Bosom buddies

Male breast reduction surgery is a booming business. While most industries are in a downward tailspin, breast reduction surgery in men is growing at double-digit rates.

Other efforts, some legitimate, some not, are also cropping up, all intended to help men deal with this embarassing problem:

Exercise programs to reduce male breast size.

Liposuction--Not just for the belly!

Plastic surgery

Gynexin--a supplement that purportedly reduces male breast size.

Conventional medical treatment also includes estrogen blocking drugs, the same ones used to treat breast cancer, drugs like tamoxifen. There's even clothing intended to make breasts less obvious.


While male breast enlargement--"gynecomastia"--can occasionally occur due to rare endocrinologic problems, such as high prolactin hormone levels (hyperprolactinemia) or somewhat more commonly as failed testosterone production (hypogonadism), the vast majority of men who suffer with this problem simply have high estrogen levels.

Makes sense: Women develop larger breasts during development mostly due to increased levels of estrogen. A parallel situation in men likewise stimulates breast tissue.

So where does the excess estrogen come from?

Visceral fat converts testosterone to estrogen. Men with excess visceral fat therefore develop low levels of testosterone and high levels of estrogen. Estrogen levels can, in fact, be substantially higher compared to slender males.

So what foods cause the accumulation of visceral fat and, thereby, increased estrogen and decreased testosterone?

Foods that increase blood glucose and insulin to the greatest degree are the foods that begin this cascade. The common foods that increase blood sugar the most? Here's a list, starting with most blood glucose-insulin provoke at the top, least at the bottom:

Gluten-free foods (dried, pulverized cornstarch, rice starch, potato starch, tapioca starch)
Whole wheat bread
Sucrose
Milky Way bars
Snickers bars

So the whole wheat sandwiches you've been eating increase blood sugar and insulin, leading to visceral fat. (And, yes, whole wheat bread increases blood sugar higher than Milky Way bars and Snickers bars.) The more visceral fat grows, the more resistant to the effects of insulin you become, further escalating blood sugar. Estrogen increases, testosterone drops, mammary gland tissue grows, normal male breasts grow to B- or C-cup size.

Yet again, an entire industry is growing from the unintended consequence of conventional advice. In this instance, the advice to "eat more healthy whole grains" leads to this booming industry of male breast reduction efforts from surgery to medications to clothing. The REAL solution: Eliminate the foods that start the process in the first place.

Don't be a dipstick

If I want to know how much oil is in my car's engine, I check the dipstick.

The dipstick provides a gauge of the amount of oil in my engine. If the dipstick registers "full" because there an oil mark at one inch, I understand that there's more than one inch of oil in my engine. The dipstick provides an indirect gauge of the amount of oil in my engine.

That's what cholesterol was meant to provide: A gauge, a "dipstick," for the kind of lipoproteins (lipid-carrying proteins) in the bloodstream.

Lipoproteins are a collection of particles that are larger than a single cholesterol molecule but much smaller than a red blood cell. Lipoproteins consist of many components: various proteins, phospholipids, lots of triglycerides, as well as cholesterol. In the 1960s, methods to characterize lipoproteins were not widely available, so the cholesterol in lipoproteins were used as a "dipstick" to assess low-density lipoproteins ("LDL cholesterol") and high-density lipoproteins ("HDL cholesterol"). (Actually, even "LDL cholesterol" was not measured, but was derived from "total cholesterol," the quantity of cholesterol in all lipoprotein fractions.)

Some other component of lipoproteins could have been measured instead of cholesterol, such as apoprotein B, apoprotein C, or others, all meant to act as the "dipstick" for various lipoproteins.

Relying on cholesterol to characterize lipoproteins provides a misleading picture. Imagine watching cars go by at high speed while standing on the side of the highway. You want to count how many people--not cars, but people--go by in a given amount of time. Because you cannot make out the detail of each and every car whizzing by, you count the number of cars and assume that each car carries two people. Whether it's rush hour, Sunday morning, late evening, rainy, sunny, or snowing, you make the same assumption: two people per car.

That's what cholesterol does: It is assuming that each and every lipoprotein particle (car) carries the same amount of cholesterol (people).

But that may, obviously, not be true. A bus goes by carrying 25 people. Plenty of cars may carry just the driver. People carpooling may be in cars carrying 3 or 4 people. Assuming just 2 people per car can send your estimates way off course.

That is precisely what happens when your doctor tries to use conventional cholesterol values (total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol) to gauge the lipoproteins in your bloodstream. Measuring cholesterol can also provide the false impression that cholesterol is the cause of heart disease, even though it was originally meant to simply serve as a "dipstick."

What we need to do is to characterize lipoproteins themselves. We can distinguish them by size, number, density, charge, and the type and form of proteins contained within. It provides greater insight into the composition of lipoproteins in the blood. It provides greater insight into the causes underlying coronary atherosclerotic plaque. It can also tell us what dietary changes trigger different particle patterns and how to correct them.

Until you have a full lipoprotein analysis, you can never know for certain 1) if you will have heart disease in your future, or 2) how your heart disease was caused.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of doctors are perfectly content to just count cars going by and assume two people per car, i.e., confine assessment of your heart disease risk using cholesterol . . . just as drug industry marketing has instructed them.

It's not your job to educate your doctor. If he or she refuses to provide access to lipoprotein testing to better determine your heart disease risk, then consider going out on your own. Many of our Track Your Plaque program followers have obtained lipoprotein testing on their own through Direct Labs.

The ultimate insurance company cost savings

I had a very disturbing conversation with a physician who is employed by an insurance company last week.

I admitted a patient in the hospital for very clear-cut reasons. She is one of my few non-compliant patients, doing none of the strategies I advocate--no fish oil, no vitamin D, no correction of her substantial lipoprotein abnormalities, not even medication. Much of this was because of difficult finances, some of it is because she is from the generation (she is in her late 70s) that tends to ignore preventive health, some of it is because she is a kind of happy-go-lucky personality. So her disease has been progressive and, now, life-threatening, including an abdominal aneurysm near-bursting in size (well above the 5.5 cm cutoff). The patient is also a sweet, cuddly grandmother. I have a hard time bullying nice little old ladies.

While she was in the hospital, the social worker told me that her case was being reviewed by her insurer and would likely be denied. Their medical officer wanted to speak to me.

So the medical officer called me and started asking pointed questions. "Why did you do that test? You know that she's not been compliant. Are you sure you want to do that? I don't think that's a good idea." In other words, this was not just a review of the case. This was an opportunity for the insurance company to intervene in the actual care of the patient.

Then the kicker: "Have you considered not doing anything and . . . just letting nature take its course?"

At first, I was stunned. "You mean let the patient die?"

Expressed in such blatant terms, while he was trying to be diplomatic, made him back down. "Well, uh, no, but she is a high-risk patient."

Anyway, this was the first instance I've encountered in which the insurance company is not just in the business of reviewing a case, but actually trying to intervene during the hospital stay, to the point of making the ultimate healthcare cost savings: Letting the patient die.

Unfortunately, never having had an experience like this before, I did not think to record the conversation or take notes. I am wondering if this is an issue to be taken up by the Insurance Board . . . or is this a taste of things to come as the health insurers fall under increasing pressure with the legislative changes underway?

Salvation from halogenation

Iodine is a halogen.

On the periodic table of elements (remember the big chart of the elements in science class?), the ingenious table that lays out all known atomic elements, elements with similar characteristics are listed in the same column. The elegant genius of the periodic table has even allowed prediction of new, undiscovered elements that conform to the "laws" of atomic behavior.

Column 17 (also called "group VIIa") contains all the halogens, of which iodine is one member. Other halogens include fluorine, chlorine, and bromine.

Odd phenomenon in biologic systems: One halogen can often not be distinguished from another. Thus, a chlorinated compound can cleverly disguise itself as an iodinated compound, a brominated compound can mimic an iodinated compound, etc.

What this means in thyroid health is that, should sufficient iodine be lacking in the body, i.e., iodine deficiency, other halogens can gain entry into the thyroid gland.

While a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) molecule may be recognized as an iodinated compound, it certainly doesn't act like an iodinated compound once it's in the thyroid's cells and can disrupt thyroid function (Porterfield 1998). Another group of chlorine-containing compounds, perchlorates, that contaminate groundwater and are found as pesticide residues in produce, are extremely potent thyroid-blockers (Greer 2002). Likewise, bromine-containing compounds, such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), widely used as flame retardants, also disrupt thyroid function (Zhou 2001). Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), found in Teflon non-stick cookware and stain-resistant products,  has been associated with thyroid dysfunction (Melzer 2010). PFOA, incidentally, can disrupt thyroid dysfunction that will not show up in the TSH test used by primary care physicians and endocrinologists to screen for thyroid dysfunction. (In fact, the presumed champions of thyroid health, the endocrinology community, have proven a miserable failure in translating and implementing the findings from  toxicological science findings to that of preserving or restoring thyroid health. They have largely chosen to ignore it.)

We therefore navigate through a world teeming with halogenated thyroid blocking compounds. We should all therefore avoid such exposures as perchlorates in produce by rinsing thoroughly or purchasing organic, avoid non-stick cookware, avoid use or exposure to pesticides and herbicides.

Another crucial means to block the entry of various halogenated compounds into your vulnerable thyroid: Be sure you are getting sufficient iodine. While it doesn't make your thyroid impervious to injury, iodine circulating in the blood in sufficient quantities and residing in sufficient stores in the thyroid gland provides at least partial protection from the halogenated impostors in your life.

I make this point in the context of heart disease prevention, since even the most subtle degrees of thyroid dysfunction can easily double, triple, or quadruple heart disease risk. See related posts, Is normal TSH too high? and Thyroid perspective update.

Lipitor-ologist

One of the things I do in practice is consult in complex hyperlipidemias, the collection of lipoprotein disorders that usually, but not always, lead to atherosclerosis.

First order of business: Make the diagnosis--familial combined hyperlipidemia, hypoalphalipoproteinemia, lipoprotein(a), familial heterozygous hypercholesterolemia, familial hypertriglyceridemia, hyperapoprotein B with metabolic syndrome, etc. These are the disorders that start with a genetic variant, e.g., a missing or dysfunctional enzyme or signal protein, such as lipoprotein lipase or apo C3.

I then ask: What can be done that is easy and safe and preferably related to diet and lifestyle?

By following an effective diet, many of these abnormalities can be dramatically corrected, sometimes completely. Familial hypertriglyceridemia, for instance, an inherited disorder of lipoprotein lipase in which triglyceride levels can exceed 1000 mg/dl, high enough to cause pancreatic damage, responds incredibly well to carbohydrate restriction and over-the-counter fish oil. I have a number of these people who enjoy triglyceride levels below 100 mg/dl--unheard of in conventionally treated people with this disorder.

Then why is it that, time after time, I see these people in consult, often as second or third opinions from lipidologists (presumed lipid specialists) or cardiologists, when the only solutions offered are 1) Lipitor or other statin drug, and 2) a low-fat diet? Occasionally, an aggressive lipidologist might offer niacin, a fibrate drug (Tricor or fenofibrate), or Lovaza (prescription fish oil).

Sadly, the world of lipid disorders has been reduced to prescribing a statin drug and little else, 9 times out of 10.

I don't mean to rant, but I continue to be shocked at the incredible influence the drug industry has over not just prescribing patterns, but thinking patterns. Perhaps I should say non-thinking patterns. The drugs make it too easy to feel like the doctor is doing something when, in truth, they are doing the minimum (at best) and missing an opportunity to provide true health-empowering advice that is far more likely to yield maximum control over these patterns with little to no medication.

All in all, I am grateful that there is a growing discipline of "lipidology," a specialty devoted to diagnosing and treating hyperlipidemias. Unfortunately, much of the education of the lipidologist is too heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. Not surprisingly, the drug people favor "education" that highlights their high-revenue products.

Seeing a lipidologist is still better than seeing most primary care physicians or cardiologists. Just beware that you might be walking into the hands of someone who is simply the unwitting puppet of the pharmaceutical industry.

Robb Wolf's new Paleo Solution

The Paleo Solution: The Original Human Diet


The Paleo Solution: The Original Human Diet

I have to say: I'm impressed. If you would like insight into why a "Paleo" nutritional approach works on a biochemical level--why you lose weight, burn fat, and gain overall better health--then Robb's book is worth devoting a few hours to, of not a reread or two.

Robb has a particular knack for organizing and presenting information in a way that makes it immediately accessible. You will gain an appreciation for how far American nutritional habits have veered off course.

Because Robb brings expertise from his academic biochemistry background, as well as personal trainer and educator running a successful gym in northern California, NorCal Strength and Conditioning, he delivers a book packed with information that is extremely easy to convert to immediate action in health and exercise. He seems to anticipate all the little problems and objections that people come up with along the way, dealing with them in his characteristic lighthearted way, providing practical, rational solutions.

Robb's book nicely complements what Dr. Loren Cordain has written in his The Paleo Diet: Lose Weight and Get Healthy by Eating the Food You Were Designed to Eat and The Paleo Diet for Athletes: A Nutritional Formula for Peak Athletic Performance. (My wife is now reading The Paleo Diet for Athletes and loves it. I'm going to add Robb's book to her reading list for her to read next.)

If nutrition has you stumped, if the USDA food pyramid still sounds like a reasonable path, or if you just would like to understand nutrition a little bitter, especially its biochemical ins and outs, Robb's book is a wonderful place to start.

Human foie gras

If you want to make foie gras, you feed ducks and geese copious quantities of grains, such as corn and wheat.

The carbohydrate-rich diet causes fat deposition in the liver via processes such as de novo lipogenesis, the conversion of carbohydrates to triglycerides. Ducks and geese are particularly good at this, since they store plentiful fats in the liver to draw from during sustained periods of not eating during annual migration.

Modern humans are trying awfully hard to create their own version of foie gras-yielding livers. While nobody is shoving a tube down our gullets, the modern lifestyle of grotesque carbohydrate overconsumption, like soft drinks, chips, pretzels, crackers, and--yes--"healthy whole grains" causes fat accumulation in the human liver.

Over the past few years, there has been an explosion of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatosis, two forms of liver disease that result from excess fat deposition. The situation gets so bad in some people that it progresses to cirrhosis, i.e., a hard, poorly-functioning liver that paints a very ugly health picture. The end-result is identical to that experienced by longstanding alcoholics.



While Hannibal Lecter might celebrate the proliferation of human fatty livers with a glass of claret, fatty liver disease is an entirely preventable condition. All it requires is not eating the foods that create it in the first place.

Let go of my love handles

When is fat not just fat?

When it's visceral fat. Visceral fat is the fat that infiltrates the intestinal lining, the liver, kidneys, even your heart. It's the stuff of love handles, the flabby fat that hangs over your belt, or what I call "wheat belly."

Unlike visceral fat, the fat in your thighs or bottom is metabolically quiescent. Thigh and bottom fat may prevent you from fitting into your "skinny jeans," but its mainly a passive repository for excess calories.

Visceral fat, on the other hand, is metabolically active. It produces large quantities of inflammatory signals ("cytokines"), such as various interleukins, leptin, and tumor necrosis factor, that can trigger inflammatory responses in other parts of the body. Visceral fat also oddly fails to produce the protective cytokine, adiponectin, that protects us from diabetes, cancer, and heart disease.

Visceral fat also allows free fatty acids to leave and enter fat cells, resulting in a flood of fatty acids and triglycerides (= 3 fatty acids on a glycerol "backbone") in the bloodstream. This worsens insulin responses ("insulin resistance") and contributes to fatty liver. The situation is worsened when the very powerful process of de novo lipogenesis is triggered, the liver's conversion of sugar to triglycerides.

Visceral fat is also itself inflamed. Biopsies of visceral fat show plenty of inflammatory white blood cells (macrophages) infiltrating its structure.

So what causes visceral fat? Anything that triggers abnormal increases in blood glucose, followed by insulin, will cause visceral fat to grow.

It follows logically that foods that increase blood glucose the most will thereby trigger the greatest increase in visceral fat. Eggs don't lead to visceral fat, nor do salmon, olive oil, beef, broccoli, or almonds. But wheat, cornstarch, potato starch, rice starch, tapioca starch, and sugars will all trigger glucose-insulin that leads to visceral fat accumulation.

Fructose is also an extravagant trigger of visceral fat. Fructose is found in sucrose (50% fructose), high-fructose corn syrup, agave syrup, maple syrup, and honey.

Increased visceral fat can be suggested by increased waist circumference. The inflammatory hotbed created by excess visceral fat has therefore been associated with increased likelihood of heart attack, cardiovascular mortality, diabetes, cancer, and total mortality.

So I'm not so worried that you can't squeeze your bottom into your size 8 jeans. I am worried, however, when you need to let your belt out a notch . . . or two or three.

Surviving a widow maker

Gwen came to me 5 years ago. In her late 60s, she'd been having feelings of chest pressure for the past 4 weeks with small physical efforts, such as climbing a flight of stairs or lifting her grandchildren.

She sat in my office, heaving small sobs, accompanied by her daughter.

Gwen had already undergone a heart catheterization at a hospital near home by a cardiologist who I knew to be honest and competent. She'd been told that she had a 90% stenosis ("blockage") of her proximal left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery. He called it a "widow maker," since closure of the artery at this point can be fatal within minutes. He advised bypass surgery as soon as possible. Though a stent could be placed at this location, he felt that its proximity to the left main stem (i.e., the "trunk" that divides into the LAD and circumflex arteries) might be jeopardized by expanding a stent in this bulky plaque, what I felt was a reasonable concern.

I reviewed the images that she brought with her. Yes, indeed: a widow maker. The portion of the left ventricle (heart muscle) fed by the LAD was also impaired ("hypokinetic"), reflecting reduced flow through the artery.

I advised Gwen that her first cardiologist's advice was sound: This was a potentially dangerous and severe condition. Either a bypass or stent should be performed near-future, the less delay the better.

But Gwen and her daughter would have no talk of any more procedures. She'd come to me because she heard about the (then rudimentary) effort I'd been making at reversing coronary plaque. "I admire your commitment, Gwen, but I am concerned that there may not be sufficient time to implement a program of prevention or reversal. Prevention is very powerful, but very slow. When symptoms like yours are active, also, it can mean that we won't have full control over the plaque causing the symptoms. This risks closure of the vessel, since flow characteristics in the plaque are abnormal. I think that you should go through a stent or bypass. We can then start your prevention/reversal program once we know you're safe."

Gwen would still have none of it. I asked her to return in a few days after thinking it over. In the meantime, we drew her lipoprotein blood samples while she added fish oil, l-arginine (back then I used a lot of l-arginine for its endothelial health effects), and began the Track Your Plaque diet a la 2004. This was in addition to the aspirin, beta blocker, and statin prescribed by the first cardiologist.

Several days later, Gwen and her daughter returned, as committed as ever to not having a procedure and proceeding with our prevention/reversal efforts.

So off we went. I was nervous about Gwen's safety, but she had clearly made her mind made up. Gwen's lipoprotein analysis revealed a severe small LDL pattern along with markers for prediabetes (high insulin, high blood glucose, hypertension, along with the loose tummy of visceral fat). So I counseled her intensively in diet and added niacin.

Within 2 weeks, Gwen no longer had chest pain. Whether this was due to her efforts or to some resolution of an intraplaque phenomenon (e.g., resorption of internal plaque hemorrhage), I don't know. But her symptoms did not return.

As the program evolved, we added the new strategies along the way--vitamin D supplementation; elimination of all wheat along with other changes in diet; iodine and thyroid normalization; as well as discontinuing l-arginine after the initial two years. She also got rid of the statin drug after losing around 20 lbs on the diet.

It's now been six years with her "widow maker" and Gwen has been fine: no recurrence of her symptoms, all stress tests performed have been normal, reflecting normal blood flow in her coronary arteries.

Should ALL people with symptomatic widow makers undergo such an effort and avoid procedures? No, not yet. Prevention and reversal efforts are indeed powerful, but slow. Some people just may not have sufficient time to accomplish what Gwen did. The fact that Gwen showed evidence for reduced flow in the LAD worried me in particular. There is no question that mortality benefits for stenting or bypass of this location are not as large as previously thought (see here, for instance), but each case needs to be viewed individually, factoring in flow characteristics in the artery, appearance of "stability" or "instability" of the plaque itself, not to mention commitment of the person.

But it can be done.

Fred Hahn's Slow Burn

I just had a workout with personal trainer and fitness expert, Fred Hahn. After a workout that quickly taught me that I had a lot to learn about exercise and strength training, Fred and I had a nice low-carbohydrate dinner at a Manhattan restaurant and shared ideas.

Fred is coauthor of Slow Burn Fitness Revolution: The slow motion exercise that will change your body in 30 minutes a week, written in collaboration with the Drs. Eades, Michael and Mary Dan. Fred also blogs here.

I had heard about Fred's "slow-burn" concept in past, but made little of it. I then met Fred on Jimmy Moore's low-carb cruise this past year, where I gave a talk on how carbohydrate-reduced diets reduce small LDL particles. Fred provided a group demonstration on his slow-burn techniques. I watched the demonstration, even tried it a few times back home in the gym, but never really applied them, losing patience most of the time and just going back to my usual routine.

Well, Fred showed me today how to do his slow-burn. In a nutshell, it is the slow, methodical use of weight resistance until the muscle is exhausted. It involves slow movement--e.g., 5 seconds for a lat pulldown from top to bottom--repeated until exhaustion using a weight that allows, perhaps, 6 repetitions over a 60-second effort.

I've been strength training since I was a teenager. I've seen lots of bad training techniques, injuries, and hocum when it comes to how to use resistance training techniques. But I believe that Fred Hahn's slow-burn technique really provides something unique that I hadn't experienced before.

For one, the burn is nothing like I've felt before. Two, there appears to be nearly zero risk for injury, since the usual momentum-driven, herky-jerky motion often employed with weight machines is entirely gone. Three, if what Fred is seeing is true--enhanced visceral (abdominal) fat loss, reduced blood glucose, increased HDL, decreased LDL/total cholesterol--then there's something really interesting going on here.

I also discovered that Fred is no ordinary personal trainer. He has insights into metabolism that I found truly impressive. After all, he's been hanging around with Mike Eades, who's a pretty sharp guy. What Mike Eades is to metabolic insights is what Fred Hahn is to exercise physiology.

I'm going to take Fred's slow burn training insights home with me. I'll let you know how it goes. Some aspects I'd like to explore: Will strength, muscle mass, and blood sugar responses change?



Fred Hahn's latest book, adapting slow burn techniques for kids.
Normal cholesterol panel . . . no heart disease?

Normal cholesterol panel . . . no heart disease?

I often hear this comment: "I have a normal cholesterol panel. So I have low risk for heart disease, right?"

While there's a germ of truth in the statement, there are many exceptions. Having "normal" cholesterol values is far from a guarantee that you won't drop over at your daughter's wedding or find yourself lying on a gurney at your nearest profit-center-for-health, aka hospital, heading for the cath lab.

Statistically, large populations do indeed show fewer heart attacks at the lower end of the curve for low total and  LDL cholesterol and the higher end of HDL. But that's on a population basis. When applied to a specific individual, population observations can fall apart. Heart attack can occur at the low risk end of the curve; no heart attack can occur at the high risk end of the curve.

First of all, to me a "normal" lipid panel is not adhering to the lax notion of "normal" specified in the lab's "reference range" drawn from population observations. Most labs, for instance, specify that an HDL cholesterol of 40 mg/dl or more and triglycerides of 150 mg/dl or less are in the normal ranges. However, heart disease can readily occur with normal values of, say, an HDL of 48 mg/dl and triglycerides of 125 mg/dl, both of which allow substantial small oxidation-prone LDL particles to develop. So "normal" may not be ideal or desirable. Look at any study comparing people with heart disease vs. those without, for instance: Typical HDLs in people with heart attacks are around 46 mg/dl, while HDLs in people without heart attacks typically average 48 mg/dl--there is nearly perfect overlap in the distribution curves.

There are also causes for heart disease that are not revealed by the lipid values. Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), is among the most important exceptions: You can have a heart attack, stroke, three stents or bypass surgery at age 40 even with spectacular lipid values if you have this genetically-determined condition. And it's not rare, since 11% of the population express it. How about people with the apo E2 genetic variation? These people tend to have normal fasting cholesterol values (if they have only one copy of E2, not two) but have extravagant abnormalities after they eat that contribute to risk. You won't know this from a standard cholesterol panel.

Vitamin D deficiency can be suggested by low HDL and omega-3 fatty acid deficiency suggested by higher triglycerides, but deficiencies of both can exist in severe degrees even with reasonably favorable ranges for both lipid values. Despite the recent inane comments by the Institute of Medicine committee, from what I've witnessed from replacing vitamin D to achieve serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels of 60-70 ng/ml, vitamin D deficiency is among the most powerful and correctable causes of heart disease I've ever seen. And, while greater quantities of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil are associated with lower triglycerides, they are even better at reducing postprandial phenomena, i.e., the after-eating flood of lipoproteins like VLDL and chylomicron remnants, that underlie formation of much atherosclerotic plaque--but not revealed by fasting lipids.

I view standard cholesterol panels as the 1963 version of heart disease prediction. We've come a long way since then and we now have far better tools for prediction of heart attack. Yet the majority of physicians and the public still follow the outdated notion that a cholesterol panel is sufficient to predict your heart's future. Nostalgic, quaint perhaps, but as outdated as transistor radios and prime time acts on the Ed Sullivan show.

 

Comments (19) -

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    6/15/2011 4:14:41 PM |

    I  was surprised that in order to get my  vitamin D25 level to 58.3 ng/mL  this winter in southern California I had to take 6,000 IU daily  of vitamin D3;  as was outside in short sleeves a fair spell every day.   This was first time where could test,  and my first time supplementing as well;  now am using at least 7,000 IU daily of vitamin D3 and it's summer months.

    Set my blind trial dose,   as a precaution, on low side based on info read here (from T. Hutchinson) suggesting 1,000 IU D3 for every 25 pounds body weight;  I had no clue what my baseline D3 was . Used  glycerin drops from Vitality Works out of New Mexico,  where 5 drops = 2,000 IU D3 ;  I've no financial interest in this.

    All males on my paternal side died from heart related problems before their late 50's so went ahead and tested my Lp(a) a while back;  I got clued in to Lp(a) by reading Doc's posts here . Was pleased and relieved to see a Lp(a) reading of just 2 , since lab gives less than 20 Lp(a) as normal.

  • Jimmy

    6/16/2011 12:07:56 AM |

    Then how is Lp(a) best treated?
    I am 36 and have had high Lp(a) for 16 years now. It sits near 100. That with low HDL and high LDL I feel like a walking time bomb. My father passed at 44 and mom at 46 and all uncles on mom's side dead prior to 50 of heart disease. Father was adopted, so do not know his side. What is worse, is that I have just relocated to Toronto, Canada (from the US) and I cannot find a doctor who even acknowledges what Lp(a) is. Nor can I find one (and I have been searching for 2 years) who thinks my cholesterol is high enough to "worry about".  It's even worse here than in my small town back in the US as far as getting decent lipid testing and advice Frown     Sorry to rant.

  • Lora

    6/16/2011 1:33:58 AM |

    I'm glad that you are warning people with normal cholesterol panels not to be complacent about their arterial status. My  cholesterol totals from age 40 to 52  ranged between 114 and 132.  My HDLs in my late 40s/early 50s were 64, 58, 53; LDLs 55, 56, 48; triglycerides 66, 49, 70.  The cholesterol totals on the latter two panels were below the normal range, which I've read can be problematic, though that's a topic that it is very difficult to find info about. What a surprise to get an severely infected blister on my foot, complicated by poor circulation, and to subsequently be found to have "mild arteriosclerotic changes" in my lower extremities.  I wonder about the mildness b/c now I perceive the dramatically decreased amount of hair on my legs as an indicator of poor circulation.

  • Dr. William Davis

    6/16/2011 11:54:41 AM |

    Jimmy-

    Please do not accept the advice offered by many of my colleagues that there is no treatment for Lp(a), or that the only treatment is to reduce LDL to less than 80 mg/dl with statins. All nonsense.

    Undoubtedly, the science behind Lp(a) is still unfolding and is proving to be more complex than initially thought. For instance, newer observations are suggesting that the atherogenic (plaque-causing) potential of Lp(a) may be largely due to its oxidized phospholipid and phospholipase A2 content.

    Nonetheless, I urge you  to participate in our discussions on the Track Your Plaque website, where you will find extensive reports and discussions on what to do with Lp(a). Our current first treatment of choice is high-dose fish oil, i.e., 6000 mg per day EPA + DHA.

  • Dr. William Davis

    6/16/2011 11:56:51 AM |

    Hi, Lora--

    Clearly, your answers won't be found in cholesterol values. This is far more common than often thought.

    Look for Lp(a), small LDL, vitamin D deficiency, and consider omega-3 fatty acid supplementation. Consider unappreciated hypertension and endogenous glycation, i. e, high HbA1c.

  • James

    6/16/2011 8:22:33 PM |

    When I got my in-office lipid panel results, my doctor was pleased by the results (I was too):

    Trigs: 50
    Total Chol: 198
    HDL-C: 70
    LDL-C: 118 (slightly elevated)

    That gives me a TC/H of 2.8, which I assume is excellent.

    BUT, I also got a NMR LipoProfile test, and here were those results:
    LDL-P: 1410 (High)
    Small LDL-P: 613 (High)
    Vit D: 31.4 (Low)

    I was surprised that the NMR test revealed some risk, while my standard panel did not. My doctor now wants to test me again in 4 months.

  • kenneth

    6/17/2011 1:39:19 PM |

    I've never been able to get my HDL above 36 (it's as low as 25). Triglycerides in me and my brother run 400-500 uncontrolled (neither of us is at all obese). I'm at 8 grams of fish oil now, 1 g of IR niacin and I've bumped up my Vitamin D to 8,000 a day, and I'm hoping that makes a difference at least with the HDL. My LDL and total cholesterol numbers are "normal" although god knows what a VAP or NMR would reveal. Would I be crazy to think about adding a bit of statin to this mix, ie 10 mg/day of atorvastatin or simvistatin? Has anyone had any luck with sytrinol or anything else? I'm not wheat free I know, but I have cut way down.

  • Anand

    6/17/2011 4:23:50 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
    What is your take on the AIM-HIGH trial ?
    My Lpa, measured at Berkeley is extremely elevated at 190 mg/ dl. Their assay is supposed to be isoform insensitive. I am on 20 mg crestor and 2 g niaspan along with 2g carnitine, 2500 IU vitamin d (level is 36) and 3 g EPA plus DHA.
    I do follow a low carb diet.
    I also have FH. Untreated my TC was 300 with LDL over 200.  I already have one stent in mid LAD despite being thin (BMI 23).
    I am wondering how to monitor my coronary arteries besides the standard stress test.

    An and

  • Lora

    6/17/2011 8:32:43 PM |

    Thank you for the information. My HbA1c when checked was 5.6. I had already started cutting back significantly on carbs a couple of weeks before that. I think endogenous glycation has been a significant factor for me. I've avoided white sugar for many years, but I used to quite frequently eat beans and whole grains, including whole grain oatmeal every morning. I discovered with a OneTouch UltraMini glucose monitor that my BG went into the 170s after eating that!  I haven't found any other food that sends my BG so high.  (And  I used to frequently eat the oatmeal along with fruit!) An hour after the drink in a glucose tolerance test my BG was 138 (then went to 79 an hour later).  My vitamin D when checked was 43.6 so not terrible, but showing room for improvement. I'ave been taking Member's Mark fish oil (which I read about on this web site) for quite awhile, but I’d been somewhat erratic with it before realizing my problem. I have a variant of "white coat" hypertension, which I've read is probably more harmful than it was once thought to be. Normally my BP is on the low side but stressful situations sometimes cause it to spike dramatically. My BMI has been 20 for years, used to be lower. I've never smoked. I wonder about carnitine b/c my diet has been largely, though not entirely, vegetarian for years. I definitely haven’t been getting enough exercise. Also, I've come across journal articles about Type D personality traits and think they may be a factor.  I have to get Lp(a), small LDL, and other sub-elements checked.    

    Thanks again! I have learned a lot from this web site.

  • Helen

    6/20/2011 7:11:33 PM |

    Lora -

    Yikes!  You sound almost exactly like me.  I don't really know what to do about the glucose spikes.  Low carb didn't help me.  I'm not trying to burst Dr. Davis' bubble or anything, just saying what was true for me.  Fish oil and niacin make my blood sugar spike more.  My blood pressure and resting heart rate are low, though.  Only occasionally do I get the white coat hypertension thing.  But otherwise, my cholesterol panel and blood sugar experiences mirror yours pretty well.

  • Lora

    6/22/2011 7:43:10 PM |

    Helen,

    Fortunately, decreasing or avoiding certain carbs does help me control my blood glucose. I bought a glucose monitor, as suggested by Dr. Davis. Ironically, I have discovered that some of the foods I used to make it a point to eat for health reasons (oatmeal, apple) spike my blood sugar the most.

  • SK

    6/25/2011 2:27:20 PM |

    We are big fans of fish oil.

    BUT, now we read this: "our findings are disconcerting as they suggest that ω-3 fatty acids, considered beneficial for coronary artery disease prevention, may increase high-grade prostate cancer risk, whereas trans-fatty acids, considered harmful, may reduce high-grade prostate cancer risk. " ???
    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/173/12/1429.full

    thoughts???

  • SK

    6/25/2011 2:31:28 PM |

    OOopps,

    my mistake. let me post this at the right blog topic....

  • Gregory

    6/27/2011 1:34:08 AM |

    Lora,

    I too: a cup of muesli and fruit for breakfast for years. One day I tested: 179 after 1 hour. I now try to aim for 1 hr post prandial 110. No more muesli and fruit for breakfast!

  • Dr. Hasitha Dissanayake

    7/1/2011 5:02:37 PM |

    Dr. Davis, you have nicely described the high lipid levels and its impact on heart disease. Yes, as you have described the hight lipid level is not the only cause for heart diseases. Other major risk factors include smoking, hypertension and  diabetes. Further there are also number of minor risk factors for heart diseases as well, such as family history, sedentary life style, male gender etc.

    We should not make our minds by looking only at normal cholesterol panel. As you have described already vitamin D in important to produce more HDL and Omega-3 fatty acids. Any way vitamin A, C and E act as anti oxidants and also reduce the cancer risk. Visit http://agelag.blogspot.com

    Nice blog Dr. Davis... Keep on writing...

  • John

    7/21/2011 6:16:28 PM |

    WOW! all these numbers/letters and i've not a clue what most of them mean! i'm aware of the hdl/ldl numbers/levels , though not of the others. i happened across this site/blog from another nd/md's blog and i find this stuff to be mind-boggling! my health challenge: Late Nov. 2010, i had a stent placed in a major artery that i'm told was 90-95% blocked. while recovering in cath lab, i almost bled to death with a hemotopa ( ? ) the size of an orange, i was told upon my discharge by the nurse who saw it and literally saved my life. i've since been on plavix 75mg, 1x/day in which i've chosen to cut these in half and now take 1/2 pill at 12+ hours intervals or when i suddenly feel tired, pains and get scared. i should also tell you i've been diagnosed w/ peripheral neuropathy and experience many different types of stinging/pinching pain in various parts of by body. doing alot of computer work ( i work from home on the internety ) with one=finger hunt-n-pek typing also causes numbness and pain in my right hand. the very first day after the procedure,  i was given 7 - yes, 7! - plavix75mg. needless to say, the ensuing 4 weeks was hell for me and out of fear, i was back and forth to a heart hospital about 4 different ocassions. my entire right leg, groin, testacles and penis was purple/bluish and bruised. Now, i have not felt good since this stent was put in. i feel that the other type stent could have been used instead of the drug-alluding stent. I was also prescibed a statin of which I've NOT taken since finding out how ineffective and dangerous they are and that we actually need cholesterol especially for prpoer brain functioning. as i type now, i'm in discomfort. i recently started drinking a organic magnesium supplement called Natural Calm but aside from it cleaning me out, i feel no better at this point. I NEED HELP! i'm depressed and very irritable over the smallest things, at times. I have attempted to follow Dr. D'adamo's Eat right For your Blood type diet, but, since these supplements can be quite expensive ( i'm on a S.S. disability for Tourettes Syndrome ) i don't take them as often as i should so i really can't say whether or not they help. i've eaten breads my entire life and pizza as and still is my favorite ( i'm italian of course-Smile basically, i've been eating all foods my entire life that i shouldn't have been. i'm driving my wife and myself crazy and she does return the "favor' quite often. so now i read all this info. about vit. D and fish oils and i'm more confused than ever. being in NY, i'm aware of the vit. d ( lack of ) in relation to depression or SAD, etc.  i'm praying i find some nd/md who is willing and able to work with me to get me off this plavix and gabapentin 300mg ( 3 caps, 2x per day or as i feel they are needed ). my cardi says that after 1 year he'll be able to take me off the plavix, but, honestly, i feel this drug is killing me. oh...i also have the beginnings of Barretts Esophagus ( very small, i'm told ) and my gastro and cardi feel the combination of Plavix 75mg, Protonix 40mg, enteric coated Reg. strength aspirin ( of which i take 1-2  Baby aspirin instead, very rarely ),
    gabapentin 300mg is safe for me and outweighs the 30% or so possibility of having a blood clot at the stent. I've also thin blood to begin with ( type 0+ ) and i'm just feeling miserable! i do have a good day here and there, but mostly my days are spent very uncomfortable, irratable, depressed, tired and angry. I used to be healthy and exercised but now if i get out to walk a while, that's about it. i've never weighed in at more than 185 with much of my life weighing between 155-170. i am 5'7" and had always been considered to have broad shoulders and was husky as a young child. i'm hoping to get some relief and my good health back. i thank you for reading this and letting me vent. i apologize for any typos and the inconsistencies.

  • Lawrence

    9/30/2011 12:38:03 PM |

    Dear Dr William Davis
    In May of 2009 my wife had a brain aneurism and stroke.  (Then 52)
    Two years on she is extremely well due to a very skilled neurosurgeon. It has come to light that my wife has type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol.
    Her medications are 1000mg of Metformin twice daily with meals.
    160mg of Diovan  mornings.
    25 mg HCTZ mornings.
    We are supplementing her meds with 1000mg of fish oil and now 2000iu of Vitamin D.
    A month ago we started using the Heart Technology Heart Tech formula two scoops  a day.
    Approx one month after starting the Heart Tech Formula my wife has had some blood work done.
    The results are as follows:
    A1C 7.1
    Lipoprotein A 23 nmol/L
    Vitamin D, 25 Hydroxy (vd25)  33ng/ml.
    C-reactive Protein HS 0.80 mg/dl.
    Cholesterol 236 md/dl.
    HDL 48 mg/dl.
    Triglyceride  181 mg/dl.
    VLDL  36 mg/dl.
    LDL 152 mg/dl.
    Non –HDL  188
    LDL/HDL ratio 3.17.
    My wife was originally taking Simvastain 25mg per day but our PCP stopped this due to some nasty side effects, he has since suggested we start  Lipitor, but after reading so many worrying articles regarding Lipitor and other statin usage  we are very reluctant to start using the Lipitor.
    I wonder if you would mind discussing our options and what you would consider my wife’s risk of Heart Attack and stroke are and if you feel the use of vitamin C, lysine etc in the Heart Tech will help with her risk.  I am new to the site so have not found my way around yet.
    Thank you.
    Lawrence

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/1/2011 2:04:52 PM |

    Hi, Lawrence--

    I would strongly urge you and your wife to 1) read the many posts on this blog about the exact situation your wife is experiencing and, 2) if interested in more information, consider going to the Track Your Plaque website, where many discussions are conducted on these issues every day.

    Your wife's pattern is a clear-cut example of carbohydrate excess and/or genetic susceptibility and vitamin D deficiency. All of this is readily, easily, and safety correctable with no drugs.

  • Lawrence

    10/1/2011 9:33:03 PM |

    Dear Dr William Davis
    I suppose in some ways being diagnosed with type 2 has been a good thing, in spite of my wife mild brain damage she is starting to realize that she has to cut out all the rapid acting carbohydrates that she used to exist on. It has taken me some time to find the right approach to helping control her BG, but she is now starting to see the better BG reading so is responding to the good feedback. We are increasing our dose of Vitamin D3 to 10000 IU.  We plan to continue with the Heart Tech, my feeling is her LPa would have been much higher if she had not had a month of the Heart Tech formula prior to her blood draw.
    I will certainly log in to Track Your Plague, thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions, it’s very reassuring that you feel she will respond to the Track Your Plaque.
    Lawrence

Loading