Cholesterol effects of carbohydrates

24. March 2009 William Davis (31)
Let's take a hypothetical person, say, a 50-year old male. 5 ft 10 inches, 160 lbs, BMI 23.0. He's slender and in good health.

Our hypothetical man eats a simple diet of vegetables, some fruit, nuts, and meats but avoids processed industrial foods. By macronutrient composition, his diet is approximately 30% protein, 40-50% fat, 20-30% carbohydrate. His starting lipid panel:

Total cholesterol 149 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 80 mg/dl
HDL 60 mg/dl
Triglycerides 45 mg/dl

His starting lipids are quite favorable (though I don't often see this kind of starting panel nowadays except in athletes). We begin here because this hypothetical man is going to serve as our test subject.

We ask our hypothetical man to load his diet up on "healthy whole grains." He complies by eating whole grain cereals for breakfast, whole wheat toast; sandwiches made with whole grain bread; dinners of whole wheat pasta; snacks of granola bars, whole wheat pretzels and crackers.

Three months later, his lipids show:

Total cholesterol 175 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 130 mg/dl
HDL 45 mg/dl
Triglycerides 150 mg/dl


You can see that LDL cholesterol has increased, HDL has dropped, and triglycerides have increased. This wave of change is the hallmark of carbohydrate excess, but more specifically of overreliance on wheat products. Beyond his lipid panel, the man has gained 10 lbs, all concentrated in a soft roll around his abdomen, his blood sugar is now in the "borderline range" of between 110 and 126 mg/dl, i.e., pre-diabetic.

If we were to examine this man's advanced lipoproteins (e.g., NMR from Liposcience, or VAP from Atherotech), we would see that there has been an explosive increase in small LDL particles, along with a shift of large HDL to small, and the appearance of multiple abnormal classes of particles called VLDL and IDL (signalling abnormally slowed clearance of dietary by-products from the blood).

Familiar scenario? The "after-carbohydrate" situation is the rule among the people who I first meet who claim to be eating a "healthy" diet, though their patterns are usually much worse, with higher LDL, lower HDL, and much higher triglycerides, an exaggeration of our hypothetical man's abnormalities.

What if our hypothetical man now goes to his conventionally thinking (read "taught medicine by the pharmaceutical industry") physician? What will likely be the advice he receives? Reduce his saturated fat intake, eat plenty of healthy whole grains, take a statin drug.

Although my illustrative man is hypothetical, I've seen this scenario play out many thousands of times. It happens in real life all the time. It is predictable, it is highly manipulable. Sadly, it is rarely recognized for what it is: the result of excess carbohydrates, or what I call "Carbohydrate Intolerance Syndrome."

The misinterpretation of this condition has created 1) an epidemic of diabetes and pre-diabetes, 2) a nation of frustrated obese Americans, 3) a $27 billion per year statin industry, 4) another growth opportunity for the drug industry in diabetes drugs.

Wheat Belly Revisited

23. March 2009 William Davis (24)
Do you have a wheat belly?

When I first coined this phrase back in July, 2007, I had witnessed the phenomenal health effects of wheat elimination in several hundred patients.

In the nearly two years that have passed since my original post, I have witnessed hundreds more people who have done the same: eliminate pretzels, crackers, breads of all sorts, bagels, pasta, muffins, waffles, pancakes, etc.

If anything, I am convinced now more than ever that wheat is among the most destructive foods in the human diet. At least 70% of people who eliminate wheat from their diet obtain at least one, if not several, substantial health benefits.

Now, if I were trying to sell you something, say, an alternative to wheat, then you should be skeptical. If I tell you that drug or nutritional supplement X is great and you should take it, only to follow it with a sales pitch, you should be skeptical.

What am I selling? Nothing. I gain nothing by telling everyone to avoid wheat. In fact, I wish it wasn't true. Wheat foods taste good. Wheat flour makes great comfort foods. In years past, I spent many hours sitting at the bagel shop reviewing papers over a cup of coffee and a bagel. No longer.

So here, back by popular demand, the original Wheat Belly post:



Wheat Belly

You've heard of "beer bellies," the protuberant, sagging abdomen of someone who drinks excessive quantities of beer.

How about "wheat belly"?

That's the same protuberant, sagging abdomen that develops when you overindulge in processed wheat products like pretzels, crackers, breads, waffles, pancakes, breakfast cereals and pasta.



(By the way, this image, borrowed from the wonderful people at Wikipedia, is that of a teenager, who supplied a photo of himself.)

It represents the excessive visceral fat that laces the intestines and triggers a drop in HDL, rise in triglycerides, inflames small LDL particles, C-reactive protein, raises blood sugar, raises blood pressure, creates poor insulin responsiveness, etc.

How common is it? Just look around you and you'll quickly recognize it in dozens or hundreds of people in the next few minutes. It's everywhere.

Wheat bellies are created and propagated by the sea of mis-information that is delivered to your door every day by food manufacturers. It's the same campaign of mis-information that caused the wife of a patient of mine who was in the hospital (one of my rare hospitalizations) to balk in disbelief when I told her that her husband's 18 lb weight gain over the past 6 months was due to the Shredded Wheat Cereal for breakfast, turkey sandwiches for lunch, and whole wheat pasta for dinner.

"But that's what they told us to eat after Dan left the hospital after his last stent!"

Dan, at 260 lbs with a typical wheat belly, had small LDL, low HDL, high triglycerides, etc.

I hold the food companies responsible for this state of affairs, selling foods that are clearly causing enormous weight gain nationwide. Unfortunately, the idiocy that emits from Nabisco, Kraft, and Post (AKA Philip Morris); General Mills; Kelloggs; and their kind is aided and abetted by organizations like the American Heart Association, with the AHA stamp of approval on Cocoa Puffs, Cookie Crisp Cereal, and Berry Kix; and the American Diabetes Association, whose number one corporate sponsor is Cadbury Schweppes, the biggest soft drink and candy manufacturer in the world.

As I've said many times before, if you don't believe it, try this experiment: Eliminate all forms of wheat for a 4 week period--no breakfast cereals, no breads of any sort, no pasta, no crackers, no pretzels, etc. Instead, increase your vegetables, healthy oils, lean proteins (raw nuts, seeds, lean red meats, chicken, fish, turkey, eggs, Egg Beaters, low-fat yogurt and cottage cheese), fruits. Of course, avoid fruit drinks, candy, and other garbage foods, even if they're wheat-free.

Most people will report that a cloud has been lifted from their brains. Thinking is clearer, you have more energy, you don't poop out in the afternoon, you sleep more deeply, some rashes disappear. You will also notice that hunger ratchets down substantially. Most people lose the insatiable hunger pangs that occur 2-3 hours after a wheat-containing meal. Instead, hunger is a soft signal that gently prods you that it's time to consider eating again.

You will also make considerable gains towards gaining control over your risk for heart disease and your heart scan score, a crucial step in the Track Your Plaque program.

Thank you, Crestor

20. March 2009 William Davis (9)
I'm sure everyone by now has seen the Crestor ads run by drugmaker, AstraZeneca. TV ads, magazine ads, and the Crestor website all echoing the same message:

"While I was busy building my life, something else was busy building in my arteries: dangerous plaque."

While previous drug trials with Mevacor, Pravachol, Zocor, and Lipitor have focused mostly on examining whether the drugs reduced incidence of cardiovascular events, Crestor studies have also focused on effects on atherosclerotic plaque volume. The best example is the ASTEROID trial that demonstrated approximately 7% reduction in plaque volume by intracoronary ultrasound.

So the AstraZeneca decision makers took the leap from cholesterol reduction to plaque reduction.

I'm sure this switch wasn't taken lightly, but was the topic of discussion at many meetings before the decision to make plaque reduction the focus of hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising. After all, billions of dollars are at stake in this bloated statin market.

Ordinarily, I couldn't care less about how the drug manufacturers conduct their advertising campaigns. But this one I paid attention to because the Crestor ads are helping fuel a new way of thinking about coronary heart disease: It's not about the cholesterol; it's about the atherosclerotic plaque that accumulates in arteries.

It's not cholesterol that grows, limits coronary blood flow, and causes angina. It's not cholesterol that "ruptures" its internal contents to the surface within the interior of the blood vessel and causes blood clot and heart attack. It's not cholesterol that fragments from the carotid arteries and showers debris to the brain, causing stroke. It's all plaque.

I took the same leap years ago, though not backed by hundreds of millions of dollars of marketing money. When I first called my book Track Your Plaque, some of the feedback I got from editors included comments like "I thought this was a book about teeth!" Even now, the word "plaque" in the book title and website is responsible for confusion.

But AstraZeneca is helping me clear up the confusion. As the word plaque gains hold in public consciousness, it will become increasingly clear that cholesterol reduction is not what we're after. We are looking for reduction of plaque.

If you are trying to develop an effective means to reduce or reverse coronary heart disease, then there are two simple equations to keep in mind:


Plaque = coronary heart disease

Cholesterol ? coronary heart disease


Plaque is the disease, cholesterol is not. Cholesterol is simply a crude risk for plaque.

While I'm no friend to the drug industry nor to AstraZeneca, some good will come of their efforts.

Supermarkets and buggy whips

17. March 2009 William Davis (17)
Will supermarkets eventually phase out, joining the history books as a phenomenon of the past? Or are supermarkets here to stay, an emblem of the industrialization of our food--easy access to foods that are convenient, suit the undiscriminating masses, stripped of nutritional value despite the prominent health claim on the package front?

Anna left an insightful comment on the last Heart Scan Blog post, Sterols should be outlawed, along with some useful advice on how to avoid this trap for poor health called a supermarket:


I rarely shop in regular supermarkets anymore (farm subscription for veggies, meat bought in bulk for the freezer, eggs from a local individual, fish from a fish market, freshly roasted coffee from a local coffee place, etc.). What little else I need comes from quirky Trader Joe's (dark chocolate!), the fish market, farmer's markets, a small natural foods store, or mail order.

When I do need to go into one of the many huge supermarkets near me, not being a regular shopper there, I never know where anything is, so I have to ramble a bit around the aisles before I find what I'm looking for (and I almost always can grab a hand basket, instead of a trolley cart).

It's almost like being on another planet! There's always so many new products (most of them I hesitate to even call food). It's really a shock to the senses now to see how much stuff supermarkets sell that I wouldn't even pick up to read the label, let alone put in a cart or want to taste. I'm not even tempted by 99% of the tasting samples handed out by the sweet senior ladies in at Costco anymore (only thing I remember tasting at Costco in at least 6 mos was the Kerrygold Irish cheese, because I know their cows have pasture access and it's real food).

What's really shocking to me is how large some sections of the markets have become in recent years. While Americans got larger, so did some sections of the supermarket (hint - good idea to limit the consumption of products from those areas). Meat and seafood counters have shrunk, though. Produce areas seem to be about the same size as always (but more of it is pre-prepped and RTE in packaging.

But the chilled juice section is h-u-g-e! And no, I don't think there is a Florida orange grove behind the cases. Come on, how much juice do people need? Juice glasses used to be teeny tiny, for a good reason. To me it looks like a long wall stocked full of sugar water. Avoiding that section will put a nice dent in the grocery expenses.

The yogurt case is also e-n-o-r-m-o-u-s! Your 115 yo Bulgarian "grandmother" wouldn't know what to make of all these "pseudo-yogurts"! Chock full of every possible variety, but very little fit to eat. The only yogurts I'll look at are made with plain whole milk, without added gums, emulsifiers, or non-fat milk solids, and live cultures (I mostly buy yogurt now and then to refresh my starter culture at home). I can flavor them at home if needed. The sterols are showing up in processed yogurts, too, along with patented new strains of probiotic cultures (I'll stick to my old fashioned, but time-proven homemade lacto-cultured veggies and yogurt instead).

I found the same "cooler spread" in the butter & "spread" section. The spread options were just grotesque sounding. Actually, the butter options weren't much better, as many were blended with other ingredients to increase spreadability, reduce calories or cholesterol/saturated fat, etc. A few plain butters were enhanced with "butter flavor" - say what? And on no package could it be determined if the butter came from cows that were naturally fed on pasture or on grain in confined pens.


Well said, Anna.

There's a huge supermarket about 1 mile away from my house similar to the one Anna describes with aisle after aisle of eye-catching cellophane-wrapped foods. I go there about every 3 or 4 months, and then I only go to get something I need in a pinch. Every time I go, I too am reminded just how many products there are that look more like junk food than real food.

But there's no real money in real food. Who gets rich off of selling green peppers, tomatoes, and eggs?

Supermarkets sell these modern industrial foods because people buy it: Look around you. You don't get to be a 250 lb 5 ft 2 inch-woman by eating too many cucumbers.

Like Anna, I drive an additional several miles to Trader Joes', buy at farmers' markets whenever possible, buy some odds and ends like wine and cheese and raw nuts at specialty stores. I grow my own basil in a big pot I keep in the kitchen and we are just about to start turning over the soil in the back yard for our vegetable garden. I don't need nor do I miss having the choice among 40 different chips, 25 brands of ready-made microwavable dinners, an entire aisle of breakfast cereasl (all of which are virtually the same with different names and labels), or 75 varieties of salad dressing.

The supermarket for me--and I hope for many of you--has become a place rarely frequented, and only for the odd forgotten item. Oh, I forgot the dog chewies the grocery does have--my dogs love them. So perhaps they are good for something after all.

Sterols should be outlawed

14. March 2009 William Davis (10)
While sterols occur naturally in small quantities in food (nuts, vegetables, oils), food manufacturers are adding them to processed foods in order to earn a "heart healthy" claim.

The FDA approved a cholesterol-reducing indication for sterols , the American Heart Association recommends 200 mg per day as part of its Therapeutic Lifestyle Change diet, and WebMD gushes about the LDL-reducing benefits of sterols added to foods.


Sterols--the same substance that, when absorbed to high levels into the blood in a genetic disorder called "sitosterolemia"--causes extravagant atherosclerosis in young people.

The case against sterols, studies documenting its coronary disease- and valve disease-promoting effects, is building:

Higher blood levels of sterols increase cardiovascular events:
Plasma sitosterol elevations are associated with an increased incidence of coronary events in men: results of a nested case-control analysis of the Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study.

Sterols can be recovered from diseased aortic valves:
Accumulation of cholesterol precursors and plant sterols in human stenotic aortic valves.

Sterols are incorporated into carotid atherosclerotic plaque:
Plant sterols in serum and in atherosclerotic plaques of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.




Though the data are mixed:

Moderately elevated plant sterol levels are associated with reduced cardiovascular risk--the LASA study.

No association between plasma levels of plant sterols and atherosclerosis in mice and men.




The food industry has vigorously pursued the sterol-as-heart-healthy strategy, based on studies conclusively demonstrating LDL-reducing effects. But do sterols that gain entry into the blood increase atherosclerosis regardless of LDL reduction? That's the huge unanswered question.

Despite the uncertainties, the list of sterol-supplemented foods is expanding rapidly:




Each Nature Valley Healthy Heart Bar contains 400 mg sterols.












HeartWise orange juice contains 1000 mg sterols per 8 oz serving.













Promise SuperShots contains 400 mg sterols per container.














Corozonas has an entire line of chips that contain added sterols, 400 mg per 1 oz serving.














MonaVie Acai juice, "Pulse," contains 400 mg sterols per 2 oz serving.














Kardea olive oil has 500 mg sterols per 14 gram serving.










WebMD has a table that they say can help you choose "foods" that are sterol-rich.

In my view, sterols should not have been approved without more extensive safety data. Just as Vioxx's potential for increasing heart attack did not become apparent until after FDA approval and widespread use, I fear the same may be ahead for sterols: dissemination throughout the processed food supply, people using large, unnatural quantities from multiple products, eventually . . . increased heart attacks, strokes, aortic valve disease.

Until there is clarification on this issue, I would urge everyone to avoid sterol-added "heart healthy" products.


Some more info on sterols in a previous Heart Scan Blog post: Are sterols the new trans fat? .

Texas today, tomorrow . . . the world?

10. March 2009 William Davis (0)
Texas state representative, Rene Oliveira, has introduced legislation that mandates heart scans for adults in the state of Texas.

Rep. Oliveira

A press release from the SHAPE Society ( Society for Heart Attack Prevention and Eradication) reads:

Assessment of heart attack risk on the basis of traditional risk factors alone such as high cholesterol and high blood pressure and so forth, while useful, misses many who are at high risk and also incorrectly flags some for high risk who are in fact at very low risk of near term heart attack; on the other hand detection of atherosclerosis by non-invasive imaging, as suggested by the SHAPE group, accurately identifies plaque and improves the ability to identify at-risk individuals who could benefit from aggressive preventive intervention while sparing low-risk subjects from unnecessary aggressive medical therapy," said Dr. P.K. Shah, Director of Cardiology at Cedars Sinai Heart Institute in Los Angeles, a leading member of the SHAPE Task Force who is also an active member of the American Heart Association. "Sadly, these vulnerable patients go undetected until struck by a heart attack, because insurance companies don't cover the newer heart attack screening imaging tests."


Rep. Oliveira, whose coronary disease was first uncovered by a heart scan and prompted a bypass operation, states:

"It is about time that we cover preventive screening for the number one killer in Texas, and take action to reduce healthcare costs through preventive healthcare. Right now, we are extending the lives of those who can afford the procedure while hundreds of thousands of Texans with hidden heart disease go undetected because of antiquated thinking. The time has come for this change."


Is this what we've come to? Since practicing physicians are either so entranced by the drug and procedural solutions to heart disease, do we need to resort to heart scan by legislation?

It does indeed appear that we've come to this point. Should this trend catch on, it will surely mean an upfront increase in healthcare costs to cover the expense of heart scans. But in the long run, it will mean reduction in healthcare costs--dramatic reduction--if heart scans prompt effective preventive action.

What your doctor doesn't know about heart disease

9. March 2009 William Davis (12)
What causes coronary heart disease or coronary atherosclerotic plaque, this thing that we track with heart scans?

Well, here are a few little-publicized facts about heart disease that you are unlikely to hear from your When's-the-next-stent? cardiologist or the What is there besides statins? primary care doctor.

(Since everybody knows that smoking is a modifiable risk for heart disease that can be readily identified, let's focus on the blood tests that reveal heart disease causes.)


What's the number one most common cause for heart disease?

Small LDL particles. The proliferation and popularity of the snack food/processed food culture, compounded with the "eat more healthy whole grain " propaganda has launched small LDL solidly to first place as the most common reason to have heart attacks, stents, and bypass. All that advice to increase your "healthy whole grain" intake? It increases heart attack risk.


What's the number one most aggressive cause for heart disease?

That's lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a). It's certainly not high cholesterol, though the drug industry loves that you think that. We could argue over whether smoking is more aggressive, but the two are pretty darned close. Combine the two--Lp(a) in a smoker--and the combination is an explosively powerful trigger for heart disease and stroke.


What's the number two cause for heart disease?

After small LDL comes low HDL cholesterol. Ask anyone who has had a heart attack: What was your cholesterol panel like? 9 out of 10 will say "My LDL cholesterol was 135 mg/dl" while knowing little or nothing about HDL, which is commonly in the 30-42 mg/dl range--sufficient to contribute to heart disease risk considerably.


Can "normal" thyroid hormone tests still contribute to heart disease?

Yes. Hypothyroidism is an exceptionally powerful risk factor for heart disease. Many people have been told that their thyroid tests are "normal," when in reality risk for heart disease may be as much as tripled from low thyroid with thyroid blood tests in the "normal" range.


Does a "balanced, healthy diet" prevent heart disease?

No, it does not. In fact, the modern notion of a "balanced, healthy diet" increases risk for heart disease. Of course, the dangers of such diets vary, depending on how you define it. If it's the diet advocated by the USDA Food Pyramid, then it is an enormously destructive diet that causes your health to careen towards both diabetes and heart disease. The American Heart Association TLC diet is little better.


Does eating fish twice a month reduce heart attack risk?

Yes, it does--but just barely. Unfortunately, large studies that show that eating fish as infrequently as twice per month reduce risk for dying from heart attack have led some authorities to suggest that's all you need to do. What they fail to understand is that the benefit is dose-dependent--the greater the intake of omega-3 fatty acids, the greater the benefit (within reason, of course). So, while the effect can be detected by eating fish twice per month, it doesn't mean that full benefits are achieved with this "dose." Full benefits are obtained by mimicking the omega-3 intake of the Japanese.


Do nutritional supplements reduce risk for heart attack?

If you are referring to vitamin D, then, yes, nutritional supplements reduce risk for heart attack . . . enormously. We need more data to validate this phenomenon, though epidemiologic observations strongly bear this out, including the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, the Framingham Heart Study and NHANES, all of which demonstrate a graded effect: the lower the vitamin D blood level, the greater the risk for heart attack.

Over the years, we've experienced more than our share of disappointments in nutritional supplements for heart disease, including vitamin E and B vitamins to reduce homocysteine. But I believe that nothing approaches the solid feel of vitamin D--no other nutritional supplement raises HDL, reduces triglycerides, reduces blood sugar, enhances insulin responses, reduces the inflammatory C-reactive protein, reduces blood pressure like vitamin D. Vitamin D is here to stay--and I'm very grateful.

And don't forget omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, yet another supplement with unquestioned benefits for reduction of heart attack and death from heart attack.


Why didn't your doctor counsel you on the importance of these issues?

The primary reasons your doctor didn't tell you any of the above:

1) He/she has been persuaded that only drugs are of any real use in health. Nutritional supplements? Hah!

2) Neither the number one cause of heart disease in the U.S.--small LDL particles--nor the most aggressive cause for heart disease--Lp(a)--are corrected by patent-protectable, high profit pharmaceutical agents promoted to your doctor. Instead, these abnormalities can be corrected inexpensively, without prescription. That means no expensive commercials, no media spots, no write-ups in magazines.

3) Your doctor's business is to treat crisis: sore throat, broken ankle, lung tumor, heart attack. Prevent heart disease 10 or 20 years before it shows itself? Heck, no (unless the marketing pull of the drug industry is involved, of course).


It's best that you bear in mind: What your doctor doesn't know can kill you.

Thank you, Dr. Eades

6. March 2009 William Davis (7)

Thanks to some readers of The Heart Scan Blog, I've become acquainted with Dr. Michael Eades' wonderful blog, Health and Nutrition by Dr. Michael R. Eades, MD.

Dr. Eades is co-author (with his wife, Mary Dan Eades, MD) of Protein Power

In one of his conversations, I stumbled on this exchange between Dr. Eades and one of his readers:



Reader: Regarding EBT scans, I looked up the topic on Google and read an informative 5-page article: EBT (Ultrafast CT) Scans - Godsend, or Scam? Dr. Fogoros says that false positives (where the EBT shows the presence of calcium, but the patient has little coronary artery blockage) occur about 50 percent of the time. The next step, if the EBT is positive, is to do a heart catherterization to find out whether there actually is coronary artery blockage. So the odds are that I’d have to worry!

Dr. Michael Eades: The info you got from Google is one of the reasons one shouldn’t get medical information online. As far as I’m concerned the EBT is the BEST way to determine the presence of plaque. If you have a positive calcium score, you have plaque, and there’s an end on’t (as Samuel Johnson would say). Now you may have a low calcium score for your age or you may have a calcium score that doesn’t change, which means you have stable plaque, but if you have a positive calcium score, you have some amount of plaque in your coronary arteries.

And whoever says that the next step to take if you receive a positive calcium score is a coronary artery cath is a real moron. That’s probably the last thing you would want to do if you are asymptomatic. All the cath procedure does is shows whether or not you have a blockage - you can have huge amounts of plaque (which are a disaster waiting to happen) and have a normal cardiac cath.

If you want to get a little more information on the validity of EBT than what you find on Google, take a look at Dr. Davis’ blog or get a copy of his book: Track Your Plaque. I’m not crazy about all of Dr. Davis’ dietary recommendations because he comes to diet from a different perspective than I, but the EBT info in his book is terrific.

Cheers–

Dr. Eades "gets" it. He understands that quantification of coronary plaque is a tool for prevention, not something to be subverted into the service of procedures for the financial benefit of my colleagues.

And I think that he is absolutely correct on the diet discussed in Track Your Plaque--it's due for a revision. I wrote the book in 2003, while we were still locked into the low-fat mindset. Much has changed.

Since then, our enormous experience in metabolic manipulation and lipoprotein analysis has shown that there is a far better way to correct the causes of coronary plaque and seizing hold of heart scan scores. In particular, the explosion of small LDL has prompted major changes in the diet, specifically removal of wheat and cornstarch, the foods that trigger small LDL particles.

(I am still in the midst of negotiations for release of a bigger and better Track Your Plaque II. In the meantime, Track Your Plaque Members can refer to the New Track Your Plaque Diet, Parts I, II, and III.)

Can millet make you diabetic?

5. March 2009 William Davis (10)















If wheat is so bad, what about all the other grains?

First of all, I demonize wheat because of its top-of-the-list role in triggering:

--Appetite--Wheat increases hunger dramatically
--Insulin
--Blood sugar--Wheat is worse than table sugar in triggering a rapid, large rise in blood sugar
--Triglycerides
--Small LDL particles--the number one cause for heart disease in the U.S.
--Reduced HDL
--Diabetes
--Autoimmune diseases--Most notably celiac disease and thyroiditis.

Most other "healthy, whole grains" aren't quite as bad. It's a matter of degree.

Millet, quinoa, oats, sorghum, bulghur, spelt, barley, cornmeal--While they don't trigger appetite nor autoimmune diseases like wheat does (oat can in some people), they still pose a significant carbohydrate load sufficient to generate the other phenomena like excessive insulin and blood sugar responses. The grams of carbohydrate of these grains are virtually identical to wheat: 43.5 grams per 1/2 cup (uncooked). The exceptions are barley, which is especially loaded with carbohydrates: 104 grams per 1/2 cup, while oats are lower: 33 g per 1/2 cup.

It's all a matter of degree. Some people who are exceptionally carbohydrate-sensitive (like me) can have diabetic blood sugars with just slow-cooked oatmeal or quinoa. Others aren't quite so sensitive and can get away with eating them.

People with high blood sugars (100 mg/dl or greater) can be very sensitive to the blood sugar effects of these grain carbohydrates. The best marker of all are small LDL particles measured on a lipoprotein panel, such as NMR. Small LDL particles are exquisitely sensitive to your carbohydrate intake: small LDL gets worse with excessive sensitivity to grain carbohydrates, gets better with reduction or elimination.

Flagrant small LDL, in combination with low HDL, high triglycerides, and pre-diabetic or diabetic patterns all develop from carbohydrate indulgence, along with "wheat belly."

Don't believe it? The prove it to yourself: Go to Walmart and buy an inexpensive glucose meter and check your blood sugar one hour after eating. You can gauge the health of these foods by observing the blood sugar increases. (Small LDL closely parallels blood sugar rises.)

The grain that fails to trigger any of these abnormal patterns? Flaxseed. Flaxseed is entirely protein, fiber, and healthy oils, with virtually no digestible starches. In fact, flaxseed is one of the few foods that reduces the quantity of small LDL particles.

Are you a tree?

5. March 2009 William Davis (6)
I assume you answered no. Then why would you consider taking the plant form of vitamin D (ergocalciferol)? That's the prescription form of vitamin D, often dispensed as 50,000 unit tablets.

There's nothing wrong with plants. Some of my favorite foods are plants, full of nutritional value.

Then why shouldn't vitamin D2 from plants be every bit as good as the human form of vitamin D?

I believe the issue boils down to taking hormones from non-human sources. (Remember: Vitamin D is a hormone, a very powerful one at that.) Plants can be wonderful sources of flavonoids, fibers, protein, fats, vitamins, minerals, and other healthy components. But hormones?

There are other examples of non-human hormones being given to humans with undesirable or unpredictable effects:

--Xenoestrogens, phytoestrogens, and non-human mammalian estrogens--While non-human estrogens may partially mimic human estrogens, they can also block estrogen effects, or exert altogether novel effects. Non-human mammalian estrogens like Premarin can exert very peculiar (side-)effects, despite their role as prescription estrogen supplementation in humans.

--Progestins--The synthetic versions of human progesterone, like their non-human estrogen counterparts, exert weird effects that are a world apart from real progesterone.

--Sterols--Similar in structure to human cholesterol (while not a hormone, a building block for hormones), sterols have been used to reduce intestinal cholesterol absorption. However, if sterols are absorbed into the blood, they can enormously accelerate growth of atherosclerotic plaque.

--Anabolic steroids--These modifications of the testosterone molecule build muscle, but also cause liver cancer, kidney failure, violent behavior, suicide and homicidal behavior. That's not normal.

Outside of a pharmacologic effect (e.g., prednisone in place of human cortisol), there is no reason to take a non-human hormone in place of a human hormone. For that same reason, there is NO reason to take plant vitamin D2 (prescription or over-the-counter) in place of human vitamin D3.

If the non-human hormone is identical to the human form, then there is no difficulty. The best example of this are thyroid hormones from pigs. That's what Armour Thyroid is, a thyroid hormone replacement that works wonderfully well.

You will notice that virtually all of the examples of non-human hormones substituted for human hormones share one common motivation: profit. Synthetic or modified versions are more readily patent-protectable, unlike their natural counterparts which are not.

Vitamin D2 is an anemic facsimile of the real human hormone, vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol). Stay away from it.
"Heart scans are experimental"

"Heart scans are experimental"

18. December 2007 William Davis (25)
Let me warn you: This is a rant.

It is prompted by a 44-year old woman. She has a very serious lipoprotein disorder. Her family experiences heart attacks in their 40s and 50s. I asked for a heart scan. Her insurance companied denied it.

This is nothing new: heart scans, like mammograms, have not enjoyed reimbursement from most insurers despite the wealth of data and growing acceptance of this "mammogram" of the heart.

However, 10 minutes on the phone, and the "physician" (what well-meaning physician can do this kind of work for an insurance company is beyond me) advised me that, while CT heart scans for coronary calcium scoring are not covered, CT coronary angiograms are.

Now, I've been witnessing this trend ever since the big players in CT got involved in the game, namely Philips, Siemens, Toshiba, and GE. These are enormous companies with hundreds of billions of dollars in combined annual revenues. They, along with the lobbying power of cardiology organizations like the American College of Cardiology, have gotten behind CT coronary angiograms. This is most likely the explanation of why CT coronary angiograms have rather handily obtaining insurance reimbursement. Interestingly, the insurance company I was speaking to is known (notorious?) for very poor reimbursement practices.

A CT heart scan, when properly used, generates little revenue, a few hundred dollars to a scan center, barely enough to pay for a device that costs up to $2 million. However, CT coronary angiograms, in contrast, yield around $2000 per test. More importantly, they yield downstream revenues, since CT angiograms are performed as preludes to conventional heart catheterizations, angioplasty, stents, bypass surgery, etc. Now we're talking tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars revenue per test.

What puzzles me is that much of that increased cost comes out of the insurance company. Why would they support such tests if it exposes them to more costs? I'm not certain. It could be the greater pressures exerted by the big CT companies and powerful physician organizations. I seriously doubt that the insurance companies truly believe that heart scans for coronary calcium scoring are "experimental" while CT coronary angiograms are "proven." If all we did was compare the number of clinical studies that validate both tests, we'd find that the number of studies validating heart scans eclipses that of coronary angiograms several fold. Experimental? Hardly.

The smell of money by physicians eager to jump on the bandwagon of a new revenue-producing procedure is probably enough to have them lobby insurers successfully. In contrast, plain old heart scans just never garnered the kind of vigorous and vocal support, since nobody gets rich off of them.

If CT coronary angiograms are sufficiently revenue producing that my colleagues and the CT scanner manufacturers have managed to successfully lobby the health insurers, even one as financially "tight" as the one I spoke to today, well then I take that as testimony that money drives testing, as it does the behavior of hospitals, many of my colleagues, and can even force the hand of insurers.
Tags :

Comments (25) -

  • Cindy Moore

    12/19/2007 12:51:00 AM |

    It seems like everything medical is profit driven!!  One of my biggest irritants with insurance companies is the unwillingness to act pro-actively and approve preventative procedures, treatments, etc.

    They spend a fortune each year on statins, but won't cover heart scans. They spend millions on coronary bypass, PTCA, etc but they won't pay for inpatient smoking cessation programs, and many still have no coverage for lifestyle change programs!!

  • Peter

    12/19/2007 6:14:00 AM |

    Nice post this one. Just keep telling yourself; there is no conspiracy. The depth of complexity generated by billions of often quite small acts of personal greed, when combined together, does behave like a coherent plan. Eventually there may be studies looking at this as a phenomenon in its own right. The further out of the mainstream that you live, the more interesting it becomes to consider the hows and whys. No conspiracy, just human greed. Some small quanta of greed, some enormous. You even get personal greed combined with the will to do general good. Very complex.

    Peter

  • Anonymous

    12/19/2007 9:35:00 AM |

    Years ago, my baby was in NICU with a condition that seriously affected his immune system; the drs wanted him on breast milk to help boost the immune system, and since I wasn't always at the hospital anymore (I had returned to work by then), the drs wrote an order for a breast pump.

    Since I worked in that field, I asked the lactation specialist for a catalog of pumps from the same company the insurance company used, and found out the pump I *wanted* cost $300, but the pump the insurance comp wanted me to have cost $1000. I asked the lacto nurse about the pumps, and the cheaper one (shaped like a large purse with a shoulder strap) worked just as good as the more expensive pump (a boxy machine attached to a wheeled pole, like a short IV pole) was better if there were going to be many women pumping.

    Since it was just going to be me pumping, and the cheaper pump was so much easier to transport to work, I asked the insurance company if I could have the $300 version. They denied it, and I had to contest it with my lacto-specialist coworker's written letter that the cheaper one would work just as well.

    The insurance company's nurse told me she was glad I contested it with a letter from a lacto-specialist, because now the company would save money on pumps.

    WOW! It took somebody that had experience in that field with access to a specialist just to get an insurance company to change to a much cheaper, but just-as-effective, medical device. So your story doesn't surprise me at all. Insurance companies are either getting kickbacks, have too many layers of bureaucracy to approve anything different, or might just be dumb sometimes.

    S

  • Anonymous

    12/19/2007 12:43:00 PM |

    How did we get to this point that revenue generation overrides the care of patients?  Can we blame Hollywood for creating a myth of the health care provider that knows it all and worries endlessly over the health of patients, government and insurance companies not giving enough oversight over hospital practices, and/or patients not questioning enough the motives of health care providers?  What ever the answer, I imagine future generations will read about these times and cringe over the health care practices of today.

  • keith

    12/19/2007 1:21:00 PM |

    I asked my cardiologist to order a scan for me in a big boston hospital. My insurance wouldn't cover it until enough "risk factors" were documented on the claim form. The test was $270, money very well spent.

    What is sad is that most people believe patients' health is the medical community's primary concern. Also, interestingly, those with marginal insurance are forced to advocate for themselves and as such can, perversely, end up with better care.

    keith

  • Dr. Davis

    12/19/2007 1:24:00 PM |

    I truly get the sense that there are factors present that we are not privy to: behind-the-scenes maneuvering, closed-door politics, etc. It's surely not always in a health insurer's best interests to follow the policies often in place. So we can only conclude that something fishy is going on.

  • Dr. Davis

    12/19/2007 1:25:00 PM |

    You could be right.

    An inadvertent, collective evil?

  • Dr. Davis

    12/19/2007 1:37:00 PM |

    Yes, Keith. You make a crucial point.

    Caveat emptor, whether it's in the doctor's office, hospital, or used car lot. Watch your wallet and recognize that they all share one thing: they are profit-seeking operations with your welfare second.

  • Thomas

    12/19/2007 3:05:00 PM |

    This is NOT a defense of insurance cos, just an attempt to explain their possible thinking. One reason for an objection to CT heart scans is because there could be potentially very many ordered, relative to CT/angiograms. It is like a pyramid, with a much greater number of lower cost procedures resulting in a higher amount of claims submitted, and higher overall cost experience. So, they say no.

    I don't think insurance cos. engage in collusion with equipment makers or doctors. They just use a logic that isn't necessarily in my or your best interests.

  • Mike

    12/19/2007 3:36:00 PM |

    That is one reason that I am against mandatory medical insurance. The patient and doctor should decide what medical care is appropriate, not an insurance company.

  • Dr. Davis

    12/19/2007 4:55:00 PM |

    It may indeed be as simple as that. And, in fact, that is what I told many people who were frustrated by their insurer's failure to reimburse heart scans. However, more recently, I have begun to wonder if there is more to this question. I've just witnessed this phenomenon too often: When big money is involved, things happen. Heart scans do not make big money for anybody. CT angiograms provide potential for lots of big money.

  • Michael

    12/19/2007 7:54:00 PM |

    Out of curiosity, do insurance companies ever pay for heart scans, if they are considered high risk? That is, have had a heart attack, extremely high lipids, or some other heart disorder?

    The only rationale I can imagine for declining calcium scans, while paying for full CT scans, is what Thomas suggested -- it's a numbers game. Since generally speaking, only high risk people get CT scans, the numbers are relatively low. If everyone got calcium tests (although in the long run it'd pay off for them), insurance companies would have to pay a lot out of pocket now.

    But... if insurance companies paid for calcium scans for high risk people, it'd make sense both in the short and long term for them, I'd think. Then again, in my own experience, I find the behavior of my health insurance company bizarre. They'll gladly pay for physician visits/testing even when I tell them the doctor never actually did those things... yet decline certain tests I need just because less reliable (and cheaper) alternatives exist.

  • Thomas

    12/19/2007 11:52:00 PM |

    The evolution of the marketing and ins. coverage will be interesting to watch. For example, a hospital in the Chicago suburbs markets a 64 slice CT scan direct to the public for $99. No doctor referral needed. You can bet they figure stress tests and angios will follow. Nonetheless, you can get the scan about as cheap as possible.

    In my town far away, cardiologists won a turf war with radiologists to be the exclusive readers of these tests, and they aren't being marketed. And, the tests aren't on sale either. Local politics, and the ability to control patient flow, is probably the most important driver, but if you live in a large metro area, you may find what you're looking for at a decent cost.

  • Dr. Davis

    12/20/2007 4:54:00 AM |

    Some insurers do try and distinguish who is "high risk" or not, depending on conventional risk factors.

    Of course, the difficulty is that conventional risk factors fail to identify many people truly at high risk for heart disease and heart attack. In effect, health insurers have legislated who can or cannot obtain reimbursement for a heart scan.

  • MAC

    12/20/2007 8:11:00 AM |

    I have heard it expressed that insurance companies have no interest in preventative medicine. The benefits are too long term for them to see the results. People change jobs, change insurance carriers, etc.

  • Dr. Davis

    12/20/2007 12:37:00 PM |

    Yes, I believe that is true. From their perspective, better to pay lots for the occasional catastrophe rather than pay for the many more who would use preventive services. Insurance is not in our best interests, but of the collective financial good.

  • Anonymous

    12/20/2007 5:36:00 PM |

    Three years ago I had a stress test done due to chest pains and triglycerides as a risk factor.  I ended having an area of concern and my doctor wanted to do a CTA.  The insurance company approved it and I was all set up to go when I mentioned the test to my allergist.  She was concerned that I may have a reaction to the contrast dye, so the CTA was canceled and they sent me for a calcium score test.  The insurance company wouldn't pay the $195 for the test even though they were ready to pay a few thousand for the CTA!  Anyhow I came back with a big fat 0 for the test so the money was worth the piece of mind.

  • Dr. Davis

    12/21/2007 2:40:00 AM |

    What a great example of how useful cheap, simple heart scans can be. You also spared yourself over 90 chest x-rays of radiation.

  • g

    12/21/2007 4:26:00 AM |

    The latest Oprah mag Jan 2008 has this article about the first sign of heart disease/obstruction is 'fatigue' and reports that the MD may order a heart 'CT scan'... (this health writer is on TOP OF HER GAME -- unlike DR. Oz!!)

    Don't read the proposed 'treatment' -- the writer is not apparently informed on TYP yet!

    http://www.oprah.com/health/omag/health_omag_200801_fatigue_102.jhtml
    Most Often Overlooked Causes of Fatigue (2 or 4)

    Heart Trouble

    Fatigue is a distinct characteristic of cardiovascular disease in women, according to recent research. In one study of 515 female heart attack survivors, 70 percent reported unusual fatigue in the weeks before; just 57 percent had acute chest pain. In another study, fatigue was a symptom for women with dangerously clogged arteries that escaped notice on heart scans.

    Why it's overlooked: Only one in ten women realizes that heart disease is her biggest health threat. And emergency room doctors are six times more likely to give women with serious heart problems (as opposed to men) a clean bill of health.

    Other Symptoms: Shortness of breath. Indigestion. Pain in your shoulder, arm, or jaw. But for many women, nothing at all.

    Tests: Your doctor will order an exercise stress test or angiogram if she suspects clogged arteries in your heart. Because that test isn't always accurate in women, she may order a CT scan or echocardiogram as well. She'll also test your cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood sugar—diabetes can quadruple a woman's heart risk.

    Treatment: You may get a cholesterol-lowering statin and medicines to treat blood pressure, such as diuretics. You'll also be advised to follow a heart-healthy diet and get regular exercise.

    From Why Am I So Tired? in the January 2008 issue of O, The Oprah Magazine.

    THANK YOU! g

  • g

    12/22/2007 4:30:00 PM |

    FYI... Recent pubs -- 12/1/2007 and 12/15/2007 respectively

    Merry Xmas Dr. Davis! You have many buddies in more progressive countries! Regards, g

    (1) Non-invasive screening for coronary artery disease: calcium scoring
    Raimund Erbel1, Stefan Möhlenkamp1, Gert Kerkhoff2, Thomas Budde2, Axel Schmermund3
    http://heart.bmj.com/cgi/content/
    extract/93/12/1620

    Despite the decrease in overall mortality from coronary artery disease, the number of out-of-hospital deaths from myocardial infarction is in the range of 60% of all infarct related case fatalities.1 In patients with known risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD), such as survived resuscitation, left ventricular aneurysm or low left ventricular ejection fraction, the incidence of SCD is in the region of 30% per year. In the general population, it is only 0.5% per year.2 However, the absolute number in this group is 10 times higher than in the patient population with known SCD risk, reaching more than 300 000 case fatalities per year in the USA.2 Even renowned cardiologists such as Ronald W Campbellw1 and Jeffry M Isnerw2, who were experts on the topic of arrhythmias and myocardial infarction, suffered SCD. The MONICA (Monitoring trends and determinants in Cardiovascular disease) study reported that of all coronary . . . [Full text of this article]

    (2) Cardiac computed tomography: indications, applications, limitations, and training requirements

    Report of a Writing Group deployed by the Working Group Nuclear Cardiology and Cardiac CT of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology
    http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org
    /cgi/content/abstract/ehm544v1

    As a consequence of improved technology, there is growing clinical interest in the use of multi-detector row computed tomography (MDCT) for non-invasive coronary angiography. Indeed, the accuracy of MDCT to detect or exclude coronary artery stenoses has been high in many published studies. This report of a Writing Group deployed by the Working Group Nuclear Cardiology and Cardiac CT (WG 5) of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Council of Nuclear Cardiology summarizes the present state of cardiac CT technology, as well as the currently available data concerning its accuracy and applicability in certain clinical situations. Besides coronary CT angiography, the use of CT for the assessment of cardiac morphology and function, evaluation of perfusion and viability, and analysis of heart valves is discussed. In addition, recommendations for clinical applications of cardiac CT imaging are given and limitations of the technique are described.

  • g

    12/22/2007 4:42:00 PM |

    Another FYI...  HOLY MOLY This is why the lame Framingham misses the entire picture --- failure to take into acct that 70-80% of the population are on the Metabolic spectrum is like trying to see thru gauze blindfolds. very holey... (I guess it's good I can't access TYP right now... I'm spending my time otherwise well spent *ha*).  I LOVE the first line...'Coronary artery calcification is pathognomonic of coronary atherosclerosis.'  Hope you and your familia have a great holiday season -- full of wishes fulfilled and hope re-ignited!  Thanks for letting me loose *ha ha* Take care, g

    http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/
    content/abstract/50/23/2218

    J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007; 50:2218-2225(Published online 14 November 2007).

    CLINICAL RESEARCH: CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE
    Determinants of Progression of Coronary Artery Calcification in Type 2 Diabetes
    Role of Glycemic Control and Inflammatory/Vascular Calcification Markers
    Dhakshinamurthy Vijay Anand, MBBS, MRCP*,,*, Eric Lim, MBChB, MA, MRCP*, Daniel Darko, MD, MRCP, Paul Bassett, MSc, David Hopkins, BSc, MBChB, FRCP||, David Lipkin, BSc, MD, FRCP*,¶, Roger Corder, PhD, MRPharmS and Avijit Lahiri, MBBS, MSc, MRCP, FACC, FESC*
    * Cardiac Imaging and Research Centre, Wellington Hospital, London, United Kingdom

    Objectives: This study prospectively evaluated the relationship between cardiovascular risk factors, selected biomarkers (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP], interleukin [IL]-6, and osteoprotegerin [OPG]), and the progression of coronary artery calcification (CAC) in type 2 diabetic subjects.

    Background: Coronary artery calcification is pathognomonic of coronary atherosclerosis. Osteoprotegerin is a signaling molecule involved in bone remodeling that has been implicated in the regulation of vascular calcification and atherogenesis.

    Methods: Three hundred ninety-eight type 2 diabetic subjects without prior coronary disease or symptoms (age 52 ± 8 years, 61% male, glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] 8 ± 1.5) were evaluated serially by CAC imaging (mean follow-up 2.5 ± 0.4 years). Progression/regression of CAC was defined as a change 2.5 between the square root transformed values of baseline and follow-up volumetric CAC scores. Demographic data, risk factors, glycemic control, medication use, serum hs-CRP, IL-6, and plasma OPG levels were measured at baseline and follow-up.

    Results: Two hundred eleven patients (53%) had CAC at baseline. One hundred eighteen patients (29.6%) had CAC progression, whereas 3 patients (0.8%) had regression. Age, male gender, hypertension, baseline CAC, HbA1c >7, waist-hip ratio, IL-6, OPG, use of beta-blockers, calcium channel antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, statins, and Framingham/UKPDS (United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study) risk scores were univariable predictors of CAC progression. In the multivariate model, baseline CAC (odds ratio [OR] for CAC >400 = 6.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.63 to 15.5, p < 0.001), HbA1c >7 (OR 1.95, CI 1.08 to 3.52, p = 0.03), and statin use (OR 2.27, CI 1.38 to 3.73, p = 0.001) were independent predictors of CAC progression.

    Conclusions: Baseline CAC severity and suboptimal glycemic control are strong risk factors for CAC progression in type 2 diabetic subjects.

    Why did they NOT look at 25(OH)D when they were looking at the osteo- whatever thingy. *uurrgghh*

  • g

    12/22/2007 5:03:00 PM |

    I like this guy... he proposes heart CTs for all T2DM to screen for silent MIs. just like colon CA screening... and breast CA screening... wow ya think?

    CAD in most people esp T2DM is diffuse and systemic (maybe someday we can CAC someone's wrist like we do for Bone Mineral Density testing for osteopenia/porosis screening at the local drugstore?)... and very accelerated when glucose and insulin are elevated (without a good mod/high healthy MUFA PUFA diet and systemic TYP strategies).
    http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/
    content/abstract/49/19/1918

    Noninvasive Screening for Coronary Atherosclerosis and Silent Ischemia in Asymptomatic Type 2 Diabetic Patients
    Is it Appropriate and Cost-Effective?
    George A. Beller, MD, MACC*
    Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia.

    Coronary artery disease (CAD) accounts for 65% to 80% of deaths in diabetic patients. The merits of screening asymptomatic type 2 diabetic patients for either Innocent the presence of coronary atherosclerosis by imaging of coronary calcification using cardiac computed tomography or (B) silent ischemia by stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) remain controversial. Some observers have advocated for such noninvasive screening in at least the subset of the diabetic population who have significant clinical CAD risk factors, so that the highest risk patients for future cardiac events can be identified and offered more aggressive intensive medical therapy or coronary revascularization and optimum medical therapy. Computed tomography coronary calcium scanning could be the first noninvasive screening test in these clinically high-risk diabetic patients, followed by stress MPI to detect silent ischemia in those who exhibit high coronary calcium scores.

  • Dr. Davis

    12/23/2007 12:36:00 AM |

    Hi, G-

    As you see, some people in the medical community are waking up to the great usefulness of heart scans to detect hidden coronary plaque.

    However, it's going to be another five or more years before they also wake up to the idea of using it to TRACK the disease.

  • g

    12/23/2007 4:56:00 AM |

    Not unless you win global recognition for your achievements and TYP ...  Smile

    Can u imagine a world where the failure to offer TYP would be malpractice...for someone with diabetes? pre-diabetic? with Lp(a) or Homocysteinemia?  I do... and  who knows sooner than u might think.

    I think behind every genius-man, there stands a genius-woman. Once when I couldn't log on, couldn't access 'chat' and couldn't find reports when they were right in front of my *darn* NOSE... a wise woman told me 'you can't know everything.'  *ha ha* give her a hug for me Smile
    g

  • Anonymous

    1/2/2008 1:55:00 AM |

    Just a note to g regarding screening for osteoporosis at the wrist.  These are very ineffectual tests.  It is best to use the spine +/or hip as osteoporosis starts at the center of the body.  By the time it is detected in the distal extremities, you would already have significant bone loss. At least this is my understanding as a technologist. Could this also apply to artery disease?

Add comment

Loading