An exercise in optimism

Followers of the Track Your Plaque program already know that maintaining an optimistic viewpoint is important in gaining control over coronary plaque.

In fact, I believe that, in many cases, a sense of optimism may make or break your CT heart scan score-reducing efforts. Pessimists rarely drop their score, while optimists do so all the time.

This week posed a challenge to my optimism. I spent the last week on jury duty hearing the details of a murder case. For four days, I listened to blow-by-blow testimony about the totally pointless, unprovoked death of a young man by a drug-dealing thug. Much of the witness testimony was from people who shared the hopeless, violent world of the defendant.

I was, however, completely impressed by the dedication of the prosecuting attorney, a 50-some year old man who was clearly deeply dedicated to his mission and didn't once provide any indication that he was grandstanding or looking for some personal glory. He was doing his job and trying to obtain justice for the fallen victim. I was equally impressed by the judge, who seemed unfazed by the events but carefully explained why the system worked the way it did. After the trial, he provided some further insights to us jury members and I saw him as a human being who, like the prosecutor, was trying to make a small contribution to making the world better.

Though many of the witnesses who testified against the defendant shared his world, I was impressed with their courage in coming forward. They face the threat of reprisals, I'm sure, for coming forward to the law and testifying against a known career criminal. Several of them said that they were not after any reward, but simply wished to do the right thing and provide testimony that proved damning against the defendant.

I acted as the jury foreman and I was proud of how the jury members listened carefully, asked intelligent and probing questions, and then helped us render a confident and expeditious sentence: guilty.

If anything, despite the tragic circumstances, I was much heartened at how all the participants in this process played their part and justice (at least in the legal sense) was served.

Let optimism prevail, even in dire circumstances.

No need to re-invent the wheel

I seem to be repeating myself lately, but I think this does bear repeating:

There's no need to re-invent the wheel when it comes to gaining control over your heart scan score.

The Track Your Plaque program is the most powerful approach known to help you gain control over your coronary atherosclerotic plaque and CT heart scan score, bar none. While 100% of people do not drop their score, more and more people every week are doing so. (One of the admitted weaknesses of the Track Your Plaque website is our failure to list more success stories; we're working on it.)

The basic program is quite simple:

--The Rule of 60 for lipids (LDL 60 mg/dl; HDL 60 mg/dl or greater; triglycerides 60 mg/dl or less)

--Identify hidden causes of plaque, esp. small LDL, Lp(a), and IDL, followed by specific corrective action

--Fish oil--minimum 1200 mg per day of EPA + DHA

--Normal vitamin D3 blood levels (We aim for 25-OH-vitamin D3 of 50-60 ng/ml)

--Normal blood sugar (<100 mg/dl)

--Normal blood pressure (<130/80)

--An optimistic attitude



Much of the other stuff--vitamin K, matrix metalloproteinase reducing strategies, flavonoid strategies, exercise-induced hypertension, etc.--are, for the majority, fluff. Their real role is in people who may have failed in stopping the rise of their heart scan score just doing the basics of the program.

If you neglect the basics, hoping to find some magic potion, I'm afraid the overwhelming likelihood is that you will fail. I've seen it happen time and again. Someone will come to my office with an extraordinary list of supplements--hawthorne, dozens of anti-oxidants, EDTA, concentrated flavonoid preparations, and on and on. Not only is it shockingly expensive to do this, it's also unnecessary and foolhardy. This kind of unfocused, hocus-pocus in the hopes of getting it right fail time after time.

The Track Your Plaque program, while not foolproof, is the best I know of. Stick to the basics and wander off when the basics fail. But there's extraordinary power in just achieving the basics.

Are we a front for drug companies?

I was shocked recently when someone accused me and the Track Your Plaque website of being nothing more than a front for the drug industry, that we are promoting concepts with the hidden pharmacuetical agenda behind us.

Don't make me laugh. How in the world that kind of impression could be gotten from either the Heart Scan Blog or the Track Your Plaque website is beyond me.

But I occasionally do need to state explicity: We do not promote drugs, neither this Blog nor the Track Your Plaque website has ever sought nor been backed by pharmaceutical money. The only money that supports this website is our own and that from paying Track Your Plaque members.

In fact, I am quite proud of the unbiased content and commentary on both venues. I challenge anyone to point out how and where there is any suggested relationship to a hidden source of commercial backing. I assure you, there is none.

If I say a drug is worth you and your doctor considering, then I say so with a true belief in it, not because somebody or some company paid me to say so. If I say a drug stinks, I believe that too. If we use a specific supplement in the program, it's because we believe it truly adds value to a plaque-reversal program. We receive no money from drug, supplement, or other commercial interests to promote their products. Period.

What is "normal"?

When it comes to laboratory values and medical testing, a common dilemma is knowing what is "normal." Let me explain.

First of all, when you receive a laboratory result for a test, a "reference range" or "normal range" is usually provided. Where did that range come from?

It varies from test to test. For instance, a low potassium is easy, because low potassium levels can lead to life threatening consequences, e.g., dangerous heart rhythms. High potassium likewise, because dangerous phenomena develop when potassium generally exceeds 5.5 mg/dl or so.

But what about something like HDL or LDL. Here's where confusion reigns. Often, "normal" is obtained by taking the average and saying that any value plus or minus two standard deviations (remember that painful class?) represents normal or reference range.

If that were true, what if we applied that principle to body weight. If we weighed several thousand adult women, the average would be in the neighborhood of 172 lbs (no kidding). Does that mean that 172 lbs plus or minus two standard deviations is normal? No, of course not.

There is therefore a distinction between "normal" and "desirable". For HDL cholesterol, your laboratory report might say that an HDL cholesterol of 40-60 mg/dl is normal. But is it desirable? I don't think so. The most frequent HDL level for a male with a heart attack is 42 mg/dl--hardly desirable.

Let's take triglycerides. The average triglyceride level in the U.S. is somewhere around 140 mg/dl. For those of us who do a lot of lipoprotein testing, we can tell you that triglycerides at this level, though generally regarded as being within the normal range, are associated with flagrant and obvious excesses of several abnormal lipoprotein particles that contribute to coronary plaque growth (VLDL and often IDL; small LDL; drop in HDL and shift towards small HDL).

So, always take the so-called "normal" or "reference" values on a lab report as crude guidelines that often have little or nothing to do with health or desirability. Unfortunately, many physicians are not aware of this and will declare any value within the normal or reference range as okay. An HDL of 40 mg is not okay. A triglyceride level of 140 mg is also not okay.

What is okay? What is desirable? That depends on the parameter being examined. From a basic lipid standpoint, of course, we regard desirable as 60-60-60. Desirability from a lipoprotein standpoint we will cover in a more thorough Track Your Plaque Special Report in future.

The wisdom of the masses

My sister sent me these quotes:



"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."

Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962


"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau."

Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929


"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."

Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, France


"Everything that can be invented has been invented."

Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Office of Patents, 1899



No doubt, conventional wisdom can often be laughably (tragically?) wrong. The problem is that, as absurd as all the above sentiments seem to us now and in retrospect, they represented the view of many people years ago. These views were held by many, including many people in positions of power and decision-making responsibility.

A more relevant but nonetheless laughable and widely held belief in 2007: coronary heart disease should be treated with hospital procedures.

Why is a disease that requires 30 years to develop treated only at the final moments with a procedure? Do you only change your car's oil when the engine is on its last legs? Or, do periodic, relatively effortless oil changes during the life of the car make better sense?

I witness just how brainwashed the public has become with this crazed notion when I meet someone socially at, say a fundraiser or cocktail party. When they ask what I do, I tell them I'm a cardiologist. The invariable response: "Oh, what hospital do you work out of?"

I tell them I don't, that I take care of the majority of heart disease right from the office. 99% of the time I get a puzzled look. If we had comic bubbles above our heads revealing our internal thoughts, it would read "Yeah, right. What a kook."

The notion that coronary heart disease is something that is manageable with simple tools for the majority of us in the early stages is entirely foreign to almost everybody. The hospitals and the medical industry have so succeeded in dazzling the public with images of staff in scrubs, rushing from emergency to emergency, lights flashing, scalpels flying. . . how can you possibly accomplish this at home or anywhere outside of the high-tech world of the hospital?

Well, I'm a cardiologist and I do it every day. We all need a figurative dose of electroshock therapy to shake ourselves of this crazy notion.

How important is l-arginine?

Perhaps more than any other supplement, l-arginine causes frustration and confusion. It’s difficult to find, sometimes quite expensive, and some preparations cause loose stools.

Just how necessary is it?

L-arginine, you’ll recall, is a source of nitric oxide, or NO. Though it’s the same stuff as in car exhaust, NO provides a critical signaling role in your body’s cells that regulate a multitude of functions. Among the important roles of NO is to powerfully dilate, or relax, arteries. A constant flow of NO is required for health, particularly since each molecule persists only a few seconds.

L-arginine is the body’s source of nitric oxide. In addition, a peculiar but very effective blocker of l-arginine called asymmetric dimethylarginine, or ASDM, has recently been discovered to prevent the production of NO. Varied conditions like hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, excessive saturated fat or processed carbohydrate intake all lead to heightened levels of ASDM, often several-fold greater levels, and thereby effectively blocking NO production.

The “Arginine Paradox” is the name that some researchers in this field have given to the unusual property of l-arginine supplementation to “overpower” the blocking effects of ASDM. This is somewhat unusual in biologic systems in that an agent that blocks a receptor cannot usually be outmuscled by providing excess material for a reaction. Kind of like hoping that your car runs faster simply by topping up the gas tank.

Concrete observable benefits have been made for l-arginine in clinical trials, such as arterial relaxation that results in arterial enlargement (which can actually be seen in the cath lab); anti-inflammatory effects; reduction of blood pressure; enhancement of insulin responses, etc. All of these effects can be connected to beneficial properties that may facilitate atherosclerotic plaque regression and, indeed, there are limited data to document that this is true.

Drug companies may be greedy, but they’re not stupid. They’ve been vigorously pursuing this line of research for some years, a research path that led inadvertently to the erectile dysfunction agent, sildenafil (Viagra), and all its subsequent competitors. (Erectile dysfunction is another expression of endothelial dysfunction, since male erections are driven by the ability to dilate penile arteries.) The wonderful properties of NO enhancement continue to occupy research labs around the world.

Wow. So what’s the reluctance? In the early years of the Track Your Plaque program (meaning just a short 7-8 years ago), I was thoroughly convinced that l-arginine was a crucial, necessary part of a plaque regression program. Without it, you would rarely succeed. With it, the odds were tipped in your favor.

However, something curious has emerged recently. I’ve seen more and more people dropping their heart scan scores. Not just a little bit, but a huge amount. Witness our most recent record holder, Neal, who dropped his score 51% in 15 months. Just five years ago, this magnitude of reversal was unimaginable. Granted, Neal is our record holder, but others are obtaining 10, 18, 24, 30% drops in scores all the time. Many have done it without l-arginine.

Now, how about the people who have failed to stop a rising score? Would they do better with l-arginine as part of the mix? I believe so, but sometimes we never quite know except in retrospect. It has been a great dilemma for us trying to predict from the starting gate who will or who won’t drop their heart scan score.

My view from the trenches is that l-arginine packs its greatest atherosclerosis-fighting punch in the first year or two of use, when “endothelial dysfunction” is likely to be present (abnormal artery constriction). But as all other strategies take hold—fish oil, correction of lipid and lipoprotein abnormalities, weight loss (big effect), vitamin D (another very big effect), etc.—endothelial behavior improves over time. Perhaps l-arginine becomes a less necessary component over time.

There’s no doubt that uncertainty still surrounds the use and science surrounding l-arginine. However, if you’re interested in stacking the odds in your favor, particularly during the first year or two of your plaque-reducing efforts, I think that l-arginine is worth considering. It is cumbersome, it can be expensive, some preparations may even be foul. But in the big picture of life, with hospitals trying every possible ploy to get your body on a table for a procedure, doctors perverting their mission by signing employment contracts with hospitals and agreeing to usher you into the hospital as a paying patient whenever possible, and drug companies viewing you and me as a market for medications which may or may not be helpful, l-arginine is surely not that big a burden.

Track Your Plaque and non-commercialism

If you're a Track Your Plaque Member or viewer, you may know that we have resisted outside commercial involvement. We do not run advertising on the site, we do not allow drug companies to post ads, we do not covertly sponsor supplements. We do this to main the unbiased content of the site.

We've seen too many sites be tempted by the money offered by a drug company only to see content gradually drift towards providing nothing more than cleverly concealed drug advertising. I personally find this deceptive and disgusting. Ads are ads and everyone knows it. But when you subvert content, secretly driven by a commercial agenda, that I find abhorrent.

That said, however, I do wonder if we need the participation of some outside commercial interests to help our members. In other words, many (over half) of the questions and conversations we have with people is about what supplement to take, or what medication to take. While we cannot offer direct medical advice online (nor should we) because of legal and ethical restrictions, I wonder if could facilitate access to products.

Many people struggle, for instance, with trusted sources for l-arginine, vitamin D, fish oil. Other people struggle with finding a heart scan center because of the changing landscape of the CT scanning industry. Could we somehow provide a clear-cut segment of the website that clearly demarcates what is commercial and non-Track Your Plaque-originated, yet at least provides a starting place for more info?

Ideally, we would have personally tried and investigated everything there is out there applicable to the program. But that's simply impossible at this stage.

I feel strongly that we will never run conventional ads on the site. Nor will we ever permit any outside commercial interest to dictate what and how we say something. The internet world is full of places like that. Look at WebMD. I find the site embarassing in the degree of commercial bias there. We will NEVER sell out like that, regardless of the temptation. People with heart disease are all conducting a war with the commercial forces working to profit from them--hospitals, cardiologists, drug companies, medical device companies (yes, even they advertise to the public, e.g., implantable defibrillators--no kidding). Genuine, honest, unbiased information is sorely needed and not from some kook who either knows nothing about real people with real disease, or has a hidden agenda like selling you chelation.

I'd welcome any feedback either through this Blog or through the contact@cureality.com.

The nattokinase scam

A conversation about vitamin K2 commonly leads to confusion. Several people have asked about something called nattokinase.

The scientific data on the potential role of vitamin K2 deficiency in causing both osteoporosis and vascular calcification is fascinating. Along with vitamin D3, vitamin K2 may be an important factor in regulation of calcium metabolism. Supplementation may prove to be a major strategy for inhibition of vascular calcification.

Obtaining K2 in the diet is tricky, since it's present in just a handful of foods: egg yolks, liver, traditional cheeses, and natto. This is where the confusion starts.

Natto is a Japanese fermented soy product. I've had it and it's quite disgusting. Nonetheless, Japanese who eat natto experience less fracture. (A parallel study in heart disease has not been performed.) Natto is also a source of another substance called nattokinase.

Advocates (otherwise often known as supplement distributors) claim that nattokinase is a "fibrinolytic", or blood clot-dissolving, preparation that "improves blood flow, protects from blood clots, and prevents heart attacks and strokes."

Don't you believe it. This is patent nonsense. There are several problems with this rationale:

--Any oral fibrinolytic agent is promptly degraded in the highly acid environment of the stomach. That's why all medically used fibrinolytics are given intravenously. Drug companies have struggled for years to encapsulate, modify, or somehow protect protein (or polypeptide) products taken orally from degrading this way. They've never succeeded. That's why, for instance, growth hormone (a polypeptide) remains an injection, not an oral agent. An oral growth hormone, by the way, would sell like mad, so the drug companies would very much like to figure out how to bypass the degradative effects of stomach acid. One of the "researchers" behind the nattokinase claims boasts that he has single-handedly figured out how to protect the nattokinase molecule in the gastrointestinal tract. However, he won't tell anybody how he does it. Right.

--Fibrinolytic agents are extremely dangerous. In years past, we used to treat heart attacks with intravenous fibrinolytic agents like tissue plasminogen activator, urokinase, streptokinase, and others. They have fallen by the wayside, for the most part, because of limited effectiveness and the unavoidable dangers of their use. Fibrinolytics are "dumb": they dissolve blood clots in both good places and bad. While they might dissolve the blood clot causing your heart attack, they also degrade the tiny clot in your cerebral (brain) circulation that was protective. That's why fatal brain hemorrhages, bleeding stomach ulcers, and blood oozing from strange places can also occur with fibrinolytic administration. Believe me, I've seen it happen, and I've watched people die from them.

The idea that a small dose taken orally is healthy is ridiculous. Even if nattokinase worked, why the heck would you take an agent that has known dangerous and very real consequences?

Don't let this idiocy reflect poorly on the K2 conversation, which, I believe, holds real merit and is backed by legitimate science. This is symptomatic of a larger difficulty with the supplement industry: Insane and unfounded claims about one supplement erodes credibility for the entire industry. It gives regulation-crazed people like the FDA ammunition to go after supplements, something none of us need. You and I have to sift through the nonsense to uncover the real gems in this rockpile, real gems like vitamin D3, omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, and, perhaps, vitamin K2. But not nattokinase.

Blood pressure with exercise

Here's a frequently neglected cause for an increasing CT heart scan score: High blood pressure with exercise. Let me explain.

Paul's blood pressure at rest, sitting in the office or on arising in the morning, or at other relatively peaceful moments: 110/75 to 130/80--all in the conventional normal range.

We put Paul on the treadmill for a stress test. At 10 mets of effort (on the protocol used, this means 3.4 mph treadmill speed at 14 degree incline), Paul's blood pressure skyrockets to 220/105. That's really high.

Now, blood pressure is expected to increase with exercise. If it doesn't rise, that's abnormal and may, in fact, be a sign of danger. Normally, blood pressure should rise gradually in a stepwise fashion with increasing levels of exercise. But any blood pressure exceeding 170/90 is clearly too high with exercise. (Not to be confused with high blood pressures not involving exercise.) A handful of studies have suggested that a "breakpoint" of 170/90 also predicts heightened risk of heart attack over a long period.)

I see this phenomenon frequently--normal blood pressure at rest, high with exercise. This also suggests that when Paul is stressed, upset, in traffic congestion, under pressure at work, etc., his blood pressure is high during those periods, as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see other phenomena of underappreciated high blood pressure, like abnormally thick heart muscle (left ventricular hypertrophy), an enlarged thoracic aorta (visible on your heart scan), left atrium, perhaps even an abnormal EKG or abnormal kidney function (evidenced by an elevated creatinine on a standard blood panel).

Unfortunately, the treatments that reduce blood pressure are "stupid," i.e., they have no appreciation for what you are doing and they reduce blood pressure all the time, whether or not you're stressed, exercising, or sleeping.

Blood pressure reduction should begin with weight loss, exercise, reduction of saturated fats and processed carbohydrates (esp. wheat), magnesium replacement, vitamin D replacement. Think about CoQ10. After this, blood pressure medication might be necessary.

The message: Watch out for the blood pressures when you have a stress test. Or, if you have a friend who is adept at getting blood pressures, get a blood pressure immediately upon ceasing exercise. It should be no higher than 170/90.

Vitamin D2 vs. vitamin D3

An interesting question came up on the Track Your Plaque Member Forum about vitamin D2 vs. vitamin D3. This often comes up among our patients, as well.

Vitamin D is measured in the blood as 25-OH-vitamin D and is distinct from 1,25-diOH-vitamin D, a kidney measure, a test you do not need unless you have kidney failure.

The human form of vitamin D is cholecalciferol and is usually obtained via activation of a precursor molecule in the skin on activation by the sun. You can also take cholecalciferol and it increases blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D reliably.

However, there is a cheap, plant-sourced, alternative to vitamin D3, called vitamin D2, or ergocalciferol. D2 has far less effect in the body. Taking D2 or ergocalciferol orally is an extremely inefficient way to get D. Unfortunately, it's the form often used in milk and many supplements, even the prescription form of D. About half the multivitamins and calcium supplements I've looked at contain ergocalciferol rather than cholecalciferol.

Taking vitamin D2 yields very little conversion to the effective D3. This particular issues is maddening, as the USDA requires dairy farmers to add 100 units of vitamin D to milk, and D2 is often used. In other words, the D in many dairy products barely works at all. There are many children who rely on D from dairy products who are at risk for rickets and are not getting the D they need from dairy products because of this cost-saving switch. Do not rely on milk for vitamin D for your children.

D2 or ergocalciferol is often included in the blood measures of vitamin D along with vitamin D3. The only reason it's checked with blood work is to ensure "compliance,", i.e., see whether or not you're taking a prescribed ergocalciferol. Beyond this, it has no usefulness.

25-OH-vitamin D3, or cholecalciferol, is both the blood measure and the supplement you need. This is the one that packs all the punch. Keep in mind also that it is the oil-based gelcap you want, with more consistent and efficient absorption. Tablets usually barely work at all, even if it contains cholecalciferol. Most people who take calcium tablets with D, or multivitamin with D, not only are getting a powdered form of D, but also in trivial doses. It's the pure vitamin D3, cholecalciferol, in gelcap form you want if you desire all the spectacular benefits of vitamin D.
Risks for coronary disease 2008

Risks for coronary disease 2008

According to conventional thinking, there are identifiable risks for coronary disease and heart attack. These risk factors are:

* smoking
* high blood pressure
* high blood cholesterol and excessive saturated fat intake
* diabetes
* being overweight or obese
* physical inactivity

I'd agree with all the factors listed (though I would argue about the importance of high blood cholesterol and saturated fat; they are not as important as commonly made to be.)

Is the list complete?

From the unique perspectives gained in the Track Your Plaque program, I'd offer a significantly different list. Trying to stop or reduce coronary atherosclerotic plaque and heart scan scores makes you a whole lot smarter about what works and what doesn't work.

So, in addition to the risk factors listed above, I would add:

* Small LDL particles--Lots of small LDL particles is MORE important than high LDL.
* High blood pressure with exercise
* Excessive wheat intake and other processed carbohydrates--An issue of explosive importance today. Wheat creates large numbers of small LDL particles, among other adverse effects.
* Vitamin D deficiency--Among the most powerful risks I know of. It belongs at the top of the list.
* Vitamin K2 deficiency
* Low HDL cholesterol
* Blood sugar >100 mg/dl
* High triglycerides--While some argue about whether triglycerides are a risk that behaves independently of patterns like low HDL, they are neglecting the potent force of this risk. Sure, it occurs in tandem with low HDL (usually, though not always), but it is a factor that can leave you with risk even when HDL is raised to healthy levels.
* Lipoprotein(a)--It is eminently, positively crystal clear that lipoprotein(a) is a powerful risk for heart disease. The lack of a profitable treatment keeps it hidden in the shadows.
* Pessimism--Be happy, do better. Be a constantly angry, frustrated, complaining sourpuss and you are more likely to succumb to heart disease, cancer, or other undesirable fate.


These are the risk factors that we address through the Track Your Plaque program, a list that yields a far more powerful and comprehensive approach to control over coronary plaque/atherosclerosis, sufficient to achieve reversal in many (though not in all) instances.

I view the list of conventional risk factors as a "no brainer" list. Sure, smoking is a risk factor. But there are virtually no smokers in the Track Your Plaque program. If you smoke, you clearly don't care enough to engage in a high-intensity prevention program like this.

Saturated fat? Perhaps, but the battlefield of heart disease is riddled with the bodies of those who employed this as their sole strategy and failed catastrophically.

Diabetes, hypertension, and overweight all represent a continuum of risk; the solutions offered in the conventional scheme (i.e., low-fat diet, etc.) make these patterns worse, not better.

The conventional response to heart disease risk is trapped somewhere in 1973 and has not changed in over 30 years. Heart disease continues to be a growth industry for hospitals and the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. The "official" organizations continue to deliver an antiquated, outdated message.

If you want heart disease, follow the American Heart Association diet. If you want established heart disease to get worse, follow the American Heart Association diet. If you want diabetes or, if you already have diabetes or pre-diabetes, if you want it to worsen and develop organ damage (eyes, kidneys, nervous system, etc.), then follow the American Diabetes Association diet. USDA food pyramid? Loosen your belt!

The list of conventional risk factors for heart disease is woefully inadequate. If that is as far as your prevention program takes you, heart disease will not be controlled or prevented. At best, it might be slowed; at worst--and more likely--it might be accelerated.

Comments (27) -

  • Ross

    1/1/2008 11:13:00 PM |

    From the two lists you've provided (and the critical caveat about dietary cholesterol and saturated fat), it seems so simple to reduce my risk of heart problems.  Lose weight on a carb-restricted diet (I've lost 25 pounds towards a 35 pound goal so far) and:

    1) blood pressure falls
    2) blood glucose, insulin, and diabetes risk falls
    3) triglycerides fall
    4) HDL rises
    5) LDL composition improves
    6) Lp(a) falls
    7) Athletics are easier and more enjoyable.
    8) I feel better about my appearance (anti-pessimism).

    How in the world can anyone still say that low-carb (high-fat) diets are bad for you or increase your risk of heart disease, heart attack, or stroke?

    And yet, this is what I keep hearing over and over and over again.  

    I'm learning to not talk about my diet (cooking eggs in butter, drinking whole milk, etc.) because almost everyone who hears me describe how I'm losing weight gets very defensive about the established advice to cut fat in order to lose weight.  All of my assurances that the science doesn't actually back up the US Government's (or the AHA, ADA, etc.) position fall on deaf ears.  The fact that I'm losing weight and getting regular blood tests to verify progress on cholesterol and some inflammatory markers seems to have no effect on anyone.

    Shutting up and just improving my own health seem to be the best way to keep the peace.  Sigh.

  • chickadeenorth

    1/2/2008 2:29:00 AM |

    Dr D what are your thoughts on the chol ratios ?It used to be thought that it was more significant.
    You're right on with those thoughts mentioned about AHA and ADA.

  • Dr. Davis

    1/2/2008 12:03:00 PM |

    Hi, Chickadee-
    I find that the standard numbers like total cholesterol and LDL very limited in predictive value. Ratios like total cholesterol to HDL are simply manipulations of these basic numbers. They improve predictive confidence for heart disease and heart events, but they are simply statistical manipulations. If you are using lipoproteins (e.g., NMR), you've already far surpassed the limited value of these ratios.

  • MAC

    1/2/2008 12:22:00 PM |

    Wonder if you have ever seen this study where rye turned on certain genes that prevent diabetes, control blood sugar, and wheat and oats and potato had the opposite effect and turned them off?
    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/5/1417?maxtoshow=&HITS=80&hits=80&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&volume=85&resourcetype=HWCIT

    American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 85, No. 5, 1417-1427, May 2007

    I don't know if you can infer from this that oats and potatoes may be just as bad as wheat but it was interesting.

    Also, I know you have blogged about some HDL subfractions having issues as well. Is that a consideration as well? Article: Sizing up your HDL. http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?site=MensHealth&channel=health&category=heart.disease&conitem=c31a99edbbbd201099edbbbd2010cfe793cd____

  • wccaguy

    1/2/2008 1:43:00 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,

    What a fantastic post to start off the New Year.

    I see that Vitamin K2 has now made the short list.  I'd noticed that you were talking about it more recently.

    Do you think this has the potential to become another "D3-like" sleeper for risk control?

    Thanks for all you do.

  • g

    1/2/2008 4:03:00 PM |

    Can't the rest of the world catch up to your progressive pace Dr. Davis?

    Obviously you enjoy figuring out and solving puzzles. Have you seen National Treasure yet?
    Dr. Davis, y-o-u are our National Treasure.

    As Heart Hawk says it... 'Jack, Smack and WHACK that Plaque!'

    I like that... kinda Tony Soprano-style *ha ha* Smile

    Happy New Year to you and your family and all the TYP-ers and Early Adopters!  
    g

  • Dr. Davis

    1/2/2008 6:01:00 PM |

    Hi, MAC--

    Interesting. I wonder if rye deserves a reconsideration. I have to admit that I've dismissed rye since it nearly always occurs as part of wheat-containing products. Perhaps this was throwing out the "baby with the bath water" sort of issue.

    HDL sub-fractions are indeed something we pay attention to, though the therapeutic efforts to correct them are virtually the same as those that correct small LDL.

  • Dr. Davis

    1/2/2008 6:04:00 PM |

    Wcaguy--

    The more I use vitamin K2, review what data exists, and observe its effects, the more I am convinced there is a real effect here.

    However, K2 does not appear to exert the broad array of benefits that D3 does, such as resolution of winter blues, metabolic syndrome, increased HDL, drops in blood sugar, decreased inflammatory responses, etc. K2's effects are more confined and narrow.

    I'm hoping this preliminary experience holds. I think it may have been responsible for heart scan score reduction in a couple of people, but it's often hard to know when people are doing multiple things all at once.

  • Anonymous

    1/2/2008 6:48:00 PM |

    I know you were reading "Good calories, bad calories" and wonder after reading that if you still feel saturated fat is bad?

  • Dr. Davis

    1/2/2008 6:59:00 PM |

    I loved Mr. Taubes' book.

    However, I am not prepared to endorse the full embrace of saturated fat. I am going to go back to the original literature before I (re-)make up my mind on this issue. I'm well aware of the arguments on both sides of the issue, but there's nothing like the real sources.

  • MAC

    1/3/2008 12:23:00 AM |

    How is it that the focus is still on total LDL and not the size of the LDL particles? The inverse relationship between HDL and triglycerides per Taubes book was presented in 1961.

    I was a test subject in the early 80s for Quaker Oats research to claim that eating oats would lower your cholesterol and even then my blood work came back with sub fractions. So over 25 years ago they were interested in these subfractions.

    Second question. If you have bad subfractions of HDL do you always have bad subfractions of VLDL and vice versa? As you have indicated the therapeutic efforts to correct  both are the same. Just curious.

  • Dr. Davis

    1/3/2008 12:34:00 AM |

    In my view, lipoprotein testing is an absolutely crucial part of determination of risk for heart disease. The reasons for its lack of use by practicing physicians are several, but principally 1) complexity, 2) no big bucks for promoting any specific treatment from a drug company.

    Lipoproteins do tend to travel in "packs". HDL subclasses do follow LDL subclasses which follow VLDL--they do tend to track together, though they can also diverge.

  • wccaguy

    1/3/2008 6:22:00 AM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,

    I don't take issue with you often, if ever, but I must object to your point that lipoprotein testing and analysis is "complex" and that's a reason why practicing physicians don't do it more often and/or effectively.

    You've made this point before and it struck me that this point was wrong and I figured out how to show that it was wrong but then forgot about it.  Your making the point again jogged my memory.

    I'll bet you that I could explain generally how lipoprotein subfraction distributions impact risk of CAD to my 10 year old daughter and a few of her friends (all 5th graders) and they could understand it and explain it's importance.  

    Admittedly, the explanations wouldn't be on a par with what one would expect from an adult with a scientific bent.  I'm hoping that you wouldn't insist that their explanations would need to be on a par with a practicing physician for me to demonstrate the point.

    The point is that it's NOT difficult to grasp the concept that lipoprotein subfraction distributions have an extremely significant impact on CAD risk.

    I must insist that you cease and desist making this point or you will force me to make a video that I post on the web showing some young teens explaining the importance of lipoprotein subfraction testing and analysis.

    Smile

  • Dr. Davis

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

    You know, it took over 20 years for the cholesterol concept to be incorporated into daily clinical practice of the average primary care physician, despite enormous marketing budgets from the drug companies.

    Lipoprotein testing, I agree, is really not that complicated. Just a few months of education and someone could diagnose and treat quite confidently. It is, however, a significant hurdle to a primary care physician dispensing flu vaccine, prescriptions for arthritis, doing pap smears, treating colitis, etc., just one more new thing to learn among many.

    I believe that the new generation of "lipidologists" will be a practical solution, since my colleagues, the cardiologists, are too focused on the next exciting procedure and the primary care physician is spread too thin. It's also the reason why I've gone straight to the person most interested in lipoproteins--you and other readers--to provide this information.

  • Anonymous

    1/3/2008 2:18:00 PM |

    Dr.D,
    In your list of risk factors, what do you mean by "high blood pressure with exercise"?  Do you mean that blood pressure is high only during exercise or that blood pressure is high even though you exercise?  
    Thanks for a great blog.
    Kate

  • wccaguy

    1/3/2008 2:56:00 PM |

    Dr. D.

    I think your last response really begins to get to the heart of the problem.

    Wikipedia says that "cardiology is the branch of medicine pertaining to the heart and the vascular system of the human body."

    I didn't read the whole Wikipedia entry on the subject, but I'm pretty certain that "next exciting procedure" is not descriptive of any limitation of the subject matter that it might be assumed cardiologists should be expected to know something about.

    Seems to me you're right in pointing out that Primary Care Physicians are spread thin and can't be faulted too much for not knowing detailed treatment nuances of every disease.  Even for them, however, one would think there would be greater interest in treatment of the single most significant cause of death in the US and most of the industrialized world.

    But it's also understandable that Primary Care Physicians have expected to be able to look to their cardiologist colleagues for leadership in promotion of the best treatment regimes for CAD.

    In my view, the problem is that cardiologists, in general, have utterly failed to provide the kind of knowledge leadership the current state of the science of lipoproteins ought to require.

    I'm not certain about what kind of doctors run the AHA and the ADA but if they are run primarily by cardiologists then I'd be hard pressed not to come to the conclusion that the general failure of this profession is even more massive for all the reasons you find fault with those organizations.

    I think THAT is what is so hard for all of us to fathom:  How could it be that such a large and seemingly smart and educated group of people fail to "get it", about diet at the ADA and the AHA, about lipoprotein education leadership for the colleagues, etc.

    Given the tragic consequences of that general failure, is it possible even to argue that there is another group of white collar professionals who have failed more than the cardiologists?

  • Dr. Davis

    1/3/2008 9:46:00 PM |

    Hi, Kate--

    I'm referring to blood pressure measured during a stress test. It's too difficult to assess your own BP while exercising. It has to be done by someone else in the midst of exercise, meaning a stress test. However, this effect can be an important "coronary risk."

  • Dr. Davis

    1/4/2008 1:26:00 AM |

    WC--

    It is dismaying, I agree.

    I do feel that my colleagues have been sidetracked by the promise of financial gain, probably no different than the mortgage lenders making unwise sub-prime loans, stockbrokers churning accounts for commissions, pharmaceutical manufacturers inflating drug prices in the U.S. while charging far less in more cost-conscious countries.  

    It's the profit motive, alive and well. It is through conversations like this that help all of us break out of the profit-driven bounds of the conventional approach.

  • moblogs

    1/5/2008 9:12:00 PM |

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2075568

    Someone posted an article with a similar finding in one of your earlier posts.
    If this is true, it's absolutely astounding that statins could simply be pricey analogues of cheap-ass (pardon my French) vitamin D.

    I also believe calcium channel blockers used for epilepsy, which clearly simply block calcium from entering the desired part of the body, could be replaced by D. Instead of blocking calcium, it's probably best to ensure proper metabolism.

  • Anonymous

    1/6/2008 10:39:00 PM |

    We know that wheat intake is not good for people with lots of small ldl, what about psyllium ? Is it good bad or indifferent as far as small ldl partcles ?

  • Dr. Davis

    1/6/2008 11:21:00 PM |

    Indifferent: psyllium reduces all LDL particles, regardless of size.

  • Anonymous

    1/8/2008 7:24:00 PM |

    Dr. you mention high blood pressure with excercise as a risk factor and then go on to say that this is something that would be found out during a stress test. My question is surely everybodies blood pressure raises during excercise what level would be "high" for someone during this stess test ?

  • Dr. Davis

    1/8/2008 9:47:00 PM |

    "High" depends on the level of exercise on a formal exercise "protocol". However, we use a crude cut-off of any BP >170/80 as clearly high.

  • Red Sphynx

    1/9/2008 9:08:00 PM |

    Dr Davis,

    Good list.  But I was wondering about some other factors that others list that don't appear either in your list or the conventional one:
    * Inflammation - as measured especially by C-reactive protein, or other measures.
    * Advance glycation endproducts (AGE) as measured by pentosidine, skin autofluorescence, etc.  Sure it correlates with blood sugar, but other factors (antioxidant status, fructose in the diet, dietary intakes of oxidized oils) throw the correlation off.

  • Dr. Davis

    1/10/2008 12:14:00 AM |

    Yes, good point.

    We do address inflammation, but only occasionally does it emerge as something that requires specific action, e.g., suppression of matrix metalloproteinase. Otherwise, all the steps we take to correct the other factors also correct inflammatory responses.

    AGE's are a fascinating issue, but not one we've specifically addressed for purposes of plaque reversal.

  • Anonymous

    4/26/2008 6:39:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Wanted to make a friendly suggestion.  I have been printing pages from your blog to hand out to others.  
    I was thinking if possible to do, it would be helpful if there was a "print button" for blog posts.  Also it would be good for the printed  page to have your web sight highlighted somewhere on the print.

  • Daniel

    2/16/2010 6:54:20 PM |

    Dr D,

    First time reader and I am excited to see a cardiologist that is actually standing up for correct Western Medicine. I have a question about this post ( a year late I know), but wanted to discuss. You state "* High blood pressure with exercise" as being another problem. In one of the comments you stated that this can be under 170/80. I have been treated with beta blockers and thiazidines to reduce my BP. It's been "working" for 10 years now, yet I was severly overweight. Recently I started to eat a grain free diet under the Primal Blueprint method and amped up real totally body fitness. I lost about 40 lbs since and feel amazing.

    Recently I went back to my cardiologist and began discussion about lowering my dosages since I get winded and shortness of breath during my workouts.

    Anyways, I asked the Dr. to lower the meds and then told me that I was going to die if I stopped taking them. Told me to eliminate caffeine, and sodium to lower it. Said I needed to eat more vegetables.

    Can you explain why BP would not lower with proper diet and 6 days of exercise a week for almost a year?

    Thanks!
    dan

Loading