All posts by william-davis

The edgy nutrition advocate, Mike Adams, over at NewsTarget.com came up with this scary photo tour of a processed meat product from Oscar Mayer: Mystery Meat Macrophotography: A NewsTarget PhotoTour by Mike Adams

Along with increasingly close-up photographs of this meat-product, Adams lists the ingredients in Oscar Mayer's Cotto Salami:

Beef hearts
Pork
Water
Corn syrup
Beef

Contains less than 2% of:
Salt
Sodium lactate
Flavor
Sodium phosphates
Sodium diacetate
Sodium erythorbate
Dextrose
Sodium nitrite
Soy lecithin
Potassium phosphate
Potassium chloride
Sugar

As I reconsider the role of saturated fat in diet, given the startlingly insightful discussion by Gary Taubes of Good Calories, Bad Calories, I am reminded that not all meat is meat, not all saturated fat sources are equal.

I am concerned in particular about sodium nitrite content, a color-fixer added to cured meats that caused a stir in the 1970s when data suggesting a carcinogenic effect surfaced. The public's effort to remove sodium nitrite from the food supply was vigorously opposed by the meat council and it remains in cured meats like sausage, hot dogs, and processed meats like Cotto Salami. A 2006 meta-analysis (combined analysis of studies) of 63 studies did indeed suggest that sodium nitrite was related to increased risk of gastric cancer. This argument is plausible from animal models of cancer risk, as 40 animal models have likewise suggested the same carcinogenic association.

Also, fructose? This is most likely added for sweetness. Recall that fructose heightens appetite and raises triglycerides substantially.

I personally have a natural aversion to meat. I don't like the taste, the look, smell, and the thought of what the animal went through to make it to the supermarket. But, considered from the cold, carnivorous viewpoint of the question, "Is meat okay to eat?", among the issues to consider is whether the meat has been cured or processed, and does that process include addition of sodium nitrite.

Cotto Salami and similar products are not, of course, what carnivorous humans in the wild ate. This is a processed, modified product created from factory farm animals raised in cramped conditions and fed corn and other cheap, available foods. It is not created from free-ranging animals wandering their pastures or pens, eating diets nature intended. This results in modified fat composition, not to mention hormones and antibiotics added. These are not listed on the ingredients. Wild meat does not contain fructose or color-fixers, either.

So don't mistake "meat" in your grocery store for meat. It might look and smell the same--until you look a little closer.

Copyright 2007 William Davis, MD

After Merck's third go at FDA approval for over-the-counter (OTC) status for its statin cholesterol drug, Mevacor (lovastatin), the FDA advisory board suggested that its request be denied. They expressed concern that too many people would not understand how the drugs would be used and that misuse would be common.

Similar sentiments were echoed by Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen; the American Medical Association (though the AMA always fights anything that threatens to erode physician control over health); and the de facto spokesman for cardiologists, Dr. Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic.

Although I am a supporter for tools and legislation that yield greater self-empowerment in health care to the public, there is no need to lament the failed OTC status for Mevacor. For one, Merck had no plans to reduce the price on its OTC preparation. For many people, this would have meant an increase in cost, since health insurers would surely not cover a non-prescription agent.

Second, OTC status sends the implicit message that cholesterol is the most common cause of heart disease; it is not. (Small LDL particles are the number one cause, a pattern only partially addressed by any statin drug and a pattern largely responsible for the failure of statin drugs to "cure" heart disease despite pharmaceutical manufacturer's attempts to increase doses to take up any slack in effect.)

Thirdly, you can achieve the same effect--no, a superior effect--by incorporating several simple strategies into your life. These strategies are superior to Mevacor because they do more than just reduce LDL cholesterol. You can achieve similar LDL-reducing effect to Mevacor, 20 mg, just by adding:

--2 tablespoons oat bran or ground flaxseed per day (choose flaxseed if you have sugar problems or small LDL; flaxseed contains no digestible sugars, only protein and fiber)
--Raw almonds or walnuts--at least a handful, though more is fine and will not make you fat. (It's nuts like party mixes, mixed nuts roasted in unhealthy oils, and honey-roasted nuts that make us fat, not raw.)
--Soy protein sources--probably the weakest effect of all foods listed, but a contributor that can be obtained in a variety of forms, such as tofu, soy protein powders, and soy milk.
--Other foods that reduce LDL include pectin sources (e.g., citrus rind), flavonoids (e.g., green tea); stanol esters found in butter substitute Benecol (recall that sterol-containing products like Take Control and the flood of new products on the market like HeartWise orange juice might have potential for allowing sterol esters to enter the blood, so I do NOT recommend them); and, of course, niacin.

Many of these strategies also reduce small LDL, raise HDL, reduce triglycerides, and reduce blood sugar, effects that go beyond that achieved with Mevacor. Of course, a combination strategy is not as easy as popping one pill a day, it's better for you.

I will certainly not shed any tears for Merck and its relentless efforts to gain a stronger foothold in the "transform conditions into diseases" marketing strategy, the same strategy that classifies shyness, toe fungus, and sadness into medical conditions necessitating medication. While I do generally support efforts to increase public access to strategies that increase their health care power, this one was not necessarily all good.

Members of Track Your Plaque can read the complete report, Unique nutritional strategies to Reduce cholesterol naturally on the Track Your Plaque website.

Copyright 2007 William Davis, MD

Medical device manufacturer, Cordis, is launching a new marketing program to promote its Cypher drug-coated stent. You can view the details at www.CypherUSA.com , including the slick TV commercial that HeartHawk posted a blog about.

The campaign opens with:

When you open up your heart, you open up your life.

Lives hampered by angina. By shortness of breath. By restricted blood flow. These lives are changing. Because of a state-of-the-art advancement. One that can have a huge impact on arteries around your heart. The CYPHER® Stent. It can open up your arteries. Increase flow of blood and oxygen. And change your restricted life. To an active life worth living. Your new life is...

Life Wide Open

Direct-to-consumer drug advertising has been around for a few years. While it has increased awareness of drugs and the "conditions" they are supposed to treat, it has also highlighted the aggressive profit-motive of the drug industry. This is not health care for the needy and sick, but health care for profit.

So now we're beginning to see the emergence of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising for medical devices. There was also a brief, though unsuccessful, foray into DTC advertising for implantable defibrillators, of all things, by Medtronic a couple of years ago, also.

What is the purpose of Cordis' marketing effort? Is it to educate and inform the public who might unknowingly receive non-drug coated stents and be deprived of the restenosis-inhibiting advantage of a drug-coated device? Is it meant to right a systematic wrong, a failure of cardiologists to insert the technologically, biologically, and ethically superior coated stents?

I find that doubtful. A more likely motive is damage control. With some of the (both deserved and undeserved) negative press the drug-coated stents have received lately, Cordis, eager to protect their $20 billion (annual revenues, 2006) medical device franchise, came up with this DTC strategy. After viewing the smiling faces of people , elated because of their "wide open" arteries and lives, Cordis hopes to see people going to their doctors insisting on the stent that is "opening millions of lives," since, "when your arteries narrow, so does your life."

Cool, trendy, liberating. That's the message they wish to deliver. Cool music, beautiful people, flashy high-tech images. Who wouldn't want a Cypher stent?

Beyond damage control, it's a familiar marketing theme: You're slender, glamorous, and sexy if you drink Coke, you're a caring mother if you feed your children Jif peanut butter, you're health conscious and smart if you eat Total cereal . . . you're cool and know what you want from life if you insist on a Cypher stent.

I don't object to advertising. It's part of the capitalistic economic system. It drives awareness and grows businesses. I do get concerned when advertising is so slick and effective that the people who are not properly armed with information can be duped into thinking that they need something that they don't really need.

Or, for which there are powerful, viable alternatives. Even hear about "prevent the disease in the first place?"

The Framingham Risk Calculator is a standard method used by many physicians to predict risk for heart attack or death from heart disease over a 10-year period. Low-risk is defined as <10% risk of heart attack or cardiac death over 10 years; high-risk is defined as 20% or more over 10 years; intermediate-risk is in between.

Let's put it to the test:

Amy is a 53-year old businesswoman. She is 5 ft 4 inches, weighs 150 lbs. Her father had a heart attack in his early 50s followed by the usual list of hospital procedures including bypass surgery at age 60.

What is Amy's risk for heart attack or death from heart disease over the next 10 years? If we enter her data into the Framingham risk calculator, the following result is returned:

Information about your risk score:
Age: 53
Gender: female
Total Cholesterol: 198 mg/dL
HDL Cholesterol: 74 mg/dL
Smoker: No
Systolic Blood Pressure: 120 mm/Hg
On medication for HBP: No
Risk Score: 1% Means 1 of 100 people with this level of risk will have a heart attack in the next 10 years.

So, according to the Framingham calculation, Amy has <1% risk for heart attack or death from heart disease over the next 10 years. Most primary care physicians would, at most, prescribe a statin drug and talk about a reduction in saturated fat.

Thankfully, Amy didn't fall for that bit of conventional mis-information. She instead got a CT heart scan, principally because of her father's history. Her score: 117. At age 53, this put her into 90th percentile, in the worst 10% of scores for women in her age group (50-55). By heart scan criteria, her risk for heart attack is probably more like 4-5% per year, or approximately 40-50% over the next 10 years.

Let's do just a bit more math. If Amy hadn't known about her heart scan score and no preventive action was taken, the expected progression of her heart scan scores would likely be:

Start: 117
Year 1: 152
Year 2: 198
Year 3: 257
Year 4: 335
Year 5: 436
Year 6: 567
Year 7: 737
Year 8: 958
Year 9: 1245
Year 10: 1618

In fact, given Amy's starting heart scan score of 117, it is highly unlikely that she survives the next 10 years without heart attack or a fatal heart event. Yet the Framingham risk calculator puts Amy's risk at less than 1%. Could anything be more wrong?

The folly of the Framingham calculator was highlighted by a recent publication from the large Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), in which 3600 women (45-84 years), all of whom fell into the "low-risk" category by the Framingham calculator--just like Amy--were tracked over approximately 3 3/4 years. This study generated several observations:

1) 30% of the "low-risk" women had positive heart scan scores.
2) 5% of the "low-risk" women had scores of 300 or greater (very significant for a woman). 8.6% of these women experienced a cardiovascular event like heart attack or death over the period. Women with a heart scan score of 300 or greater had a 22-fold greater event risk compared to women with zero heart scan scores.
3) Women with heart scan scores of 1 to 299 had a cardiovascular event risk of approximately 5-fold greater risk over the period.

Across the U.S., 90% of women younger than 70 years old fall into the Framingham "low-risk" category. Yet this fiction is accepted as the prevailing standard, along with LDL and total cholesterol, for determination of risk in women and men.

In my view, using the Framingham risk calculator is a misguided, misleading path, one that will mis-classify a substantial number of women who could otherwise be spared from heart attack and catastrophe.

By the way, Amy is also the Track Your Plaque program record holder (by percentage drop), with a 63% drop in heart scan score over a 15 month period.

Niacin:

--Raises HDL and shifts HDL towards the healthier large (HDL2b) subclass.
--Reduces total LDL.
--Reduces small LDL particles.
--Reduces triglycerides and triglyceride-containing particles like VLDL and IDL (intermediate-density lipoprotein).
--Reduces fibrinogen.
--Reduces inflammatory responses.

Weight loss achieved through a low-carbohydrate (read "wheat-free") diet:

--Raises HDL and shifts HDL towards the healthier large (HDL2b) subclass.
--Reduces total LDL.
--Reduces small LDL particles.
--Reduces triglycerides and triglyceride-containing particles like VLDL and IDL (intermediate-density lipoprotein).
--Reduces fibrinogen.
--Reduces inflammatory responses.

Curious, isn't it? Niacin achieves virtually the same effect as weight loss achieved through a low-carbohydrate diet, particularly if free of wheat products. The only major difference is that niacin also reduces lipoprotein(a), though even that distinction shrinks if monounsaturated fat sources like almonds are included in a low-carbohydrate program.

So which should you do first if you have any of the above patterns? Well, it's a question of 1) severity, 2) how carbohydrate-rich your starting diet is, 3) how much weight you could stand to lose, and 4) how urgent your program is (determined largely by your heart scan score).

Niacin can also be very helpful if you've taken full advantage of weight loss through a carbohydrate-restricted program, yet still retain some of the abnormal lipoprotein patterns that could continue to grow coronary plaque. For instance, if HDL cholesterol rises from 28 to 40 mg/dl by eliminating wheat and reducing carbohydrates and losing weight, niacin could raise HDL to 50 mg/dl or higher.

As much as I love and use niacin for its broad array of plaque-controlling effects, a low-carbohydrate, wheat-free diet can achieve many of the same effects. Use this strategy to full advantage.

Every once in a while, we will see someone experience more-than-expected rate of coronary plaque growth, a sudden jump in heart scan scores. I'm talking about increases in score of 50%, even 100%, sometimes despite favorable lipid and lipoprotein patterns.

It's not always easy to pin this phenomenon down, since we often detect it after a year or more on a repeat heart scan. It would be wonderfully insightful to perform heart scans more frequently and track plaque growth more precisely, but of course, radiation exposure is the most important limiting factor, as is cost.

So this list is, admittedly, speculative. It is based on observation, on presumptive associations between events and heart scan scores. But, judging from what we do confidently know about coronary atherosclerotic plaque, I think these observations make physiologic sense.

These are the sorts of increases in heart scan score that can scare the heck out of you, silent yet explosive growth of coronary atherosclerotic plaque that can grow with no warning whatsoever.

Image courtesy Wikipedia and the United States Geological Survey.

Factors which I have observed to possibly be responsible for explosive plaque growth include:

--Overwhelming tragedy such as death of a loved one, financial ruin, divorce. One of my early and catastrophic failures was a young man in his early 40s who, in the space of just a few months, suffered the loss of his mother, a brother, and his mother-in-law, while working a high-stress job. His heart scan score doubled from around 100 to 200 in one year, despite perfect lipoproteins. He had a heart attack shortly after the second score, despite a normal stress test just months earlier. (Pessimism is tragedy's weak cousin, but one that still holds power to corrupt our otherwise best efforts at plaque reversal.)

--Substantial weight gain. In the early years of the Track Your Plaque program, before it was even called "Track Your Plaque," I witnessed a man more than double his score from 1100 to 2400 in 18 months just by allowing himself to gain 40 lbs. (I don't know what became of him. His life apparently suffered other disasters, as well, and we lost track of him.)

--Poorly-controlled diabetes. High blood sugars out of control have yielded explosive growth.

--Kidney disease--However, I am uncertain of how much this overlaps with a deficiency of vitamin D's active form, 1,25-OH-vitamin D3, the form that is often deficient in people with dysfunctional kidneys.

--An inflammatory disease that is out of control, e.g., rheumatoid arthritis.

--This is very speculative, but I've witnessed explosive growth after vaccine administration that yielded strange viral-like symptoms. In this one instance, the man was getting heart scans (on his own) every three to six months and described a severe illness following a vaccine administered in preparation for travel out of the U.S.

--Unrecognized low thyroid function--i.e., hypothyroidism. This is easily corrected with thyroid hormone replacement.

These factors can also be relative and they can be overcome. Look at our current Track Your Plaque reversal record-holder: a 53-year old woman who dropped her heart scan score an amazing 63% despite the loss of a loved one during the 15 months of her program. Despite an overwhelming tragedy, she overcame the potential adverse effects and set a record, probably a record for the entire world.

In his most recent Vitamin D Council Newsletter (reprinted in its entirety below, minus clickable links, as Dr. Cannell apparently lost his webmaster and this issue of the newsletter is therefore not posted on the Vitamin D Council website; if you would like to either donate money to the Vitamin D Council or pitch in with help with his website, go to www.vitamindcouncil.com), Dr. John Cannell once again enlightens us with some new insights into vitamin D and its enormous role in health. In this issue, he discusses the role of vitamin D in people diagnosed with cancer (treatment, not prevention).

While cancer is not our focus on the Heart Scan Blog, Dr. Cannell's always insightful comments provide some helpful thoughts for our management of vitamin D doses and blood levels.

Dr. Cannell cites a recent study from vitamin D research expert, Dr. Bruce Hollis:

In the first study of its kind, Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina gave all of us something to think about. He asked and answered a simple question: How much vitamin D do you have to take to normalize the metabolism of vitamin D?

Remember, unlike other steroid hormones, vitamin D has very unusual metabolism in most modern humans, called first-order, mass action, kinetics. All this means is that the more vitamin D you take, the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, and the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, the higher the levels of activated vitamin D in your tissues. No other steroid hormone in the body behaves like this. Think about it: would you like your estrogen level to be dependent on how much cholesterol you ate? Or your cortisol level? (I'd ask the same about testosterone levels but I know men well enough not to ask.) No, the body must tightly regulate powerful steroid hormones through substrate inhibition, that is, if an enzyme turns A into B, when the body has enough B, B inhibits the enzyme and so limits its own production.

Not so with vitamin D, at least at modern human vitamin D levels. Professor Reinhold Vieth was the first to write about this and Vieth's Chapter 61 in Feldman, Pike, and Glorieux's wonderful textbook, Vitamin D (Elsevier, 2005, second edition), is a great reason to buy the textbook or have your library do so. (I'm glad to see Amazon is out of stock of the new ones (someone must be reading about vitamin D) but you can still buy used editions.)

Why would the kinetics of vitamin D be different from all other steroids? Maybe they are not, Hollis reasoned, like Vieth before him. Maybe vitamin D levels are so low in modern humans that its metabolic system is on full blast all the time in an attempt to give the body all the vitamin D metabolites it craves. So Hollis asked, Is vitamin D's metabolism different in populations in the upper end of 25(OH)D levels (a population of sun-exposed people and a group of women prescribed 7,000 IU per day)? Note, the Hollis study is free on Medline, you can download the entire paper on the right hand of the PubMed page below.

Hollis BW, et al. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-634.

If you look at the two graphs, Figures 1 and 2 of Hollis' paper, you find vitamin D's kinetics can be normalized, made just like all other steroid hormones in the body, but you have to get enough sunshine or take enough vitamin D to get your 25(OH)D level above 50 ng/ml, and 60 ng/ml would be better. Then your body starts to store cholecalciferol in the body without much further increase in 25(OH)D levels. The reaction becomes saturable. This is a remarkable discovery and it implies levels of 30 and 40 ng/ml are usually not sufficient. It also implies actual vitamin D levels (cholecalciferol levels), not just 25(OH)D levels, may be useful in diagnosing and treating deficiency. Note, that not all of the sun-exposed individuals or women prescribed 7,000 IU/day achieved such levels. That's because the sun-exposed individuals were tested after an Hawaiian winter and because prescribing and taking are two different things.

In answer to the question, "How much vitamin D should someone with cancer take?," Dr. Cannell advises:
"Take enough to get your 25(OH)D level above 60 ng/ml, summer and winter." In doing so, you will have normalized the kinetics of vitamin D and stored the parent compound, cholecalciferol, in your tissues. In the absence of sunshine, you need to take about 1,000 IU/day per 30 pounds of body weight to do this. A 150 pound cancer patient may need to take 5,000 IU per day, a 210 pound cancer patient about 7,000 IU per day, all this in the absence of sunlight.

Dr. Cannell, no stranger to the resisitance among many practicing physicians unaware of the expanding and robust literature on vitamin D, advises people with cancer that:
In the end, if you have cancer and your physician won't do a risk/benefit analysis, do it yourself. The risk side of that equation is easy. Both Quest Diagnostics and Lab-Corp, the two largest reference labs in the USA, report the upper limit of 25(OH)D normal is 100 ng/ml and toxic is above 150 ng/ml, so 60 ng/ml is well below both. The reason levels up to 100 ng/ml are published normals is because there is no credible evidence in the literature that levels of 100 ng/ml do any harm and because sun worshipers often have such levels. (If you don't believe me, go to the beach in the summer for one month, sunbath every day for 30 minutes on each side in your bathing suit, and go home and have a 25(OH)D level.) By getting your level above 60 ng/ml, all you are doing is getting your levels into the mid to upper range of laboratory reference normals. Little or no risk.

For readers wishing to read the entire text of Dr. Cannell's newsletter, it is reprinted below:

The Vitamin D Newsletter
January, 2008

The January newsletter is coming early as I will be out of touch for awhile. If you remember, the last newsletter was on preventing cancer, not treating it. Below is a sampling of the tragic emails the last newsletter generated:

"Dr. Cannell, I was just diagnosed with breast cancer, how much vitamin D should I take?"

"My mother has colon cancer, how much vitamin D should she take?"

"I've had prostate cancer for four years, is there any reason to think vitamin D would help?"

"Dr. Cannell, my son has leukemia, should I give him vitamin D?"

It's one thing to talk about evidence vitamin D may prevent cancer but something quite different to discuss evidence vitamin D might help treat cancer. I used to think the answers to all the above questions were the same. Like anyone else, people with cancer should be screened for vitamin D deficiency and be treated if deficiency is present. Simple. However, it's not that simple. The real questions are, What are reasonable 25-hydroxy-vitamin D [25(OH)D] levels for someone with a life-threatening cancer? How much vitamin D do they need to take to obtain such levels? Is there any evidence, of any kind, that vitamin D will help treat cancer? The risk/benefit analysis of taking vitamin D is quite different if you are in perfect health than if your life, or your child's life, is on the line.

Remember, unlike cancer prevention, not one human randomized controlled trial exists showing vitamin D has a treatment effect on cancer. By treatment effect, I mean prolongs the lives of cancer patients. However, as I cited in my last newsletter, Dr. Philippe Autier of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and Dr. Sara Gandini of the European Institute of Oncology, performed a meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials showing even low doses of vitamin D extend life but they looked at all-cause mortality, not just cancer (Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(16):1730-1737). However, some epidemiological studies indirectly address the treatment issue and are quite remarkable. The first are a series of discoveries by Professor Johan Moan, Department of Physics at the University of Oslo, with Dr. Alina Porojnicu as the lead author on most of the papers.

Moan J, et al. Colon cancer: Prognosis for different latitudes, age groups and seasons in Norway. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2007 Sep 19

Lagunova Z, et al. Prostate cancer survival is dependent on season of diagnosis. Prostate. 2007 Sep 1;67(12):1362-70.

Porojnicu AC, et al. Changes in risk of death from breast cancer with season and latitude: sun exposure and breast cancer survival in Norway. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007 May;102(3):323-8.

Porojnicu A, et al. Season of diagnosis is a predictor of cancer survival. Sun-induced vitamin D may be involved: a possible role of sun-induced Vitamin D. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):675-8.

Porojnicu AC, et al. Season of diagnosis is a prognostic factor in Hodgkin's lymphoma: a possible role of sun-induced vitamin D. Br J Cancer. 2005 Sep 5;93(5):571-4.

Porojnicu AC, et al. Seasonal and geographical variations in lung cancer prognosis in Norway. Does Vitamin D from the sun play a role? Lung Cancer. 2007 Mar;55(3):263-70.

What Professor Moan's group discovered, repeatedly, is quite simple, whether it be cancer of the breast, colon, prostate, lung, or a lymphoma. You live longer if your cancer is diagnosed in the summer. And it is not just Moan's group who has found this. A huge English study recently confirmed Moan's discovery.

Lim HS, et al. Cancer survival is dependent on season of diagnosis and sunlight exposure. Int J Cancer. 2006 Oct 1;119(7):1530-6.

What do these studies mean? Something about summer has a treatment effect on cancer. Whatever it is, you live longer if you are diagnosed in the summer but die sooner if you are diagnosed in the winter. What could it be about summer? Exercise? Fresh air? Melatonin? Sunlight? Pretty girls? Remember, these patients already had cancer. Whatever it is about summer, it is not a preventative effect that Professor Moan discovered, it is a treatment effect. Something about summer prolongs the life of cancer patients.

Dr. Ying Zhou, a research fellow, working with Professor David Christiani at the Harvard School of Public Health, went one step further. The stuffy Harvard researchers assumed summer worked its magic, not by pretty girls, but by summer sunlight making vitamin D. So they looked at total vitamin D input, from both sun and diet, to see if high vitamin D input improved the survival of cancer patients. Yes, indeed, remarkably. They found that early stage lung cancer patients with the highest vitamin D input (from summer season and high intake from diet) lived almost three times longer than patients with the lowest input (winter season and low intake from diet). Three times longer is a huge treatment effect, a treatment effect that most conventional cancer treatment methods would die for.

Zhou W, Vitamin D is associated with improved survival in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005 Oct;14(10):2303-9.

And that's not all, Marianne Berwick and her colleagues, at the New Mexico Cancer Institute, found malignant melanoma patients with evidence of continued sun exposure had a 60% mortality reduction compared to patients who did not. That implies a robust treatment effect from sunlight.

Berwick M, et al. Sun exposure and mortality from melanoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Feb 2;97(3):195-9.

I will not list the thousands of animal studies that indicate vitamin D has a treatment effect on cancer as almost all of them studied activated vitamin D or its analogs, drugs that bypass normal regulatory mechanisms, cannot get autocrine quantities of the hormone into the cell, and that often cause hypercalcemia. However, Michael Holick's group found that simple vitamin D deficiency made cancers grow faster in mice. That is, vitamin D has a cancer treatment effect in vitamin D deficient mice. Professor Gary Schwartz, at Wake Forest, recently reviewed the reasons to think that vitamin D may have a treatment effect in cancer.

Tangpricha V, et al. Vitamin D deficiency enhances the growth of MC-26 colon cancer xenografts in Balb/c mice. J Nutr. 2005 Oct;135(10):2350-4.

Schwartz GG, Skinner HG. Vitamin D status and cancer: new insights. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2007 Jan;10(1):6-11.

Finally, one human interventional study exists. In 2005, in an open trial, Professor Reinhold Vieth and his colleagues found just 2,000 IU of vitamin D per day had a positive effect on PSA levels in men with prostate cancer.

Woo TC, et al. Pilot study: potential role of vitamin D (Cholecalciferol) in patients with PSA relapse after definitive therapy. Nutr Cancer. 2005;51(1):32-6.

So we come back to the crucial question. If you have cancer, how much vitamin D should you take, or, more precisely, what 25(OH)D level should you maintain? We don't know. You can correctly say that definitive studies have not been done and, incorrectly, conclude physicians treating cancer patients should do nothing. I say incorrectly because standards of medical practice have always demanded that doctors make reasonable decisions based on what is currently known, doing a risk/benefit analysis along the way to decide what is best for their patients based on what is known today. If a patient has a potentially fatal cancer, the doctor cannot dismiss a relatively benign potential treatment modality just because definitive studies have not been done, and passively watch his patient die. Standards of care require doctors consider what is known now, using information currently available, perform a risk/benefit analysis, and then act in the best interest of their patient.

Luckily, such doctors recently obtained some guidance. In the first study of its kind, Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina gave all of us something to think about. He asked and answered a simple question: How much vitamin D do you have to take to normalize the metabolism of vitamin D?

Remember, unlike other steroid hormones, vitamin D has very unusual metabolism in most modern humans, called first-order, mass action, kinetics. All this means is that the more vitamin D you take, the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, and the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, the higher the levels of activated vitamin D in your tissues. No other steroid hormone in the body behaves like this. Think about it, would you like your estrogen level to be dependent on how much cholesterol you ate? Or your cortisol level? (I'd ask the same about testosterone levels but I know men well enough not to ask.) No, the body must tightly regulate powerful steroid hormones through substrate inhibition, that is, if an enzyme turns A into B, when the body has enough B, B inhibits the enzyme and so limits its own production.

Not so with vitamin D, at least at modern human vitamin D levels. Professor Reinhold Vieth was the first to write about this and Vieth's Chapter 61 in Feldman, Pike, and Glorieux's wonderful textbook, Vitamin D (Elsevier, 2005, second edition), is a great reason to buy the textbook or have your library do so. [ I'm glad to see Amazon is out of stock of the new ones (someone must be reading about vitamin D) but you can still buy used editions.)

Why would the kinetics of vitamin D be different from all other steroids? Maybe they are not, Hollis reasoned, like Vieth before him. Maybe vitamin D levels are so low in modern humans that its metabolic system is on full blast all the time in an attempt to give the body all the vitamin D metabolites it craves. So Hollis asked, Is vitamin D's metabolism different in populations in the upper end of 25(OH)D levels (a population of sun-exposed people and a group of women prescribed 7,000 IU per day)? Note, the Hollis study is free on Medline, you can download the entire paper on the right hand of the PubMed page below.

Hollis BW, et al. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-4.

If you look at the two graphs, Figures 1 and 2 of Hollis' paper, you find vitamin D's kinetics can be normalized, made just like all other steroid hormones in the body, but you have to get enough sunshine or take enough vitamin D to get your 25(OH)D level above 50 ng/ml, and 60 ng/ml would be better. Then your body starts to store cholecalciferol in the body without much further increase in 25(OH)D levels. The reaction becomes saturable. This is a remarkable discovery and it implies levels of 30 and 40 ng/ml are usually not sufficient. It also implies actual vitamin D levels (cholecalciferol levels), not just 25(OH)D levels, may be useful in diagnosing and treating deficiency. Note, that not all of the sun-exposed individuals or women prescribed 7,000 IU/day achieved such levels. That's because the sun-exposed individuals were tested after an Hawaiian winter and because prescribing and taking are two different things.

So my answer to "How much should I take if I have cancer?" is "Take enough to get your 25(OH)D level above 60 ng/ml, summer and winter." In doing so, you will have normalized the kinetics of vitamin D and stored the parent compound, cholecalciferol, in your tissues. In the absence of sunshine, you need to take about 1,000 IU/day per 30 pounds of body weight to do this. A 150 pound cancer patient may need to take 5,000 IU per day, a 210 pound cancer patient about 7,000 IU per day, all this in the absence of sunlight. And this may not be enough; cancer patients may use it up faster (increased metabolic clearance) and children may do the same due to their young and vital enzymes. Or you may need less, because you get more sun than you think, more from your diet, or because you are taking a modern medicine that interferes with the metabolism of vitamin D. An even easier way to do it is go to a sun tanning booth every day and obtain and keep a dark, full-body, tan. Then you don't have to worry about blood levels but I'd get one anyway, just to be sure it was above 60 ng/ml.

Given what Hollis discovered, given the well-known potent anti-cancer properties of activated vitamin D, given epidemiological evidence that summer extends the life of cancer patients, given a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that vitamin D prolongs life, given animal data that simple vitamin D has a treatment effect on cancer, and given a patient with a life-threatening cancer, what would a reasonable physician do? Simply let their patient die while muttering something about the lack of randomized controlled trials?

No, they would simply check a 25(OH)D level every month and advise cancer patients to take enough vitamin D or frequent sun tanning parlors enough to keep their level above 60 ng/ml. Toxicity does not start until levels reach 150 ng/ml but if you take more than 2,000 IU per day have your doctor order a blood calcium every month or two along with the 25(OH)D. Both you and he will feel better and because if you have cancer, you are probably taking lots of other drugs and little is known about how modern drugs interact with vitamin D metabolism. By getting your level above 60 ng/ml, all you are doing is getting your level to where most lifeguards' levels are at the end of summer, to levels our ancestors had when they lived in the sun, to levels regular users of sun-tan parlors levels achieve, and most importantly, to levels where vitamin D's pharmacokinetics are normalized.

In the end, if you have cancer and your physician won't do a risk/benefit analysis, do it yourself. The risk side of that equation is easy. Both Quest Diagnostics and Lab-Corp, the two largest reference labs in the USA, report the upper limit of 25(OH)D normal is 100 ng/ml and toxic is above 150 ng/ml, so 60 ng/ml is well below both. The reason levels up to 100 ng/ml are published normals is because there is no credible evidence in the literature that levels of 100 ng/ml do any harm and because sun worshipers often have such levels. (If you don't believe me, go to the beach in the summer for one month, sunbath every day for 30 minutes on each side in your bathing suit, and go home and have a 25(OH)D level.) By getting your level above 60 ng/ml, all you are doing is getting your levels into the mid to upper range of laboratory reference normals. Little or no risk.

What are the potential benefits? It probably depends on a number of things. Did your cancer cells retain the enzyme that activates vitamin D? Many do. Did your cancer cells retain the vitamin D receptor? Many do. If your cancer cells get more substrate [25(OH)D], will that substrate induce the cancer cells to make more vitamin D receptors or more of the activating enzyme? Some cancer cells do both. In practical terms, vitamin D is theoretically more likely to help your cancer the earlier you start taking it. However, no one knows. Certainly there is no reason, other than bad medicine, for cancer patients to die vitamin D deficient. Unfortunately, most do.

Tangpricha V, et al. Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in patients attending an outpatient cancer care clinic in Boston. Endocr Pract. 2004 May-Jun;10(3):292-3.

Plant AS, Tisman G. Frequency of combined deficiencies of vitamin D and holotranscobalamin in cancer patients. Nutr Cancer. 2006;56(2):143-8.

It is very important that readers understand I am not suggesting vitamin D cures cancer or that it replace standard cancer treatment. Oncologists perform miracles every day. Do what they say. The only exception is vitamin D. If your oncologist tells you not to take vitamin D, ask him three questions. 1) How do you convert ng/mls to nmol/Ls? How many IU in a nonogram? 3) How do you spell "cholecalciferol?" If he doesn't know how to measure it, weigh it, or spell it, chances are he doesn't know much about it.

All of the epidemiological and animal studies in the literature suggest cancer patients will prolong their lives if they take vitamin D. I can't find any studies that indicate otherwise. However, none of the suggestive studies are randomized controlled interventional trials; they are all epidemiological or animal studies, or, in the case of Vieth's, an open human study. However, if you have cancer, or your child does, do you want to wait the decades it will take for the American Cancer Society to fund randomized controlled trials using the proper dose of vitamin D? Chances are you, or your child, will not be around to see the results.

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. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:

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

PS: The Vitamin D Council lost our webmaster. If you want to donate your time to a good cause, know all about maintaining websites, are interesting in keeping up with the latest press about vitamin D, and are willing to do so for free, please hit reply and let me know. We currently have $405.52 in our bank account so we cannot pay you now but may be able to pay you in the future.

Let me paint a picture:

A 78-year old woman, tired and bent. She's lost an inch and a half of her original height because of collapse of several vertebra in her spine over the years, leaving her with a "dowager's hump," a stooped position that many older women assume with advanced osteoporosis. It's also left her with chronic back pain.

(Image courtesy of National Library of Medicine)

This poor woman also has arthritis in her knees, hips, and spine. All three locations add to her pain.

She also has hypertension, a high blood sugar approaching diabetes, and distortions of cholesterol values, including a low HDL and high triglycerides.

Look inside: On a simple x-ray, we see that the bones of her body are unusually transparent, with just a thin rim of bone at the outer edges, depleted of calcium. Weight-bearing bones like the spine, hips, and knees have eroded and collapsed.

On an echocardiogram of her heart (ultrasound), she has dense calcium surrounding her mitral valve ("mitral anular calcium"), a finding that rarely impairs the valve itself but is a marker for heightened potential for heart attack and other adverse events. Her aortic valve, another of the four heart valves, is also loaded with calcium. In the aortic valve, unlike the mitral valve, the collection of calcium makes the valve struggle to open, causing a murmur. The valve is rigid and can barely open to less than half of its original opening width.

If a heart scan were performed, we'd see the coronary calcification, along with calcification of the aorta, and the mitral and aortic valves.

Obviously, it's not a pretty picture. It is, however, a typical snapshot of an average 78-year old woman, or any other elderly man or woman, for that matter.

This collection of arthritis, osteoporosis, coronary and valve calcification, high blood pressure, abnormal cholesterol patterns, and pain is not unusual by any stretch. Perhaps you even recognize someone you know in this description. Perhaps it's you.

Look at this list again. Does it seem familiar? I'd say that the common factor that ties these seemingly unrelated conditions together is chronic and severe deficiency of vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency leads to arthritis, osteoporosis, coronary and valve calcification, high blood pressure, abnormal cholesterol patterns, and pain.

Should we go so far as to proclaim that aging, or at least many of the undesirable phenomena of aging, are really just manifestations of vitamin D deficiency? I would propose that much of aging is really deficiency of vitamin D, chronic and severe, in its end stages.

My colleagues might propose a 30- or 40-year long randomized trial, one designed to test whether vitamin D or placebo makes any difference.

Can you wait?

Here's a fascinating e-mail we received recently. It came from a man in Hawaii who dropped his heart scan score a modest amount, but did it in two months using fasting. He also has the advantage of access to the Holistica Hawaii scan center with our friend, Dr. Roger White. His experience is so fascinating that we asked for his permission to reprint his story which he did enthusiastically.

So here is Don's story:

I am a 61 year old male with a history of heart disease in my family. My maternal grandfather, for instance, died at age 39 of a
heart attack and my mother died of a stroke. There are other instances in my family as well.

I, personally, before going to Holistica had had three heart procedures; one radio catheter ablation for WPW Syndrome, and two radio catheter ablations for atrial fibrilations. After suffering with WPW for over 30 years and A-Fibs for about a year, those issues seem to be behind me fortunately.

Three or four months back, however, I was suffering from shortness of breath and slight chest pains when doing the uphill part of a 5 mile walk that I do almost every day. My wife had had a coronary heart scan several years back at Holistica so that's how I knew about it.

I had a scan done on October 4th this year. The scan did show fairly
advanced plaque build up; my total coronary plague burden was
312.9. The day following the scan I felt absolutely terrible; lightheaded, weak, much like feeling you were at death's door.

I had read a book a number of years back about therapeutic fasting
(water only) called "Fasting and Eating for Health" by Dr. Joel
Furhman.

According to his book, one on the areas where he consistently has dramatic and quick results with fasting is with reducing arterial plaque. Based on how badly I was feeling at the time, I decided to start an immediate fast. Within just the first 24 hours, the relief was dramatic and amazing. I continued the water only fast for 3 weeks.

Yesterday, December 1st I went in for another cardio scan instead of the coronary angiogram that I had previously been scheduled for. I could tell they were a little confused why I was doing that but went ahead and did another coronary EBT scan.

When I went in for the doctor consultation, Dr. McGriff said, "OK, exactly what is it you've done since last time." In less than two months, my coronary plaque burden had dropped to 296.2. That's a 6% reduction in less than 2 months. Had I gone back in for the second scan right after my 3 week fast then it probably would have a 6%
reduction in less than a month.

Frankly, based on how good I've been feeling (I'm even thinking of
getting back into jogging instead of walking), I was surprised it was
only 6%. Based on the common experience, however, that it sometimes
takes a year or two to just stabilize your plaque increase, much less
actually start losing it, the doctor was truly startled and
surprised. He said he had never seen such a sudden reduction as that
before!

We are still going to proceed with the coronary angiogram and I
intend to apply what I find in your book but I thought you might be interested in these results since I've never heard or read of anyone actually measuring the effectiveness of a fast with before and after EBT Scans.

I admire your direction and work focusing on prevention instead of catastrophic management like most doctors. Dr. Fuhrman is very much the same with the greatest attention on prevention so if you haven't heard of his book you might be interested. Especially interesting regarding this particular issue is Chapter 5 entitled, "The Road Back to a Healthy Heart-the Natural Way."

I can personally verify everything he has said about the fasting procedure itself from start to finish. I consider his book the Bible about fasting. As I mentioned, given your similar direction in medicine, I thought I would bring my personal experience on the matter to your attention for your consideration. Maybe in a future edition of your book, you might want to include some information on fasting.

Anyhow, I hope you will find this helpful. Any other questions,
don't hesitate to e-mail back. Please keep up your good work and
thanks for what your doing!

Yours truly,

Don P.
Honolulu, Hawaii

Isn't that great?

Now, in all honesty, a change of 6% could conceivably be within the margin of error for heart scanning. (Although several studies from a number of years ago suggested that variation in heart scan scoring was about 10%, sometimes more, in my experience, on EBT devices like the one Don used, variation is <5% at this score range.) Genuine regression would probably be better documented by yet another scan down the road. If the trend is consistent, then it is probably real.

Nonetheless, Don's story may support we've been saying for some time: Fasting is a rapid method to gain control over plaque--but I didn't know it might be that quick! Perhaps Don is a living example of what I've called "instant" heart disease reversal.

Don is potentially off to a good start. But, unless he can periodically repeat his fast, he will still have to engage in a program that allows continuing control over coronary plaque in between fasts. Also, fasting cannot address issues like vitamin D deficiency, lipoprotein(a), and any residual lipid/lipoprotein issues. But I am continually impressed with the power of fasting to "jump start" a program of heart disease reversal.

It would be a fascinating study to perform, with serial heart scans within brief periods of weeks or months to gauge rapid response. However, we need to keep in mind that as wonderful as heart scans are, they do involve modest radiation exposure.

It might be interesting in future to add a fasting "arm" to the virtual clinical trial. That might yield some great insights.

Copyright 2007 William Davis,MD

This continues a series I've begun recently that discusses studies that have emerged over the past 10 years relevant to heart scan scoring and reversal of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

The St. Francis Heart Study from St. Francis Hospital, Roslyn, New York, was released in 2005. This was yet another study that set out to determine whether Lipitor exerted a slowing effect on coronary calcium scores. This time, Lipitor (atorvastatin), 20 mg per day, was combined with vitamin C 1 g daily, and vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) 1,000 U daily, vs. placebo. A total of 1,005 asymptomatic men and women, age 50 to 70 years, with coronary calcium scores 80th percentile or higher for age and gender
participated in the study.

After four years, heart scan scores in the placebo group increased 73%, compared to 81% in the treatment group. Statistically, the cocktail of drug, vitamins C and E had no effect on heart scan scores.

Other findings included:

--Participants experiencing heart attack and other events during the study showed greater progression of scores than those not experiencing heart attack: score increase of 256 vs. increase of 120.

--While treatment did not reduce the number of heart attacks and events overall, participants with starting heart scan scores >400 did show a benefit: 8.7% with events on treatment (20 of 229) vs. 15.0% with placebo (36 of 240).

(Note what is missing from the treatment regimen: efforts to raise HDL (starting average HDL 51 mg/dl); reduce triglycerides (starting average 140 mg/dl); identify those whose LDL was false elevated by lipoprotein(a); omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil; correction of other factors like vitamin D deficiency.)

Are we pretty in agreement that just taking Lipitor and following an American Heart Association low-fat diet is an unsatisfactory answer to gain control over coronary plaque growth? No slowing of heart scan score growth seen in the St. Francis Heart Study and similar studies is consistent with the 25-30% reductions in heart attack witnessed in large clinical trials. Yes, heart attack and related events are reduced, but not eliminated--not even close.

And when you think about it, it should come as no surprise that the simple strategy studied in the St. Francis Heart Study failed to completely control plaque growth. Lipitor and statin drugs exert no effect on small LDL particles, barely raise HDL cholesterol at all, and have no effect on Lp(a), factors that increase heart scan scores substantially.

Though these discussions have frightened some people because of the suggestion that increasing heart scan scores are inevitable and unavoidable, they shouldn't. It really should not be at all shocking to learn that taking one drug all by itself should cure coronary heart disease.

Instead, findings like those of the St. Francis study should cause us to ask: What could be done better? How can we better impact on heart scan scores and how can we further reduce heart attack, particularly in people with higher heart scan scores?

My answer has been the Track Your Plaque program, a comprehensive effort to 1) address all causes of coronary plaque, and then 2) correct all the causes.

There are only two books on heart scans available.

One, of course, is Track Your Plaque.

The other is the basic book on heart scans, What Does My Heart Scan Show?

Lost in the navigation column to the left on this blog is the link to get the electronic version of the book. In case you didn't know, we make this available for free.

If you're interested, just go here. This book can provide many basic answers to the questions that often arise regarding heart scans, such as the expected rate of increase in score, how your score compares to other people, when should a stress test be considered. Many heart scan centers use this book for educational purposes to help patients understand the importance of their heart scan scores.

(The sign-up for the book requires that an e-mail address be entered.)

The hard copy of What Does My Heart Scan Show? is available from Amazon, also, for $12.99.

In the last Heart Scan Blog post, I discussed the question of whether statin drugs provide incremental benefit when excellent lipid values are already achieved without drugs.

But I admit that I was guilty of oversimplification.

One peculiar phenomenon is that, when plaque-causing small LDL particles are reduced or eliminated and leave relatively benign large LDL particles in their place, conventional calculated LDL overestimates true LDL.

In other words, eliminate wheat from your diet, lose 25 lbs. Small LDL is reduced as a result, leaving large LDL. Now the LDL cholesterol from your doctor's office overestimates the true value.

Anne raised this issue in her comment on the discussion:

I eliminated wheat - and all grains - from my diet nearly three years ago (I eat low carb Paleo). My fish oils give me a total of 1680 mg EPA and DHA per day, and my vitamin D levels since last year have varied between 50 ng/ml and 80 ng/ml. However, my lipid profile is not like either John's or Sam's:

LDL cholesterol 154 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 93 mg/dl
Triglycerides 36 mg/dl
Total cholesterol 255 mg/dl

My cardiologist and endocrinologist are happy with my profile because they say the ratios are good, no one is asking me to take a statin. My calcium score is 0.

However, if we were to measure LDL, not just calculate it from the miserably inaccurate Friedewald equation, we would likely discover that her true LDL is far lower, certainly <100 mg/dl. (My preferred method is the bull's eye accurate NMR LDL particle number; alternatives include apoprotein B, the main apoprotein on LDL.)

So Anne, don't despair. You are yet another victim of the misleading inaccuracy of standard LDL cholesterol determination, a number that I believe should no longer be used at all, but eliminated. Unfortunately, it would further confuse your poor primary care doctor or cardiologist, who--still believe in the sanctity of LDL cholesterol.

By the way, the so-called "ratios" (i.e., total cholesterol to HDL and the like) are absurd notions of risk. Take weak statistical predictors, manipulate them, and try to squeeze better predictive value out of them. This is no better than suggesting that, since you've installed new brakes on your car, you no longer are at risk for a car accident. It may reduce risk, but there are too many other variables that have nothing to do with your new brakes. Likewise cholesterol ratios.

Despite all the hoopla heart disease receives in the media, I continue to marvel at how many people I meet who still think that aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet constitute an effective heart attack prevention program.

It doesn't. No more than washing your hands prevents all human infections. It helps, but it is a sad substitute for a real prevention program.

Of course, aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet is the same recipe followed by the unfortunate Tim Russert and his doctors. You know how that turned out. Mr. Russert's experience is far from unique.

What is so magical about aspirin, Lipitor and a low-fat diet?

There is a simple rationale behind this approach. Aspirin doesn't reduce atherosclerotic plaque growth, but it inhibits the propagation of a blood clot on top of a coronary plaque that has "ruptured," thereby reducing likelihood of heart attack (which occurs when the clot fills the artery). So aspirin only provides benefit if and when a plaque ruptures.

Lipitor and other statin drugs reduce LDL cholesterol, promote a modest relaxation of constricted plaque-filled arteries (normalization of endothelial dysfunction), and exerts other effects, such as inflammation suppression.

A low-fat diet is intended to reduce saturated fat that triggers LDL cholesterol formation and to encourage intake of whole grains that reduce cardiovascular events and LDL cholesterol.

If that is the extent of your heart disease prevention program, you will have a heart attack, bypass surgery, or stent--period. It may not be tomorrow or next Friday, or even next month. Aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet may delay your heart attack or procedure for a few years, but it will not stop it.

Some flaws in the aspirin, Lipitor, low-fat program:

--Aspirin can only exert so much blood clot-blocking effect. It can be overwhelmed by many other factors, such as increased blood viscosity, increased fibrinogen (a blood clotting protein that also triggers plaque), and plaque inflammation.
--Lipitor reduces LDL, but does not discriminate between the relatively harmless large LDL and the truly plaque-triggering small LDL--it reduces all LDL, but small LDL can still persist, even at extravagant levels since neither aspirin nor Lipitor specifically reduces small LDL, while a low-fat diet increases small LDL.
--Low-fat diet--A diet reduced in fat and loaded with plenty of "healthy whole grains" will trigger increased small LDL (an enormous effect), c-reactive protein, high blood sugar, resistance to insulin, high blood pressure, and an expanding abdomen ("wheat belly").

Aspirin, Lipitor and a low-fat diet do not address:

--Vitamin D deficiency
--Omega-3 fatty acid deficiency and the eicosanoid path to inflammation
--High triglycerides
--Small LDL particles
--Distortions of HDL "architecture"
--Lipoprotein(a)--the worst coronary risk factor nobody's heard of
--Thyroid status

In other words, the simple-minded, though hugely financially successful, conventional model of heart disease prevention is woefully inadequate.

Don't fall for it.

Who is better off?

John takes Crestor, 40 mg per day:

LDL cholesterol 60 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 60 mg/dl
Triglycerides 60 mg/dl
Total cholesterol 132 mg/dl

Or Sam:

LDL cholesterol 60 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 60 mg/dl
Triglycerides 60 mg/dl
Total cholesterol 132 mg/dl

who obtained these values through vitamin D normalization (to increase HDL); wheat elimination (to reduce triglycerides and LDL); and omega-3 fatty acids (to reduce triglycerides).

Believe the drug industry (motto: If some statin is good, more statin is better!), then John is clearly better off: He has obtained all the "benefits" of statin drugs. They refer to the "pleiotropic" effects of statin drugs, the presumed benefits that extend outside of cholesterol reduction. The most recent example are the JUPITER data that demonstrated 55% reduction in cardiovascular events in people with increased c-reactive protein (CRP). Media reports now unashamedly gush at the benefits of Crestor to reduce inflammation.

However, on Sam's program, elimination of wheat and vitamin D both exert anti-inflammatory effects on CRP, typically yielding drops of 70-90%--consistently, rapidly, and durably.

So which approach is really better?

In my experience, there is no comparison: Sam is far better off. While John will reduce his cardiovascular risk with a statin drug, he fails to obtain all the other benefits of Sam's broader, more natural program. John will not enjoy the same cancer protection, osteoporosis and arthritis protection, relief from depression and winter "blues," and increased mental and physical performance that Sam will.

If our goal is dramatic correction of cholesterol patterns and reduction of cardiovascular risk, for many, many people statin drugs are simply not necessary.

If there's something out there on the market for weight loss, we've tried it. By we, I mean myself along with many people and patients around me willing to try various new strategies.

Maybe you say: "Well that's not a clinical trial. How can we know that there aren't small effects?"

Who cares about small effects? If a weight loss strategy causes you to lose 1.2 lbs over 3 months--who cares? Sure, it may count towards a slight measure of health in a 230 lb 5 ft 3 inch woman. But it is insufficient to engage that person's interest and keep them on track. That little result, in fact, will discourage interest in weight loss and cause someone to return to previous behaviors.

What I'm talking about is BIG weight loss--20 lbs the first month, 40 lbs over 4 months, 50-60 lbs over 6 months.

Right now, there are only three things that I know of that yield such enormous effects:

1) Elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars

2) Thyroid normalization (I don't mean following what the laboratory says is "normal")

3) Intermittent fasting

Combine all three in various ways and the results are accelerated even more.

It can't happen.

People are too stupid/ignorant/lazy or simply don't care.

It is irresponsible. People will misuse, abuse, misdiagnose, fail to recognize all manner of medical conditions.

It's all true. Most of the medical establishment believes it. And it is self-fulfulling: If you believe it, it will happen.

But it's not true for everybody. If readers of this blog, for instance, were to view the conversations we have in our Track Your Plaque Forum, you would immediately recognize that we have a following that is more sophisticated and knowledgeable about coronary heart disease than 90% of cardiologists. That is really something. Perhaps they can't put in a stent or defibrillator, but they understand an enormous amount about this disease we are all trying to control and reverse, sufficient to seize control over much of their own healthcare for this process and related conditons.

Anyway, self-directed health is already here. And it's happening on an incredible scale.

Witness:

--Nutritional supplements--Now a $21 billion (annual revenues) phenomenon, booming sales of nutritional supplements are a powerful testimonial to the enthuasiasm of the public for self-directed health treatments. Sure, there are plenty of junk supplements out there, but there are also many spectacularly effective products. Information, not marketing, will help tell the difference. Over the long-run, the truth will win out.

The 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act has allowed the definition of “nutritional supplement” to be stretched to the limit. "Nutritional supplements" includes obviously non-nutritional (though still potentially interesting) products like the hormones pregnenolone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), and melatonin to be sold on the same shelf as vitamin C. There are also amino acids, polysaccharides, minerals and trace minerals, herbal preparations, flavonoids, carotenoids, antioxidants, phytonutrients.

In fact, I believe that the nutritional supplement pipeline is likely to yield far more exciting and effective products than the drug research pipeline! And you will have access to all of it--without your doctor's involvement.

--Self-ordered laboratory testing--In every state except New York and California, an individual can obtain his or her own laboratory testing. New services are appearing to service this consumer segment. As more people become frustrated with the silly gatekeeping function of their primary care physician and as more people gain more control over some of their healthcare dollars through medical savings accounts, flex-spending, and high-deductible health insurance, more are shopping for cost-saving, self-ordered lab testing. Even at-home lab tests are becoming available, such as ZRT Lab tests we make available through Track Your Plaque.

(In California, a doctor's order, or an order from a health professional allowed to prescribe, is still required which, for most people, is just a formality. Just ask your doctor to sign the form with the tests you'd like. Only the most cretinous of physicians will refuse, in which case you should say goodbye. New York is the only state in the U.S. that still dunks women to see if they float, divines the entrails of sacrificial cows, and prohibits lab self-testing.)

--Self-ordered medical imaging--Heart scans, full body scans; ultrasound screening for abdominal aneurysms, carotid disease, osteoporosis such as that offered by LifeLine Screening (who does a great job). There's plenty of room here for entrepreneurial types to develop new services, though there will also be battles to fight with hospitals, radiologists, and others invested in the status quo. But it is happening and it will grow.

(By the way, since I've previously been accused of making bundles of money from medical imaging: I have never--NEVER--owned and do not currently own any medical imaging facility.)

So the question is not "will it happen?" It is already happening. The question is how fast will it grow to include a larger segment of the public? How much more of conventional healthcare can it include? How can we develop better unbiased information sources, untainted by marketing, that guide people through the maze of choices?

Is it yet time to fire your doctor?

I advocate a model of self-directed health, a style of healthcare in which individuals have the right to direct his or her own healthcare with only the occasional assistance of a physician or healthcare provider.

Healthcare would not be the first industry that converted to such a self-directed model. Remember travel agents? Only 15 years ago, making travel plans meant calling your travel agent to book your arrangements. This was a flawed system, because they worked on commission, thereby impairing incentive to search for the best prices. You were, in effect, at their mercy.

The investment industry is another such example, though on a larger scale.

Up until the 1980s, individual investment was managed by a stockbroker or other money manager. Stockbrokers, analysts, and investment houses commanded the flow of investment in stocks, options, futures, commodities, etc. Individuals lacked access to the methods and knowledge that allowed them to manage their own portfolios. Individuals had no choice but to engage the services of a professional investor. This was also a flawed system. Like travel agents, stockbrokers worked on commission. We've all heard horror stories in which stockbrokers churned accounts, making thousands of dollars in commissions while their clients' portfolios shrunk.

That has all changed.

Today, the process has largely converted to discount brokers and online services used by individuals trading and managing their own portfolios. Stockbrokers and investment houses continue, of course, but are competing for a shrinking piece of the individual investment market. Independent investors now have access to investment tools that didn’t even exist 20 years ago. Companies like E-Trade and Ameritrade now command annual revenues of approximately $2 billion each.

Travel agents, stockbrokers . . . is healthcare next? Can we convert from the paternalistic, “I’m-the-doctor, you’re the patient” relationship to what in which you self-direct your own healthcare and turn to the healthcare system only in unique situations?

I believe that the same revolution that shook the investment industry in the 1980s will seize healthcare in the future. In fact, the transition to self-directed health will dwarf its investing counterpart. It will ripple more broadly through the fabric of American life. Health is a more complicated “product,” with more complex modes of delivery, and more varied levels of need than the investment industry.

I predict that the emergence of health directed by the individual, just as the emergence of self-directed investment, will dominate in the coming years.

While I hope you've already fired your stockbroker, and I doubt that anyone on the internet still uses a travel agent, I wouldn't yet fire your doctor altogether. But I believe that we are approaching a time in which you should begin to take control over your own health and begin to reduce reliance on doctors, drugs, and hospitals.

Here's a graphic demonstration of the power of wheat elimination to reduce small LDL particles, now the number one cause for heart disease in the U.S.

Lee had suffered a stroke due to an atherosclerotic plaque in a brain artery. She also had plenty of coronary plaque with a heart scan score of 322.

Lee began with an LDL particle number (the "gold standard" for measuring LDL, far superior to conventional calculated LDL) of 2234 nmol/L. This is exceptionally high, the equivalent of an LDL cholesterol of 223 mg/dl (drop the last digit). Of this 2234 nmol/L, 90% were abnormally small, with 1998 nmol/L of small LDL particles.

Lee eliminated wheat products from her diet, as well as cutting out sugars and cornstarch. Six months later, her results:

LDL particle number: 1082 nmol/L--a 52% reduction from the starting value and equivalent to an LDL of 108 mg/dl. Small LDL: zero--yes, zero.

In other words, 100% of Lee's LDL particles had shifted to the more benign large LDL simply with elimination of these foods---NO statin drug. (In addition to wheat elimination, she was also taking vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids at our recommended doses.)

While not everybody responds quite so vigorously due to genetic variation, nor does everyone try as hard as Lee did to eliminate the foods that trigger small LDL, her case provides a great illustration of the power of this strategy.

The notion of buying food locally--"buy local"--i.e., food produced in your area, state, or region, is catching on.

And for good reason: Not only do you support your local economy, buying locally saves energy, since food doesn't have to be transported from South America or other faraway locations.

But what about those of us in the Midwest, particularly around the Great Lakes basin, i.e., the region previously known as the "goiter belt"? In the early 20th century, up to a third of the residents of this region had enlarged thyroid glands, or goiters, due to iodine deficiency. Lack of iodine causes the thyroid to enlarge, or "hypertrophy," in an effort to more efficiently extract any available iodine in the blood.

Well, there's been a resurgence of iodine deficiency nationwide with 11.3% of the population severely deficient, representing a four-fold increase since the 1970s.

Why an iodine deficiency? Because more people are avoiding iodized salt, the principal source of iodine for Americans since the FDA introduced its voluntary program for iodization of table salt back in 1924. Approximately 90% of the patients I ask now declare that they use very little iodized table salt. While a few take multimineral or multivitamin supplements that contain iodine, the majority do not. The globalization of the food supply--eat global--however, has softened the blow, since we eat tomatoes from Mexico, blueberries from Argentina, lettuce from the Salinas Valley of California.

Now, we have the growing trend to eat local. In the Midwest, it means that the vegetables, fruits, and meats grown locally will also be iodine depleted, since the soil is also iodine-poor, being so far from the sea.

Ironically, two healthy trends--avoiding salt and eating local--will be accounting for a surge in unsightly neck bulges in the Midwest, as well as an increase in thyroid disease.

The lesson: Avoid salt, eat local, but mind your iodine.

Is there an at-home test you can do to gauge thyroid status?

Yes. Measure your temperature.

Unlike a snake or alligator that relies on the sun or its surroundings to regulate body temperature, you and I can internally regulate temperature. The hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid glands are the organs involved in thermoregulation, body temperature regulation. While the system can break down anywhere in the sequence, as well as in other organs (e.g., adrenal), the thyroid is the weak link in the chain.

Thus, temperature assessment can serve as a useful gauge of thyroid adequacy. Unfortunately, temperature measurement as a reflection of thyroid function has not been well explored in clinical studies. It has also been subject to a good deal of unscientific discussions.

How should temperature be measured? The temperature you really desire is between 3 am and 6 am, while still asleep. However, this is difficult to do, since it would require your bed partner to surreptitiously insert a thermometer into some body orifice without disturbing you. A practical solution is to measure temperature first upon arising in the morning, before drinking water, coffee, making the bed, etc.--immediately.

While traditionalists (followers of Dr. Broda Barnes, who first suggested that temperature reflects thyroid function) still advocate axillary (armpit) temperatures, in 2009 it is clear that axillary temperatures are unreliable. Axillary temperatures are inconsistent, vary substantially with the clothing you wear, vary from right to left armpit, ambient temperature, sweat or lack of sweat, and other factors. It also can commonly be 2-3 degrees Fahrenheit below internal ("core") temperature and does not track with internal temperatures through the circadian rhythms of the day (high temperature early evening, lowest temperature 3-6 am).

Rectal, urine, esophageal, tympanic membrane (ear), and forehead are other means to measure body temperature, but are either inconvenient (rectal) or require correction factors to track internal temperature (e.g., forehead and ear). For these reasons, we use oral temperatures. Oral temperatures (on either side of the underside of the tongue) are convenient, track reasonably well with internal temperatures, and are familiar to most people.

Though there are scant data on the distribution of oral temperatures correlated to thyroid function, we find that the often-suggested cutoff of 97.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 36.4 C, seems to track well with symptoms and thyroid laboratory evaluation (TSH, free T3, and free T4). In other words, oral temp <97.6 F correlates well with symptoms of fatigue, cold hands and feet, mental fogginess, along with high LDL cholesterol, all corrected or improved with thyroid replacement and return of temperature to 97.6 F.

But be careful: There are many factors that can influence oral temperature, including clothing, season, level of fitness, "morningness" (morning people) vs. "nightness" (night owls), relation to menstrual cycle, concurrent medical conditions.

Also, be sure that your thermometer can detect low temperatures. Just because it shows low temperatures of, say 94.0 degrees F, doesn't mean that it can really measure that low. If in doubt, dip your thermometer in cold water for one minute. If an improbable temperature is registered, say, 97.0 F, then you know that your device is incapable of detecting low temps.

A full in-depth Special Report on thermoregulation will be coming soon on the Track Your Plaque website.

If you're a Track Your Plaque Member or viewer, you may know that we have resisted outside commercial involvement. We do not run advertising on the site, we do not allow drug companies to post ads, we do not covertly sponsor supplements. We do this to main the unbiased content of the site.

We've seen too many sites be tempted by the money offered by a drug company only to see content gradually drift towards providing nothing more than cleverly concealed drug advertising. I personally find this deceptive and disgusting. Ads are ads and everyone knows it. But when you subvert content, secretly driven by a commercial agenda, that I find abhorrent.

That said, however, I do wonder if we need the participation of some outside commercial interests to help our members. In other words, many (over half) of the questions and conversations we have with people is about what supplement to take, or what medication to take. While we cannot offer direct medical advice online (nor should we) because of legal and ethical restrictions, I wonder if could facilitate access to products.

Many people struggle, for instance, with trusted sources for l-arginine, vitamin D, fish oil. Other people struggle with finding a heart scan center because of the changing landscape of the CT scanning industry. Could we somehow provide a clear-cut segment of the website that clearly demarcates what is commercial and non-Track Your Plaque-originated, yet at least provides a starting place for more info?

Ideally, we would have personally tried and investigated everything there is out there applicable to the program. But that's simply impossible at this stage.

I feel strongly that we will never run conventional ads on the site. Nor will we ever permit any outside commercial interest to dictate what and how we say something. The internet world is full of places like that. Look at WebMD. I find the site embarassing in the degree of commercial bias there. We will NEVER sell out like that, regardless of the temptation. People with heart disease are all conducting a war with the commercial forces working to profit from them--hospitals, cardiologists, drug companies, medical device companies (yes, even they advertise to the public, e.g., implantable defibrillators--no kidding). Genuine, honest, unbiased information is sorely needed and not from some kook who either knows nothing about real people with real disease, or has a hidden agenda like selling you chelation.

I'd welcome any feedback either through this Blog or through the contact@cureality.com.

A conversation about vitamin K2 commonly leads to confusion. Several people have asked about something called nattokinase.

The scientific data on the potential role of vitamin K2 deficiency in causing both osteoporosis and vascular calcification is fascinating. Along with vitamin D3, vitamin K2 may be an important factor in regulation of calcium metabolism. Supplementation may prove to be a major strategy for inhibition of vascular calcification.

Obtaining K2 in the diet is tricky, since it's present in just a handful of foods: egg yolks, liver, traditional cheeses, and natto. This is where the confusion starts.

Natto is a Japanese fermented soy product. I've had it and it's quite disgusting. Nonetheless, Japanese who eat natto experience less fracture. (A parallel study in heart disease has not been performed.) Natto is also a source of another substance called nattokinase.

Advocates (otherwise often known as supplement distributors) claim that nattokinase is a "fibrinolytic", or blood clot-dissolving, preparation that "improves blood flow, protects from blood clots, and prevents heart attacks and strokes."

Don't you believe it. This is patent nonsense. There are several problems with this rationale:

--Any oral fibrinolytic agent is promptly degraded in the highly acid environment of the stomach. That's why all medically used fibrinolytics are given intravenously. Drug companies have struggled for years to encapsulate, modify, or somehow protect protein (or polypeptide) products taken orally from degrading this way. They've never succeeded. That's why, for instance, growth hormone (a polypeptide) remains an injection, not an oral agent. An oral growth hormone, by the way, would sell like mad, so the drug companies would very much like to figure out how to bypass the degradative effects of stomach acid. One of the "researchers" behind the nattokinase claims boasts that he has single-handedly figured out how to protect the nattokinase molecule in the gastrointestinal tract. However, he won't tell anybody how he does it. Right.

--Fibrinolytic agents are extremely dangerous. In years past, we used to treat heart attacks with intravenous fibrinolytic agents like tissue plasminogen activator, urokinase, streptokinase, and others. They have fallen by the wayside, for the most part, because of limited effectiveness and the unavoidable dangers of their use. Fibrinolytics are "dumb": they dissolve blood clots in both good places and bad. While they might dissolve the blood clot causing your heart attack, they also degrade the tiny clot in your cerebral (brain) circulation that was protective. That's why fatal brain hemorrhages, bleeding stomach ulcers, and blood oozing from strange places can also occur with fibrinolytic administration. Believe me, I've seen it happen, and I've watched people die from them.

The idea that a small dose taken orally is healthy is ridiculous. Even if nattokinase worked, why the heck would you take an agent that has known dangerous and very real consequences?

Don't let this idiocy reflect poorly on the K2 conversation, which, I believe, holds real merit and is backed by legitimate science. This is symptomatic of a larger difficulty with the supplement industry: Insane and unfounded claims about one supplement erodes credibility for the entire industry. It gives regulation-crazed people like the FDA ammunition to go after supplements, something none of us need. You and I have to sift through the nonsense to uncover the real gems in this rockpile, real gems like vitamin D3, omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, and, perhaps, vitamin K2. But not nattokinase.

Here's a frequently neglected cause for an increasing CT heart scan score: High blood pressure with exercise. Let me explain.

Paul's blood pressure at rest, sitting in the office or on arising in the morning, or at other relatively peaceful moments: 110/75 to 130/80--all in the conventional normal range.

We put Paul on the treadmill for a stress test. At 10 mets of effort (on the protocol used, this means 3.4 mph treadmill speed at 14 degree incline), Paul's blood pressure skyrockets to 220/105. That's really high.

Now, blood pressure is expected to increase with exercise. If it doesn't rise, that's abnormal and may, in fact, be a sign of danger. Normally, blood pressure should rise gradually in a stepwise fashion with increasing levels of exercise. But any blood pressure exceeding 170/90 is clearly too high with exercise. (Not to be confused with high blood pressures not involving exercise.) A handful of studies have suggested that a "breakpoint" of 170/90 also predicts heightened risk of heart attack over a long period.)

I see this phenomenon frequently--normal blood pressure at rest, high with exercise. This also suggests that when Paul is stressed, upset, in traffic congestion, under pressure at work, etc., his blood pressure is high during those periods, as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see other phenomena of underappreciated high blood pressure, like abnormally thick heart muscle (left ventricular hypertrophy), an enlarged thoracic aorta (visible on your heart scan), left atrium, perhaps even an abnormal EKG or abnormal kidney function (evidenced by an elevated creatinine on a standard blood panel).

Unfortunately, the treatments that reduce blood pressure are "stupid," i.e., they have no appreciation for what you are doing and they reduce blood pressure all the time, whether or not you're stressed, exercising, or sleeping.

Blood pressure reduction should begin with weight loss, exercise, reduction of saturated fats and processed carbohydrates (esp. wheat), magnesium replacement, vitamin D replacement. Think about CoQ10. After this, blood pressure medication might be necessary.

The message: Watch out for the blood pressures when you have a stress test. Or, if you have a friend who is adept at getting blood pressures, get a blood pressure immediately upon ceasing exercise. It should be no higher than 170/90.

An interesting question came up on the Track Your Plaque Member Forum about vitamin D2 vs. vitamin D3. This often comes up among our patients, as well.

Vitamin D is measured in the blood as 25-OH-vitamin D and is distinct from 1,25-diOH-vitamin D, a kidney measure, a test you do not need unless you have kidney failure.

The human form of vitamin D is cholecalciferol and is usually obtained via activation of a precursor molecule in the skin on activation by the sun. You can also take cholecalciferol and it increases blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D reliably.

However, there is a cheap, plant-sourced, alternative to vitamin D3, called vitamin D2, or ergocalciferol. D2 has far less effect in the body. Taking D2 or ergocalciferol orally is an extremely inefficient way to get D. Unfortunately, it's the form often used in milk and many supplements, even the prescription form of D. About half the multivitamins and calcium supplements I've looked at contain ergocalciferol rather than cholecalciferol.

Taking vitamin D2 yields very little conversion to the effective D3. This particular issues is maddening, as the USDA requires dairy farmers to add 100 units of vitamin D to milk, and D2 is often used. In other words, the D in many dairy products barely works at all. There are many children who rely on D from dairy products who are at risk for rickets and are not getting the D they need from dairy products because of this cost-saving switch. Do not rely on milk for vitamin D for your children.

D2 or ergocalciferol is often included in the blood measures of vitamin D along with vitamin D3. The only reason it's checked with blood work is to ensure "compliance,", i.e., see whether or not you're taking a prescribed ergocalciferol. Beyond this, it has no usefulness.

25-OH-vitamin D3, or cholecalciferol, is both the blood measure and the supplement you need. This is the one that packs all the punch. Keep in mind also that it is the oil-based gelcap you want, with more consistent and efficient absorption. Tablets usually barely work at all, even if it contains cholecalciferol. Most people who take calcium tablets with D, or multivitamin with D, not only are getting a powdered form of D, but also in trivial doses. It's the pure vitamin D3, cholecalciferol, in gelcap form you want if you desire all the spectacular benefits of vitamin D.

A quick but important note.

Track Your Plaque Members:

Keep your eyes on the Track Your Plaque Member website for details and images of our most recent huge success story. Track Your Plaque participant, Neal, dropped his score more than anyone else before.

Although reduction of heart scan score is an everyday event around here, a 51% drop in score deserves to make news!

We will post the images of Neal's heart scans on the www.cureality.com Member website in the coming days.

Dosing for fish oil is a perennial point of confusion. However, it's quite simple.

The active ingredients in fish oil are DHA and EPA, the so-called omega-3 fatty acids. Of course, if there's anything else in your capsules, such as omega-6, omega-9, or linolenic acid, these should not count towards the sum of EPA + DHA, since they do not exert the same benefits as the omega-3s.

The basic suggested starting dose for the Track Your Plaque program is 1200 mg of EPA+DHA. This is usually provided by taking 4 x 1000 mg capsules of fish oil, providing 180 mg EPA, 120 mg DHA per capsules, for a total of 1200 mg EPA+DHA.

About a third of people, however, will require greater doses of omega-3s to reduce triglycerides, VLDL, and/or intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL). Most people will do fine with an increase to 1800 mg EPA+DHA, usually provided by 6 x 1000 mg standard capsules. A very occasional person (about 1 in 100) will require even higher doses.

If you ever decide to change your fish oil preparation, or if you change to a more concentrated form or another form such as liquid fish oil (e.g., Carlson's), paste (e.g., Coromega), or syrup (e.g., Pharmax Frutol), then you will need to examine the label to determine the dose of EPA+DHA. If, for instance, a teaspoon of liquid fish oil provides 360 mg EPA and 240 mg DHA, that's a total of 600 mg omega-3s per teaspoon. If your EPA+DHA dose is 1200 mg per day, then two teaspoons a day should provide it. Always adding up the EPA+DHA content of whatever preparation you choose will therefore allow you to mix, match, or change your dose whenever you like.

As most of you know, niacin (vitamin B3) is an important tool for many in the Track Your Plaque program.

Niacin:

--raises HDL cholesterol
--reduces small LDL
--reduces lipoprotein(a)

And it's the most potent agent we have for all three patterns, despite just being a vitamin. Niacin also reduces LDL cholesterol, VLDL, IDL, triglycerides; reduces heart attack risk dramatically either alone or in combination with other agents.

Unfortunately, some people who are either afraid of the "hot flush" side effect, or experience excessive degrees of it, have resorted to two preparations sold in stores that have none of these effects.

Most notorious is "No-flush" niacin, also known as inositol hexaniacinate. This compound is an inositol sugar molecule complexed with 6 ("hexa-") niacin molecules. Unfortunately, it exerts none of niacin's effects in the human body. No-flush niacin has no effect on HDL, small LDL, or Lp(a), nor on LDL or heart attack.

In short, no-flush niacin is a scam. It's also not cheap. I've met people who have spent hundreds of dollars on this agent before they realize that nothing is happening, including a flush.

Likewise, nicotinamide does not work. It sounds awfully close to the other name for niacin, nicotinic acid. But they are two different things. Like no-flush niacin, nicotinamide has no effect on HDL, small LDL, Lp(a), etc.

Though I've discussed this issue in past, somehow these two "supplements" seem to sneak back into people's consciousness. You walk down the health food store aisle and spy that bottle of X-brand No-flush niacin, promising all the benefits of niacin with none of the bother. Then you remember that rough night you spent a few months back when the hot flush lasted longer than usual. That's when some people end up buying this agent making extravagant--and false--promises.

For now, for all its imperfections, niacin is still a pretty darn good agent for these patterns. Remember that the best strategy to minimize the hot flush effect is to drink plenty of water. We generally recommend taking the dose at dinner along with water. If the hot flush occurs, drink two large glasses of water (total volume 16-24 oz). Nine times out of ten, the flush is gone. It also dissipates the longer you take niacin.

This is an excerpt from a popular health website, EverydayHealth.com:

A Cholesterol-Busting Vitamin?
Did you know that niacin, one of the B vitamins, is also a potent cholesterol fighter? Find out how niacin can help reduce cholesterol…

Niacin is safe — except in people with chronic liver disease or certain other conditions, including diabetes and peptic ulcer. It is also inexpensive. However, it has numerous side effects. It can cause rashes and aggravate gout, diabetes, or peptic ulcers. Early in therapy, it can cause facial flushing for several minutes soon after a dose, although this response often stops after about two weeks of therapy and can be reduced by taking aspirin or ibuprofen half an hour before taking the niacin. A sustained-release preparation of niacin (Niaspan) appears to have fewer side effects, but may cause more liver function abnormalities, especially when combined with a statin.

Many people begin treatment at low doses (250 mg twice a day, for example) and, over six weeks or so, gradually build up to an amount that lowers lipid levels, anywhere from 1,000 to 2,500 mg split between two doses during the day. This gradual approach may help build tolerance to side effects such as facial flushing. Although niacin is available over the counter, you should not use it in quantities sufficient to lower cholesterol without a physician’s supervision. It is important to test liver function and levels of blood sugar and uric acid before beginning niacin therapy and during the course of treatment.

(Bold emphasis mine.)

At http://www.everydayhealth.com/publicsite/index.aspx?puid=548e8630-32d6-41dd-91a7-48e1cbac65ad&p=4

After an enticing headline, the article goes on to scare the pants off you. It also sounds like accurate information, delivered in an unbiased way, cold and straight.

If we were to use niacin this way, it would indeed be intolerable for most. Do not follow the above nonsensical advice. But that may have been the intention from the start.

Very telling are the fact that, both above and below the article were colorful advertisements for Lipitor, complete with Dr. Robert Jarvik’s (inventor of an implantable mechanical heart) soothing, professorial image.

Did they want to bait us with promising information about cholesterol and niacin, only to throw water on our fire and steer us towards something else?

That would be typical drug company marketing.

All in all, I’m grateful for the attention the media provides for health issues. Perhaps many people wouldn’t even be aware of niacin and other healthy strategies if some website, newspaper, or magazine article hadn’t talked about it.

But I do worry about bias. Was this an unbiased report? Or was it more like much of the physician-directed mail I receive, cleverly concealed propaganda from the drug manufacturers? Who wrote it? No author is listed. Could it have been ghost written by someone in the drug company itself, or an arm of the drug company? That’s a very common practice for the literature physicians receive, glossy, high-class materials paid for by drug companies, written by drug company-owned companies, but no company logo or name listed.

My point: Be skeptical of what the media tells us. There’s usually a good deal of truth in the reporting, but there’s also often just enough mis-information or slanting of content to make you behave or believe a certain way. “If niacin is this dangerous, maybe I really should take the Lipitor.”

Here's a dirty little secret many people don't know about.

If I implant a stent, I might get paid somewhere around $2000 for the heart catheterization, stent implantation, femoral artery closure device, hospitalization charges. That's not too bad.

But what if I'd like more? What if I'd like to squeeze this unsuspecting patient for more, or actually his/her insurance company?

Easy: Add on complex procedures to the basic procedure that yield more professional charges. For instance, I could perform laser angioplasty, a procedure that adds another couple thousand dollars. I might pull out the old rotational atherectomy device, a high-speed diamond tipped drill that also adds substantial professional charges. I might also use the intracoronary ultrasound device, an otherwise helpful device, but I might pull it out to use on everybody.

With the exception of ultrasound, all the "add-on" procedures were more popular in the early and mid-1990s--before they were shown in clinical studies to provide no advantage, perhaps even add to procedural risks.

Thus, a patient might undergo a heart catheterization, balloon angioplasty with stent implantation into the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD), followed by laser angioplasty of the mid-LAD, followed by intracoronary ultrasound of the vessel. Next, rotational atherectomy of the circumflex, followed by stent and ultrasound. Total charges for this 2-3 hour procedure? Somewhere around $8000 to the cardiologist. Of course, hospital charges are far more.

Ironically, patients are invariably impressed. Hearing that they went through all sort of high-tech procedures makes them grateful for receiving the benefits of the skills of their cardiologist. Of course, they would like have done as well with a far simpler procedure. Perhaps they didn't need the procedure at all.

If the excessive use of procedures and devices fails to benefit patients, why don't hospitals discourage it? Two reasons: 1) It's difficult to legislate or regulate decisions made on judgement, which can be a tough issue with many fuzzy edges, and 2) hospitals made oodles more money from the practice.

If you have a salesman in your new car lot and he outsells all his colleagues by 30-50% and makes you a couple hundred thousand a month more in sales. You've watched him at work and he's clearly good at it. But you suspect that he pushes the envelope of propriety frequently--badgering customers, add rustproofing to a little grandmother's car that will be driven 3000 miles a year, selling cars for prices far above what they would have sold for had the customer bargained more vigorously.
do you put a stop to it at the risk of pushing your star salesman away? Few would.

Only a minority of my colleagues are guilty of this despicable practice. I only know of a few who openly do it. Hopefully, you're not among their patients.

A good number of cardiology colleagues are vigorously bashing the outcome of the COURAGE Trial. Recall that COURAGE is the large clinical trial recently released that showed that, in people with stable angina (chest pains), people did equally well with “optimal medical therapy” as with stents.

The problem is that many of my colleagues wouldn’t know what to do in a world deprived of implanting 10 stents a day. Giving people nitroglycerin/statin drug/aspirin/beta-blocker day after day, week after week, would be an awfully dull world. All the excitement of the cath lab would be a lot more rare. We’d actually have to wait for a heart attack from some dumb smoker! All the money would disappear, too. After all, seeing a patient in the office pays, at best, $200 (and has to be stretched to cover overhead expenses like staff, malpractice insurance, and rent). Putting a stent in can pay $2000, $3000, $4000, often more. Put in several a day and—Wow! Now we’re talking money.

You can understand how upsetting it is to my colleagues who feel like the rug may be pulled out from underneath their practices and lives. Feel as sorry for them as you do for people who lose their jobs on an assembly line because of robotic technology. Or travel agents because everyone makes travel arrangements over the internet. Technology, in this information technology, marches on.

Cardiologists, cath labs, stent manufacturers, and the huge industry built around heart disease had their party. Now it’s time to clean the room and sober up. The party’s over.

The broader acceptance of “optimal medical therapy,” as lame as it is, will eventually open the door for many to demand for something even better. Ever hear of Track Your Plaque?

When meat is not just meat

Don't lament no OTC mevacor

Damage control

Low expectations

Niacin vs. low-carb weight loss

Explosive plaque growth

Dr. Cannell on "How much vitamin D?"

End-stage vitamin D deficiency

"Instant" reversal with fasting?

Study review: yet another Lipitor study

Heart scan book

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet

Statin drugs for everybody?

No BS weight loss

Self-directed health is ALREADY here

Fire your stockbroker, fire your doctor

Blast small LDL to oblivion

Buy local, get a goiter

Self-directed thyroid management

Track Your Plaque and non-commercialism

The nattokinase scam

Blood pressure with exercise

Vitamin D2 vs. vitamin D3

World record heart disease reversal

Dose of fish oil

Niacin scams

Media mis-information

A dirty little secret

The party’s over