Beware the "false positive" stress test

4. March 2007 William Davis (11)

There's a widely-known (among cardiologists) problem with nuclear stress tests. It's called the "false positive." (Nuclear stress tests are known as stress Cardiolites, stress thalliums, stress Myoviews, persantine stress tests, adenosine stress tests)

Stress tests, nuclear and otherwise, are helpful for identifying areas of poor blood flow. If an area of poor blood flow is detected and the area is substantial, then there may be greater risk of heart attack and other undesirable events in the relatively near future.

What "false positive" means is a stress test that shows an abnormality but it's not true--it is falsely abnormal. There are a number of reasons why this can happen. The problem is that this phenomenon is very common. Up to 20% of nuclear stress tests are false positives.

There are indeed situations where there may an abnormality and it is not clear whether it is true or false. This may lead to a justifiable heart catheterization or CT coronary angiogram. But, given the extraordinary number of false positives, there's a lot of gray in interpreting these tests. Hospital staff, in fact, call nuclear medicine "unclear" medicine. It's common knowledge that you can often see just about anything you want to see on a nuclear image of the heart. Abnormalities in the bottom of the heart, the "inferior" wall, are especially common due to the overlap of the diaphragm with the heart muscle, yielding the appearance of reduced blood flow. Defects in the front of the heart heart are common in females with large breasts for the same reasons.

The problem: The uncertainty inherent in nuclear stress tests opens the door to the unscrupulous or lazy practitioner. Any blip, tick, or imperfection on the nuclear images serve as carte blanche to drag you into the hospital for procedures.

This abusive practice is, in my experience, shockingly common for two reasons: 1) It pays better to do heart catheterizations, and 2) Defensive medicine.

What's the disincentive? Only doing the right thing and maintaining a clear conscience. Slim reasons for many of my colleagues--and a lot less money.

If you are without symptoms and feel fine, and a nuclear stress test is advised by your doctor, followed by a discussion of an abnormality, insist on a discussion of exactly what is abnormal, just how abnormal, and what the alternatives might be. If you receive unsatisfactory or incomplete answers despite your best effort, it's time for another opinion.

Don't neglect your magnesium

3. March 2007 William Davis (3)

Magnesium is kind of boring. So most people don't pay too much attention to it.

Magnesium can be important, however. I saw an interesting phenomenon recently. A type I diabetic patient of mine (that is, an adult who developed diabetes as a child), Mitch, was experiencing wide swings in blood sugar: low low's and very high high's (300-400 mg/dl). Mitch's magnesium was only marginally low at 2.0 mEq/L. (Ranges for normal magnesium blood levels are usually 1.3–2.1 mEq/L or 0.65–1.05 mmol/L.) Note that Mitch's blood levels fall within "normal." I do not agree with these "normal" ranges. I shoot for 2.1 to 2.4 mEq/L, which I think is the truly normal range.

In addition to eating plenty of raw nuts and green vegetables, Mitch began supplementing magnesium with magnesium citrate, 200 mg twice a day (our preferred supplement form). He reported that the wide swings in blood sugar were nearly eliminated.

Mitch's dramatic benefit is just a great illustration of how magnesium can help control blood sugar metabolism. A type I diabetic is more sensitive to the effects, but anyone with type II (adult) diabetes, metabolic syndrome, or just a slightly high blood sugar could benefit from magnesium supplementation.

There's a number of ways to accomplish getting sufficient magnesium in your daily regimen. Track Your Plaque members, Be sure to read:

Your water may be killing you at
http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_03-002magnesium.asp

Magnesium: Water to the rescue! at http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_03-010magnesium2.asp

Third heart scan a charm

1. March 2007 William Davis (0)

It struck me recently that, for many people, it's not the second but the third heart scan that more commonly shows a reduction in score.

I think this is because many people's reaction to their first heart scan is "This can't be. There's no way my arteries have that much plaque." They then follow a half-hearted program to correct their patterns.

When the second heart scan shows a significantly higher score, that really catches their attention. This is when they finally buckle down and give it their all.

Only the occasional person will, after the first heart scan, seize full control and take their program very seriously. These tend to be highly motivated people.

Don't feel too bad if your second heart scan score shows an increase. Look at it for what it represents: feedback on the adequacy of your program.

Metabolic syndrome--cured

27. February 2007 William Davis (0)

Peter started out at age 59 at 248 lbs, standing 6 ft tall (BMI = 33.6!).

Along with his weight, Peter had the entire panel of phenemena of the so-called "metabolic syndrome", or pre-diabetes:

--Triglycerides 238 mg/dl and associated with extremes of excess VLDL and IDL
--High blood pressure
--Blood sugar 115 mg/dl
--High c-reactive protein
--Small LDL particles 99% of total LDL

Interestingly, Peter's HDL was a surprisingly favorable 58 mg/dl (HDL is usually low in this syndrome). However, when broken down by size, he had nearly zero large, healthy HDL (sometimes called HDL2b). Though total HDL was favorable, most of it was simply ineffective.

Peter eliminated snacks and processed foods, particularly bread; increased his reliance on healthy oils and lean proteins; incorporated soy protein; increased vegetables. He added 30 minutes of a rapid walk on a treadmill every day. He added vitamin D to achieve a blood level of 50 ng/dml. He added a magnesium supplement.

Peter has lost 31 lbs. in the last year. Weight 207 lbs., BMI 28.1 (desirable <25). Blood sugar: 96 mg/dl; triglycerides: 56 mg/dl; HDL 71 mg/dl with 35% in the large fraction; small LDL 45% of total. Not perfect, but a damn site better.

Control of metabolic syndrome is an achievable goal for over 90% of people, just with these simple efforts. We haven't yet had a chance to assess the effect on the progression or regression of Peter's heart scan score, but he has, at the very least, spared himself a future of diabetes and all its complications.

Heart Scan Curiosities #6

27. February 2007 William Davis (0)

This is a "slice" from a normal heart scan in a 58 year old woman. Heart scan score zero. Look at the lungs, the dark areas left and right of the heart in the center. The lungs are also normal. Black represents normal density, healthy lung tissue. The white streaking is just normal lung blood vessels. This person doesn't smoke.

This woman smokes a pack of cigarettes a day and has done so for 45 years ("45 pack-years"). She had a surprisingly low heart scan score (at age 64) of only 71, despite the smoking. However, look at this woman's lungs. It's a little tough to make out, since the computer graphics loses some of the resolution. But you can see the near absence of lung tissue on both sides. This is an advanced phase of the destructive lung disease, emphysema, from smoking. Even if she quit smoking today, the destroyed lung tissue never grows back. She literally has huge gaps or holes in her lungs where lung tissue used to be.

Smoking is among the most destructive, terrible things you can do to your body, short of swallowing strychnine or jumping off a building. Stay as far the heck away from cigarettes as you possibly can. If you are exposed to "secondary" smoke, insist that the person never smoke in your presence. It's not the smell that destroys your lungs or causes coronary plaque (though it is indeed foul), it's the actual smoke.

Should you become a vegetarian?

24. February 2007 William Davis (0)

Do you need to become a vegetarian in order to reduce your heart scan score?

No. Plain and simple. We’ve had many non-vegetarians drop their scores.

That said, are there still advantages to following a vegetarian diet, or some variation on the vegetarian theme?

Yes, there are. Let’s put aside the moral or religious arguments in favor of not eating animals—the need to eliminate killing animals for food, elimination of suffering common in modern livestock practices, Kosher considerations, etc. (Not that there aren’t real arguments here. Our focus for this conversation is not, however, the moral dilemma, but the health argument.)

Some of the most unhealthy people I’ve ever met, mostly males, are proud carnivores who boast of their prodigious capacities to eat meat. Unfortunately, it’s hard to tease out the ill-effects of excessive meat eating, since these same men also tend to be substantially overweight, smoke, drink excessively, and fail to get exercise unless their job is physically demanding. You know the type.

What advantages does a vegetarian obtain? A number of studies have suggested that the reduced saturated fat, reduced exposure to parasites, as well as reduced exposure to the antibiotics and hormones now used routinely in livestock-raising practices, do indeed provide benefits to the vegetarian. Thus, vegetarians tend to be substantially thinner, experience less bowel cancer, have less diabetes and heart disease, and live longer.

(If you are interested in reading or seeing more about just how inhumane modern livestock practices are, take a look at the video, "Meet Your Meat" at meat.org. Be sure not to view this after dinner.)

Of course, some of the disadvantages of eating animal products diminish when free-range livestock are eaten, i.e., livestock not raised in the inhumane cramped, filthy conditions of livestock factories, but in the open, grazing or rooting freely. These animals tend to have different fat compositions and taste different.

The advantages of vegetarianism, however, have blurred in recent years, since many so-called vegetarians have failed to maintain the distinction between naturally-occurring foods and processed foods. So, Ritz Crackers, Oreo cookies, whole wheat bread, and Raisin Bran fit into a vegetarian program, but they’re awful for your health. I’ll occasionally meet a self-proclaimed vegetarian who looks every bit as unhealthy as a conventionally eating American, that is, overweight, pre-diabetic person with a developing heart scan score.

So it is not necessary to be vegetarian to reduce your score. You might consider vegetarianism for other reasons, such as moral considerations, or to reduce your risk for cancer. But it is not necessary to drop your heart scan score. A non-processed food diet? Now that's is worth giving serious consideration.

Let's make it a lot easier

24. February 2007 William Davis (0)

The American Heart Association just released a new set of consensus guidelines on heart disease prevention in women: Evidence-Based Guidelines for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Women: 2007 Update

For those of you following the Heart Scan Blog and the Track Your Plaque program, there will be little new in the guidelines. In fact, you'll wonder if the date on the front of the report should be 1987, rather than 2007. Did you know that you should exercise and eat healthy?

Take a look at the list of risk factors for coronary vascular disease (CVD) listed in the report:

Major risk factors for CVD, including:
Cigarette smoking
Poor diet
Physical inactivity
Obesity, especially central adiposity
Family history of premature CVD (CVD at <55>

Progress: You'll notice that buried inside the list is "Evidence of subclinical vascular disease (e.g., coronary calcification)". Just a few short years ago that wouldn't have even been included.

The Track Your Plaque contention is that, for the great majority of women, this list could be shortened to one item: coronary calcification. As time goes on, the people who argue and draft these guidelines will come to the realization that coronary calcification is the disease--it's not a risk for the disease, a predictor of the disease. Coronary calcification is the disease itself. The other items on the list recede way into the background when you know whether or not coronary atherosclerosis is present, i.e., you know your heart scan score (of coronary calcium).

The report goes to say such things as taking a little bit of fish oil is a good idea, maintaining a normal blood pressure is desirable. . . yada yada yada. You've heard this all before.

A major part of the treatment guidelines are devoted to LDL cholesterol reduction with statin agents. You shouldn't be surprised. It's amazing what $22 billion dollars in revenues will buy.

A closing paragraph reads:

'Population-wide strategies are necessary to combat the
pandemic of CVD in women, because individually tailored
interventions alone are likely insufficient to maximally prevent
and control CVD. Public policy as an intervention to
reduce gender-based disparities in CVD preventive care and
improve cardiovascular outcomes among women must become
an integral strategy to reduce the global burden of
CVD.'

Say that again? If you understood that bit of gobbledygook, you're a lot smarter than me.

Don't look to the American Heart Association report for any new ideas. It reminds me of the politician who reminds everybody of what a devoted family man he is: It has nothing to do with his policies. It just makes him look good. If compared to prior report, the 2007 report does indeed represent progress--but just oh so little.

No wonder nobody talks about real prevention

23. February 2007 William Davis (0)

Take a look at this eye-opening statement taken from a well-written NY Times article about Dr. Arthur Agatston, the South Beach Diet and now South Beach Heart Program books:

'We have made major improvements in prevention,” Dr. Gregg W. Stone, the director of cardiovascular research at Columbia University, says. “But it’s difficult. It takes frequent visits, a close relationship between a physician and a patient and a very committed patient.'

Which is exactly the atmosphere Dr. Agatston’s practice tries to create. Nurses there give patients specific cholesterol goals to meet and help them deal with the side effects of the drugs they are taking. A nutritionist, Marie Almon, meets with patients frequently enough to discuss real-life issues like how to stick to a high-fiber Mediterranean diet even on a cruise or a business trip.

There is only one problem with this shining example of a medical practice: it is losing money.

From NY Times, January 24, 2007. What’s a Pound of Prevention Really Worth? (Find the full text at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/24/business/24leonhardt.html?ex=1172379600&en=4268a738e82857da&ei=5070.)

It gets at one of the fundamental reasons why your cardiologist will probably never talk to you about an intense approach to prevention: it doesn't pay. Because John Q. Cardiologist focuses, instead, on how to increase procedural volume, train how to put in the next best defibrillator, etc., there is little consciousness about preventive issues. Just the simple matter of taking fish oil causes their eyes to glaze over.

That's why the Track Your Plaque program exists: it is a portal for the kind of information you cannot get. Of course, you could read all the scientific studies, attempt years of trial and error, and try to gain a sense of how to do this yourself. Or you could follow this program. We are proud to not worry about generating procedural profits. We ar unbiased by drug or medical device money. We say exactly what we mean.

By the way, we are on a current push to really "beef-up" our online discussions via real-time chat. Long-term, we'd like to be able to offer chat with our staff many hours every day. Be patient. It will happen, but not today.

HDL and vitamin D

22. February 2007 William Davis (5)

I know of no published reports on this question, but I've now seen numerous people experience significant jumps in HDL with raising blood vitamin D to 25-OH-vitamin D3.

Last week, for example, I had a man who had struggled with raising HDL from a starting level of 28 mg/dl. On niacin, exercise, weight loss, fish oil, red wine, and cilostazol (a prescription agent that I use occasionally that raises HDL), his HDL rose to 41 mg/dl--better, but hardly to our goal.

I added vitamin D, 4000 units, and raised his 25-OH-vitamin D3 level from 22 ng/ml to 53 ng/ml. Next HDL: 73 mg/dl! Small LDL improves along with a rise in HDL.

Not everybody's response is this dramatic. I see more typical rises of 5 to 10 mg/dl every day. I'm uncertain of why the response is inconsistent, though people who begin with lower vitamin D levels seem to experience a larger HDL increase. I wonder if the partial normalization of insulin and glucose responses is at work, or some anti-inflammatory effect.

Vitamin D provides so many other benefits, as well as HDL-raising. I hope you've gone to the effort to have your blood level checked to determine your replacement need. If not, now's the time. February represents your nadir (lowest point) for 25-OH-vitamin D3 blood levels.

Even more Michael Pollan

20. February 2007 William Davis (0)

"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

That, more or less, is the short answer to the supposedly incredibly complicated and confusing question of what we humans should eat in order to be maximally healthy. I hate to give away the game right here at the beginning of a long essay, and I confess that I’m tempted to complicate matters in the interest of keeping things going for a few thousand more words. I’ll try to resist but will go ahead and add a couple more details to flesh out the advice. Like: A little meat won’t kill you, though it’s better approached as a side dish than as a main. And you’re much better off eating whole fresh foods than processed food products. That’s what I mean by the recommendation to eat “food.” Once, food was all you could eat, but today there are lots of other edible foodlike substances in the supermarket. These novel products of food science often come in packages festooned with health claims, which brings me to a related rule of thumb: if you’re concerned about your health, you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Why? Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it’s not really food, and food is what you want to eat."

Michael Pollan, author of my latest favorite book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, wrote a wonderful piece for the New York Times entitled "Unhappy Meals". You can find the full text at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?ex=1172120400&en=a78c20f4da0cdc7b&ei=5070. (Another favorite read of mine, The Fanatic Cook's Blog at , alerted me to Pollan's article. Incidentally, take a look at the Fanatic Cook's latest posts--very entertaining and informative. She's got incisive insight into foods as well as a great sense of humor.)

Pollan goes on to say that...

"...typical real food has more trouble competing under the rules of nutritionism, if only because something like a banana or an avocado can’t easily change its nutritional stripes (though rest assured the genetic engineers are hard at work on the problem). So far, at least, you can’t put oat bran in a banana. So depending on the reigning nutritional orthodoxy, the avocado might be either a high-fat food to be avoided (Old Think) or a food high in monounsaturated fat to be embraced (New Think). The fate of each whole food rises and falls with every change in the nutritional weather, while the processed foods are simply reformulated. That’s why when the Atkins mania hit the food industry, bread and pasta were given a quick redesign (dialing back the carbs; boosting the protein), while the poor unreconstructed potatoes and carrots were left out in the cold.

Of course it’s also a lot easier to slap a health claim on a box of sugary cereal than on a potato or carrot, with the perverse result that the most healthful foods in the supermarket sit there quietly in the produce section, silent as stroke victims, while a few aisles over, the Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms are screaming about their newfound whole-grain goodness."

Not everything Pollan says is new, but he says it so eloquently and cleverly that he's worth reading. If you haven't yet read Omnivore's Dilemma, or just want a condensed version of the book, the New York Times piece is a great piece of the world according to Michael Pollan.

All posts by william-davis

Calcium reflects total plaque

4. December 2006 William Davis (0)

People frequently ask, "Why measure coronary artery calcium? My doctor said that calcium only tells you if there's hard plaque, and that hard plaque is stable. He/she says that calcium doesn't tell you anything about soft plaque."

Is that true? Is calcium only a reflection of "hard" plaque? Is hard plaque also more stable, less prone to rupture and causes heart attack?

Actually, calcium is a means of measuring total plaque, both soft and hard. That's because calcium comprises 20% of total plaque volume. Within plaque, there may be areas that are soft (labeled "lipid pool" in the diagram). There are also areas made of calcium (shown in white arcs within the plaque). Even though this is just a graphic, it's representative of what is seen when we perform intracoronary ultrasound of a live human being's coronary artery. In other words, this cross section contains both "soft" (lipid pool) as well as "hard" (calcium) elements.

Is this artery "soft" or "hard"? It's both, of course. The artery compostion can vary millimeter by millimeter, having more soft or hard elements. The artery can also change over time in either direction. Thus, "soft" plaque may indeed be soft today, only to be "hard" in 6 months, and vice versa.

The essential point is that measuring just "soft" plaque provides limited information. What the CT heart scan does is provide a gauge of total plaque, soft and hard, and it does so easily, safely, precisely. If your score increases, the lengthwise volume of total plaque has also grown. If your score decreases, the total amount of plaque has also decreased.

Don't mistake marketing for truth

2. December 2006 William Davis (0)

We're all so inundated with marketing messages for food. Unfortunately, many people confuse the messages delivered through marketing with the truth.

For instance:

Pork: "The other white meat." Pork is a high-saturated fat food.

"Bananas: A great source of potassium." Bananas are a high glycemic index (rapid sugar release), low fiber food.

"Pretzels: A low-fat snack." A high glycemic index food made from white wheat flour. It makes you fat and skyrockets blood sugar.

Jif peanut butter: "Choosy moms choose Jif." Do they also choose hydrogenated fats?

Hi-C: Upbeat jingles like "Who put the straw in my Hi-C fruit drink, a new cool straw that wriggles and bends? Who put the straw in my Hi-C fruit drink, with Vitamin C for me and my friends? Who was that man, I'd like to shake his hand, he made my Hi-C cooler than before!" What about the 25 grams of sugar per 4 oz serving? And the high fructose corn syrup that creates an insatiable sweet tooth, raises triglycrides 30%, and exagerates pre-diabetes?

Marketing is not reliable, unbiased information. If Ford boasts that their cars are superior to GM, do you say "Well then, I need to buy a Ford?" Of course not. Take marketing for what it is: A method of persuading people to buy. It may or may not contain the truth. It's a big part of the reason Americans are the fattest people on earth and are experiencing an explosion of chronic diseases of excess.

Tattered Red Dress

1. December 2006 William Davis (0)

"Are you taking your health to heart? Perhaps you understand the importance of eating a diet low in cholesterol or getting 30 minutes of exercise a day. But do you know your own risk of developing cardiovascular disease?

It’s time to take your heart health personally. Heart disease is the No. 1 killer of American women — and that means it is not “someone else’s problem.” As a woman, it’s your problem.

That’s where the Go Red Heart Checkup comes in. This comprehensive evaluation of your overall heart health can help you now and in the future. By knowing your numbers and assessing your risks now, you can work with your doctor to significantly reduce your chances of getting heart disease tomorrow, next year, or 30 years from now!"

So reads some of the materials promoted by the American Heart Association Red Dress campaign to increase awareness of heart disease in women. The effort is well-intended. There is no doubt that most women are unaware of just how common coronary disease is in females.

But I've got a problem with the solutions offered. "Know your numbers"? Eat healthy, don't be overweight, be active, don't smoke. That's the gist of the program's message--nothing new. In 2006, why would some sort of screening effort for detectin of heart disease not be part of the message? Why isn't there any message about the real, truly effective means to detect hidden heart disease in women--namely, heart scanning?

Does a 58-year old woman with normal blood pressure, LDL 144, HDL 51, 20 lbs overweight have hidden heart disease? I've said it before and I'll say it again: You can't tell from the numbers. She could die of a heart attack tomorrow without warning, or maybe she'll be dancing on our graves when she's 95 and never have experienced any manifestation of heart disease. The numbers will not tell you this.

I'm glad the American Heart Association has seen fit to invest its sponsors' money in a campaign to promote prevention. I wish they hadn't fallen so far short of a truly helpful message. Perhaps the sponsors (like Pfizer, maker of Lipitor) will benefit, anyway.

Panic in the streets

29. November 2006 William Davis (0)

Several days ago, I wrote about a local prominent judge in my neighborhood who was unexpectedly found dead in bed of a heart attack at age 49.

As expected, I've received multiple calls from patients and physicians who want heart catheterizations. For instance, an internist I know called me in a panic. He asked that I perform a heart catheterization in a patient with a heart scan score of 768. I've been seeing this patient for about a year. He's without symptoms, even with strenuous exercise; stress tests (i.e., tests of coronary bloow flow) have been normal.

I remind patients and colleagues every day, day in day out: Having a heart scan score revealing some measure of coronary plaque is not a sufficient reason by itself to proceed with procedures. Fear of suffering a fate like the unfortunate judge is also not a reason to proceed with procedures.

Increased awareness of the gravity of heart disease is a good thing. Some good can come out of a needless tragedy like this. The lesson from the judge's unfortunate experience: he needed a CT heart scan. I'm told that the judge's doctor advised him that a heart scan was a waste of time. I hope that appropriate legal action for negligence is taken by the judge's family against this physician.

Not doing a heart scan is wrong. That's the lesson to learn. The lesson is not that everybody with coronary plaque needs a procedure. Had the judge undergone a simple heart scan, intensified prevention could have been instituted and he'd still be alive with his wife and children today.

The indications for procedures are unchanged by your heart scan. If a stress test is abnormal and indicates poor flow to a part of the heart, that would be a reason. If symptoms like chest discomfort or breathlessness appear, that's an indication. If there's evidence of poor heart muscle contraction, that's a reason to proceed with a procedure. But just having coronary plaque is not a sufficient reason.

Heart scan curiosities 1

27. November 2006 William Davis (3)

Heart scans often reveal more than coronary plaque. From time to time, I'll show some curious findings that people have displayed during routine heart scans.

This 65-year old man had a relatively low heart scan score of 73, but showed an impressive quantity of calcification of his pericardium, the usually soft-tissue sack that encases the heart. The calcified pericardium is the white arcs that surround the heart in the center of the image.

Thankfully, because he's without any symptoms of breathlessness, excessive fatigue, or leg swelling, he won't need to have it surgically corrected. When the pericardium becomes rigid and encircles the heart, it can literally squeeze the heart, a condition called "constrictive pericarditis". The surgery is pretty awful.

This man's calcified pericardium likely resulted from one or more viral infections over his lifetime.

Annual physical

26. November 2006 William Davis (0)

A judge who lives in my neighborhood was found dead in his bed this week from a heart attack. He was 49 years old. His teenage kids found him and performed CPR, but he was cold and long-gone by then.

A close friend of the judge told me that he'd passed an annual physical just weeks before.

This sort of tragedy shouldn't happen. It is easily--easily--preventable. Had this man undergone a heart scan, a score of at least 400 if not >1000 would have been uncovered, and appropriate preventive action could have been taken. The conversation could have centered around the strategies to correct the patterns that triggered his plaque and how he could reduce his score.

Of course, hospitals make use of stories like this to fuel fear that brings hordes to their wards for procedures. Would the judge have required a procedure to save his life, had his heart disease been diagnosed at his annual physical? Not necessarily. Hospitals and cardiologists would try to persuade you that procedures have an impact on mortality. This is simply not true. In fact, the mortality benefits of procedures are questionable except in the midst of acute illness (e.g., unstable chest pain symptoms or heart attack).

Don't be falsely reassured by passing a physical. A physical does nothing to screen you for heart disease. An EKG and stress test, if included, is a lame excuse for heart disease screening. Remember that a stress test is a test of coronary blood flow, not for the presence of coronary plaque. The unfortunate judge most likely had a 30% "blockage" that did not block flow, but ruptured and closed an artery off sometime in the night when he died. A stress test even on the day of his death would not have predicted this.

A CT heart scan would have uncovered it easily, unequivocally, safely.

A curious case of regression

25. November 2006 William Davis (0)

Randi came to me at age 43. Before I'd met her, she'd undergone two heart scans about one year apart. The initial score was 57--not terribly high, but very high for a 41-year old, pre-menopausal female. Recall that rarely do women have any heart scan score above zero before age 50. Randi's 2nd scan had yielded a score of 72, a 27% increase.

Randi even had her lipoproteins assessed and she had the dreaded Lp(a). So when I met her, we discussed the possible choices in Lp(a) treatment: niacin and estrogens as primary treatment, along with LDL reduction to rock-bottom numbers, along with adjunctive DHEA, almonds, ground flaxseed, and fish oil. Sandi was okay with the adjunctive treatments and was already slender and active (BMI <25), and did not show Lp(a)'s evil partner, small LDL. But Randi had no interest in estrogens, even bio-identical preparations, because of the usual uncertainties associated with estrogen replacement. She also proved to be one of the people truly intolerant to anything but the most minute dose of niacin, experiencing prolonged flushing and abdominal cramps with any dose >250 mg.

Randi even attempted a trial of the Mathias Rath concoction of high-dose vitamin C, lysine, and proline as treatment for Lp(a), but we saw no effect on Lp(a).

Unfortunately, this left Randi's Lp(a) essentially uncorrected. Another scan one year later: 90, another 25% increase. 18 months after that, another scan: 120, a 30% increase.

Now 47-years old, Randi had resigned herself to not being able to control her plaque. We'd run out of options. At that point, I'd started to have everyone's vitamin D blood level assessed and then replaced with vitamin D. I did this with Randi, too.

A year after her last scan, she underwent another. The score: 92, a 23% reduction--substantial reversal following a course of unrelenting progression.

Randi and I, of course, both rejoiced with this unexpected success. But it raised some interesting questions: How important is Lp(a) when vitamin D is normalized and small LDL is not a part of the picture? How consistent with regression be with this strategy over time? Would normalization of vitamin D have stopped plaque from becoming established in the first place?

I hope these issues will clarify over time. For now, I'm thrilled with Randi's success. She remains on her present, "incomplete", though successful program.

Note: I would not ordinarily advise a young woman to undergo serial heart scanning with this frequency. Randi had unusual access to a scan center through a relationship with the staff. I am nonetheless grateful for the lessons her experience have taught us.

Fortune teller

25. November 2006 William Davis (0)

Whenever your doctor uses your cholesterol values--total, LDL, HDL, triglycerides--to judge your heart disease risk, he/she is trying to act as your fortune teller.

In some states, fortune telling is illegal, a misdemeanor. The New York State lawbooks say:

A person is guilty of fortune telling when, for a fee or compensation which he directly or indirectly solicits or receives, he claims or pretends to tell fortunes, or holds himself out as being able, by claimed or pretended use of occult powers, to answer questions or give advice on personal matters or to exorcise, influence or affect evil spirits or curses; except that this section does not apply to a person who engages in the aforedescribed conduct as part of a show or exhibition solely for the purpose of entertainment or amusement.
(Source : Wikipedia)

Rather than occult powers, your physician claims to use "medical judgement" to tell your fortune. Except for that distinction, it might be construed as a misdemeanor.

Let's take three typical examples:

58-year old Laura has a high LDL of 195 mg/dl. Her HDL is 52 mg/dl, triglycerides 197 mg/dl. Does she have heart disease?

51-year old Jonathan has an LDL of 174 mg/dl, HDL 34 mg/dl, triglycerides 156 mg/dl. Does Jonathan have heart disease?

71-year old Marian has an LDL cholesterol of 135 mg/dl, HDL 84 mg/dl, triglycerides of 67 mg/dl.

None of the three have symptoms. They all feel well. Nobody is taking a statin cholesterol drug or other agent that would modify the numbers. Jonathan is around 30 lbs overweight. Nobody has an impressive family history of heart disease.

Can you tell who has heart disease and who doesn't? If you can, you're smarter than I am, because I certainly can't tell. But your doctor tries to divine your future by looking at these numbers.

Do they know something that we don't know? No. It's a crude odds game, a guessing game. A guessing game that frequently comes up on the losing end.

These are three real people. Laura, despite her high LDL, has no identifiable coronary heart disease. Jonathan has advanced coronary disease. These were his numbers just prior to his stent. Marian has a moderate quantity revealed by a CT heart scan score of 419.

Don't even try predicting your future from your cholesterol numbers--it simply can't be done. Every day, I see patients and physicians beating their heads over this dilemma. Telling your fortune using pretended occult powers is illegal. Telling your fortune using cholesterol numbers should be, too.

If you want to know if you have coronary plaque, that's the role of the CT heart scan. Plain and simple.

Heart scan score drops like a stone

23. November 2006 William Davis (2)

Matt was dumbfounded when he found out about his heart scan score of 317 in the summer of 2005.

Earlier that year he'd unintentionally lost 20 lbs. in the space of two months and was feeling awful. He was diagnosed with diabetes and put on several medications. He told me that the heart scan score was just adding insult to injury.

As you'd expect in someone with diabetes, Matt had a low HDL, increased triglycerides, and small LDL. Blood pressure and inflammation (C-reactive protein) were issues as well.

Matt's primary care physician had put him on a statin cholesterol drug as soon as he heard about Matt's heart scan score, so we kept this going. What Matt's primary care physician didn't know was that his "true" LDL had been much higher than the conventional calculated LDL had suggested, so the statin agent was a reasonable solution. (Matt was also not terribly motivated to make dramatic changes in lifestyle or food choices. The statin drug was a compromise.)

We added fish oil and vitamin D to his regimen. Though recent data have cast doubt on the value of treating homocysteine levels of around 12.5, Matt's much higher value of 28 was treated with vitamins B6, B12, and folic acid, with a resultant homocysteine of 7.6.

17 months into the Track Your Plaque approach, and Matt's repeat heart scan score: 244, a 23% reduction.

How's that for an early Christmas gift?

"You don't have a uterus. You don't need progesterone"

21. November 2006 William Davis (2)

I was talking with a hospital nurse recently who told me about her lack of energy, blue moods, and other assorted complaints. At age 49, she was exasperated. So I suggested that she ask her gynecologist about progesterone cream.

The gynecologist advised her, "You don't have a uterus. You don't need progesterone." He went on to explain that the only reason to take progesterone was to prevent uterine cancer caused by estrogen.

Then what about progesterone's weight loss benefits? It's effects on increased energy, improved mood, deeper sleep? These benefits, of course, have nothing to do with the uterus.

I've witnessed these benefits in women many times, both in the peri-menopausal period (which starts around your late 30's) and menopause.

Why talk about progesterone when our focus is heart disease and reduction of heart scan scores? Because if progesterone in a woman helps her feel better, more upbeat, and accelerates weight loss, she's more likely to succeed in her plaque-control program.

For additional comments on progesterone, read the Track Your Plaque interview with women's hormone expert, Dr. Nisha Jackson, Females, hormones, and weight control:
An interview with Dr. Nisha Jackson found at http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_04-008njacksonhormones.asp. Dr. Jackson also has a book available called "The Hormone Survival Guide to Perimenopause".

Or, read Dr. John Lee's pioneering books, What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Menopause: The Breakthrough Book on Natural Hormone Balance and What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Premenopause: Balance Your Hormones and Your Life from Thirty to Fifty . (An edition that combines the two books is available, also.)

Chicken Little

11. August 2007 William Davis (1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments (1) -

jpatti
9/11/2007 10:26:00 AM |

There's another issue with double-blind studies, for things other than drugs or supplements, they're impossible.

Your example of the number of eggs in a person's diet is a good example; there's no "placebo" for eggs.  Similarly, if I increase my level of exercise, I notice that - it can't be blinded.  For diet and other lifestyle changes, we will never be able to gain the amount of evidence as for drug trials.

I think this is why many doctors don't think so much about prescribing these types of things, except for a cursory instruction to "eat better, lose weight and exercise," they're just not as strongly convinced of the benefit of these changes because they can't be proven as strongly.  But... not being able to prove something doesn't mean it's not important to health!

As a diabetic, I measure my bg multiple times a day and make changes to my food intake, exercise and medication dosage to hit established bg goals.  While I think tightly-controlling bg is probably the number one thing I can do for my heart health, it can never be proven in a double-blind study.

Related posts

Comments (1) -

jpatti

Add comment