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.
Red flags for lipoprotein(a)

Red flags for lipoprotein(a)



Lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), is an important cause for heart disease, heart attack, and coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

How do you know you have it?

Of course, it could be as simple as checking a blood level. But there are also a number of red flags for the presence of Lp(a), tell-tale signs that suggest it is present and contributing to the growth of coronary plaque.

I've seen so much of this pattern over the years that it's gotten so that I can pretty much pick out most of the people with Lp(a) just by either looking at them or by hearing their story. I do this simply by knowing what hints to look for.

Some of the red flags for Lp(a) include:

--High blood pressure in a slender person. Overweight is the overwhelmingly common reason for high blood pressure. However, inappropriate high blood pressure in a slender person can serve to tip you off that Lp(a) is present.

--HIgh LDL cholesterol poorly responsive to statin drugs. For instance, someone's LDL cholesterol of 190 mg/dl will be treated with Lipitor 40 mg, but drops to only 165 mg/dl, a very poor response. This can sometimes point towards Lp(a).

--Family clustering of heart disease in people before age 60. For instance, father with heart attack age 53, uncle with heart attack at age 55, aunt with heart attack age 59, etc. This clustering of risk, more often than not, signals Lp(a).

--Coronary disease or high heart scan score in the presence of relatively bland appearing lipids. For instance, LDL cholesterol 130 mg/dl, HDL 55 mg/dl, triglycerides 70 mg/dl on no medications or other efforts--figures ordinarily not associated with high likelihood of heart disease--yet heart disease is indeed present. This can mean that Lp(a) is the concealed culprit behind coronary atherosclerosis.

These red flags are not perfect. If you lack any of them, it doesn't necessarily rule out the possbility of having Lp(a). They simply serve as signs to suggest that Lp(a) may be lurking.

Once Lp(a) is identified, then the battle begins to gain control over this somewhat troublesome genetic pattern. Resourcesfulness and some ingenuity may be required. However, knowing that you have it shows you where to concentrate your efforts.

Comments (24) -

  • Anonymous

    1/17/2008 1:03:00 AM |

    I wish I knew more about exactly what Lp(a) will do that will cause me problems.  I have high Lp(a)(22 on my VAP test).

    I am 5'2" and weight 110.  I am a fitness professional -  healthy blood pressure level.

    My TC at it's worse was 226 with low Trig, high HDL, and high LDL (144).  My Dr wanted me to get the LDL down with drugs.  I chose the supplement path, and increased my fiber intake.

    My TC is now around 224, but my HDL is 86, and LDL 118.  My real LDL size pattern is A/B.  My HDL 2 & 3, and VLDL 3 are all in the desireable range.

    Oh - I do have a family history of heart disease (mother had strokes in her 60s).

    I had a heart scan - no measurable plaque found.  I'm 55 years old.

    That darn LpInnocent.  Should I be worried it's going to do something I'm not aware of?

    Bonnie

  • Dr. Davis

    1/17/2008 1:41:00 AM |

    Yes. You might have a Lp(a) variant that accounts more for carotid disease than coronary disease, judging from your mom's history. Also, you are still young. Some women will not fully express Lp(a) characteristics until their late 50s.

    All the principles we talk about for Lp(a) on the Track Your Plaque website still apply. Also, please see our upcoming report that summarizes unique strategies for Lp(a) treatment to be released in the next two weeks.

  • Anonymous

    1/17/2008 5:32:00 AM |

    If Bonnie thinks her LP(a) at 22 is high, I guess mine is high also at 24, but at least its a whole lot better than it was 18 months ago when it was 52.   I attribute the reduction to DMAE and NAC,thanks to your recomendations, Dr. Davis.

    Your list of possible examples of high LP(a) just doesn't include me.

    My BMI is 21.  I have relatively low blood pressure,95-110 over 70.  My age is 65.   Total Chol=190; LDL=110  HDL>65 and sometimes as high as 100.  Low Trigs < 70.

    No family history (mother still kicking at 95). Father died in hi 70's from pancreatic cancer with a very strong heart and lung system.  And yet I have had a really high LP(a)!!!

    I can't afford a CT scan, as much as I would like to get one, but I did have a lipoprotein breakdown which showed
    VLDL=25; LDL particle number 789 dense LDL IV=101 HDL Total=9066 and Buoyant HDL 2b=2528.  All  measured in (nmol/L).  My density was neither A nor B, but in an intermediate zone near the A border.

    My homocysteine is raised (12.26) probably because of the 750mg of Slo-Niacin I take, but I'm trading niacin's lipid enhancements for it.

    When my LP(a) was at 52, all blood work was similar to now, weight was the same, exercise, diet, everything was the same.   I don't understand why it was so high.   I was hoping your list would give me a clue, but I'm just not on it!!!

    Noreen

  • Anonymous

    1/17/2008 6:44:00 AM |

    Thanks.  My mom unfortunately led an extremely sedentary lifestyle, and didn't eat well or take care of herself.  I always assumed her strokes were a result of that.  I guess it was probably part of it, but not all of it.

    I did not know about Carotid disease - seems all I ever hear about is Heart Disease these days.

    I look forward to finding out more about the new approaches to dealing with Lp(a)!

    Bonnie

  • Dr. Davis

    1/17/2008 1:36:00 PM |

    Hi, Noreen-
    I'm curious about the DMAE. I've used it (unsuccessfully) for memory enhancement, but not to reduce Lp(a). What is the basis for this?

  • Anonymous

    1/17/2008 3:45:00 PM |

    Big Goof, Dr. D!!!  I was tired and didn't get up to check my supplements.  I'm taking 50mg of DHEA for lowering the LP(a)!!!

    Sorry, thats what I get for getting into this stuff so late at night!!!

    I'm still at a loss as why mine went so high (52)!!!   Especially with no family history of heart disease.

    Noreen

  • Anonymous

    1/17/2008 4:11:00 PM |

    Noreen - your post reminded me of something that I find curious.

    When I first had my Lp(a) tested it wsa a separate test from my Cholesterol test.  Results came back 59 wih a reference range of  0-29.  

    Next time it was measured it was part of a VAP test, and when I saw it at 22 I thought it had dropped (by some miracle Smile.  Then I noticed the reference range was different, and that the high end of the range was 10.  

    Different tests maybe?

    Bonnie

  • Anonymous

    1/17/2008 6:00:00 PM |

    Thanks Bonnie -- Yes, it was different labs, but the reference range was less than 30 on each one.   I did read somewhere that some labs use less than 20 as the normal range, but these two labs used < 30.

    This lab also did a nutrient profile and found that I was deficient in pantothenate, glutamine and glutathione.   I was already taking 500mg NAC, but they recommended 1000mg, so I'm now taking 1200mg of Jarrow Sustain NAC in hopes it will satisfy the glutathione deficiency and lower that LP(a) further.  

    I also started taking pantothenate to satisfy that and read that it can reduce LDL, so I'm hopefull there.   I upped the glutamine that I was already taking and switched to a powder form.

    Thanks,
    Noreen

  • Dr. Davis

    1/17/2008 7:41:00 PM |

    Hi, Noreen-
    Somebody, Mom or Dad, had to give you Lp(a), though the expression and consequences of Lp(a) can vary.

  • Anonymous

    1/17/2008 8:25:00 PM |

    Is it a dominant characteristic from just one parent or can it be a recessive one from both with neither having it?   I don't think my mom has ever been tested, but her doctor said her heart is still very strong at 95.    My paternal grandfather died of a massive heart attack at 78.  Before that he was hospitalized several times with fluid in his chest (cardio-myapthy) maybe?

    I was under the impression that if it were genetic that nothing will reduce it.  Is this wrong?   Mine did come down to 24 after taking the NAC and DHEA.   I'm really looking forward to reading that paper on lowering it too.  Thanks so much,
    Noreen

  • Bad_CRC

    1/17/2008 9:09:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis, just to clarify:

    1. Lp(a) is not like IDL, where having any measurable amount is abnormal, right?  Mine was 7 mg/dL, and I took this to mean that I don't "have Lp(a)."

    2. Also unlike IDL, small LDL, etc., it's purely hereditary and not a symptom of metabolic syndrome or similar, correct?  So if I don't have it at 30, I don't need to worry about developing it by 50?

    Thanks

  • Dr. Davis

    1/17/2008 10:26:00 PM |

    Lp(a) is genetic but blood levels are manipulable. But Mom or Dad HAD to give it to you, they just may not have fully expressed its consequences (which does happen occassionally, for not entirely clear reasons).

  • Dr. Davis

    1/17/2008 10:28:00 PM |

    Hi, Bad--
    Yes, correct on both counts.

  • Anonymous

    1/17/2008 10:33:00 PM |

    But Mom or Dad HAD to give it to you, they just may not have fully expressed its consequences (which does happen occassionally, for not entirely clear reasons).

    So Dr. Davis, are you saying that if you have this genetic marker, that it is inevitable that at some point down the line it will do bad things - no matter how good all of the rest of your risk factors are? (assuming there continues to be no reliable way to reduce it).

    Bonnie

  • Dr. Davis

    1/17/2008 10:54:00 PM |

    No, not inevitable, but darn close. It could be expressed as hearet disease, carotid disease, aneurysms, or just hypertension.

  • Anonymous

    1/18/2008 2:29:00 AM |

    Are there any major differences between  Lp(a) testing via a VAP test as compared to NMR?

    VAP seems to use a lower test range (over 10 being considered high). Does this mean their test is different than others, or simply they use a lower marker to differentiate between high and low? And would a Lp(a) test via VAP be as accurate as one from NMR, etc,?

    My VAP numbers for Lp(a) was pretty low, around 4-5, if I remember right. I just want to make sure this was an accurate test.

  • Dr. Davis

    1/18/2008 1:19:00 PM |

    There are several methodological differences among the various Lp(a) measures. For this reason, I advise everyone to always stick with the same laboratory. There may also be differences in the validity or accuracy. This is detailed in a full Special Report on the Track Your Plaque website.

  • Joan

    1/18/2008 8:54:00 PM |

    My Lp(a) score came back at 160--that's right--160!  I have a stent in one artery, obviously I have CAD.  I presently take Zocor 20 mg. and an Ace Inhibitor drug.  I can not take Niacin---what can I do?


       Joan

  • Anonymous

    1/19/2008 2:35:00 AM |

    Dr Davis,
    My Cardiologist has me on 1500mg Niacin which reduces LP(a)to around 30 and that seems to be about the lowest I can get it, as more Niacin gives me a rash. So He says we need to reduce LDL as low as possible by diet,exercise and possibly a low Statin dose. Reducing the amount of carriers, He says, will negate to a large degree, the risk of my high LP(a). Does this sound like sound treatment?   Thanks.....

  • Dr. Davis

    1/19/2008 5:06:00 AM |

    That sounds like a very solid approach to Lp(a). Congratulations to your doctor for being up to date in his thinking about Lp(a).

    Also, watch for an upcoming report on our Track Your Plaque website for a review of unique therapies for Lp(a).

  • Dr. Davis

    1/19/2008 5:13:00 AM |

    I'm afraid that's a bit too much to handle in a blog post.

    You are invited to read our Track Your Plaque Special Reports on Lp(a), including an upcoming review of unique therapies to be posted within the next two weeks.

  • Anonymous

    1/19/2008 5:40:00 AM |

    Also, watch for an upcoming report on our Track Your Plaque website for a review of unique therapies for Lp(a)

    Can you see me tapping my foot..... impatiently.....  

    Smile  
    (Just kidding)


    I hesitate to take Niacin because I have a tendency toward slightly high liver enzymes for some reason (possibly mild NAFLD since all other tests came back negative), and I've read Niacin can raise liver enzymes.  I look forward to hearing about other possibilities.

    Bonnie

  • Anonymous

    2/20/2008 6:50:00 PM |

    SO after all is said and done should a LP(a) redaing of 12 be of any concern? It is noted as "high" on my VAP test but it certainly is close to normal. All of my other readings on the VAP are normal.

    John

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 2:26:48 PM |

    These red flags are not perfect. If you lack any of them, it doesn't necessarily rule out the possbility of having Lp(a). They simply serve as signs to suggest that Lp(a) may be lurking.

Loading