Maybe your teenagers no longer believe in Santa Claus, but I assure you: Not only is he alive, I believe that we have evidence that he works for the drug industry!

Psshaww! you say. Yet another rant from that kook, Davis. Who can he pick on next? What other imagined "conspiracies" can he uncover?

Let me recount the evidence and I'll let you decide how damning it all is:

--Christmas is a culture of excess, overeating, celebration: Cookies, candy canes, pie, chocolate, egg nog, more cookies . . . A virtual wheat and sugar frenzy!

--Wheat and sugars make us diabetic!

--What does a diabetic look like? How about big protuberant abdomen, florid cheeks, baggy eyes (from sleep apnea)? The red outfit and beard is optional, of course. Could you think of a better representation of what happens to a person when they eat goodies all the time?

I therefore submit that Santa Claus is at the root of a campaign to cultivate diabetes! Diabetes: a growth industry that is raking in billions of dollars for the drug companies!

I'd bet that Mr. Claus would agree with the dietary advice dispensed by the folks at the American Diabetes Association website:

A place to start is at about 45-60 grams of carbohydrate at a meal. You may need more or less carbohydrate at meals depending on how you manage your diabetes.

Eat more carbohydrates, get fatter in the abdomen, require more medication to keep sugar low. Then start over: eat more carbohydrates, get fatter, more medicines. Kaching!

"You may need more?" Personally, I'd be rendered comatose and helpless if I indulged in such carbohydrate gluttony.

If Mr. Claus were, instead, interested in our health and keeping us non-diabetic, Christmas would be a time for pistachios, almonds, dark chocolates, and tea.

You want health advice? Don't ask Santa Claus!

I watched Seth's aortic valve deteriorate over a two year period.

I was first consulted in 2004 to offer an opinion on Seth's heart scan score of 779 and flagrantly abnormal cholesterol patterns, including triglycerides in the 400 mg/dl range. But I heard a murmur, as well, a murmur of a leaky aortic valve, "aortic valve insufficiency."

Over the next two years, I watched Seth's aortic valve worsen, going from mild leakiness to severe.

In 2006-2007, I tiptoed into vitamin D replacement and asked Seth to add some vitamin D. Time passed and Seth's aortic valve got progressively worse.

Over the past year, However, he's maintained a truly healthy level of vitamin D, with blood levels consistently in the 60-70 ng/ml range.

While Seth's last echocardiogram showed a severely leaky aortic valve, the most recent echo showed mild leakiness ("mild aortic insufficiency")--a dramatic reduction.

I continue to see this in many, though not all, patients with aortic valve disease. Though I've more frequently witnessed either stalled progression or reversal of aortic valve stenosis (stiffness), I've now seen a handful of people with aortic valve leakiness (insufficiency) also reverse.

I've posted about this peculiar phenomenon previously:

Aortic valve disease and vitamin D
More on aortic valve disease and vitamin D

Prior to vitamin D, I had NEVER witnessed any aortic valve disease stop or reverse.

A formal trial at some point would be invaluable.

At last: After talking about the new Track Your Plaque community tools for the last year, our data tracking software is now available!

Track Your Plaque is, admittedly, somewhat data-intensive. The basic concept relies on the fact that we track heart scan scores, cholesterol values, lipoprotein values like percent small LDL and Lp(a), vitamin D blood levels, intake of omega-3 fatty acids, etc. Our new data tracking tools will help Members track their data over time.

Even more interesting, you can allow other Members (not required) to view your data for comments and feedback. You can also view the program data of other Members (if they choose to make their data "public") to learn how they are going about stopping and reversing their coronary plaque.

In other words, our graphic data tracking tools are yet another way we are using to acquire a collective wisdom on how to put a stop to coronary heart disease, heart attack, and perverse "let's make money with heart procedures" hospital solutions.

One of the aspects that helps make this work is the sharing of data. So far, the people who have begun to enter their data have all made their information "public." It's not truly "public," but viewable only by other Track Your Plaque Members. Also, Members can, in effect, anonymize their data simply by using a nickname, e.g., heartprotection or hearthawk.

The data tracking tools are in beta-test version, so there are bound to be a few glitches. But we're eager to hear from our Members' experiences on how to improve these tools. Report any problems or make your suggestions on the Track Your Plaque Member Forum--Technical Support.

Have you seen the Corn Refiners Association commercial campaigns to educate the American public on the safety of fructose? If you haven't, you can view these interesting specimens on You Tube:

"Get the facts--You're in for a sweet surprise: Fructose is safe in moderation!"

Two Moms

Two lovers

Beyond the fact that fructose stimulates liver production of glycerol, which thereby increases liver VLDL production and raises blood levels of triglycerides; likely stimulates appetite; increases cholesterol levels; fructose has also been clearly implicated in increasing blood levels of uric acid.

Uric acid is the substance that, in some people, precipitates in joints and causes gout, the painful inflammatory arthritis that has been increasing in prevalence over the last four decades since the introduction of fructose in 1967. While blood levels of uric acid in the early part of the 20th century averaged 3.5 mg/dl, more recent population assessments have averaged 6.0 mg/dl or higher. (Non-human mammals who don't eat processed foods, drink fruit drinks or beer, and don't eat candy have uric acid levels of <2.0 mg/dl.)

Uric acid is looking like it may prove to be an important risk factor for coronary disease and atherosclerotic plaque. It is no news that people with higher blood levels of uric acid are more likely to experience adverse cardiovascular events like heart attack. People with features of the metabolic syndrome also have higher uric acid blood levels; the more characteristics they have, the higher the uric acid level. However, the prevailing view has been that uric acid is simply an accompaniment of these processes, but not causal.

However, more recent observations suggest that increased levels of uric acid may instead be a cause of metabolic syndrome and high blood pressure.

Increased blood levels of uric acid have been shown to:

--Increase blood pressure
--Induce kidney damage (even in the absence of uric acid kidney stones)
--Antagonize insulin responses

A diagnosis of gout is not required to experience all of the adverse phenomena associated with uric acid. (For not entirely clear reasons, some people, perhaps based on pH or other factors, are more prone to trigger crystallization of uric acid in joints, similar to the phenomena of sugar crystallization when making rock candy.)

Which brings us back to fructose, a sweetener that clearly substantially increases uric acid levels. I suppose that the mothers and lovers in the Corn Refiners' commercials are right to a degree: Our kids will survive, as will you and I, despite increases in triglycerides, enhanced diabetic tendencies, amplified appetites, and increased uric acid due to fructose in our diet. We will also likely survive despite being 100 lbs overweight, partly due to the effects of fructose.

But if long-term health is your desire for you and your family, fructose has no role whatsoever to play.

Interestingly, the obviously expensive and slick ad campaigns from the Corn Refiners' videos have triggered some helpful video counterarguments:

High-fructose corn syrup
Conspiracy for Fat America
High-fructose corn syrup truth

A full discussion of uric acid, the scientific data behind uric acid as a coronary risk factor, and the nutritional means to reduce uric acid will be the topic of a thorough discussion in an upcoming Special Report on the Track Your Plaque website.

Richard Nikoley from the Free the Animal Blog contributes this informative comment:

'Bout 18 months ago, I was at 230 (5'10) and looked awful. I was on Omeprezole for years for gastric reflux, a variety of prescription meds since early 20s for seasonal sinus allergies, culminating finally in the daily, year round squirts of Flonase-esque sprays (the best for control without noticeable side-effects), and finally, Levothroid for about the last 7 years or so, as I had elevated TSH (around 9ish).

My BP was regularly 145-160 / 95-110.

I decided to get busy. I modified diet somewhat, cutting lots of junk carbs, and began working out -- brief, intense, heavy twice per week. BP began coming down immediately, such that within only a couple of weeks I was borderline rather than full blown high. Then after about six months, a year ago, I went to full blown low-carb, high fat, cutting out all grains, sugar, veg oils, etc, and replacing with animal fats, coconut, olive oil. You know the drill. Then, first of the year I felt great and simply stopped all meds, including the thyroid. I also began intermittent fasting, twice per week, and for a twist, I always do my weight lifting in some degree of fast, even as much as 30 hours.

That's when the weight really started pouring off. Take a look:

http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2008/09/periodic-photo-progress-update.html

http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2008/08/faceoff.html

In July I figured it's about time for a physical. Here's the lipid panel, demonstrating am HDL of 106 and Try of 47, great ratios all around:

http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2008/07/lipid-pannel.html

However, my TSH was even higher -- 16ish. It seems odd that I was able to lose 40-50 pounds of fat (10-15 pounds of lean gain for a 30 pound net loss at that time -- now an additional 10 pounds net loss).

One disclosure is that I was drinking too much, almost daily, and quite a bit (gotta save some vices...). Anyway, I'm at the point now where I want to drill down. I know I need to see an endocrinologist and have T3 and T4 looked at, but in advance, I wanted to see if the recent changes I've made could make a difference:

1. Stopped all alcohol.
2. Stopped most dairy, except ghee and heavy cream, and cheese is now used as a "spice," i.e., tiny quantities -- no more milk.
3. 6,000 IU Vit D per day.
4. 3 grams salmon oil, 2 grams cod liver oil.
5. Vit K2 Menatetrenone (MK-4) -- side story: getting off grains reversed gum disease for which I have had two surgeries, then supplementing the K2 DISSOLVED calculus on my teeth within days -- hygienist and dentist are dumbfounded. Stephan (Whole Health Source), who comments here, has an amazing series on K2.

If you view his photos, you'll appreciate just how far he has come.

Overall, Richard's program is wonderful and his pictures clearly display his success. However, Richard, thyroid function is indeed a problem, a problem that needs to be fixed ASAP. Remember, low thyroid function used to be diagnosed at autopsy at which time the coronary arteries and other arteries of the body were found to be packed solid with atherosclerotic plaque, even in young people.

I'd recommend:

1) Consider 200 mcg Iodine per day from kelp if you do not use iodized salt.

2) Seeing your doctor right away for thyroid replacement, hopefully with consideration of your T3 status.

3) A heart scan--Not to lead to procedures, but something for you to track over time as your program improves and thyroid function is restored.

Beyond this, keep up the great work. Great blog, too!

Having now tested the thyroid status of several hundred patients over the last few months, I have come to appreciate:

1) That thyroid dysfunction is rampant, affecting at least 25% of everyone I see.
2) It is an enormously effective means to reduce cardiovascular risk.

I'm not talking about flagrant low thyroid dysfunction, the sort that triggers weight gain of 30 lbs, gallons of water retention, baggy eyes, sleeping 14 hours a day. I'm talking about the opposite extreme: the earliest, subtle, and often asymptomatic degrees of thyroid dysfunction that raises LDL cholesterol, lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a), a huge effect!), and adds to coronary plaque growth.

Correcting the subtle levels of low thyroid:

1) Makes LDL reduction much easier

2) Facilitates weight loss

3) Reduces Lp(a)--best with inclusion of the T3 fraction of thyroid hormone.

Recall that, 100 years ago, the heart implications of low thyroid weren't appreciated until autopsy, when the unfortunate victim would be found to have coronary arteries packed solid with atherosclerotic plaque. It takes years of low thyroid function to do this. I advise you to not wait until you get to this point or anywhere near it.

I find it fascinating that many of the most potent strategies we are now employing in the Track Your Plaque process are hormonal: thyroid hormones, T3 and T4; vitamin D (the hormone cholecalciferol); testosterone; progesterone; DHEA, pregnenolone. Omega-3 fatty acids, while not hormones themselves, exert many of their beneficial effects via the eicosanoid hormone pathway. Elimination of wheat and cornstarch exert their benefits via a reduction in the hormone insulin's wide fluctuations.

We haven't yet had sufficient time to gauge an effect on coronary plaque and heart scan scores. In other words, will perfect thyroid function increase our success rate in stopping or reversing coronary plaque? I don't know for sure, but I predict that it will. In fact, I believe that we are filling a large "hole" in the program by adding this new aspect.

From Mukuddem-Petersen J, Oosthuizen1 W, Jerling JC. J Nutr 2005.

If you haven't yet done so, adding raw nuts to your health program yields a broad panel of health benefits.

Contrary to conventional advice, nuts can be eaten in unlimited quantities. Provided they are raw--unroasted, unsalted (since salting only accompanies roasted nuts), not roasted in unhealthy oils like hydrogenated cottonseed or soybean (very common)--they do not make you fat, regardless of the quantity consumed. Beer nuts, honey-roasted nuts, mixed nuts roasted in unhealthy oils with salt added are either fattening or exert other unhealthy effects (e.g., hypertension, rise in Lp(a), and cancer from the hydrogenated fats).

Some notable observations from the chart:

--Hazelnuts and macadamians are the richest in monounsaturates
--Walnuts are the richest in the omega-6 linoleic acid, while also richest in the "omega-3" linolenic acid.
--From a fat composition standpoint, raw cashews and dry roasted peanuts aren't so bad.
--Pistachios figure pretty favorably in this analysis, rich in monounsaturates.
--Coconuts are unusually rich in saturated fat, though about half is lauric acid--an issue for future conversation.

Here's a listing of the fiber composition of nuts per 1 oz serving (about a handful):

Almonds (24 nuts) 3.5 g
Brazilnuts, dried (6-8 nuts) 2.1 g
Cashew nuts, dry roasted, with salt added (18 nuts) 0.9 g
Hazelnuts or filberts 2.7 g
Macadamia nuts, dry roasted, with salt added (10-12 nuts) 2.3 g
Mixed nuts, dry roasted, with peanuts, with salt added 2.6 g
Peanuts, all types, dry-roasted, without salt 2.3 g
Pecans (20 halves) 2.7 g
Pine nuts, dried 1.0 g
Pistachio nuts, dry roasted, with salt added (47 nuts) 2.9 g
Walnuts, English (14 halves) 1.9 g

Data courtesy USDA Nutrient Database

Note that almonds are the winners with 3.5 grams fiber per ounce, pistachios a close second. Pine nuts and cashews place last on the fiber content chart.

Not addressed by the charts is protein content of nuts, as well as the low sugar content, all additional beneficial aspects of nuts. Nuts are also a moderate source of magnesium (though seeds like pumpkin and sunflower shine in the magnesium content area).

Rather than micromanage the specific fat and fiber content of your diet, why not get a little of the good of everything on the list and just mix and match the nuts? (Mixed and matched on your own, of course, not a hydrogenated cottonseed oil nut mixture).

Here, I re-post a conversation I've posted before, that of the scam product, "no-flush" niacin, also known as "flush-free" niacin.

I find this issue particularly bothersome, since I have a patient or two each and every week who forgets the explicit advice I gave them to avoid these scam products altogether. Despite costing more than conventional niacin, they exert no effect, beneficial or otherwise. Niacin--the real thing--exerts real and substantial beneficial effects. No-flush or flush-free does nothing except drain your wallet. I continue to marvel at the fact that supplement manufacturers persist in selling this product. Ironically, it commands a significant premium over other niacin forms.

They are outright scams that should be avoided altogether.

My former post, No-flush niacin kills:

Gwen was miserable and defeated.

No wonder. After a bypass operation failed just 12 months earlier with closure of 3 out of 4 bypass grafts, she has since undergone 9 heart catheterization procedures and received umpteen stents. She presented to me for an opinion on why she had such aggressive coronary disease (despite Lipitor).

No surprise, several new causes of heart disease were identified, including a very severe small LDL pattern: 100% of LDL particles were small.

Given her stormy procedural history, I urged Gwen to immediately drop all processed carbohydrates from her diet, including any food made from wheat or corn starch. (She and her husband were shocked by this, by the way, since she'd been urged repeatedly to increase her whole grains by the hospital dietitians.) I also urged her to begin to lose the 30 lbs of weight that she'd gained following the hospital dietitians' advice. She also added fish oil at a higher-than-usual dose.

I asked her to add niacin, among our most effective agents for reduction of small LDL particles, not to mention reduction of the likelihood of future cardiovascular events.

Although I instructed Gwen on where and how to obtain niacin, she went to a health food store and bought "no-flush niacin," or inositol hexaniacinate. She was curious why she experienced none of the hot flush I told her about.

When she came back to the office some weeks later to review her treatment program, she told me that chest pains had returned. On questioning her about what she had changed specifically, the problem became clear: She'd been taking no-flush niacin, rather than the Slo-Niacin I had recommended.

What is no-flush niacin? It is inositol hexaniacinate, a molecule that indeed carries six niacin molecules attached to an inositol backbone. Unfortunately, it exerts virtually no effect in humans. It is a scam. Though I love nutritional supplements in general, it pains me to know that supplement distributors and health food stores persist in selling this outright scam product that not only fails to exert any of the benefits of real niacin, it also puts people like Gwen in real danger because of its failure to provide the effects she needed.

So, if niacin saves lives, no-flush niacin in effect could kill you. Avoid this scam like the plague.

No-flush niacin does not work. Period.

Disclosure: I have no financial or other relationship with Upsher Smith, the manufacturer of Slo-Niacin.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

I've recently had several hospital employees tell me that their hospitals offered CT coronary angiograms without charge to their employees.

Among these hospital employees were several women in their 30s and 40s.

Why would young, asymptomatic, pre-menopausal women be subjected to the equivalent of 100 chest x-rays or 25 mammograms? Is there an imminent, life-threatening, symptomatic problem here?

All of these women were without symptoms, some were serious exercisers.

There is NO rational justification for performing CT coronary angiography, free or not.

What they really want is some low-risk, yet confident means of identifying risk for heart disease. Cholesterol, of course, is a miserable failure in this arena. Framingham risk scoring? Don't make me laugh.

Step in CT coronary angiography. But does CT coronary angiography provide the answers they are looking for?

Well, it provides some of the answers. It does serve to tell each woman whether she "needs" a heart procedure like heart catheterization, stent, or bypass surgery, since the intent of CT angiography is to identify "severe" blockages, sufficient to justify heart procedures.

Pitfalls: Because of the radiation exposure, CT angiography is not a procedure that can be repeated periodically to reassess the status of any abnormal findings. A CT angiogram every year? After just four years, the equivalent of 400 chest x-rays will have been performed, or 100 mammograms. Cancer becomes a very real risk at this point.

CT angiography is also not quantitative. Sure, it can provide a crude estimation of the percent blockage--the value your cardiologist seeks to "justify" a stent. But it does NOT provide a longitudinal (lengthwise) quantification of plaque volume, a measure of total plaque volume that can be tracked over time.

What's a woman to do? Simple: Get the test that, at least in 2008, provides the only means of gauging total lengthwise coronary plaque volume: a simple CT heart scan, a test performed with an equivalent of 4 - 10 chest x-rays, or 1 - 2.5 mammograms.

Perhaps, in future, software and engineering improvements will be made with CT coronary angiography that reduce radiation to tolerable levels and allows the lengthwise volume measurement of plaque. But that's not how it's done today.

Beware the dreaded Wheat Deficiency Syndrome.

Like any other syndrome, you can recognize this condition by its many tell-tale signs:

--Flat abdomen
--Rapid weight loss
--High energy
--Less mood swings
--Better sleep
--Diminished appetite
--Reduced blood sugar
--Reduced blood pressure
--Reduced small LDL and total LDL
--Increased HDL
--Reduced triglycerides
--Reduced C-reactive protein and other inflammatory measures

Of course, you could choose to cure yourself of this syndrome simply by taking the antidote: foods made with wheat flour, like bread, breakfast cereals, pastas, pretzels, crackers, and muffins.

All the signs of the syndrome will then disappear and you can have back your protuberant abdomen, irrational mood swings, exagerrated appetite, higher blood sugar, etc.

The sun is getting stronger and the days are getting longer, even here in Wisconsin.

Some people are coming to the office with nice tans obtained by sunning themselves for several hours. Others have come back from winter getaways to Florida, Arizona, or the tropics, also sporting nice, dark tans.

Several people, in fact, were so confident that sunning themselves provided sufficient vitamin D that they reduced their usual dose. Some even stopped their vitamin D altogether.

But, when blood levels of 25(OH) vitamin D were checked, they were virtually all low, sometimes as low as <20 ng/ml. Yet all had nice tans.

Why does this happen? Why would people with dark tans remain deficient in vitamin D?

One big factor is age: Anyone over 40 years old is fooling themselves if they think that a tan ensures raising vitamin D levels to a desirable range. Also, the more you tan, the more melanin skin pigment accumulates, and the more vitamin D activation in the skin is blocked.

Weight is another factor: Heavier people need more vitamin D, sometimes three- or four-fold more than slender people.

Why does aging result in inefficient skin activation of vitamin D? It seems that, once we are beyond our reproductively useful years, this ticking clock of aging gets triggered. The older we get, the less activation of vitamin D occurs in our skin, the less of the youth-maintaining, disease-preventing benefits of vitamin D we obtain with sun exposure.

The message: Don't rely on a tan to gauge the adequacy of vitamin D. Maybe that works when you're 16 years old, but not at age 50 or 60. There's only one way to know your vitamin D status: a blood level of 25(OH) vitamin D.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

I admit it: In years past, I spoke for the drug industry.

In retrospect, I now regret it. In fact, I'm downright embarassed by it.

In the 1960s, you’d purchase a new car. If you changed the oil, adhered to the maintenance schedule—and were lucky—you might expect to get 100,000 miles out of your automobile. Only an occasional car made it beyond that odometer hurdle. Even if the engine made it past the 100,000 mile milestone, the automobile body would inevitably start to develop rusting decay at the edges of the fenders, signaling body rot that threatened to open gaping holes of metal.

Then along came Toyota and Honda, whose cars easily reached 100,000 miles and well beyond, reliably and with bodies intact. As this realization sunk into the American consciousness, many asked, “Why can’t American automakers accomplish the same sort of trouble-free longevity?” “Buy American” emerged as a mantra to preserve American jobs and prop up an economy vulnerable to the superior automotive products from Detroit’s competitors.

Of course, American automakers have since responded to the challenge posed by the Japanese auto industry and produced automobiles that essentially matched the reliability and longevity of Japanese cars. But, the great unanswered question remains: For years before the onslaught of Japanese competition, did Detroit quietly plot to maintain a policy of planned obsolescence that ensured Americans would have to scrap the old and buy a new car every few years whenever the odometer tipped over 100,000 miles?

We will never know. At worst, it may represent the behind-closed-doors, back-slapping sort of plotting that, for many years, maximized revenues, ensured shareholder returns, and secured executive paychecks. Or, perhaps it wasn’t some evil conspiracy but just complacency, a profitable position of comfort at that. There’s little incentive for industry insiders to reveal such self-incriminating information.

But the example set by the American auto industry presents an unusual learning opportunity for us, a chance to make some useful comparisons to the heart healthcare industry.

Is the American healthcare industry also guilty of practicing a policy of “planned obsolescence,” just like Detroit? The product that helplessly crumbles is, of course, not your rust-riddled automobile, but you.

When someone sees a primary care physician year after year, yet appears one morning in the emergency room, clutching his or her chest in agony from the closed coronary artery responsible for a life-threatening heart attack—prompting the flurry of activity that results in $100,000 in hospital procedures . . .

Perhaps “planned obsolescence” is not the perfect phrase to describe the situation, but the principle still applies: A failure to inform the patient that such an outcome was possible—no, probable—makes you wonder whether such an outcome was predictable and thereby preventable in the first place.

What should we do when planned obsolescence leads us down a path engineered by someone who has something, often substantial, to gain? Even if it's just complacency, or adhering to a beaten, ineffective status quo (can you say "low-fat diet?), it all points in the same direction.

You have a choice: Refuse to buy a 1962 Impala of health care, otherwise known as conventional heart disease management.

Melatonin is fascinating stuff.

In addition to its use as a sleep aid, melatonin exerts possible effects on cardiovascular parameters, including anti-oxidative action on LDL, reduction in sympathetic (adrenaline-driven) tone, and reduction in blood pressure.

Several studies document the blood pressure-reducing effect of melatonin:

Daily nighttime melatonin reduces blood pressure in male patients with essential hypertension.

Melatonin reduces night blood pressure in patients with nocturnal hypertension.

Prolonged melatonin administration decreases nocturnal blood pressure in women.

Blood pressure-lowering effect of melatonin in type 1 diabetes.

But blood pressure may be increased when melatonin is added to nifedipine, a calcium channel blocker:

Cardiovascular effects of melatonin in hypertensive patients well controlled by nifedipine: a 24-hour study.

Effects on BP tend to be modest, on the order of 5-8 mmHg reduction in systolic, half that in diastolic.

But don't pooh-pooh such small reductions, however, as small reductions exert mani-fold larger reductions in cardiovascular events like heart attack and stroke. NIH-sponsored NHANES data (see JNC VII), for example, document a doubling of risk for each increment of BP of 20/10. The Camelot Study demonstrated a reduction in cardiovascular events from 23% in placebo subjects to 16.7% in subjects taking amlodipine (Norvasc) with a 5 mm reduction in systolic pressure, 2 mmHg drop in diastolic pressure. Small changes, big benefits.

Many people take melatonin at bedtime and are disappointed with the effects. However, a much better way is to take melatonin several hours before bedtime, e.g., take at 7 pm to fall asleep at 10 pm. Don't think of melatonin as a sleeping pill; think of it as a sleep hormone, something that simply prepares your body for sleep by slowing heart rate, reducing body temperature, and reducing blood pressure. (You may need to modify the interval between taking melatonin and sleep, since individual responsiveness varies quite a bit.)

I also favor the sustained-release preparations, e.g., 5 mg sustained-release. Immediate-release, while it exerts a more rapid onset of sleep, allows you to wake up prematurely, The sustained-release preparations last longer and allow longer sleep.

The dose varies with age, with 1 mg effective in people younger than 40 years, higher doses of 3, 5, even 10 or 12 mg in older people. Sustained-release preparations also should be taken in slightly higher doses.

The only side-effect I've seen with melatonin is vivid, colorful dreams. Perhaps that's a plus!

Thinking about the programs for health care reform proposed by the three Presidential candidates highlights a distinct peculiarity of American style health care.

American health care is shaped to an unprecedented degree by five forces:

1) The drug industry

2) The health insurance industry

3) Hospitals

4) Fear of litigation

5) The uniquely American attitude of refusing compromise in access to health care services or products, regardless of the cost (for those who can afford health insurance)

All five of these unique forces have created this thing (monster?) we call health care. Remove or modify any one of these forces, and the health care landscape would look dramatically different.

The drug industry has recently been on the receiving end of plenty of negative press. This warms my bones. Decades of heavy-handed lobbying, sleazy marketing to physicians (all too willing to be wined and dined), and behind-the-scenes manipulation of clinical data are coming back to bite them. Sadly, the drug industry is so powerful that this bit of fuss is not likely to substantially change their ways.

I am thrilled that all three Presidential candidates agree that reimportation of drugs from outside the U.S. is a good idea. While the shrug of the shoulders federal and state attitude towards importation of drugs from Canada has not resulted in cost savings sufficient to impact on overall costs, it surely will lead to savings when practiced on a broad basis by pharmacies, distributors, and other bulk buyers of pharmaceuticals.

Senator Obama, in particular, has used strong language in his criticism of the health insurance industry, tough talk that is needed in an age in which insurance executives bring home salaries in the hundreds of millions of dollars and stock prices are climbing due to substantial profit gains within the industry, going against the grain of increasingly costly premiums. However, the Clinton experiment of federalizing health care during Bill Clinton's term that caused all the big boys to band together (most notably health insurance companies and drug industry) has tempered enthusiasm for attacking the insurance industry head-on. In both Democrats' health care reform proposals, the option of private insurance is preserved, as it is in the McCain proposal.

How about hospitals? Hospitals, though on a smaller scale than the nationwide reach of the drug and insurance industries, aim to maintain health service delivery in hospitals. For instance, the high-tech bypass service in the hospital gets plenty of local media coverage, as does the newest DaVinci robotic surgery, bariatric surgery, and other revenue-rich services. Many hospitals have forgotten that their mission is delivery of health, of which revenue creation and profiting from disease should only be part.

How big is fear of litigation? Estimates vary, but several have quoted numbers in the neighborhood of 20 to 30% of overall health care costs. At the street level from what I see, I'd say at least that much. Fear of litigation is rampant, often unrestrained, and sometimes leads to the craziest, illogical sequence of testing. Chest pain, for instance, no matter how trivial, will typically trigger around $5000 worth of testing (nuclear stress test, echocardiogram, laboratory work, etc.) Emergency room visit for a minor injury? CT scan of head, chest, abdomen. A formula to minimize this aspect of fear in health care delivery would generate enormous savings.

The last issue, the uncompromising nature of Americans in health--always wanting the latest new drug, new procedure, "best" surgeon--often simply causes the health care consumer to fall victim to marketing. If a hospital advertises the newest procedure, people want it regardless of whether it represents genuine improvement over the older procedure. The newest sleeping pill, antidepressant, antihypertensive, etc. replaces the old yet equivalent product, but at considerably greater cost.

I am optimistic that, regardless of which candidate gains the White House, that some reform is on the way. I do fear, however, that progress will be small and incremental, since major change of the sort that would slash hundreds of billions of dollars in costs would rouse the powers-that-be (drug industry, health insurers, etc.) to once again combine forces and combat the disruption of their franchise.

Until you and I see real change and cost savings coming through either legislation or free market advances, we need to continue to make full use of the self-empowering health information that we gain through venues like the web.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

No doubt, our little informal poll asking readers whether they have lipoprotein(a), is skewed towards people inclined to respond because they have this genetic trait.

Nonetheless, the response is telling. Of 82 respondents:

--40 (48%) said they did have Lp(a)

--16 (19%) said that they did not have Lp(a)

--26 (31%) said that they did not know whether or not they had Lp(a)

Though admittedly an informal analysis, I'd draw several conclusions from this simple "experiment".

One, while the proportion of people responding that they have Lp(a) may not be accurate, it is a prevalent genetic risk factor that, according to formal studies, is present in 17% of people with coronary or vascular disease, 11% of the broader population. This number may be even higher if the newer particle number assays (measurements) are used (with results expressed in nmol/L), since an occasional person with a "normal" Lp(a) in mg/dl (weight-based) will prove to have increased Lp(a) by nmol/L (particle number-based). (The reason for this phenomenon is not clear. It may be consequent to variation in apo(a) size, with larger apo(a) varieties of Lp(a) occasionally escaping detection .) As our little poll shows, plenty of people have Lp(a).

Two, readers of this blog tend to be highly motivated, sophisticated, and knowledgeable about health and heart disease. Yet a substantial portion--31%--did not know whether they have this crucial risk factor. That shouldn't be. The unnecessary difficulty of getting this simple blood test performed has been driven home to me repeatedly when I identify this factor in someone and then suggest that their grown children and parents, each of whom have a 50% chance of having Lp(a), be tested. It's not uncommon for a 35-year old son, for instance, to say that his doctor refused, claiming it is an unproven risk marker, or to simply say that he/she doesn't know what it is.

No doubt, just knowing whether you have Lp(a) or not is not the end of the story. Reducing Lp(a) and its associated co-factors is no easy matter. With several hundred patients in my practice with Lp(a), it occupies much of my time and energy. Sometimes it leads to enormous successes , but it can also pose a real challenge.

There should no longer be any doubt that Lp(a) is associated with significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease. This has been demonstrated conclusively across dozens of studies. Risk from Lp(a) is over and above that posed by other risk factors; it also amplifies the risk posed by other factors, e.g., small LDL, inflammatory phenemena, homocysteine, total LDL, low HDL.

In the world of Lp(a), our two most desperate needs for the future are:

1) Better education of physicians and the public, and

2) More effective treatment options.

Thus, our reasons to form The Lipoprotein(a) Research Foundation. Steps to gain tax-exempt status are being pursued as we speak.

I can't help but wonder whether, like vitamin D, a solution is right beneath our noses. An investment in research to fund the trials to better explore both basic science as well as practical treatment options might yield an answer more readily than we think. Wouldn't that be great?

Just a muse.

Endogenous substances are those that are already contained within our bodies. They are part of basic human equipment.

Exogenous substances are those that come from outside of our bodies. This includes various substances in foods, drugs (most, though not all), and pesticides.

I often mull over all of the tools we use in the Track Your Plaque program to achieve control over this thing called coronary plaque. It struck me that just about all the supplements we use that seem to provide outsized benefits are all endogenous substances themselves:

--Omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil
--Vitamin D
--l-arginine
--Niacin (vitamin B3)

Many of the other substances, though not directly relevant to our plaque-control efforts, but are among the most effective nutritional supplements, also supplement endogenous levels: calcium pyruvate, creatine, acetylcarnitine, DHEA, testosterone, progesterone, growth hormone, pregnenolone, phenylalanine, tyrosine, melatonin, etc.

Curiously, most drugs are not meant to directly supplement endogenous levels, but are designed either to enhance or block an enzyme (e.g., acetylcholinesterase inhibitors that block breakdown of acetylcholine; HMG CoA reductase inhibitors to block cholesterol synthesis; angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors to reduce blood pressure), to exert toxic effects on an organism (antibiotics, antivirals), or to exert an entirely unique effect that does not ordinarily occur in the human body (some anti-cancer drugs, for instance). (This is an admitted, vast over-simplification.)

That's not to say that any endogenous substance is desirable or safe when supplemented. Cortisol, thyroid hormone, and estrogens are three examples of endogenous substances that have downsides when administered at slightly more than physiologic concentrations.

Nonetheless, it makes me wonder if the world of endogenous substance supplementation has not been fully explored. Are there other endogenous substances that are as potent and wonderful, for instance, as vitamin D but not yet fully appreciated? I'm sure there are.

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

The Vitamin D Newsletter

May, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does vitamin D treat cancer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council

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

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

Judging by the conversations here, in the Track Your Plaque Forums, and elsewhere, it's clear that many people are searching for the perfect diet.

Should we reconsider the role of saturated fat? Are there fractions of fatty acids in saturated fat that are more or less harmful? How about the role of fats on cancer risk? How about the role of proteins like casein on cancer risk? Are there flavonoid sources, or combinations of flavonoids, that yield outsized health benefits? Is there a ceiling for omega-3 fatty acid supplementation? Is there a role for linolenic acid sources in cardiovascular disease prevention? And on and on.

All important issues, to be sure, ones that we've all zig-zagged through over the past 30 years.

I also see patients every day, however, who are not interested in micro-managing their diet. Their goals are less ambitious: lose 20 lbs, feel good, raise HDL, reduce triglycerides and small LDL, all while meeting all the other responsibilities in their lives, like children, spouses, maintaining a household and jobs.

So, if your interest is not to consider whether we should distinguish myristic acid sources from palmitic, or if epigallocatechin is better when combined with quercetin, then the biggest bang from your nutritional buck can come from one single strategy:

Eliminate wheat flour products

Secondarily, avoiding corn starch products and "goodies" (candy, fruit juices, fruit drinks, cookies, potato chips, etc.--you know what they are) is important, as well.

It means weighing your diet more heavily in favor of vegetables and fruits; lean meats; healthy oils; and raw nuts and seeds, all in unlimited quantities. Dairy products should be limited, however, because of sugar effects.

Of course, this advice clearly contradicts the pronouncements of the USDA Food Pyramid (6-8 servings of grains per day), the American Heart Association, and the diabetes-causing American Diabetes Association diabetic diets.

But, follow this approach, a diet strategy that appears too simple to be effective, and the majority of people lose dramatic amounts of weight, raise HDL, reduce triglycerides, reduce small LDL, reduce C-reactive protein and other inflammatory measures, reduce blood pressure, and raise self-esteem.

It's also a lot easier than it sounds (after habits are broken) because the appetite stimulating effect of wheat is removed. Many, if not most, people also experience increased energy, including elimination of the afternoon "slump," improved sleep, less mood swings, less intestinal problems.

It may not be perfect, but if your interest is to get the most with a modest amount of effort, it works like a charm for the majority of people.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

You're going to hate this.

Dr. Romero-Corral and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic presented an analysis of the National Institutes of Health-funded National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-3) at the recent American College of Cardiology meetings. (Science Daily also has some coverage on this report.)

Their analysis identified 2127 adults from the NHANES database who had normal body-mass indexes (BMI) between 18.5 and 24.9 units), average age 41 years old. When broken down by percent body fat (measured with bioimpedance, meaning a small electrical current is passed through the body, much like what the store-bought Tanita devices do), with normal-weight obesity defined as >20% body fat in males, >30% body fat in females, 55% of participants met criteria for designation as normal-weight obesity.

Compared to people with similar BMI's but who fell below these body fat percentage cut-offs, the normal-weight obese men had increased ratios of Apo B to Apo A1; were much more likely to have increased blood sugars or be diabetic; have higher C-reactive protein (CRP); were several-fold more likely to meet other criteria for diagnosis of metabolic syndrome; had lower HDL cholesterols; and had higher blood pressure. Women with normal-weight obesity were four-fold more likely to have coronary disease.

While preliminary, this suggests that a substantial number of people with apparently favorable body weights and BMIs are, in actuality, overweight when judged by metabolic parameters. This then probably leads to increased risk for heart disease. We can then fairly readily extrapolate the argument that a reduction in weight to even lower BMIs likely reduces or corrects these patterns.

This argument is similar to that proposed by several others, arguing that BMI is a flawed measure, since it does not incorporate muscle mass or skeletal factors ("big- or small-boned"). Instead, they have argued that waist circumference is preferable.

The normal-weight obesity syndrome was originally identified by Dr. Antonio de Lorenzo and colleagues at the University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy, and reported in Normal weight obese (NWO) women: an evaluation of a candidate new syndrome. Their studies of women with this "syndrome" have suggested that heightened measures of inflammation are present despite apparently normal body weight and BMIs. One such report, Normal-weight obese syndrome: early inflammation?, is available in full-text.

Is there a lesson to be learned for the Track Your Plaque program? I believe there is. I believe it means that, if you have any weight-sensitive parameter, such as low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, high CRP, high blood sugar, high blood pressure, etc., then further weight loss might be considered, even if BMI is around 25. Obviously, there is a rational limit to how far you can push this concept. (Anorexia is not good for you either.)

I find this a useful concept. It provides yet another potential strategy to pursue when the above patterns are encountered. Perhaps it's also a way to cap reliance on niacin, whose effects closely mimic that of weight loss.

Now that's a lot more preferable to more and more statin drug, isn't it?

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

A Heart Scan Blog reader posted the link to this very excellent presentation by Dr. David Diamond, a neuroscientist at the University of South Florida.

ATP-3, or Adult Treatment Panel-3, is the set of cholesterol treatment guidelines as established by the National Cholesterol Education Panel, the guidelines used by practicing physicians nationwide. They are also the metric by which the "quality" of care is being judged by agencies like Medicare, health insurers, and other parties interested in policing healthcare. Dr. Diamond ably recounts how we ended up in this mess, the conflagration of "cut your fat, reduce cholesterol, and take a statin drug."

I was very impressed that, in his closing comments, he briefly discusses the pivotal role of glycation in heart disease causation. You will see in coming conversations how important an understanding of glycation is to create a healthy diet and lifestyle.

G_Man
8/20/2011 5:35:25 PM |

Hi Dr. Davis.
Iâ€™m actually both pleased and troubled with the link to Dr. Diamondâ€™s presentation that youâ€™ve provided.

On the â€œpleasedâ€ side, Dr. Diamondâ€™s analysis is:
â€¢  An excellent/very well done presentation
â€¢  Fact based (e.g. cites numerous studies, documented references, named experts, etc.)
â€¢  Spans the test of time (e.g. references from the 1800â€™s thru the present day)
â€¢  Ferrets out the major drivers of our present-day obesity epidemic & debunks other commonly held beliefs
â€¢  Synchs with some of the Track Your Plaque (TYP) tenants (e.g. TYP guidance on triglycerides, diet, sugars, etc.)
â€¢  â€œFlagsâ€ potential issues like conflict of interest which might have a tendency to creep into the science on occasion (e.g. the Keys report, the errant conclusions resulting from the NCEP report and supporting studies, etc.)

On the â€œtroubledâ€ side, Dr. Diamondâ€™s analysis seems to:
â€¢  Fly in the face of some of the foundational tenants of TYP
â€¢  His analysis/conclusions, and that of other experts he cites, is that cholesterol of any kind is NOT correlated with Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) â€“ at least as a root cause of heart disease (see Myth #2 and Dr. Diamondâ€™s related analysis)
â€¢  That LDL cholesterol â€“ and although not stated by Dr. Diamond Iâ€™m inferring â€“ the â€œsticky kindâ€, i.e. the small particles that actually adhere to artery walls (not the fluffy LDL particles that bounce away), are actually good!! On his â€œFinal Issues 2â€ slide, and later in his related pictorial slides (entitled â€œWhat Causes Coronary Heart Disease?â€), he makes reference to [LDL] cholesterol as a â€œMisunderstood Heroâ€?
â€¢  That small, sticky LDL particles actually help the body recover from the damage created by the real culpritsâ€¦ sugars that work in concert with certain bacterias to create micro-tears in our artery walls
â€¢  That small, sticky LDL actually results in the belt-and-suspenders, Rube-Goldberg â€œspackleâ€ [which again I infer from Dr. Diamondâ€™s presentation ultimately becomes plaque], that fixes (admittedly in a suboptimal and too-late manner) the damage already done by the artery-tearing, sugar/bacteria combo.  Plaque caused by LDL is actually the â€˜finger in the dikeâ€™, last ditch effort, to fix the artery tears!  Kind of the last line of defense. [see slides on page 53 and Dr. Diamondâ€™s related YouTube discussion.]

As a result, just curious about your thoughts on Dr. Diamondâ€™s hypotheses.
1.  Am I getting Dr. Diamondâ€™s message(s) right?
2.  If yes, do you concur with â€“ or tend toward â€“ the theory(-ies) supported by Dr. Diamond and other cited experts about the role of cholesterol in CHD?  I gather from your blog post that you sympathize with his glycation theory(-ies), but how about the rest?
3.  If yes again, does that change some of the TYP direction?  For example, a significant part of the TYP approach is to reduce, as much as possible, small LDL particles. If LDL â€“ and thus the resulting plaque â€“ is indeed a suboptimal last line of defense, does reduction of LDL particles lead to a sub-optimization of the bodyâ€™s last-ditch defense/â€œback-up planâ€ to deal with arterial microtears?
4.  Also, knowing that plaque/â€œspackleâ€ is admittedly a suboptimal last ditch effort, what consequence does reversing plaque ultimately have given that the real damage â€“ the tears in the artery walls (the seemingly real CHD culprits) â€“ has already occurred. Are we pulling the finger out of the dikeâ€¦ without addressing the real root cause of the problem?  â€¦and if yes, whatâ€™s the back-up plan to the bodyâ€™s back-up plan? If we reduce LDL and plaque, and the arterial damage is already done due to years and years of sugar abuse, what plugs the dike then?  Iâ€™m not talking about the preventive approaches of avoiding glycation in the first placeâ€¦ obviously that seems to be the real, preventive answer. Iâ€™m referring to those of us â€“ for whom preventative measures are too late because the microtears are already there â€“ who might be already living with the consequences of years of potentially errant diet/health guidance (by Keys, NCEP, etc.) and thus â€œspackleâ€ in our arteries?  If the "spackle" is removed, does the dike start leaking again?

Although I thought I was â€œon the path to CHD righteousnessâ€, Iâ€™m now confused again as a result of Dr. Diamondâ€™s insights. Thanks for any clarifications Dr. Davis!

Joe Lindley
8/21/2011 2:33:55 PM |

Dr. Davis,
I'm also anxious to hear what you think of the "hero" role of LDL in plaque. I'm hoping he didn't go too far off the reservation on this point because the entire hour long presentation was so well done (comprehensive, well-explained, and credentialed) that it will be a powerful aid in spreading the word on both carbohydrates and how messed up the typical GP is with cholesterol treatment (not their fault - but the ATP-III as you say). It was the tipping point for me. I'm going off Lipitor now, which I"ve been on for years and will look into your TYP program to ensure I'm doing the right thing.

Dr. William Davis
8/21/2011 3:27:30 PM |

HI, Joe--

This "hero" thing, to my knowledge, is extrapolation and supposition. It is an interesting notion. I, too, was impressed with his presentation, but I think that the "hero" thing paints LDL as an entirely innocent player and I don't believe it is. We have only to look at people with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia who can have heart attacks in their 30s with pure large LDL to know that there is more to LDL's behavior than a protective function.

Dr. William Davis
8/21/2011 3:31:20 PM |

Hi, G--

By providing the link to Dr. Diamond's wonderful talk, I didn't mean to suggest that everything he says should be taken as gospel.

Virtually everything he said up until the "spackle" I do agree with. The spackle argument is pure supposition. It makes sense, but only to a degree and ignores the quantitative (e.g., heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia) and qualitative (small, oxidation- and glycation-prone LDL particles with unique conformations that differ from larger LDL) differences in LDL particles.

Nonetheless, Dr. Diamond's recounting of how this mess was created was enlightening and well-presented and I still enjoyed it.

Brian
8/21/2011 5:53:07 PM |

Dr. Davis,

I watched Dr. Diamond's presentation in its entirety.  I agree that he's done some great investigative medicine, especially looking into long-established research on carbohydrate intake, and, more recently, digging into questions of research funding and conflicts of interest.

His presentation leaves me with a major question about the role of cholesterol.  Diamond claims that high cholesterol levels are not harmful, so long as they are below 300 mg/dL, and that cholesterol has a helpful role.  It is used by arteries to repair themselves after the arterial lining is torn, infected by bacteria, or otherwise damaged.  This is why, he says, we find cholesterol in atherosclerotic plaques, together with white blood cells and dead bacteria.  Yet, we know from your reports and others that an elevated LDL particle number *is* correlated with coronary events.

What's going on here?  Is cholesterol itself harmful, or is high particle number just another symptom of high carbohydrate intake, which causes glycation and loss of elasticity in the arterial walls, leading to damage?

Brian
8/21/2011 6:03:20 PM |

I just read the other comments, so the above question has been answered. Thanks for all the info!

Dr. William Davis
8/23/2011 11:57:16 AM |

Hi Brian--
While I truly enjoyed Dr. Diamond's presentation, I think this particular path leads us down a dead end.

I don't think cholesterol per se is harmful; I believe that the particles that contain, among many other things, cholesterol can be harmful, especially small, oxidation-prone, glycation-prone LDL particles. I believe it would be an incredible stretch to say that small LDL particles are somehow protective.

Joan Phillips
7/29/2012 7:47:06 PM |

I have inherited cholesterol and just learned from my health store guy that all the grains I have been eating are likely responsible for the high numbers of my small LDL(527) particles. I thought oatmeal and other whole grains would squeege-mop the bad guys out of my system. This news is also likely why I haven't lost any weight (I eat lots of veggies and apples, fibrous fruits and protein.) I do not use processed foods at all. I walk a mile to work each day and I am still 10-20 # overweight (and yes it is right in my middle.) My health guy is the one who directed me to this blog. Any other information is most welcome. I am trying to figure out what to fix everyday (supper/dinner) is the hardest.
Joan phillips

Santa Claus is alive . . . and works for the drug industry

Another case of aortic valve disease reduced with vitamin D

Track Your Plaque Program Data Tracking Tools

Yet another reason to avoid fructose

Free the Animal

Low Thyroid and Plaque

Fat and fiber composition of nuts

Flush-free niacin kills

CT coronary angiography is NOT a screening procedure

The Wheat Deficiency Syndrome

A tan does not equal vitamin D

Confessions of a former drug company patsy

Planned obsolence

Melatonin for high blood pressure?

The forces that shape heatlh care

Lipoprotein(a): Surprising Poll Results

Are endogenous nutritional supplements better?

Vitamin D Newsletter reprinted

Biggest bang for your nutritional buck

Can skinny be fat?

Why ATP-3 is B--- S---

Comments (8) -

G_Man

Joe Lindley

Dr. William Davis

Dr. William Davis

Brian

Brian

Dr. William Davis

Joan Phillips

Add comment

Related posts

Comments (8) -

G_Man

Brian

Brian

Joan Phillips

Add comment