I ran into a cardiology colleague this weekend. He was aware of my interest in CT heart scanning and plaque reversal.

Out of the blue, he declared "I don't care about hard plaque! I only care about soft plaque." He then proceeded to describe to me how everyone--EVERYONE--needs a CT coronary angiogram to identify "soft plaque".

Is there any truth to this view? Are we only identifying "hard plaques" by focusing on calcium and calcium scores on simple CT heart scans?

Several issues deserve clarification. First of all, CT heart scans don't identify hard plaque. They identify total plaque. Because calcium is a component of the majority of atherosclerotic plaque, comprising approximately 20% of its volume, a calcium "score" can be used to indirectly quantify total plaque, both "hard" and "soft".

Anyone cardiologist who performs a lot of the procedure, intracoronary ultrasound, knows that most human plaque is also not purely soft or hard, it is mixture of both. (I've been performing this procedure since 1995.) Quantifying only soft or only hard plaque is therefore only possible in theory, not in practice.

I believe my colleague does have a valid point in one regard, however. There is indeed a small percentage of people, probably around 5% of all people who have CT heart scans, who have scores of zero yet have a modest quantity of pure "soft" plaque. These people may be misled by having a zero score. How can these people benefit from better information?

Several ways. First, people like this tend to have very high LDL cholesterols, generally 180 mg/dl or greater. They may have a very worrisome family history, e.g., father with heart attack in his 30s or 40s. This small proportion of people with zero heart scan scores may benefit from receiving X-ray dye with their heart scan, i.e., a CT coronary angiogram. Keep in mind that we're assuming everyone is without symptoms, also. If symptoms are part of the picture, everything changes.

But should everybody get a CT coronary angiogram? I don't believe so. A CT coronary angiogram involves far more radiation exposure, greater expense (usually $1800 to $4000), and, with present day technology, does not yield quantitative (measurable) information that is useful for longitudinal use for repeated scans. You don't want to undergo yearly CT coronary angiograms, for instance.

Stay tuned for more on this issue. In the meantime, I continue to try and inform my colleagues about what is right, what is wrong, what is preferable for patient safety and yields truly empowering information, and try to impress on them that the practice of cardiology is not just about enriching their retirement accounts.

Years back, I'd heard some people argue that wheat-based products were detrimental to health. At the time, I thought they were nuts. After all, wheat is the principal ingredient in a huge number of American staples like breakfast cereals and bread.

What changed my mind was the low-fat movement of the 1980s and 1990s. Proponents of low-fat diets claim that heart disease is caused by excess fat in the diet. A diet that is severely restricted in fat therefore might cure or reverse heart disease.

But low-fat diets evolve into high-carbohydrate diets. This nearly always means an over-reliance on wheat products. People will say to me "I had a healthy breakfast: shredded wheat cereal in skim milk and two slices of whole wheat toast." Yes, it is low-fat, but is it healthy?

Absolutely not. Followers of the Track Your Plaque program know that low-fat diets ignite the formation of small LDL particles (a VERY potent trigger of coronary plaque growth), drops HDL, raises triglycerides, causes resistance to insulin and thereby diabetes, raises blood pressure. They also make you fat, with preferential accumulation of abdominal visceral (intestinal lining) fat.

Look at people with gluten enteropathy, a marked intolerance to wheat products that results in violent bowel problems, arthritis, etc. if unrecognized. These people, if the diagnosis is made early, are strikingly slender and commonly unusually healthy otherwise. There's a message here.

If you need convincing, try an experiment. Eliminate--not reduce, but eliminate wheat products from your diet, whether or not the fancy label on the package says it's healthy, high in fiber, a "healthy low-fat snack", etc. This means no bread, pasta, crackers, cookies, breads, chips, breading on chicken, rolls, bagels, cakes, breakfast cereal...Whew!

You won't be hungry if you replace the lost calories with plentiful raw almonds, walnuts, pecans, sunflower and pumpkin seeds; more liberal use of healthy olive oil, canola oil and flaxseed oil; adding ground flaxseed and oat bran to yogurt, cottage cheese, etc.; and more lean proteins like lean beef, chicken, turkey, and fish.

I predict that, not only will you lose weight, sometimes dramatically, but you will feel better: more energy, more alertness, sleep better, less moody. Time and again, people who try this will tell me that the daytime grogginess they've suffered and lived with for years, and would treat with loads of caffeine, is suddenly gone. They cruise through their day with extra energy.

Success at this can yield great advantage for your heart scan score control and reversal efforts. It will give you greater control over small LDL and pre-diabetic patterns, in particular.

Perhaps it's too early to tell whether it's true, but believe that we're seeing coronary plaque reversal--i.e., reduction of CT heart scan score--that is BIGGER and FASTER than ever before. We are now witnessing 20-30% reductions in score, even in the first year.

Early in our experience, I was thrilled with a slowing of plaque growth. Recall that coronary plaque grows at the rate of 30% per year. We would often seen slowing to 10-15% per year in the first year, then a levelling off to little or no increase in the 2nd or 3rd year. Regression, or reduction of score, was less common.

Now, with some further tweaking of our program, we are seeing these large magnitudes of coronary plaque reversal routinely. Not in everybody, of course. There are exceptions that mostly includes people who are less motivated and occasional people with more difficult to control lipoprotein patterns.

I believe that part, or perhaps most, of our recent success is from normalizing blood levels of 25-OH-vitamin D3 levels to 50-70 ng/ml. I'm unable to tell you why this occurs, but I am convinced that it has added huge advantage. Raising blood vitamin D levels to normal carries enormous implication: reduction of colon and prostate cancer risk, reduction of blood pressure, sensitization to insulin, prevention of arthritis and multiple sclerosis, and--I believe--control over coronary plaque calcification and growth.

Watch for a profile of one of our latest success stories, a physician who was experiencing 20% per year plaque growth three years in a row until he followed the Track Your Plaque approach and promptly experienced an 18% reduction in heart scan score. You'll find it in our next newsletter. To subscribe, go to the www.cureality.com homepage and click on the free book download.

I sat next to a cardiology colleague of mine last evening at a dinner. He was lamenting the fact that, because of changes in hospital affiliations of his several-member cardiology group, he'd seen a drop in the volume of heart catheterizations he was performing.

"I'm used to doing 5 cases a day! Now I'm down to 3 or 4 a day." He went on to tell me how he's working to increase his volume. "I'm branching out into doing carotid stents and anything I can find in the legs." He also described how he was cultivating referring physicians to send him more procedural patients.

Now, this colleague, I believe, is a hard-working, conscientious physician. But his attitude reflects the perverse logic of many physicians: I need to do more procedures, not because it benefits patients, but because that's what I want to do--to be busy, make more money, acquire more experience, build my ego, etc.

Doing more procedures has nothing to do with an altruistic goal of doing more good for society. It is purely for selfish reasons. Beware of this shockingly common, pervasive attitude. There's a proper time and place for heart procedures, or any procedure, for that matter. But feeding your doctor's ambitions is not a good reason.

Such was the title of Dr. William Roberts' editorial back in 1987 discussing the health effects of fast foods.

If you need a graphic illustration of the extraordinarily damaging health effects of fast foods, take a look at trends in mainland China. A recent editorial in the American Journal of Cardiology written by Dr. Tsung Cheng of George Washington University makes several points:

--The popularity of fast food in China is booming, with Chinese now more likely than Americans to eat in a fast food restaurant. Each week, 41% of Chinese eat in a fast food restaurant at least once, compared to 35% in the U.S.

--Average total cholesterol levels have skyrocketed from 150 mg/dl in 1958 to 230 mg/dl in 2003.

--50% of Chinese with normal blood pressure in 1992 are now hypertensive.

--Hospitalization for heart disease rose from the 5th most common diagnosis to #1, now constituting nearly 50% of all hospital admissions.

McDonald's and KFC dominate the fast food landscape in China, but up and coming competitors are growing at exponential rates. A media conversation that will surely be reported in the near future is the boom in obesity and diabetes in China as these trends express themselves in weight gain, as it has in the U.S.

I hope you've all seen the entertaining but frightening documentary, Supersize Me chronicling the travails of 30-something Morgan Spurlock as he eats all his meals for one month at McDonald's restaurants in 20 cities. Though focusing on McDonald's, the movie is about a lot more than that. It paints a picture of how fast food as well as food manufacturers in general have changed--distorted--our eating habits.

If you haven't yet seen it, I would urge you to do so and watch it with the rest of the family. My kids (ages 8, 12, and 14) were shocked (and entertained) and they haven't set food in a fast food restaurant since.

Ted is a 74-year old physician, still conducting a busy practice. He came to me because of some vague fatigue and breathlessness. He also got himself a CT heart scan. His score: 1277.

When he came to my office, he clearly became breathless with just minimal effort. A stress test confirmed an area of much reduced blood flow to the front of his heart muscle. A heart catheterization identified a severe blockage of 95% in the left anterior descending artery and a stent was inserted. This resulted in relief of Ted's symptoms.

When Ted returned to the office after his discharge from the hospital, I advised him that some major changes in his prevention program were overdue. "After all, Ted, you were lucky this time. You were provided some warning. It doesn't always work that way." So I advised Ted to make a number of changes in his diet (he was following an old-fashioned, and quite self-destructive, low-fat diet), have lipoproteins assessed to identify hidden causes of coronary plaque, and take fish oil.

"Fish oil? I don't think so. That's pretty drastic!" he exclaimed. He felt that all the nutrition he needed was contained in the food he ate. Even after several lipoprotein abnormalities were uncovered like small LDL and excessive after-eating (post-prandial) patterns, he still resisted any changes. "I'm going to just wait and see how I feel. But I will take aspirin."

Such is the state of mind of the older physician: procedures are okay, low-fat diets prevent heart disease, and the Beatles are touring America. But fish oil? No way!

Unfortunately, Ted's attitude encapsulates the attitudes of many of my medical colleagues who don't share the excuse of age. They still practice the woefully outdated ways of physicians like Ted, clinging to notions of "balanced diets", nitroglycerin representing a rational treatment for coronary disease, and adequate rest being curative for heart conditions.

The world is changing. We're entering an exciting age of self-empowerment. The ridiculous notions of health practiced in the last half of the 20th century are withering and dying. Poor Ted. He must view the current healthcare landscape as increasingly incomprehensible to a guy who started out delivering babies at home. Perhaps, in some respects his world was better. But, in coronary disease prevention, attitudes like this need to go the way of steam engines and racial segregation--good riddens!

John received a coronary stent in 2003 following a small heart attack. The artery causing the heart attack was a diagonal artery, a branch of the important left anterior descending coronary artery (in the front of the heart). His cardiologist at the time advised him, "Take Lipitor and we'll do stress tests every year. Come back if you have any more chest pain." That was the full extent of John's preventive care.

He came to me for a second opinion and, naturally, we enrolled him in our program. We began by obtaining a CT heart scan score, though we had to exclude the stented diagonal artery. His score: 471. At age 51 and physically active, John had 7 additional abnormal lipoprotein patterns identified. We counseled John on better approaches to food choices, his weight target, fish oil, and correction of all lipoprotein patterns.

Two years later, John's repeat heart scan score: 511 . John was initially disappointed with the increase. But a closer look yielded something entirely different: the right coronary artery and circumflex (no stents) showed 20-30% reduction in their scores. The increase in total score was entirely due to substantial increase in score just outside the stent, in the left anterior descending artery. In other words, all of the increase in score was due to growth of a plaque at the mouth of the stent in the diagonal artery.

This is curious: profound regression of plaque with a big drop in score in the "un-instrumented" arteries, but tremendous growth of plaque and an increase in score in the "instrumented", or stented, artery, all in the same person's heart.

I don't know how controllable this specific situation in the left anterior descending and stented diagonal will be, and I'm unaware of any specific strategies to impact on this situation. The whole world of tissue growth within or around stents is littered with high hopes followed by failures. The drug-coated stents have been the only partial solution to this problem, though that's precisely the sort of stent John received.

Is there a message here? The message I take from this is that you and I should work like mad to keep from receiving a stent. Once they're implanted, we have less control over our coronary future. We can indeed regress ("reverse") coronary plaque. But we may not be able to regress the sort of tissue that grows in response to a stent implantation.

Imagine two people.

Tom is a 50-year old man. Tom's initial heart scan score is 500--a bad score that carries a 5% or more risk for heart attack per year.

Harry is also 50 years old. His heart scan score is 100--also a concerning score but not with the same dangers of Tom's much higher score.

Tom follows a powerful heart disease prevention program like the Track Your Plaque program. He achieves the 60:60:60 lipid targets; chooses healthy foods; takes fish oil; raises his blood vitamin D level to >50 ng/ml, etc. One year later, Tom's heart scan score is 400, a 20% reduction from his starting score.

Harry, on the other hand, doesn't understand the implications of his score. Neither does his doctor. He's casually provided a prescription for a cholesterol drug by his doctor but nothing else. One year later, Harry's heart scan score is 200, a doubling (100% increase) of the original score.

At this point, we're left with Tom having a score of 400, Harry with a score of 200. That is, Tom has twice the score, or 200 points higher, compared to Harry. Who's better off?

Tom is better off. Even though he has a significantly higher score, Tom's plaque is regressing. It is therefore quiescent with its components being extracted, inflammation subsiding, the artery is in a more relaxed state, etc.

Harry's plaque, in contrast, is active and growing: inflammatory cells are abundant and producing enzymes that degrade supportive tissue, excessive constrictive factors are constantly causing the artery to pinch partially closed, fatty materials are accumulating and triggering a cascade of abnormal responses.

This is therefore a peculiar situation in which a higher score is actually better than a lower score. It reflects the power of adhering to a preventive program. It also demonstrates how two scans are better than one because they show the rate of increase given a particular preventive approach.

Warren had a moderately high LDL cholesterol for years and took a statin drug sporadically over the past 7 years. Finally retired from a successful real estate investment business, he had a CT heart scan to assess his heart disease status.

Warren's score: 49. At age 59, this put him in the lowest 25%, with an estimated heart attack risk of 1% per year or less--a relatively low risk. At this heart scan score, the likelihood of an abnormal stress test was less than 3%, or a 97% likelihood of a normal stress test. Most would argue that a stress test would be unproductive, given its low probability of yielding useful information. In other words, there would be a 97% probability of normal blood flow through Warren's coronary plaque, and less than 3% likelihood that a stent or bypass surgery would be necessary.

Warren was also without symptoms. He hiked and biked without any chest discomfort or breathlessness. A prevention program like Track Your Plaque to gain control over future coronary plaque growth was all that was necessary and Warren had high hopes for a life free of heart attack and major heart procedures.

Then why did he go through a heart catheterization?

Warren did indeed undergo a heart catheterization on the advice of his cardiologist. When I met Warren for another opinion, it became immediately obvious that the heart catheterization was completely unnecessary. Then why was this invasive procedure done? There can only be a few reasons:

--The cardiologist didn't truly understand the meaning of the heart scan score. "We need to do a 'real' test."

--The cardiologist was terrified of malpractice risk for underdiagnosing or undertreating any condition, no matter how mild.

--The cardiologist wanted to make more money. Talking about heart disease prevention is a money-saving, not a money-making, approach.

Regardless of which of the three motivations was at work here, they're all inexcusable. A disservice was done to this man: he had an unnecessary procedure, incurred some risk of complication in the process, and gained nothing.

An ignorant or profit-seeking cardiologist is worse than the unscrupulous car mechanic who, when presented with an unknowing car repair customer, proceeds to replace the carburetor and rebuild the engine when a simple 5-minute adjustment would have taken care of the problem.

I estimate that no more than 10% of my colleagues follow such practices, but it's often hard to know who is in that 10%. Ask pointed questions: Why is the catheterization necessary? What is the likelihood of finding information useful to my health? What are the alternatives? (By the way, the emerging CT coronary angiograms can be a useful alternative in some situations like this.)

Track Your Plaque is your source for credible information. Be well armed.

Art undeniably had high blood pressure.

At age 53, he had all the “footprints” of high blood pressure that’d been present for at least several years: abnormal patterns by EKG, abnormally thick heart muscle, and an enlarged aorta by an echocardiogram. These sorts of changes require many years to develop. Art’s blood pressure was 140/85 sitting quietly in the office.

“That’s about what my primary care doc gets, too. Whenever it’s high, he takes it again after a few minutes and it always comes down.”

Art tried to persuade me that his blood pressure was high today only because of the traffic on the way into the office. When I dismissed this as a cause, he insisted that stress he’d been suffering because of his teenage son was the cause. “I just know I don’t have high blood pressure!”

Who’s right here? Well, Art is not here to defend himself. But one fact is crystal clear: you cannot develop complications of high blood pressure unless you truly have high blood pressure!

In other words, Art’s abnormal changes in heart structure (thickened heart muscle and enlarged aorta) are serious changes that develop only with years and years of sustained blood pressure at least as high as the one in the office. His blood pressure almost certainly ranged much higher at other times, particularly during stressful situations like waiting in the check-out line at the grocery store, watching a suspenseful TV show, petty irritations at his job, and on and on.

Blood pressure does not have to be high all the time to generate complications of high blood pressure. It can be sporadic, variable, even occasional. Clearly, sustained high blood pressure is the worst situation that creates adverse consequences more quickly. But blood pressure that wavers from low to high only some of the time can still, given sufficient time, cause the very same unwanted effects.

Control of blood pressure is crucial to your coronary plaque control program. Blood pressure may be boring: not as exotic, say, as lipoproteins, and not as fun as talking about nutritional supplements. But neglect blood pressure issues and you will not gain full control over coronary plaque growth—-your heart scan score will increase.

Watch for an upcoming Special Report on the Track Your Plaque Membership website, a full detailed discussion of how to recognize when blood pressure is an important issue, along with a full discussion of nutritional methods to reduce it, often sufficient to minimize or eliminate the need for medication.

Reprinted here is the unfailingly informative Vitamin D Newsletter from Dr. John Cannell. Although there's little here specifically about heart disease, there's so much great information about vitamin D that I thought most would still appreciate it.

The Vitamin D Newsletter

May, 2008

Yesterday's Washington Post article, Too-Good-To-Be-True Nutrient?, sums up the April 9th vitamin D symposium at UCSD in San Diego, which was nothing short of spectacular. Carole Baggerly outdid herself organizing it and explaining how she got involved. Make no mistake; Carole is both serious and energetic. She told about her efforts to introduce resolutions at upcoming meetings of various professional groups. Then she introduced the volunteers from the San Diego Black Nurses Association who made sure the conference went off without a hitch. Then Carole introduced the four speakers. The slides of each speaker are available at Grassroots Health.

Before I tell you the highlights of the conference, I'd like to tell you about another conference, this one in Germany, this May 17th and 18th. It is the Third International Symposium on Vitamin D Analogs in Cancer Prevention and Therapy. Readers know how I feel about giving analogs to vitamin D deficient patients instead of vitamin D but speakers include Michael Holick, Reinhold Veith, Bill Grant, Tai Chen, Heidi Cross, David Feldman, and Roger Bouillon, all of whom know the importance of the nutrient. Most of this conference is for scientists, not lay people. However, Michael Holick is the first speaker and if you have not heard his latest talk about vitamin D, it might be worth a trip to Germany.

The first San Diego speaker was Dr. William Grant. Since leaving NASA to begin a full-time career as a vitamin D researcher, Bill has published dozens of studies and has another dozen in the works. Using ecological studies (from Greek oikos, house + German -logie, study or studying your own house) of UVB irradiance and cancer, Bill reported that 15 cancers (colon, esophageal, gallbladder, gastric, pancreatic, rectal, small intestinal, bladder, kidney, prostate, breast, endometrial, ovarian, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) are associated with lower UVB light. He concluded that 257,000 cancer deaths in 2007 in the USA were accounted for by inadequate vitamin D levels. Of course the problem with ecological studies is that it easy to be vitamin D deficient in Miami, all you have to do is listen to your doctor's advice and stay out of the sun. Recently, a group from the Arizona Cancer Center found almost 80% of Arizonians had levels below 30 ng/ml. So much for sunny spots.

Jacobs ET, et al. Vitamin D insufficiency in southern Arizona. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):608-13.

The next speaker was Professor Cedric Garland. I found myself wondering how he did it. I became convinced that vitamin D prevents cancer five years ago. Cedric and his brother Frank and his colleague Ed Gorham knew it 30 years ago! I know what it is like to tell someone that vitamin D prevents cancer and see them think, "Here we go again, another miracle vitamin." I know what it is like to try and explain and watch people die unnecessarily. But I've only had that experience for five years. Cedric has dealt with that frustration for thirty years. Almost thirty years ago, Cedric and Frank Garland published evidence that vitamin D prevents cancer. In fact, it was Cedric's first publication. Thankfully, the paper was recently recognized as being so important that it was republished in 2006 by the International Journal of Epidemiology. You can read the entire paper for free by clicking on the second link below and then clicking on "free final text", courtesy of Oxford Journals.

Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol. 1980 Sep;9(3):227-31.

Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Apr;35(2):217-20.

Cedric began by showing the incidence of type-1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis by latitude. I had no idea that the latitudinal data was so strong for type 1 diabetes in children. This disease is almost nonexistent around the equator. Type-1 diabetes is but one of the three modern childhood epidemics caused by the sunlight-hating dermatologists, the other two, I think, are autism and asthma. Next he showed latitude and 25(OH)D levels, which reminded me to be suspicious of high levels, unless they use accurate methods of detecting 25(OH)D. Some methods used, even in this country, are over detecting vitamin D and telling patients their levels are above 50 ng/ml when they are, in reality, much lower. Cedric's data showed Thailand had mean levels of 70 ng/ml, which I doubt and suspect were due to inaccurate 25(OH)D tests. He then reviewed evidence of the 25(OH)D levels needed to prevent numerous cancers. The safest levels are somewhere above 50 ng/ml. Cedric spent most of his time presenting an entirely new theory of carcinogenesis, one dependent on vitamin D maintaining cellular junctions. I suspect this paper will also be reprinted in 20 years. The only disagreement I have is with his recommendation for cancer patients to start at fairly low doses. For reasons I recently explained, the risk benefit analysis indicates cancer patients should take 5,000 to 10,000 IU per day and they may have no time to lose. Why worry about the phantom of vitamin D toxicity if you may be dying of cancer? Just have your calcium checked along with frequent 25(OH)D levels. Get your levels up to 70-90 ng/ml if you have cancer.

Does vitamin D treat cancer?

The next speaker was Professor Bruce Hollis. He reviewed basic physiology of vitamin D and emphasized that the entire system is designed to deal with an excess not with an insufficiency of vitamin D. Numerous mechanisms are available in your body to prevent vitamin D toxicity but few are available to deal with insufficiency. Then he briefly mentioned one of the most important discoveries about vitamin D in the last few years, one where Professor Neil Binkley of the University of Wisconsin was senior author. (In the last four years, Professor Binkley has become a prolific vitamin D expert and I hope Carol Baggerly is able to get him to speak at some of the upcoming conferences she hopes to sponsor.) As I have pointed out before, Hollis and Binkley's crucial discovery was that the body doesn't start storing the parent compound, cholecalciferol, until 25(OH)D levels reach about 50 ng/ml. They showed, using basic steroid pharmacology, that 50 ng/ml should be considered the lower limit of adequate 25(OH)D levels.

Hollis BW, Wagner CL, Drezner MK, Binkley NC. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-4.

Bruce kept the audience enthralled with a review of all the disease states that indicate 25(OH)D levels need to be much higher than they are now, that is, the multiple biomarkers that suggest the lower limit of 25(OH)D levels should be above 40 ng/ml and closer to 50 ng/ml. Then Professor Hollis spoke of his ongoing study in pregnant women and how he got approval to use 4,000 IU of vitamin D per day back in 2003, quite an accomplishment. He also reviewed another one of his research projects, one that answered an age old question, why is breast milk a poor source of vitamin D? How were prehistoric infants supposed to get their vitamin D, by lying out in the sun where saber tooth tigers would eat them? No, they were hidden in caves and had to have another source or the human race would have died out long ago because rickets destroys a woman's and infant's chance to live through childbirth due to rachitic deformations of the mother's pelvis. Carol Wagner and Bruce Hollis, together with their colleagues, answered that age old question, human breast milk is a poor vitamin D source because virtually all modern mothers are vitamin D deficient. That is, when pregnant women keep their levels where we think prehistoric human levels were, about 50 ng/ml, breast milk becomes a rich source of vitamin D. First Carol and Bruce gave 2,000 IU per day, then 4,000 IU per day and finally 6400 IU of D3 per day to lactating women. Only at 6400 of D3/day did the women maintain both their own 25(OH)D levels and the levels of their breast feeding babies above 50 ng/ml. On 6400 IU/day, the vitamin D activity of the breast milk went from about 80 to 800 IU/L. Quite a discovery, and another reason for all of us to keep our levels above 50 ng/ml.

Wagner CL, Hulsey TC, Fanning D, Ebeling M, Hollis BW. High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation in a cohort of breastfeeding mothers and their infants: a 6-month follow-up pilot study. Breastfeed Med. 2006 Summer;1(2):59-70.

Professor Robert Heaney went last, discussing 74 slides. So much of what we know about vitamin D today is due to Robert's unceasing dedication to vitamin D, the most recent example being his and Joanne Lappe's randomized controlled trial showing that increasing baseline levels from 29 to 38 ng/ml reduced the risk of getting cancer by around 70%. He again pointed out that the body does not begin to consistently store much vitamin D until your levels get to around 50 ng/ml. He also went through multiple biomarkers of vitamin D. That is, what level or intakes do you have to have to reduce the incidence of multiple diseases? He covered calcium absorption, osteoporosis, risk of falling, muscle function, death and disability of the aged, TB, influenza, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and gum disease. How can one vitamin be involved in so many diseases? Simple said Dr. Heaney, "vitamin D is the key that unlocks the DNA library." He then reviewed toxicity and concluded there is no evidence that it occurs at levels below 200 ng/ml or with intakes (total) below 30,000 IU per day. Of course, we have no reason to think anyone needs 30,000 IU per day or levels of 200 ng/ml, which would be irresponsible. But someone with a serious cancer should consider getting their level up to 70-90 ng/ml and that may take 10,000 IU per day or even more in some people. As a rule of thumb, 1,000 IU will raise 25(OH)D levels by about 10 ng/ml.

Then Professor Heaney addressed a public health question. How much would we have to give all Americans to get 98% of people above 32 ng/ml without causing toxicity in anybody? The answer: 2,000 IU per day. Of course 32 ng/ml is not adequate but it would be a great first step. Furthermore, of the people left out, a high percentage would be African Americans. In fact, Dr. Talwar recently reported that 40% of African American women fail to achieve a level of 30 ng/ml even after taking 2,000 IU/day for a year.

Talwar SA, Aloia JF, Pollack S, Yeh JK. Dose response to vitamin D supplementation among postmenopausal African American women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Dec;86(6):1657-62.

He also discussed his recent study giving healthy adults 100,000 IU as a single dose. If you start with a baseline level of 28 ng/ml and take 100,000 IU as a single dose, mean levels will remain above 32 ng/ml for two months. If you rely on such stoss doses, but you start with a lower level, or want your levels above 50 ng/ml, how often do you need to take 100,000 IU? We don't know the answer to the last question but we know that Grey et al gave 50,000 IU per week for four weeks then 50,000 per month for a year to 21 patients with hyperparathyroidism. Blood levels rose from a mean of 11 ng/ml at baseline to 30 ng/ml at one year and levels did not continue to rise after six months. Remember, that means half the patients had levels lower than 30 ng/ml at the end of the year. Also remember that the metabolic clearance (how quickly you use it up) might be higher in certain disease states.

Grey A, et al. Vitamin D repletion in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism and coexistent vitamin D insufficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Apr;90(4):2122-6.

That last point, metabolic clearance, is only one of a number of reasons that patients vary in their response to vitamin D. Remember, a surprising number of patients will tell their physician they are taking vitamin D when they are not, some will be taking preparations that have less in it than the label says, some will not absorb it, and some people weigh more than others. As Dr. Heaney points out, even if you know patients took 100,000 IU, great variably exists in individual response. At the end of two months some will have shown a minimal response and other much more. This is a field where little is known. Do different disease states use up vitamin D quickly? The answer is probably yes. Furthermore, variability also exists in how one metabolizes and catabolizes (breaks down) vitamin D. Also, what is the interactive effect of drugs that use the same liver enzymes for catabolism? We just don't know and that is why vitamin D blood testing is crucial. Remember, the only test to have is a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D. Do not let anyone get a 1,25-dihydroxy-vitamin D; it will not tell you if you are vitamin D deficient and is usually only indicated in evaluating high blood calcium.

As far as 25(OH)D levels go, many of you have written complaining about the high cost of a 25(OH)D levels at some labs. I've got some good news. For the next month, Life Extension Foundation is having a sale on their 25(OH)D blood tests, only $32.25, including the fee for drawing the blood. (No, we don't get funding from Life Extension, I wish we did.) Life Extension uses LabCorp, which, in turn, uses an accurate method to determine 25(OH)D levels, the DiaSorin Laiason method. The only problem is that DiaSorin, LabCorp, and Life Extension all say that 30 ng/ml is acceptable. It is not. Take enough vitamin D or get enough UVB radiation to get your levels above 50 ng/ml. To order the test, call Life Extension at 800 208-3444. Unfortunately, this offer is not available in New York, New Jersey or Rhode Island.

Also, Dr. James Dowd has written a fine book about vitamin D, The Vitamin D Cure. Get this, he is board certified in internal medicine, adult rheumatology, and pediatric rheumatology, an associate professor at Michigan State University, and runs his own Arthritis Institute and the Michigan Arthritis Research Center. He gives a formula for how much vitamin D you need but stresses the importance of testing to know for sure. He uses the formula of 2000 IU for every 100 pounds of body weight, which is as accurate an estimation as one can make without knowing baseline levels. Of course it depends on so many things, as Dr. Dowd points out, such as percentage body fat, latitude, skin type, sun exposure and age. He gives case after case examples of how vitamin D not just prevents disease, but seems to have a treatment effect. He also stresses three other things I've written about before, acid base balance, magnesium and potassium. If you can't get eat enough fruits and green leafy vegetables to obtain your potassium and magnesium and to get rid of low-grade chronic metabolic acidosis, then you should consider magnesium supplements and potassium bicarbonate supplements.

With these four experts and with this month's vitamin D news articles about breast cancer, brain function, artery blockage in the legs, soft skulls in babies, peripheral neuropathy in diabetics, childhood type-1 diabetes, colon cancer, and stress fractures and with the increasing number of scientists around the world jumping on the vitamin D express, why doesn't the government do something? What will it take? Like Carole says it will take a grassroots effort.

The first thing to do is tell your family and friends about vitamin D. Tell your doctor. Get your family's 25(OH)D tested, including your children. Once people begin to see it works, they will get their family and friends to take it. They will feel better and then the word will spread. All the government can do is make vitamin D illegal or limit the amount in each pill. The first is unlikely but not the second. With 5,000 IU capsules widely available, many people give no thought to taking one a day. But if the government limits the sale of anything over 400 IU and people had to take 12 of the 400 IU tablets, instead of one of the 5,000 IU, they might balk at so many pills. Before our officials in Washington take such a step, let's hope they read the Washington Post.

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. This newsletter is not copyrighted. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. We are a nonprofit tax-exempt educational organization and depend on your donations.

The Vitamin D Council
9100 San Gregorio road
Atascadero, CA 93422

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

The letter points out how critical adequate Vitamin D intake is when pregnant or lactating.

To add to that point: an unfortunately large number of women experience pre-eclampsia during pregnancy, which often is fatal without aggressive and rapid medical intervention. In Sept 2007, a study reported that women will low level of Vitamin D increased their likelihood of pre-eclampsia by FIVE-FOLD.

Also, perinatal cardio myopathy occurs with 1 in 3000 women in the USA, and the rate is hire for black women. It would not be surprising if it turns out this is linked to Vitamin D also.

With the massive amount of info and research supporting the importance of vitamin D, it seems that the failure to prescribe adequate amounts of vitamin D intake is nearly criminal.

Anonymous
5/2/2008 4:18:00 AM |

I was wondering if there is benefit to taking Vitamin D if ones level is in the normal range?

I don't care about hard plaque!

Try an experiment in a wheat-free diet

Bigger, faster plaque reversal

I need to do more procedures!

Fast food and quick plaques

But fish oil is too drastic!

A curious case of coronary plaque regression and progression

When is a heart scan score of 400 better than 200?

Warning: Your cardiologist may be dangerous to your health!

I don’t have high blood pressure!

Vitamin D Newsletter reprinted

Comments (2) -

Anonymous

Anonymous

Add comment

Related posts

Comments (2) -

Anonymous

Anonymous

Add comment