Vitamin D increased my cholesterol

2. October 2009 William Davis (38)
A friend told me this story.

Her friend, Linda, had added vitamin D to her daily supplements. Because she'd had a vitamin D blood level of 22 ng/ml, she was taking 6000 units per day.

However, Linda also had a high cholesterol value with a total cholesterol of 231 mg/dl. After several months on the vitamin D, she had another cholesterol panel. Total cholesterol: 256 mg/dl.

"It must have been the vitamin D! So I stopped it right away."

Is this true? Does vitamin D raise the level of blood cholesterol? Yes, it does. But it's a good thing. Let me explain.

Followers of The Heart Scan Blog know that total cholesterol is really a mix of 3 other factors:

Total cholesterol = LDL cholesterol + HDL cholesterol + triglycerides/5

This is the Friedewald equation, still used today in over 95% of cholesterol panels. So, by the Friedewald equation, anything that increases LDL, HDL, or triglycerides will increase total cholesterol.

One of the spectacular changes that develops over a year of taking vitamin D is that HDL cholesterol skyrockets. While sensitivity to this effect varies (probably on a genetic basis), HDL increases of 10, 20, even 30 mg/dl are common. A starting HDL, for instance, of 45 mg/dl can jump up to 65 or 70 mg/dl, though the effect requires up to a year, sometimes longer.

Vitamin D can also reduce triglycerides, though the effect is relatively small, usually no more than 20 mg/dl or so. Likewise, the effect on LDL is minor, with a modest reduction in the small type of LDL.

So the dominant effect of vitamin D from a cholesterol standpoint is a substantial increase in HDL. Looking at the equation, you can see that an increase in HDL is accompanied by a commensurate increase in total cholesterol. If HDL goes up 25 mg/dl, total cholesterol goes up 25 mg/dl.

So Linda is absolutely correct: Vitamin D increases cholesterol--but it's a good thing that reduces risk for heart disease and is an important part of a coronary plaque-reversal program.

This is yet another reason why I advocate elimination of total cholesterol on lipid panels. There is no useful information in the total cholersterol value, only the potential for misinformation.
Tags :

Comments (38) -

  • Anonymous

    10/2/2009 12:48:55 AM |

    I know enough to not stress about lipid levels that send some docs for their prescription pads.  However, I was a bit shocked to see my recent numbers as follows:
    TC 465
    HDL 102.18
    Trig 48.95
    LDL 353.73
    Even doing a more accurate calculation, the LDl is high, although all the ratios seem to be in order.  I'm mid 50's, slim and with no family history of heart disease.  I also do not have any of the indicators for Lp (a).  Anything else that would cause this?

  • David

    10/2/2009 12:55:49 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    I was wondering why my HDL went up with my latest Lipid Panel test results I received yesterday from my Endocrinologist (Type 2 diabetes). It was a pleasant present on my 60th birthday – HDL of 65!

    My Lipid Panel results: - Total Cholesterol -127,     HDL – 65,  Triglycerides – 51,  LDL - 52

    I have been taking 4,000 IU of D3 for the past six months after reading your blog. Actually, my HDL was in the mid fifties to sixty since for a few years I have been taking 500 mg of Slo-Niacin along with two Omega 3 fish oil capsules per day. Added to this is four days per week at the gym for the last three years. This helps too.

    My HDL has never been so high at 65 and I didn’t realize the positive affect of the Vitamin D3 until the current test results.

    I believe my LDL is so low because I am taking a 20 mg dosage of Simvastatin, although I am now taking it every other day. Along with the Simvastatin, I am taking Metformin and Diovan all prescribed by my Endocrinologist. After researching on the Internet I added the Omega 3, Niacin, and from your blog Vitamin D3. My doctor doesn’t have much to say about this, although I have mentioned it to him.

    Vitamin D3 really seems to work on the HDL!

    Now I really have to try to cut down on my wheat consumption to drop my A1c below 6.4.

    I appreciate your blog along with your book.

    Thanks for all your helpful information.

    David

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/2/2009 1:26:15 AM |

    Anon--

    You must--MUST--consider getting an NMR lipoprotein test to obtain the LDL particle number.

    Given the very high HDL , it is possible that the true LDL is far, far lower than the calculated LDL. It likely will be high, but not that high.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/2/2009 1:26:24 AM |

    Great work, David!

  • steve

    10/2/2009 2:38:01 AM |

    Dr. Davis:  How do you know the increased HDL is due to the D3 and not from the wheat elimination you recommend?

  • Lyn

    10/2/2009 2:40:24 AM |

    Raises TC?!!!  Wow, thanks!  Gonna print out and show to Primary, Endo, and Cardio who are talking statins (Primary said statins or niacin). Comments?

    Aug 08: D=15.2, TC=212, TRI=181, HDL=47, LDL=129, TSH=2.795(normal free T3 & T4), A1C=11...50K IU/wk of D2 for 8 wks, then 1K D3 daily. Very low carb diet, metformin ER, Januvia (terrible CNS side effects), Maxzide, Cozaar. BP=140s/65 <1800 mg sodium told to add a bit more.

    Dec 08: D=33, TC=205, TRI=119, HDL=57, LDL=124, TSH=4.289 (normal free T3 & T4), A1C=6.9, TSH=2.667(normal free T3 & T4)...2K D3 daily.  Very low carb diet, metformin ER, Maxzide, Cozaar (half dose). BP=130s/75

    Jun 09: D=36, TC=231, TRI=119, HDL=57, LDL=150, TSH=4.548(normal free T3 & T4), A1C=6.4...4K D3 daily.  Very low carb diet, metformin ER, Maxzide, Cozaar (1/4 dose) on days following apnea events that wake me up (on CPAP), aver BP=128/72

    Sep 09: D=41, TC=235, TRI=145, HDL=60, LDL=147, TSH=5.51 normal free T3 & T4), A1C=6.5 (tried new foods-meals & spiked)...4K D3 daily (thinking of upping to 5-6K).  Very low carb diet, metformin ER, Maxzide, Cozaar (1/4 dose) on days following apnea events that wake me up, aver BP=130/70, started generic Levothyroxine 25 mcg/day, just started Iodoral 12.5 mg a wk ago--body temp finally staying the 98s. Subbing a high-protein (lots of BCAAs) shake for breakfast and 1/2 shake for snack -- lost 4 pounds in 6 days (monitoring BGs frequently). ApoB=111 (<109 normal)...oops.

    So, are my rising cholesterol numbers the results of the following or ?
    - Very low carb (<40 gms) diet (guessing larger LDL particles)
    - Rising TSH levels(hypothyroidism increases cholesterol right?)
    - Increased amts of D3

    60 yo female. Lost 50+ pounds but still obese (takes time). 35-60 mins/day low intensity recumbent exercise bike. Laidoff--lots of angst & stress.  All other bloodwork results good (high RBC down to normal, guessing less apnea desats). Using topical progesterone, 3 wks on, 1 wk off a la Dr John Lee. No CVD in family, just Type 2 and hypothyroidism.  If niacin is good, which form?  Not sure I can handle flushing, have touchy skin, used to have rosacea.

  • Lynn M.

    10/2/2009 5:38:54 AM |

    Anonymous,

    Hypothyroidism will jack up cholesterol and LDL.  People can be hypothyroid even if they're slim.  Have you had your FT3 checked?

  • moblogs

    10/2/2009 9:27:36 AM |

    I actually found different. I've been on 10,000IU of D3 and found a general dip in my cholesterol levels (although a slight increase in HDL).

    Here's a scan of my results in '07 (when I was just 15nmol/L) and recently where I'm above 76nmol/L (I just say above as my most recent D reading is yet to arrive).
    http://bit.ly/3h9X4C

    Of course it may be co-incidence too, but both my brother and father have had no change at all in their cholesterol levels in the last few years. My brother's on D but only just enough as recommended by a doctor.

    My levels this year are now well below UK average (which is 5.7mmol/L and I'm now 4.95 from 5.62) and correspondingly I wasn't told to modify my diet or go on a statin, even though my cholesterol level was deemed as only marginally high before.

  • denparser

    10/2/2009 11:41:02 AM |

    wow.. how could it be? in fact, if that's gonna be true, not all vitamins are good for the body in the sense that it has a side effect inside the body.

  • Jim Purdy

    10/2/2009 12:00:27 PM |

    I read this and then immediately ordered some vitamin D.

  • Anonymous

    10/2/2009 4:02:13 PM |

    Anonymous,

    Has your LDLs always been this high or have you never had your cholesterol tested before? If so, then perhaps you have Familial Hypercholesterolemia like I do. If your LDLs have been tested before and were never that high, then it must be something else.

    Since your Trig. are so low and your TC is over 250, the standard Friedewald equation isn't the most accurate for you. Here is a better calculator for people like you:

    http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~geoff36/LDL_mg.htm

    Regardless, that still is a high LDL. Have you recently started taking new supplements?

    The reason I ask is because I was once was advised to take a several difference supplements in the hopes of raising my Testosterone and they all had some zinc in them and my LDLs skyrocketed (even for me)! I later learned that too much zinc can do this. I was taking around 100 or 110mg of zinc daily if my memory serves me correctly. I believe taking too much zinc can adversely affect copper levels which in turn can raise cholesterol. Now I try to stay around 100% to 200% of the RDA (15mg - 30mg) and I don't have that problem.

    Are you taking sterols? Maybe you're absorbing the sterols...just a thought.

    Maybe it was a just lab fluke. I would recommend a retest (preferably using a NMR or a VAP test).

    Good luck!

    John M.

  • trinkwasser

    10/2/2009 4:25:01 PM |

    Put your numbers through this

    http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~geoff36/LDL_mg.htm

    it brings your LDL down to 286, still a bit high, I'd suggest there's something else occurring, could be thyroid?

    One "authoritative" site for calculating cardiovascular risk won't even permit HDL levels over 100 to be entered, so you've aced that, and the trigs

  • Anonymous

    10/2/2009 5:48:46 PM |

    http://www.elements4health.com/cholesterol-buildup-in-diabetes-patients-deficient-in-vitamin-d.html

    interesting...have you read or posted on this yet?

  • Helena

    10/2/2009 7:50:31 PM |

    Total Cholesterol is by far a wrong way to measure the risk of heart disease. In this case, if the doctor she was going to was one among many she would have been prescribed statin drugs without further investigation. Higher Cholesterol must be bad right - let's make a buck and sell her some lipitor or Simvastatin! People in general are too uneducated and trust doctors more than anything else. This makes me scared! A low carb high fat (LCHF) diet will gett people more healthy all over! Better cholesterol quota, less over weight, less risk of developing type 2 diabetes, less risk of inflammation, and better energy! You can't go wrong! Thanks for this very important post!

  • Anonymous

    10/3/2009 2:34:28 AM |

    Dr. Davis,
    Thanks so much for your response.  Would it make a difference to know that I have eaten low carb for several years, and seldom eat grains?  Also, apparently my lipids were 'normal' when last checked 10 years ago.
    My GP claims ignorance of the difference between calculated and direct measure of LDL, or of different particle size.  He just knows the numbers the lab sends.  I believe I would need to see a specialist to get tested further.  Worth the trouble?

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/3/2009 12:33:08 PM |

    Hi, Steve--

    You are absolutely correct: Given sufficient time, wheat elimination increases HDL also. However, vitamin D can also increase it independently. I've seen many people add vit D to an already established no-wheat diet and still send HDL through the roof.

    Lyn--

    As you can see, it's probably a combination of all the good things you've done.

  • Lieta

    10/4/2009 2:40:15 AM |

    I've been supplementing with 6,000 mg of D3 each day for a month and following a low carb but not wheat-free diet for 2 months. I was surprised to see my HDL come back so low and my LDL so high on a recent test:

    HDL: 34
    LDL: 203
    VLDL: 9
    Trig: 47

    I will add Niacin to my supplement regimen to help bring down the LDL, and eliminate wheat. I am about 40 lbs overweight, with no other health issues (that I know of!). My A1C and fasting insulin numbers are good (A1C 4.7, Ins 4.3). I wonder if I need to pursue a more agressive approach to bring down my LDL, or just give the Vitamin D/Niacin supplementation time to work (and give up wheat)?

  • World Vitamins Online

    10/4/2009 9:25:55 PM |

    Very good information. Many people do not understand how to decipher the information when they get the results of a cholesterol test. This should help out some.

  • Anonymous

    10/4/2009 11:30:46 PM |

    I started taking 500mg niacin daily
    (for 40 days now) and increased my HDL to 49 from 35
    but my TC went from 189 to 251!
    (my trig is 62)
    Can niacin increase TC also?

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/6/2009 2:08:45 AM |

    Lieta--

    When it comes to vitamin D and wheat elimination, it generally requires about 6 months for full effect to be reflected in your blood work.

    So patience pays!

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/6/2009 2:09:27 AM |

    Anon--

    Niacin or any other agent that increases HDL will likewise increase total cholesterol. It's all good!

  • Anonymous

    10/6/2009 2:28:53 PM |

    Do you have a recommended brand of Vit D3?  Does it have to be taken with Vit A (as I've read in some other places)?

    Thanks

  • Alex

    10/8/2009 2:22:51 PM |

    Does the lack of useful information in total cholesterol value extend all the way down to 150 and below, which is the level Joel Fuhrman and others say people should strive for?

  • Brian

    10/31/2009 2:07:32 PM |

    This reminds me of a story that the renowned physicist Richard Feynman told about the poor quality of textbooks he had reviewed, which gave students totally useless problems with no practical purpose.

    His example was a problem that listed the temperature of 3 random stars, and asked the student to calculate the total temperature, a totally meaningless and pointless number that tells you absolutely nothing about anything.

  • Calculating cholesterol

    12/14/2009 2:07:28 AM |

    I have looked at many sites on this subject and not come across a site such as yours which tells everyone everything that they need to know. I have bookmarked your site. Can anyone else suggest any other related topics that I can look for to find out further information?

  • Kerri Knox

    4/20/2010 2:09:57 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Do you have any studies to support that vitamin d increases HDL? I've searched it and could find nothing but neutral studies on it or studies in combination with omega's and niacin.

    This study that was ONLY with vitamin d saw no effect.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19352377?dopt=Abstract

    and this study showed that atorvastatin needed adequate vitamin d levels in order to work.

    http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ije/2010/320721.html

    but I couldn't find anything saying that vitamin d raised HDL. Any references that you can refer me to or is this just your observations?

  • Anonymous

    9/27/2010 1:21:55 PM |

    Vitamin D doesn't raise cholesterol - cholesterol uses sunlight to synthesize or create Vitamin D.  If you are taking a cholesterol lowering medication, your body can't process the cholesterol to make Vitamin D.

  • Anonymous

    10/5/2010 11:22:57 PM |

    In May 2008 I had a D3 level of 25. Now it's near 80, after 1+ years on 5000 IU of D3 per day. My LDL cholesterol has gone up (it's in the 170s) and my HDL is still low (40-50). HDL has actually changed very little while LDL has increased over time since the first time it was tested in 2002.

    Despite the info presented here, I'm not convinced that there's such a clear relationship between LDL and Vitamin D.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:41:09 PM |

    So the dominant effect of vitamin D from a cholesterol standpoint is a substantial increase in HDL. Looking at the equation, you can see that an increase in HDL is accompanied by a commensurate increase in total cholesterol. If HDL goes up 25 mg/dl, total cholesterol goes up 25 mg/dl.

  • online colospa

    11/6/2010 3:25:58 PM |

    ilike this site

  • online combivir

    11/6/2010 3:26:37 PM |

    ilike this site

  • online cozaar

    11/6/2010 3:27:30 PM |

    ilike this site

  • henry

    11/6/2010 3:29:52 PM |

    Therefore, Avandia should not be used in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus or for the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis. •  The coadministration of Avandia and insulin is not recommended. •  The use of Avandia with nitrates is not recommended generic avandia

  • henry

    11/6/2010 3:30:29 PM |

    Chloramphenicol works by preventing bacteria from producing proteins that are essential to them. Without these proteins the bacteria cannot grow, replicate and increase in numbers. chloromycetin

  • excessive sweating

    3/4/2011 1:47:39 PM |

    Vitamin D is one of the only vitamins produced naturally by the body. Vitamin D is unique because it is derived both from sunlight and foods. Vitamin D Maintains Your Calcium Balance.

  • paul

    4/28/2011 8:25:17 AM |

    Thanks a lot for the tips. Reduce your cholesterol by taking the necessary vitamins and supplements. Avoid eating fatty food and focus more on eating healthy fats.

    -Supplements Canada

  • Brian

    12/4/2013 8:36:08 PM |

    Vitamin D3 supplements will absolutely increase both your LDL and HDL cholesterol.  The impact on each can be quite large.  I know people want to believe that supplements can do nothing negative, but it is what it is.  All you have to do is buy a Cardiocheck PA meter or the like and test your cholesterol at home.  Take 5000 IU per day of vitamin D3 for 2 weeks and recheck -- your LDL will go up dramatically, and your HDL will rise as well (and so your total will increase a fair amount).  The exact same thing will happen if you get massive amounts of sun without sunscreen over a number of weeks.  Who know whether this effect is a good or bad thing -- your guess is as good as mine.  But I'm always amazed at all the $30 million dollar studies that have to be done to find out what any person can see with a single affordable at-home monitor...

Add comment

Loading
All posts by william-davis

The “Heart Healthy” scam

27. July 2008 William Davis (1)
Like many scams, this one follows a predictable formula.

It is a formula widely practiced among food manufacturers, ever since food products began to jockey for position based on nutritional composition and purported health benefits.

First, identify a component of food, such as wheat fiber or oat bran, that confers a health benefit. Then, validate the healthy effect in clinical studies. Wheat fiber, for instance, promotes bowel regularity and reduces the likelihood of colon cancer. Oat bran reduces blood cholesterol levels.

Second, commercialize food products that contain the purported healthy ingredient. Wheat bran becomes Shredded Wheat, Fiber One, and Raisin Bran cereals and an endless choice of “healthy” breads. Oat bran becomes Honey Bunches of Oats, Quaker’s Instant Oatmeal, and granola bars. Even if many unhealthy components are added, as long as the original healthy product is included, the manufacturer continues to lay claim to healthy effects.

Third, as long as the original healthy ingredient remains, get an agency like the American Heart Association to provide an endorsement: “American Heart Association Tested and Approved.”

The last step is the easiest: just pay for it, provided the product meets a set of requirements, no matter how lax.

You will find the American Heart Association certification on Quaker Instant Oatmeal Crunch Apples and Cinnamon. Each serving contains 39 grams carbohydrate, 16 grams sugar (approximately 4 teaspoons), and 2.5 grams fat of which 0.5 grams are saturated. Ingredients include sugar, corn syrup, flaked corn, and partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil. Curiously, of the 4 grams of fiber per serving, only 1 gram is the soluble variety, the sort that reduces cholesterol blood levels. (This relatively trivial quantity of soluble fiber is unlikely to impact significantly on cholesterol levels, since a minimum 3 grams of soluble fiber is the quantity required, as demonstrated in a number of clinical studies.) Nonetheless, this sugar product proudly wears the AHA endorsement.

Thus, a simple component of food that provides genuine benefit mushrooms into a cornucopia of new products with added ingredients: sugar, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, carageenan, raisins, wheat flour, preservatives, hydrogenated oils, etc. What may have begun as a health benefit can quickly deteriorate into something that is patently unhealthy.

There’s a clever variation on this formula. Rather than developing products that include a healthy component, create products that simply lack an unhealthy ingredient, such as saturated or trans fats or sodium.

Thus, a ¾-cup serving of Cocoa Puffs cereal contains 120 calories, no fiber, 14 grams (3 ½ teaspoons) of sugar—but is low in fat and contains no saturated fat. Proudly displayed on the box front is an American Heart Association stamp of approval. It earned this stamp of approval because Cocoa Puffs was low in saturated, trans, and total fat and sodium. Likewise, Cookie Crisp cereal, featuring Chip the Wolf, a cartoon wolf in a red sweater (“The great taste of chocolate chip cookies and milk!”), has 160 calories, 26 grams carbohydrate and 19 grams (4½ teaspoons) of sugar per cup, and 0 grams fiber—but only 1.0 gram fat, none saturated, thus the AHA check mark. (Promise margarine, made with hydrogenated vegetable oil and therefore containing significant quantities of trans fats, was originally on the list, as well, but removed when the trans fat threshold was added to the AHA criteria.)

It is this phenomenon, the sleight of hand of taking a healthy component and tacking on a list of ingredients manageable only by food scientists, or asserting that a product is healthy just because it lacks a specific undesirable ingredient, that is a major factor in the extraordinary and unprecedented boom in obesity in the U.S. Imagine the chemical industry were permitted such latitude: “Our pesticide is deemed safe by the USDA because it contains no PCBs.” Such is the ill-conceived logic of the AHA Heart-Check program the "Heart Healthy" claims.

It’s best we keep in mind the observations of New York University nutritionist and author of the book, Food Politics, Marion Nestle, that “food companies—just like companies that sell cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, or any other commodity—routinely place the needs of stock holders over considerations of public health. Food companies will make and market any product that sells, regardless of its nutritional value or its effect on health. In this regard, food companies hardly differ from cigarette companies. They lobby Congress to eliminate regulations perceived as unfavorable; they press federal regulatory agencies not to enforce such regulations; and when they don’t like regulatory decisions, they file lawsuits. Like cigarette companies, food companies co-opt food and nutrition experts by supporting professional organizations and research, and they expand sales by marketing directly to children, members of minority groups, and people in develop countries—whether or not the products are likely to improve people’s diets.”

Qualms over just how heart-healthy their products are? Doubtful.

Exploitation of trust

25. July 2008 William Davis (5)
Once upon a time, the tobacco industry was guilty of conducting a widespread, systematic, highly organized campaign to deliver their product to as much of the unsuspecting public as possible.

As clinical data mounted linking smoking and health problems like cancer and heart disease, tobacco producers labored fiercely to counter these claims despite darkening public sentiment. When individual company executives were questioned on why they continued to perpetuate the industry’s scandalous practices, the invariable justification offered was “Well, I had to pay my mortgage.” That tidy ends-justifies-the-means rationalization has a familiar ring when you examine the behavior of those in the heart "industry."

Things are not what they seem. The hospital, once an institution to serve the sick, a place for clergy, volunteers, and other altruists, has evolved into a business serving a thriving bottom line. You are the “product” they seek. The cardiologist, ostensibly in the service of alleviating heart disease, instead seeks to grow his checkbook by performing procedures that have nothing to do with lessening the burden of heart disease. He dives into the water to save drowning victim after drowning victim, but fails to simply toss in the life preserver that has been close at hand all along.

The woeful family practitioner, who is expected to bear undue responsibility for the broad spectrum of health, ignorantly permits heart disease to grow under his or her nose and, by default, allows heart disease to become the exclusive province of the proceduralist. Worse, the family practitioner or internist in the employ of the hospital (a situation that has quietly grown to encompass 80% of all primary care physicians) labors to fatten hospital business by directing patients into hospital services. The comparative lowly incomes of the primary care physician are substantially supplemented by participating in this huge revenue-generating machine called heart care.

The astounding grasp of the system has caused one of every 10 adults in the U.S. to have undergone a heart procedure. The lemming-like procession to the hospital creates a crowd mentality among some sectors of the frightened public. “My friends and neighbors have all had bypass operations. Sooner or later I guess it’s going to be my turn.”

Tragically, the system has grown through the exploitation of trust. The faith we have in doctors, hospitals, and the institutions and people associated with healthcare has been subverted into the service of profit. Many practitioners and institutions choose to operate under the guise of doing good, but instead capitalize on the public’s willingness to accept as fact the need for major heart procedures and all its associated costly trappings.

Bait and switch

24. July 2008 William Davis (0)
"When banks compete, you win.”

The TV ad opens with a 60-something man sitting in his living room, talking to a three-piece suit-clad, 30-something banker. The older man is explaining to the dismayed younger man why he’s going to use Lending Tree loan service for a home loan.

“But Dad, I’m you’re son!” the younger whines.

Many of Lending Tree’s clients have collaborated in filing a multi-million dollar class action suit against the company, claiming “bait and switch” tactics. They claim that home buyers are lured by low interest rates or low closing costs on a home loan. Once the buyer concludes the hassle of filling out numerous forms, the suit accuses Lending Tree of making a switch to a costlier loan.

Bait and switch is among the oldest con games around. If you’ve ever bought a car from a car dealer, chances are you’ve had your own little brush with this deception. The ad promises the SUV you’ve wanted for only $299 per month. Only, once you get there, the salesman informs you that only a limited number of special deals were available and they’ve run out. But he’s still got a really good deal right over here!

Most of us recognize that we’ve been hookwinked. Yet we still go along and buy a car from the dealer.

What if it’s not a sleazy salesman behind the pitch, but a physician. If it’s hard to resist the sales pitch at the car dealership, it can be near impossible to ignore the advice of your doctor. But the truth is often loud and clear: in many instances, it is a genuine, bona fide, and fully-certified scam.

Among the most common bait-and-switch heart scams: Your cholesterol is high. The sequence of subsequent testing is well-rehearsed. “Gee, Bob, I’m worried about your risk for heart disease. Let’s schedule you for a nuclear stress test.”

The stress test, like 20% or more of them, is “falsely positive,” meaning abnormal even though there’s nothing wrong with you. Another 30% are equivocal, not clearly abnormal but also not clearly normal. Now up to 50% of people tested “need” a heart catheterization in the hospital to clarify this frightening uncertainty. You might end up with a stent or two, even bypass surgery. Your simple $20 cholesterol panel has metamorphosed into $100,000 in hospital procedures.

That familiar sequence is followed thousands of times, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

If a disease lacks a procedure . . . create one

24. July 2008 William Davis (1)
Congestive heart failure is among the most common diagnoses in the hospital nowadays.

Congestive heart failure is the result of injury to the heart muscle such as that occurring during heart attack, viral infections of the heart (myocarditis), poorly controlled high blood pressure, and a smattering of other rare causes. Eight million Americans with congestive heart failure account for over one million hospital admissions annually (AHA Update, 2007). It has become so common, in fact, that it has ranked as number one cause for hospital admission for the last several years.

Heart failure is a frightening condition causing the sufferer to gasp for breath. Excess fluid accumulates in the lungs, amplifying the work of breathing and imparting a feeling of unease. Some heart failure sufferers struggle to the point of blacking out or requiring mechanical ventilation on a respirator.

There are a number of standard treatments for heart failure that usually rapidly rescue the patient from the brink of respiratory failure. These generally consist of intravenous diuretics that force the kidney to clear excess water rapidly, medications to increase heart muscle strength, and other treatments. It’s not uncommon for a heart failure patient to drop 10–20 lbs. in water weight with treatment. The treatments are quite effective for the majority of patients with rapid relief of the breathlessness generally obtained within hours.

However, the problem with congestive heart failure is not generally the rapidity or effectiveness of acutely providing relief, it is the chronic recurring nature of the disease. Someone can come to the hospital, obtain prompt treatment with relief of the breathlessness within 48–72 hours, only to return to the hospital in several weeks with a recurrence of the same process.

As common as congestive heart is in hospitals, it has also presented the perennial problem: how to convert this frequent reason for hospitalization into a profit opportunity. Some people who experience heart failure will undergo the usual sequence of heart procedures of heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery, valve surgery, etc. But, because heart failure tends to be a repeatedly recurring event, even patients tire of the “need” for heart procedures. Then how can more heart failure occurrences be converted into profitable events?

A unique principle operates in the medical device market: If a disease lacks a procedure . . . create one.

Several problems are solved by such a principle. First, procedures are much more generously reimbursed by insurers than standard medical care without procedures. Two, the physician is provided an opportunity to also bill at a higher level. Third, patients often love the more dramatic, heroic nature of procedures, whether or not there is true benefit.

To the rescue of the poorly reimbursed area of congestive heart failure walks a Minnesota company called CHF Solutions, Inc., manufacturers of the Aquadex device.

Cost? $14,500 plus $900 per filter every time a patient gets one treatment. The Aquadex works by a decades-old process called ultrafiltration, used for many years but used principally for kidney failure not severe enough to require regular dialysis. New York cardiologist Howard Levin simply adapted the process, using smaller catheters inserted into the arm veins, in 2000. As in conventional ultrafiltration, blood is taken from the body from a catheter, passed through a filter that removes excess water, then returned to the body.

This is a serious effort. Dr. Levin raised $51 million in venture backing on top of $12 million seed capital. The device sailed through the Food & Drug Administration in June 2002, since it was labeled a newer form of ultrafiltration, thereby obtaining approval through the FDA’s 501k rule, a minor modification of existing technology. (Many truly technologically unique devices do come to market and therefore require the full process of FDA approval, a generally lengthy and costly process for devices. However, there’s another way: bill a device as “substantially equivalent” to an existing technology and the approval process is relatively quick and easy.)

In an industry publication, Cath Lab Digest, Dr. Levin was interviewed in February, 2003, and proclaimed, “We can treat many of the symptoms of heart failure, but we’re a long ways off from a cure. That’s why new technologies are so exciting, such as LVADs for the very sickest heart failure patients; biventricular pacing for the small subset of patients who seem to benefit from it; and simplified ultrafiltration such as the System 100 that can be applied to a broad range of congestive heart failure patients with fluid overload. “

What does this have to do with heart scans and heart disease reversal? Nothing-directly. I highlight this phenomenon because it caricatures how things work in medicine and health care in general, more so in cardiovascular diseases in which the profit motive is especially deeply ingrained. Focus on a need, then generate a profitable treatment for it. Profits are what drive growth, marketing, sales, and expansion into new revenue-generating niches.

Sadly, the reverse principle does not work: Replace profitable procedures with unprofitable strategies, regardless of their effectiveness. Replacing coronary angioplasty and coronary stent implantation, or bypass surgery, with intensive prevention efforts is no easy matter. Just witness the enormous resistance to the concept of early heart disease detection achieved with heart scans. A day doesn’t go by without a major media outlet bashing heart scans, or confusing them with CT coronary angiograms with claims of excessive radiation.

But the mounting volume of criticisms against heart scans also means that they are gaining some traction in mainstream thinking. But will there be a day when they replace the need for profitable procedures? I believe they will, when coupled with a powerful program of prevention, but don’t hold your breath.

Blood sugar lessons from a Type I diabetic

23. July 2008 William Davis (15)
A friend of mine is a Type I, or childhood onset, diabetic. He's had it for nearly 50 years, since age 6. He's also in the health industry and is a good observer of detail.

He made the following interesting comments to me recently when talking about the effects of various foods on blood sugar:

"When I eat normally, like some vegetables or salad and meat, I dose up to 10 units of insulin to control my blood sugar.

"If I eat a turkey sandwich on two slices of whole wheat, I usually dose 15 units. The bread makes my blood sugar go to 300 if I don't.

"If I eat a Cousins's Sub [a local submarine sandwich chain], I dose 15 units. The bread really makes my blood sugar go up.

"I can only eat a Quarter Pound from McDonald's once a year, because it make my blood sugar go nuts. I dose 15-20 units before having it, and I feel like crap for two days afterwards.

"If I eat Mexican food, I have to dose 15-20 units. For some reason, it's gotten worse over the years, and I need to dose higher and higher.

"Chinese food is the absolute worst. I dose 20-25 units before eating Chinese. I'll often have to dose more afterwards, because my blood sugar goes so berserk."


Nothing beats the real-world observations on the impact of various foods on blood sugar than the observations of people with Type I diabetes. All the insulin they get is in a syringe. Dosing needs to match intake.

Personally, though I love the taste of Americanized Chinese food, I've always been suspicious of what exactly goes into these dishes. But I was unaware of the blood sugar implications.

The impact of Mexican I believe can be attributed to the cornstarch used in the tacos and tortillas, though I also wonder if there are other starches being snuck in, as well.

Lessons about omega-3s from Japan

23. July 2008 William Davis (7)














Image courtesy of apc33.

Japan provides a useful "laboratory" for studying the effect of a culture that relies heavily on eating fish.

The JELIS Trial, the topic of a previous Heart Scan Blog post, showed that supplementation with the single omega-3 fatty acid, EPA, 1800 mg per day (the equivalent of 10 capsules of 'standard' fish oil that contains 180 mg per day of EPA, 120 mg of DHA) significantly reduced heart attack in a Japanese population. Interestingly, this benefit was additive to the already substantial intake of omega-3 fatty acids among the general Japanese population, a population with a fraction of the heart attacks found in western populations like the U.S. (approximately 3% over 5 years in Japanese compared to several-fold higher in a comparable American group).

While there may be genetic and other cultural and lifestyle reasons behind the dramatically reduced cardiovascular risk in Japanese, it is undeniably at least partially due to the increased intake of omega-3 fatty acids from fish. Incidentally, the purported benefits of omega-3 fatty acids provide a vigorous counter-argument to the idea that all humans should be vegetarians.

Anyway, if we were to take some lessons from the Japanese and their greater habitual intake of omega-3 fatty acids from fish, they might include:

--Rural and coastal Japanese are the sub-populations with the highest reliance on fish, about a quarter-pound a day. (Gives new meaning to the idea of a "Quarter Pounder," doesn't it?) This is at least five-times greater than the intake of an average American.

--Likewise, the blood level of omega-3s in the blood of Japanese is 5-fold higher than in Americans.

--The average intake of omega-3s (EPA + DHA) among a broadly-selected population of Japanese is 850 mg per day (320 mg EPA; 520 mg DHA). Intake ranges from 300 mg per day all the way up to 3100 mg per day.

--Greater omega-3 intake (EPA + DHA) is associated with lesser carotid intimal-medial thickness, an index of body-wide atherosclerosis.

--Japanese have far less heart attack and stroke despite greater prevalence of smoking (nearly half of Japanese) and drinking.

--Total fat intake (percent of calories) is nearly identical between Americans and Japanese. It's the proportion of fat calories from omega-3 that is greater, the proportion of omega-6 that is less in Japanese.


The Japanese eat their fish in ways that we do not: As sashimi (raw, as with sushi in its various forms like Nigiri and Chirashi); fried in tempura; shaved, dried fish sprinkled on about anything you can imagine (it's not as bad as it sounds); as a snack, as in dried cuttlefish (which you can purchase in packages as a portable, sweetened fish that you eat on-the-run--I know it sounds awful, but don't poke fun at it until you've tried it); in "soups" with soba noodles. Fish is commonly consumed with rice and soy sauce, as well as other soy-based foods, such as tofu, miso (soy bean paste), or natto. 


I believe that there are some lessons to take from the Japanese and their fish-consuming habits:

1) An omega-3 fatty acid intake of at least 1000 mg per day yields measurable cardiovascular benefits. 

2) Despite the fears over mercury and pesticide residues in fish, this seems to not have played out to be a real-life effect in the Japanese, who consume five-fold greater quantities of fish. 

3) My mother was right after all when she encouraged us to eat more fish. 


DIRECT Study result: Low-carb, Mediterranean diets win weight-loss battle

19. July 2008 William Davis (14)
Drs. Iris Shai and colleagues released results of a new Israeli study, the Dietary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trial (DIRECT) Trial, that compared three different diet strategies. Of those tested, a low-carbohydrate diet was most successful at achieving weight loss.

You can find the full-text of the study on the New England Journal of Medicine website.

322 participants followed one of three diets over two year period. Compared head-to-head, the (mean) weight loss in each group was:

• 2.9 kg (6.4 lbs) for the low-fat group
• 4.4 kg (9.7 lbs) for the Mediterranean-diet group
• 4.7 kg (10.3 lbs) for the low-carbohydrate group

(Average age 52 years at start; average body-mass index, or BMI, 31.)

The conclusion was that the low-carb diet performed the best, with 60% greater weight loss, with the Mediterranean diet a close second.


The diets

The low-fat diet was based on the American Heart Association diet, with 30% of calories from fat (10% from saturated fat) and food choices weighted towards low-fat grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes and limited additional fats, sweets, and high-fat snacks; calorie intake of 1500 kcal per day for women and 1800 kcal per day for men was encouraged.

The Mediterranean diet was a moderate-fat diet rich in vegetables, with reduced red meat, and poultry and fish replacing beef and lamb. Total calories from fat of 35% per day or less was the goal, with most fat calories from olive oil and a handful of nuts. Like the low-fat program, calories were limited to 1500 kcal per day for women, 1800 kcal per day for men.

The low-carbohydrate diet was patterned after the popular Atkins’ program, with 8% participants achieving the ketosis that Dr. Atkins’ advocated as evidence that a fat-burning metabolism was activated, rather than sugar-burning as fuel. For the 2-month “induction phase,” 20 grams of carbohydrates per day was set as the goal, followed by 120 grams per day once the weight goal was achieved. Unlike the other two diets, calories, protein and fat were unlimited.


Weight loss, lipids, inflammation

You can see from the weight loss graph that the low-carb approach exerted the most dramatic initial weight loss. Interestingly, much of the weight-loss benefit was lost as the carbohydrate intake increased, by study design, back to 120 mg per day. However, the other two diet approaches showed similar phenomena of “giving back” some of the initial weight loss.

The low-carbohydrate diet exerted the greatest change in cholesterol, or lipid, panels: increased HDL 8.4 mg/dl vs. 6.3 mg/dl on low-fat; the triglyceride response was the most dramatic, with a reduction of 23.7 mg/dl vs. 3.7 mg/dl on low-fat. Interestingly, the LDL cholesterol-reducing effect of all three diets was modest, with the most reduction achieved by the Mediteranean diet.

The inflammatory measure, C-reactive protein (CRP), was reduced most effectively by the low-carb and Mediterranean diets, least by the low-fat diet. HbA1c, a measure of long-term blood sugar, dropped significantly more on the low-carb diet.

When the final dietary composition was examined, interestingly, there really were only modest differences among the three diets, with 8% less calories from carbs, 8% greater calories from fat, comparing low-carb to low-fat, with Mediterranean intermediate.



Taken at face value, this useful exercise quite clearly shows that, from the perspective of weight loss and correction of metabolic parameters like triglycerides, HDL,CRP, and blood sugar, low-carbohydrate wins hands down, with Mediterranean diet a close second.

It also suggests that a return to a carbohydrate intake of 120 mg/day allows a partial return of initial weight lost, as well as deterioration of metabolic parameters after the initial positive changes.

Although the study has already received some criticism for such potential flaws as the modest number of Atkins’ followers achieving ketosis (8%), suggesting lax adherence, and the reintroduction of the 120 mg/day carbohydrate advice, I can suspect that these may have been compromises drawn to satisfy some Institutional Review Board. (Whenever a study is going to be conducted involving human subjects, a study needs to pass through the review of an Institutional Review Board, or IRB. IRB’s, while charged to protect human subjects from experimental abuses, also tend to be painfully conservative and will block a study or demand changes even if they are not dangerous, but just veer too far off the mainstream.)


However, several unanswered questions remain:

1) How would the diets have compared if the carbohydrate restriction were continued for a longer period, or even indefinitely? (The divergences would likely have been dramatic.)
2) Will low-carb exert the same cardiovascular event reduction that the Mediterranean approach has shown in the Lyon study and others?
3) Are there effects on health outside of the measures followed that differ among the three diets, such as cancer? (I doubt it, especially given the modest real differences over time. But this will be the objection raised by various "official" organizations.)


I would further propose that:

Low-fat diets are dead

The AHA will cling to their version of low-fat diet, based on difficulty in changing course for any large, consensus-driven organization, not to mention the substantial ($100’s of millions) revenues derived from endorsing low-fat manufactured products. The AHA will also point to the lack of difference in LDL cholesterol among the three, since they cannot get beyond the fact that there’s more to coronary risk—a lot more—than LDL.


Off-the-shelf diets achieve off-the-shelf results

If you just need a T-shirt, a medium might fit fine. But if you’d like a nicely fitting suit or dress, then tailoring to your individual proportions is needed. When aiming towards maximizing benefits on lipoproteins and coronary risk, none of these diets achieve the kinds of changes we often need for coronary plaque reversal, as in the Track Your Plaque program. That requires making dietary changes that exert maximal effects on lipoprotein patterns.

Do I sell heart scans?

18. July 2008 William Davis (12)
I came across a criticism of the Track Your Plaque program recently that suggested that it was nothing more than a program to sell CT heart scans.

Huh?

I suppose if you say that the Track Your Plaque program is nothing more than a way to sell heart disease prevention, omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, vitamin D, better nutrition, and better identification of causes of heart disease . . . well, I believe that would be true.

But is the program a "front" to sell heart scans?

No, it is not, nor has it ever been.

I've heard about these peculiar suspicions about the program before. Though I've never taken them seriously, let me clear up any lingering uncertainty:


--I have no relationship with any heart scan center, scanning facility, or hospital other than to interpret heart scans.

I do not own a scanner, I have no financial interest in a scanner or scanning center, nor have I ever had any interest. I also have no plans to do so in the future. Let business people in the imaging business do that. I want no part of it. I have seen what these people go through and, frankly, I want no part of it, nor do I want the appearance that I am advocating scans to make money. I'm accused of trying to make money from scans even when I do not have any financial interest!


--I do not sell heart scans or imaging packages, nor have I ever done so.

You can't buy a scan through Track Your Plaque, The Heart Scan Blog, or through me. To me, heart scans are simply a measuring tool to identify the extent of coronary plaque, as well as a tracking tool to follow its course. Without it, there would be no Track Your Plaque. But there is also no alternative. The closest alternative would be carotid intimal-medial thickness, a technique, while useful, is a distant second choice to indirectly gauge coronary plaque by examining the thickness of the carotid lining (not carotid plaque). Perhaps in 10 years, a better measure to gauge and track coronary plaque will emerge that has superior aspects over CT heart scanning. If reasonable, safe, accessible, and quantitative, then Track Your Plaque may adopt that technology as its measuring tool.

Track Your Plaque is not about heart scanning; Track Your Plaque is about measuring and tracking plaque that, in 2008, is still best accomplished with CT heart scans.


--I make loads of money from heart scans and Track Your Plaque.

Yeah, right.

Track Your Plaque is a volunteer venture for my team; none of us get paid a penny for doing all we do, including me. We charge a membership fee on the website (somewhere around $6-7 a month) to pay our expenses, such as code writing for our proprietary software (much of it remains under development), printing costs, modest legal costs, the costs of doing business (e.g., accountant). Despite the fact that Track Your Plaque and the Heart Scan Blog occupies a substantial part of the day of the Track Your Plaque team, none of us are reimbursed for our time. I do believe, however, that this concept is so enormously powerful that it will, someday, pay us all enough to allow us to devote more time and effort to it.

Personally, I can't wait to devote more time and effort to this concept that is simple, logical, and effective. More research is needed, more development is needed, more discussion is needed. Right now, it is all accomplished outside of our busy schedules, including my full-time cardiology practice. I continue to have 7 am procedures, middle-of-the-night calls, weekend hospital rounds and emergencies (though virtually none of these are the patients involved in prevention, but the "other" people: atrial fibrillation, elderly heart failure patients, rhythm disorders, cardiomyopathies, pulmonary hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, the non-compliant).


--The book, Track Your Plaque, is a gimmick to sell you a heart scan.

No, it's a program that relies on this technology. But there's no special deal, no discounts, no steering to heart scan centers that I have a special arrangement with. No such thing exists, nor has there ever been such an arrangement.


I've heard it all. Early on, when I was helping my friend, Steve Burlingame and his wife, Nancy, set up Milwaukee Heart Scan, I helped by providing medical oversite, education of physicians and public, and interpreting heart scans. After all, in the "early days," nobody knew anything about heart scans. It was a long, hard climb against ignorance, habit, entrenched thinking, stubbornness, and stupidity. I've been paid next to nothing for all this. I told Steve long ago that, given the extraordinary expenses of maintaining an independent scanning center, that he should first pay his expenses, pay his technologists, receptionists, and nurse, pay himself, then pay me for reading scans if he had any money left over. Most of the time, Steve had nothing left over and I was paid nothing.

So, while some of my colleagues were assuming that I was rolling in money from "promoting" heart scans, the reality was that I was doing nearly everything for free. (It certainly wasn't the high life I was living; I don't drive a Mercedes, take fancy vacations, none of that. In fact, I work about 51 weeks a year.)

Why do I do this if it doesn't yield a big flow of money? Because I believe in it as a superior path to the conventional. If I were simply interested in making more money--I wouldn't do it. I would simply do what all my cardiology colleagues are doing: more heart catheterizations, more angioplasties and stents, learning how to do carotid stents, iliac stents, peripheral angioplasty, renal stents, acquiring the skills to put in defibrillators, new device insertion like umbrellas in the interatrial septum, etc. There's plenty more money in that. It's also not that hard. I know, because that is my background: high-risk cardiac interventions. That's what I was trained to do, that's what I did from a number years, until I started to see that this was nothing more than "putting out fires" in people who became increasingly ill and reliant on bail-out procedures. It makes lots of money, but it is also fundamentally wrong.

So, no, I do not sell heart scans, nor is the Track Your Plaque program or The Heart Scan Blog meant to promote heart scans except as a tool for tracking this disease.

That's it, pure and simple.

Plaque is the new cholesterol

17. July 2008 William Davis (3)
Which is more important: cholesterol or coronary plaque?

Ask what Dr. Michael Eades' calls "statinators," and you will likely receive a befuddled look. Or, you might receive comments like "Measuring plaque has never been shown to reduce mortality."

While risk factors for heart disease are important, no doubt (my office practice is about half lipid consultation and complex hyperlipidemia management), for many they have become an end in themselves. In other words, LDL cholesterol in particular dominates thinking so much that it has caused many to exclude the fact that plaque---coronary atherosclerotic plaque---is the disease itself.

Dozens of studies, from the St. Francis Heart Study to the 25,000-participant UCLA registry, to the recently-released MESA database (ethic differences, women, as well as superiority to carotid measures) have repeatedly shown that heart scan scores (coronary artery calcium scores) are superior to conventional risk factors (usually via the Framingham risk score) for predicting future heart attack and other events. And the differences are not minor incremental differences. The predictive power of plaque measurement via heart scanning is multiples better: 4 times, 10 times, 20 times or more in various subgroups.

Much of what we do in medicine is not based on long-term studies of outcome, pitting some diagnostic measure or treatment against placebo. It is already standard practice to measure plaque via heart catheterization, crudely via stress testing, and increasingly popular CT coronary angiography. None of these methods have been subjected to studies comparing testing vs. not testing in a large population, followed by some program of prevention to assess differences in mortality, heart attack, and other events.

Why should heart scan be held to such a standard?

Dr. Scott Grundy, lipid guru and one of the experts who sat on the Adult Treatment Panel-II for lipid management guidelines, recently stated [emphasis added]:

"Imaging has at least 3 virtues. It individualizes risk assessment beyond use of age, which is a less reliable surrogate for atherosclerosis burden; it provides an integrated assessment of the lifetime exposure to risk factors; and it identifies individuals who are susceptible to developing atherosclerosis beyond established risk factors. Also of importance, in the absence of detectable atherosclerosis, short-term risk appears to be very low."

Well said, and from a vocal statinator, to boot.

Sadly, Dr. Grundy goes on to say how plaque imaging can serve to better determine who will benefit from statin drug use.

Of course, you and I know that there is far more to reduction of cardiovascular risk applied to a framework of serial plaque quantification ("tracking plaque"!) than statin drugs. I doubt that a man as intelligent as Dr. Grundy truly believes this. I suspect that he is simply stating what he knows what will be published without resistance in the standard medical literature, trying to achieve a modest incremental success just by raising consciousness about heart scanning and plaque imaging: first things first.

Maybe next will be a plaque-tracking, or even a plaque-reducing, mainstream conversation, just like the one we've been conducting for the past four years.

Track Your Plaque success story blows it

17. July 2008 William Davis (3)
Joe was a Track Your Plaque Success Story. With a starting heart scan score of 278, he dropped it 12 months later to 264, a 5% reduction. Though not a huge reduction, Joe's risk for a heart attack or other coronary event was virtually zero. I was very proud of Joe.

Among the culprit lipoprotein patterns that caused Joe's plaque was lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a). Niacin was therefore crucial to his program. It was among the principal reasons he dropped his heart scan score and reduced his risk for heart attack so dramatically.

Since he retired, Joe has been freewheeling around the country, traveling and having a great time. He consequently stopped thinking about his heart disease and Lp(a). He also tired of the occasional hot flushes he'd experienced with niacin. Though the flushes were promptly aborted by drinking two glasses of water, he simply didn't want to be bothered.

So when Joe saw this interesting and tantalizing "flush-free niacin" on the store shelf, he grabbed it.

Joe came back to the office. His blood pressure was 190/94, so high that he was having occasional chest pains from it (which can happen when something called "left ventricular diastolic dysfunction" develops from hypertension). His lipoprotein patterns were terrible, including a big upward jump in Lp(a) and drop in HDL. So I asked him to have another heart scan right away: Score 371, a 40% increase. In other words, his program went down the toilet.

Why?

Simple: Flush-free niacin. I've said it before (No flush = No effect and No flush niacin kills) and I'll say it again:

Flush-free or No-flush niacin is a complete, unadulterated, completely ineffective SCAM.

Flush-free or no-flush niacin is not a substitute for niacin. Joe is yet another example of how dangerous this scam can be. It turned one of our great success stories into a failure.

Please, please, please do not fall for this misleading and potentially dangerous scam product. While the product itself is not intrinsically dangerous, it denies you the benefits of the real thing: niacin.

Thankfully, the mistake in Joe's program was caught before a heart attack or other catastrophe. He did manage to pass a stress test, though with a flagrantly out-of-control blood pressure response. We'll get him back on track--but with niacin, the real thing.