You've heard of "beer bellies," the protuberant, sagging abdomen of someone who drinks excessive quantities of beer.

How about "wheat belly"?

That's the same protuberant, sagging abdomen that develops when you overindulge in processed wheat products like pretzels, crackers, breads, waffles, pancakes, breakfast cereals and pasta.

(By the way, this image, borrowed from the wonderful people at Wikipedia, is that of a teenager, who supplied a photo of himself.)

It represents the excessive visceral fat that laces the intestines and triggers a drop in HDL, rise in triglycerides, inflames small LDL particles, C-reactive protein, raises blood sugar, raises blood pressure, creates poor insulin responsiveness, etc.

How common is it? Just look around you and you'll quickly recognize it in dozens or hundreds of people in the next few minutes. It's everywhere.

Wheat bellies are created and propagated by the sea of mis-information that is delivered to your door every day by food manufacturers. It's the same campaign of mis-information that caused the wife of a patient of mine who was in the hospital (one of my rare hospitalizations) to balk in disbelief when I told her that her husband's 18 lb weight gain over the past 6 months was due to the Shredded Wheat Cereal for breakfast, turkey sandwiches for lunch, and whole wheat pasta for dinner.

"But that's what they told us to eat after Dan left the hospital after his last stent!"

Dan, at 260 lbs with a typical wheat belly, had small LDL, low HDL, high triglycerides, etc.

I hold the food companies responsible for this state of affairs, selling foods that are clearly causing enormous weight gain nationwide. Unfortunately, the idiocy that emits from Nabisco, Kraft, and Post (AKA Philip Morris); General Mills; Kelloggs; and their kind is aided and abetted by organizations like the American Heart Association, with the AHA stamp of approval on Cocoa Puffs, Cookie Crisp Cereal, and Berry Kix; and the American Diabetes Association, whose number one corporate sponsor is Cadbury Schweppes, the biggest soft drink and candy manufacturer in the world.

As I've said many times before, if you don't believe it, try this experiment: Eliminate all forms of wheat for a 4 week period--no breakfast cereals, no breads of any sort, no pasta, no crackers, no pretzels, etc. Instead, increase your vegetables, healthy oils, lean proteins (raw nuts, seeds, lean red meats, chicken, fish, turkey, eggs, Egg Beaters, low-fat yogurt and cottage cheese), fruits. Of course, avoid fruit drinks, candy, and other garbage foods, even if they're wheat-free.

Most people will report that a cloud has been lifted from their brains. Thinking is clearer, you have more energy, you don't poop out in the afternoon, you sleep more deeply, some rashes disappear. You will also notice that hunger ratchets down substantially. Most people lose the insatiable hunger pangs that occur 2-3 hours after a wheat-containing meal. Instead, hunger is a soft signal that gently prods you that it's time to consider eating again.

You will also make considerable gains towards gaining control over your risk for heart disease and your heart scan score, a crucial step in the Track Your Plaque program.

As part of our ongoing effort to educate everyone about the value of heart scans and how they can serve to start a program of heart disease prevention (or elimination), we occasionally distribute press releases on one facet of this discussion or another.

Here's the one we released on our Cost Calculator, the one we developed that showed that $20 billion would be saved annually just by applying the program to men, ages 40-59.

Accurate Detection and Prevention of Heart Disease Can Reduce Healthcare Costs, According to New Cost Analysis

A new cost analysis developed by cardiologist Dr. William Davis and his colleagues suggests that healthcare costs can be reduced by billions of dollars with the application of a simple program for heart disease detection and prevention.

Milwaukee, WI (PRWEB) July 23, 2007 -- Billions of dollars in healthcare could be saved every year by applying a simple program of heart disease detection and prevention on a wide scale in the U.S., suggests a new cost analysis developed by cardiologist Dr. William Davis and colleagues. Davis and his colleagues are the developers of the Track Your Plaque program for heart disease detection and prevention.

In the next 24 hours, 10,000 major heart procedures will be performed in hospitals across the U.S. The tab for this bill will top $400 billion in 2007 alone, nearly twice the sum spent on the war on cancer.

As costs escalate at an alarming rate, tools for prevention of disease are also advancing. While drugs like Lipitor® make headlines and dominate direct-to-consumer TV ads, a quiet revolution is taking place among physicians and the public eager to find better answers, some of which also pose opportunities for stretching the healthcare dollar.

“We’re essentially throwing away billions of dollars each and every year by ignoring the savings power of preventive strategies for heart disease,” proclaims Davis, a Milwaukee cardiologist. Davis is author of several books on heart disease detection and prevention, has been a vocal advocate for preventive strategies and is founder of www.cureality.com.

Davis and his colleagues developed a cost model to predict how much money could be saved by the adoption of new preventive strategies on a broad scale in the U.S. “The cost savings are startling. If males in the 40–59-year-old age group, for instance, were to undergo a simple CT heart scan for early detection of coronary heart disease, followed by a purposeful yet focused program of prevention using widely available tools, our cost model shows that we would save the American public over $20 billion annually. Extending this calculation to the broader population would multiply savings several-fold.”

Heart care is already the single largest healthcare category in the U.S. As costs go up by double-digit percentages, fewer people can afford healthcare. Those who can afford it spend an increasingly greater portion of their disposable income to maintain it. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality predicts that, at the current rate of growth, healthcare costs will balloon to absorb 20 percent of American Gross Domestic Product (GDP), about $4 trillion, in the next 10 years.

Davis points out that reducing the annual U.S. expenditure for heart disease by 20 to 30 percent could save between $80 and $120 billion each year. That marginal savings exceeds the sum the U.S. spends on the domestic war on terror.

Davis and his group have dubbed the conventional procedure-based approach to heart disease management the “crash and repair model” because of its focus on urgent procedural intervention that takes place in hospitals.

The crash and repair model is costly. According to the American Heart Association, a heart catheterization (performed 3,553 times per day, seven days a week) costs an average of $24,893; a coronary bypass operation (performed 1,170 times every day, seven days a week) costs an average of $67,823 (hospital costs, 2004, the latest year for which data are available). These figures don’t incorporate long-term costs incurred in the years following the procedure or time lost from work.

The relatively high payment to physicians and hospitals for performing high-tech heart procedures provides a disincentive to redirect patients to a less costly prevention model. The exceptional costs of high-tech, high-ticket heart procedures would become increasingly unnecessary if better heart disease preventive practices were delivered on a broad scale. “Like seatbelts, preventive measures for heart disease are more cost effective and extract a far lower toll in human suffering than the ‘crash and repair’ approach. Our cost calculations bear out the enormous savings possible. In fact, all of the tools necessary to deliver a method of early heart disease detection and prevention are already available throughout the U.S. We’ve just got to encourage physicians and the public to take advantage of them.”

The cost calculator program can be found at http://cureality.com/library/fl_hh005bankrupt.asp on the cureality.com Web site.

Track Your Plaque is an informational and educational Web site devoted to showing people how CT heart scans can be used as a starting point for a program of heart disease prevention and reversal.

A frequent question in the Track Your Plaque program is whether taking calcium supplements to reduce risk for osteoporosis adds to calcium in arteries and raises CT heart scan scores.

No, calcium supplementation does not add to coronary calcium. Thankfully, there is some wisdom to calcium metabolism. Calcium deposition or resorption is under independent local control in bone, as it is in the artery wall. Taking calcium has no effect on calcium deposition in your coronary arteries.

However, there's a lot more to it. Taking calcium has only a modest effect on bone health. Most women can only hope to slow or stop calcium loss from bone by taking calcium supplements. Calcium supplements do not increase bone calcium. The reason why calcium supplementation works at all is, when calcium is absorbed into the blood, it provides a feedback signal to the parathyroid gland to shut down parathyroid hormone production, the hormone responsible for extracting calcium from bone. But the calcium itself does not end up deposited in bone.

Likewise, calcium supplements have essentially no effect on the artery wall. But vitamin D controls calcium absorption and, curiously, appears to exert a dramatic effect on calcium depostion in coronary arteries. In fact, I would credit vitamin D as among the most important factors in regulating arterial health that I've encountered in a long time.

Thus, bone health and arterial health do indeed intersect via calcium, but not through calcium supplements. Instead, the control exerted by vitamin D connects the seemingly unconnected processes.

Vitamin K2 provides another unexpected juxtaposition of the two processes. Deficiency of K2, which is proving to be a lot more common than previously thought, permits an enzyme in bone to exert unrestrained calcium extraction. Deficiency of K2 in artery walls allow another enzyme to deposit calcium and grow plaque without restraint. Yet another intersection between bone health and coronary health that involves calcium, but as a passive participant.

Stay tuned for a comprehensive Track Your Plaque Special Report on these topics coming in the next couple of weeks. I'm very excited about the emerging appreciation of calcium as an active ingredient in plaque, not a dumb, passive marker as previously thought. Vitamins D3 and K2 are among the keys to this phenomenon.

Beware of the media reports now being issued that warn that "CT heart scans" pose a risk for cancer.

One report can be viewed at
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20070717/ct-heart-scan-radiation-cancer-risk.

This was triggered by a Columbia University study of risk for cancer based on the dose of radiation used in CT coronary angiograms. Theoretically, exposure to the radiation dose of CT coronary angiography can raise risk for cancer by 1 in 143 women if radiated in their 20s just from that single exposure.

If you've been following the Track Your Plaque discussion, as well as my diatribes in the Heart Scan Blog, you know that the media got it all wrong. The "heart scans" they are referring to are not the same as the heart scans that we discuss for the Track Your Plaque program.

A conventional heart scan (of the sort we refer to) exposes the recipient to 4 chest x-rays of radiation if an EBT device is used, around 8-10 chest x-rays of radiation if a 64-slice CT scanner is used. For the quality of information we obtain from these screening heart scans, we feel that it's an acceptable exposure.

The "heart scan" this study and subsequent reports refer to is not truly a screening heart scan, but a CT coronary angiogram, or CTA. CTAs are performed on the same CT or EBT devices, but involve far more radiation. CTA exposes the recipient to about 100 chest x-rays of radiation on a 64-slice device (more or less, depending on the way it is performed.) Just a couple of years ago, some centers were performing CTA on 16-slice devices, a practice I and the Track Your Plaque program vocally opposed, since up to 400 chest-rays of radiation were required! I even called a number of centers advising them that they were putting the public in jeopardy. CTAs also require injection of x-ray dye, just like any conventional angiogram.

CTA on 64-slice CT scanners require the same radiation exposure as a conventional heart catheterization, an issue glossed over in most conversations. In other words, the test that many of my colleageus so casually recommend poses a similar risk.

The message: the test I advocate for screening for coronary heart disease is a CT or EBT heart scan, not a CT coronary angiogram. CTA is a useful test and will get better and better as the engineers discover ways to reduce radiation exposure. But, in 2007, CTA is a diagnostic device, not a screening device. If you require an abdominal CT scan because your doctor suspects pancreatic cancer, or a CT scan of the brain because you might have a life-threatening aneurysm causing double-vision or seizures, it would be silly to not undergo the scan because of long-term and theoretical cancer risk.

But undergoing a CT coronary angiogram for screening purposes is ridiculous with present technology. I've said it before and I will say it--shout it--again:

CT coronary angiograms are not screening procedures; they are diagnostic procedures that should be taken seriously and do indeed pose measurable risk for cancer, a risk that is presently unacceptable for a screening test.

You wouldn't undergo a mammogram to screen for breast cancer if it exposed you to 100 chest x-rays of radiation, would you? Screening tests should be safe, reliable, accurate, and inexpensive. CT coronary angiography is none of these things. Genuine heart scans--the kind the Track Your Plaque program talks about and relies on--is all of those things.

A German study just reported in Circulation showed a graded response of EBT heart scan scores and proximity to traffic.

Living 50 meters (around 150 feet) from traffic increased the likelihood of a higher coronary calcium score by 63% compared to those living 200 meters (around 600 feet or two football fields) away from traffic.

A sample news story can be found at http://healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=606431.

The German investigators speculated that either the heightened exposure to exhaust fumes and/or the increased stress triggered by the constant noise might be the culprits behind the phenomenon.

I think the study is interesting in a number of ways from the Track Your Plaque viewpoint:

--Sometimes, there are factors that extend beyond lipoproteins, vitamin D restoration, optimism vs. pessimism, etc. that influence heart scan scoring. Are these factors powerful enough to overcome the adverse effects of traffic or other environmental effects? Can your proximity to traffic make or break your heart scan score-controlling efforts? This remains to be established.

--How much of a role does the stress issue play? Is this just a variation of the optimism vs. pessimism theme? I know when I'm in traffic in a car or on a bicycle, it often feels like I am at the mercy of hordes of people in a hurry, the soccer Moms on cell phones, applying makeup and eating, the hormonal teenager, the occasional drunk. Living in the midst of it must be demoralizing, a sense that you are lost in a sea of uncaring humanity stripped of individuality. When I look outside my den window right now, I see the lawn that I cut and water and the flowers and evergreen trees I've planted over the years. It provides a sense of life, belonging, and earth. What if instead I saw anonymous cars buzzing by, dozens of unfamiliar faces every minute, none of which plays any palpable role in my life?

--This simple observation will add to the healthy-consciousness and Green movements, since it is just one more piece of evidence that congestion and urbanization do indeed take their toll. In an obtuse way, I think this is one step closer to increasing disillusionment over the "over-processing" of human experience: processed foods, depersonalization and alienation in neighborhoods and homes, the dissolution of the American family.

Lastly, notice how the conversation about CT (in this case, EBT) heart scanning has seamlessly worked its way into conversation? Just ten years ago, a long-winded explanation would have been required in press reports on just what CT heart scanning was. Now, the information is presented and--well, we all know what heart scanning is, right?

A small study but one that comes at an important time. Good things will come from this one study. It will work its way into discussions about where to locate schools, how to situate homes in relation to heavy traffic, it will help "legitimize" this wonderful tool called heart scanning. How many medical tests beyond blood work can be easily performed in 4500 study participants?

I always like to take some simple observation and see how it fits into developing trends. Few studies or other human-generated experiences by themselves change the world. Instead, it happens in little incremental bits and pieces.

I remain continually amazed how difficult it can be to gain an understanding of what is true and what is not true. I am particularly worried about the messages provided by agencies that stand to make enormous gains by persuading us to believe their version of the "truth".

For a moment, let's strip away the charitable covers of some financially-motivated organizations and see what they really look like:

Hospitals: The dream of hospitals is to shift the proportion of patients towards those with the most profitable diseases in well-insured patients. Heart disease is among the best paying diseases. HOSPITALS WANT YOU TO HAVE HEART DISEASE.

Doctors: Many (though not all) want to deal with diseases that pay well. Implanting a stent can pay several thousand dollars. Putting in a defibrillator can likewise pay handsomely, even better than stents. DOCTORS WANT TO STEER YOU TOWARDS PROCEDURES THAT REIMBURSE GENEROUSLY. Talk is cheap and pays poorly. Heart scans? Useless, since they're cheap. CT angiography? Now we're talking! $1800 dollars is a lot more interesting than $200 or so for a simple heart scan. CT angiograms also lead to catheterization, stents, hospitalizations.

Drug manufacturers: The holy grail for drug manufacturers is a chronic condition that is present in large numbers of people. An antibiotic, for instance, is a drug manufacturers waste of time: Short courses of treatment in relatively few people. Cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs, drugs to modify personality or some aspect of behavior--these you take for years, decades, or a lifetime, and millions are persuaded they need them. DRUG COMPANIES WANT CHRONIC CONDITIONS (WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE DISEASES) IN PEOPLE WHO SURVIVE FOR A LONG TIME, NOT SICK PEOPLE.

Supplement manufacturers: What don't we need in the eyes of sellers of nutritional supplement? While a program like Track Your Plaque makes liberal use of supplements in a focused and, I believe, rational way, supplement sellers want you to take dozens or preparations of dubious value: milk thistle, hawthorne, ribose, hoodia, silymarin, hydroxycitric acid . . . Unlike the larger ambitions and bigger money of the pharmaceutical industry, the supplement industry is often driven by the momentary craze and the quick payoff. THE SUPPLEMENT INDUSTRY IS LOOKING FOR SUCKERS.

Food manufacturers: The holy grail for the food industry are foods that have high markups, are convenient (e.g., eaten right out of the box or package), and are purchased repeatedly. Even better, if a health claim can be added, it can ride the current wave of the public's health consciousness. Thus, Cocoa Puffs can be labeled "Heart Healthy". How about foods that have addictive potential and virtually ensure repeat sales? Eat some and you want more within 2-4 hours! As nutritionist Marion Nestle says, the mantra of the foods industry is "Eat More". It is my firm conviction that the epidemic of obesity in the U.S. is not due to laziness, video games, and computers. It is the fault of food manufacturers. FOOD MANUFACTURERS WANT US FAT AND HUNGRY AND WANT US TO STAY THAT WAY. What pays better, a 110 lb vegetarian woman who shops at the farmer's market and buys locally produced foods, or the 260 lb glutenous and always-hungry woman who fills her supermarket shopping cart with 15 cents worth of flour and sugar priced at $4.59 (cleverly disguised as a healthy breakfast cereal), instant mixes, convenient meals, energy bars, and chips?

Government agencies: User fees for the FDA paid by drug companies have caused the FDA to be beholden to drug company pressures. The USDA, charged with crafting the food pyramid, was created to support the farm industry and distributors of their products, not to disseminate public health. The food pyramid is the watered down end result of food industry lobbying and threats, not the scientific advice of nutritionists. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES SERVE INDUSTRY FIRST, THE PUBLIC SECOND.

Health websites: Read popular websites like WebMD for information and the conversation quickly steers towards drugs. "Natural treatments for cholesterol" talks about reducing saturated fat and then gushes about the wonders of statin drugs. Guess where 80% of WebMD's revenues come from? Yup, the drug industry. The same goes for many magazines, TV shows, and other media. MEDIA IS OFTEN THE TOOL OF BIG INDUSTRY.

I'm sounding like a conspiracy theorist. I don't believe that I am, but I am skeptical of the messages we often receive from the media, advertisements, news reports, websites, etc. It's left to you and me to use our judgment and decide what is truth and what is someone's version of a message crafted towards their hidden agenda.

I am hoping that the real truth will grow through a wiki-like phenomena driven and supervised by a collective knowledge that we all contribute towards. That will happen, most likely, on the internet. Just as Wikipedia overtook the revered Encylopedia Britannica in the blink of an eye at far less cost yet with greater depth and equivalent accuracy, so will it happen in health information. I'm uncertain of the eventual form this health-wiki will take, but it will shatter many smug and deeply-entrenched powers that at present continue to profit from mis-information.

Stress can booby-trap the best efforts at reducing your CT heart scan score.

But Amy, our newest Track Your Plaque record holder, defied the effects of an overwhelmingly life stress to drop her heart scan score from 117 to 43--an amazing 63% reduction.

Amy beat our previous record holder, Neal, who achieved a 51% reduction. Though Neal had dropped his score from 339 to 161, a drop of 178 and more than Amy's 74 point drop, on a percentage basis Amy holds the record.

I'm also especially gratified that a woman now holds our record. I'm uncertain why, but the ladies have been shy and the men remain the dominant and vocal participants in our program. Speak up, ladies!

Amy's complete story can be found in our latest Track Your Plaque Newsletter to be released later this week, as well as an upcoming feature on the www.cureality.com website. (We've got to toot our horn about successes like this!)

I got that kind of question today that tempts me to roll my eyes and say, "Not again!"

"If I want to reverse my heart scan score, should I do the Ornish diet?" You know, the one by Dr. Dean Ornish: Dr. Dean Ornish's Program for Reversal of Heart Disease.

I personally followed the Ornish program way back in the early 1990s. I reduced fat intake of all sorts to <10% of calories; eliminated all fish and meats, vegetable oils, and nuts; ate vegetables and fruits; and upped my reliance on whole grains. I used many of his recipes. I exercised by running 5 miles per day. (Far more than I do now!) I avoided sweets like candies and fruit juices.

What happened?

I gained 31 lbs, going from 155 to 186 lbs (I'm 5 ft 8 inches tall), my abdomen developed that loose, fleshy look, hanging over my beltline. My HDL plummeted to 28 mg/dl, triglycerides skyrocketed to 336 mg/dl, and I developed a severe small LDL pattern. I experienced a mental fogginess every afternoon. I felt tired and crabby much of the time. I sometimes struggled to suppress an irrational anger and frustration over the silliest things. I required huge amounts of coffee just to function day to day.

Hundreds of my patients suffered similar phenomena.

Few of us wear bell-bottomed jeans, tie-dyed t-shirts, or say "groovy". Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in is an "oldie", it's no longer cool to hold your index and middle fingers up in the "V" sign of peace. Even Ladybird Johnson has passed.

So should go the misadventures of the ultra low-fat diet, as articulated by Dr. Ornish. His day came and went. We learned from our mistakes. Now let's do something better.

Keep your eyes open for the New Track Your Plaque Diet.

If Mary's heart scan score increases from 2 to 4 in one year, it represents a 100% increase in score.

If Jane's heart scan score increases from 1002 to 1004 over the same period, it represents <1% increase, even though the true growth is the same: 2 points.

This quirk of arithmetic needs to be factored in whenever you and your doctor try to puzzle out the meaning of an increasing CT heart scan score. Lower numbers, particularly those <100, can grow at seemingly much faster rates if viewed by percent per year increase. If no effort is taken to stop the growth in your coronary plaque, then scores of 10, 20, 30, or the like can easily grow 50-100% per year.

In contrast, scores of 1000, 1500, and 2000 tend to grow at "slower" rates of 20% or so per year without corrective efforts, even though the absolute growth may be substantial. (Obviously, this bit of confusion can be best eliminated by reducing your heart scan score, but it doesn't always work out that way.)

If we were all adept at advanced math, we should probably rely on logarithmic measures of plaque increase, rather than percent increase. Or, you can just keep in mind that the rate of plaque growth must always be viewed in the context of the absolute score.

Marathon star Alberto Salazar was just released from the hospital following a heart attack and a heart catheterization that led to a stent. The MSNBC version of the report can be viewed at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19653682/.

At 48 years old and holder of several American records for marathon times, Salazar's story is eerily reminiscent of Jim Fixx, who died at age 52 after writing a bestselling book, The Complete Book of Running. Thankfully, Salazar's story has a happier ending.

Fixx died at a time when prevention of heart disease was quite primitive. Lipoprotein analysis was not broadly available to the public, CT heart scans had not yet been invented. Even statin drugs were just a gleam in the pharmaceutical industry's eye.

But not so with Salazar. This Cuban-born marathoner experienced his heart attack at at a time when enormously useful steps can be taken to 1) document the extent of disease with a CT heart scan (the presence of a stent just means that one artery can't be "scored"), and 2) identify the causes of his disease.

I suspect that the fact that yet another marathoner in the limelight will once again prompt the (likely non-sensical) conversation about long-distance running and the increased risk of heart disease. Unfortunately, I fear that the real cause will be left unidentfied and untreated: Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a).

It's almost certain that Fixx had Lp(a), given the fact that his dad had a heart attack at age 35. Running simply postponed the untreated inevitable.

I hope Mr. Salazar is surrounded by doctors who have his true interests in mind (not just procedural excitement) and ask the crucial question: Why?

The answer is almost certain to be Lp(a).

Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g

Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons

Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient

Ingredients: High Fructose Corn Syrup, Vinegar, Concentrated Tomato Juice (Water, Tomato Paste), Water, Modified Food Starch, Salt, Honey, Contains Less Than 2% of Molasses, Natural Flavor, Paprika, Spice, Mustard Flour, Guar Gum, Red 40.

A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient

Ingredients: Tomato puree (water, tomato paste), high fructose corn syrup, vinegar, salt, water dried onions, contains less than 2% of black pepper, modified food starch, citric acid, dried parsley, dried garlic, xanthan gum, caramel color, potassium sorbate and calcium disodium EDTA as preservatives, molasses, corn syrup, sugar, spices, tamarind, natural flavor

Another in a series of data extrapolations that attempt to predict long-term cancer risk from medical radiation exposure was published in the July 13, 2009 Archives of Internal Medicine, viewable here.

Over the years, I've fussed about the radiation dose used by some centers for CT heart scans. (Note: I'm talking about CT heart scans, not CT coronary angiograms, an entirely different test with different radiation exposure.) In the "old" days, when electron-beam devices (EBT) were the best on the block, the old single-slice CT scanners (the predecessor of the current 64-slice MDCT scanners) exposed patients to ungodly quantities of radiation, while the EBT devices required very small quantities (0.5 mSv or about the equivalent of 4 standard chest x-rays or one mammogram).

But CT technology has advanced considerably. While EBT has been phased out (although it was an exceptional technology, GE acquired the small California manufacturer, then promptly scrapped the operation; you can guess why), multi-detector CT (MDCT) technology has improved in speed, image quality, and radiation exposure.

While it has improved, radiation exposure still remains an issue. The authors of the study applied the scanning protocols used at three hospitals and those in several CT heart scan studies, then calculated radiation exposure. They found a more than ten-fold range of exposure, from 0.8 mSv to 10.5 mSv. (All scanners were MDCT, none EBT.)

That's precisely what I've been worrying about: In the rapid rush to develop new devices, radiation exposure has often been a neglected issue. While some scan centers do an excellent job and take steps to minimize exposure, others barely lift a finger and consequently expose their patients to unnecessary radiation.

However, it's not as bad as it sounds. For one, the study included 16-slice MDCT scanners, a scanner type that I warned people to not use because of radiation. On the current most popular 64-slice devices, much lower radiation exposure is possible, on the order of 0.8-1.2 mSv routinely--if the center takes the effort.

This study, while eye-opening, will achieve some good: CT heart scans are here to stay. But the day-to-day practice of heart scanning should be:

1) standardized
2) conducted with radiation exposure as low as possible, preferably <0.8 mSv

To read more about this issue, below I've reprinted a 2007 full Track Your Plaque Special Report, CT Heart Scans and Radiation: The Real Story.

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

“My personal opinion is that many patients today who are receiving multiple CT scans may well be getting at least comparable doses to subjects that have now developed malignancies from x-ray radiation received in the 1930s and '40s. And, similar to those days when the doses were unknown, the dose that patients receive today over a course of years of multiple CT scans is also completely unknown . . .

“I recommend that all healthcare providers become familiar with the concept that 1 in 1000 CT studies of the chest, abdomen, or pelvis may result in cancer.”

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

Is this just hype to generate headlines? Or is the truth buried in the enormous marketing clout of the medical device industry, among which the imaging device manufacturers reign supreme?

It’s been over 110 years since radiation was first used for medical imaging. Over those years, it has had its share of misadventures.

In the 1930s and 1940s, before the dangers of radiation were recognized, shoe shoppers had shoes fitted using an x-ray device of the foot to assess fit. High doses of radiation were used to shrink enlarged tonsils and extinguish overactive thyroid glands. Attitudes towards radiation were so lax that doctors commonly permitted themselves to be exposed without protection day after day, year after year, until an unexpected rise in blood cancers like leukemia was observed. As recently as the 1970s and 1980s, cancers like Hodgkins’ disease were treated with high doses of radiation, also leading to radiation-induced diseases decades later.

Not all radiation is bad. Radiation can also be used as a therapeutic tool and even today remains a useful and reasonably effective method to reduce the size, sometimes eliminate, certain types of cancer. Forty percent of people with cancer now receive some form of radiation as part of their treatment (Ron E 2003).

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

Estimates vary, but most experts estimate that medical imaging provides approximately 15% of total lifetime exposure. In other words, radiation exposure from medical imaging is simply a small portion of total exposure that develops over the years of life. Exposure can be much higher, however, in a specific individual who undergoes repeated radiation imaging or treatment of one sort or another.

For all of us, exposure to medical radiation is part of lifetime exposure from multiple sources, added to the radiation we receive from the world around us. Just by living on earth, we are exposed to radiation from space and naturally-occurring radioactive compounds, and receive somewhere around 3.0 mSv per year (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). (Doses for radiation exposure are commonly expressed in milliSieverts, mSv, a measure that reflects whole-body radiation exposure.) People living in high-altitude locales like Colorado get exposed to an additional 30–50% ambient radiation (1.0–1.5 mSv more per year).

Much of the information on radiation exposure comes from studies like the Life Span Study that, since 1961, has tracked 120,000 Japanese exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs dropped in 1945 (Preston DL et al 2003). Although regarded as a high-dose exposure study for obvious reasons, there are actually thousands of people in this study who were exposed to lesser quantities of radiation (because of distance from the bomb sites) who still display a “dose-response” increased risk for cancer many years later in life. Radiation exposures of as little as 5–20 mSv showed a slight increase in lifetime risk.

Occupational and excessive medical exposure to radiation also provides a “laboratory” to examine radiation risk. Miners exposed to radon gas; patients exposed to the imaging agent, Thorotrast, containing radioactive isotope thorium dioxide and used as an x-ray contrast agent in the 1930s and 1940s and possesses the curious property of lingering in the body for over 30 years after administration; radium injections administered between 1945 and 1955 to treat diseases like ankylosing spondylitis and tuberculosis, all provide researchers an opportunity to study the long-term effects of various types of radiation exposure over many years (Harrison JD et al 2003).

The excess exposure of workers and several hundred thousand nearby residents to the Mayak nuclear plant in Russia has also revealed a “dose-response” relationship, with increasing exposure leading to more cancers, including leukemia and solid cancers of the bone, liver, and lung (Shilnikova NS et al 2003). Nuclear waste released into the Techa river between 1948 and 1956 contaminated drinking water used by over 100,000 Russians. A plant explosion in 1957 also released an excess of radiation into the atmosphere, yielding exposure via inhalation. Some sources estimate that at least 272,000 people have been affected by radiation from the Mayak plant. This unfortunate situation has, however, yielded plenty of data on radiation exposure and its long-term effects.

It’s also been known for several decades that people who receive therapeutic radiation for treatment of cancer, even with the reduced doses now employed, are subject to increased risk of a second cancer consequent to the radiation treatment.

From experiences like this, radiation experts estimate that an exposure of 10 mSv increases a population’s risk for cancer by 1 in 1000 (Semelka RC et al 2007).

This question was recently thrust into the spotlight with publication of a study from Columbia University in New York suggesting that a 20-year old woman would be exposed to a lifetime risk of cancer as high as 1 in 143 consequent to the radiation received during a CT coronary angiogram. (Important note: This was estimated risk from a CT coronary angiogram, not a simple heart scan that we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program.) The risk at the low end of the spectrum would be in an 80-year old man (because of the shorter period of time to develop cancer), with a risk of 1 in 5017. If “gating” to the EKG is added (which many scan centers do indeed perform nowadays), risk for a 60-year old woman is estimated at 1 in 715; risk for a 60-year old male, 1 in 1911 (Einstein AJ et al 2007). This study generated some criticism, since it did not directly involve human subjects, but used “phantoms” or x-ray dummies to simulate x-ray exposure. Nonetheless, the point was made: CT coronary angiograms in current practice do indeed expose the patient to substantial quantities of radiation, sufficient to pose a lifetime risk of cancer.

The media frenzy

The NY Times ran an article called With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests in which they stated:

"According to a new study, the per-capita dose of ionizing radiation from clinical imaging exams in the United States increased almost 600 percent from 1980 to 2006. In the past, natural background radiation was the leading source of human exposure; that has been displaced by diagnostic imaging procedures, the authors said."

“This is an absolutely sentinel event, a wake-up call,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., principal investigator for the study, by the National Council on Radiation Protection. “Medical exposure now dwarfs that of all other sources.”

Radiation is a widely used imaging tool in medicine. Although CT scans of the brain, bones, chest, abdomen, and pelvis account for only 5% of all medical radiation procedures, they are responsible for nearly 50% of medical radiation used. It’s been known for years that increasing radiation exposure increases cancer risk over many years, but the boom of newer, faster devices that provide more detailed images has opened the floodgates to expanded use of CT scanners.

But before we join in the hysteria, let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

Head CT 1 – 2 mSv
Pelvis CT 3 – 4 mSv
Chest CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen/pelvis CT 8 – 11 mSv
Coronary CT angiography 5 – 12 mSv

Non-CT

Hand radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Chest radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Mammogram 0.3 – 0.6 mSv
Barium enema exam 3 – 6 mSv
Coronary angiogram 5 – 10 mSv
Sestamibi myocardial perfusion (per injection) 6 – 9 mSv
Thallium myocardial perfusion (per injection) 26 – 35 mSv

Source: Cynthia H. McCullough, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

A plain, everyday chest x-ray, providing less than 0.1 mSv exposure, provides about the same quantity of radiation exposure as flying in an airplane for four hours, or the same amount of radiation from exposure to our surroundings for 11–12 days. Similar exposure arises from dental x-rays.

If you have a heart scan on an EBT device, then your exposure is 0.5-0.6 mSv, roughly the same as a mammogram or several standard chest x-rays.

With a heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, exposure is ideally around 1.0-2.0 mSv, about the same as 2-3 mammograms, though dose can vary with this technology depending on how it is performed (gated to the EKG, device settings, etc.)

CT coronary angiography presents a different story. This is where radiation really escalates and puts the radiation exposure issue in the spotlight. As Dr. Cynthia McCullough's chart shows above, the radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms is 5-12 mSv, the equivalent of 100 or more chest x-rays or 20 mammograms. Now, that's a problem.

The exposure is about the same for a pelvic or abdominal CT. The problem is that some centers are using CT coronary angiograms as screening procedures and even advocating their use annually. This is where the alarm needs to be sounded. These tests, as wonderful as the information and image quality can be, are not screening tests. Just like a pelvic CT, they are diagnostic tests done for legitimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

It’s also worth giving second thought to any full body scan you might be considering. These screening studies include scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. These scans, performed for screening, expose the recipient to approximately 10 mSv of radiation (Radiological Society of North American, 2007). Debate continues on whether the radiation exposure is justified, given the generally asymptomatic people who generally undergo these tests.

Always be mindful of your radiation exposure, as the NY Times article rightly advises. However, don't be so frightened that you are kept from obtaining truly useful information from, for instance, a CT heart scan (not angiography) at a modest radiation cost.

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

Unfortunately, practicing physicians and those involved in providing CT scans are generally unconcerned with radiation exposure. The majority, in fact, are entirely unaware of the dose of radiation required for most CT scan studies and unaware of the cancer risk involved. It is therefore up to the individual to insist on a discussion of the type of scanner being used, the radiation dose delivered (at least in general terms), the necessity of the test, alternative methods to obtain the same diagnostic information, all in the context of lifetime radiation exposure.

Our concerns about radiation exposure all boil down to concern over lifetime risk for cancer, a disease that strikes approximately 20% of all Americans. Many factors contribute to cancer risk, including obesity, excessive saturated fat intake, low fiber intake, lack of vitamin D, repeated sunburns, excessive alcohol use, smoking, exposure to pesticides and other organochemicals, asbestos and other industrial exposures, electromagnetic wave exposure, and genetics. Radiation is just one source of risk, though to some degree a controllable one.

Some people, on hearing this somewhat disturbing discussion, refuse to ever have another medical test requiring radiation. That’s the wrong attitude. It makes no more sense than wearing lead shielding on your body 24 hours a day to reduce exposure from the atmosphere. Taken in the larger context of life, radiation exposure is just one item on a list of potentially harmful factors.

It is, however, worth some effort to minimize radiation exposure over your lifetime, particularly before age 60, and by submitting to high-dose testing only when truly necessary, or when the potential benefits outweigh the risks. Thus, with heart scans and CT coronary angiography, some thought to the potential benefits of knowing your score or the information gained from the CT angiogram need to be considered before undergoing the test. Often the practical difficulty, of course, is that your risk for heart disease simply cannot be known until after the test.

In our view, in the vast majority of instances a simple CT heart scan can serve the simple but crucial role of quantifying risk for heart attack and atherosclerotic plaque. CT heart scans yield this information with less than a tenth of the radiation exposure of a CT coronary angiogram. In people without symptoms and a normal stress test, there is rarely a need for CT coronary angiography with present day levels of radiation exposure. Perhaps as technology advances and the radiation required to generate images is reduced, then we should reconsider.

Early experiences are suggesting that the newest 256-slice scanners, now being developed but not yet available, will cut the dose exposure of 64-slice CT angiograms in half (from 27.8 mSv to 14.1 mSv in a recent Japanese study). The 256-slice scanners will allow scanning that is faster over a larger area in a given period of time.

Thankfully, the scanner manufacturers are increasingly sensitive to the radiation issue and have been working on methods to reduce radiation exposure. However, it still remains substantial.

References:
Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007 Jul 18;298(3):317–323.

Harrison JD, Muirhead CR. Quantitative comparisons of cancer induction in humans by internally deposited radionuclides and external radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 2003 Jan;79(1):1–13.

Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzyky M et al. Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. Circulation 2006;113:1305–1310.

Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard J, Saini S. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619–628.

Mayo JR, Aldrich J, Müller NL. Radiation exposure at chest CT: A statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2003; 228:15–21.

Mori S, Nishizawa K, Kondo C, Ohno M, Akahane K, Endo M. Effective doses in subjects undergoing computed tomography cardiac imaging with the 256-multislice CT scanner. Eur J Radiol 2007 Jul 10; [Epub ahead of print].

Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Ron E, Mabuchi K. Dose response and temporal patterns of radiation-associated solid cancer risks. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):43–46.

Ron E. Cancer risks from medical radiation. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):47–59.

Shilnikova NS, Preston DL, Ron E et al. Cancer mortality risk among workers at the Mayak nuclear complex. Radiation Res 2003 Jun;159(6):787–798.

Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, Huda W. Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007 May;25(5):900–9090.

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

A carefully-conducted study by a collaborative research group at University of California-Berkeley has finally closed the lid on the fuss over fructose vs. glucose and its purported adverse effects.

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation--3% increased intra-abdominal fat with glucose; 14.4% with fructose. (Intraabdominal fat is the variety that blocks insulin responses and causes diabetes and inflammation.)

2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol but double the increase for Apoprotein B (an index of the number of LDL particles, similar to NMR LDL particle number).

3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, compared to 13.3% with glucose.

4) While glucose (curiously) reduced the net postprandial (after-eating) triglyceride response (area under the curve, AUC), fructose increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.

The authors propose that fructose specifically increases liver VLDL production, the lipoprotein particle that yields abnormal after-eating particles, increased LDL, and provides building blocks to manufacture small LDL particles. The authors also persuasively propose that fructose metabolism, unlike glucose, is not inhibited (via feedback loop) by energy intake, i.e., it's as if you are always starving.

Add to this the data that show that fructose increases uric acid (that causes gout and may act as a coronary risk factor), induces leptin resistance, causes metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes), and increases appetite, and it is clear that fructose is yet another common food additive that, along with wheat, is likely a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic.

Fructose is concentrated, of course, in high-fructose corn syrup, comprising anywhere from 42-90% of total weight. Fructose also composes 50% of sucrose (table sugar). Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose).

Also, beware of low-fat or non-fat salad dressings (rich with high-fructose corn syrup), ketchup, beer, fruit drinks, fruit juices, all of which are rich sources of this exceptionally fattening, metabolism-bypassing, LDL cholesterol/small LDL/ApoB increasing compound. Ironically, this means that many low-fat foods meant to reduce cholesterol actually increase it when they contain fructose in any form.

When you hear or say "fructose," run the other way, regardless of what the Corn Refiners Association says.

Matt came to me because his doctor couldn't reduce his LDL cholesterol.

His doctor had prescribed Zocor (simvastatin), Lipitor, Crestor, even pravastatin, all of which resulted in incapacitating muscle aches and weakness within a week of starting. No surprise, Matt had a jaundiced view of statin drugs.

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

--72% of LDL was small LDL, a moderately severe pattern. (This means that small LDL comprised 112 mg/dl of the total 155 mg/dl LDL; large LDL comprised 43 mg/dl--small LDL was the problem.)

--HDL 42 mg/dl --Triglycerides 133 mg/dl

--No lipoprotein(a)

Beyond lipoproteins, Matt proved severely deficient in vitamin D with a starting level of 18 ng/ml.

Matt's doctor had advised that he avoid salt, as his blood pressure had been borderline high. His thyroid assessment disclosed a TSH of 3.89 mIU/ml with thyroid hormones free T3 and free T4 in the lower half of the normal range.

I therefore asked Matt to:

--Eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars to reduce small LDL
--Add iodine
--Supplement 6000 units of an oil-based vitamin D preparation
--Take fish oil to provide at least 1800 mg EPA + DHA per day
--Take Armour Thyroid 1 grain per day

Several months later on this program, Matt had a repeat basic lipid panel:

--LDL 82 mg/dl--a 47% reduction

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

--Triglycerides 60 mg/dl--a 55% decrease

In addition, vitamin D was 66 ng/ml, TSH was <1.0 mIU/ml with free T3 and free T4 in the upper half of the "reference range." Matt also felt great.

While the numbers could be slightly better, Matt had made tremendous progress towards achieving perfect values.

There you have it: Marked correction of cholesterol values, no statin drugs involved.

Even if you’re not interested in building big muscles like a bodybuilder, there are health benefits to increasing muscle mass: increased bone density, better balance, and fewer injuries. Greater muscle mass means higher metabolic rate, improved insulin responsiveness, lower blood sugar. The inevitable loss of muscle mass of aging can lead to frailty, an increasingly common situation for the elderly. Muscle loss be reversed, health improved as a result.

Since its introduction in 1994, creatine has exploded in popularity, particularly among bodybuilders and athletes interested in gaining muscle mass and strength. But creatine is not just for young weight lifters. If you are just interested in increasing muscle mass for its health benefits, then creatine is something to consider.

A study of creatine supplementation in men, average age 70 years, demonstrated that, when creatine was combined with strength training, it increased muscle mass 250% better than placebo (7.26 lb muscle vs 2.86 lb muscle), along with improved leg strength and endurance. The same group also demonstrated 3.2% increased bone density (measured using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) after 12 weeks in participants taking creatine with strength training, while the control (no strength training, no creatine) group decreased by 1.0%.

Benefits are not confined to men. Similar results were observed in another study that included women (age 65 and older), with outcomes in females comparable to males. This is especially important for females, given the common development of osteopenia and osteoporosis in postmenopausal females.

Other studies have shown that benefits are maintained after stopping creatine supplementation.

The most popular form of creatine is the monohydrate, generally taken as a “loading” phase of 15-20 grams per day (generally split into 3-4 doses of 5 grams) for 5-7 days, followed by weeks to months of 2-5 grams per day.

An alternative form, polyethylene glycosylated creatine (PEG-creatine) provides similar effects at one-fourth to one-half the dose of creatine, i.e., 1.25-2.5 grams per day.

Despite previous concerns about kidney toxicity with prolonged use, another study showed that athletes taking creatine for up to 21 months have shown no adverse effects on kidney function, lipid (cholesterol) values, or other basic health measures.

Having healthy muscle mass doesn't make you bulge like a bodybuilder. With modest efforts at strength training, augmented with creatine supplementation, you have a wonderful tool to feel better, reduce injury, increase bone density, and combat abnormal insulin resistance, not to mention accelerate weight loss, since lean muscle mass consumes energy.

There has been a lot of debate over whether or not “bio-identical” hormones, i.e., hormones identical to the human form, are superior to non-human forms dispensed by the drug industry.

The FDA is currently taking steps to clamp down on availability of bioidentical hormones and their claims of superiority, despite a groundswell of grassroot support for them. The argument has pitted anti-aging practitioners and the public, as well as the likes of Oprah and Suzanne Somers, against Big Pharma and the FDA, the two forces trying to squash the bioidentical hormone movement.

Regardless of what heavy-handed approach the FDA takes, we already have access to hormones identical to the original human form. It requires no prescription and yields downstream hormones that the human body recognizes as human.

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

Pregnenolone is the first biochemical step in the conversion of dietary cholesterol (yes-cholesterol!) to numerous other hormones. Pregnenolone is the source of the hormones that lie at the center of the bioidentical hormone controversy: estrogens, progesterone, and testosterone. We therefore already have our own over-the-counter, non-prescription form of bioidentical hormones.

Supplemental pregnenolone increases estrogens (mildly), progesterone, and testosterone. Prenenonlone supplementation simply provide more of the basic substrate for hormone production. The increase in hormones is usually modest, not as vigorous as direct hormone replacement like, say, testosterone or progesterone topical creams. But pregnenolone can be useful when small to moderate increases are desired, such as for reduction of Lp(a). A theoretical downside is that pregnenonlone can also convert to cortisol, the adrenal gland hormone that regulates fluid and blood pressure. However, I've not seen any measurable increase in cortisol with low doses of pregnenonlone and limited data suggest that it does not. Pregnenolone also converts to the other adrenal gland hormone, DHEA; I call DHEA "the hormone of assertiveness," since some people who take too much pregnenolone (or direct DHEA) acquire excessive assertiveness.

The key to pregnenolone supplementation is to proceed gradually and begin with a small dose, e.g., 5 mg every morning. Hormonal assessment is best conducted periodically to assess the effects and to determine whether a dose adjustment is in order.

Heart Scan Blog reader, Roger, described his near-miss experience with CT coronary angiograms.

Hoping to obtain just a simple CT heart scan, he was bullied to get a CT coronary angiogram instead. Roger held strong and just asked for the test that we all should be having, a CT heart scan.

I posted yesterday that I was about to have my first CT heart scan...well, it was an interesting experience for reasons I coudn't possibly have anticipated. Dr. Davis has commented in the past on the confusion in the media about the difference between a CT calcium score scan, and a CT angiography, the latter requiring a far higher dose of radiation. I assumed this was a source of confusion only among patients and lay folks, but, lo and behold, I discovered today that doctors--or at least their helpers--can be just as confused.

Here's my story:

After checking in, I asked the receptionist to see if she had any information on whether my medical insurance was covering the scan. She called someone, and I heard her say over the phone, "He's here for a CT angiogram." At that point my ears perked up. I explained I wasn't here for a CT angiogram, only a regular CT scan. "Well, do you want to call your doctor and talk about this?" she asked. No, I said, I would like to ask one of their folks to verify exactly what test my doctor had ordered. As luck would have it, the technician was walking by at that point. "Is this a CT angiogram?" the receptionist asked. "No, it's just a CT calcium score scan" was the reply. But apparently the technician had been unclear herself, and had called my doctor just to verify. In other words, the "default" procedure they were accustomed to doing at this august Houston vascular clinic was a CT angiogram.

In fact, my appointment was even listed on their calendar as a "CT angiogram." For all I know, my insurance will be billed for the same. Later, during the procedure, the technician acted surprised I wasn't doing the "full test." I explained I had minimal risk factors (actually only one, an HDL of 34 a couple of years ago, which has since been raised to 50 partly as a result of taking advice from this site), but that my doctor was progressive (he is an MD for the Houston Astros) and thought it was a good idea since there is heart disease in my immediate family. My doctor did indeed prescribe only a CT calcium score scan, but it seems to have been an order that this clinic, at least, wasn't all that used to seeing.

So, I guess the message is: we have a lot of educating to do. Had I not been a faithful reader of these pages, I certainly wouldn't have known what kind of test I was about to get, or what questions to ask!

As for the heart scan itself, a piece of cake. If you can hold your breath, you can take this test. Just be sure it is the right one!

Why the "push" towards CT coronary angiograms and not "just" a CT heart scan? Well, I know it's shocking but it's . . . money!

CT coronary angiograms yield around $1800-$4000 per test. CT heart scans yield somewhere around $200. Though the scan center support staff might not care too much about the money themselves, their administrators likely make the cost distinctions clear to them.

Another reason: Most scan center staff, ironically, don't understand what a heart scan means, nor do they understand how it might serve to launch a program of prevention. They do understand that severe blockage by CT angiogram "needs" to be stented or bypassed. So they push patients towards things they understand.

Nobody makes money from CT heart scans, just as nobody makes money from a mammogram. Heart scans also don't lead to heroic, "lifesaving" procedures. They just lead to this sleepy, unexciting, inexpensive thing called prevention.

The June 20-21, 2009 Wall Street Journal Weekend Journal featured a provocative front page article written by physician, Dr. Abraham Verghese:

The Myth of Prevention

While eloquently written, I took issue with a few crucial points. Here is the letter I sent to the Editor at Wall Street Journal:

Dear Wall Street Journal Editor,

Re: Dr. Abraham Verghese’s article, The Myth of Prevention in the June 20-21, 2009 Weekend Journal.

I believe a more suitable title for Dr. Verghese’s article would be: “The Myth of What Passes as Prevention.”

As a practicing cardiologist, I, too, have witnessed firsthand the systemic “corruption” described by Dr. Verghese, the doing things “to” people rather than “for” them. Heart care, in particular, is rife with this form of profit-driven health delivery.

There is a fundamental flaw in Dr. Verghese’s otherwise admirable analysis: He assumes that what is called “prevention” in mainstream medicine is truly preventive.

Dr. Verghese makes issue of the apparent minor differences between preventing a condition and just allowing a condition to run its course. Prostate cancer screening is one example: Men subjected to repeated screenings have little length-of-life advantage over men who just allow their prostate to suffer the expected course of disease.

What if, instead, “prevention” as practiced today is nothing more than a solution that has been adopted in mainstream practice to suit yet another doing “to” strategy than doing “for”? In the prostate cancer example, PSA and prostate exam screenings often serve as little more than a means of harvesting procedures for the local urologist.

That’s not prevention. It is a prototypical example of “prevention” being subverted into the cause of revenue-generating procedures.

I submit that Dr. Verghese has fallen victim to the very same system he criticizes. His views have unwittingly been corrupted by the corrupt profit-driven system he describes.

What if, instead, prevention were just that: prevention or elimination of the condition. What if “prevention” of prostate cancer eliminated prostate cancer? What if heart disease “prevention” prevented all heart disease? What if this all proceeded without regard for profit or revenue-generating procedures, but just on results?

Dr. Verghese specifically targets heart scans or coronary calcium scoring, a test he likens to “miracle glow-in-the-dark minnow lures,” calling them “moneymakers.” Yes, when subverted into a corrupt algorithm of stress test, heart catheterization, stent, or bypass, heart scans are indeed a test used wrongly to “prevent” heart disease.

But what if the risk insights provided by heart scans prompt the start of a benign yet effective “prevention” program that inexpensively, safely, and assuredly prevents--in the true sense of the word--or eliminates heart disease? Then I believe the differences in mortality, quality of life, and costs would be substantial. Such strategies exist, yet do not necessarily include prescription drugs and certainly do not include the aftermath of heart catheterization and bypass surgery. Yet such programs fail to seize the limelight of media attention with no new high-tech lifesaving headline nor a big marketing budget to broadcast its message.

The problem in medicine is not prevention and its failure to yield cost- and life-saving results. It is the pervasively profit-driven mindset that keeps true preventive strategies from entering mainstream conversation. It is a repeat of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis’ late 19th-century pleads for physicians to wash their hands before delivering babies to reduce puerperal sepsis, ignominious advice that earned him life and death in an asylum. We are essentially continuing to deliver children with unwashed hands because there is no revenue-generating procedure to clean them.

No, Dr. Verghese, the economic and medical failings of preventive strategies are not at fault. The failure of the medical system, in which everyone is bent on seizing a piece of the financial action for himself, has resulted in the failure to support the propagation of true preventive strategies that could genuinely save money and lives.

President Obama’s goal of cultivating preventive practices in medicine can work, but only if the profit-motive for “prevention” does not serve as the primary determinant of practice. Results-driven practices that are applied without regard to profit have the potential to yield the sorts of cost-saving and life-saving results that can reduce healthcare costs.

William Davis, MD
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Medical Director, The Track Your Plaque Program (www.cureality.com)
Blog: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com

The efforts of Texas House of Representatives Rep. Rene Oliveira and the SHAPE Guidelines committee have paid off: The Texas legislature passed a bill that requires health insurers to cover CT heart scans.

(NOTE: Don't make the same mistake that the media often makes and confuse CT heart scans with CT coronary angiography: two different tests, two different results, two different levels of radiation exposure. The difference is discussed here.)

Track Your Plaque previously reported the release of the SHAPE Guidelines, an ambitious effort to open CT heart scanning to people who would benefit from a simple screening test for coronary disease. Rep. Rene Oliveira initially introduced the bill in 2006, after having a heart scan uncovered extensive coronary plaque that resulted in coronary bypass surgery.

The bill requires that health-benefit providers cover the cost of CT heart scans (and carotid ultrasound) in men between the ages of 45-76, women 55-76, as well as anyone with diabetes or at "intermediate-risk" or higher for coronary disease by Framingham risk score.

The usual panel of cardiology knuckleheads stepped to the media podium, expressing their incredulity that something as "unvalidated" as heart scans could gain the backing of legislative mandate. Heartwire carried this comment:

"Contacted by heartwire, Dr Amit Khera (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas) confirmed there are still no comprehensive, adequately powered studies showing that these screening tests lead to better outcomes. In a phone interview, Khera said he has major concerns about how physicians will use these tests, particularly primary-care physicians. "I gave a talk last week to primary-care doctors, and there were probably 250 people in the room, and when I asked how many people had ordered a calcium scan, just one person raised a hand. . . . Most people don't even know what to do with the Framingham risk score, so they're going to follow an algorithm that they don't know how to follow to order a test result that they don't know what to do with."

It's the same criticisms hurled at heart scans over the years despite literally thousands of studies validating their application.

Studies have conclusively shown that:

--Coronary calcium scores generated by a CT heart scan outperform any other risk measure for coronary disease, including LDL cholesterol, c-reactive protein, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure.
--Coronary calcium scores yield a graded, trackable index of coronary risk. Scores that increase correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular events; scores that remain unchanged correlate with much reduced risk.
--A coronary calcium score of zero--no detectable calcium--correlates with extremely low 5-year risk for cardiovascular events.
--Coronary calcium scores correlate with other measures of coronary disease. Heart scans correlate with coronary angiography, quantitative coronary angiography, carotid ultrasound (intimal-medial thickness and plaque severity), ankle-brachial index, and stress tests, including radionuclide (nuclear) perfusion imaging.

The reluctance of my colleagues to embrace heart scans stems from two issues, for the most part:

1) No study has yet been performed showing that knowing what the score is vs. not knowing what the score is changes prognosis. That's true. But it is also true of the great majority of practices in medicine. While many wrongs don't make a right, the miserable and widespread failure of other coronary risk measures, like LDL cholesterol or c-reactive protein, to readily and reliably detect hidden coronary disease creates a gaping void for improved efforts at early detection. If your LDL cholesterol is 140 mg/dl, do you or don't you have coronary disease? If your doctor's response is "Just take a statin drug anyway" you've been done a great disservice. (If and when this sort of study gets done, its huge cost--outcome studies have to be large and last many years--it will likely be a statin study. It is unlikely it will include such Track Your Plaque strategies that help reduce heart scan scores, like vitamin D and correction of small LDL particles.)

2) Fears over overuse of hospital procedures triggered by heart scans. This is a legitimate concern--if the information provided by a heart scan is misused. Heart scans should never--NEVER--lead directly to heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery. Heart scans do not change the indications for performing revascularization (angioplasty, stents, bypass). Just because 20% of my cardiology colleagues are more concerned with profit rather than patient welfare does not invalidate the value of the test. Just because the mechanic at the local garage gouged you by replacing a carburetor for $800 when all you need was a new spark plug does not mean that we should outlaw all auto mechanics. Abuse is the fault of the abuser, not of the tool used to exercise the abuse.

All in all, while I am not a fan of legislating behavior in healthcare, the blatant and extreme ignorance of this simple tool for uncovering hidden heart disease makes the Texas action a huge success for heart disease prevention. I hope that this success will raise awareness, not just in Texas, but in other states and cities in which similar systemic neglect is the rule.

Remember: CT heart scans are tools for prevention, not to uncover "need" for procedures. They serve as a starting point to decide whether or not an intensive program of prevention is in order, and I don't mean statin vs. no statin.

Though not a multi-million dollar statin drug study, I have NEVER seen a heart attack or "need" for procedure in any person who has stopped progression or reduced their heart scan score. A small cohort from my practice was reported:

Effect of a Combined Therapeutic Approach of Intensive Lipid Management, Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation, and Increased Serum 25 (OH) Vitamin D on Coronary Calcium Scores in Asymptomatic Adults.

Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M.

The impact of intensive lipid management, omega-3 fatty acid, and vitamin D3 supplementation on atherosclerotic plaque was assessed through serial computed tomography coronary calcium scoring (CCS). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with statin therapy has not been shown to reduce or slow progression of serial CCS in several recent studies, casting doubt on the usefulness of this approach for tracking atherosclerotic progression. In an open-label study, 45 male and female subjects with CCS of >/= 50 without symptoms of heart disease were treated with statin therapy, niacin, and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides /=60 mg/dL; and vitamin D3 supplementation to achieve serum levels of >/=50 ng/mL 25(OH) vitamin D, in addition to diet advice. Lipid profiles of subjects were significantly changed as follows: total cholesterol -24%, low-density lipoprotein -41%; triglycerides -42%, high-density lipoprotein +19%, and mean serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels +83%. After a mean of 18 months, 20 subjects experienced decrease in CCS with mean change of -14.5% (range 0% to -64%); 22 subjects experienced no change or slow annual rate of CCS increase of +12% (range 1%-29%). Only 3 subjects experienced annual CCS progression exceeding 29% (44%-71%). Despite wide variation in response, substantial reduction of CCS was achieved in 44% of subjects and slowed plaque growth in 49% of the subjects applying a broad treatment program.

Take a look at the results from the Heart Scan Blog's most recent reader poll (399 respondents):

How many hours do you sleep per night (on average)?

9 or more hours per night
15 (3.7%)

8-9 hours per night
72 (18%)

7-8 hours per night
152 (38.1%)

6-7 hours per night
111 (27.8%)

5-6 hours per night
38 (9.5%)

Less than 5 hours per night
11 (2.8%)

Like many issues in health, too much or too little of a good thing can present undesirable consequences.

Too much sleep: While psychologists and sleep researchers advise us that at least 9 hours are required to fully eliminate sleep "debt" and achieve optimal vigilance and mental performance, epidemiologic studies have shown increased mortality with this quantity of sleep.

Too little sleep: Getting less than 7 hours habituallly increases blood sugar, appetite, inflammatory measures, and encourages weight gain. Mortality is also increased, just as with sleeping too much. It is also associated with increased likelihood of a positive heart scan score.

7-8 hours per night from a health viewpoint is that Goldlilocks "just right" value: just enough to not erode mental performance substantially, but not so little that inflammatory, insulin-disrupting, and appetite-increasing effects develop.

Of our 399 respondents in the poll, 56.1% (38% + 18%) slept what appears to be an optimal amount for health. While only 3.7% slept too much (9 hours or more), the remaining 40.1% slept too little.

Our informal poll confirms what most of us observe in everyday life: The majority of people shortchange sleep in order to meet the demands of their high-pressure, squeeze-as-much-as-possible-into-every-day lives. But not paying off your sleep "debt" is like not paying the mortgage for a couple of months. You wouldn't expect your friendly neighborhood bank to say, "Oh, you forgot to pay your mortgage? Forget about it. Just pay next month's." Sure, fat chance. But if you don't pay off your sleep "debt," you will pay it back with health.

Dr. Jeffrey Dach posted a great piece on his blog, Bioidentical Hormone Blog , about his perspective on the Track Your Plaque program.

It's worth reading even for those familiar with the program, just to see a slightly different perspective. He also included many great graphics to illustrate his points.

CAT Coronary Calcium Scoring, Reversing Heart Disease

Also, see Dr. Dach's Heart Disease: Part 2, for some novel thoughts.

Jenny
7/10/2008 2:59:00 PM |

I would be very interested to know what you think of what he has to say about glutathione, which in my quick look at his web sites, leaped out at me. As a fairly new TYP member, I don't recall coming across any discussion of it on TYP in what I've read so far, though I may have just overlooked it.

ethyl d
7/10/2008 4:52:00 PM |

Thanks for the link to Dr. Dach. Good stuff there.

Anonymous
7/10/2008 7:26:00 PM |

Dr. Dach's blog also references Nutrasal's phoschol product ... is it beneficial or a hoax? It might be akin to chelation therapy not supported by Dr Davis... but it's hard to resist the claim that phoschol returns cholesterol from plaques to the liver to be processed.

buy jeans
11/3/2010 10:22:36 PM |

So iodine deficiency in early 20th century America was a big problem. How to solve this enormous public health problem in a large nation without television, few radios, no internet, with a largely rural and often illiterate population?

kamagra
4/25/2011 4:37:26 PM |

I've been reading a lot of articles about Dr. Jeffrey Dach... and I think he is one of the best exponents in this kind of programs, it's all about perspectives and his points has been shaping my thoughts.

Wheat belly

If health won't motivate them, maybe money will

What role calcium supplements?

"Heart scans" are not always heart scans

Heavy traffic and heart scans

Digging for the truth

A new Track Your Plaque record: 63% reduction

The Ornish diet made me fat

Do lower heart scan scores grow faster?

Mr. Salazar: Check your Lp(a)

Where do you find fructose?

Do heart scans cause cancer?

Goodbye, fructose

The statin-free life

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

Roger's near-miss CT angiogram experience

The Myth of Prevention: Letter to the Wall Street Journal

A victory for SHAPE, CT heart scans, and doing what is RIGHT

Sleep: A to Zzzzzzzzzz

Dr. Jeffrey Dach on the Track Your Plaque program

Comments (5) -

Jenny

ethyl d

Anonymous

buy jeans

kamagra

Add comment

Related posts