Track Your Plaque data abstract

10. April 2008 William Davis (7)
An extraordinary thing happened about 2 1/2 years ago.

While we have been following the Track Your Plaque program for coronary plaque regression for nearly 10 years, about 2 1/2 years ago we witnessed an extraordinary surge in success--bigger, faster, and more frequent drops in heart scan scores.

Up until then, we did witness significant reversal of coronary plaque by heart scan scores. We were planning to publish the data to validate this approach, but then . . .

Heart scan scores starting dropping not just 2%, or 8% . . . but 24%, 30%, 50% and more. Why? I attribute the surge in success to the addition of vitamin D.

Unfortunately, it also meant that the preceding 8 or so years of data lacked experience with supplementing vitamin D. The hundreds of participants in the Track Your Plaque program had not, until then, included vitamin D in their program.

So I decided to start from scratch (from the standpoint of data collection, not for the participants). That also meant that the preceding years of experience went unreported, though even that data far exceeded the results of what is achieved in conventional heart disease prevention.

Thus, the data I presented at the Experimental Biology Proceedings (FASEB 2008) in San Diego this week included only experiences in the group of participants that included vitamin D in their program, with data collected until mid-2007. The number of experiences is therefore modest.

However, the Track Your Plaque experience, as reported, far exceeds any prior experience in coronary plaque regression.

The full abstract will be published in the Track Your Plaque website.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD
Tags :

Comments (7) -

  • vin

    4/10/2008 3:45:00 PM |

    Could vitamin D be the magic bullet that cures heart disease? Not such good news for drug companies but good for everyone else.

  • King

    4/11/2008 3:42:00 AM |

    Are the >= & <= symbols correct in the data article?  (target fasting lipid values of: LDL cholesterol >= 60 mg/dl, HDL <= 60 mg/dl and triglycerides of >= 60 mg/dl and a serum level of 25-OH-vitamin D3 of <= 50 ng/ml)  Are they reversed from previous discussions or am I mis-reading them?

  • Dr. William Davis

    4/11/2008 11:54:00 AM |

    King--

    Thanks for catching that. The symobols are all indeed reversed. The abstract, curiously, was not submitted that way.

  • Bob

    4/11/2008 2:31:00 PM |

    I also noticed that Susie Rockway also did the following study:

    Short-term Changes in Lipoprotein Subclasses and C-reactive Protein Levels with the Low Carbohydrate and Low-Fat Diets
    Christy C Tangney, Colene Renee Stoernell and Susie W Rockway

    If I understood correctly, a low-carb diet appeared to be beneficial in reducing small LDL.

  • Anonymous

    4/12/2008 1:14:00 AM |

    Dr. Davis I know you answer very few of the comments anymore but I was just wondering if Dr. Agatston ha seen your findings and why is he still saying to this day that there is no such thing as calcium score reversal ?

  • Dr. William Davis

    4/12/2008 2:43:00 AM |

    You're right!

    Our full findings in the same group of people is due to be published in a journal this summer. I will forward it to Dr. Agatston.

  • Anne

    4/12/2008 12:31:00 PM |

    Dear Dr Davis

    I would love to read the full abstract of this. I bought the 'Track your Plaque' book just two months ago and had a heart scan which revealed that I did not have any coronary vascular calcification. I'm pleased I have the 'Track your Plaque' book as I feel that preventative medicine is important, and as much knowledge that we can have as possible is a good thing, but it would seem that this book is now out of date as there's very little in it on vitamin D....in fact it isn't even in the index ! Still, I do not feel I can justify the additional expense of becoming a Track Your Plaque member just to read the full abstract and I can't see any other reason for me joining. Will you be publishing this abstract anywhere else ? Or will you at least write more about the importance of vitamin D on your blog sometime ? I entered how much I took in your survey !

    with kind regards,
    Anne

Add comment

Loading
What is abnormal?

What is abnormal?

27. February 2008 William Davis (1)
What is abnormal?

You'd think that the answer would be easy and straightforward.

However, consider these instances of medical findings that I have witnessed fall repeatedly into the "normal" category:

Diameter of the thoracic aorta: 4.5 cm

Mild coronary plaque by heart catheterization

Carotid plaque of 30-50%


Why isn't a thoracic aorta (the big artery in your chest) of 4.5 cm normal? Because it can be expected to increase in diameter by about 2.5 mm (0.25 cm) per year. Even at its current diameter, it means that stroke risk is greater, since enlarged aortas are diseased aortas that commonly accumulate atherosclerotic plaque with potential to fragment and shower debris to the brain. It means that high blood pressure and/or cholesterol/lipoprotein abnormalities have been uncorrected for years that have allowed the aorta to enlarge.

How about "mild coronary plaque"? Followers of the Track Your Plaque program already know the answer to this one. Mild plaque does not mean mild risk. In fact, most plaques that cause heart attack are mild plaques, not severe blockages. While severe blockages can provide symptom warning and are detected by stress tests, it's the mild blockages that rupture without symptom warning and cause heart attack. So "mild coronary plaque" is no less dangerous than severe coronary plaque.

Likewise, carotid plaque of 30-50%, while it doesn't justify surgery, can grow within just a few years to a severity that allows it to fragment and shower debris to the brain, i.e., a stroke. As with the enlarged aorta, it means that multiple causes of carotid plaque are likely active, including high blood pressure and cholesterol or lipoprotein abnormalities.

Then why would any of these findings be labeled "normal"?

Simple. In the minds of many physicians, if a condition doesn't pose immediate risk, or if it doesn't qualify for surgical "correction," then it is labeled "normal" or "mild."

Thus, an aorta of 4.5 cm cannot justify surgical replacement until it achieves a diameter of 5.5 cm. It is therefore labeled "normal."

"Mild coronary plaque" does not justify insertion of stents or performance of bypass surgery. It must therefore be "normal."

Carotid plaque over 70% is surgically removed, but not 30-50%. 30-50% is therefore "normal."

The tragedy is that many "normal" or "mild" findings, if cast in the proper light, could lead to corrective strategies that could prevent danger long-term or keep surgery from becoming necessary.

The enlarged aorta, for instance, could be stopped and an aneurysm (defined as 5.5 cm or greater) could be prevented, along with dramatically reducing risk for stroke. Carotid plaque, more so than coronary plaque, is a controllable and manipulable condition that should trigger a program of prevention and reversal. Instead, it usually generates advice to have another ultrasound in a year to see if it has yet achieved severity sufficient to justify surgery.

Of course, "mild coronary plaque" is the reason for the Track Your Plaque approach, a chance to seize control over this disease years or decades before procedures are necessary and reduce danger now, not years from now.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD
Tags :

Comments (1) -

  • Zute

    2/27/2008 7:19:00 PM |

    Very interesting.  I wish my brother had been more in tune with his health.  He died of a dissection of his aorta, probably caused by untreated high blood pressure.  It was the same death John Ritter had they were almost exactly the same age.

    So sad since it was an utterly preventable thing.

Add comment

Loading