Triglyceride and chylomicron "stacking"

10. November 2009 William Davis (24)

Continuing the comments started in Grazing is for cattle, here's an interesting study from the Oxford Center for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism.

Volunteers were fed a test meal breakfast of Rice Krispies, a banana, and a chocolate milkshake (76.4 grams carbohydrates, 51.9 grams fat, 12.2 grams protein). Lunch was served 5 hours later and consisted of a cheese sandwich and a second chocolate milkshake 43.4 grams carbohydrates, 49.6 grams fat, 24.0 grams protein). Frequent blood samples were then assessed over the day. (Don't try this at home: These are obviously very dangerous foods!)

Here's the pattern of triglycerides that was observed (1st dotted vertical line = breakfast, 2nd dotted vertical line = lunch):

Note that triglycerides only begin to decline 3-4 hours after breakfast, only to peak higher after lunch.

Here's the pattern observed for chylomicrons, the "granddaddy" of lipoproteins that derives from intestinal absorption of fatty acids:

Both graphs from Heath RB et al Am J Phyiol Endocrinol Metab 2006.

With chylomicrons, note a similar pattern to triglycerides: Chylomicrons begin to decline at 3-4 hours, only to peak higher after lunch.

This is the first study to examine the effect of sequential meals on such postprandial (after-eating) patterns. But it makes the graphic point that, if insufficient time is permitted between meals, both triglycerides and chylomicrons will "stack" themselves higher and higher. (Chylomicrons are subjected to processing by the enzyme, lipoprotein lipase, to form highly atherogenic, or plaque-causing, chylomicron remnants.)

While not examined in this study, my bet is that "grazing," i.e., eating small meals or snacks frequently, is an extreme instance of triglyceride, chylomicron, and chylomicron remnant stacking. That can only lead to one thing: accelerated heart and vascular plaque.

What is a healthy vitamin D blood level?

9. November 2009 William Davis (32)

When measuring blood levels of vitamin D (as 25-hydroxy vitamin D), what constitutes a desirable level?

There's no study that directly examines this question, no study that enrolled thousands of people and assigned a placebo group and groups receiving escalating doses of vitamin D and/or achieved higher levels of vitamin D, then observed for development of cancer, diabetes, depression, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, etc. Such a study would requires many thousands of participants (particularly to observe cancer and multiple sclerosis incidence), many years of observation, and many tens of millions of dollars. Nope, only a drug company could afford such costs.

So we have to piece together various observations and extrapolate what we believe to be the ideal level of vitamin D. Epidemiologic observations in several cancers (breast, colon, prostate, and bladder) suggest that a 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 30 ng/ml or higher is desirable (with less cancer incidence above this level). Other data suggest a level of 52 ng/ml or greater is desirable. Unfortunately, much cancer research looked at intake of vitamin D from food and supplement sources, rather than actual blood levels. We also have to factor in the great individual variation in vitamin D metabolism, with a single dose yielding variable blood levels (as much as a 10-fold difference). There's also the variation introduced by vitamin D-receptor variation (genetic polymorphisms).

A new study using vitamin D administration helps chart the desirable levels of vitamin D.

Vitamin D supplementation reduces insulin resistance in South Asian women living in New Zealand who are insulin resistant and vitamin D deficient - a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

In this New Zealand study, 42 women (23 to 68 years old) were given 4000 units vitamin D, 39 women given placebo. Median 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels increased from 21 nmol/L (8.4 ng/ml) to 75 nmol/L (30 ng/ml). Both HOMA (a measure of insulin sensitivity) and fasting insulin levels improved, with greatest improvement seen at 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels of 80-119 nmol/L (32-47.6 ng/ml) or greater.

We also know that a vacation on a Caribbean beach in a bathing suit will increase vitamin D blood levels to the 80-110 ng/ml range without ill-effect (at least in young people who maintain the capacity to activate vitamin D in the skin, a phenomenon that declines as we age).

So do we really know the truly ideal level of vitamin D to achieve? I believe that, given the above observations, it is reasonable to extrapolate that the ideal vitamin D blood level likely lies somewhere above 50 ng/ml. We also know that vitamin D toxicity (i.e., hypercalcemia) is virtually unheard of until vitamin D blood levels approach 150 ng/ml, and even then is inconsistent. The health benefits of vitamin D supplementation are so tremendous, that I am not willing to wait for the prospective data to explore this question fully. For now, I aim for a blood level of vitamin D of 60-70 ng/ml (150-175 nmol/L).

Grazing is for cattle

5. November 2009 William Davis (17)

Many dietitians and nutritionists advise many people today to "graze," i.e., to eat small snacks every couple of hours. They argue that it blocks the drop in insulin and blood sugar that can trigger greater appetite and claim it can facilitate weight loss.

This is an absurd notion. Humans are not meant to graze. Humans are meant to find a wild boar or other animal, kill it, gorge on the meat, organs, and fat, then revert to berries, roots, leaves, and other foraged foods until the next kill. A human living in the wild does not have a cupboard or refrigerator full of ready-to-eat snacks to graze on.

The several hours after a meal is the most dangerous for creating coronary atherosclerotic plaque, i.e., the post-prandial period. In other words, eat dinner and, for the next 6-12 hours, your intestinal tract degrades the food; food byproducts are absorbed into the blood or lymph system. The blood is literally flooded with the byproducts of your meal.

Postprandial abnormalities are emerging to be a potent, and much underappreciated, means of causing heart disease and atherosclerosis in other vascular territories (especially carotid arteries and thoracic aorta).

Not eating--i.e., the fasting state--for extended periods is good for you. Encouraging people to graze amplifies atherosclerotic risk, since it creates an abnormal prolonged postprandial state.

The disastrous results of a low-fat diet

4. November 2009 William Davis (16)

Rob was never that committed to following the program in the first place.

I met Rob because of a modest heart scan score and consultation for a cholesterol abnormality. Rob had been cycled through all the statin agents by his primary care physician, all of which resulted in terrible muscle aches that he found intolerable.

I started out, as usual, characterizing his cholesterol abnormality with lipoprotein testing (NMR):

LDL particle number 1489 nmol/L
LDL cholesterol (Friedewald calculation) 143 mg/dl
Small LDL 52% of total LDL
HDL 50 mg/dl
Triglycerides 82 mg/dl

(LDL particle number is the emerging gold standard for LDL quantification, superior to calculated or Friedewald LDL cholesterol for prediction of cardiovascular events.)

Rob is a busy guy. After only a couple of brief visits, life and work got in the way and Rob let his attentions drift away from heart health. Since the information I provided made little impact on his thinking, he reverted to the low-fat diet his primary care doctor had originally prescribed and that he read about in magazines and food packages. He also ran out of the basic supplements I had advised, including fish oil and vitamin D, and just never restarted them.

A couple of years passed and Rob decided that just poking around on his own might not cut it. So he came back to the office. We repeated his NMR lipoprotein analysis:

LDL particle number 2699 nmol/L
LDL cholesterol (Friedewald calculation) 229 mg/dl
Small LDL 81% of total LDL
HDL 53 mg/dl
Triglycerides 78 mg/dl

Two years of a low-fat diet had caused Rob's LDL particle number to skyrocket by 81%, nearly all due to an explosion of small LDL. Recall that small LDL is more susceptible to oxidation, more inflammation-provoking, more adhesive--the form of LDL particles most likely to cause heart disease.

Also, note that, despite the enormous increase in small LDL, HDL and triglycerides remained favorable. This counters the popular rule-of-thumb offered by some that small LDL is not present when HDL is "normal."

Low-fat diets as commonly practiced are enormously destructive. In Rob's case, a low-fat diet caused both calculated Friedewald LDL as well as LDL particle number to increase dramatically. In many other people, low-fat diets increase calculated Friedewald LDL modestly or not at all, but cause the more accurate LDL particle number to increase significantly, all due to small LDL.

I'm happy to say that, once Rob witnessed how far wrong he could go on the wrong program, he's back on Track. (Sorry, pun intended.) He has resumed his supplements and eliminated the food triggers of small LDL--wheat, cornstarch, and sugars.

Dr. David Grimes reminds us of vitamin D

3. November 2009 William Davis (13)

In response to the Heart Scan Blog post, Fish oil makes you happy: Psychological distress and omega-3 index, Dr. David Grimes offered the following argument.

Dr. Grimes is a physician in northwest England at the Blackburn Royal Infirmary, Lancashire. He is author of the wonderfully cheeky 2006 Lancet editorial, Are statins analogues of vitamin D?, questioning whether the benefits of statin drugs simply work by way of increased vitamin D blood levels.

There is a fashionable interest in Omega-3 fatty acids, and these become equated with fish oil.

But fish oil is much more. Plankton synthesise the related squalene (shark oil) which, in turn, is converted into 7-dehydrocholesterol (7-DHC). The sun now comes into play and it converts 7-DHC into vitamin D (a physico-chemical process).

Small fish eat plankton, large fish eat small fish, and we eat large fish. So vitamin D passes through the food chain.

This has been a vital source of vitamin D for the the Inuits and also for the Scots and other dwellers of northwest Europe. (Edinburgh is on the same latitude as Hudson Bay and Alaska, further north than anywhere in China). In these locations there is not adequate sunlight energy to guarantee synthesis of adequate amounts of vitamin D, again by the action of sunlight on 7-DHC in the skin.

When the Scots moved from coastal fishing villages to industrial cities such as Glasgow, they became seriously deficient in vitamin D, and so the emergence of rickets. This was followed by a variety of other diseases resulting from vitamin D deficiency: tuberculosis, dental decay, coronary heart disease, and even multiple sclerosis and depression (the Glasgow syndrome).

And so it was with the Inuits. When their diet changed from fish for breakfast, fish for lunch, fish for dinner, they became deficient of vitamin D and they developed diseases characteristic of industrial cities, where there is indoor work for long hours, indoor activities, and atmospheric pollution.

It is the vitamin D component of fish and fish oils that is important.

I recently saw an elderly lady from Bangladesh living in northwest England. I would have expected her to have a very low blood level of vitamin D, as her exposure to the sun was minimal. However the blood level was 47ng/ml, not 4 as expected. She eats oily fish from Bangladesh every day, showing its value as a source of vitamin D with subsequent good health. I expect her blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids would also be high.

But it is unfashionable vitamin D that is important, not fashionable omega-3.

David Grimes
www.vitamindandcholesterol.com

Excellent point. The health effects of omega-3 and vitamin D are intimately intertwined when examining populations that consume fish.

In this study of Inuits, it is indeed impossible to dissect out how much psychological distress was due to reduced vitamin D, how much due to reduced omega-3s. My bet is that it's both. Thankfully, we also have data examining the use of pure omega-3 fatty acids in capsule (not intact fish) form, including studies like GISSI Prevenzione.

Nonetheless, Dr. Grimes reminds us that both vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil play crucial roles in mental health and other aspects of health, and that it's the combination that may account for the extravagant health effects previously ascribed only to omega-3s.

Why does fish oil reduce triglycerides?

2. November 2009 William Davis (9)

Beyond its ability to slash risk for cardiovascular events, omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil also reduce triglycerides.

There's no remaining question that omega-3s do this quite effectively. After all, the FDA approved prescription fish oil, Lovaza, to treat a condition called familial hypertriglyceridemia, an inherited condition in which very high triglycerides in the 100s or 1000s of milligrams typically develop.

The omega-3 fraction of fatty acids are unique for their triglyceride-reducing property. No other fraction of fatty acids, such as omega-6 or saturated, can match the triglyceride-reducing effect of omega-3s.

But why does fish oil reduce triglycerides?

First of all, what are triglycerides? As their name suggests, triglycerides consist of three ("tri-") fatty acids lined up along a glycerol (sugar) "backbone." Triglycerides are the form in which most fatty acids occur in the bloodstream, liver, and other organs. (Fatty acids, like omega-3, omega-6, mono- or polyunsaturated, or saturated, rarely occur as free fatty acids unbound to glycerol.) In various lipoproteins in the blood, like LDL, VLDL, and HDL, fatty acids occur as triglycerides.

Of all lipoproteins, chylomicrons (the large particle formed through intestinal absorption of fatty acids and transported to the liver via the lymph system) and VLDL (very low-density lipoprotein, very low-density because they are mostly fat and little protein) particles are richest in triglycerides. Thus, we would expect that omega-3s exert their triglyceride-reducing effect via reductions in either chylomicrons or VLDL.

Indeed, that seems to be the case. The emerging evidence suggests that omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil reduce triglycerides through:

--Reduced VLDL production by the liver (Harris 1989)
--Accelerating chylomicron and VLDL elimination from the blood
--Activation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR-gamma)--Omega-3s ramp up the cellular equipment used to convert fatty acids to energy (oxidation) (Gani 2008)

Combine omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil with wheat elimination and you have an extremely potent means of reducing triglycerides. Read a previous Heart Scan Blog post here to read how a patient reduced triglycerides 93.5% from 3100 mg/dl to 210 mg/dl in just a few weeks using fish oil and wheat elimination.

Fish oil makes you happy: Psychological distress and omega-3 index

30. October 2009 William Davis (24)

For another perspective on omega-3 blood levels, here's an interesting study in northern Quebec Inuits.

Traditionally, Inuits consumed large quantities of omega-3-rich seal, fish, caribou, and whale, even eating the fat. However, like the rest of the world, modern Inuits have increased consumption of store-bought foods, largely processed carbohydrates. Along with this trend has emerged more heart disease, diabetes, and depression.

A group from Laval University and University of Guelph, both in Canada, examined the relationship of plasma EPA + DHA levels and measures of psychological distress. This group had previously shown that Inuits older than 50 years had twice the plasma omega-3 levels (11.5%) compared to those younger than 50 years (6.5%), reflecting the shift away from the traditional diet.

Psychological distress was measured with The Psychological Distress Index Santé-Québec Survey (PDISQS-14): the higher the score, the greater the psychological distress. (In the graphs, tertile 1 is least distressed; tertile 5 is most distressed. Sorry about the small chart graphic--click on the graphic to make it bigger.)

From Lucas M et al 2009 (http://www.nutrasource.ca/NDI/Assets/Articles/Plasma%20omega-3%20and%20psychological%20distress%20among%20Nunavik%20Inuit.pdf)

"Our main finding was that women in the second and third tertiles of EPA+DHA concentrations in plasma PLs [phospholipids] had a 3 times lower risk of having a high-level PD [psychological distress] score than women in the lowest tertile."

While the relationship is stronger for women, you can see that, the higher the EPA + DHA plasma level, the lower the likelihood of psychological distress. Interestingly, the tertile with the greatest distress and lowest EPA + DHA levels had a plasma level of 7.0-7.5%--far higher than average Americans.

(Plasma levels of EPA + DHA were used in this study, which tend to reflect more recent omega-3 intake than the more stable and slower-to-change RBC Omega-3 Index that we use. Plasma levels also tend to run about 10-20% lower than RBC levels.)

Of course, there's more to psychological distress than omega-3 blood levels. After all, eating fish or taking fish oil capsules won't make money worries go away or heal an unhappy marriage. But it is one variable that can be easily and safely remedied.

Hospitals are a hell of a place to get sick

29. October 2009 William Davis (19)

I answered a page from a hospital nurse recently one evening while having dinner with the family.

RN: "This is Lonnie. I'm a nurse at _____ Hospital. I've got one of your patients here, Mrs. Carole Simpson. She's here for a knee replacement with Dr. Johnson. She says she's taking 12,000 units of vitamin D every day. That can't be right! So I'm calling to verify."

WD: "That's right. We gauge patients' vitamin D needs by blood levels of vitamin D. Carole has had perfect levels of vitamin D on that dose."

RN: "The pharmacist says he can replace it with a 50,000 unit tablet."

WD: "Well, go ahead while Carole's in the hospital. I'll just put her back on the real stuff when she leaves."

RN: "But the pharmacist says this is better and she won't have to take so many capsules. She takes six 2,000 unit capsules a day."

WD: "The 50,000 units you and the pharmacist are talking about is vitamin D2, or ergocalciferol, a non-human form. Carole is taking vitamin D3, or cholecalciferol, the human form. The last time I checked, Carole was human."

RN: (Long pause.) Can we just give her the 50,000 unit tablet?

WD: "Yes, you can. But you actually don't need to. In fact, it probably won't hurt anything to just hold the vitamin D altogether for the 3 days she's in the hospital, since the half-life of vitamin D is about 8 weeks. Her blood level will barely change by just holding it for 3 days, then resuming when she's discharged."

RN: (Another long pause.) Uh, okay. Can we just give her the 50,000 units?"

WD: "Yes, you can. No harm will be done. It's simply a less effective form. To be honest, once Carole leaves the hospital, I will just put her back on the vitamin D that she was taking."

RN: "Dr. Johnson was worried that it might make her bleed during surgery. Shouldn't we just stop it?"

WD: "No. Vitamin D has no effect on blood coagulation. So there's no concern about perioperative bleeding."

RN: "The pharmacist said the 50,000 unit tablet was better, also, because it's the prescription form, not an over-the-counter form."

WD: "I can only tell you that Carole has had perfect blood levels on the over-the-counter preparation she was taking. It works just fine."

RN: "Okay. I guess we''ll just give her the 50,000 unit tablet."

From the alarm it raises trying to administer nutritional supplements in a hospital, you'd think that Osama Bin Laden had been spotted on the premises.

I laugh about this every time it happens: A patient gets hospitalized for whatever reason and the hospital staff see the supplement list with vitamin D, fish oil at high doses, iodine, etc. and they panic. They tell the patient about bleeding, cancer, and death, issue stern warnings about how unreliable and dangerous nutritional supplements can be.

My view is the exact opposite: Nutritional supplements are a wonderful, incredibly varied, and effective array of substances that, when used properly, can provide all manner of benefits. While there are selected instances in which nutritional supplements do, indeed, have interactions with treatments provided in hospitals (e.g., Valerian root and general anesthesia), the vast majority of supplements have none.

Does fish oil cause blood thinning?

27. October 2009 William Davis (20)

Omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil have the capacity to "thin the blood." In reality, omega-3s exert a mild platelet-blocking effect (platelet activation and "clumping" are part of clot formation), while also inhibiting arachidonic acid formation and thromboxane.

But can fish oil cause excessive bleeding?

This question comes up frequently in the office, particularly when my colleagues see the doses of fish oil we use for cardiovascular protection. "Why so much fish oil? That's too much blood thinning!"

The most recent addition to the conversation comes from a Philadelphia experience reported in the American Journal of Cardiology:

Comparison of bleeding complications with omega-3 fatty acids + aspirin + clopidogrel--versus--aspirin + clopidogrel in patients with cardiovascular disease.(Watson et al; Am J Cardiol 2009 Oct 15;104(8):1052-4).

All 364 subjects in the study took aspirin and Plavix (a platelet-inhibiting drug), mostly for coronary disease. Mean dose aspirin = 161 mg/day; mean dose Plavix = 75 mg/day. 182 of the subjects were also taking fish oil, mean dose 3000 mg with unspecified omega-3 content.

During nearly 3 years of observation, there was no excess of bleeding events in the group taking fish oil. (In fact, the group not taking fish oil had more bleeding events, though the difference fell short of achieving statistical significance.) Thus, 3000 mg per day of fish oil appeared to exert no observable increase in risk for bleeding. This is consistent with several other studies, including that including Coumadin (warfarin), with no increased bleeding risk when fish oil is added.

Rather than causing blood thinning, I prefer to think that omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil restore protection from abnormal clotting. Taking omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil simply restores a normal level of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood sufficient to strike a healthy balance between blood "thinning" and healthy blood clotting.

Heart Scan Blog readers take impressive doses of omega-3s

24. October 2009 William Davis (28)

Here are the results from the latest Heart Scan Blog poll:

What is your dose of omega-3 fatty acids, EPA + DHA, from fish oil? (Add up the total content of EPA + DHA per capsules; multiply times number of capsules.)

The 479 respondents answered:

Less than 1000 mg per day
65 (13%)

1000-1999 mg per day
145 (30%)

2000-2999 mg per day
98 (20%)

3000-3999 mg per day
79 (16%)

4000-4999 mg per day
33 (6%)

5000-5999 mg per day
14 (2%)

6000 mg per day or more
45 (9%)

The poll did not discriminate between who has heart disease, who does not; who is taking omega-3 fatty acids for high triglycerides or for reduction of lipoprotein(a) (which requires high doses), or other indications. So variation is to be expected.

We can say that nearly all respondents are likely receiving sufficient omega-3s to impact cardiovascular risk, since the benefits begin just by consuming fish twice per month. I am especially impressed at the proportion of respondents (53%) who take at least 2000 mg per day of EPA + DHA. It's clear that people are really embracing the notion that omega-3 fatty acids pack a real wallop of health benefits.

Because different people in different situations and lipid/lipoprotein patterns have different omega-3 needs, there is really no "right" or "wrong" dose of omega-3 fatty acids.

However, there are several factors that enter into knowing your ideal omega-3 intake:

--Higher triglycerides require higher doses
--Lipoprotein(a) can respond to higher doses
--Having coronary or carotid plaque means you desire a "therapeutic" dose of omega-3s, not just a "preventive" dose

Time is a factor, also: The longer you take omega-3s, the higher your blood levels go. You can accelerate the replacement of non-omega-3s with higher doses of omega-3s.

But too much is not good either. Some participants in Track Your Plaque, for instance, have experimented with very high doses of EPA + DHA in the 9000-10,000 per day range and witnessed dramatic increases in LDL.

Much of the uncertainty about dosing will also be cleared up as we get more experience with the Omega-3 RBC Index, i.e, the proportion of fatty acids in red blood cells that are omega-3s. We are currently aiming for an Omega-3 Index of 10%, given the heart attack reductions observed at this level.

Add Boston Globe to the list of heart scan blunders

17. September 2008 William Davis (15)

Yet another piece of mass media misinformation hit the airwaves today. This time it's not from the New York Times or the LA Times, both of which have previously mangled the issues surrounding heart scans. This time it's from the Boston Globe.

In an article titled What is a calcium scan for heart disease, and who should undergo the test?, the report states:

". . . calcium scans may not be a good idea, or prove terribly useful, for most people. For one thing, the scans expose a patient to significant radiation - equivalent to roughly 50 chest X-rays" said Dr. Warren Manning, chief of noninvasive cardiac imaging at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center."

As many before him, Dr. Manning is confusing two tests: CT coronary angiography and CT heart scanning. Perhaps we can't blame him: This technology has had its weakest following in the northeast, for reasons not entirely clear to me. (In fact, Track Your Plaque followers have had the greatest struggle obtaining heart scans in that part of the country.) Nonetheless, you'd think he'd have his simple facts straight before talking to the press. Unfortunately, hospital public relations departments will usually just grab whoever they can willing to talk to the press--regardless of their expertise or lack of.

The story goes on to say:

. . ." it's not clear what to do with the results from a calcium scan. If you have diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or a family history of heart disease, you already know - or should know - that you are at increased risk of heart problems and should lower these risk factors. So, a calcium scan provides little additional information," Manning said.

"Moreover, even a high score doesn't necessarily mean that the calcified plaque in your arteries is obstructing blood flow, said Dr. Adolph Hutter, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital."

"The vast majority of people with high calcium tests don't have obstructions and they do fine long-term. So you'd have to test lots and lots of people to prevent one heart attack or sudden death," said Manning.

And if you get a low calcium score, a sign of little or no calcification of plaques, that's not very useful, either, because it could be wrong, or it could be right but lull you into believing you do not have to exercise and watch your diet, cholesterol, and blood pressure levels. "You can still be at risk even if your calcium test is negative," Hutter said.

It is truly shocking how little many (not all, thank goodness) of my colleagues really know about 1) heart scans, 2) coronary disease prevention, and 3) prevention in general. These same "experts" likely advocate high-dose statin drugs and low-fat diets for people at risk. They likely refer patients to the American Heart Association for diet advice and themselves obtain a lot of information from the pharmaceutical industry. The notion of identification, tracking, and purposeful reversal of coronary plaque is entirely foreign to this bunch.

"The vast majority of people with high calcium tests don't have obstructions and they do fine long-term. So you'd have to test lots and lots of people to prevent one heart attack or sudden death." Well, take a look at a graph from a database of 25,000 people undergoing heart scans then observed for several years afterwards:

You can see quite clearly from the curves that heart scan scores very clearly predict your future (if no preventive action is taken). The higher the score, the greater the likelihood of heart attack and death. How much clearer can it get?

The most recent addition to this literature is the PREDICT study which concluded:

Hazard ratios relative to CACS [coronary artery calcium scores] in the range 0-10 Agatston units (AU) were: CACS 11-100 AU, 5.4 (P = 0.02); 101-400 AU 10.5 (P = 0.001); 401-1000 AU, 11.9 (P = 0.001), and >1000 AU, 19.8 (P < 0.001).

In other words, a heart scan score of >1000 is associated with a 20-fold increased risk of cardiovascular events (without preventive efforts). That kind of predictive power and quantitative confidence simply cannot be squeezed out of blood pressure and cholesterol values.

How about the 2008 University of California-Irvine study from the New England Journal of Medicine (do the northeast docs even pay attention to something that is published in their own neighborhood?) that reported:

There were 162 coronary events, of which 89 were major events (myocardial infarction or death from coronary heart disease). In comparison with participants with no coronary calcium, the adjusted risk of a coronary event was increased by a factor of 7.73 among participants with coronary calcium scores between 101 and 300 and by a factor of 9.67 among participants with scores above 300 (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Among the four racial and ethnic groups, a doubling of the calcium score increased the risk of a major coronary event by 15 to 35% and the risk of any coronary event by 18 to 39%.

How about the Prospective Army Coronary Calcium (PACC) project (men average age 43 years):

"In these men, coronary calcium was associated with an 11.8-fold increased risk for incident coronary heart disease (CHD) (p = 0.002) in a Cox model controlling for the Framingham risk score. Among those with coronary artery calcification, the risk of coronary events increased incrementally across tertiles of coronary calcium severity (hazard ratio 4.3 per tertile)."

Calcium score provided additional information even after factoring in the Framingham risk score.

That's just a sample of the studies. There are a number more.

Add to these conversations the fact that, unlike reducing blood pressure or LDL cholesterol, the heart scan score is a quantification of the disease itself. It can also be tracked over time to gauge the success or failure of prevention efforts. To believe that blood pressure reduction or LDL cholesterol reduction is sufficient to eliminate risk is something only a fool would believe.

Contary to the above statements, the data are clear:

--The higher the heart scan score, the greater the risk. This has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt in at least a dozen published studies. In fact, heart scan scores outshine lipid/cholesterol values several-fold.

--A person with a zero score has a nearly zero risk for cardiovascular events over a 5-year timeline.

--Heart scans are the only quantitative test available of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. This means that they can be repeated to gauge progression or regression. Cholesterol does not do that. Stress tests do not do that.

--Heart scans are not the same as CT coronary angiography.

--The lack of "need" for a procedure does not equate to the absence of disease.

The power of heart scans is that they can uncover evidence for coronary atherosclerotic plaque 10 years before a cardiac disaster strikes. Witness Tim Russert's heart scan score of 210 in 1998 at age 48. 10 years later, you know what happened.

Beware the camipaign of misinformation and ignorance that continues that is hell-bent on maintaining the procedural status quo or locking us into a "drugs for all" mentality.

What's worse than sugar?

16. September 2008 William Davis (11)

There are a number of ways to view the blood sugar-raising or insulin-provoking effect of foods.

One way is glycemic index (GI), simply a measure of how high blood sugar is raised by a standard quantity of a food compared to table sugar. Another is glycemic load (GL), a combination (multiplied) of glycemic index and carbohydrate content per serving.

Table sugar has a GI of 65, a GL of 65.

Obviously, table sugar is not good for you. The content of white table sugar in the American diet has exploded over the last 100 years, totaling over 150 lb per year for the average person. (Humans are not meant to consume any.)

What is the GI of Rice Krispies cereal, organic or not? GI = 82-- higher than table sugar. GL is 72, also higher than table sugar.

How about Corn Flakes? GI 81, GL 70--also both higher than sugar.

How about those rice cakes that many dieters will use to quell hunger? GI 78, GL 64.

How about Shredded Wheat cereal? GI 75, GL 62.

All of the above foods with GI's and GL's that match or exceed that of table sugar are made of wheat and cornstarch. Some, like Shredded Wheat cereal and rice cakes, don't even have any added sugar.

Stay clear of these foods if you have low HDL, high triglycerides, high blood sugar, or small LDL. Or, for that matter, if you are human.

Keep the eloquent words of New York University nutritionist, Marion Nestle, author of the book, Food Politics, in mind:

“Food companies—just like companies that sell cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, or any other commodity—routinely place the needs of stock holders over considerations of public health. Food companies will make and market any product that sells, regardless of its nutritional value or its effect on health. In this regard, food companies hardly differ from cigarette companies. They lobby Congress to eliminate regulations perceived as unfavorable; they press federal regulatory agencies not to enforce such regulations; and when they don’t like regulatory decisions, they file lawsuits. Like cigarette companies, food companies co-opt food and nutrition experts by supporting professional organizations and research, and they expand sales by marketing directly to children, members of minority groups, and people in develop countries—whether or not the products are likely to improve people’s diets.” ??

Are sterols the new trans fat?

13. September 2008 William Davis (16)

By now, I'm sure you're well-acquainted with the hydrogenated, trans fat issue.

Hydrogenation of polyunsaturated oils was a popular practice (and still is) since the 1960s, as food manufacturers sought a substitute for saturated fat. Bubbling high-pressure hydrogen through oils like cottonseed, soybean, and corn generates trans fatty acids. These man-made fatty acids, while safe in initial safety testing, proved to be among the biggest nutritional mistakes of the 20th century.

Trans fatty acids have been associated with increased LDL cholesterol, reduction in HDL, oxidative reactions, abnormal rigidity when incorporated into cell membranes, and cancer. Trans fats still dominate many processed foods like chips, cookies, non-dairy creamers, food mixes, and thousands of others. They're also found prominently in fast foods.

Fast forward to today, and most Americans have become aware of the dangers of trans fats and many try to avoid them.

But I worry there is yet another substance that has worked its way into the American processed food cornucopia that has some potential for repeating the trans fat debacle: sterol esters.

Sterols are naturally-occurring oils found in vegetables, nuts, and numerous other foods in small quantities. Most of us take in 200-400 milligrams per day just by eating plant-sourced foods.

Curiously, the chemical structure of sterols are very similar to human cholesterol (differing at one carbon atom). Sterols, by not fully understood means, block the intestinal absorption of cholesterol. Thus, sterol esters, as well as the similar stanol esters, have been used to reduce blood levels of total and LDL cholesterol.

So far, so good.

The initial commercial products, released in the late 1990s, were Take Control (sterol) and Benecol (stanol), both of which were marketed to reduce cholesterol when 2-3 tbsp are used daily, providing 3400 – 5100 mg of sterol or stanol esters, about 10- to 20-fold more than we normally obtain from foods. Several clinical trials have conclusively confirmed that these products reduce cholesterol levels.

They do indeed perform as advertised. Add either product to your daily diet and LDL cholesterol is reduced by about 10-15%. In fact, in the original Track Your Plaque book, these products were advocated as a supplemental means of reducing LDL when other methods fell short.

In 2008, there are now hundreds of products that have additional quantities of sterol esters in them, such as orange juice, mayonnaise, yogurt, breakfast cereals, even nutritional supplements. Most of these products proudly bear claims like "heart healthy." Stanol esters have not enjoyed the same widespread application. (I believe there may be patent issues or other considerations. However, it's the sterols that are the principal topic here, not stanols.)

Now, here's where it gets a bit tricky. There is a rare (1 per million) disease called sitosterolemia, a genetic disorder that permits the afflicted to absorb more than the usual quantity of sterols from the intestine. While you and I obtain some amount of sterols from plant-based foods, absorption is poor, and we absorb <10% of sterols ingested. However, people with sitosterolemia absorb sterols far more efficiently, resulting in high blood levels of sterols that result in coronary disease and aortic valve disease, with heart attacks occurring as young as late teens or 20s. Treatment to block sterol absorption are used to treat these people.

There are also a larger number, though still uncommon (1/500) of people who have only one of the two genes that young people with sitosterolemia have. These people may have an intermediate capacity for sterol absorption.

Okay, so what does this have to do with you? Well, if you and I now take in 10-20 times greater amounts of sterol esters, do our blood levels of sterols increase?

Several studies now suggest that, yes, sterol blood levels increase with sterol ingestion. One study from Finland, the STRIP Study, showed that children who had double usual sterol intake increased blood levels by around 50%.

Similarly, a Johns Hopkins study in adults with only one of the genes ("heterozygotes") for sitosterolemia increased sterol blood levels by between 54-116% by ingesting 2200 mg of sterols added per day, despite reduction of LDL cholesterol levels.

Even people with neither gene for sitosterol hyperabsorption can increase their blood levels of sterols. But the crucial question: Do the blood levels of sterols that occur in unaffected people or in heterozygotes increase the risk of coronary heart disease? The answer is not known.

Despite the several clinical trials performed with sterol esters, all of them have examined LDL and total cholesterol reduction as endpoints, not cardiovascular events. It is conceivable that, while sterol esters reduce cholesterol, risk for heart disease is increased due to higher blood levels of sterols.

The question is not settled. For now, it is just a suspicion. But that's enough for me to steer clear of processed foods supplemented with these uncertain sterol esters. My previous recommendations for sterol ester products will be removed with the next edition of Track Your Plaque. Until we have solid evidence that there are no adverse cardiovascular effects of sterol esters, in my view they should not be part of anyone's heart-disease prevention program.

(The same argument does not seem to apply to stanol esters, such as that contained in butter-substitute Benecol, since stanol esters are not absorbed at all and remain confined to the intestine.)

The Diabetes Gold Rush

11. September 2008 William Davis (9)

Lou came into the office. Clearly, his program had gone sour.

Lou had initially obtained wonderful control over his heart scan score of 1114, having reversed modestly in his first three years of effort through correction of his multiple causes (including low HDL, severe small LDL, Lp(a), and a diabetic tendency).

But Lou now came into the office red-faced and sporting a big bulging abdomen. Blood sugar? Now in the overtly diabetic range. Lou said that his primary care doctor had suggested that he start on three new medications (glucophage, injectable Byetta, and Actos) to control his blood sugar. His doctor also told him to increase his intake of fibers by eating more "healthy" breakfast cereals like Cheerios.

Lou had apparently done just that (added "healthy" fiber-rich foods) even before his doctor had suggested it. (Lou failed to remember the several conversations we'd had about healthy eating.) Unfortunately, Lou also failed to connect his increased intake of "healthy fiber-rich foods" and his growing abdominal girth (his "wheat belly").

Here's the dirty little secret: Much of the world wants you to be diabetic. It is the health gold rush of this century. "Go West, young man!"

To find out what I mean, you need only ask: Who profits when people become diabetic? That's easy:

The pharmaceutical industry--Diabetes is a booming growth industry, a source of tens of billions of dollars of revenue, poised for enormous growth as the population ages and gets fatter. It is common for a newly-diagnosed diabetic to be given new prescriptions for two or three drugs with a monthly cost of $300. Of course, the chronic nature of the disease make this far more profitable than, say, a two week course of antibiotics. Presently, 70 new drugs are under development.

Diabetes drug maker Novo Nordisk reported a 25% increase in revenues in 2007 from diabetic agents in the North American market, along with near $2 billion increase in profit for the year. Merck's recently-released DPP-4 inhibitor, Januvia, has already sold $668 million in 2007 and is growing rapidly.

The medical device and supply industry. Take a look at the Medtronic quarterly earnings report, detailing the breakdown of their record-setting quarterly revenue of $3.7 billion:

Diabetes revenue of $269 million grew 12 percent driven by sales
of consumables, the accessories required by insulin pump users, and
continuous glucose monitoring products. Revenue from international
sales grew 31 percent over the same quarter last year.

That's what I call a growth industry.

The processed food industry. The food industry is as big or bigger than the drug industry. ADM, Kraft, General Mills all have annual revenues in the $12-50 billion range. There are plenty of others.

When we're told, for instance, that Cheerios reduces cholesterol, we're not told that it skyrockets blood sugar or triggers small LDL. When we're sold whole wheat crackers, Cocoa Puffs (which the American Heart Asscociation says is heart-healthy), or granola bars, hunger is stimulated, impulse to eat more grows, blood sugar escalates, we get fat, we get diabetic. It's a simple formula.

So be aware that there is little incentive among corporate giants in the food, medical device, or drug industries to encourage behaviors that decrease the incidence of diabetes. In fact, there is enormous financial incentive to make sure that diabetes continues to grow at the startling rate it has over the last decade.

To be sure, the drug and medical device industry will also develop better tools to deal with diabetes and its complications. But the very best way to deal with diabetes is to not develop it in the first place.

What else is there?

7. September 2008 William Davis (11)

This question comes up frequently:

Aren't there any alternatives to heart scans performed on a CT or EBT device?

Yes, there are.

First of all, heart scans are performed best on an electron-beam CT device (EBT) or a 64-slice multi-detector CT (MDCT) device. (While they are also obtainable through less-than-64 slice CT devices (e.g., 16 slices and less), I would advise against it because of the excessive radiation exposure and poor accuracy.) CT heart scans are not to be confused with now more popular CT coronary angiograms, which are performed on the same devices but require intravenous x-ray dye and many times more radiation.(See CT scans and radiation exposure and Heart scan frustration.) Heart scans currently form the basis for the Track Your Plaque program, a program of tracking plaque in the hopes of stopping or reversing the otherwise inevitable 30% per year increase.

Let's confine our discussion to people without symptoms, meaning people like you and me sitting at home, not in an emergency room having chest pain or other similar acute symptomatic presentation.

Among the other ways to uncover hidden coronary plaque:

--Heart catheterization--to yield a coronary angiogram. Yes, this does tell us whether coronary plaque is present. However, it is invasive, expensive, and crude. (I've performed 5000 over my career; they are crude, though useful, tools in acute settings like unstable symptoms or heart attack, a different situation.) Coronary angiography is also non-quantitative. While they provide a value like "40% blockage mid-way in right coronary" or "90% blockage in left anterior descending" they do not provide a trackable lengthwise index of total plaque volume. Identifying severe blockages in people with symptoms leads to stents, bypass surgery and the like, but it is not practical nor of long-term usefulness in apparently, healthy people without symptoms.

--Carotid ultrasound--Here's is where a lot of confusion comes from. Standard carotid ultrasound (U/S) performed in virtually every hospital and many clinics will yield crude qualitative results, e.g., "16-49% stenosis (blockage) in right internal carotid artery". The crude value range is because much of carotid U/S is based on flow velocities, not just direct visualization of the plaque itself ("2-D imaging). However, if carotid stenosis of any degree is identified, the likelihood of silent coronary plaque is much greater.

Limitations: The qualitative, non-quantitative nature of carotid U/S make it difficult to follow long-term in a precise way. Also, this is carotid plaque, not coronary plaque. It makes it very difficult to follow carotid plaque as an indirect means of tracking coronary plaque. The two arterial territories, carotid and coronary, do not track together: there are divergences in many people, with carotid plaque absent in some people with advanced coronary plaque, carotid plaque more susceptible to different risk factors than coronary. So carotid U/S is helpful for its own purposes, but not terribly helpful for coronary tracking.

How about carotid intimal-medial thickness (CIMT) obtained also with carotid U/S? CIMT is a useful index of bodywide atherosclerosis. CIMT is simply a measure not of plaque (and is measured in regions of the carotid artery away from plaque), but of the thickness of the lining of the carotid arteries. Everybody has a measurable CIMT, but it thickens as atherosclerosis grows. CIMT is a radiation-free test that takes several minutes.

Limitations: Hardly anybody does it outside of research protocols. I know of no hospital or clinic in my area that performs CIMT, though it is slowly being adopted in some centers. It is also difficult to rely on repeated tests, because there is substantial variation when one technologist or another performs it. CIMT is also a flawed index of coronary plaque. When CIMT is compared to heart scan scores, CT coronary angiography, or conventional coronary angiography, CIMT correlates about 60-70% with the degree of coronary atherosclerosis.

CIMT is therefore a useful test for research, but a distant 2nd choice--if you can obtain it.

--Ankle-brachial index (ABI)--ABI is a crude measure, simply a comparison of the blood pressure (obtained with a blood pressure cuff) in the legs divided by blood pressure in the arms. The ratio is called ABI. Any ABI <1.0, meaning less pressure in the legs compared to the arms, is indirectly indicative of advanced coronary disease. ABI is, in fact, a very powerful predictor of cardiovascular events. If ABI is <1.0, your future risk for heart attack is very high, even in the absence of symptoms.

Limitations: The vast majority of people with heart disease, even those having undergone stents or bypass surgery, have normal ABI's. Virtually all people with high heart scan scores have normal ABI's. In other words, ABI is a measure of very advanced atherosclerosis only.

--Stress tests--I lump all stress tests together in their various forms, e.g., stress thallium, stress Cardiolite, stress Myoview, persantine/adenosine Cardiolite, dobutamine echocardiography, etc. Stress tests are tests of coronary blood flow, not of plaque. Stress tests are useful in people with symptoms, like chest pain or breathlessness, since stress tests are provocative tests that can help determine whether reduced coronary blood flow is the cause behind a symptom, or whether hiatal hernia, esophagitis, gallstones, pleurisy, musculoskeletal causes, or some other process is behind symptoms.

Limitations: Stress test are virtually useless in people without symptoms. This is why people like Tim Russert and Bill Clinton, both without symptoms, underwent several (Russert 3, Clinton 5) nuclear stress tests---all normal. You know what happened to them. Stress tests do not reliably uncover hidden coronary plaque in people without symptoms. Stress tests are, like coronary angiograms, non-quantitative. They are normal or abnormal.

Outside of experimental settings, that's it.

You can probably see why I advocate CT heart scans for tracking plaque. I do not advocate heart scans because I sell them (I don't), because scan centers pay me to say these things (they don't, and in fact my relationship with my usual heart scan centers has become deeply contentious, though I still endorse the technology). I say that heart scans are superior because they are, in 2008, the only way to 1) identify and 2) track coronary plaque that is easy, safe, low-radiation, and reasonably priced (<$200 in Milwaukee at 5 centers).

The need for a technology that allows tracking of plaque, not just initial identification, is also an important distinction. People who've had some measure of atherosclerosis all catch on to this eventually. "Can I reverse it?" is an inevitable question once the disease is identified in some way. So a tool for tracking over time to gauge the success or failure of a program of prevention can be assessed.

Perhaps in 10 years, another technology will emerge as the preferred means to do the same, but better. If that proves true, we will convert to that technology. But today heart scans performed on CT heart scans are the only rational way to both detect, then track, coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Let's gamble with your health

5. September 2008 William Davis (4)

Let's play a game.

I'm going to list some lipid patterns and you tell me whether or not the person with these values has heart disease.

Patient 1

Total cholesterol 150 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 75 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
Triglycerides 125 mg/dl

Patient 2

Total cholesterol 300 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 200 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 35 mg/dl
Triglycerides 325

Patient 3

Total cholesterol 300 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol 100 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 25 mg/dl
Triglycerides 875 mg/dl

Let's say that any one of these profiles is yours. Should you be getting your affairs in order, preparing for your cardiac catastrophe? Should you demand a stress test from your doctor, hoping that it will shed some light on your dilemma? Should you go ahead and go to the all-you-can-eat rib restaurant, content that you will be attending your granddaughger's wedding in 2020 in full health?

If you can tell, you're a lot better at this than I am.

I provide consultation to other physicians and patients on complex hyperlipidemias in my area. In other words, if someone has a difficulty to manage lipid disorder, the doctor sends the patient to me.

Managing these wildly variable values is the easy part. Deciding whether or not heart disease is concealed within the patient . . . well, that's the hard part.

Let's take it a step further: Suppose all three profiles also have 50% of all LDL particles as the abnormal small particles. And they all have a lipoprotein(a) level of 50 mg/dl, an abnormally high level.

How about now: Can you tell whether any or all of these people have hidden heart disease?

What if they are 20 years old? Does that make a difference?

What if they are all females over 65 years--how about now?

If the only tool you have to divine the presence of hidden heart disease is a lipid panel, or even a lipoprotein panel, then the best you can manage is to hazard a guess based on statistical probability. You also assume that this "snapshot" represents the sorts of values someone has had for their entire lives. You cannot factor in the fact that the first person gained 60 lbs in the last three years since completing menopause. You can't factor in that patient 2 smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 25 years, but quit 10 years ago.

It's also foolhardy to believe that every known cause of heart disease is currently identifiable and revealed by modern-day blood testing.

A heart scan is simply a means to quantify the sum-total of risk factors--causes--that have exerted an effect up until the moment of your scan. It will reveal the quantity of coronary atherosclerotic plaque present, regardless of whether you stopped smoking 20 years ago or lost 30 lbs last year.

For these reasons, nothing can replace the value of quantifying plaque: not cholesterol, not the Framingham risk calculation, not measures of small LDL or lipoprotein(a), not the presence or absence of symptoms. In 2008, the method of choice for measuring plaque remains a CT heart scan. Perhaps in 10 years it will be some other method.

As always, let me remind Heart Scan Blog viewers that I make this point NOT to sell heart scans, which I have no reason whatsoever to do. I say this because we require a tool to track this potentially fatal disease. We require a yardstick for tracking progression or regression. The only tool that suits these purposes in 2008 is a CT heart scan.

Who knows what

4. September 2008 William Davis (4)

You know that cynical old saying:

It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

In other words, knowing the right person provides you strategic advantage in business, social advancement, etc.

In health, it was often true. Knowing who the better doctors were, for instance, in your city might provide you with access to better care.

Enter the Information Age. You now have access to medical information equal to that of your doctor. You now have access to patient discussions about doctors, their practices, their performance records. There is now a depth and breadth of information on health that was never available before.

I’d therefore turn the old saying into the new Health 2.0 version:

It’s not who you know, it’s what you know.

In health, information now reigns supreme, not knowing somebody else who has the right connections.

Positive: Everybody now theoretically has access to an equal amount of information, since you can access information on any topic just as easily as I can.

Negative: It puts more of the burden on you. If you screw up in health, perhaps you didn’t try to get the best information hard enough.

I love this new development, this emergence of empowerment in health. I call it self-directed health, the individual capacity to exert enormous influence over the quality of your healthcare.

This is obviously a work in progress. All the answers and tools for self-directed care, self-empowerment are not yet available, some haven’t even yet been imagined.

But they are coming.

“Too many false positives”

4. September 2008 William Davis (6)

“Do you really think I need a heart scan?” asked Terry.

“My doctor said that heart scans show too many false positives. He says that many people end up getting unnecessary heart catheterizations because of them.”

At age 56, Terry was becoming increasingly frightened. His father had suffered his first heart attack at age 53, Terry’s paternal uncle had a heart attack at age 56, his paternal grandfather a heart attack at age 50.

Is this true? Do heart scans yield too many false positives, meaning abnormal results when there really is no abnormality?

No, it is not. What Terry’s doctor is referring to is the fact that, in the decades-long process that leads to heart attack, heart scans have the ability to detect early phases of developing coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Let’s take Terry’s case, for example. Given his family history, it is quite likely that he does indeed have coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Will it be detectable by performing a stress test? Probably not. In fact, Terry jogs and feels well while doing so. While a stress test abnormality that fails to reach conscious perception is possible, it’s fairly unlikely given his exercise routine.

Will Terry’s coronary atherosclerotic plaque be detectable by heart catheterization? Very likely. But why perform an invasive hospital procedure just as a screening test? Should a woman wishing to undergo a screening test for breast cancer undergo breast removal? Of course not.

Is waiting for symptoms a rational way to approach diagnosis of heart disease? Well, when symptoms appear, it means that coronary blood flow is reduced. Stents and bypass surgery may be indicated. The risk of heart attack and death skyrocket. Sudden death becomes a real possibility.

In the 30 or so years required to establish sufficient coronary plaque to permit the appearance of symptoms or the development of an abnormality detectable by stress testing, there were many years when the disease was early--too early to generate symptoms, too early to be detectable by stress testing.

That’s when heart scans uncover evidence for silent coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Should we call this a “false positive” just because it doesn’t also correlate with “need” for a catheterization, stent, bypass operation or result in heart attack within the next few weeks?

The detection of early plaque is just that: early disease detection.

Imagine, for instance, that the breast cancer that will grow into a palpable nodule or mass detectable by mammogram is detectable by a special breast scan 15 years before it becomes a full-blown tumor, metastasizing to other organs. What if effective means to halt that earliest evidence of cancer could put a stop to this devastating disease decades ahead of danger? Is this a “false positive” too?

In my view, this is the knuckleheaded thinking of the conventional practitioner: “Don’t bother me until you’re really sick.” Prevention is a practice that has become fashionable only because of the push of the drug industry. Nutrition is an afterthought, a message conceived through consensus of “experts” with suspect motivations and allegiances.

So, no, heart scans do not uncover “false positives.” They uncover early disease--true positives--years before it is detectable by standard tests or by the appearance of catastrophe. But that is the whole point: Early detection means getting a head start on prevention.

Do heart scans lead to unnecessary heart catheterizations? Yes, sadly they do. But not because heart scans are false positive. It happens because of unscrupulous or ignorant cardiologists who use the information wrongly. In my view, heart scans should NEVER lead directly to heart catheterization in an asymptomatic patient. Heart scans, as helpful as they are, do not modify the standard reasons for performing heart procedures.

If a car mechanic is dishonest and fixes a carburetor that didn't need fixing, should we condemn all car mechanics? No, of course not. We only need to develop the means to weed out the bad apples. The same applies to heart scans.

Triglycerides divided by five

3. September 2008 William Davis (8)

Here's a bit of lipid tedium that might nonetheless help you one day decipher the meaning of shifts in your cholesterol panel.

Recall from prior discussions that conventional LDL cholesterol is a calculated value. Contrary to popular opinion, LDL is usually not measured, but calculated from the Friedewald equation:

LDL cholesterol = Total cholesterol - HDL cholesterol - triglycerides/5

For the sake of simplicity, let's call total cholesterol TC; HDL cholesterol HDL, and triglycerides TG.

We've also talked in past how a low HDL makes calculated LDL inaccurate, sometimes wildly so. (See Low HDL makes Dr. Friedewald a liar.)

Here's yet another source of inaccuracy of the Friedewald-calculated LDL: any increase in triglycerides.

Let's say, for instance, that starting lipid panel shows:

TC 170 mg/dl
LDL 100 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
TG 100 mg/dl

You're advised to follow a standard low-fat, whole grain-rich diet advocated by "official" agencies (the diet I bash as knuckleheaded). Another panel a few months later shows:

TC 230 mg/dl
LDL 140 mg/dl
HDL 50 mg/dl
TG 200 mg/dl

(Obviously, I've oversimplified the response for the sake of argument. HDL would likely go down, LDL would change more depending on body weight, small LDL tendencies, and other factors. You'd also likely get fat.)

Now your doctor declares that your LDL has gone up and you "need" a statin agent.

Nonsense, absolute nonsense.

What has really happened is that the increased dietary intake of wheat and other "healthy whole-grain foods" has caused triglycerides to skyrocket. LDL increases, in turn, by a factor of TG/5, or 40 mg/dl. Thus, LDL has been inflated by the triglyceride-raising effect of whole grains.

This is yet another reason why the standard lipid panel, full of hazards and landmines, needs to be abandoned. But calculated LDL in particular is an exercise in frustration.

Though the example used is hypothetical, I've witnessed this effect thousands of times. I've also seen many people placed on statin drugs unnecessarily, due to the appearance of a high LDL cholesterol that really represented increased TG/5, usually induced by an excessive carbohydrate intake, including those commonly misrepresented as healthy such as whole grains.

Who reads The Heart Scan Blog?

2. September 2008 William Davis (0)

In the Heart Scan Blog, I am often guilty of speaking out loud of my varied thoughts on this crazy thing that we've created called the cardiovascular healthcare machine. But I discuss it in the context of asking "How could this be done better--better outcomes, more patient-friendly, more accessible . . . more do-it-yourself?

The last part is the part that throws most people. Do-it-yourself? My colleagues would claim I'm nuts, suggesting that coronary heart disease is something manageable by yourself. In the conventional pathway, after all, coronary disease is that unpredictable, poorly detected by standard tests, condition that then leads to heart catheterization, stents, bypass , and the like.

Several factors distinguish the readers of The Heart Scan Blog that surprised me:

--Nearly 60% are women
--There are a disproportionate number of Asian people. (Can someone explain this to me?)
--A great number have graduate degrees

I believe this tells me that The Heart Scan Blog appeals to a somewhat more sophisticated audience. This, to some degree, warms my heart, since it means that I've captured the attention of some people who may be more discriminating and thoughtful in their Internet surfing.

However, I also lament the fact that these conversations are not achieving the mainstream. After all,

All posts by william-davis

One bite or many mouthfuls

6. January 2007 William Davis (0)

A reader brought this beautiful series of food photos to my attention:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm

It's simply a graphic display of what 200 calories of various foods look like. You'll note that vegetables and fruits permit large servings to yield 200 calories. Processed foods, on the other hand, require very little to tally up the same calorie load. In particularly, look how little in the way of wheat products are required to match that amount.

Heart scan curiosities #4

5. January 2007 William Davis (2)

Here's an interesting example of a 63-year old man with a heart scan score of 112. However, his aortic valve was also severely calcified (loaded with calcium). In other words, the normally flexible and mobile "leaflets" of the aortic valve were coated with calcium and other tissues that interfere with its free motion. The aortic valve is the starburst white in the center of the heart.

This is what the aortic valve should look like on a CT heart scan--you shouldn't see it at all.

The first man with the calcified valve will unfortunately require a new prosthetic aortic valve sometime in his future. This is usually determined with the help of an ultrasound, or echocardiogram, a better test for assessment of the aortic valve (though useless for detection of coronary plaque).

It's my suspicion that chronic and longstanding deficiency of vitamin D is among the factors that contribute to the abnormal deposition of calcium on the aortic valve. We desperately need more data on this. Nonetheless, perhaps this adds yet another reason to 1)get a CT heart scan, and 2) bring your vitamin D blood level to normal. (We aim for 50 ng/ml year round.)

Fish oil and the perverse logic of hospitals

4. January 2007 William Davis (6)

Hospitals are now starting to carry prescription fish oil, known as Omacor, on their formularies. It's used by some thoracic surgeons after bypass surgery, since fish oil has been shown to reduce the likelihood of atrial fibrillation (a common rhythm after heart surgery).

Why now? The data confirming the benefits of fish oil on atrial fibrillation has been available for several years.

It's now available in hospitals because it's FDA-approved. In other words, when fish oil was just a supplement, it was not available in most hospitals. Whenever I've tried to get fish oil for my patients while in hospital, you'd think I was trying to smuggle Osama Bin Laden into the place. The resistance was incredible.

Now that FDA-approved Omacor is available, costing $130 dollars per month for two capsules, $195 for the three capsule per day dose for after surgery, all of a sudden it becomes available. Why would this irrational state of affairs occur in hospitals?

Several reasons, most of which revolve around the great suspicion my colleagues have towards nutritional supplements. In addition, there's the litigation risk: If something has been approved by the FDA, their stamp of endorsement provides some layer of legal protection.

However, I regard those as pretty weak reasons. I am, indeed, grateful that fish oil is gaining a wider audience. But I think it's absurd that it requires a prescription to get it in many hospitals. Imagine, as the drug companies would love, vitamin C became a prescription agent. Instead of $3, it would cost far more. Does that make it better, safer, more effective?

Of course, no drug sales representative is promoting the nutritional supplement fish oil to physicians nor to hospitals. I now see people adding the extraordinary expense of prescription fish oil to their presription bills.

In my view, it's unnecessary, irrational, and driven more by politics and greed than actual need. Take a look at the website for Omacor (www.omacorrx.com). Among the claims:

"OMACOR is the only omega-3 that, along with diet, has been proven and approved to dramatically reduce very high triglycerides..."

This is a bald lie. Dozens of studies have used nutritional supplement fish oil and shown spectacular triglyceride-reducing effects.

Their argument against fish oil supplements:

"Dietary supplements are not FDA-approved for the treatment of any specific disease or medical condition. Get the Facts: nonprescription, dietary supplement omega-3 is not a substitute for prescription OMACOR."

Does that make any sense to you? Should you buy a GM car because only GM makes genuine GM cars? This is the silly logic being offered by these people to justify their ridiculous pricing.

How about: "The unique manufacturing process for OMACOR helps to eliminate worries about mercury and other pollution from the environment."

Funny...mercury in fish tends to be sequestered in the meat, not the oil. Independent reports by both Consumer Reports and Consumer Lab found no mercury, nor PCB's, in nutritional supplement fish oil. But just suggesting a difference without proving it may be enough to scare some people.

Just because something is used by a hospital does not make it better. The adoption of fish oil is hospitals is a good thing. Too bad it has to add to already bloated health care costs to enrich some drug manufacturer.

Repent for past sins

2. January 2007 William Davis (0)

If the food temptations of the holidays got the best of you, and you're now 5, 10, 15 lbs or more over your pre-holiday weight (our record is 18lbs!), then it's time for serious action.

One easy method to regain the control you may have lost is to pick some period, say, 3 days. During those three days, eat nothing but vegetables--no breads, meats, dairy products, certainly no cookies, cakes, pasta, etc., not even fruit. Follow this routine and weight drops rapidly. Vegetables are wonderful but sometimes boring, so use healthy condiments to spice them up: mustards (hot, brown, yellow, horseradish); healthy salad dressings, which are olive or canola oil-based; salsas, a fabulous garnish with no nutritional downside whatsoever; pesto; tapenades; horseradish added to other condiments or even by itself (wasabi).

Of course, fasting in one of its several variations is another rapid method to regain control. My favorite is to use soy milk in a modified fast, usually 4-6 glasses of a low-fat, low-sugar soy milk per day, along with plenty of water. (Please refer to the precautions detailed in the recent Track Your Plaque Special Report, Fasting: Fast Track to Control Plaque , particularly if you fast 5 days or longer or take blood pressure or diabetic medication.)

Of course, yo-yoing your weight--up during the holidays, down after their conclusion--is not good for you. It does raise the likelihood of diabetes, not to mention cultivate the patterns that contribute to coronary plaque growth, especially small LDL. But if temptation got out of control and you need to regain lost ground, these two strategies work fabulously well for most people.

If you've gained, say, 10 lbs during the holidays, but simply resume your usual habits, chances are you won't lose the weight. Year after year, this can add up to an enormous weight gain. The time to act is now. It's easier to lose the 10 lbs of weight you gained recently, rather than the 50 lbs you've stacked up over the past 5 years.

Wheat-free 2007

1. January 2007 William Davis (4)

Long ago, most of us made the change of reducing saturated fat in our diet. Few people now rely on butter (despite the idiotic butter vs. margarine controversy), full-fat dairy products, fried foods, and greasy meats. That's a healthy change, since saturated fat has conclusively been tied to various cancers, high blood pressure, rise in LDL, and is calorie-dense.

But if there were just one change you were to make beyond a reduction in saturated fat, a change that would translate into dramatic health benefits, it would be a drastic reduction, even elimination, of wheat products.

People do indeed eat enormous quantities of wheat flour-containing products. U.S. per capita consumption of wheat flour was 110 pounds in the early 1970s, and rose to 141 pounds in 1991. It's even higher now. 20% or more of most people's caloric intake every day is provided by wheat flour products.

Wheat containing foods are tasty and convenient. Witness the popularity of bagel shops, the goodie counter at Starbuck's, the proliferation of crackers, breads, and breakfast cereals at the grocery store. Patients are horrified when I suggest that they find a substitute for the sandwiches they eat every day. Even Mom said they were okay!

You're unlikely to hear much about this from the popular press. The wheat industry is enormous and exerts extraordinary clout, just like the drug industry. Texas alone farms 6 million acres of wheat, yielding over $2 billion for the state's economy. The "wheat chain" is complex and far-reaching: growers, processors, food manufacturers, the transportation industry, retailers, chemical producers, and on and on. Wheat futures are traded on the Chicago Board of Trade. Wheat is a major export industry for the U.S.

Of course, these are not evil people, intent on corrupting your health. In fact, most of them are probably working under the perception that they are raising a healthy product. The point is that the notion that wheat is healthy is deeply entrenched in the minds and economy of the U.S. Don't expect to hear unbiased commentary on the health effects of wheat products from most media sources.

What can you expect if you sharply reduce or eliminate wheat? The majority of people:

--Feel like a cloud has been lifted from their thinking.
--Don't experience the afternoon blah or tired feeling after lunch.
--Lose weight, sometimes substantial quantities.
--Raise HDL.
--Reduce small LDL.
--Reduce triglycerides, particularly if they start >100 mg/dl.
--Reduce blood sugar.

The reduction in small LDL can be especially impressive.

For most people, reducing or eliminating wheat is a sacrifice, a major change in food choices and even a loss of convenience. But the health benefits for most people can be dramatic.

Is vitamin D a "vitamin"?

29. December 2006 William Davis (5)

Vitamins are crucial participants in the body's reactions and are obtainable from food. Vitamin C, for example, comes from citrus fruits and vegetables. Vitamin K comes from green vegetables. The B vitamins are found in meats, soy, dairy products, and grains. Vitamin A comes from carrots, squash, and other orange and green colored vegetables.

How about vitamin D? What foods contain vitamin D? The list includes:

Food International Units(IU) vitamin D per serving

Cod liver oil, 1 Tablespoon 1,360
Salmon, cooked, 3½ ounces 360
Mackerel, cooked, 3½ ounces 345
Tuna fish, canned in oil, 3 ounces 200
Sardines, canned in oil, drained, 1¾ ounces 250

Milk, nonfat, reduced fat, and whole, vitamin D fortified, 1 cup 98
Margarine, fortified, 1 Tablespoon 60
Pudding, prepared from mix and made with vitamin D fortified milk, ½ cup 50
Cheese, Swiss, 1 ounce 12

Ready-to-eat cereals fortified with 10% of the DV for vitamin D, ¾ cup to 1 cup servings (servings vary according to the brand) 40

Egg, 1 whole (vitamin D is found in egg yolk) 20
Liver, beef, cooked, 3½ ounces 15

(Modified from the Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health)

You'll note that the only naturally-occurring food sources of vitamin D are the modest quantities in fish, egg yolks, and liver. All the other vitamin D-containing foods like cereal, milk, and other dairy products have vitamin D only because humans add it.

It takes me (personally) 6000 units of vitamin D per day to bring my blood level to an acceptable 50 ng/ml. To obtain this from eating salmon, I would have to eat 58 ounces, or 3 1/2 pounds of salmon--every day. Or, I could eat 30 cans of tuna fish.

If I didn't want to eat loads of fish every day, I could drink 60 glasses of milk every day. After I recovered from the diarrhea, my vitamin D might be adequate, provided the milk indeed contained the amount stated on the label (which it often does not when scrutinized by the USDA).

If vitamin D is a vitamin, how are humans supposed to get sufficient quantities? I don't know anybody who can eat 3 1/2 lbs of salmon per day, nor drink 60 glasses of milk per day. But aren't vitamins supposed to come from food?

The problem is that vitamin D is not really a vitamin, it's a hormone. If your thyroid hormone level was low, you'd gain 20, 30, or more pounds in weight, your blood pressure would skyrocket, you'd lose your hair, become constipated, develop blood clots, be terribly fatigued. In other words, you'd suffer profound changes. Likewise, if thyroid hormone levels are corrected by giving you thyroid hormone, you'd experience profound correction of these phenomena.

That's what I'm seeing with vitamin D: restoration of this hormone to normal blood levels (25-OH-vitamin D3 50 ng/ml) yields profound changes in the body.

If there's one thing that I've come across lately that packs extraordinary potential to help us in reducing heart scan scores, it's the vitamin--sorry, the hormone--cholecalciferol, or D3.

Heart scan curiosities 3

28. December 2006 William Davis (0)

Note the shape of the chest in this 64-year old man. The front of his chest (upper portion of scan) is concave. In other words, if you were looking at this man (shirtless, of course) face to face, his chest would bow inward, rather than the usual outward configuration. The official name for this is "pectus excavatum".

Compare this to the normal chest in the second image, in which the chest is convex. Face to face, the chest would bow slightly outward.

What does it matter? The pectus excavatum in and of itself has no importance, just a curiousity. (I personally find this surprising, given the fact that the heart actually appears squashed by the sternum, or chest wall.) However, it is commonly associated with a "floppy" mitral valve (also called mitral valve prolapse), a common congenital disorder of the mitral valve often accompanied by a slender build, loose joints, and even a nervous disposition. Occasionally, in its more severe forms, the aorta is also enlarged. (This man's aorta is not enlarged.)

So, while we can't actually visualize the mitral valve by a CT heart scan, we can surmise that he likely has a floppy mitral valve, is slender, is probably a nervous sort, and has long limbs with loose joints. He probably required braces as a child, since many people have a phenemenon of "crowded teeth". The roof of his mouth, or hard palate, probably unusually high up in the mouth. He probably has a "weak chin", meaning a less prominent protuberance of his chin. His fingers and toes are likely unusually long and slender.

It could mean that some attention and exploration of how floppy his mitral valve might be could be useful, e.g., an ultrasound or echocardiogram. He might even require oral antibiotics at the time of any oral or some gastrointestinal procedures, since floppy valve are more susceptible to blood infections when potentially "dirty" orifices are instrumented.

All that from a heart scan!

Gratitude

24. December 2006 William Davis (2)

The holidays and the end of the year may be a good time to reflect on how grateful we should be for having the freedom to discuss the ideas we share on this Blog, the Track Your Plaque website, online and offline.

Although I rant and rave against the status quo in heart disease, the shameful profiteering of my colleagues and hospitals, the cut-throat marketing practices of drug and device manufacturers, I am truly grateful that, in the U.S., I have the extraordinary freedom to say these things. You have the freedom to agree or disagree and none of us pays a price for truth.

I've been reflecting myself a great deal on this idea of happiness and gratitude being a critical component of coronary plaque regression and dropping your heart scan score. (See The Heart Scan Blog from earlier this week.) The more I think about this, the more I think that it is indeed true: Harboring anger and resentment, regrets, irritability, all those petty emotions that most of us know are not good for us, erode our chances for success in dropping your heart scan score.

We could rationalize it this way: Anger and other negative emotions are adrenaline-driven states, also characterized by activation of the "sympathetic" nervous system. (Despite its name, the sympathetic system is not sympathetic, as in compassionate; its the "fight-or-flight" activator that accelerates heart rate and blood pressure.)

Happiness, contentment, and gratitude are "parasympathetic" states characterized by slower heart rates, deeper respiration, greater variation in beat-to-beat heart rates (a powerful predictor for health and the basis for the HeartMath program of Lew Childre), lower blood pressure, and even a subtle change in brain waves. In other words, happiness is not just a mental and emotional state, it is a constellation of physical phenomena.

Even though I pick on Dr. Dean Ornish for his stubborn adherence to the outdated low-fat mantra, I do agree with him on the value of happiness. His book, Love and Survival, articulates this concept. Ornish has even said on several occasions that it wasn't the diet that was most important but the connection and warmth that was created by the comraderie created by participation in the Ornish Program group sessions.

I am personally grateful that the concepts I promote are gaining a following and that I can say so without fear of prosecution. I am grateful that Track Your Plaque followers are not just sharing our concepts, but obtaining genuine and powerful health advice that will help keep them home and healthy, away from hospitals, procedures, and the dangers of heart disease.

I hope you share in my gratitude and are thankful for all the truly wonderful things that surround us. I wish you all a wonderful holiday and long, healthy life filled with gratitude.

A Track Your Plaque failure

23. December 2006 William Davis (0)

We recently had a man suffer a heart attack after beginning the program. Let me tell you the details.

Jerry's heart scan score 781, age 53. Multiple lipoprotein abnormalities: HDL 32 mg/dl, triglycerides 279 mg/dl, nearly all of his LDL was in small particles with an "effective" LDL (LDL particle number), and very high IDL. So Jerry added fish oil 6000 mg per day, niacin, and vitamin D to the statin drug prescribed by his primary physician. Jerry added oat bran, ground flaxseed, and tried to eat fish at least once per week.

However, Jerry continued to smoke. He'd smoked for 40 years (!), up to 2 packs per day, and just reasoned that it was too late to quit. He also continued to indulge in the packaged, processed foods that were part of his convenience story business.

Jerry's stress test was normal--no chest pain, normal EKG, normal images of blood flow, though he was somewhat breathless, likely from his lung disease from smoking.

Two months into his program, he abruptly experienced severe crushing pain in his chest. Because he was traveling, he ended up in a small local hospital. A failed angioplasty led to urgent coronary bypass surgery.

Jerry's alive. Now he's a non-smoker. He's got the pursed lips and peculiar breathing pattern that smokers get, but he's breathing.

Lesson: In the face of the most powerful program for heart disease known, it can still be overpowered by Twinkies, Hoho's, pretzels, chips--and cigarettes.

The new year is approaching. Be grateful for another year of healthy life and commit to a new year of even greater health. If you're a smoker, there's no choice: you've got to quit.

Are you more like a dog or a rabbit?

20. December 2006 William Davis (11)

Dr. William Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology and cardiovascular pathologist, is a perennial source of clever ideas on heart disease.
In a recent editorial, Dr. Roberts comments:

"Because humans get atherosclerosis, and atherosclerosis is a disease only of herbivorers, humans also must be herbivores. Most humans, of course, eat flesh, but that act does not make us carnivores. Carnivores and herbivores have different characteristics. (1) The teeth of carnivores are sharp; those of herbivores, flat (humans have some sharp teeth but most are flat for grinding the fruits, vegetables, and grains we are built to eat). (2) The intestinal tract of carnivores is short (about 3 times body length); that of herbivores, long (about 12 times body length). (Since I am 6 feet tall my intestinal tract should be about 60 feet long. As a consequence, if I eat bovine muscle [steak], it could take 5 days to course through those 20 yards.) (3) Body cooling for carnivores is done by panting because they have no ability to seat; although herbivores also can pant, they cool their bodies mainly by sweating. (4) Drinking fluids is by lapping them for the carnivore; it is by sipping them for the herbivore. (5) Vitamin C is made by the carnivore's own body; herbivores obtain their ascorbic acid only from their diet. Thus, although most human beings think we are carnivores or at least conduct their lives as if we were, basically humans are herbivores. If we could decrease our flesh intake to as few as 5 to 7 meals a week our health would improve substantially."

You can always count on Dr. Bill Roberts to come up with some clever observations.

I think he's right. Some of the most unhealthy people I've known have been serious meat eaters. Most of the vegetarians have been among the healthiest. (I say most because if a vegetarian still indulges in plenty of junk foods like chips, crackers, breakfast cereals, breads, etc., then they can be every bit as unhealthy as a meat eater.)

Should you become a vegetarian to gain control over coronary plaque and other aspects of health? I don't believe you have to. However, modern livestock raising practices have substantially modified the composition of meats. A steak in 2006, for instance, is not the same thing as a steak in 1896. The saturated and monounsaturated fat content are different, the pattern of fat "marbling" is different, the lean protein content is different. Meat is less healthy today than 100 years ago.

Take a lesson from Dr. Roberts' tongue-in-cheek but nonetheless provocative thoughts. Pardon me while I chew on some carrots.

Even monkeys do it

24. April 2009 William Davis (6)

It all started back in the 1960s, when ape-watching anthropologists, Drs. Jane Goodall and Richard Wrangham, observed chimps foraging for a specific variety of leaf, which they consumed whole while wrinkling their noses in presumed disgust. Subsequent study showed that the leaves contained a powerful anti-parasitic compound.

A similar observation followed in 1987 by Dr. Michael Huffman from the University of Kyoto. During his year of living in the jungles of Tanzania, he observed chimpanzees in their native habitat. On one unexpected morning, he observed a female chimp, Chausiku:

“Chausiku goes directly to and sits down in front of a shrub and pulls down several new growth branches about the diameter of my little finger. She places them all on her lap and removes the bark and leaves of the first branch to expose the succulent inner pith. She then bites off small portions and chews on each for several seconds at a time. By doing this, she makes a conspicuous sucking sound as she extracts and swallows the juice, spitting out most of the remaining fiber. This continues for 17 minutes, with short breaks as she consumes the pith of each branch in the same manner.”

Dr. Michael Huffman’s description of Chausiku documents a fascinating example of animal self-medication what some call "zoopharmacognosy."
In this instance, the chimpanzee, weak, clutching her back in pain, and listless, was ingesting the leaves of the plant, Vernonia amygdalina, to purge an intestinal parasite. She recovered by the next morning.

Vernonia leaves have since been found to contain over a dozen potential anti-parasitic compounds. Chimps in this region commonly suffer infestations of parasites like Strongyloides fuelleborni (thread worm), Trichuris trichiura (whip worm), and Oesophagostomum stephanostomum (nodular worm). They have somehow stumbled onto a treatment that they administer themselves.

Chimpanzees have inhabited earth for over 6 million years. Who knows how long they and other primates have practiced some form of self-medication.

If chimpanzees can do it, I believe that we, as human primates, can also practice a similar form of self-directed health--homopharmacognosy?

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Comments (6) -

Scott Miller
4/23/2009 7:03:00 PM |

Fascinating post. Thank you, Dr. Davis.

In the same way, Native Americans, Australian Aboriginals, Indians, Chinese, and so many other long-standing cultures also have developed an acute understanding of local phyto-medication. Then, when modern science emerged, much of this cultural wisdom was discarded and/or re-branded as unproven or snake oil medication.

In the last 20 or so years, though, a lot of these medicinal plants have been redeemed by modern science, like turmeric, green tea and pine bark.

It's too bad we don't have a more integrated system of medicine, researching and embracing both the old and the new.

Scott W
4/23/2009 9:14:00 PM |

We actually have self-medication occuring in modern culture, but the intent is 180 degrees reversed from our ancestors: we intentionlly ingest substances of known or suspected toxicity when we feel healthy. Then we switch to prescribed drugs to undo what we did to ourselves in the first place.

Scott W

Dr. William Davis
4/24/2009 1:49:00 AM |

Scott and Scott--

Well said!

Rick
4/24/2009 5:12:00 AM |

Dr Davis,
I've always been surprised by the willingness of non-mainstream cardiologists to recommend supplements such as L-carnitine or coenzyme Q-10 but not herbs. Does this post mean your thinking has shifted on this?

vin
4/24/2009 10:01:00 AM |

Wonderful article. And great comments from Scott and Scott.

Dr. B G
4/25/2009 3:54:00 AM |

homopharmacognosy...

HOLY MOLY BATMAN...

I love that! You ROCK Dr. Davis!

Related posts

Comments (6) -

Scott Miller

Scott W

Dr. William Davis

Rick

vin

Dr. B G

Add comment