing, in terms of carbohydrate content, is equivalent to sugar.

Two slices of store-bought whole grain bread, such as the gluten-free bread I discussed in my last post, equals 5- 6 teaspoons of table sugar:

Some breads can contain up to twice this quantity, i.e., 10-12 teaspoons equivalent readily-digestible carbohydrate.

Here's a typical gluten-free product, a whole grain bread mix. "Whole grain," of course, suggests high-fiber, high nutrient composition, and health.

What's it made of? Here's the ingredient list:
Cornstarch, Tapioca Starch, Whole Grain Sorghum Flour, Whole Grain Teff Flour, Whole Grain Amaranth Flour, Soy Fiber, Xanthan Gum, Soy Protein, Natural Cocoa and Ascorbic Acid

In other words, carbohydrate, carbohydrate, carbohydrate, carbohydrate and some other stuff. It means that a sandwich with two slices of bread provides around 42 grams net carbohydrates, enough to send your blood sugar skyward, not to mention trigger visceral fat formation, glycation, small LDL particles and triglycerides.

Take a look at the ingredients and nutrition facts on the label of any number of gluten-free products and you will see the same thing. Many also have proud low-fat claims.

This is how far wrong the gluten-free world has drifted: Trade the lack of gluten for a host of unhealthy effects.

The majority of gluten-free foods are junk foods.

People with celiac disease experience intestinal destruction and a multitude of other inflammatory conditions due to an immune response gone haywire. The disease is debilitating and can be fatal unless all gliadin/gluten sources are eliminated, such as wheat, barley, and rye.

A gluten-free food industry to provide foods minus gliadin/gluten has emerged, now large enough to become an important economic force. Even some Big Food companies are getting into the act, like Kraft, that now lists foods they consider gluten-free.

So we have gluten-free breads, cupcakes, scones, pretzels, breakfast cereals, crackers, bagels, muffins, pancake mixes and on and on. All are made with ingredients like brown rice flour, cornstarch, tapioca starch, and potato starch. Occasionally, they are made with amaranth, teff, or quinoa, other less popular, but gluten-free, grains.

Problem: These gluten-free ingredients, while lacking gliadin and gluten, make you fat and diabetic. They increase visceral fat, cause blood sugar to skyrocket higher than nearly all other foods (even higher than wheat, which is already pretty bad), trigger formation of small LDL and triglycerides, and are responsible for exaggerated postprandial (after-eating) lipoprotein distortions. They cause heart disease, cataracts, arthritis, and a wide range of other conditions, all driven by the extreme levels of glycation they generate.

Eliminating all things wheat from the diet is one of the most powerful health strategies I have ever witnessed. But replacing lost wheat with manufactured gluten-free foods is little better than replacing your poppyseed muffin with a bowl of jelly beans.

Whenever we've relied on the food industry to supply a solution, they've managed to bungle it. Saturated fat was replaced with hydrogenated fat and polyunsaturates; sucrose replaced with high-fructose corn syrup. Now, they are replacing wheat gluten-containing foods with junk carbohydrates.

For this reason, I am bringing out a line of recipes and foods that will be wheat gliadin/gluten-free, do NOT contain the junk carbohydrates that gluten-free foods are made of, and are genuinely healthy. They are tasty, to boot.

The gluten-free industry needs to smarten up. Having a following that is free of cramps and diarrhea but are obese, diabetic, and hobbling on arthritic knees and hips is good for nobody.

The practice of medicine ain't what it used to be.

For instance:

White coats are out-of-date--Not only do they serve as filthy reservoirs of microorganisms (since they hang unwashed after repeated use week after week), they only serve to distance the practitioner from the patient, an outdated notion that should join electroshock therapy to treat homosexuality and other "disorders" in the museum of outdated medical practices.

I often hear this comment: "I have a normal cholesterol panel. So I have low risk for heart disease, right?"

While there's a germ of truth in the statement, there are many exceptions. Having "normal" cholesterol values is far from a guarantee that you won't drop over at your daughter's wedding or find yourself lying on a gurney at your nearest profit-center-for-health, aka hospital, heading for the cath lab.

Statistically, large populations do indeed show fewer heart attacks at the lower end of the curve for low total and LDL cholesterol and the higher end of HDL. But that's on a population basis. When applied to a specific individual, population observations can fall apart. Heart attack can occur at the low risk end of the curve; no heart attack can occur at the high risk end of the curve.

First of all, to me a "normal" lipid panel is not adhering to the lax notion of "normal" specified in the lab's "reference range" drawn from population observations. Most labs, for instance, specify that an HDL cholesterol of 40 mg/dl or more and triglycerides of 150 mg/dl or less are in the normal ranges. However, heart disease can readily occur with normal values of, say, an HDL of 48 mg/dl and triglycerides of 125 mg/dl, both of which allow substantial small oxidation-prone LDL particles to develop. So "normal" may not be ideal or desirable. Look at any study comparing people with heart disease vs. those without, for instance: Typical HDLs in people with heart attacks are around 46 mg/dl, while HDLs in people without heart attacks typically average 48 mg/dl--there is nearly perfect overlap in the distribution curves.

There are also causes for heart disease that are not revealed by the lipid values. Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), is among the most important exceptions: You can have a heart attack, stroke, three stents or bypass surgery at age 40 even with spectacular lipid values if you have this genetically-determined condition. And it's not rare, since 11% of the population express it. How about people with the apo E2 genetic variation? These people tend to have normal fasting cholesterol values (if they have only one copy of E2, not two) but have extravagant abnormalities after they eat that contribute to risk. You won't know this from a standard cholesterol panel.

Vitamin D deficiency can be suggested by low HDL and omega-3 fatty acid deficiency suggested by higher triglycerides, but deficiencies of both can exist in severe degrees even with reasonably favorable ranges for both lipid values. Despite the recent inane comments by the Institute of Medicine committee, from what I've witnessed from replacing vitamin D to achieve serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels of 60-70 ng/ml, vitamin D deficiency is among the most powerful and correctable causes of heart disease I've ever seen. And, while greater quantities of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil are associated with lower triglycerides, they are even better at reducing postprandial phenomena, i.e., the after-eating flood of lipoproteins like VLDL and chylomicron remnants, that underlie formation of much atherosclerotic plaque--but not revealed by fasting lipids.

I view standard cholesterol panels as the 1963 version of heart disease prediction. We've come a long way since then and we now have far better tools for prediction of heart attack. Yet the majority of physicians and the public still follow the outdated notion that a cholesterol panel is sufficient to predict your heart's future. Nostalgic, quaint perhaps, but as outdated as transistor radios and prime time acts on the Ed Sullivan show.

The notion of genetic modification of foods and livestock is a contentious issue. The purposeful insertion or deletion of a gene into a plant or animal's genome to yield specific traits, such as herbicide resistance, nutritional composition, or size, prompted the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international effort to regulate the safety of foods, to issue guidelines concerning genetically-modified foods.

The committee is aware of the concept of unintended effects, i.e., effects that were not part of the original gene insertion or deletion design. In their report, last updated in 2009, they state that:

Unintended effects can result from the random insertion of DNA sequences into the plant genome, which may cause disruption or silencing of existing genes, activation of silent genes, or modifications in the expression of existing genes. Unintended effects may also result in the formation of new or changed patterns of metabolites. For example, the expression of enzymes at high levels may give rise to secondary biochemical effects or changes in the regulation of metabolic pathways and/or altered levels of metabolites.

They make the point that food crops generated using techniques without genetic modification are released into the food supply without safety testing:

New varieties of corn, soybean, potatoes and other common food plants are evaluated by breeders for agronomic and phenotypic characteristics, but generally, foods derived from such new plant varieties are not subjected to the rigorous and extensive food safety testing procedures, including studies in animals, that are typical of chemicals, such as food additives or pesticide residues, that may be present in food.

In other words, conventional plant breeding techniques, such as hybridization, backcrossing, and introgression, practices that include crossing parental plants with their progeny over and over again or crossing a plant with an unrelated plant, yield unique plants that are not subject to any regulation. This means that unintended effects that arise are often not identified or tested. Plant geneticists know that, when one plant is crossed with another, approximately 5% of the genes in the offspring are unique to that plant and not present in either parent. It means that offspring may express new characteristics, such as unique gliadin or gluten proteins in wheat, not expressed in either parent and with new immunological potential in consuming humans.

Dr. James Maryanski, the FDA's Biotechnology Coordinator, stated during Congressional testimony in 1999 that:

The new gene splicing techniques are being used to achieve many of the same goals and improvements that plant breeders have sought through conventional methods. Today's techniques are different from their predecessors in two significant ways. First, they can be used with greater precision and allow for more complete characterization and, therefore, greater predictability about the qualities of the new variety. These techniques give scientists the ability to isolate genes and to introduce new traits into foods without simultaneously introducing many other undesirable traits, as may occur with traditional breeding. [Emphasis mine.]

Efforts by the Codex Alimentarius and FDA are meant to control the introduction and specify safety testing procedures for genetically modified foods. But both organizations have publicly stated that there is another larger problem that has not been addressed that predates genetic modification. In other words, conventional methods like hybridization techniques, the crossing of different strains of a crop or crossing two dissimilar plants (e.g., wheat with a wild grass) have been practiced for decades before genetic modification became possible. And it is still going on.

In other words, the potential hazards of hybridization, often taken to extremes, have essentially been ignored. Hybridized plants are introduced into the food supply with no question of human safety. While hybridization can yield what appear to be benign foods, such as the tangelo, a hybrid of tangerines and grapefruit, it can also yield plants containing extensive unintended effects. It means that unique immunological sequences can be generated. It might be a unique gliadin sequence in wheat or a unique lectin sequence in beans. None are tested prior to selling to humans. So the world frets over the potential dangers of genetic modification while, all along, the much larger hazard of hybridization techniques have been--and still are--going on.

Imagine we applied the hybridization techniques applied by plant geneticists to humans, mating an uncle with his niece, then having the uncle mate again with the offspring, repeating it over and over until some trait was fully expressed. Such extensive inbreeding was practiced in the 19th century German village of Dilsberg, what Mark Twain described as "a thriving and diligent idiot factory."

Dietary fats, from olive oil to cocoa butter to beef tallow, are made of triglycerides.

Triglycerides are simply three ("tri-") fatty acids attached to a glycerol backbone. Glycerol is a simple 3-carbon molecule that readily binds fatty acids. Fatty acids, of course, can be saturated, polyunsaturated, and monounsaturated.

Once ingested, the action of the pancreatic enzyme, pancreatic lipase, along with bile acids secreted by the gallbladder, remove triglycerides from glycerol. Triglycerides pass through the intestinal wall and are "repackaged" into large complex triglyceride-rich (about 90% triglycerides) molecules called chylomicrons, which then pass into the lymphatic system, then to the bloodstream. The liver takes up chylomicrons, removes triglycerides which are then repackaged into triglyceride-rich very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL).

So eating triglycerides increases blood levels of triglycerides, repackaged as chylomicrons and VLDL.

Many physicians are frightened of dietary triglycerides, i.e, fats, for fear it will increase blood levels of triglycerides. It's true: Consuming triglycerides does indeed increase blood levels of triglycerides--but only a little bit. Following a fat-rich meal of, say, a 3-egg omelet with 2 tablespoons of olive oil and 2 oz whole milk mozzarella cheese (total 55 grams triglycerides), blood triglycerides will increase modestly. A typical response would be an increase from 60 mg/dl to 80 mg/dl--an increase, but quite small.

Counterintuitively, it's the foods that convert to triglycerides in the liver that send triglycerides up, not 20 mg/dl, but 200, 400, or 1000 mg/dl or more. What foods convert to triglycerides in the liver? Carbohydrates.

After swallowing a piece of multigrain bread, for instance, carbohydrates are released by salivary and gastric amylase, yielding glucose molecules. Glucose is rapidly absorbed through the intestinal tract and into the liver. The liver is magnificently efficient at storing carbohydrate calories by converting them to the body's principal currency of energy, triglycerides, via the process of de novo lipogenesis, the alchemy of converting glucose into triglycerides for storage. The effect is not immediate; it may require many hours for the liver to do its thing, increasing blood triglycerides many hours after the carbohydrate meal.

This explains why people who follow low-fat diets typically have high triglyceride levels--despite limited ingestion of triglycerides. When I cut my calories from fat to 10% or less--a very strict low-fat diet--my triglycerides are 350 mg/dl. When I slash my carbohydrates to 40-50 grams per day but ingest unlimited triglycerides like olive oil, raw nuts, whole milk cheese, fish oil and fish, etc., my triglycerides are 50 mg/dl.

Don't be afraid of triglycerides. But be very careful with the foods that convert to triglycerides: carbohydrates.

This has nothing to do with coronary plaque reversal, nor directly with the Track Your Plaque program, but I found Dr. John Cannell's discussion about the possible relationship between vitamin D and autism so compelling that I thought I just had to pass it on.

So, below are Dr. Cannell's latest thoughts. He takes some criticisms along with praise. I think we owe him a lot for continuing to doggedly promote the benefits of vitamin D.

Vitamin D Newsletter

August, 2007

Dear Dr. Cannell:

I saw an article from a Toronto newspaper about autism and vitamin D. I am currently searching for a vitamin D specialist in the Washington D.C. area to perform a medical work up on my daughter to look for vitamin D-related disorders. The reason I am in search of a vitamin D specialist is that I believe I have stumbled upon a complex relationship in my daughter involving her foot pain, vitamin D, and her autism.

In April 2006, a few weeks after my 3-year-old profoundly autistic daughter began refusing her daily PediaSure drink, she began having excruciating foot spasms lasting from 10-30 minutes at a time, several times a week. She would throw herself on the floor, curl her toes, slam her heels against the floor, and rub the tops of her feet against the carpet, all while screaming the entire time. These were horrible for her to endure, and horrible for my wife and myself to watch. This went on for a year.

From what I read, the symptom was perhaps like foot spasms associated with carpopedal syndrome or tetany. But her blood work did not support that at all. Calcium level was normal (10.2 mg/dL); 25-Hydroxy-vitamin D low (23.5 ng/ml); 1,25 dihydroxy-vitamin D normal (24.7). Despite some vitamin D deficiency, I was assured by medical professionals that nothing supported a vitamin D cause of these particular spasms, so vitamin D was dismissed. Because her calcium level was normal, they told me she did not have tetany, and vitamin D could not be the cause of the pain.

All medical consultants were stymied. I made another research effort and found a 2003 article on WebMD that stated vitamin D has been found to have some link to basic, unexplained muscle and bone pain. By chance, vitamin D was the next supplement we had at home to begin giving my daughter to treat her autism. So, in April 2007 we began giving my 4 year-old profoundly autistic daughter Vitamin D supplements. Her foot spasms which had plagued her for a year diminished within days and disappeared within three weeks. She has not had a spasm in over two months.

In addition, we noted clear improvements in her autistic condition which appear to be from the vitamin D supplements. Eye contact went from zero to fantastic. Her vocalizations increased markedly (still only babbling; she remains completely nonverbal). She appears even happier than previously (she has always been a somewhat happy child). (Please note that my wife and I have tried many dietary supplements over the past 1.5 years guided by a doctor and dietician who both specialize in autism. We honestly state that this is the only thing that has ever had a positive effect on my daughter. We have seen nothing else work.)

My daughter and vitamin D have a complicated relationship. By all counts, looking at her lab work and general condition, vitamin D should have played no role in those excruciating foot fits. And yet it is apparently exactly what is involved in them. And, my wife and I believe at the same time her autistic condition has improved from the vitamin D. The foot fits and her autism appear linked; it was not just a coincidence that this autistic child has those mysterious foot spasms, and the link appears to be vitamin D.

And so I wonder if this is just the tip of the iceberg, if perhaps there is more to know about my child's relationship with vitamin D and what that might mean for her autism. Does she have a specific vitamin D-related disorder? If so, might direct treatment of it also improve her autism further? These are the questions I would like to pose to a vitamin D specialist who could perform a medical work up on my daughter. Please let me know if you know of anyone in the Northern Virginia/Washington DC area. Also, where is the best place to get vitamin D? Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Paul, Washington, D.C.

Dear Paul:

I know of no such specialist in the Washington area, indeed no vitamin D/autism expert exists in the world. As far as a specific "vitamin D disorder," linking her spasms, autism, and vitamin D, the world's English language medical literature contains no description of such a disorder. From your daughter's case, it sounds as if PediaSure was her only regular source of vitamin D. If so, her spasms began two weeks after stopping the small amount of vitamin D contained in PediaSure. The spasms continued for a year, ending a few days after you started giving her vitamin D again, this time in the form of a supplement. Several weeks after restarting vitamin D, both you and your wife noticed an improvement in her autism. To my knowledge, this "case report" - your daughter's - is the first ever published.

As no medical literature has ever been published on any of this, all you can do is give her enough vitamin D to get her 25-hydroxy-vitamin D, known as 25(OH)D, into high normal ranges and then wait and hope. Vitamin D's extraordinary mass-action pharmacology implies that simply providing more substrate ([25(OH)D] will help children with low enzyme activity produce more activated vitamin D (calcitriol) in their brains. The vitamin D theory of autism is not simply that vitamin D deficiency in gestation or early childhood causes the disorder. Instead, the theory holds that a quantitative or qualitative abnormality exists in the enzyme system that activates vitamin D.

It could as simple as the normal variation in the enzyme, an enzyme whose activity would vary in a normal or Gaussian distribution, much like height. Some people are tall, some are short, most are in the middle. The same may be true of the enzyme that forms activated vitamin D (calcitriol), some children have a lot of enzyme and some only a little; most are in the middle. As the substrate [25(OH)D] the enzyme metabolizes fell over the last 20 years with sun-avoidance, more and more children on the low end of the enzyme curve are effected by marginally low 25(OH)D levels, explaining both its genetic basis and exploding incidence.

At this point, all your daughter needs is a physician willing to periodically measure her 25(OH)D. Then you can safely supplement your daughter with doses higher than the current Upper Limit for children (2,000 IU/day). You did not tell me your daughter's weight but, assuming she weighs about 30 pounds, even without 25(OH)D blood tests, you can safely give her 50 mcg/day which is 2,000 IU per day. In fact, the U.S. government says this dose is safe for children over the age of one. Life Extension Foundation sells 250 of the 1,000 IU capsules for about ten bucks with powdered vitamin D inside. The powder is tasteless and dissolves easily in juice. Bio Tech Pharmacal, of Fayetteville, Arkansas, told me they were going to be making a 1,000 IU capsule. Or you can get 1,000 IU capsules in a pharmacy or at Costco and crush them. A Canadian firm is now making vitamin D liquid, called Ddrops, with 1,000 IU per drop, but their mail order web site is not yet easily accessed. Beware of cod liver oil; do not use it because vitamin A inhibits the actions of activated vitamin D, and due to the potential for low-grade vitamin A toxicity.

Remember, more and more researchers now believe autism is a progressive, inflammatory, disorder. That is, the inflammation probably progressively destroys brain tissue as the child ages. As I said in my recent paper, I think there is a chance that vitamin D may have a treatment effect in young autistic children if given in adequate doses, due to its anti-inflammatory properties, and its ability to upregulate glutathione, the master antioxidant that also chelates (binds) and then helps excrete heavy metals like mercury. Unfortunately, I see no way, even if the vitamin D/autism theory turns out to be true, that vitamin D can regenerate brain tissue. However, if it stops the inflammation, and cell death, the brain could then begin to develop and learn. These are big ifs. However, you have nothing to lose by trying, the worst that will happen is that it will not help and vitamin D will be added to the long list of false-hope treatments.

Actually, there is a worse possibility. Say the parents of a three-year-old autistic child decide today that vitamin D is nonsense, another false hope, and that I'm a quack. They decide not to give vitamin D supplement their autistic child, who is probably - like your child - vitamin D deficient. Then, it turns out five years from now that scientific evidence shows vitamin D does indeed help. By that time, the child will be eight and will have suffered additional, irreparable, brain damage. In my mind, that is more tragic than another false hope.

Dear Dr. Cannell:

After that article appeared in the Toronto paper, I started my four-year-old son on 1,000 IU of vitamin D two weeks ago. So far the only thing I noticed is that after about ten days, he didn't seem so miserable. The thing that has always broken my heart is that look of sadness and suffering on his face. After about two weeks of vitamin D, I noticed he seemed less miserable. I wouldn't say he looks happy now but that look of misery seems to be gone. Will it come back? I'm not sure I can take it if it comes back. What else might happen? Also, last summer we noticed he seemed to get better, but then he got worse in the fall. We never thought about it until we read about vitamin D.

Susan, Toronto, Canada

Dear Susan:

I don't know. I think all parents have had their heart pierced by that look at one time or another. I would advise increasing the dose to 2,000 IU per day, making sure it is cholecalciferol and not ergocalciferol, and having your doctor order a 25(OH)D every two months to see if he needs higher doses. You want to get his blood level up to between 50 ng/ml and 80 ng/ml (In many countries outside of the USA, that would be reported as between 125 and 200 nmol/L.) and keep it there, summer and winter, and that may take more than 2,000 IU/day in the winter. If vitamin D has a treatment effect, it will take many months to see its full effect. As you noted, if the theory is correct, autistic children who spend time outdoors in the summer should show some seasonal improvements - if they don't wear sunblock and they expose enough of their skin to generate significant amounts of vitamin D.

Dear Dr. Cannell:

I resent you calling autism a tragedy. My son is not a tragedy and I'm glad he was born and is in our lives. He is our joy. Autism is not a tragedy.

Emma, London, England.

Dear Emma:

I'm glad he is your joy and I believe you. I'm new to the autism field and was not aware how much thought and speech control exists in the discussion of the disease. Nevertheless, I have a few politically incorrect questions. If autism is a joy, I assume you would like other parents to have an autistic child? If autism is such a joy, why is there a huge industry forming to prevent and treat it? At the risk of sounding insensitive - apparently one of the most serious charges leveled in the autism debate - autism is a tragedy. As I pointed out in my paper, research shows that having an autistic child, puts the family under more emotional stress than having a child with a fatal illness.

Dear Dr. Cannell:

Who are you to write an article on autism? You didn't even publish it in a medical journal. You are not with a university. You have not published very much. You have no expertise on autism. No autism experts support your theory. There is no evidence to support the theory. Shouldn't you leave this to experts before you give parents more false hopes?

Mary, Trenton, New Jersey.

Dear Mary:

You are right, I am a nobody; just ask my ex-wife. In the Toronto Globe, I explained why I have not yet submitted the paper. As far as giving false hopes, I've thought about that charge. Right now, regardless of what advocacy groups say, autism is rather hopeless. That is, no treatment, including vitamin D, has been shown to materially affect the clinical course of autism. As a psychiatrist, my observation is that people would rather live with a false hope than with no hope.

Furthermore, if autistic children began taking vitamin D, the worse that can happen is that a period of false hope will followed by dashed hopes and then parents will be back to hopelessness. In the meantime, they will have made their child vitamin D sufficient. Vitamin D deficiency is a serious problem in childhood.
Postgrad Med J. 2007 Apr;83(978):230-5.

The Telegraph, Why is Vitamin D So Vital?

As far as the theory having no support from experts, Dr. Richard Mills, research director of the National Autistic Society in England, was quoted in the Telegraph article on the autism/vitamin D theory: "There has been speculation in the past about autism being more common in high-latitude countries that get less sunlight and a tie-up with rickets has been suggested - observations which support the theory."

Finally, you said there is no evidence to support the theory. I assume you meant there is no proof. The first statement is absolutely false, the second absolutely true. As I detailed in my paper, there is a lot of evidence to support the theory. In fact, if anyone can come up with an autism fact, that the theory cannot explain, I'd like to know about it. Even the announcement of a link between television viewing and autism supports the theory. Furthermore, the TV/autism link is actually evidence of a treatment effect. That is, if autistic children who play outside in the sunshine more - watching less TV - have less severe illness, it may be due to the Sun-God, who bestows her precious gift of calcitriol into the brains of children playing outside in her sunlight but not into the brains of children watching TV inside in the darkness.
Natl Bur Econ Res Bull Aging Health. 2007 Winter;(18):2-3.

As far as proof the theory is true, there is, of course, none. In medicine, proof means randomized controlled human trials, the gold standard for proof. However, proof is the last step, not the first. First comes evidence, then comes a theory, then comes researchers disproving those theories. It works that way. Sometimes we never get to the last step, proof. For example, please point me to a single randomized controlled human trial proving cigarette smoking is dangerous? Instead, the convincing evidence of smoking's dangerousness lies in epidemiological studies, not randomized controlled trials. Proof, or disproof, of the autism vitamin D theory will take years, years during which young autistic brains will continue to suffer irreparable damage. Perhaps vitamin D' powerful anti-inflammatory actions will help prevent that damage, perhaps not.

It's something of a Pascal's wager, betting on vitamin D instead of the existence of God, risking your child's brain instead of eternal damnation. "If you believe vitamin D helps autism and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in vitamin D and turn out to be incorrect, your child will suffer irreparable brain damage."

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council
9100 San Gregorio Road
Atascadero, CA 93422

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you don't want to get the newsletter, please hit reply and let us know. This newsletter is not copyrighted. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. Remember, we are a non-profit and rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website.

I just found this great podcast of an April, 2006 National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Omnivore's Dilemma author, Michael Pollan:

Author Michael Pollan: 'The Omnivore's Dilemma'

available at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5342514

The Science Friday segment is a great encapsulation of all the fascinating spins this wonderfully insightful author has on human eating habits and the developing distortions of food choices, much magnified by the food manufacturing industry.

One of my favorite comments from Pollan: "The USDA should be called "The Department of Corn," referring to the ubiquitous dissemination of corn products into livestock and human foods that has increasingly led to the enormous health problems we're all facing in 2007.

Try a little experiment:

Side by side, try a yogurt made with fructose or high fructose corn syrup as one of the first ingredients on the label along with a yogurt made without fructose.

Yoplait and Dannon brands, for instance, fit the bill for fructose. Several brands do not use fructose products. Many of these are the unflavored or unsweetened versions. You may therefore have to add some blueberries, strawberries, or some other fruit for some flavor. ( I doubt that you would add high fructose corn syrup.) Add nuts, seeds, flaxseed, or oat bran to either.

Many people who do this will notice a peculiar effect: The fructose or high fructose corn syrup containing product is, to most, delicious. It also triggers a desire for more. You can't have just one--you've got to have another, or you've got to eat something else.

The non-fructose containing product is more likely to generate satiety, a feeling that you've had enough.

If you experience this effect, the solution is simple: avoid fructose and high fructose corn syrup. I believe that the most worrisome health effect of fructose is this hunger-increasing aspect, difficult to document, perhaps impossible to measure, but a great boon to the food industry who practice an "eat more" philosophy to increase revenues year after year.

Perhaps you will also see weight drop (since you will be more satisfied), see triglycerides drop (since fructose raises triglycerides), and maybe obtain all the downstream benefits of reduced triglycerides (higher HDL, less small LDL, less VLDL, more rapid clearance of post-prandial lipoproteins).

Most people who follow this idea gain better control over appetite, lose weight, and do better in health, including in their Track Your Plaque program.

Clinical studies can be designed in a number of ways. The ease and cost of these studies differ dramatically, as does the confidence of the findings.

The most confident way to design a clinical study is to tell neither the participants nor the investigator(s) what treatment is being offered, then to administer treatment or placebo. Neither the people doing the research nor the participants know what they are receiving. Of course, there needs to be some way to find out what was given at the end of the study in order to analyze the outcome.

This is called a “double-blind, placebo-controlled” clinical study. While not perfect since it tends to examine a treatment phenomenon in isolation (e.g., the effects of a single drug in a select group of people), it is the best sort of study design that is most likely to yield confident results, both negative and positive. This sort of design is followed, for instance, for most prescription drugs.

There are pitfalls in such studies, of course, and some have made headlines lately. For instance, beyond tending to examine single conditions in a select group of participants, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study can also fail to uncover rare effects. If a study contains 5000 participants, for instance, but a rare complication develops in 1 person out of 20,000, then it’s unlikely such an ill-effect will be observed until larger numbers of people are exposed to the agent.

Another pitfall (though not so much of study design, but of human greed) is that study outcomes that are not favorable can be suppressed by simply failing to publish the results. This has undoubtedly happened numerous times over the years. For this reason, a registry has been created for all human clinical trials as a means to enforce publication of outcomes, both favorable and unfavorable.

Despite its weaknesses, the double-blind, placebo-controlled study design remains the most confident way to show whether or not some treatment does indeed yield some effect. It is less prone to bias from either the participant or the investigator. Human nature being what it is, we tend to influence results just to suit our particular agenda or interests. An investigator who knows what you are given, drug or placebo, but owns lots of stock in the company, or is hoping for special favors from the pharmaceutical company sponsor, for instance, is likely to perceive events in a light favorable to the outcome of the study.

Now, most studies are not double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. These are notoriously difficult studies to engineer; raise lots of ethical questions (can you not treat a person with an aggressive cancer, for instance, and administer a placebo?); often require substantial numbers of participants (thousands), many of whom may insist on payment for devoting their time, bodies, and perhaps even encountering some risk; and are tremendously expensive, costing many tens of millions of dollars.

For this reason, many other study designs are often followed. They are cheaper, quicker, may not even require the active knowledge or participation of the group being studied. That’s not to say that the participants are being tricked. It may simply be something like trying to determine if there are more heart attacks in people who live in cities compared to rural areas by comparing death rates from heart attack from public records and population demographic data. Or, a nutritional study could be performed by asking people how many eggs they eat each week and then contacting them every month for 5 years to see if they’ve had a heart attack or other heart event. No treatment is introduced, no danger is added to a person’s established habits. Many epidemiologic studies are performed this way.

The problem is that these other sorts of study designs, because they generate less confident results, are not generally regarded as proof of anything. They can only suggest the possibility of an association, an hypothesis. For real proof to occur, a double-blind, placebo-controlled may need to follow. Alternatively, if an association suggested by a study of lesser design might, by reasons of a very powerful effect, be sufficient. But this is rare. Thalidomide and catastrophic birth defects are an example of an association between a drug and fetal limb malformation that was so clear-cut that no further investigation was required to establish a causative association. Of course, no one in their right mind would even suggest a blinded study.

Where am I going with this tedious rambling? Lately, the media has been making a big to-do about several studies, none of which are double-blind, placebo-controlled, but were cross-sectional sorts of observations, the sorts of studies which can only suggest an effect. This happened with Dr. Steve Nissen’s study of Avandia (rosiglitazone) for pre-diabetes and risk for heart attack and the recent study suggesting that cancer incidence is increased when LDL cholesterol is low. Both were observations that suggested such associations.

Now, those of you following the Heart Scan Blog or the www.cureality.com website know that we do not defend drug companies nor their drugs. In fact, we’ve openly and repeatedly criticized the drug industry for many of its practices. Drugs are, in my opinion, miserably overused and abused.

But, as always, I am in the pursuit of truth. Neither of these studies, in my view, justified the sort of media attention they received. They are hypothesis-generating efforts—that’s it. You might argue that the questions raised are so crucial that any incremental risk of a drug is simply not worth it.

Despite the over-reaction to these studies, good will come of the fuss. I do believe that heightened scrutiny of the drug industry will result. Many people will seek to avoid prescription drugs and opt for healthy changes in lifestyle, thus reducing exposure to costs and side-effects.

But beware of the media, acting as our Chicken Little, reporting on studies that prove nothing but only raise questions.

Some of the math-savvy will have noticed that we often report drops in CT heart scan scores on a percentage basis. Unfortunately, it this were a competition (which, of course, it is not), this would be unfair.

A score of 50, for instance, that drops "only" 25 points would represent a 50% drop in score.

But someone with a score of 1050 who drops his or her score the same quantity, or 25, will have dropped their score less than 5%.

In other words, the magnitude of your starting score determines how large a percentage drop you achieve, even when the absolute, or real, quantity of plaque reversal is the same as someone who begins with a lower score.

I qualify this discussion in this vein because of Grady's story. Grady, a soon-to-retire attorney, started with a heart scan score of 1151. On the Track Your Plaque program, he saw his score drop nearly 200 points--200 points!

But, if we gauged Grady's success just on a percentage basis, he dropped his score only a measly 17% or so. (Imagine the headlines if this program were sponsored by a drug manufacturer. The Track Your Plaque program proudly has nothing to do with the drug industry.)

Of course, the Track Your Plaque program is not a competition. It is an effort to help everyone possible, the more the better. Even if Grady failed to set a new Track Your Plaque record gauged on a percentage basis, he will have achieved an extraordinary advantage in health: the virtual elimination of the dangers of heart disease.

With this drop in score, Grady's risk for heart attack plummets from a spine-chilling 25% per year to nearly zero. (I know of NO other program that can claim such a track record.)

Grady's full story will be reported in the August, 2007 Track Your Plaque newsletter. To subscribe or to just view when it is posted, go to www.cureality.com website, click on the upper right hand corner What Does My Heart Scan Show? graphic, which then takes you to the page to view the newsletter. Or, Track Your Plaque Members can just go to the Library and click on newsletter archives.

One of the basic requirements that stack the odds in your favor of stopping or dropping your CT heart scan score is to achieve basic lipid targets of 60-60-60.

In other words, we generally see best results when LDL is reduced to 60 mg/dl, HDL raised to 60 mg/dl, triglycerides reduced to 60 mg/dl. Now, these are not absolute requirements. Someone can have a spectacular drop in heart scan score even with an HDL of 56, LDL of 71. But the "Rule of 60" provides a useful target that is easy to remember, packs real power, and is clearly beyond that achieved with conventional approaches.

People often ask, "Just how tough is it to get to these targets?"

It's really not that tough. Interestingly, whenever I tell my cardiologist or primary care colleagues that I advocate these 60-60-60 targets, they declare that it's tough, perhaps impossible, except for the most highly motivated.

I agree that it requires motivation. A cigarette-smoking, TV-addicted, 70-lb overweight, chip- and pretzel-eating couch potato is not going to achieve them.

On the other hand, you don't have to be a marathon running vegetarian to do it, either.

Most people, in fact, engaged in the Track Your Plaque program achieve the 60-60-60 targets---or exceed them. It's not uncommon, for instance, for HDL to skyrocket to 80 or 90 mg/dl with many of our strategies. (Of course, if your starting HDL is 20 or 25 mg/dl, 80 or 90 is not possible with current technology.)

But it certainly does require more than the "Take Lipitor and stick to your low-fat diet" approach that is the mantra repeated in the vast majority of medical offices across the U.S. For instance, reducing LDL to 60 mg/dl when starting at 170 mg/dl will require addition of oat bran and other soluble or viscous fibers; raw almonds and walnuts; perhaps the use of Benecol butter substitute; reduction or elimination of wheat products if small LDL comprises a substantial proportion of LDL particles. Reducing triglycerides requires the generous use of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil. Attention to vitamin D must be a part of the effort.

So, yes, it is not as simple as the conventional approach. But the results are far superior in reducing or eliminating heart attack and in dropping your heart scan score.

But it can be done. We do it every day.

It happened yet again.

Mel came to the office. CT heart scan score: 799--quite high, enough to pose a real threat very soon. Thus, no time to lose in instituting an effective prevention program.

We do the usual--identify the six causes of coronary plaque; begin fish oil, show him how to correct his plaque causes. You've heard it before.

Vitamin D blood level in March: 17 ng/ml--severe deficiency.

Vitamin D replacement needs to be a part of his coronary plaque control program. So I suggested 6000 units per day of an oil-based preparation of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol). Conveniently, there is a Vitamin Shoppe outlet across the street from my office. I just point and tell people to go across the street.

Mel did just that. However, he also informed his primary care physician about his vitamin D deficiency. His primary physician promptly told him he needed to take a prescription form of vitamin D and not to bother with just a supplement.

So Mel stopped his vitamin D capsules and started taking vitamin D prescription "medication." Mel figured, naturally, that if it requires a prescription, it must be better. Unfortunately, Mel and his doctor failed to pass the change in strategy onto us.

So, four months later, Mel got repeat vitamin D blood level: 19 ng/ml.

I've seen this too many times. The prescription form of vitamin D is nonsense. There's hardly any effect on blood levels of vitamin D3 at all. The body's conversion of this non-human form of D is extremely inefficient and therefore virtually useless. While it raises the blood level of vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) and thereby total D (D3 + D2), there is negligible effect on the real human and active form, D3.

How and why this preparation got through the FDA process to obtain approval as a drug is beyond me, though I am not a defender of FDA practices and politics.

This notion that "if it's a prescription, it must be better" is a fiction perpetuated by the drug industry. The same principle gets tossed around with fish oil, hormones like estrogens and testosterone, and others. Often, the principal difference between prescription and non-prescription is patent protection. Patent protection provides profit protection. Selling a product without patent protection can be risky business. It's certainly less profitable.

As always, getting at the truth is sometimes the most difficult job of all. Prescription vitamin D belongs in the garbage. Vitamin D capsules (gelcaps) do the job and do it well, over and over, with reliable, consistent and substantial rises in blood levels of 25-OH-vitamin D3. I take 6000 units per day (3 2000 unit capsules) that cost me $5.99 for a bottle of 120 capsules, or about $4.50 a month.

And nobody--nobody--pays me to say this. I say it because I believe it's true.

What does angioplasty have over the Track Your Plaque program?

Well, first of all, the Track Your Plaque program has a lot to boast about. What other approach can claim to have reduced heart disease 30, 40, 51, and now 63%? That's as close to a cure that's ever--EVER--been achieved. Statin drug manufacturers can talk about an occasional 1, 2, or 5% reversal. We're talking 10 times more.

The Track Your Plaque program also uses as little prescription medication as necessary. Fish oil, vitamin D, coenzyme Q10, niacin--some of the frequent tools used for plaque reversal in our program. Yes, we do use prescription medications, but only when there is truly a benefit and nutritional strategies have failed to achieve the goals we're seeking. We do not endorse shotgun prescription approaches conceived of by some marketing department at a pharmaceutical company.

So what possible advantage can coronary angioplasty have? Why don't more people embrace a program like Track Your Plaque that has already proven itself enormously effective?

Because angioplasty is easy. There's little worrying ahead of time. Just wait for the symptoms or other problem to appear, go to the hospital and get your procedure. You can live the free and easy life beforehand--no exercise, no diet efforts, no nutritional supplements. Just be sure to go to the hospital when suspicious symptoms strike. (Of course, you gamble that you survive the appearance of symptoms, a process 30-50% of people fail to survive.)

That means you can eat all you want, drink all you want, save the money you otherwise might have thrown away on supplements, pocket the monthly costs of an exercise club membership, etc. Go to the hospital when you experience the sensation of an anvil on your chest or of suffocation, let the emergency room do their thing, meet your cardiologist, go to the catheterization laboratory, get two or three stents, go home the next day!

Why bother with a prevention program, especially one that requires involvement, learning, and effort like Track Your Plaque?

Because it's your way to stack the odds enormously in your favor of 1) surviving the appearance of symptoms, 2) avoiding the prospect of heart procedures, which are not as clean and easy as they often seem, 3) have a longer lasting durability than a stent which could buy you a couple of years before your next procedure or heart catastrophe, and 4) it's the right thing to do for the sake of the huge societal cost of heart disease.

Many of you have the equivalent of a cure for heart disease at your fingertips. Unless you have a soft spot in your heart for hospitals, cardiologists, or the pharmaceutical or medical device industry, there isn't a choice.

In case anyone missed this in the June, 2007 Track Your Plaque Newsletter, I'm again posting how we calculate the annual rate of score increase, should it occur.

For instance, say your score in January, 2005, is 100. In November, 2006, you undergo another scan and the score is 140. Obviously, your score has increased an undesirable 40%. But what is the annual rate of score increase, the amount of increase per year?

In this example, the annual rate of score increase is 19%--not anywhere near as bad as the 40% that can scare the heck out of you.

Obviously, the best rate of heart scan score increase is a negative number, i.e., a drop in score from, say 100, to 60. You might even eliminate the need for this calculation altogether if you drop your score.

Nonetheless, whenever there is a score increase over an uneven period of time, a fraction of year(s), this is the method we use to annualize the calculation. The equation we use is a modified form of the annual compound interest equation using continuous compounding, since that’s how coronary atherosclerotic plaque grows--just like money. The difference is, of course, is that while you might want more money, you certainly don't want more plaque.

You will need a calculator for this calculation, one with an exponential “y to the power x” function. For ease, calculate "1/t first, then use it as the “x” exponent on your y^x function and "(score 2 / score 1)" as the "y".

Annual rate of plaque growth (APG) = ( score 2 / score 1 ) ^1/t - 1

Multiply the result by 100 to yield a percent.

“Score 1” is your 1st heart scan score, “score 2” is your 2nd (or any subsequent heart scan score); “t” is the amount of time between the two scans expressed in years in decimal form. Time between scans should be expressed in years or fractions of years. To obtain the time interval in fractions of years, simply divide the number of months between scans by 12 (e.g., 18 months / 12 = 1.5 years ; 22 months / 12 = 1.83 years).

It’s not as tricky as it looks. For example, if your first heart scan score is 300 and your next scan 16 months later (or 16/12 = 1.33 years) is 372, then:

Annual rate of plaque growth (APG) = ( 372 / 300 ) ^1/1.33 - 1 = 0.175

Multiply 0.175 x 100 = 17.5% annual rate of plaque growth

Some scan centers will do the calculation for you as part of a repeat scan. However, the equation can be used if you're left on your own, or if you go to a different scan center. If this is too much effort, perhaps it's just another reason to add to the list of reasons to drop your heart scan score!

In The Track Your Plaque program, we advocate decreasing triglycerides to 60 mg/dl or less.

That's the level of triglycerides that minimize the presence of triglyceride-containing undesirable lipoproteins causing plaque, such as small LDL, VLDL, and the after-eating persistence of IDL (intermediate-density lipoprotein, a bad player). (The enzyme, cholesteryl-ester transfer protein, or CETP, is responsible for exchanging one triglyceride molecule for one cholesterol molecule between HDL and other lipoprotein particles. Thus, an excess of triglyceride availability permits CETP to operate unrestrained, creating more undesirable lipoproteins. This was the basis for Pfizer's now defunct CETP inhibitor, torcetrapib.)

Of course, this triglyceride target is far below that of the conventional guidelines. The Adult Treatment Panel-III of the National Cholesterol Education Panel suggests a triglyceride level of 150 mg/dl is okay.

In my view, a level of 150 mg/dl is highly abnormal, permitting the persistence of multiple lipoprotein particles and virtually guarantees plaque growth. In short, triglycerides of 150 are awful.

Curious thing: Successful participants in our program, i.e., people who achieve desirable weight, reduce processed carbohydrate junk foods and saturated fat sources, and aim for the 60-60-60 targets for conventional lipids, commonly end up with triglyceride levels of 25-50 mg/dl.

We have seen many people drop their heart scan scores just by achieving a triglyceride level of 60 mg/dl or less. So achieving a lower level below 60 is not necessarily a requirement for coronary plaque regression.

But it makes me wonder if a triglycere level of 30s or 40s is the level for perfect health. These are levels ordinarily regarded as impossibly low. When colleagues see the numbers we readily and routinely achieve, they declare that the numbers are spurious, temporary, or just flukes. "No way you can do that all the time!"

This level also seems to, in virtually all cases, eliminate the triglyceride-containing undesirable lipoproteins small LDL, IDL, etc., and allow full conversion of HDL into the healthy, large fraction.

Should we move the Track Your Plaque triglyceride target to below 45 mg/dl or even lower? I don't think so, but it makes me wonder.

Calling all super-duper weight losers!

Lp(a): Be patient with fish oil

Baby your pancreas

Bread equals sugar

Gluten-free carbohydrate mania

Gluten-free is going DOWN

Medicine ain't what it used to be

Normal cholesterol panel . . . no heart disease?

Idiot farm

Eat triglycerides

Vitamin D and autism

Michael Pollan Podcast

Are you addicted to fructose?

Chicken Little

200 point drop in heart scan score

How tough is the Track Your Plaque 60-60-60 target?

Vitamin D2 belongs in the garbage

Angioplasty vs. Track Your Plaque

Plaque is like money

Triglycerides: What is normal?