No flush = No effect

13. November 2006 William Davis (3)


"Inositol Hexanicotinate is the true 'flushless niacin.' Unlike 'sustained-release' niacin, which is just regular niacin in a pill which dissolves more slowly, Inositol Hexanicotinate is a niacin complex, formed with the B-vitamin-like inositol. When you take an IHN supplement, the central inositol ring gradually releases niacin molecules, one at a time delivering true niacin. This, like “sustained-release” niacin, allows you to take niacin at clinically-proven doses without going crazy with the itch."


That above bit of nonsense adorns one manufacturers sales pitch for its no-flush niacin. No-flush niacin is one of the biggest scams in the health food store.

Ordinarily, I love health food stores. There's lots of fun and interesting things available that pack real power for your health program. Unfortunately, there's also outright nonsense. No-flush niacin is absolute nonsennse.

No-flush niacin is inositol hexaniacinate, or an inositol molecule complexed with 6 niacin molecules. So it really does contain niacin. However, although it works in rats, it exerts no known effect in humans.

Just Friday, a 41-year old woman came to my office for consultation because her doctor didn't know what to do with lipoprotein(a). She had seen a cardiologist who told her to take no-flush niacin. Both the cardiologist and the patient were therefore puzzled when lipoprotein(a) showed no drop and, in fact, was slightly higher on the no-flush preparation.

The lack of any observable effect and no studies whatsoever showing a positive effect (there is one study demonstrating no effect), manufacturers continue to manufacture it and health food stores continue to push it as an alternative to niacin that causes the flush. It's quite expensive, commonly costing $30-$50 for 100 tablets.

Don't fall for this gimmick. Niacin is among the most helpful of treatments for gaining control over coronary plaque. It raises HDL, corrects small LDL, reduces triglycerides (along with its friend, fish oil, of course), reduces lipoprotein(a), and dramatically contributes to reduced heart attack risk. No-flush niacin does none of this. Track Your Plaque Members: For a thorough discussion of niacin--how to use it, what preparations work and which do not, read Niacin: Ins and outs, ups and downs on the www.cureality.com website.

"Black holes" on heart scan

11. November 2006 William Davis (1)

Lots of smokers, especially younger smokers, rationalize their habit by telling themselves that they'll stop if and when any hint of adverse health effects develop.

The problem is that, even in the first decade of smoking, dramatic and profound effects can develop--but you won't know it.

One of the most graphic examples of this I see every day in people who have heart scans. While CT heart scans are, of course, for identification of coronary plaque/coronary disease, they're also great for visualizing the lungs.

This man is a light smoker. The lungs are the black tissues (that's normal) on either side of the (white) heart in the center. Now, note the holes in the lung tissue. That's what they literally are: holes left by the destrucive, tissue-eating effects of cigarette smoking.

How common are the holes (or emphysematous "blebs", as they're called in medical lingo)? Very common. You'll even see them in 30-somethings who've smoked only a few years.

These are holes that have nothing in them. The lung tissue that was destroyed to create the hole will never grow back, even when smoking stops. The holes in this example are actually small to average in size. I've seen much bigger. And this only represents the early stages of lung tissue destruction. A long-time heavy smoker shows all other sorts of abnormalities.

Whenever I show these "black holes" to people who smoke, they are horrified and I've actually gotten many people to quit. Take the opportunity to quit as soon as you can if you smoke.

Small LDL--a persistent bugger

10. November 2006 William Davis (1)
Sometimes, small LDL is easy to get rid of. Take niacin, for instance, and it can simply disappear from your body.

But other times, it can be aggravatingly persistent. Several times every day, in fact, I need to run through the checklist of strategies to reduce small LDL with patients.

How important is small LDL? In my experience, it is among the most potent causes behind coronary plaque known. It's a big part of the explanation why some people at an LDL of cholesterol of X mg/dl will have heart disease, while others with the same X mg/dl of LDL will not. When present, small LDL particles are much more likely to trigger atherosclerotic plaque formation. Small LDL particles magnify Lp(a)'s ill-effects tremendously. The data vary but small LDL probably increases heart attack risk at least three-fold.



Here's a checklist of strategies that I advise patients to consider to minimize the small LDL pattern:


--Lose weight to ideal weight--This is very important and effective.


--Fish oil--A relatively small effect unless triglycerides are high to begin with.




--Reduction of wheat products--This can provide a BIG effect. More precisely, a reduction in high-glycemic index foods is effective. But the biggest day-to-day high-glycemic food culprits are wheat products like breads, pasta, crackers, chips, pretzels, and breakfast cereals. "You mean whole wheat bread makes small LDL?!" Yup.


--Reduction of sweets--For the same reasons as reducing wheat products.


--Add raw almonds and walnuts--1/4 to 1/2 cup per day.




--Replace wheat products with OAT products, especially oat bran. This does NOT mean oat-containing breakfast cereals with added sugar and wheat, e.g., Honey Nut Cheerios, Cracklin' Oat Bran Cereal, etc. You might as well eat candy. Buy oat bran as plain oat bran--nothing added. Use it as a hot cereal or added to yogurt, "breading" for chicken, etc.




--Vitamin D--A variable effect, likely resulting from its beneficial effects on "insulin resistance".


--Exercise


--Niacin--Very effective but not always enough.


Among the choices, my favorites are weight loss, niacin, and reduction of wheat products. Those will give you the biggest bang for your buck.

Red badge of courage

8. November 2006 William Davis (0)
A group of 60- and 70-somethings were standing in the anteroom to the cardiac rehabilitation center. All (males) had their T-shirts pulled up, comparing their coronary bypass scars.

It reminds me of war veterans comparing their war wounds. The scars of suffering, of having "conquered" and won a war with a common enemy, a badge of courage.

This is part of the broad social acceptance of bypass surgery and other major procedures for heart disease. Hospitals support it. They do it for the psychological support for patients enduring a difficult process. Often, talking about a shared experience can be a helpful purge for the fears and frustrations of a traumatic event.

Curious thing, though. I've actually had people request bypass surgery simply because all their friends have had one. No kidding. "I just figure my time is coming. I might as well get it over with."

Get the picture? We've had a battle with heart disease and the hospitals have won. The enormous success of hospitals over the last 20 years is not because of delivering babies, it's not from psychiatric hospitalization, it's not from cancer treatment. It's from heart disease. The largest floors in the hospital are usually the cardiac floors. The bulk of revenues and profit are from heart disease.

If I manufacture widgets and each widget I sell makes me scads of money, guess what? I want to sell more and more widgets. I'll persuade people they need my widgets even if they don't. Perhaps I'll even persuade them that buying one is a noble cause. Maybe I'll subtly suggest that I am a charitable operation and I only sell my products for the public good. I could even name my company after a saint. Personal profit--absolutely not!

Ignore the hype. See hospitals and their "products" for what they are: A necessary service--some of the time; profitable products that they hope to sell to more and more people most of the time.

"We don't believe in heart scans"

7. November 2006 William Davis (0)
Tim's CT heart scan score was an earth-shattering 3,447, clearly in the upper stratosphere of percentile rank. Risk of heart attack: 25% per year. At age 58, it was a wonder that nothing had happened yet.

Tim went to the Cleveland Clinic for an opinion, long a powerful bastion of heart procedures. The consulting cardiologist told Tim, "We don't believe in heart scans. They're wrong too often."

An opinion from a widely-respected cardiovascular center. If they don't "believe" in heart scans, does that mean they "believe" in stents and bypass surgery? Does it mean that the thousands of research studies that have now been published on the value of heart scanning are pure fiction? Is there a choice to believe or not believe?

I continue to be shocked at the extraordinary ignorance on the topic of heart scanning among my colleagues. The number one killer of Americans and you still rely on stress tests?

Why this perception that heart scans are "wrong too often"? What this cardiologist means, I believe, is that when people are taken to the cath lab for catheterization, a substantial number of those with positive heart scan scores don't have "blockage". But I could have told him that even before the heart catheterization.

There is an expected and well-documented likelihood of finding significant "blockage" based on your heart scan score. At Tim's scary score of 3,447, what is the likelihood of "blockage" of 50% or more? It's around 40-50%. That means that half the people at this score will have a blockage sufficient to justify inserting stents or undergoing bypass surgery, half will not. There will indeed be many plaques, but none severe enough to block flow.

Does that make the heart scan wrong? I don't think it does. Just because you don't need a major procedure to "fix" blockages does not mean that no heart disease is present. Without preventive efforts, Tim's heart attack risk remains an alarming 25% per year--whether or not he gets stents or bypass. The only treatments that substantially reduce this risk (in an asymptomatic person) are preventive efforts, not procedures.

Yet cardiologists like the one Tim consulted at the Cleveland Clinic regard heart scans as something "he doesn't believe in". I would suggest a return to the textbooks and published literature and re-thinking how heart disease should be managed.

Heart scans should provide an opportunity for prevention, not an opportunity for profit.

More on the “Rule of 60”

6. November 2006 William Davis (0)
Despite its apparent simplicity, there’s a lot of thought and wisdom in the Rule of 60.

What if you achieve only a single value in the Track Your Plaque “Rule of 60”? What if, for instance, you got LDL down to 60 mg/dl, but ignored the fact that your HDL was 41 mg/dl and triglycerides were up to 145 mg/dl? Can you still do pretty well?

Probably not. In fact, this specific combination of low HDL and high triglycerides tells me several things:

1) LDL is really much higher than suggested by the 60 mg/dl, which is a calculated value, often much higher. Recall that calculated LDL is prone to immense inaccuracy. When measured, the LDL is commonly somewhere between 120 and 160 mg/dl. However, when you raise HDL to 60 and reduce triglycerides to 60, much of the inaccuracy is removed, i.e., calculated LDL becomes more accurate. LDL can be measured as LDL particle number (NMR), apoprotein B, or direct LDL.

2) LDL particles are small. This is yet another reason why the weight-based LDL measures can be inaccurate. Imagine you have two identical glass jars full of marbles. One jar has small marbles, the other has large marbles, but both jars have the same weight in marbles. Which jar has more marbles? The one with small marbles, of course. The same phenomenon occurs with LDL particles: at the same weight, you can have different numbers of LDL particles. It’s the number of particles that better determine risk for heart disease, not the weight.

3) Triglycerides of 145 mg/dl is actually below the target advised by the National Cholesterol Education Panel Adult Treatment Panel-III guidelines, i.e., you’re okay by conventional standard. But look beneath the surface, and you’ll find that triglycerides at 145 mg/dl are associated with flagrant excesses of VLDL lipoprotein particles and a greater likelihood of a postprandial (after-eating) disorder (increased IDL or postprandial triglycerides), both of which add to coronary plaque.

4) This pattern is also commonly associated with higher blood sugar, higher blood pressure, increased inflammation (e.g., C-reactive protein), increased fibrinogen—all the facets of the metabolic syndrome, or pre-diabetes.

In fact, some of the most aggressive plaque growth—increasing heart scan scores—will occur with this specific pattern. So just achieving one facet of the Track Your Plaque Rule of 60 does not suffice. It’s the whole package that really stacks the odds in your favor of stopping or dropping your heart scan score.

The Track Your Plaque “Rule of 60”

6. November 2006 William Davis (0)
The Track Your Plaque recommended targets for conventional lipids (i.e., LDL, HDL, triglycerides) are LDL 60 mg/dl, HDL 60 mg/dl, and triglycerides 60 mg/dl: 60-60-60.

Not only is this set of values easy to remember—60-60-60—but is grounded in science and the results of clinical trials.

LDL 60 mg/dl
The LDL target is based on experiences such as that of the Reversal Trial, the PROVE-IT Trial, and the Asteroid Trial, all of which showed that LDL cholesterol values in the range of 60 mg/dl dramatically enhance the likelihood of stopping plaque growth or achieving regression, reducing risk of heart attack more than more lenient LDL targets.


HDL 60 mg/dl
Achieving HDL cholesterol of 60 mg/dl is not as well grounded as LDL targets, mostly because increasing HDL is more difficult. There’s also no tremendously profitable way to raise HDL, as there is for reducing LDL (statin drugs). But epidemiologic observations strongly suggest that HDL of 60 mg/dl provides maximum control over both coronary plaque growth, as well as slashing rates of heart attack. Numerous smaller trials have borne this phenomenon out.


Triglycerides 60 mg/dl
Triglycerides of 60 mg/dl is based principally on studies that have shown a virtual elimination of abnormal lipoproteins, especially small LDL, when this value is achieved. Reduction of triglycerides is an effective means to reduce hidden lipoproteins like small LDL and VLDL. Triglycerides in the conventionally acceptable range of 100-150 mg/dl can be associated with dramatic abnormalities of lipoproteins.


Thus, the Track Your Plaque “Rule of 60”. In our day to day experience of trying to stamp out plaque growth from its terrifyingly rapid 30% per year, or reversing it—-dropping your heart scan score—-the Rule of 60 has held up time and again. Getting your lipids to 60 mg/dl does not guarantee that plaque growth stops, but it appears to be a necessary requirement that tips the scales heavily in your favor.

Those of you who’ve discussed lipid targets with your doctor will quickly recognize that the Track Your Plaque targets appear laughably ambitious, perhaps unnecessary. Recall that your doctor likely has no idea of what coronary plaque regression means. He/she likely conforms to the lax targets set by the National Cholesterol Education Panel (NCEP). (These targets depend on a number of factors such as whether you’re diabetic, sex, risk factors, etc.) Based on trial experiences like the few mentioned above, as well as my experience with purposeful coronary plaque reversal, the lipid guidelines as advocated by NCEP guarantee heart disease. Let me emphasize that again: Follow the guidelines set by the NCEP for your doctor to follow, and progression of heart disease is a virtual certainty. At best, it may slow growth of plaque and delay your heart attack or bypass surgery, but it will not stop it.

Now, that point made, let me make another: Just knowing about the targets and even becoming a member of the Track Your Plaque program does not mean that your lipids with automatically go to 60-60-60. We’ve actually had an occasional person tell us that they were disappointed that, by becoming Members, why hadn’t their lipids gone to 60-60-60?

Knowing that the 60-60-60 targets provide real advantage is not the same as actually achieving them.

A little bit of fish oil

5. November 2006 William Davis (12)

The British National Health Service (NHS) has announced that, in light of the substantial data documenting that omega-3 fatty acid intake from fish reduces likelihood of cardiovascular events by around 40%, that Brits discharged from hospital following a heart attack should be "prescribed" 1000 mg of prescription fish oil per day.

Hardly a revolutionary concept. Part of the timidity of the British NHS seems to relate to the potential cost to the government, since apparently much of the cost will be borne by the government-subsidized health system.

But prescription fish oil? Why prescription fish oil? Prescription Omacor, one capsule per day, costs around $70 (U.S.) per month. If I go to Sam's Club the same quantity of omega-3 fatty acids (in three capsules) will cost around $2.50. That's less than 5% of the cost of the prescription form.

Omacor is clearly more concentrated. But is the prescription form better--more effective, more purified, less contaminated, etc.? I have seen no independent verification of this. Of course, manufacturers make all sorts of claims. The only independent, unbiased testing I'm aware of comes from organizations like Consumer Reports and www.consumerlabs.com. Omacor has not been compared to non-prescription fish oil in any of their analyses. Head-to-head comparison of Omacor to nutritional supplement fish oil is unlikely to come from Solvay, the manufacturer of Omacor. Drug companies powerfully resist head-to-head comparisons, fearing it will not play out in their favor. Let the public remain ignorant and hope marketing conquers all.

Why would the NHS only recommend eating fish and prescription fish oil? I don't know, but it smells awfully fishy to me. As soon as an opportunity for profit is built into a treatment, all of a sudden it gains endorsement. Perhaps lobbying by those parties with potential for profit drove the process.

Nonetheless, despite the filthy politics and under-the-table dealings, some good comes out of the NHS's action: broader recognition of the power of fish oil. Perhaps when a British patient or an American patient gets discharged with a prescription for Omacor, the patient will take the initiative and go to the health food store instead and save him (or his insurer) $67.50 per month.

For your coronary plaque control program and control and/or reversal of your heart scan score, we start at 4000 mg per day of standard fish oil, providing 1200 mg per day of omega-3 oils. This amount as a nutritional supplement costs only a few dollars a month. And you have the satisfaction of not only taking a powerful step for your health, but also not enriching the overflowing pockets of drug companies.

AHA: Doctors don't have time for prevention

3. November 2006 William Davis (0)
Doctors "don't have enough time to educate their patients and to stop and think about what measures the patient really needs," says Dr. Raymond Gibbons, new head of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Gibbons highlighted how the system reimburses generously for performing procedures, but reimburses relatively little (often just a few dollars) for providing preventive counseling. He claims to have several ideas for solutions.

Good for Dr. Gibbons. There's no doubt that the lack of truly effective preventive information and counseling is a systemic, built-in flaw in the current medical environment. It is especially true in heart disease.

Another problem: "If a doctor didn't say it, it must not be true." That's the attitude of many of my colleagues. Despite their broad and systematic failure to provide preventive counseling, most physicians (my colleagues the cardiologists especially) pooh-pooh information that comes from other sources. Yet, it's my prediction that much of healthcare will go the way of optometry--direct access to care, often delivered in non-healthcare settings like a store or mall. People are hungry for truly self-empowering health information. Too many physicians can't or won't provide it. You've got to turn elsewhere for it.

That's one of the main reasons I set up the Track Your Plaque program. It's direct access to self-empowering information. A flaw: You still require the assistance of a physician to obtain lab values, lipoproteins, and to monitor certain treatments (e.g., niacin at higher doses). If I knew of a way around this, I'd tell you. But right now I don't. We remain constrained by legal and moral obligations.

Nonetheless, phenomena like CT heart scanning and the Track Your Plaque program are just a taste of things to come.

Confusion about Lp(a)

3. November 2006 William Davis (2)
Since the recent reader question about Lp(a), I've had several other instances of confusion over Lp(a).

To help you navigate through some of the often confusing issues behind this complex genetic abnormality, here are some common sense rules to follow. When you ask your doctor to draw a Lp(a), try to be certain that:

--the same laboratory is always used. Just going from lab to lab can account for huge variation in Lp(a). As standardization proceeds internationally, this will be become less important. But in 2006, it's still an issue.

--you and your doctor resist the temptation to check Lp(a) frequently. I saw a patient recently who was having Lp(a) levels nearly every month. This is pointless. Lp(a) changes very slowly. Checking it frequently will not allow any treatment to be fully reflected. All you'll observe is random variation that can be frustrating. We wait at least 6 months before re-checking after a new treatment is introduced.

If you have a choice, I would recommend you opt for the measure provided by Liposcience (NMR). The technique they use is a particle count measure, rather than a weight-based measure. This may be more accurate, particularly when Lp(a) is small.

Lp(a) remains among the more difficult patterns to understand and correct. Don't be surprised if you encounter a lot of confusion from your doctor, as well. You may end up providing much of his/her education.

Put lipstick on a dwarf

2. December 2010 William Davis (24)
Today, virtually all wheat products are produced from the Triticum aestivum dwarf mutant.

You might call it "multi-grain bread,""oat bread," or "flaxseed bread." You could call it "organic," "pesticide-free," "non-GMO," or "no preservatives." It might be shaped into a ciabatta, bruschetta, focaccia, or panini. It might be sourdough, unleavened, or sprouted. It could be brown, black, Pumpernickel, or white. It could be shaped into a roll, bun, bagel, pizza, loaf, pretzel, cracker, pancake, brioche, baguette, or pita. It could be matzah, challah, naan, or Communion wafers.

No matter what you call it, it's all the same. It's all from the dwarf mutant Triticum aestivum plant, the 18-inch tall product of hybridizations, backcrossings, and introgressions that emerged from genetics research during the 1960s and 70s.

According to Dr. Allan Fritz, Professor of Wheat Breeding at Kansas State University, and Dr. Gary Vocke at the USDA, over 99% of all wheat grown today is the dwarf variant of Triticum aestivum. (For you genetics types, Triticum aestivum is the hexaploid, i.e., 3 combined genomes, product of extensive hybridizations, while ancestral einkorn is a diploid, i.e., a single genome, grass. Hexaploid Triticum aestivum contains the especially hazardous "D" genome, the set of genes most commonly the recipient of genetic manipulations to modify the characteristics of flour, such as gluten content. Einkorn contains only the original "A" genome.)

No matter what you call it, add to it, how you shape it, etc., it's all the same. It's all the dwarf mutant product of tens of thousands of hybridizations.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. By the way, lipstick may contain wheat.

What the Institute of Medicine SHOULD have said

1. December 2010 William Davis (47)
The news is full of comments, along with many attention-grabbing headlines, about the announcement from the Institute of Medicine that the new Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for vitamin D should be 600 units per day for adults.

What surprised me was the certainty with which some of the more outspoken committee members expressed with their view that 1) the desirable serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D level was only 20 ng/ml, and 2) that most Americans already obtain a sufficient quantity of vitamin D.

Here's what I believe the Institute of Medicine SHOULD have said:

Multiple lines of evidence suggest that there is a plausible biological basis for vitamin D's effects on cancer, inflammatory responses, bone health, and metabolic responses including insulin responsiveness and blood glucose. However, the full extent and magnitude of these responses has not yet been fully characterized.

Given the substantial observations reported in several large epidemiologic studies that show an inverse correlation between 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels and mortality, there is without question an association between vitamin D and mortality from cancer, cardiovascular disease, and all cause mortality. However, it has not been established that there are cause-effect relationships, as this cannot be established by epidemiologic study.

While the adverse health effects of 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels of less than 30 ng/ml have been established, the evidence supporting achieving higher 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels remains insufficient, limited to epidemiologic observations on cancer incidence. However, should 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels of greater than 30 ng/ml be shown to be desirable for ideal health, then vitamin D deficiency has potential to be the most widespread deficiency of the modern age.

Given the potential for vitamin D's impact on multiple facets of health, as suggested by preliminary epidemiologic and basic science data, we suggest that future research efforts be focused on establishing 1) the ideal level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels to achieve cancer-preventing, bone health-preserving or reversing, and cardiovascular health preventive benefits, 2) the racial and genetic (vitamin D receptor, VDR) variants that may account for varying effects in different populations, 3) whether vitamin D restoration has potential to exert not just health-preserving effects, but also treatment effects, specifically as adjunct to conventional cancer and osteoporosis therapies, and 4) how such vitamin D restoration is best achieved.

Until the above crucial issues are clarified, we advise Americans that vitamin D is a necessary and important nutrient for multiple facets of health but, given current evidence, are unable to specify a level of vitamin D intake that is likely to be safe, effective, and fully beneficial for all Americans.


Instead of a careful, science-minded conclusion that meets the painfully conservative demands of crafting broad public policy, the committee instead chose to dogmatically pull the discussion back to the 1990s, ignoring the flood of compelling evidence that suggests that vitamin D is among the most important public health issues of the age.

Believe it or not, this new, though anemic, RDA represents progress: It's a (small) step farther down the road towards broader recognition and acceptance that higher intakes (or skin exposures) to achieve higher vitamin D levels are good for health.

My view: Vitamin D remains among the most substantial, life-changing health issues of our age. Having restored 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels in over 1000 people, I have no doubt whatsoever that vitamin D achieves substantial benefits in health with virtually no downside, provided 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels are monitored.

Coronary calcium: Cause or effect?

28. November 2010 William Davis (25)
Here's an interesting observation made by a British research group.

We all know that coronary calcium, as measured by CT heart scans, are a surrogate measure of atherosclerotic plaque "burden," i.e., an indirect yardstick for coronary plaque. The greater the quantity of coronary calcium, the higher the heart scan "score," the greater the risk for heart attack and other unstable coronary syndromes that lead to stents, bypass, etc.

But can calcium also cause plaque to form or trigger processes that lead to plaque formation and/or instability?

Nadra et al show, in an in vitro preparation, that calcium phosphate crystals are actively incorporated into inflammatory macrophages, which then trigger a constellation of inflammatory cytokine release (tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interleukins), fundamental processes underlying atherosclerotic plaque formation and inflammation.

Here's the abstract of the study:
Proinflammatory Activation of Macrophages by Basic Calcium Phosphate Crystals via Protein Kinase C and MAP Kinase Pathways:

A Vicious Cycle of Inflammation and Arterial Calcification?

Basic calcium phosphate (BCP) crystal deposition underlies the development of arterial calcification. Inflammatory macrophagescolocalize with BCP deposits in developing atherosclerotic lesionsand in vitro can promote calcification through the release of TNF alpha. Here we have investigated whether BCP crystals can elicit a proinflammatory response from monocyte-macrophages.BCP microcrystals were internalized into vacuoles of human monocyte-derived macrophages in vitro. This was associated with secretion of proinflammatory cytokines (TNF{alpha}, IL-1ß and IL-8) capable of activating cultured endothelial cells and promoting capture of flowing leukocytes under shear flow. Critical roles for PKC, ERK1/2, JNK, but not p38 intracellular signaling pathways were identified in the secretion of TNF alpha, with activation of ERK1/2 but not JNK being dependent on upstream activation of PKC. Using confocal microscopy and adenoviral transfection approaches, we determined a specific role for the PKC-alpha isozyme.

The response of macrophages to BCP crystals suggests that pathological calcification is not merely a passive consequence of chronic inflammatory disease but may lead to a positive feed-back loop of calcification and inflammation driving disease progression.


This observation adds support to the notion that increasing coronary calcium scores, i.e., increasing accumulation of calcium within plaque, suggests active plaque. As I say in Track Your Plaque, "growing plaque is active plaque." Active plaque means plaque that is actively growing, inflamed and infiltrated by inflammatory cells like macrophages, eroding its structural components, and prone to "rupture," i.e., cause heart attack. Someone whose first heart scan score is, say, 100, followed by another heart scan score two years later of 200 is exposed to sharply increasing risk for cardiovascular events which may, in part, be due to the plaque-stimulating effects of calcium.

Conversely, reducing coronary calcium scores removes a component of plaque that would otherwise fuel its growth. So, people like our Freddie, who reduced his heart scan score by 75%, can be expected to enjoy a dramatic reduction of risk for cardiovascular events.

Less calcium, less plaque to rupture, less risk.

Wheat one-liners

26. November 2010 William Davis (22)
If you're having difficulty convincing a loved one or someone else that wheat should be eliminated from the human diet, here are some useful one-liners to use:

Wheat makes your boobs big.
(This is true. Priceless for women to use on their husbands.)

Wheat causes dementia.
(And confirmed on examination of brain tissue at autopsy. Yes, autopsy.)

Wheat makes you look pregnant.
(The visceral fat of a wheat belly does a darn good imitation of a near-term infant.)

The first sign of wheat intolerance can be wetting your pants.
(Cerebellar ataxia, i.e., destruction and atrophy of the cerebellum, caused by wheat leads to loss of coordination and bladder control. Average age of onset: 53 years old.)

White flour bad, whole grain better; just as Marlboros are bad, Salems are better.
(The flawed syllogism that led to the "eat more healthy whole grain" colossal blunder.)

Wheat is the only food with its very own mortality rate.
(Celiac disease, osteoporotic hip fractures, and the neurologic diseases triggered by wheat can be fatal.)

"Wheat" is no longer wheat; it's the dwarf mutant that came from genetics research in the 1960s.
(Over 99% of all wheat today comes from the 18-inch tall dwarf mutant.)

Wheat increases blood sugar higher than nearly all other foods.
(Higher than Milky Way bars, higher than Snickers bars, higher than table sugar.)


There you have it: A full arsenal of one-liners to shoot at your husband, wife, or friend when they roll their eyes at your refusal to consume this thing called "wheat."

The happy homeotherm

24. November 2010 William Davis (14)
If you were a "cold blooded" poikilotherm unable to regulate internal body temperature, you would have to sun yourself on rocks to raise your body temperature, just like turtles and snakes. When it got cold, your metabolic rate would slow and you might burrow into the mud to hide.

You and I, however, are homeotherms, terrestrial animals able to regulate our own internal body temperature. Principal responsibility for keeping your body temperature regulated falls with the thyroid gland, your very own thermoregulatory "thermostat."

But internal body temperature, even in a homeotherm, varies with circadian rhythm: Highest temperature occurs in the early evening around 8 p.m.; the low temperature nadir occurs at around 4 a.m.

The notion that normal human temperature is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit is a widely-held fiction, a legacy of the extraordinary experience of 19th century German physician, Carl Reinhold August Wunderlich, who claims to have measured temperatures of one million people using his crude, uncalibrated thermometer to obtain axillary (armpit) body temperatures.

Dr. Broda Barnes was a 20th century American proponent of using the nadir body temperature to gauge thyroid function. Like Wunderlich, Barnes also used axillary temperatures.

Modern temperature assessments have employed radiotransmitting thermistors that are swallowed, with temperatures tracked as the thermistor travels through the stomach, duodenum, small intestine, large intestine, rectum, then peek-a-boos back out. Such internal "core temperature" assessments have shown that:

--Axillary temperatures do not track with internal core temperatures very well, often veering off course due to external factors.
--Axillary temperatures are subject to ambient temperatures, such as room temperature, and are affected by clothing.
--Axillary temperatures are more susceptible to physical activity, e.g., increased with exercise or physical work.

Even right vs. left axillary temperatures have been shown to vary up to 2 degrees Fahrenheit.

Studies such as this demonstrate that normal oral temperature upon arising is around 97.2-97.3 degrees Fahrenheit. While we lack data correlating thyroid function with circadian temperature variation, the a.m. nadir does indeed, as Dr. Barnes originally suggested, seem to track thyroid status quite well: lower with hypothyroidism, higher with normal or hyperthyroidism.

I have been using 97.3 degrees F orally as the cutoff for confirming or uncovering thyroid dysfunction, particularly when symptoms or blood tests (TSH, free T3, free T4) are equivocal, a value that has held up well in the majority of cases. I find it helpful when, for instance, someone complains of cold hands and feet and has normal TSH (1.5 mIU/L or less in my view) but low free T3. An a.m. oral temperature of, say, 95.7 degrees F, suggests that there will be a favorable response to T3 supplementation. And it nearly always plays out that way.

Wouldn't it be interesting to know if there was insight into thyroid status provided by also examining the circadian behavior of temperature (e.g., height or timing of the peak)?

Statin buster?

19. November 2010 William Davis (20)
Merck recently reported preliminary results with its drug-in-development, anacetrapib.

After six months of treatment, participants showed:

LDL cholesterol was reduced from 81 mg/dl to 45 mg/dl in those taking anacetrapib, and from 82 mg/dl to 77 mg/dl in the placebo group.

HDL increased from 41 mg/dl to 101 mg/dl in the drug group, from 40 mg/dl to 46 mg/dl in those on placebo.

As you'd expect, the usual line-up of my colleagues gushed over the prospects of the drug, salivating over new speaking opportunities, handsomely-paid clinical "research" trials, and plenty of nice trips to exotic locales.

Anacetrapib is a cholesteryl-ester transfer protein inhibitor, or CETP inhibitor, much like its scrapped predecessor, torcetrapib . . . you know, the one that went down in flames in 2006 after 60% excess mortality occurred in people taking the drug compared to placebo. The hopes of many investors and Pfizer executives were dashed with torcetrapib's demise. The data on torcetrapib's lipid effects were as impressive as Merck's anacetrapib.

These drugs block the effects of the CETP enzyme, an enzyme with complex effects. Among CETP's effects: mediating the "heteroexchange" of triglycerides from triglyceride-rich VLDL particles that first emerge from the liver for cholesterol from LDL particles. This CETP-mediated process enriches LDL particles with triglycerides, which then make LDL a target for action by another enzyme, hepatic lipase, that removes triglycerides. This yields a several nanometer smaller LDL particle, now the number one most common cause of heart disease in the U.S., thanks to conventional advice to cut fat intake and increase consumption of "healthy whole grains."

With effects like this, anacetrapib, should it hold up under the scrutiny of FDA-required trials and not show the same mortality-increasing effects of torcetrapib, will be a huge blockbuster for Merck if release goes as scheduled in 2015. It will likely match or exceed sales of any statin drug. Statin drugs have achieved $27 billion annual sales, some of it deserved. Anacetrapib will likely handily match or exceed Lipitor's $12 billion annual revenue.

More than increasing HDL, CETP inhibition is really a strategy to reduce small LDL particles.

As with many drugs, there are natural means to achieve similar effects with none of the side-effects. In this case, similar effects to CETP inhibition, though with no risk of heightened mortality, is . . . elimination of wheat, in addition to an overall limitation of carbohydrate consumption. Not just low-carb, mind you, but wheat elimination on the background of low-carb. For instance, eliminate wheat products and limit daily carbohydrate intake to 50-100 grams per day, depending on your individual carbohydrate sensitivity, and small LDL drops 50-75%. HDL, too, will increase over time, not as vigorously as with a CETP inhibitor, but a healthy 20-30% increase, more with restoration of vitamin D.

Eliminating wheat and adjusting diet to ratchet down carbs is, of course, cheap, non-prescription, and can be self-administerd, criteria that leave the medical world indifferent. But it's a form of "CETP inhibition" that you can employ today with none of the worries of a new drug, especially one that might share effects with an agent with a dangerous track record.

Why does wheat cause arthritis?

13. November 2010 William Davis (48)
Wheat causes arthritis.

Before you say "What the hell is he saying now?", let me connect the dots on how this ubiquitous dietary ingredient accelerates the path to arthritis in its many forms.

1) Wheat causes glycation--Glycation is glucose-modification of proteins in the body that occurs when blood glucose exceeds 100 mg/dl. Cartilage cells are especially susceptible to glycation. The cartilage cells you had at age 18 are the very same cartilage cells you have at age 60, since they lack the ability to reproduce and repair themselves. Proteins in cartilage are highly susceptible to glycation, which makes them stiff and brittle. Stiff, brittle cartilage loses its soft, elastic, lubricating function. Damaged cartilage cells don't regenerate nor produce more protective proteins. This allows destruction of cartilage tissue, inflammation, and, eventually, bone-on-bone arthritis.

Because wheat, even whole wheat, sends blood sugar higher than almost all other foods, from table sugar to Snickers bars, glycation occurs after each and every slice of toast, every whole wheat bagel, every pita wrap.

2) Wheat is acidifying--Humans are meant to consume a diet that is net alkaline. While hunter-gatherers who consume meat along with plentiful vegetables and fruits live a net alkaline diet (urine pH 7 to 9), modern humans who consume insufficient vegetables and too much grain (of which more than 90% is usually wheat) shift the body towards net acid (urine pH 5 to 7). Wheat is The Great Disrupter, upsetting the normal pH balance that causes loss of calcium from bones, resulting in decalcification, weakness, arthritis and osteoporotic fractures.

3) Wheat causes visceral fat--The extravagant glucose-insulin surges triggered by wheat leads to accumulation of visceral fat: wheat belly.

Visceral fat not only releases inflammatory mediators like tumor necrosis factor and various interleukins, but is also itself inflamed. The inflammatory hotbed of the wheat belly leads to inflammation of joint tissues. This is why overweight and obese wheat-consuming people have more arthritis than would be explained by the burden of excess weight: inflammation makes it worse. Conversely, weight loss leads to greater relief from arthritis pain and inflammation than would be explained by just lightening the physical load.

We need a name for this wheat effect. How about "bagel bones"?

Why do morphine-blocking drugs make you lose weight?

10. November 2010 William Davis (24)
Naloxone (IV) and naltrexone (oral) are drugs that block the action of morphine.

If you were an inner city heroine addict and got knifed during a drug deal, you'd be dragged into the local emergency room. You're high, irrational, and combative. The ER staff restrain you, inject you with naloxone and you are instantly not high. Or, if you overdosed on morphine and stopped breathing, an injection of naloxone would reverse the effect immediately, making you sit bolt upright and wondering what the heck was going on.

So what do morphine-blocking drugs have to do with weight loss?

An odd series of clinical studies conducted over the past 40 years has demonstrated that foods can have opiate-like properties. Opiate blockers, like naloxone, can thereby block appetite. One such study demonstrated 28% reduction in caloric intake after naloxone administration. But opiate blocking drugs don't block desire for all foods, just some.

What food is known to be broken down into opiate-like polypeptides?

Wheat. On digestion in the gastrointestinal tract, wheat gluten is broken down into a collection of polypeptides that are released into the bloodstream. These gluten-derived polypeptides are able to cross the blood-brain barrier and enter the brain. Their binding to brain cells can be blocked by naloxone or naltrexone administration. These polypeptides have been named exorphins, since they exert morphine-like activity on the brain. While you may not be "high," many people experience a subtle reward, a low-grade pleasure or euphoria.

For the same reasons, 30% of people who stop consuming wheat experience withdrawal, i.e., sadness, mental fog, and fatigue.

Wouldn't you know that the pharmaceutical industry would eventually catch on? Drug company startup, Orexigen, will be making FDA application for its drug, Contrave, a combination of naltrexone and the antidepressant, buproprion. It is billed as a blocker of the "mesolimbic reward system" that enhances weight loss.

Step back a moment and think about this: We are urged by the USDA and other "official" sources of nutritional advice to eat more "healthy whole grains." Such advice creates a nation of obese Americans, many the unwitting victims of the new generation of exorphin-generating, high-yield dwarf mutant wheat. A desperate, obese public now turns to the drug industry to provide drugs that can turn off the addictive behavior of the USDA-endorsed food.

There is no question that wheat has addictive properties. You will soon be able to take a drug to block its effects. That way, the food industry profits, the drug industry profits, and you pay for it all.

Heart scan tomfoolery 2

9. November 2010 William Davis (2)
In the last Heart Scan Blog post, I discussed the significance of the apparent discrepancy between Steve's heart scan score and volume score. This post addresses his second question, also a FAQ about heart scan scores.

Steve noted that his second scan compared to his first showed:

- Left Main volume went up from 22.4 to 35.6
- LAD went down from 95.2 to 91.3
- LCX volume went down from 23.2 to 0
- RCA volume went up from 0 to 9.3

So there are apparent divergences in behavior in the left main that increased and both LAD (left anterior descending) and LCX (left circumflex) that decreased.

The explanation is simple: When heart scans are "scored," they are viewed in horizontal "slices." When the heart is viewed as horizontal slices, the LAD and LCX originate from the common left main stem. In other words, it's like a tree with the left mainsteam representing the trunk, the LAD and LCX representing two main branches.

Plaque can form, obviously, in all three arteries, but it can do so by starting in the left main, for instance, and extending into either the LAD or LCX, or both. The left main plaque can therefore bridge any 2 or all 3 arteries.

When the plaque is "scored" by taking the computer mouse and circling the calcified plaque in question (to allow the computer program to generate the calcium score and volume score of that particular plaque), the plaque that may extend from left main into the LAD and/or LCX might be labeled "left main," or it might be labeled "LAD" or "LCX." There is no reliable way to "dissect" apart the plaque into the three arteries, since the plaque is coalescent and continuous. So the scoring technologist or physician simply arbitrarily declares the artery "LAD," for instance.

The problem comes when two different interpretation methods are used: Perhaps it's a new technologist or physician, or there was no attention paid to how the previous scan was read. One reader calls it "left main" and the next calls it "LCX."

So the apparent discrepancy has to do with flaws in the methods of segregating plaque location, as well as inattention to scoring techniques. The total score, however, remains unaffected.

Nonetheless, Steve has enjoyed a modest reduction in the score of the left main/LAD/LCX from his original 140.8 down to a second left main/LAD/LCX score of 126.9.

The right coronary artery (RCA), however, is not subject to this difficulty and Steve score shows a modest increase in score. (Why the divergent behavior between left main/LAD/LCX and RCA? There is no clear explanation for this, unfortunately.)

All in all, the news for Steve is good: He achieved these results on his own using nutritional techniques. Because he, in all practicality, stopped the progression of his heart scan score and avoided the "natural" rate of increase of 30% per year, all he needs to do is "tweak" his program a bit to achieve reversal, i.e., reduction of score.


Here's an image from another previous Heart Scan Blog post (about the relationship of osteoporosis and coronary disease) that shows such a plaque that starts in the left mainstem yet extends into both the LAD and LCX:

Heart scan tomfoolery

4. November 2010 William Davis (12)
Heart Scan Blog reader, Steve, sent these interesting questions about his heart scan experience. (I sometimes forget that this blog is called "The Heart Scan Blog" and was originally--several years ago--meant to discuss heart scans. It has evolved to become a much broader conversation.)

The answers are a bit lengthy, so I'll tackle Steve's questions in two parts, the second in another blog post.

Dr. Davis,

I had a heart scan last year. The score was 96. While not a horrible score, it
was a wake up call, and I changed my lifestyle.

I had another scan this year and the heart scan score went up to 105, but the
volume score went down from 141 to 136.

The report I received said this:

'The calcium volume score is less in the current study as compared with the
original or reference study. This is an excellent coronary result and indicates
that there has been a net decrease in coronary plaque burden. The current
prevention program is very effective and should be continued.'

This is all well and good, but I have two questions:

1. Am I really going in the right direction even though the heart scan score
went up 9%?

2. Here are results that make no sense to me:
- Left Main volume went up from 22.4 to 35.6
- LAD went down from 95.2 to 91.3
- LCX volume went down from 23.2 to 0
- RCA volume went up from 0 to 9.3

Why would there be so much variation from year to year, and why would the plaque
move from site to site?

Steve

Questions like Steve's come up with some frequency, so I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss in a blog post.

First of all, the conventional heart scan score, or "calcium score" or "Agatston score" (after Dr. Arthur Agatston, developer of the simple algorithm for calcium scoring, as well as South Beach Diet fame), is the product of the area of the plaque in a single CT "slice" image
multiplied by a density coefficient, i.e., a number ranging from 1 to 4 that grades the x-ray density of the plaque. (1 is least dense; 4 is most dense.) A density coefficient of 1 therefore signifies some calcium within plaque, with higher density coefficients signifying increasing calcium content and density. Incidentally, "soft" plaque, i.e., non-calcified, would fall in the less than 1 range, even the negative range (fatty tissue within plaque).

The volume, or "volumetric," score is the brainchild of Drs. Paulo Raggi and Traci Callister, who expressed concern that, if we cause plaque to shrink in volume, the density coefficient used to calculate the calcium score would increase (since they believed that calcium could not be reduced, contrary to our Track Your Plaque experience, thereby leading to misleading results. They therefore developed an algorithm that did not rely on density coefficients, but used the same two-dimensional area obtained in the standard heart scan score, but replaced the density coefficient with a (mathematically interpolated) vertical axis (z-axis) measure of plaque "height." This 3-dimensional volumetric value therefore provided a method to generate a measure of calcium volume. In their original publication, the volume score proved more reproducible than the standard calcium score. This way, any reduction in plaque volume would not be influenced by the misleading effects of calcium density, but reflect a real reduction in volume.

Callister and Raggi's study also highlighted that calcium scoring in any form is subject to variability. Back in 1998 (when their study was published), there was a bit more variation than today due to the image acquisition methods used. But, even today, there is about 9% variation in scoring even if performed repeatedly (with less percentage variation the higher the score).

Unfortunately, volume scoring never caught on and the calcium score has been the most commonly used value by most heart scan centers and in most clinical studies. And, in all practicality, the two values nearly always track together: When calcium score increases, volume score increases in tandem; when calcium score decreases, volume score decreases in tandem.

Steve is therefore an exception to the general observation that calcium score and volume score travel together. Steve's calcium score increased, while his volume score decreased. From the above discussion, you can surmise a few things about Steve's experience:"

1) In all likelihood, the changes in both calcium score and volume score could simply be due to variability, i.e., variation in the placement of his body on the scan table, variation in position of the heart, variation in data acquisition, etc. There is a high likelihood that neither value changed; both are essentially unchanged.

2) If the changes are not due to scan variability, but are real, then it could be that the calcified plaque is reduced in volume but increased in density. If true, this is probably still a favorable phenomenon, since plaque volume is a powerful predictor of coronary "events" and an increase in plaque density is likely a benign phenomenon. It would also raise questions about the adequacy of vitamin D and vitamin K2 status, both major control factors over calcium deposition and metabolism.

So, in all likelihood, Steve's apparent discrepant results are modest good news, especially since calcium scores can ordinarily be expected to increase at the rate of 30% per year if no action is taken. Experiencing no change in score, calcium or volumetric, carries a very excellent prognosis, with risk for heart attack approaching zero. (I'm impressed that Steve accomplished this on his own, something the majority of my colleagues haven't the least bit of interest doing.)

Part 2 of Steve's question will be tackled in a separate post.
"Your heart scan score means nothing"

"Your heart scan score means nothing"

1. June 2007 William Davis (7)
Charles was visibly confused.

He'd gotten his CT heart scan after hearing one of the local scan center's ads on the radio. His score 2773, obviously in the 99th percentile for any age.

"Do you think the score means anything? My primary doctor said that it was meaningless because it was all in the deep wall of the artery. He said that it has nothing to do with risk for heart attack. As long as I feel good, he says don't do anything."

What exactly did his doctor mean, in the "deep wall of the artery"?

What the doctor is referring to is the fact that some people with a long history (many years) of diabetes or kidney failure (also for many years) tend to develop calcium deposits in the media, or muscular layer of arteries. The media is the tissue thin layer just below the intima, the most inner layer of arteries that we usually associate with atherosclerotic plaque and the layer that is most prone to calcium accumulation that we score on heart scans.

Aging, generally into your late 70s, 80s, and onwards, also increases the likelihood of medial calcification. Lastly, longstanding deficiency of vitamin D encourages medial calcification.

Is there any way to distinguish intimal vs medial calcification on a heart scan? No, there is not. Having read many thousands of CT heart scans, I can tell you that there is no practical way in 2007 to tell the difference.

Then how did this doctor "know" that Charles' calcium was "deep walled" or medial? Simple: He didn't. This was yet another example of ignorance based on old thinking. Unfortunately, he did Charles a serious disservice by dismissing his heart scan score that predicted a 25% per year risk for heart attack.

Interestingly, whether calcium is intimal as in atherosclerotic plaque, or medial, both are strongly associated with risk for heart attack. In other words, if calcium is confined to the intima, heart disease risk is present. If calcium is limited to the media, risk is still present.

In all practicality, the only difference we make of the intima vs. media argument (that is, when the distinction has been made by some other means like intracoronary ultrasound, the test that is truly necessary to distinguish the two patterns) is that medial calcification may be more powerfully related to vitamin D deficiency. Thus, someone with heavy medial calcification may require closer attention to maintaining a perfect year-round blood level of 25-OH-vitamin D3. But that's the only practical difference.
Tags :

Comments (7) -

  • Anonymous

    6/1/2007 5:26:00 PM |

    Will maintaining the Vit D level at the optimal range, reverse the media calcium build up?

    Thanks,

    Marilyn

  • Dr. Davis

    6/1/2007 9:24:00 PM |

    Our emerging experience in the Track Your Plaque program suggests that medial calcification may, in fact, be MORE amenable to regression/reversal.

  • mike V

    1/10/2008 3:31:00 PM |

    Dr Davis:
    I am 72.
    I recently had a CTA scan with "no detectable paque"
    I am also aware of recent research which shows evidence of menaquinone both preventing and reversing calcification.
    Is scanning thought to be less sensitive to medial calcification (as opposed to intimal), and at risk of being 'missed'?

    If so would preventive menaquinone be justified in a 'clean' case like mine?
    Thanks, MikeV

  • Dr. Davis

    1/10/2008 4:25:00 PM |

    Hi, Mike-
    No, the scan quite reliably detects both intimal and medial calcification. Taking K2 is very optional. How about some traditional, fermented cheese? I do not believe that K2 supplementation would yield substantial heart benefits. However, if bone health is in question, that migyht be a reason.

  • mike V

    1/10/2008 4:52:00 PM |

    Thanks, Doc:
    My cheese score is already fairly high.
    I forgot to mention that I have already been taking fish oil, coQ10,vitamin D3, magnesium etc for some years, so I *heartily* endorse your standard recommendations.
    You perform a great community service.  

    mike V

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 9:51:22 PM |

    Interestingly, whether calcium is intimal as in atherosclerotic plaque, or medial, both are strongly associated with risk for heart attack. In other words, if calcium is confined to the intima, heart disease risk is present. If calcium is limited to the media, risk is still present.

  • viagra online

    4/19/2011 8:54:39 PM |

    The media is the tissue thin layer just below the main fact because is one of the lasted arteries, the most inner layer of arteries that we usually associate with atherosclerotic plaque and this'll be an important discussion at the universities. Absolutely. 23jj

Add comment

Loading