D2 and D3 are two different things

3. September 2009 William Davis (15)
Helena posted this instructive comment in response to the Heart Scan Blog post, Weight loss and vitamin D. It illustrates the confusion common among physicians and pharmacists on the differences between D2 and D3.

(Edited slightly for clarity.)

Not many weeks ago a colleague of mine (let’s call him Eric) asked me if I knew the difference between D2 and D3 and I told Eric that D2 comes from irradiated mushrooms and D3 comes from wool. In other words, D3 is the same kind of vitamin as humans get from the sun. Humans just don’t get enough and we can’t produce it on our own, like the sheep can. (D3 is natural for humans, D2 is not.)

After telling Eric this, he asked me how he would know what he is taking and I gave him the medical definitions of them both (D2 = Ergocalciferol; D3 = Cholecaliciferol). Since I was aware that he had gotten his Vitamin D by prescription, I told him “I am 99.9% sure that you are taking D2, but I would be thrilled to find out I am wrong.”

Eric called his pharmacy right away and got the answer I was expecting: ergocalciferol. On confronting the person Eric was talking to, the answer he got back was that Ergocalciferol is the only Vitamin D they are giving out.

A week later, Eric had a new appointment with his doctor and decided to ask him about the D2/D3 issue. The doctor said he knew that there was a difference in them both, but could not say what, not even the basic facts I mentioned above. But the doctor stamped a post-it with what he had sent to the pharmacy just to show Eric. “Vitamin D3; 50,000IU tab” is what the stamp said.

Eric, off course, got confused and was starting to believe that the pharmacy had made a mistake by giving him Ergocalciferol (D2) since the doctor had given him D3, or at least that is what was stamped on the little note he had.

Today, after getting a refill of his Vitamin D he also got and kept all his paperwork that came along with it. Still believing that stamp the doctor had given Eric earlier, he asked me to double and triple check that my definition of D2 and D3 was correct. I did, just for my own sanity, and I was still right.

One of the sheets Eric brought me today was the “Patient Education Monograph” sheet stating the drugs and how to use it and so on. The thing that jumped out the most to me was this:

Generic Name: Vitamin D – Oral
Common Brand name(s): Drisdol, Maximum D3
Identification: PA140 Green Oval Capsule

This is the Drug Eric was given: Vitamin D 1.25 MG softgel; Generic name: Ergocalciferol

My researching mind went into high concentration mood and I started to dig. And this is what I found:

The brand name Drisdol is Ergocalciferol (D2), not D3. The Brand name Maximum D3 seems to be hard to find out there in cyber space as a brand name. But the ones I found that were called Maximum D3 seems to be the real stuff, however none of them required a prescription.

When trying to find out through the identification number on the pills (PA140) I now know for sure that Eric is taking Vitamin D2 and not the preferred Vitamin D3. The brand name, Drisdol, had the identification W on one side and D92 on the other, but it is still Ergocalciferol.

The only conclusion I can draw from all this is that the medical industry does not know or care about the difference in D2 and D3 – it is all same to them. And as long as the pharmacies only give out D2 it does not matter what the doctor prescribe anyway.

I know that people are most likely to be prescribed a D2 pill than to be told to buy over-the-counter D3. But it was almost heart breaking to see the letter D and number 3 right next to the drug Drisdol, as we know is a D2 vitamin. It just didn’t make sense to me that they can be labeled as the same type of medication, when we know it is not!


Incredible.

Why prescribe plant form D2 when you can get perfectly reliable, safe, effective D3--the human form, at the health food store for about $6?

Once again, it's the peculiar false bias of physicians and pharmacists: If it's prescription, it must be good; if it comes from a health food store, it must be bogus.

Humans need human vitamin D. Plain and simple.

For more on the D2 vs. D3 issue, see the Heart Scan Post, The case against vitamin D2.

Weight loss: Different causes, different solutions

1. September 2009 William Davis (8)
Heart Scan Blog reader, Kris, related this enlightening story of weight loss (slightly edited for clarity).

Kris learned that excess weight is gained through multiple causes. The solutions are therefore multiple, not just one change in diet or two.


I started studying about my thyroid issue much earlier and did lose some weight. But ever since I started following Dr. Davis’s blog, it has given me confidence that I was on the right track. I did have my thyroid and iodine figured out from other sources, but Dr. Davis helped me to understand the issues with not only the thyroid but vitamin D3, fructose, fish oil, niacin, wheat etc. I have lost 43lb in last 14 months.

It seems to me that there are certain percentages of weight connected with different issues. For example, after I gave up alcohol and sugar, I lost about 14lbs from total weight of 243lbs, weight came down to about 229lb. Then it stopped at 229lb, even though I was in the gym almost 5 to 6 days a week with full workouts.

After I changed my thyroid medication to natural thyroid hormones (took synthetic T4 for over 10 years), the weight dropped down further 13lbs or so in matter of few days, shape of the face changed from moon shape/double chin to ordinary long face. Then it kind of stopped at around 213-216 lbs.

After giving up wheat, reducing carbs, increasing protein intake (whey protein, chicken etc. no soya, no fructose) the weight came down another 14lbs. Now it is around 200-202lbs and I am over 6.2 tall with heavy set of bones.

I feel better than I have ever in my life. More stamina, more clarity/no fog, more confidence and 99% of the time relaxed and being able to see the situation from multiple angles.

I use to be able to drink a liter or more jack denial without a problem in one evening but now can’t stand half a can of beer (I miss JD). Drinking alcohol makes me sick. I sleep well and if I wake up in the middle of the night, I have no problem going back to sleep. No more out of breath stair climbing at all.

One other thing: I used to be the most attractive meal to the mosquitoes, but not anymore. This year I haven’t been bitten once. I take my dog to the park everyday and I do not use any mosquito repellent, what a relief. I don’t know if it is because of thyroid, iodine, wheat or something else. Skin texture has changed dramatically. I do not use full soap or shampoo, 20% borax, 10 percent of my soap or shampoo for scent and rest water, mixed in a 500ml bottle. No more dandruff, dry skin, pimples for me.

Dr. Davis I am thankful to people like you who have the ability to see beyond what you have been taught and have the guts to say the way it is. Most of us work to make living on daily basis but some make their living while spreading their knowledge to save lives. Dr Davis you are one of those few people. Please keep it going.

Calling all losers!

29. August 2009 William Davis (14)
I'd like to invite anyone who has followed the Track Your Plaque Break the Weight Barrier program to consider posting their stories and photos on the Heart Scan Blog.

Because our focus is prevention and reversal of coronary heart disease, we have not made an effort to catalog the weight loss experience that people have while on the program. For many, weight loss has been substantial. (Several people this week alone have reported weight loss of 9 to 46 lbs in the past 6 months.)

It would be helpful to hear and see these results.

For those of you who don't mind having a story and photo on this Blog, please come back in future to post your results. You will find this post by entering "weight loss" into the site-specific search bar at the top of the page.

Weight loss and vitamin D

28. August 2009 William Davis (28)
At the start of her program, Penny's 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level showed the usual deficiency at 22 ng/ml.

She supplemented with 8000 units of vitamin D. Another 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level several months later showed a level of 67.8 ng/ml, right on target.

But Penny also began our diet, including the elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, and, over 6 months, lost 34 lbs.

Now a much trimmer 146 lbs (still more to go!), another vitamin D blood level: 111 ng/ml.

Penny's weight loss means that the vitamin D is distributed in a smaller total volume, particularly a lower volume of fat.

This is a common phenomenon with substantial weight loss: lose weight and the need for vitamin D is reduced. The reduction in dose is roughly proportion to the weight lost. Vitamin D should therefore be reassessed with any substantial change in weight of, say, 10 lbs or more, either up or down, because of the influence of fat on vitamin D blood levels.

Some references on this effect:

Men and women over age 65:
Adiposity in relation to vitamin D status and parathyroid hormone levels: a population-based study in older men and women.

Obese women:
Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations in obese women: their clinical significance and relationship with anthropometric and body composition variables

Obese children:
Hypovitaminosis D in obese children and adolescents: relationship with adiposity, insulin sensitivity, ethnicity, and season.

African-Americans:
Relationship of vitamin D and parathyroid hormone to obesity and body composition in African Americans.

Although the bulk of the effect is most likely due to sequestration by fatty tissue, perhaps less sun exposure in obese people also contributes:
Body mass index determines sunbathing habits: implications on vitamin D levels.

Grasscutting, fertilizer, and healthcare

25. August 2009 William Davis (23)
A guy named Jeff, a 60-something, taciturn, "How 'bout dem Brewers?" kind of guy, cuts my grass.

Once a week, Jeff drives over his rust-rimmed 1994 Chevy pickup and trailer, unloads his ride mower, and cuts the grass. For his 40 minutes of work, I pay him $35.

For $35, all he does is cut the grass--no trimming, no picking up debris, no working in the garden, no fertilizing, no weeding. Just cutting the grass. Occasionally, Jeff has proven to be a useful resource for peculiar problems. Last year, I had a drainage problem that he helped solve and two years ago he helped diagnose a tree disease that was killing a tree in the backyard; it's now recovered.

To save money, and because I like to work in the yard, I do the rest. I trim the edges, I fertilize the grass, plant new flowers and trees, fix damaged areas, trim wild branches.

In my view, my relationship with Jeff, a limited, as-needed relationship, in which I ask him to help with specific issues but I manage the rest myself, is how I believe that healthcare should also be conducted.

Your doctor should be like Jeff: Perhaps not taciturn, but an as-needed resource available while you do much of the work.

My simple relationship with Jeff is, I believe, the healthcare model of the future. You manage your own cholesterol issues, your own basic thyroid issues, supplement and monitor your vitamin D levels, use diet to suit your needs, order blood tests when necessary, even obtain basic imaging tests like heart scans, carotid ultrasound, bone density testing. Your doctor is a resource, near by when and if you need him or her: guidance when needed, an occasional review of what you are doing, someone to consult when you fracture an ankle.

What your doctor is NOT is a paternal, "do what I say, I'm the doctor," or a "You need these tests whether you like it or not" holder of your health fate.

It is a model of healthcare that will evolve over the next 20-30 years, only in its infancy now.

While we started Track Your Plaque as just a resource for in-depth information on prevention and reversal of coronary heart disease, I now see it as something much greater: a prototype for the emerging concept of self-directed health.

Enough for now. I've got some tomatoes to pick.

Iodine deficiency is REAL

21. August 2009 William Davis (30)
Like many health-conscious people, Kurt avoids salt. In fact, he has assiduously avoided salt ever since his heart attack back in 1995.

Lately, Kurt had become tired, often for little or no reason. His thyroid panel:

TSH 4.2 mIU/L (0.27-4.20)
Free T3 1.74 pg/ml (2.50-4.30)
Free T4 1.05 ng/dl (0.9-1.7)

Kurt's TSH of 4.2 mIU/L is sufficient to increase LDL cholesterol by 20-30% and increase the (relative) risk for heart attack 3-fold.

Kurt's thyroid was also palpably enlarged. While it was just barely visible--just a minor bulge in the neck (in the shape of a bowtie), it could be clearly felt when I examined him.

I asked Kurt to add 500 mcg of iodine every day. Three months later, another thyroid panel showed:

TSH 0.14 mIU/L (0.27-4.20)
Free T3 2.50 pg/ml (2.50-4.30)
Free T4 1.1 ng/dl (0.9-1.7)

Kurt's thyroid function normalized to nearly ideal levels just with iodine replacement. (The free T3, while improved, remains low; an issue for another day!)

I see this response with some frequency: low-grade goiter and apparent hypothyroidism (low thyroid function) that responds, at least partially, to iodine replacement. In Kurt's case, iodine replacement alone normalized his thyroid measures completely.

With improved thyroid measures, Kurt also felt better with renewed energy and a 22 mg/dl reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Make no mistake: Iodine deficiency is real. While most of my colleagues have dismissed iodine deficiency as a relic of the early 20th century and third world countries, you can also find it in your neighborhood.

Fish oil for $780 per bottle

19. August 2009 William Davis (16)
At prevailing pharmacy prices, one capsule of prescription Lovaza fish oil costs $4.33 each.

Yes, you heard right: $4.33 per capsule.

What do you get for $4.33 per capsule? By omega-3 fatty acid content, you get 842 mg EPA + DHA per capsule.

I can also go to Sam's Club and buy a bottle of their Triple-Strength fish oil with 900 mg omega-3 fatty acids per capsule at $18.99 per bottle of 180 capsules. That comes to 10.5 cents per capsule. That puts the price of fish oil from Sam's Club at 97.6% less cost compared to Lovaza for an equivalent quantity of omega-3 fatty acids.

What if we repriced Sam's Club's Triple-Strength and brought it "in line" with what we pay for Lovaza? That would put the value of one bottle of Sam's Club Triple-Strength fish oil at $780 per bottle.

I take patients off Lovaza every chance I get.

Organic really IS better

16. August 2009 William Davis (18)
If you have any doubts about the value of organic foods vs. conventionally-grown foods, then take a look at the findings from a USDA--Yes, USDA--sponsored study.

In this study, the nutritional content of organic vs. conventionally-grown blueberries were compared. Ironically, these observations come from the USDA's Genetic Improvement of Fruits and Vegetables Laboratory of the Produce Quality and Safety Laboratory.

Their findings (all values expressed as weight per 100 grams fresh weight blueberries, or a bit less than 1/4 cup):


Total phenol content (e.g, flavonoids):

Organic: 319.3 mg
Conventional: 190.3 mg

Organic blueberries had 68% greater phenol content.


Total anthocyanins (an important class of flavonoids):

Organic: 131.2 mg
Conventional: 82.4 mg

Organic blueberries had 59% greater anthocyanin content.


Antioxidant capacity (ORAC):

Organic: 46.14 mg
Conventional: 30.8

Organic blueberries had 50% greater antioxidant capacity.


Flavonoids suspected to carry unusually potent health effects--malvidin, delphinidin, myricetin, and quercetin--were all contained in greater proportions in the organically-grown blueberries, also. These flavonoids are demonstrating pharmacologic-level health effects in preliminary studies.

Why a genetics laboratory? After all , the study findings came out heavily in favor of non-genetic, organic farming methods of growing produce. It certainly must have at least given pause to the vocal group within agriculture and the USDA that have long argued that organic produce is no different. I suspect that the laboratory will now try to recreate the nutritional value of organic through genetic manipulation of cultivars grown using conventional methods.

Regardless of the motivations behind the study, we see that there is no comparison: organic blueberries are superior in nutritional value to those grown with conventional pesticides and herbicides. While the study addressed only blueberries, the dramatic difference makes it likely that similar differences exist in other fruits and vegetables.

Coming on the Track Your Plaque website: An in-depth Special Report on the health effects of anthocyanins.

Do you really need calcium?

12. August 2009 William Davis (0)
Why are we advised to take calcium supplements?

Men and women are advised to take calcium because it has been shown to reduce blood pressure modestly. Women, in particular, can stall the deterioration of bone strength (mineralization) by taking calcium supplements, 1200-1300 mg per day, and eating calcium-rich foods like dairy products.

Is that all true?

It is true insofar as we remain vitamin D deficient. A funny thing happens when you fully replete vitamin D: Intestinal absorption of calcium as much as quadruples. That means your body will efficiently absorb the calcium in broccoli and spinach.

Is it still necessary to force-feed your body megadoses of calcium once vitamin D has been repleted? I don’t think so.

While the evidence is indirect, several observations point towards the lack of necessity of calcium once vitamin D is addressed.
For instance:

Women who take calcium, 1200 mg per day, with vitamin D, 800 units per day, double their five-year risk for heart attack, according to a New Zealand study.

Men who take calcium, 1200 mg per day, with vitamin D, 800 units per day, also may substantially increase heart attack risk.

Bone density increases more with vitamin D than with calcium. Calcium may not even be necessary to increase bone mineralization, since there are data to suggest that vitamin D can accomplish this by itself.

Calcium suppresses parathyroid hormone, PTH. That is, in fact, how calcium stalls (usually does not reverse) bone mineral loss-not by adding calcium to bone, but by suppressing PTH release. (PTH causes bone demineralization.) Vitamin D suppresses PTH to a far greater degree than calcium.

What is needed is a broad reconsideration of the advice everyone is getting to take calcium. In an age when more and more people are appreciating the power of vitamin D supplementation to achieve normal blood levels, there may be danger ahead for those who fail to address their calcium overdosing.

The case against vitamin D2

11. August 2009 William Davis (40)
Why would vitamin D be prescribed when vitamin D3 is available over-the-counter?

Let's review the known differences between vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) and vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol):

--D3 is the human form; D2 is the non-human form found in plants.

--Dose for dose, D3 is more effective at raising blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D than D2. It requires roughly twice to 250% of the dose of D2 to match that of D3 (Trang H et al 1998).

--D2 blood levels don't yield long-term sustained levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D as does D3. When examined as a 28-day area under the curve (AUC--a superior measure of biologic exposure), D3 yields better than a 300% increased potency compared to D2. This means that it requires around 50,000 units D2 to match the effects of 15,000 units D3 (Armas LA et al 2004).

--D2 has lower binding affinity for vitamin D-binding protein, compared to D3

--Mitochondrial vitamin D 25-hydroxylase converts D3 to the 25-hydroxylated form five times more rapidly than D2.

--As we age, the ability to metabolize D2 is dramatically reduced, while D3 is not subject to this phenomenon (Harris SS et al 2002).




From Armas LA, Hollis BW, Heaney RP 2004


While there are dissenters on this view, the bulk of evidence suggests that D2 is an inferior form of D3.

Then why is D2 prescribed by many doctors when the natural, human, and superior D3 is available over-the-counter?

You already know the answer: Much of your doctor's education did not come from scientific lectures nor from reading scientific studies. It came from the pretty drug representative in the waiting room who hands the doctor reprints of the "studies" performed by the drug industry to support the use of their drugs. There is no such nutritional supplement representative in the waiting room. This preference for the "drug" D2 over the supplement D3 also stems from the inherent preference of physicians for things they can control, whether or not there is proof of superiority.

In my view, there is absolutely no reason to take vitamin D2 over D3 except to enrich the drug industry.
All posts by william-davis

Large new clinical study launched to study. . .niacin

5. June 2006 William Davis (3)

Oxford University has issued a press release announcing plans for a new clinical trial to raise HDL cholesterol and reduce heart attack risk. 20,000 participants will be enrolled in this substantial effort. The agent? Niacin.

How is that new? Well, this time niacin comes with a new spin.

Dr. Jane Armitage, formerly with the Heart Protection Study that showed that simvastatin (Zocor) reduced heart attack risk regardless of starting LDL, is lead investigator. She hopes to prove that niacin raises HDL cholesterol and thereby reduces heart attack risk. But, this time, niacin will be combined with an inhibitor of prostaglandins that blocks the notorious "flushing" effect of niacin.

The majority of Track Your Plaque participants hoping to control or reverse coronary plaque take niacin. Recall that niacin (vitamin B3)is an extremely effect agent that raises HDL, dramatically reduces small LDL, shifts HDL particles into the effective large fraction, reduces triglycerides and triglyceride-containing particles like IDL and VLDL. Several studies have shown that niacin dramatically reduces heart attack. The HATS Study showed that niacin combined with Zocor yielded an 85-90% reduction in heart attack risk and achieved regression of coronary plaque in many participants.

In our experience, approximately 1 in 20 people will really struggle using niacin. Flushes for these occasional people will be difficult or even intolerable. Should Dr. Armitage's study demonstrate that this new combination agent does provide advantages in minimizing the hot flush effect, that will be a boon for the occasional Track Your Plaque participant who finds conventional niacin intolerable.

But you already have access to niacin, an agent with an impressive track record even without this new study. And you have a reasonably effective prostaglandin inhibitor, as well: aspirin. Good old aspirin is very useful, particularly in the first few months of your niacin initiation to blunt the flush.

Although this study is likely to further popularize niacin and allow its broader use, it's also a method for the drug companies to profit from an agent they know works but is cheap and available.

You don't have to wait. You already have niacin and aspirin available to you.

The dark side of CT heart scans

4. June 2006 William Davis (0)
"I just got a heart scan!" declared Eric to his doctor. He handed the report to him.

"Oh my. Your score is 154." The doctor paused, then looked at Eric with a serious look on his face. "If we're going to understand whether or not you're in danger, you'll need a heart catheterization."


I've seen this happen countless times. How can I say this diplomatically? THIS IS WRONG!! In my view, it's absolutely criminal for this to happen. Physician ignorance, profiteering, whatever--it is wrong.

There's very few reasons why someone who has no symptoms should go directly to the cath lab for a procedure. (A rare exception might be an exceptional quantity of plaque in the left mainstem artery, e.g., >100. This is highly unusual.)

Even a nuclear stress test (e.g., thallium) at this level of scoring is only 10-15% likely to be abnormal. That means 85-90% likelihood of being normal. There's rare reasons to perform a heart catheterization in a person with no symptoms and an entirely normal stress test. The vast majority of people like Eric do not need a heart catheterization to discern risk.

If Eric's doctor had been up-to-date on the published literature on the prognostic value of heart scans, he could have advised Eric what the risks were--without a catheterization. Many doctors simply don't want to be bothered. Or, they opt for the more profitable method--a hospital procedure.

Always discuss your heart scan with your doctor--but be armed with information in case your doctor is uninformed or unscrupulous. Unfortunately, that's not uncommon. The Track Your Plaque program is your advocate, a source for unbiased information.

The dirty little secret about aneurysms

2. June 2006 William Davis (1)
Jake had an abdominal aneurysm identified--by accident.

While getting a CT scan of his abdomen for unexplained abdominal pain, a 4.4 cm aneurysm was discovered. Jake's abdominal pain eventually passed without explanation, but he was left with this aneurysm.

Jake's primary care doctor referred him to a surgeon. "It's too small to require surgery right now. Wait a few years and it'll probably get bigger. When it gets to around 5.5 cm, that'll be the time to operate. Let's schedule an abdominal ultrasound or CT scan every 6 months."

Jake then got himself a heart scan. His high score of 879 then led him to my office. Lipoprotein testing, a stress test, correction of his lipoprotein patterns, changes in lifestyle followed. One year later, Jake's heart scan score was unchanged.

How about his abdominal aneurysm? 4.2 cm--a modest quantity of regression. When Jake's surgeon learned of the change, he just shrugged. "Okay, we'll just watch it from here."

Shockingly, the conversation surrounding aneurysms is just like the one Jake received: Let's just watch it grow until you need surgery.

If you've every seen anyone have abdominal aneurysm surgery, you know it is an awful, painful, barbaric process with high risk for major complications like kidney failure and loss of the legs. Waiting for an aneurysm to grow is a lousy solution. Surgeons point out that, although surgery is imperfect, it's better than the alternative: rupture, which is catastrophic with a 50% chance of dying.

But what about stopping the growth of the aneurysm? Or even reversing, or shrinking, it?

Surgeons say it can't be done. Yet we've done it--many times. And it's not that difficult.

The steps to take are very similar to that in the Track Your Plaque program for coronary plaque regression, with a few different strategies. Suppression of inflammation, for instance, plays a more important role and blood pressure must be abolutely normal, even during exercise.

More to come on this important topic in the future, including an upcoming Special Report on the www.cureality.com membership website.

Heart scan scores dropping like stones!!

1. June 2006 William Davis (0)
I saw two instances of dramatic coronary plaque regression today.

John, a 53-years old mechanical lift operator, dropped his heart scan score from 479 to 323--a 32% regression of coronary plaque volume!

Eric, a 50-year consulting engineer, dropped his heart scan score from 668 to 580--a 13% reduction.

Both men did nothing special beyond the principles advocated in the Track Your Plaque program. Recall that, without preventive efforts, your heart scan score is expected to increase by 30% per year. Both men are well on their way to freedom from risk of coronary "events".

Two less people to feed the revenue-hungry hospital procedure system! We need many more like them.

Pre-diabetes: An explanation for explosive coronary plaque growth

1. June 2006 William Davis (0)
Art's first CT heart scan in March, 2006 yielded a concerning score of 1336. He felt fine--no chest discomfort, no breathlessness, etc.

Art agreed to take the statin cholesterol drug his primary care doctor prescribed. He also agreed to take the fish oil, niacin, and some of the nutritional supplements that we advised. But Art just couldn't bring himself to make the commitment to lose weight.

At the start of his program, Art--at 5 ft. 8 inches--was 40 lbs overweight (212 lb). This was important since his blood sugar wavered in the pre-diabetic range, going as high as 130 mg. (The American Diabetes Assn. defines diabetes as a blood glucose of 126 mg or greater.)

One year later, Art's lipid and lipoprotein values were corrected to perfection. But he still weighed in at a hefty 209 lbs--essentially no change. His blood sugar likewise hovered in the 120's.

I felt Art need to be prodded, so I asked him to undergo another heart scan. His score: 1935--a 600 point increase, or 45%!

Only now has Art begun to comprehend to power of diabetes and pre-diabetes to fan the flames of plaque growth. Recent published data, in fact, show that the majority of recently diagnosed diabetics already have well-established coronary artery disease.

Don't let this happen to you. Do not dismiss diabetic patterns as they will catch up to you. If Art can lose the 30-40 lbs in the abdominal weight that is creating the diabetic pattern, he will likely succeed in stopping plaque growth. Otherwise, it's just a matter of time before his heart attack, stent, or bypass.

Who cares if you're pre-diabetic?

31. May 2006 William Davis (0)
Marta is a smart lady. She's worked in hospital laboratories for the last 23 years and knows many of the ins and outs of lab tests and their implications.

After years of being told that her cholesterol was acceptable, she needed to undergo urgent bypass surgery after experiencing severe breathlessness that proved to be a small warning heart attack at age 57. But this made Marta skeptical of relying on cholesterol to identify heart disease risk.

I met Marta two years after her bypass surgery when she was seeking better answers. And, indeed, she proved to have several concealed sources of heart disease: small LDL particles, Lipoprotein(a), intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL--a very important abnormality that means she is unable to clear dietary fats from her blood), among others. But she was also mildly diabetic with a blood sugar of 131 mg (normal < or = 100 mg). This had not been previously recognized.

As I'm a cardiologist and our program focuses on reversal and control of coronary plaque, I asked Marta to return to her primary care doctor to continue the conversation about diabetes. She was a bit frightened but followed through.

"Well, you're not urinating excessively. And your long-term measure of blood sugar, hemoglobin A1C, is still normal. I wouldn't worry about it. We'll just watch it."

I guess I should know better. What the poor primary care doctor doesn't know is that pre-diabetes and mild diabetes are potent risks for heart disease. In fact, some of the most explosive rates of plaque growth occur when these patterns are present. It's well established that risk for heart attack in a diabetic is the same as that of someone who's already suffered a prior heart attack--very high risk, in other words.

Marta's primary care doctor's advice would be like inquiring about cancer and the doctor says "Let's just wait until it's metastatic--then we'll start to worry." Of course, this is insane.

Pre-diabetes and mild diabetes should not be ignored or just "watched". Even though the blood sugar itself may not be high enough to endanger you, the hidden patterns underlying your body's unresponsiveness to insulin creates a torrent of hidden coronary risk.

For better answers, Track Your Plaque members can read "Shutting Off Metabolic Syndrome" at http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_dp001metabolic.asp on the www.cureality.com website. ("Metabolic syndrome" is the name commonly given to the constellation of abnormalities associated with pre-diabetes and diabetes.)

Don't get smug!

31. May 2006 William Davis (2)
It may sound silly, but after someone succeeds in stopping their heart scan score from increasing or reduces their score, I warn them to not get smug. Let me explain.

I'll tell you about Jack. I met Jack a few years ago after he had a heart scan at age 39. His score: 1441! A score this high at his age obviously puts him in the 99th percentile. Also recall that a score >1000 carries a 25% annual risk for heart attack.

This captured Jack's attention. At the start, his lipoproteins were disastrous with numerous abnormal patterns. Jack committed to the program. After one year, his lipoproteins were around 80-90% corrected towards perfection. He'd lost 27 lbs, was exercising six days a week, and felt great.

Jack's repeat score one year later: 1107--over a 300 point drop! A huge success. He was ecstatic.

Unfortunately, work and life in general distracted him. Jack allowed himself to drift back to old habits, indulging in fast food 2 or 3 times a week, slacking on exercise such that it became sporadic, half-hearted efforts, and regained 15 lbs. He even failed to show up for appointments and we lost contact for two years.

One day, Jack simply decided to see where he stood, so he got himself another heart scan. The score: 2473--over a doubling from his reduced score.

The message: Long-term consistency is key, even after you've achieved control over your score. Stick with your program--and don't get smug!

Holidays are dangerous!

29. May 2006 William Davis (0)
If you're on holiday from work today, make sure you're not on holiday from your health, too.

Too often, people come back to the office telling me that the holidays simply got out of hand--cookouts, picnics, family gatherings, etc.--and they simply couldn't avoid overeating, overdrinking, sitting around--and gaining 3-5 lbs in a weekend. (Our record is 10 lbs in a weekend!)

I don't want to harp on this issue and ruin your holiday, but I can't stress how important it is that you don't allow this to happen to you. Weight gained in a brief space of time has exceptionally destructive effects. Ever see the movie "Super Size Me"? It's an entertaining and well-done yet graphic portrayal of the damaging effects of rapid weight gain.

Enjoy your time off. Relax, enjoy your family and friends--but continue to pay attention to choosing the right foods, don't overeat, take time out to do something (or several things) physical. It'll pay off hugely in the long run.

More on carotid plaque...

29. May 2006 William Davis (1)
Although not a perfect test, carotid ultrasound is an exceptionally easy and accessible test. Using high-frequency sound, clear images are available for most people.

I say it's not perfect because the way it's done in 2006 makes it a non-quantitative test. It is a qualitative test. In other words, you may find out that there's a 30% blockage ("stenosis"), at the far end of the common carotid artery on the right side. Unfortunately, this gives you an isolated measure of diameter of the plaque compared to the artery. What it does not tell you is what the volume of the entire plaque is. That's a far more accurate measure (and one that is incorporated into your heart scan score, by the way).

Nonetheless, carotid ultrasound is easy, very safe, and available in most hospitals and many clinics. One difficulty: most insurance companies will not allow you to go through a carotid ultrasound scan as a "screening" procedure, i.e., a test just to see if you have a carotid plaque. They will generally pay if you're having symptoms of a stroke or "mini-stroke" (transient ischemic attack, or "TIA"), have an abnormal sound in your carotid ultrasound detected by your doctor (a carotid "bruit"), or some other unusual indications. Sometimes, a resourceful physician will muster up a diagnosis based on something in your history (e.g., left arm numbness, a common and often benign complaint that can also signal stroke).

Another option are the mobile scanners or some hospital services that offer carotid screening, usually for a very modest price. Drawback: Sporadic availability, difficulty in obtaining serial scans, and imprecise reporting since it's viewed as a screening test. But it's better than nothing.

My hope is that, as screening services using safe imaging techniques like ultrasound propagate and increase in direct availability to the public, you'll be able to circumvent the obstacles imposed by your insurance company and even, sometimes, your doctor. But try your doctor first.

Carotid plaque can be shrunk

28. May 2006 William Davis (1)
Rose, a 64-year old woman, just had a 70% carotid blockage identified by a screening ultrasound. When the result was given to her doctor, he prescribed Lipitor and told Rose that an ultrasound would be required every year. She would need carotid surgery, an "endarterectomy", if the blockage worsened.

"Can't I reduce the amount of blockage I have?" asked Rose.

"No. Once you've got it, it doesn't get any better."


Is this true? Once you've got carotid plaque, you can only expect it to get worse and it can't be reduced?

This is absolutely not true. In fact, compared to coronary plaque, carotid plaque is easier to reduce!

Of course, the Track Your Plaque program is designed to help you control or reduce coronary plaque. But, in our experience, people who have both coronary and carotid plaque will show far greater and faster reduction of carotid plaque. Dramatic reductions are sometimes seen. I've personally seen 50-70% blockages reduced to <30% on many occasions.

The requirements to achieve reduction of carotid plaque are very similar to the approach we use to reduce coronary plaque. One difference is that hypertension may play a more important role with carotid plaque and needs to be reduced confidently to the normal range before carotid plaque is controlled.

I find it shocking that the attitude like the one provided by this physician continue to prevail. Unlike coronary plaque, which has a relatively small body of scientific literature documenting how it can be reduced, carotid plaque actually enjoys a substantial clinical literature. Part of the reason is that the carotids are more easily imaged using ultrasound. (Heart structures can be seen with ultrasound, but not the coronary arteries.)

Numerous agents have been shown to contribute to reduction of carotid plaque: statin drugs, niacin, fish oil, the anti-diabetic "TZD" drugs (Actos, Avandia), several anti-hypertensive drugs, vitamin E, pomegranate juice, and several others.

It outrages me to hear stories like this. Rose is not the only one.

Don't accept the flip dismissals or the over-enthusiastic referral for carotid procedures. Insist on a conversation about plaque regression.


Note: Although I am a vigorous advocate of atherosclerotic plaque regression, this does not mean that if you have a severe (70% blockage or greater), or if there are symptoms from your carotid disease, that you should engage in a program of reversal. You must always take the advice of your doctor if your safety is in question.
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