Addictive Foods

25. June 2007 William Davis (3)
Kraft Foods, Inc. is manufacturer of Kool Aid, Oscar Mayer, Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, Velveeta, Honey Maid Grahams, and hundreds of other processed food products. Post cereals also falls under the umbrella of Kraft with products like Raisin Bran, Post Toasties, and Fruity Pebbles. Annual revenues in 2006 for Kraft: $34.4 billion. A big operation with enormous influence over our eating habits.

Nabisco is manufacturer of Oreos, Ritz Crackers, Chips Ahoy and many others. Like Kraft/Post, it is also a big player.

While Nabisco was owned for several years by tobacco giant RJ Reynolds, in 2000 it was acquired by Philip Morris, another big tobacco manufacturer.

More recently in Spring, 2007, Philip Morris (now called Altria--you'd change your name, too, if it was synonymous with dirt) spun off its Kraft subsidiary for a big profit. However, the management structures remain intertwined.

In other words, despite the shuffling of shares, the two industries, big tobacco and big food, are in many respects one and the same.

Is it any surprise that the same industry that made billions of dollars pushing addictive nicotine products responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is now intimately involved with addictive products produced and marketed by the processed food industry?

If you believe that food manufacturers are innocently and honestly conducting their businesses, simply think back to the testimony provided in front of Congress during the tobacco industry hearings. Broad deception, concealed truths, and outright lies were commonplace. There was no conscience involved. This was about money--and lots of it.

Why should the processed food industry, intimate with the tobacco industry, be any different?

If you want control over heart disease and your heart scan score, buy produce and buy local. Spend your time in the produce aisle, not the cereal or chip aisle. Unprocessed food, unadorned by bright labels, cartoon animals, American Heart Association endorsements, that's what we should seek.

Heart Scan Curiosities #7

25. June 2007 William Davis (1)



Here's a situation that crops up once in a while, occurring in perhaps 2% of heart scans.

The white within the circled area represents calcium, and thereby atherosclerotic plaque, situated immediately at the "mouth", or opening, of the the right coronary artery. What is somewhat unusual is that this plaque is not principally coronary, but aortic. That is, the plaque is mostly situated in the large vessel called the aorta. The three coronary arteries arise from the aorta.

In this instance, the aortic plaque involves the mouth of the right coronary artery. (In views not shown, the plaque also extends into the artery as well.) I call this a "double whammy" because the same plaque can post risk for heart attack and stroke.

Generally, aortic plaques pose risk for stroke. When aortic plaque fragments, little bits and pieces can travel upward to the brain and block an artery, thus a stroke.

In the coronaries, disrupted ("ruptured") plaques don't generally shower debris, but permit blood clot formation, resulting in heart attack.

This plaque, however, poses the theoretical risk of both heart attack and stroke because of its strategic location.

Should a plaque like this be handled any differently? I don't think so. But it does provide another reason to take atherosclerotic plaque in any artery seriously.

The nutrition counterculture

23. June 2007 William Davis (2)
When we look back over our American nutritional history over the last 50 years, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that much of the innovation in nutrition did not come from official agencies like the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, the FDA, the USDA, or the AMA.

Instead, it came from the popular culture. It came from bold, extravagant claims made by maverick figures like Ancel Keys, Nathan Pritikin, Dean Ornish, and Robert Atkins. Of course, some ideas have now fallen by the wayside, dismissed in a broad American "experiment" as ineffective, impractical, or kooky. But it permitted experimentation on an extraordinary scale with millions of people following a particular strategy at a time.

The advice of the official agencies tended to be reactionary. When nutritional deficiencies (remember those?) of the early 1900s were prevalent, they issued advice on food choices to help alleviate deficiencies. When deficiency transformed into excess after World War II, "smart" food choices from food groups and "sensible eating" became the theme.

Unfortunately, the advice was always adulterated by the enormous influence of various special interests, anxious to protect their national franchise. Powerful groups like the meat industry, wheat producers, and the dairy industry all made sure they had a big hand in crafting and influencing what was told to the American people.

The result: the advice offered by official groups has always represented the compromise of what some agency wished to convey to the people and the very powerful input of industry. What if the government decided to advise us what automobile to buy? Imagine the uproar in the auto industry when Washington tells us to buy Toyota for fuel economy and reliability. How long would that advice last?

That's why almost no knowledgeable adult follows the advice of the USDA, the National Academy of Sciences, or the Food Pyramid. I believe that we all intuitively recognize that the advice is watered-down, sometimes silly, sometimes downright unhealthy.

Nonetheless, the national experiment in diet that has taken place since 1950 has led to a collective wisdom of what is good and what is bad. The most productive conversations on nutrition therefore take place outside of the USDA and Washington. It occurs, instead, in places like bookstores, websites, and the media. Of course, there's lots of misinformation and profiteering in these sectors, as well. But like the enormous force unleashed by the collective wisdom of those contributing to the Wikipedia phemonenon, we've zig-zagged to something closer to the truth than ever uttered by an official agency.

Prescription vitamin D

23. June 2007 William Davis (32)
Niacin:

Over-the-counter: $2-5 per month
Prescription: $120 per month


Fish oil:

Over-the-counter: $3-6 per month
Prescription: $120 per month


Vitamin D:

Over-the-counter: $2 per month
Prescription: $70 per month



With vitamin D in particular, the prescription form is vastly inferior to the over-the-counter preparation. This is because the prescription form is ergocalciferol, or vitamin D2, not the effective human form, vitamin D3 or cholecalciferol.

When you're exposed to sun, what form of vitamin D is activated in the skin? It's all vitamin D3, no vitamin D2 whatsoever. Vitamin D3 is also far more effective than D2. People taking D3 (as long as it's oil-based) easily obtain healthy levels of vitamin D in the blood. People taking 50,000 units per day of D2 (the recommended quantity) remain miserably deficient, with minor increases in vitamin D blood levels. In short, D2 barely works at all. D3 works easily and effectively.

Moreover, D2 is the plant-based form. It is a form not found naturally in humans. D3 is the mammalian form, the same found in humans that exerts all its biologic benefits.

Then why is the prescription form of vitamin D2 (brand names Driscol and Calciferol) more expensive?

It's the same old pharmaceutical industry scam: Look for something patent protectable, regardless of whether it's superior to the non-patent protectable product, then sell it for exagerated profits. Though it is inferior and the science and clinical experience prove that it's inferior, you can still fool lots of people, including prescribing physicians. So what if you only make $50 or $100 million?

Don't fall for it. Prescription doesn't necessarily mean superior. In fact, the prescription form may be significantly inferior, as with vitamin D2. But the pharmaceutical industry carries such power and persuasion, who's going to know?

Nutrition activist Mike Adams

20. June 2007 William Davis (1)












I borrowed the above comic from the website of nutritionist, more properly nutrition activist and author, Mike Adams. His website, www.newstarget.com, was a pleasant surprise.

I was actually looking for some thoughts on pharmaceutical advertising and its pervasive and destructive effects and came across one of Adam's reports, Pharmaceutical television advertising is a grand hoax at http://www.newstarget.com/021526.html. The piece is a rant against the pharmaceutical industry's constant bombardment of the media, who have also been co-opted into their service, enticed by the enormous advertising revenues the drug industry brings.

But I was surprised to find an insightful, informative website on health issues, particularly healthy eating that rejects the manufactured food industry's intensive effort to persuade us to eat their products. While I don't agree with everything Adams has to say, his website provides some great food for thought. He also provides lots of downloadable information.

There's also some great laughs at his poke at the pharmaceutical industry with his Disease Mongering Engine at http://www.newstarget.com/disease-mongering-engine.asp, in which you get to create your own diseases. I got a real kick out of this.

CT scans and radiation exposure

19. June 2007 William Davis (8)


The NY Times ran an article called

With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests at

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/health/19cons.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1182254102-vQpytpx6W/Z9gvAaNPDZvA



“This is an absolutely sentinel event, a wake-up call,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., principal investigator for the study, by the National Council on Radiation Protection. “Medical exposure now dwarfs that of all other sources.”


Where do CT heart scans fall?

Let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:



Typical effective radiation dose values

Computed tomography Milliseverts (mSv)

Head CT 1 – 2 mSv
Pelvis CT 3 – 4 mSv
Chest CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen/pelvis CT 8 – 11 mSv
Coronary CT angiography 5 – 12 mSv

Non-CT Milliseverts (mSv)

Hand radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Chest radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Mammogram 0.3 – 0.6 mSv
Barium enema exam 3 – 6 mSv
Coronary angiogram 5 – 10 mSv
Sestamibi myocardial perfusion (per injection) 6 – 9 mSv
Thallium myocardial perfusion (per injection) 26 – 35 mSv

Source: Cynthia H. McCullough, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN


If you have a heart scan on an EBT device, then your exposure is 0.5-0.6 mSv, roughly the same as a mammogram or several standard chest x-rays.

A heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, your exposure is around 1.0-2.0 mSv, about the same as 2-3 mammograms, though dose can vary with this technology depending on how it is performed (gated to the EKG, device settings, etc.)

CT coronary angiography presents a different story. This is where radiation really escalates and puts the radiation exposure issue in the spotlight. As Dr. Cynthia McCullough's chart shows above, the radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms is 5-12 mSv, the equivalent of 100 chest x-rays or 20 mammograms. Now that's a problem.

The exposure is about the same for a pelvic or abdominal CT. The problem is that some centers are using CT coronary angiograms as screening procedures and even advocating their use annually. This is where the alarm needs to be sounded. These tests, as wonderful as the information and image quality can be, are not screening tests. Just like a pelvic CT, they are diagnostic tests done for legimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

Always be mindful of your radiation exposure, as the NY Times article rightly advises. However, don't be so frightened that you are kept from obtaining truly useful information from, for instance, a CT heart scan (not angiography) at a modest radiation cost.



Detail on radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms on multidetector devices can be found at Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzyky M et al. Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. Circulation 2006;113:1305-1310, one of several studies on this issue.

Mediterranean diet vs. American Heart Association Diet

18. June 2007 William Davis (4)
In 1994, the Lyon Heart Study demonstrated a 50-70% reduction in coronary events in participants who followed a diet rich in vegetables, olive oil, fish, nuts, red wine, and enjoyed meals as a family activity. Various other studies have documented similar phenomena with less metabolic syndrome, better lipid patterns, less obesity with the Mediterranean lifestyle.

There are two fundamental differences between the Mediterranean diet and the diet advocated by the American Heart Association (AHA) for people with heart disease: the Mediterranean diet uses olive oil more liberally, such that fat calories can reach 40% of total; and, unlike the AHA diet, processed foods are not a part of the Mediterranean diet. Greeks, for instance, are far less likely to eat Count Chocula cereal for breakfast, or snack on Healthy Choice Premium Caramel Swirl Sandwich (ice cream sandwiches) or Malt-O-Meal Honey Nut Scooters. All three of these foods on listed on the AHA Heart-Check Mark heart-healthy program.

In other words, remove all the processed foods, and the AHA diet pretty closely resembles the Mediterranean diet. There are differences but they tend to be relatively small. If the only major difference is the presence of processed foods, wouldn't you therefore expect the AHA to embrace the Mediterranean diet?

Here's what their official stand on the Mediterranean diet states:

Does a Mediterranean-style diet follow American Heart Association dietary recommendations?

Mediterranean-style diets are often close to our dietary recommendations, but they don’t follow them exactly. In general, the diets of Mediterranean peoples contain a relatively high percentage of calories from fat. This is thought to contribute to the increasing obesity in these countries, which is becoming a concern.



The AHA is actually lukewarm towards the diet that was the first to show a dramatic decrease in heart attack and death. Why?

The answer is obvious, once cast in this light. To wholeheartedly endorse the Mediterranean diet might be seen as an indirect rejection of American processed foods. You know, the foods that have caused an extraordinary and unprecedented epidemic of obesity in the U.S., the foods that are manufactured by ConAgra, General Mills, Kelloggs--all also major financial contributors to the AHA, according to the AHA Annual Report.

I tell my patients: If you want heart disease, follow the American Heart Association diet. In my view, it is a diet founded on politics and money, not on health. How else could Cocoa Puffs be regarded as heart healthy?

Track Your Plaque in 50,000 BC

16. June 2007 William Davis (3)
Imagine we could send you back in a time machine to 50,000 BC.

However, our agreement: no modern tools or equipment. Just your brain, hands, and legs. And your landing spot will be tropical or semi-tropical, the same climate that humans spent much of their evolutionary time in.

Not only might you rub elbows with contemporaries like homo erectus and neanderthalensis, you'd also have to fend for your life and survival.

To eat, you will have to chase and kill wild game, all with your bare hands or crude tools crafted from sticks and stones. You will have to learn what wild berries, roots, and plants are edible and distingusih them from those that make you retch, make your bowels run, or kill you. You won't be able to cultivate grain, at least for a good long time, since you don't have a community that makes such an undertaking easier.

Instead, you are constantly on the run, from the moment you awake until you finally settle back as the sun sets, hopefully with a full stomach, but often empty and growling, anticipating the hunt and forage of tomorrow.

You are outdoors all day, except for the period when you hide in your cave or self-made shelter. You wear what little clothing you can make yourself from your kills, a skin or two. Your skin becomes a dark brown, a 5 foot 10 inch male will weigh 140 lbs, a 5 foot 5 inch woman 95 lbs. There are obvious downsides: your teeth will rot, you will be prone to infections, and predators view you as fair game.

But the result will be that many chronic diseases of modern life will no longer be worries for you. Heart disease? Highly unlikely. Do you need vitamin D? No, because you are outdoors virtually all day with most of your body surface area exposed to sun. Omega-3 fatty acids? You get those from the wild game you eat, since they have higher omega-3 content feeding in the wild, not eating corn like modern livestock. Since your body fat is minimal, just enough for survival, you don't need niacin.

In other words, many of the strategies of the Track Your Plaque program are modern necessities, responses to the "deficiencies" of modern life. Of course, I don't really have a time machine. I also doubt that you wish to hunt wild game every day, forage for plants and roots, run nearly-naked in the sun. You probably also have become accustomed to brushing your teeth and not viewing every animal as a potential threat to your life.

Nonetheless, I find this an interesting exercise for understanding the role of all the tools we use in the Track Your Plaque program for plaque control.

When pessimism wins

15. June 2007 William Davis (3)
When I first met Hank, I immediately sensed it: anger, hostility, fear. His heart scan score of 685 just made it worse.


He didn't want to be there talking to me. His wife was giving him a hard time. Work was a constant source of irritation. The receptionist at the front desk screwed up his paperwork. Our office charges were too much.


In short, Hank was a pessimist. A bad one.


All the nutrition information out there is bunk. Only he knew how he should eat right. It's stupid to take a lot of fish oil. "You want me to grow gills?"


Among the parameters we use in the Track Your Plaque program is blood pressure during exercise, which provides a surrogate measure of blood pressure during emotional stress, anxiety, etc. "No, I don't need that. I already exercise." No amount of justification could change his mind. "A guy at work had a stress test. They said everything was fine, then Bang! He drops dead. What good is that?"


Hank did go along with a few pieces of advice.


A repeat heart scan 12 months after the first: 870, a 27% per year rate of increase. That's about what would happen if Hank had done nothing, had taken no action to try and stop or reduce his heart scan score.


I don't know if Hank will ever succeed in dropping his score. In fact, I suspect that he will fail, meaning that plaque will grow and he will eventually, perhaps in a year, two or three, require several stents, heart bypass, or have a heart attack. In other words, Hank's pessimism is a self-fulfilling phenomenon: If he believes he will fail, he will. If he believes the world is a rotten place, it is.


Is it possible to "cure" someone like Hank of his deeply-rooted pessimistic attitudes? I don't know of any easy solutions for someone with attitudes as deeply-ingrained as Hank's. (See my prior post, "Cure for pessimism?" at http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html.)

I believe it does help to make someone aware of their attitudes and that it does indeed exert ill health-effects--if they will believe it. But this is a very tough nut to crack.

Bad news on CoQ10?

13. June 2007 William Davis (8)
A review of the effects of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) on the muscle aches and weakness (myopathy) of statin drug therapy was just published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

(Marcoff L, Thompson PD. The role of coenzyme Q10 in statin-associated myopathy. J Amer Coll Cardiol 2007;49(23):2231-2237.)

This is not a study, but a review of the existing scientific and clinical data available on this topic. The study authors conclude with a lukewarm statement:

". . .there is insufficient evidence to prove the etiologic [causal] role of CoQ10 deficiency in statin-associated myopathy and that large, well-designed clinical trials are required to address this issue. The routine use of CoQ10 cannot be recommended in statin-treated patients. Nevertheless, there are no known risks to this supplement and there is some anecdotal and preliminary trial evidence of its effectiveness. Consequently, CoQ10 can be tested in patients requiring statin treatment, who develop statin myalgia, and who cannot besatisfactorily treated with other agents. Some patients may respond, if only via placebo effect."

Should the media get hold of this report, be prepared for the usual "Nutritional supplement no help for drug toxicity" headlines, or "Yet another nutritional supplement shows no benefit" with parallels drawn to vitamin C or E.

There are several issue that need to be factored into the discussion:

1) This is not a study, just a review. Thus, any biases of the authors are more likely to exert themselves.

2) The understanding of CoQ10 absorption among different preparations may be an issue. I just received a mailing from Life Extension that made extravagant claims about the superior absorption of ubiquinol, to be distinguished from ubiquinone, the more common form. They claim that eight-fold increased absorption and blood levels of CoQ10 are achievable with ubiquinol. Unfortunately, virtually all the supportive data are unpublished, proprietary observations, i.e., generated by companies who make or sell it. This is as reliable as drug manufacturers who publish glowing reports on their own drugs--perhaps it's true, but it requires unbiased corroboration.

3) Despite the lack of a large, well-funded clinical trial (all are small), the issue continues to live and breathe because of the powerful anecdotal experience.

In our experience, CoQ10 does work. It doesn't work all of the time, perhaps just 80-90% of the time. It does generally require higher doses (100 mg per day, occasionally more). It very clearly must be an oil-based gelcap (just like vitamin D) to work; capsules containing powder do not work.

It's difficult to doubt when someone starts a statin drug, develops the muscle aches and weakness, begins CoQ10 and obtains distinct relief, stops CoQ10 and aches and weakness return, then only to go away again with resumption of CoQ10 . I've seen this countless times.

We do need better information on CoQ10. There's no doubt about it. For people who obtain benefit from statin therapy, I think CoQ10 remains a useful solution. A better solution would be to get rid of the offending drug. But that's not always possible--e.g., LDL cholesterol 190 mg/dl despite the best diet and "adjunctive" food effort. Then CoQ10 can be very useful.
Is an increase in heart scan score GOOD?

Is an increase in heart scan score GOOD?

20. November 2007 William Davis (30)
In response to an earlier Heart Scan Blog post, I don't care about hard plaque!, reader Dave responded:

Hello Dr Davis,

Interesting post about hard and soft plaque. I recently had a discussion with my GP regarding my serious increase in scan score (Jan 2006 = 235, Nov 2007 = 419).

After the first scan we started aggressively going after my LDL, HDL and Trig...196,59,221

And have them down to 103, 65, 92 - we still have a way to go to 60/60/60 [The Track Your Plaque target values]-

So the increase is a surprise, but my doctor said that the increase could in part be cause some of the soft plaque had been converted to hard plaque and the scan would show that conversion.


Dave's doctor then responded to him with this comment:

"Remember that although your coronary calcium score has gone up, this does not mean that you are at greater risk than you were a year ago. Remember that the most dangerous plaque is the not-yet calcified soft plaque, which will not show up on an EBT [i.e., calcium score]. It is only the safe, calcified plaque that can be measured with the EBT. [Emphasis mine.] For your score to go up like it did, while your lipids came down so much, what had to happen was that lots of dangerous unstable plaque was converted to stable, calcified plaque. There are no accepted guidelines for interpreting changes in calcium scores over time, because the scores tend to go up as treatment converts dangerous plaque to safer plaque. We do know that aggressively lowering LDL reduces both unstable and stable plaque, and we know that risk can be further lowered by adjuvant therapy such as I listed above."


Huh?

This bit of conventional "wisdom" is something I've heard repeated many times. Is it true?

It is absolutely NOT true. In fact, the opposite is true: Dave's substantial increase in heart scan score from 235 to 419 over 22 months, representing a 78% increase, or an annualized rate of increase of 37%. This suggests a large increase in his risk for heart attack, not a decrease. Big difference!

Dr. Paulo Raggi's 2004 study, Progression of coronary artery calcium and risk of first myocardial infarction in patients receiving cholesterol-lowering therapy in 495 participants addresses this question especially well. Two heart scans were performed three years apart, with a statin drug initiated after the first scan, regardless of score.

During the period of study, heart attacks occurred in 41 participants. When these participants were analyzed, it was found that the average annual increase in score over the three year period was 42%. The average annual rate of increase in those free of heart attack was 17%. The group with the 42% annual rate of increase--all on statin drugs--the risk of heart attack was 17.2-fold greater, or 1720%.

The report made several other important observations:

--20% of the heart attack-free participants showed reduction of heart scan scores, i.e., reversal. None of the participants experiencing heart attack had a score reduction.
--Only 2 of the 41 heart attacks occurred in participants with <15% per year annual growth, while the rest (39) showed larger increases.
--The intensity of LDL reduction made no difference in whether heart attacks occurred or not. Those with LDL<100 mg/dl fared no better than those with LDL>100 mg/dl.

Dr. Raggi et al concluded:

"The risk of hard events [heart attack] was significantly higher in the presence of CVS [calcium volume score] progression despite low LDL serum levels, although the interaction of CVS change and LDL level on treatment was highly significant. The latter observation strongly suggests that a combination of serum markers and vascular markers [emphasis mine] may constitute a better way to gauge therapeutic effectiveness than isolated measurement of lipid levels."

This study demonstrates an important principle: Rising heart scan scores signal potential danger, regardless of LDL cholesterol treatment. Yes, LDL reduction does achieve a modest reduction in heart attack, but it does not eliminate them--not even close.

These are among the reasons that, in the Track Your Plaque program, we aim to correct more than LDL cholesterol. We aim to correct ALL causes of coronary plaque, factors that can be responsible for continuing increase in heart scan score despite favorable LDL cholesterol values.

So, Dave, please forgive your doctor his misunderstanding of the increase in your heart scan score. He is not alone in his ignorance of the data and parroting of the mainstream mis-information popular among the statin-is-the-answer-to-everything set.

Just don't let your doctor's ignorance permit the heart attack that is clearly in the stars. Take preventive action now.
Tags :

Comments (30) -

  • Anonymous

    11/20/2007 5:41:00 PM |

    Dr Davis,

    What should Dave do?  He appears to have improved his LDL:HDL ratio as well as his total C to HDL ratio substantially, but his CAC score jumped significantly.  Maybe look at other risk factors?

    The info here gives no indication of median blood pressure for Dave.  LP(a)?  No indication of particle sizes. But, which of these or others would be most likely to be Dave's downfall in attempting to mitigate a future hard endpoint?

    I don't ask this lightly, I myself am trying to follow the TYP program and keep my high-for-my-age 29 CAC score from growning.  But, I'm frankly not looking forward to my rescan in about a year.  I'm a bit worried about the, "What if my scan shows a dramatic increase?  What then?"

    Thank you for the valuable information you provide.

    :LaughingCT

  • Dr. Davis

    11/20/2007 11:17:00 PM |

    I would urge Dave to follow all the principles of the Track Your Plaque program, including:

    1) Fish oil to provide minimum 1200 mg EPA + DHA per day

    2) Correction of all concealed lipoprotein patterns such as IDL and Lp(a)

    3) Vitamin D raised to 50 ng/ml--crucial!

    4) Normalization of blood pressure, including during exericse.

    5) Normal blood sugar (<100 mg/dl).

    Further efforts might be required, depending on the long-term effects on rate of plaque growth.

  • Ross

    11/21/2007 3:41:00 AM |

    My question is: how repeatable do you think the scores are on the CT scan?  Are they bulletproof (+/- 5% no matter where measured), consistent by analyst (+/- 5% with the same doctor analyzing the scan), or...?  

    I am currently visiting my brother in law, who is an FP doctor with a private practice.  One of his professional friends, a cardiologist who seems a cut above (thinks stenting is a cop-out), recently told him that he only trusted two centers in the mid-Ohio region to score a 16-slice CT scan accurately, and that even then, the variability was still too high for his taste.  Two numbers within 20% were within his expected error bars and weren't different enough to indicate any change to him.  Two different scan centers?  He wouldn't even compare the two scan scores.

    In my own job (software), I've had to manage human-measured numbers over and over again.  One observation keeps coming up: a single value doesn't mean much without an understanding of the accuracy of that value.  I really am curious about how you estimate confidence intervals on CT scan scores.

  • Dr. Davis

    11/21/2007 3:55:00 AM |

    Hi, Ross--

    Excellent questions.

    Several thoughts:

    1) 16-slice scanners are, unfortunately, prone to wider error in heart scan scoring, perhaps as much as 20%. The variation in scoring on an EBT or 64-slice device is far less.

    2) Variation from scan to scan, when expressed as percent, depends to a great degree on the score itself. Lumping all scores together, variation should be no more than 8-9%. However,a low score of, say 2, then repeated at 4 means 100% variation. However, the same absolute difference of 2 but with a score of 1002 and repeated at 1004 is <1% variation. Therefore, higher scores assume much less percent variation, usually <5%.

    3) Variation among different reading physicians tends to be a minor issue, since much of the scoring is done by standard criteria determined by software, not the human eye. The only real source of human variation comes from disputable areas, such as the mitral valve (which can sometimes encroach into the coronary area and appear like plaque) and the mouth of arteries, which can be debated as being in the aorta or in the coronary arteries themselves. However, these disputable areas are issues in <5% of scans.

  • Tom

    11/21/2007 4:30:00 AM |

    It's interesting that a 29 year old is able to track his plaque. I'm in my 60's now and recently found your site AFTER bypass surgery and a calcium score >700 via a 64 slice scan.
    In reading past comments, those of us having had the heart procedure are now unable to follow our progress via the cac score. Until this post I had hoped to use your recommended blood tests for indication of progress, but if LDL reduction achieves a modest risk reduction, we are left without a specific guide.
    Question: Was the progress in blood tests in dave's case a result of statins ?

  • Dr. Davis

    11/21/2007 12:46:00 PM |

    That's why lipoproteins are so important--they provide other indicators. In my experience, people who have LDL cholesterol as the sole cause of heart disease are a very small minority. The vast majority of people have multiple causes beyond LDL.

    Also, about 50% of people can still get a heart scan score after bypass surgery if you find a center willing to do a detailed analysis. You will need to ask.

    Also, I don't know what Dave did, since he is a reader and everything he posted is above. Are you there, Dave?

  • Dr. Davis

    11/21/2007 5:41:00 PM |

    Hi, Paul--

    I think your doctor might be confusing heart scans with CT coronary angiograms. She is right in saying that CT angiograms (using X-ray dye) require a lot of radiation; 100 chest x-rays worth with present technology.

    However, a plain heart scan to generate a heart scan score requires 4 chest x-rays worth on an EBT device, 8-10 on an 64-slice multi-detector device.

    See the Track Your Plaque Special Report, Radiation and Heart Scans: The Real Story at http://trackyourplaque.com/library/fl_06-021radiation.asp.

  • Anonymous

    11/21/2007 6:01:00 PM |

    Regarding repeatability, there is a 2005 study by Serukov, Bland, and Kondos that shows that the repeatability is a function of the square root of the calcium score, and that volume score is more repeatable than Agatston score. The reference is

    “Serial Electron Beam CT Measurements of Coronary Artery Calcium: Has Your Patient's Calcium Score Actually Changed?” Alexander B. Sevrukov, J. Martin Bland and George T. Kondos, American Journal of Roentgenology 2005; 185:1546-1553
    http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/full/185/6/1546

    In this report, the standard deviation of the difference between two sequential calcium scored is

    SDAG130 = 2.515 *sqrt(avg score)
    SDVol130 = 1.758 *sqrt(avg score)

    This results in the following values, where SDA is the standard deviation for the Agatston score and SDV is the standard deviation for the volume score.

    Score-SDA--%SDA--SDV--%SDV
    5-----5.62---112%---3.93--79%
    10----7.95---79%----5.55--56%
    20----11.2---56%----7.86--39%
    50----17.7---35%----12.4--25%
    100---25.1---25%----17.5--18%
    200---35.5---17%----24.8--12%
    300---43.5---14%----30.4--10%
    400---50.3---12%----35.1---9%
    500---56.2---11%----39.3---8%
    600---61.6---10%----43.0---7%
    700---66.5----9%----46.5---7%
    1000--79.5----7%----55.5---6%

    These values show why many people use 15% as a breakpoint - only if the score has changed by more than 15% can it be said that the change is real. And this is only true for scores above 200 or so.

    Harry

  • Anonymous

    11/21/2007 7:17:00 PM |

    My cardiologist told me that EBT scanning is not recommended for anyone under the age of 30. Is this true? If so, how do I (29 years) reliably know that I am at risk?

    I discovered your blog recently. Since I have a very bad family history of diabetes, high blood pressure, and cholesterol, I decided to visit a cardiologist last month so that I can request for an EBT scan. He said that I'm too young for that, and has instead asked me to take a Carotid IMT and Stress test - are these tests reliable enough to provide insight on my risk? Could these tests return "false positive" values?

    I had found during a blood test I did this July only to find that my triglycerides were at 600!! The other cholesterol values were bad too - totalC-HDL-LDL-Tri (255-31-Not measurable-600)

    Since then I have found your blog, lost around 25 lbs and did a VAP recently (I asked for NMR and all I got from doctors - what? What the heck is that?) So I settled for a VAP, since they knew about it.

    I did a VAP along with a comprehensive blood test and the measures that came up high were.

    LIPID related:
    Total LDL-C Direct:130 (Normal<130)
    Real LDL-C:110 (N<100)
    Sum Total LDL-C: 130 (<130)
    Remnant LIPO (IDL+VLDL3): 30 (<30)
    HDL-2:9 (>10)
    VLDL3: 14 (<10)

    Non-LIPID related high values:
    Uric Acid: 8.3  (4.0-8.0)
    Fasting Glucose: 104 (65-99)
    Creatine Kinase Total: 631 (<=200)


    LP PLA2 is normal: 164 (115-245)
    HBA1C suggests prediabetic: 5.7 (Normal <6%)


    Due to my very high value of CK Total, I researched online and found that this can increase due to high exercise, and I had it repeated after taking rest, and it returned normal results. My doctor was really surprised about this and initially hesitant to fractionise my CK. I feel empowered that I am able to take charge of my health and preventative care with the
    information that is available online (of course, one needs to tread that carefully and make an informed decision due to various conflicting opinions out there).

    Sorry for the long post, Doc. I have a newfound awareness of my health thanks to your blog, and am very much interested in knowing your inputs. I just hope that more physicians in our country follow your noble path and understand the true value and empowerment of preventive care.

    - Philip

  • Dr. Davis

    11/21/2007 8:09:00 PM |

    Hi, Philip--

    In general, 29 is very young, perhaps too young, unless there is an outstanding family history (e.g., father with heart attack at age 37). Although your lipid/lipoproteins are concerning, it would be highly unusual to have anything but a zero heart scan score at your age.

  • Dr. Davis

    11/21/2007 8:14:00 PM |

    Hi, Harry--
    Thanks for the help!

  • Neelesh

    11/22/2007 4:51:00 AM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,
      I've just bought the Track Your Plaque book, waiting for its arrival. I've had a heart attack a year back.I'm 30 years old with no family history, non-alcoholic, non-smoker and vegetarian.
    The event was attributed to ectatic arteries(Type-III) and a very high level of LP(a)- between 120-130. The standard lipid profile was also marginally higher. If I had not insisted for an LP(a) test after reading Dr Agatston's South Beach Heart Program, I would have never found the LP(a) factor.
       I was stented during the hospitalization and now I'm wondering how effective the heart scan will be, given that the accuracy reduces  with stented arteries (http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/114/18_MeetingAbstracts/II_692-a)

    Thanks!
    -Neelesh

  • Dr. Davis

    11/22/2007 2:35:00 PM |

    Hi, Neeleesh--

    I do advocate heart scanning in people with stents, but I generally suggest that only the unstented arteries be scored. It's imperfect, excluding the most diseased artery, but it's proven a useful compromise, leaving you with two "scorable" arteries.

    The study you cite, however, is not about heart scans, it's about CT coronary angiography, a study that yields "percent blockage" sort of information, not an index of plaque.

    Beyond Lp(a), you should strongly consider vitamin D normalization.  By your first name, I take it you are from India/Pakistan or similar background, an ethnic origin that is associated with severe vitamin D deficiency.

  • Neelesh

    11/22/2007 3:00:00 PM |

    Thanks Dr. Davis. And yes, I'm from India.

  • wccaguy

    11/22/2007 3:13:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    I found your answer to Neeleesh to be interesting in the extreme.  I have a  follow up question to it.

    I don't have specific references for the two facts I have heard but couldn't reconcile:

    1   India has high coronary artery disease incidence.

    2   Your answer to Neeleesh states that vitamin d levels are low in India and Pakistan.  And that would help much to explain the high rate of coronary artery disease in these countries.

    3   And yet India is close to the equator and so vitamin d levels should be relatively high because of sun exposure right?

    The question then is this:  What is the cause of the low vitamin d level in those countries?

    Thanks!

  • Dr. Davis

    11/22/2007 4:00:00 PM |

    It is interesting, isn't it?

    I believe part of the explanation is that, the darker your skin complexion, the more you are "protected" from intense and prolonged sun exposure. But, activation of 7-hydrocholesterol to 25-OH-vitamin D3 may require many hours more exposure. Thus, a fair skinned person might activate D within minutes, while a dark skinned individual might require hours.

    Another factor that has not been thoroughly explored but has potential for yielding enormous insights: Vit D receptor genotypes. That is, vitamin D deficiency may express itself in different ways in different populations. Some might get colon cancer, others multiple sclerosis, others coronary disease.

    I believe that the dark-skinned phenomenon becomes especially an issue when migrating to sun-deprived climates such as the northern U.S.

  • wccaguy

    11/22/2007 6:12:00 PM |

    Hi Doc,

    Your explanation makes sense.

    I did a quick google search and found experts on the problem in India attributing it to the increasing extent to which Indians were staying indoors and not "being active."

    But the vitamin D issue throws the whole question of "activity" into question doesn't it?  It might not be the activity per se but instead the amount of sunlight reduction.

    And if, per your explanation, darker skinned people need more time in the sun than lighter skinned people for Vitamin D3 to be "activated" then than a decrease in sunlight would have more effect on darker skinned people than lighter skinned people.

    Very interesting...  And perhaps INCREDIBLY good news!!!

    Because it means that there might be a cheap effective treatment for the coronary disease epidemic in India.

    Does all that make sense?

  • wccaguy

    11/22/2007 6:19:00 PM |

    Just to follow up one more point on this D3 question...

    I guess what we need to do is find a study which shows a correlation between degree of skin pigmentation and Vitamin D3 activation?

    (I'm not sure if the word "degree" is the right word, but perhaps the question is understood anyway?)

    Answering that question would certainly set up the basis for a scientific study right?

  • Dr. Davis

    11/23/2007 12:56:00 AM |

    Yes, it does. It could serve as the basis for a tremendously interesting study.

  • Dr. Davis

    11/23/2007 1:09:00 AM |

    There are indeed a few studies that document this effect, e.g., Factors that influence the cutaneous synthesis and dietary sources of vitamin D (abstract viewable at Arch Biochem Biophys. 2007 Apr 15;460(2):213-7.)

    However, I am not aware of any study that examines the effect of vitamin D supplementation specifically in this population that tracks coronary atherosclerosis. One British study  in Bangladeshi adults did demonstrate dramatic reduction in inflammatory markers with vit D replacement (Circulating MMP9, vitamin D and variation in the TIMP-1 response with VDR genotype: mechanisms for inflammatory damage in chronic disorders? at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=12454321&ordinalpos=22&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum  ).

  • Dave K

    11/24/2007 12:21:00 AM |

    Hi Dr Davis,

    Sorry - I have been offline for a couple of days.  Interesting discussion.  I will try and add some detail lipid info.

    July 2007 Blood work showed

    My Lp(a) is 7
    IDL = 10
    VLDL=11
    HDL-2 = 15
    HDL-3 = 50
    VLDL C = 18
    VLDL1+2 = 7

    Currently taking fishoil 1700 mg of DHA+EHA
    Vitamin D 800mg - just incresed to 2000
    Baby Aspirin
    Multivitamin
    Crestor
    Just started Zetia after getting this last scan result
    Eat basic South Beach phase 3
    BMI - 27
    Glucose is 105
    Exercise 4X week...
    Lp-PLA2=120

    Blood pressure high-normal but I don't know about during exercise.  Cardilogist scheduled me for a stress test after this volume increase.

    I have not has a blood test for Vit D.

    Also - I had an angiograham after the first scan because I was having chests pains .... it turned up that I had no blockages whatsoever.  So we judged the chest pains as non cardiac.

    So I am following your list pretty close.  I guess I just have to wait to see how these changes do.  How long would you wait for another scan?

    Not sure what else to add - your website says to consider L-arginie...


    I do have a specific question.  In the scan report it shows where the calcium was found.  Don't know the software, but there was one spot where it showed in the early report that it didn't show in this report (of course there was several new areas) - could that have actually been a reversal at that spot?

  • Dr. Davis

    11/24/2007 1:25:00 AM |

    Small LDL and a deficiency of large HDL, along with modest excess weight, high blood sugar, high blood pressure all suggest you are (or were) likely over-dependent on processed carbohydrates like wheat products. Your pattern would likely respond vigorously to reduction or elimination of these foods and weight loss. Niacin can help this pattern. In our experience, normalization of vitamin D is crucial.

  • Dave K

    11/26/2007 5:51:00 AM |

    Dr Davis,

    Few more data ....

    Some of the treatments have only been for the last 6 months or so.  The Statin was first (of course) and it took almost a year to get something I could tolerate.  The we talked about Vit D (700) and fish oil (800 Omega 3).  After a full Lipid scan around 9 months ago - we decided to add more fish oil.  So the full dosage I listed is only 6 months old or so.

    Also - I love my red wine and I know the number says two glasses and i rarely do two - so its three or four ... which might be my next step....

    From your last response, I assume the VLDL and IDL levels are the ones you would target hardest at this point.

    Don't do a lot of sugar or wheat... Do eat Oatmeal everyday with rasins or blueberries.

    Oh and my other question was with this kind of increase how long would you wait for the next scan?

  • Dr. Davis

    11/26/2007 12:08:00 PM |

    Dave-

    I generally recommend waiting a year after all identifiable causes have been corrected. However, given your minimal doses of vit D, I usually have my patients wait at least six month after vitamin D blood levels are corrected.

  • Dave

    11/26/2007 8:01:00 PM |

    Dr Davis,

    Thank you ... keep up the great work and I'll keep reading... and tracking.

    Dave

  • G

    11/27/2007 12:39:00 AM |

    Neeleesh and DR. D,

    This Canadian physician appears to have a lot of indepth awareness of the diff phenotypes. He suggests (in the author's response) that D2 may not work as well in East Indians (may worsen glycemic control) versus D3 (the more biologically active vitamin D). Very fascinating!!

    http://www.cfp.ca/cgi/reprint/53/9/1435
    Repletion of vitamin D with vitamin D2 is common
    practice, and vitamin D2 can be used safely when monitored
    to achieve normal levels of 25(OH)D. This might
    take 2 to 3 months, as discussed in your letter and in my
    paper, because the half-life is about 2 weeks. Using vitamin
    D3 (1000 to 5000 IU) daily, depending on the level
    of deficiency, will also achieve this goal. I also agree
    that the goal is to achieve levels of 25(OH)D higher than
    100 nmol/L, preferably 100 to 125 nmol/L.
    My concern regarding vitamin D2 is that it is a synthetic
    analogue and might interact with the vitamin D
    receptor differently in various cell systems. It has been
    reported that vitamin D3 might improve glycemic control.
    7 Vitamin D2 has been reported to cause worsening
    of glycemic control in people of East Indian descent.8
    Is this because of vitamin D receptor polymorphism, or
    because of enhanced 24-hydroxylase enzyme activation,
    or is it due to how vitamin D2 interacts with the receptor?
    Until this has been sorted out, I feel safest using
    vitamin D3. There are about 2000 synthetic analogues
    of vitamin D. The search is on for one that can cross the
    blood-brain barrier to treat certain types of brain cancers
    without causing hypercalcemia.9 But then again,
    what other effects would this compound have? There
    are still so many unknowns.
    The first step is to recognize that most Canadians
    do not get enough vitamin D, especially in the winter
    months, because of where we live. This recognition
    might reduce the need for expensive drugs to treat
    various conditions and might improve the well-being of
    many Canadians.
    An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
    —Gerry Schwalfenberg MD CCFP
    Edmonton, Alta
    by e-mail

    here's the orig article which is one of the most excellent summaries I've seen so far -- great minds think alike -- they advise > 50ng/ml like DR. Davis as well!
    http://www.cfp.ca/cgi/reprint/53/5/841

  • Neelesh

    11/27/2007 4:05:00 AM |

    D,
    Interesting study indeed. Thanks for the information. I guess I have a lot of things to discuss with my cardiologist next week. Smile
    -Neelesh

  • chickadeenorth

    12/2/2007 11:16:00 PM |

    Hi to Gerry Schwalfenberg MD CCFP, do you know any Dr In Edtmn who practices Track your Plague, if so could you suggest names to help me. I live out by Jasper and need a skilled Dr in this treatment program, I would travel to Edtmn.Many thanks.
    chickadeenorth
    (hope its ok for me to ask this here)

  • cadoce66

    4/5/2008 8:37:00 PM |

    hi my aunts 63 yrs and she underwent an angioplasty with a medicated stent .. Shes on PLAVIX and her artery was 90% blocked and she had an evolving AWMI...
    Please advise what she should taketo prevent another blockage or heart attack!
    Thanks!

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 10:34:10 PM |

    So, Dave, please forgive your doctor his misunderstanding of the increase in your heart scan score. He is not alone in his ignorance of the data and parroting of the mainstream mis-information popular among the statin-is-the-answer-to-everything set.

Add comment

Loading