I found some connection with homocysteine being reduced with beta-blockers - could be a way to block the stress axis?

My brother came up with high homocysteine.  Should he have other tests for plaque or blood circulation done?

I think we need to talk more about MTHFR genetic problems with regard to high homocysteine.  Just taking B12, folic acid and B6 are not enough...they need to be the activated forms P5P, methycobalamin and L-5-methyltetrahydrofolate.  
K.Scanlon

After a TIA in 2004 and a cardio homocysteine level of 10.8, my doctor helped me bring the homosysteine to between 6 and10 with ordinary folate, 5mg, B12, and B6.  He wanted single digits.
Now the top of the lab's range is 15, my level is over 12, and nothing brings it down--5-MTHFR, P5P, and methycobalamine don't help at all. My current doctor gave me the Cochrane Survey starting at 1967,
which concluded that there was no point in trying to bring down such high levels.

For price comparison, Iherb.com carries Country Life, Dry Vitamin D (as D2/ergocalciferol) , 1000 IU, 100 Tablets for $3.24.

I have been personally using Healthy Origins, Vitamin D3, 2,400 IU, 360 Softgels that Iherb sells for $11.25.

What I find very difficult to understand is why people are still using Ergocalciferol in research.

"Effect of annual intramuscular vitamin D on fracture risk in elderly men and women a population-based, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial." has recently been published showing 300000IU intramuscular vitamin D2ergocalciferol is not effective in preventing non-vertebral fractures among elderly men and women resident in the general population.
Well, surprise, surprise, who could have guessed that using the form of Vitamin D2 old people's metabolism may not utilise doesn't benefit them?
300000iu of D2 is actually (IF it was absorbed and IF it was utitilised) only (at very best)the equivalent of 100000iu of D3 spread over 365 days this is the equivalent of 274iu daily. 400iu raises status 9nmol/l - 3.6ng/ml  so 275 may raise status all of 6.25nmol/l - 2.5ng/ml.
Now who would really expect changing an elderly persons Vitamin D status from 40nmol/l to 49nmol/l is going to significantly affect their rate of falls or broken bones?
If we want to significantly improve muscle strength and bone density we need to raise status to maximise calcium uptake from our
diet. That means getting somewhere near or even better above 80nmol/l.
We know that 400iu raises status only by 9nmol/l so why is it that medical research scientists cannot work out how much vitamin d is needed daily to raise a persons vitamin d status from 40nmol/l to 80nmol/l?
Why is it that given we know it takes 250 microg/day (10,000IU) of vitamin D2 25OHD levels to 85 nmol/l in 75% of the postmenopausal osteopenic/osteoporotic women do people still use it when the same result could have been achieved with less cost and greater safety with 2000iu/d/D3?
Why are people still using utterly trivial amount of Vitamin D when there is good science showing larger amounts are not only effective but safe?

Dr Davis. Why is it so difficult to get D3 tested in a way we can understand. You rescued us from the first test which came back as pg/ml (a test for 1,25 OH vit D.) This latest one came back reading 25-hydrox D2 <4.0 25-hydrox D3 40 25-hydrox D total(D2+D3) 40. Population reference 25-80.
This one was sent to Mayo/Rochester MN and done by SUNQUEST. This is after taking a Carlsons Gel CAp 200 for 2 months. Is there a better way to get tested and be able to understand the results? We don't know if 40 is D2 & D3 together or Just D3? Thanks for eany enlightenment. Glucose counts remains 20 -30 points lower now...Many thanks. Over&Out

I know you recommend vitamin D for its cardiac help but I was wondering if you had any comments on the results of the study published by the National Cancer Institute in the last month or 2 of 17,000 people that  said higher levels of vitamin D did ABSOLUTLY nothing for preventing ANY type cancer other than colon cancer?

Ted-

It's beyond me. We are witnessing extraordinary effects with D3, far beyond anything I ever anticipated. D2 belongs in the trash bin.

Anonymous re: D2 and 1,25 testing

I'll bet they did run the D3 as well and it was either buried in the report or you received incomplete results. D2 is often run with D3 and both are reported, along with the sum of the two. A call to the lab for the full report might clear it up.

Yes. I believe their results stand apart as the only human study suggesting no benefit.

That is the nature of science--we zigzag to the truth. I don't have any specific insights, however, that reveals why their results are unique.

Anonymous said

"This latest one came back reading 25-hydrox D2 <4.0 25-hydrox D3 40 25-hydrox D total(D2+D3) 40. Population reference 25-80...We don't know if 40 is D2 & D3 together or Just D3?"

This isn't so hard to understand. D2 is less than 4.0, and they clearly say that D3 is 40. They also say that the total of D2+D3 is 40, which means that the D2 must be close to zero.

The important thing is that your D3 is 40. That's not too far from 50, but it isn't there yet. You need to up your Vitamin D3 intake by at least 20%. Try upping it by 50% and retesting for Vitamin D in a couple of months. If it's still not up to 50, increase your intake some more.

In reply to the anonymous comment on the one cancer report showing no (apart from a 72% reduction in colon cancer for those above 80nmol/l) other cancer savings benefit from vitamin d, we have to understand this paper was based on research not specifically designed to study the Vit d cancer relationship.
The blood samples that were drawn initially were done in the cooler months in southern latitudes and the warmer months for the northern latitudes thereby blurring the difference.
Similarly only one sample was taken. It's a bit like me observing your motorway driving speed and then basing predictions of your speed related motorway incidence/mortality over the next 10-12yrs on that one observation. In the same way we may not expect a 17yr old to drive at the same speed as a 29yr old or that 30yr old to still be driving in the same manner when he turns 40. To base a long term study just on one sample seems fundamentally flawed when the seasonal variation may be well over 30nmol/l and patterns of our outdoor sun exposure behaviours may vary as we age.
If the study had taken say 4 vit/d3 status readings annually throughout the study and compared the length of time people spent with very low vit d status we may see a different pattern.
Colon cancer: Prognosis for different latitudes, age groups and seasons in Norway. this study shows how those colon cancers diagnosed/treated when vit d status is high summer/autumn have a better prognosis than those d/t in winter/spring. What may be happening is that when D3 status is low, calcium is not well absorbed from food, so bones have to be raided for supplies, this increased calcium/bone turnover may allow opportunities for stray cancer cells to enter the bones.
The same seasonal pattern of prognosis also applies to other cancers particularly breast.

Excellent points.

I think D2 is also prescribed out of laziness, due to combined calcium and vitamin D only being available as D2. It's easy for a GP to just write the one thing.

Also, a few doctors aren't aware of a D3!

The article you are referring to where only colon CA mortality was less for groups supplementing with Vit D did not actually achieve statistical significance for the comparisons for breast and prostate cancer.  I've dismissed there results for that reason...

Laziness?  Doctors prescribe D2 because the gorgeous drug rep with the killer rack brings them lunch.

Trying to order Vit D 3 softgel caps and they say cannot be shipped to Canada, yet l arginine can, any ideas why??
chickadeenorth

Sorry, Chickadee, don't know why.

I've never heard this before. Did you ask the company why?

No I am going to call them tomorrow, its from the vitamin Shoppe and it has a warning beside it about shipping.?? I'll let you know here incase someone else comes against this.

Just another spark about vitamin D.

The Finnish believe the humble ketchup or tomato soup can affect LDL cholesterol levels.

L.esculentum (the tomato to you and me) has D3, even in its leaves.
How much D3 to fully satisfy the body I don't know, but perhaps with there being more than one tomato per soup serving, and more tomato nutrients per ketchup squidge, it's significant to be at least better than a low dose D2 supplement.

Search for 'Vitamin D3 and its metabolites in tomato, potato, egg plant and zucchini leaves' and then read
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=499905&in_page_id=1774

What if you're a vegan or vegetarian, what do I do to get my vitamin D?

You get it from Vitamin D2. Frankly, I love how all of these comments and doctors, with limited knowledge, try to force D3 down our throats. Normally, I wouldn't comment but, as a Vegan, it ticks me off a bit when limited information is used to compare D2 D3. Let me be clear. D3 does not occur in the body. It is available in limited amounts from animal products, such as salmon, lanolin, etc. It does not occur freely in nature. D2, however if the vegan alternative and works as effectively. All one has to do is a search on trials or comparisons between D2 and D3.

Oh, and for those who go to the doctor after taking d2 for awhile and not having a d level register. Well, duh. Most of the equipment that doctors have will not test for D2. You must ask them to run a test for D2 or nothing will show up. D2 has been proven to be equally effective, however, D2 does require Vitamin A supplementation at higher doses to that it is absorbed properly by the body. I've been taking D2 for years now and do not plan on putting any animal poison in my body.

@Marcos:

you are writing none-sense. Vitamin D3 is the form produced by the human body when exposed to UVB-radiation. We are designed for it, explaining why D2 is far less efficient in all studies done so far.

In my view, prescription vitamin D2 is yet another example of drug manufacturer scams, a product that provides no advantages, costs more, but yields bigger profits.

Yet this wonderful supplement called cholecalciferol, among which Carlson's is an excellent choice, is available to you inexpensively, without prescription, and actually provides the benefits you desire.

I get the pharma grade fish oil pill called Lavasa.


These are really expensive and can one buy similar good fish oil pills over the counter.  I take 4 per day?

Thanks

So to get a level of 6.8%, how many mg must you consume in a day?

Great info!

Is there a lab blood test (low cost) to have one's own DHA/EPA level tested to confirm the level is optimal?

A couple of observations.

One is that trans fats do not appear to be associated with sudden cardiac arrest. This does not say that they aren't associated with heart disease or that they are healthy.

The other is that the Cordain et. al estimate of 21% of calories from fat (from primitive man) has been challenged by various sources as being too low based on observations of various recent primitive native cultures, especially based on observations that the parts of the animal that contained the most saturated fat were preferentially consumed. I've included a few references. Other can be found on the net. The point is that this is not established fact, but a guess or a scientific hypothesis.


from Michael Eades Protein Power Blog  January 30, 2008

....Loren Cordain’s seminal paper (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/682) on the plant/animal subsistence ratios of hunter/gatherers, ......
... Loren emailed me when I sent him this paper

Nowhere in that paper do we give the numbers he quoted. We provided these ranges of macronutrient estimations are being most likely (protein 19-35% energy, carb 22-40% energy, and fat (28-58% energy).

Other references

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/caveman_cuisine.

https://westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/native_americans.html

Interesting topic. A couple of years ago a Dr. Leaf of Harvard Medical School made a statement that for those of us with angina fish oil could be deadly.
I wonder if this idea has been disproven or is it still valid ?

Scientists have shown that zero percent of cave men ate food from factories and feed lots.

Of course, this is just one study, though an important one. It is also not a study based on any intervention, just an observational effort. But it does add to our understanding.

The World Health Organization changed impaired fasting glucose levels from 6.9 to 6.1 in 1999.  The curve used to illustrate the incidence of diagnosed type 2 diabetes indicates a steepening at this time.  If data would have been collected for all patients prior to 1999 and utilized as a retrospective for type 2 diabetes in the population, the incidence rate prior to 1999 would likely have been significantly higher.

Very true, Dr. Davis.  Wheat consumption is up since 1970.  The strange thing is, it was much higher in the 19th century...something like 225 pounds per capita.

historical wheat consumption

Maybe we were eating fewer total carbs then, or expending more energy, if in fact the recent increase in diabetes is wheat-related.

I think since so much wheat is eaten in products that are mixtures of wheat, sugar, and vegetable oil, there's no way to know what the culprit is.

Well the reason is that wheat is the most important factor for our lives.

Hi, Anon--

Yes, indeed. Human life was different for at least rural people.

Also, wheat has changed. This is a crucial, crucial point that explains much of this phenomenon, I believe.

It would be interesting to plot diabetes rates against various possible culprits (pointing out on the graph when diagnostic cutoff changed): wheat, all carbohydrates, size of sodas, computer ownership, average size of restaurant meals, bicycle ownership, hours spent commuting, population older than 65, exposure to Agent Orange, service in Gulf War, and some really silly things like hair length and popular nailpolish colors.

If only wheat consumption seemed correlated, this would be suggestive.

Wre there ads for All Bran bars and wheat links on this site?

Wheat is ingrained in us, beginning with bread as the "staff of life."

correlation does not equal causation.

I don't eat wheat, I suffer from all of the problems you describe and it's also related to my psoriasis.  Good hypothesis with all your measurements of post consumption measurement of blood sugars, but someone needs to do a mass study.

The graph on this post is also very educational:
http://www.gnolls.org/1086/the-lipid-hypothesis-has-officially-failed-part-1-of-many/

The concentrations of zinc, iron, copper and magnesium remained stable between 1845 and the mid 1960s, but since then have decreased significantly, which coincided with the introduction of semi-dwarf, high-yielding cultivars.
at the same time
wheat breeding may have contributed to increased prevalence of celiac disease. and other conditions.
Perhaps other readers are not aware that MAGNESIUM deficiency increases iron absorption so there is increasing danger of Iron Behaving Badly and resulting damage to mitochondrial function.

Hi, Ted--

Great find!

I wasn't aware of these data. Yet another way that increased yield comes at a price.

Dramatic changes in the slope of a curve are easy to see if you're looking for them, but you've displayed an arithmetic, not a logarmitic axis.  Your point would be better made if you could switch the axis and if we still see the association between the variables.

Gretchen - Well said.

I think many things in our modern environment play a role in tipping the scales toward diabetes - including disrupted circadian cycles and environmental toxins, such as fire retardants, plasticizers, and pesticides.  (I don't have time right now to find links from stuff I've read on this - but try Googling these things - the research is there.)  

Jenny Ruhl claimed a short time ago that while prediabetes has risen, actual diabetes has not.  She is a good resource and I would take her arguments on most things diabetes pretty seriously.  Check her blog if interested:  Diabetes Update.  

As a mother of a kid with celiac disease, and for other reasons, I am hardly pro-wheat or pro-gluten, but I'm not convinced grains have caused a rise in diabetes.  My daughter's gastroenterologist, however, has Type I diabetes and says that eliminating gluten has greatly improved her glucose control.

When I eyeball this figure, it looks like the change occurs around 1993-1996.

Helen has a point that under counting of who is "pre-diabetic" is quite possible skewing the data. The CDC changed it's diabetes diagnosis criteria; 1985 wasn't when they did that however.

CDC took their raw 1995 - 1997 data and in 1998 decided to only use fasting glucose, and not the old standard oral glucose tolerance test, as the CDC diabetes template. For all individuals  whose data was showing greater than ( or equal to) 126 mg/dl fasting glucose they were then counted as diabetic by the CDC.

This methodology caused CDC to say U.S.A. diabetics went from 8 million in 1995 to 10.3 million diabetics in 1997; a statistically massive 2 year jump of diabetics. And furthermore, the number of un-diagnosed diabetics was claimed to have gone down (in same period of time); they cut out a whole slew of "pre-diabetics", so to speak.

The other criteria CDC website shows from 1998 is, that when non-fasting glucose hits 200  mg/dl (or more) they are considered diabetic. The reproduced graph Doc posted shows an exponential climb upward right at the time CDC  began using it's altered criteria.

"Note that, from 1958 until 1985, the curve was climbing slowly. After 1985, the curve shifted sharply upward."

As I look at the presented graph, from 1986 to about 1991 the trend decelerated slightly, then resumed its prior long-term value, then accelerated in about 1997

However, I must admit that 1997 is "after 1985."

Other suspects that became prevalent in the food stream in the 1980s were high-fructose corn syrup and artificial trans-fatty acids, both of which are linked to hepatic insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome.

I think of all the intelligent, scientifically-reasoned arguments all lead back to the commonsensical notion "Don't eat junk." To start, anything with enriched (aka processed) flour, partially hydrogenated oils, or high fructose corn syrup qualifies as junk. Which isn't to say all disease eminates from just those three ingredients, but I believe completely eliminating those three ingredients would yield a large health benefit to most Americans.

It takes years for type 2 diabetes to develop. A shift in the rate at which people are diagnosed with it would be caused by something that happened some time before the shift.

1960 to 1970 is also the time frame that chemical fertilizer came into the mainstream. On the farm I was raised on, along with chemical fertilizers came mineral supplements for the hogs that were living on the fertilized barley. They "failed to prosper" on fertilized barley, where they did just fine on unfertilized barley. By the why, fertilized barley produced over twice the volume of grain, and I assume the same mineral absorption. You can blame the grain, but I believe it could be the fertilizer.

@  justdoinglife
You can blame the grain, but I believe it could be the fertilizer.
Does early-life exposure to organophosphate insecticides lead to prediabetes and obesity?
Slotkin TA.

The chart for the growth of the national debt looks the exact same. I wonder if there is a correlation between the advance of socialism and the cultural ascendancy of the Lipid hypothesis? I'd bet the ranch that the destruction of American health and the destruction of the American economy is not a coincidence.

Duke university 2008 study fed new born rats 0.1 mg/kg body weight of the organophosphate pesticide parathion, for 4 days. When the rats were adults and fed a high fat diet they noticed a different response among the sexes.

In the adult females the high fat diet resulted in a 30% higher weight gain ( vs. high fat fed males' 10% weight gain) over controls (according to respective sex) on the same diet. This type of pesticide exposure to young children may be part of how obesity is rising; the standard western fare is high in generic fat content.

For the parathion early exposed adult male rats fed on a normal diet (ie: not high fat) the results also seem troubling. They gained weight, glucose levels rose, fat break down was inhibited and they were pre-diabetic; as compared to male controls.

Counter-intuitively, another group of male new born rats fed parathion at 0.2 mg/kg body weight (4 days) when fed a normal diet as male adults actually weighed less than their male controls. Whereas, the female rats (fed normal diet in this case) who got both 0.1 & 0.2 mg/kg parathion (4 days) all weighed less than their female controls. Mothers, don't try this at home.

Another culprit:

SSRIs.  Prozac was first marketed in 1988.  (It was not the first, however - some came on the market slightly earlier that decade.)  SSRIs impair glucose tolerance and are associated with an increased risk of diabetes.  

I think there are some modern-day smoking guns more convincing that increased grain consumption for increased obesity, insulin resistance, and risk of diabetes.  Although they are a neolithic food some of us may not be exquisitely adapted for, they have been around for 5,000 years, while the obesity epidemic is quite recent.

Hi Helen,
In 1938 there was a U.S.A. National Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists ; since 1941 the word national was replaced by "American" (ie: now is the ACGIH). 1946 the ACGIH set maximum limits on 148 compounds; which in 1956 became their "Threshold Limit Value", (TLV).

TLV is not saying "x" level is always safe; just what is supposedly tolerable exposure for most "healthy" adults. ACGIH lays their TLV data out for industrial hygenists to use in their field, not for laymen's general use.

2-butoxy-ethanol TLV (as a gas or evaporating vapor) is set at 20 ppm. This chemical is the favorite solvent in household spray and wipe cleaning products.

It makes me wonder if the U.S.A. adult female house cleaner suffers metabolic syndrome at a higher rate than other individuals. If so then might not close decades of breathing 2-butoxyethanol droplets have had/has epigenetic synergy?

1971 O.S.H.A. took 470 TLVs from ACGIH data and now calls those TLV by the phrase "Permissible Exposure Limit" (PEL). Meanwhile, as of 2010 there are 642 TLVs set out by ACGIH.

The European Union has a registry of 143,000 chemicals in use (or used); and there are +/- 50,000,000 chemicals known to exist (as per Chemical Abstract Service Registry). The EPA has more details; for searching if you're curios: www.epa.gov/grtlakes/toxteam.
pbtrept/pbtreport.htm

2012 the European Union is set to report on chemical testing of all chemicals manufactured in excess of 1,000 tons annually. You'll see that as data reported from "REACH" (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical Substances).

If you want to track down what chemical is in a product then search out the manufacturers "MSDS" (material safety data sheet). Some claim "trade secret" ingredients and then you can only guess on what is involved.

I love the triglyceride posts as I have been working on mine for a number of months.  Was well over 1000.  On low carb, virtually no grains, tricor (200mg), and a healthy dose of fish oil I was still at 233.  I am wondering if it will take my body/metabolism some time to heal before I can get lower.  As you might imagine I am sporting an HDL below 25.  I am working it diligently, have lost a ton of weight and get healthier by the day.  I should be sending Dr Davis a stipend for my improvement!

Dr. Davis,
please kick out of your spam filter the post I just sent on the 12th saying "Hi Helen,". It had resources for her interest in modern chemicals.

To Helen,
If my 12th post doesn't show up soon (2 days?) and you request it on this thread I will try to recreate it here. Maybe you've moved on to newer threads; I don't usually monitor old threads, but I will this for a few days.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like this ascent is going to slow down anytime soon.  Even if people in recent years seem to be taking a more health-savvy approach to their eating habits, it wouldn't be surprisingly to see this trend continue regardless.

Western countries have also seen a rise in sugar consumption along with wheat consumption over the same time period.

Taubes has just published a piece
"Is Sugar Toxic" and winds his way through diseases of Western cultures from sugar causing metabolic syndrome to sugar be implicated in cancer formation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=magazine

No where was there any mention of wheat..I don't think we can isolate wheat as the primary culprit in Diseases of Civilization.  Wheat Plus Sugar, the double whammy.

Did you see the statins article in latest issue of BW? It is a MUST read!

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_04/b4068052092994.htm?chan=magazine+channel_top+stories

I'd make it akin to pregnancy: ya either are or ya aint... no grey areas.  
could be 9mos, could be 3mos but you're still pregnant.

Scan and Track yourself...You either have a positive CAC score, lucky dude (or dudette) it's zero. If it's positive then Obliterate that Plaque (S.T.O.P.) with TYP and DR. Davis!

And if you look 3mos pregnant (and you're male) there's a 100% chance you have plaque.
And if you're female... and NOT pregnant, ditto because central obesity typically indicates Insulin Resistance the strongest plaque builder out there. 70% of the world's population are pre-diabetic or have type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and it's growing everyday.

I can't tell you how many people have come to me and told me that a doctor told them statins were "magic" or a virtual "cure" for heart disease. Of course, they are not. They don't even come close.

Yes, statins do provide a role. In a $26 billion industry, perhaps 20% of that is truly necessary.

Well said.

Maybe I should post a piece called "Are you a pregnant male?"

A little off subject, but any comments on the latest report( I believe from the  Framingham study ) that says low vitamin D levels is a very definite cardiac risk factor ONLY in people with high blood pressure and not at all in anybody else?

As with any observational study in which no intervention (e.g., treatment with vitamin D) was made, various factors as predictors of death and heart attack emerge only when powerful effects are likely.

We see enormous effects from vit D replacement regardless of BP effects. Remember also that there is more to life and health than reduction of cardiovascular disease risk. Vit D also reduces risk of falls/fractures, osteoporosis, various cancers (esp. colon and prostate), reduces blood sugar, inflammatory responses, etc.

I know this is probably not the right place to post this message but I do not know where else to. I live in the UK and I have had 'Track Your Plaque' on order for the past two weeks with Play.com (similar to Amazon). I queried why my order is taking so long and they said that the book is printed on demand. Is this correct ? If so please can you tell me when you are next doing a printing because I really do need the book before the beginning of February when I will be seeing my cardiologist and asking him for a referral for an EBCT scan. I want to go to my appointment armed with 'Track Your Plaque' !

with kind regards,
Anne

Yes, this far out from its original printing, it is now printed only on demand.

Dear Dr Davis,

Have you any idea how long it takes to get a copy printed ? I have a bicuspid aortic valve with moderate stenosis and I think it would be a good idea for my cardiologist to refer me for a scan so that we can see why the stenosis is progressing if it is due to calcification of the valve - I don't see what else it could be - but he may take some convincing and I was hoping that if I had the book it would be helpful. If I don't get a referral it will be too expensive for me to pay for myself as an EBCT scan in the UK costs around £500 or $1000.

with best wishes,
Anne

Hi, Anne-
Unfortunately, a heart scan will not be very helpful for the question of aortic valve disease. Yes, it can quantify calcium on the valve, but this is not a factor in determining when replacement is necessary, nor does it help track progression, unlike in coronary arteries.

Be sure to take a look at vitamin D--this is crucial in aortic valve issues.

Dear Dr Davis,

Oh, I see :-( My cardiologist is doing yearly echocardiograms to determine when to replace the valve, but, from my limited knowledge, I had been thinking that if I knew the exact extent of any calcification on the valve and took all steps necessary to reverse the calcification then I could reverse the progression of the stenosis and never have to have a valve replacement. I have started to take 5000iu of D3 per day yes

with best wishes,
Anne

Hi Dr. Davis,

I have a friend whose wife has mitral valve prolapse.  Would Vitamin D3 supplementation be useful in treating this?

anne,

I bought 8 books -- and they arrived in < 1wk.  Once you read it, you'll want your best friends and family to get onboard too!   No point in being immortal... ALONE.
Also, if you're considering trackyourplaque.com membership, the TYP book is included!

g

Hi, WC--
No. Vit D will not have any specific effect on mitral valve prolapse. However, it's still worth taking for all the other benefits, however.

I received a zero score in a coronary artery calcium screening. However, the clinic mailed me a report that had some comments related to mild ectasia of the ascending aorta and subtle calcification involving the descending aorta.  Any thoughts?

Then it's likely that high blood pressure, vitamin D deficiency, and some other factors (see lipoproteins) are active issues.

Dr. Davis
Thank you for the response. I am fascinated by your blog and will follow up on your suggestions.

wccaguy,

Re mitral valve prolapse: Is magnesium a factor? Bit of an obscure ref but Mg is pretty non toxic by mouth...

Peter

Magnesium depletion seems common also in diabetes.  Could perhaps Mg depletion and it's negative consequences, including valve damage as per Peter's reference, be caused by the excessive carbohydrate consumption as the primary factor?

Stan (Heretic)

http://www.chiro.org/nutrition/magnesium.shtml#carbohydrate_metabolism

Yes, magnesium depletion can develop on high-carbohydrate diets, and it also aggravtes pre-diabetic tendencies.

However, while magnesium supplementation can reduce some of the consequences of mitral valve prolapse (such as abnormal heart rhythms), it does not actually protect the valve.

A bit confusing.

Dr. Davis wrote:  However, while magnesium supplementation can reduce some of the consequences of mitral valve prolapse (such as abnormal heart rhythms), it does not actually protect the valve.

Very interesting!  That would suggest that magnesium depletion may be a coincidental marker of something else that is the common cause of both heart damage and magnesium depletion. Much like in the serum cholesterol case, perhaps?

Dear Dr Davis,

You wrote: "Unfortunately, a heart scan will not be very helpful for the question of aortic valve disease. Yes, it can quantify calcium on the valve, but this is not a factor in determining when replacement is necessary, nor does it help track progression, unlike in coronary arteries."

I've just found this article which suggests that the stenosis associated with bicuspid aortic valve can be reversed, and likens the progression of the calcification on the valve to that in atherosclerosis in arterial walls: http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/42/4/593

Can you comment on this please because if it were true then the strategies employed in Track Your Plaque would work for valves too wouldn't they ?

with best wishes,
Anne

Anne--

The review you cite preceded publication of two studies that attempted to affect progression of aortic valve disease using high-dose Lipitor or Crestor. Lipitor had no effect; Crestor, 40 mg per day, did have a small effect.

Because the Track Your Plaque program does not track aortic valve disease, I cannot say whether or not it has any effects. However, it is probably small to none--with the exception of vitamin D. I have great hopes for vitamin D's effect on slowing or reversing aortic valve disease. We are accumulating an experience with vit D, but it's too preliminary to publish.

I saw my cardiologist today for my yearly echocardiogram. The pressure gradient across my bicuspid aortic valve has increased from 35mmHg to 38mmHg since last year which my cardiologist said was good....but he's going to refer me for an EBCT scan !  And because I have private health insurance I should be covered.....they don't do EBCT scans under the NHS here in the UK so I'm really lucky

all the best,
Anne

Dear Dr Davis,

I had the results of my scan today. There's no calcification in the coronary arteries But calcification showed up on the bicuspid aortic valve. My cardiologist said there's nothing I can do about that because of the turbulent blood flow, but I'm determined that I will be able to halt the calcification or reverse it and I will be watching your blog for anything you write about aortic valve disease, especially when you write about your work with vitamin D and aortic valves. I'm currently taking 4000iu D3.

with best wishes,
Anne

Coronary atherosclerosis is a diffuse process that involves much of the length of the artery. It is therefore folly to believe that a 15 mm long stent has addressed the disease. This is no more a solution than to replace the faucet in your kitchen in a house with rotting pipes from the basement up.