Lipoprotein(a) treatment alternatives

A question from a reader:


Two years ago, my doctor recommended a comprehensive lipid screening because both of my parents had heart disease. My only blood component way out of line was LP (a) [lipoprotein(a)]. It was 130. According to the lab that conducted the screening, Berkeley Heart Lab, a level above 30 should be cause for concern. I was stunned that mine was more than quadruple the danger level.

I began taking two grams [2000 mg] of niacin a day in addition to the Lipitor I was already taking. The next reading, a few months later, was 87. Over a period of about 18 months, I had a total of four readings from Berkley Heart Lab. My LP (a) fluctuated in the 80-130 range – still way above normal. My doctor said there was little else I could do to control it.

That doctor has since retired. I now see another doctor who uses a different lab. My first LP (a) reading with him a few months ago was 17, which is normal. I am still taking the same amount of niacin and Lipitor and I can’t think of anything that would account for the huge discrepancy. I’m going to have another test again soon.

Is one of the labs giving erroneous readings? If so, how can I tell which? If Berkeley Heart Lab is correct, is there anything I can do about my increased coronary risk due to high LP (a)?

Tom D.

Tom's frustration on the variation of Lp(a) is due to the fact that laboratories run the Lp(a) test by several different techniques and will generate tremendous variation in values. The key is to stick to the same measure over and over from the same lab, else you'll be terribly confused and frustrated. Tom essentially should ignore the value obtained that was unexpectedly low.

Another issue: Lp(a) is a turtle. It responds very slowly. In fact, we rarely check it more than once or twice a year. Check it too soon after a treatment change and it won't fully reflect the effect. You've got to wait at least several months before re-checking.

How about treatment alternatives? They are:

--More niacin. Not my favorite choice, since niacin >2000 mg per day begins to generate more side-effects, but it is a choice. You can go to 4000-5000 per day, but only with your doctor's supervision due to liver effects.

--Testosterone for males. We use topical testosterone from Women's International Pharmacy in Madison, Wisconson. Prescription patches like Testim are also effective.

--Estrogen for females. This is less "clean" than testosterone, introducing questions about endometrial and breast cancer risk, but it is a choice.

--DHEA--A small effect but every little bit can help. We use 25-50 mg per day, depending on blood levels and only if you're 45 years old or older.

--l-carnitine--In my experience, a small effect. It requires 2000 mg per day, which is expensive. Sometimes, an expected large effect develops, so it's worth a try if it fits in your budget.

--Fibrates--These are the drugs Tricor and Lopid. I don't like these agents very much because I think they're weak, including the effect on Lp(a) reduction. But they are choices for you and your doctor.

Lastly, you can simply be guided by your heart scan score. For example, if Tom's initial heart scan score is 200, and he continues his current program and one year later his score is 300, then alternative treatments are worth considering. But what if Tom's score is 189--he's regressed his coronary plaque. Then, who cares what his Lp(a) is?

Another issue to keep in mind is that, in the presence of Lp(a), keeping LDL to very low numbers (e.g., 60 mg/dl) may added value in preventing coronary plaque growth.

Comments (2) -

  • Anonymous

    3/13/2010 10:53:24 PM |

    I also have super high little (a) and my other cholesterols are fine.  No heart disease I know of yet, but have had bilateral carotid endarterectomies and now one has re-stenosed in less than a year. (likely scar-tissue, as the older endarterectomy site remains perfectly clear).  I'll get a stent soon.  I take niacin, fish oil, etc.  I, too, was told there's no other treatment, but that is not entirely true.  I have been receiving LDL apheresis every two weeks for a year and it brings my Lp(a) down to mid-twenties from about 120 (rebound?). When diagnosed it was 253.  Apheresis is extreme and is only used in people who have had an "episode" like a stroke, heart attack or related surgery, but I'm pretty sure it's what's keeping me alive and able-bodied.  I hope doctors will become more aware of this option for their patients who really need it.  BTW--it gets my LDL as low as 6 (!) What you said about keeping LDL low is critical; the liver needs LDL to make all that nasty little (a).  Thanks for bringing up the subject!

    Karen P

  • buy jeans

    11/2/2010 7:53:17 PM |

    Another issue: Lp(a) is a turtle. It responds very slowly. In fact, we rarely check it more than once or twice a year. Check it too soon after a treatment change and it won't fully reflect the effect. You've got to wait at least several months before re-checking.

Loading
Do statin drugs reduce lipoprotein(a)?

Do statin drugs reduce lipoprotein(a)?

Alex had lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), at a high level. With a heart scan score of 541 at age 53, treatment of this pattern would be crucial to his success.

Part of Alex's treatment program was niacin. However, Alex complained about the niacin "flush" to his primary care physician. So, his doctor told him to stop the niacin and replace it with a statin drug (Vytorin in this case).

Is this a satisfactory replacement? Do statin drugs reduce Lp(a)?

No, they do not. In fact, that's how I often meet people who have Lp(a): Their doctor will prescribe a statin drug for a high LDL cholesterol that results in a poor response. The patient will be told that statin drugs don't work for them. In reality, they have Lp(a) concealed in the LDL that makes the LDL resistant to treatment.

Lp(a) responds to a limited number of treatments, like niacin, testosterone, estrogen, and DHEA. But not to statin drugs.

Now, statin drugs may still pose a benefit through LDL reduction. But they do virtually nothing for the Lp(a) itself. Unfortunately, most practicing physicians rarely go any farther than Lipitor, Zocor, Vytorin, and the like.

If your doctor tries to shove a statin drug on you as a treatment for Lp(a), put up a fight. Voice your objections that statins do not reduce Lp(a).

Comments (17) -

  • Rich

    8/25/2007 1:19:00 AM |

    As an Lp(a)-er, I'm very interested in Dr. Davis's guidance on this topic.

    Here's a question to which there may be no answer right now:

    The makers of Krill Oil have published a paper in a c-level journal claiming spectacular improvements in LDL and HDL.
    http://www.neptunebiotech.com/clinicalstudies.html
    If this is true, I wonder if Lp(a) might be improved by this stuff?

  • Dr. Davis

    8/25/2007 2:54:00 AM |

    Hi, Rich--

    Yes, you are right: there's simply insufficient information.

    I do hope that krill oil provides benefits above and beyond fish oil, but we need to develop an experience with it first.

  • aspTrader

    8/28/2007 9:03:00 PM |

    Thanks for this blog.

    High LP(a) levels run in my family although I don't have a problem with it.  I have a brother who has had a chronically high LP(a) number (between 70 and 90) for a number of years and had a mild heart attack 10 years ago at age 42 and a triple by-pass (no heart attack) 5 years ago.

    He is now doing 80mg Lipitor and 10mg Zetia and tabs of pomegranate extracts and his LDL is now at 85.  (I guess one partial treatment is to get LDL as low as possible.)

    I do a google search for LP(a) treatments every few months and, of course, there isn't anything appearing to be proven to get the LP(a) number into the normal range.

    For a while now, I've read online about massive doses of C, Lysine, etc. discussed at sites like that shown at the following link.

    http://www.saveyourheart.com/ingredients_heartsupplementingredients.html

    This is essentially what I understand to be the Pauling/Rath treament recommendation for LP(a) treatment.  A good deal of the discussion at the site and at Rath's site is informative and convincing.

    However, it's difficult to understand why this treatment hasn't been studied in a scientific study (or maybe I'm mistaken and it has).

    What do you think about it?

    Thanks.

  • Dr. Davis

    8/28/2007 9:15:00 PM |

    The Rath-Pauling approach has not worked in our limited experience. We've not witnessed any substantial drop in lipoprotein(a).

    However, I would stress that, despite the difficulties presented by lipoprotein(a), it can be a very controllable genetic pattern. In fact, our current record holder for plaque regression (63% drop in heart scan score) has this pattern.

    I invite you to read the full conversation about the methods we use on the Track Your Plaque website.

  • Anonymous

    8/29/2007 3:30:00 AM |

    Thanks for your comments.

    Regarding the Heart Scan Test...  I have read that a person who has had stents implanted or a bypass cannot take the test.

    Is there some other means for establishing a baseline score for existing plaque?

    Thanks again.

  • Dr. Davis

    8/29/2007 12:29:00 PM |

    Carotid ultrasound is a crude second choice as an index of bodywide atherosclerosis. It is a relatively non-quantitative test that correlates only about 60-70% with coronary disease, but that is the only other truly practical gauge. If you've had only one artery stented, however, a CT heart scan can still be performed and yield useful information.

  • Mid Life Male in CA

    8/29/2007 1:17:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Every year or so for the last 10 years, I have spent a couple of days googling and browsing the 'net to try to figure out the latest and greatest heart related therapies for myself and my family.  (High LP(a) being a significant issue.)

    Since the last time I did this, you came online with this blog and through it I discovered TrackYourPlague.

    I would just like to say Thank You for sharing your insight online.  Given my history, it has struck me that my understanding of effective therapies were different and sometimes even on a par with the medical professionals I was seeing.  In fact, the head of the patient cholesterol support center at the large HMO--you'd recognize the name if I mentioned the name--I belong to once even told me that I knew more about these therapies than she did.

    A few years ago, in speaking with my cardiologist, I mentioned some of the scientific abstracts I had read for myself about possible new high LP(a) treatments and he told me that I appeared to know more than he did about them.

    Scary !

    You likely are clear about this, but I'd like to tell you again how much the kind of information you provide is incredibly helpful.

    Your work can be literally life saving for people in need who take the time to address their heart related issues in a serious way!

    Thank you.

  • Dr. Davis

    8/29/2007 2:04:00 PM |

    Thanks, kindly, Midlife Male!

  • Online generic viagra

    7/31/2010 7:34:18 AM |

    I would like to say the way you keep expressing your system is excellent.This is something that is really very great.Keep sharing articles like these.Very informative post.Thanks for sharing the information.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:39:27 PM |

    Now, statin drugs may still pose a benefit through LDL reduction. But they do virtually nothing for the Lp(a) itself. Unfortunately, most practicing physicians rarely go any farther than Lipitor, Zocor, Vytorin, and the like.

  • reduce blood pressure naturally

    12/4/2010 4:25:55 PM |

    Just wanted to stop by and say that I think you are very talented and I am so happy for you that things are falling into place. Your blog are soooo fun. Thanks for sharing.

  • Alex L

    10/4/2011 1:00:19 AM |

    I had a quadruple bypass 2 years ago. I've followed the Pauling/Rath protocol for 6 months with 12 grams ascorbic, 6 grams lysine and 3 grams proline daily. However, I just had blood lab work done and was concerened that my Lp(a) score was 275. I thought that the ascorbic/lysine combination targeted Lp(a). This issue is critical to me because vein graft patency from bypass is a function of Lp(a) levels. Any suggestions on how I can lower Lp(a) and any opinion as to why my Lp(a) score would be so high even after 6 months on ascorbic & lysine?

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/4/2011 2:37:44 AM |

    Hi, Alex--

    Sadly, I have yet to see any effect from this Pauling/Rath protocol.

    In the Track Your Plaque program, our preferred starting regimen is high-dose fish oil, i.e., 6000 mg EPA + DHA per day, but it requires up to 2-3 years to work. There are several other strategies worth considering, all discussed on the site.

  • Alex L

    10/7/2011 1:12:03 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    I've looked all over the trackyourplaque website, but I can't find what specific advice you are referring to to reduce Lp(a). Can you please be more specific, or furnish the link? I appreciate any advice you might have. Thanks!

  • Dee

    10/7/2011 10:49:50 PM |

    I tried the Pauling/Rath protacol for six months and my LP{a} was much worse.  I take niacin and fish oil.

    Dee

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/7/2011 11:01:05 PM |

    Hi, Dee--

    I, too, have yet to see any affect from this protocol.

    Perhaps it's telling that Mathias Rath is currently trying to persuade South Africans that the AIDS epidemic there is the invention of the western world.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/8/2011 2:22:10 AM |

    Hi, Alex--

    It's all in the Library. There are several detailed Special Reports devoted to Lp(a).

Loading
Can procedures alone keep you alive?

Can procedures alone keep you alive?

My days in the hospital remind me of what heart disease can be like when no preventive efforts are taken--what it used to be like even with my patients before taking a vigorous approach to prevention (though over 12 years ago).

Several cardiologists in my hospital, for instance, express skepticism that heart disease prevention works at all. Yes, they know about the statin cholesterol drug trials. But they claim that, given their experience with the power of coronary disease to overpower an individual's control, statin drugs are just "fluff". Coronary disease is a powerful process that can only begin to be harnessed with major procedures, i.e., a mechanical approach.

So these cardiologists routinely have their patients in the hospital, often once a year, sometimes more, for heart catheterization and "fixing" whatever requires fixing: balloon angioplasty, stents, various forms of atherectomy. Year in, year out, these patients return for their "maintenance" procedures. Their cardiologists maintain that this approach works. The patients go on eating what they like, taking little or no nutritional supplements, and medications prescribed by their primary care physicians for blood pressure, etc. But no real effort towards heart disease prevention beyond these minimal steps.

Can this work? Very little at-home, preventive efforts, but periodic "maintenance" procedures?

It can, perhaps, for a relatively short time of a few years, maybe up to 10 years. But it crumbles after this. The disease eventaully overwhelms the cardiologist's ability to stent or balloon this or that, since it has progressed and plaque has growth diffusely the entire period that maintenance procedures have been performed. In addition, acute illness still occurs with some frequency--in other words, plaque rupture is not affected just because there's a stent in the artery upstream or downstream.

Not to mention this can be misery on you and your life, with risk incurred during each procedure. It's also terribly expensive, with hospitalization easily costing $25,000-$50,000 or more each time. (Compare that to a $250 or so CT heart scan.)


As people become more aware of the potential tools for prevention of heart disease, fewer are willing to submit to the archaic and barbaric practice of "maintenance" heart procedures in lieu of prevention. But it still goes on. If you, or anybody you know, are on this pointless and doomed path, find a new doctor.




Bloodletting, another antiquated health practice
Loading
Heart scan mis-information on WebMD

Heart scan mis-information on WebMD

If you want information on how prescription drugs fit into your life, then go to WebMD.

But, if you are looking for information that cuts through the bullcrap, is untainted by the heavy-handed tactics of the drug industry, or doesn't support the "a heart catheterization for everyone" mentality, then don't go there.

A Heart Scan Blog reader turned up this gem on the WebMD site:

Should I have a coronary calcium scan to check for heart disease?

In their report, they list some reasons why a heart scan should not be obtained:

Most of the time, a physical exam and other tests can give your doctor enough information about your risk for heart disease.

You've got to be kidding me. What tests are they talking about?

EKG? An EKG is a crude test that tells us virtually nothing about the coronary arteries or risk for heart attack. It is helpful for heart rhythm disorders and other abnormalities, but virtually useless for coronary disease unless a heart attack is underway or has already occurred.

Cholesterol? What level of cholesterol tells you whether you have heart disease? Tim Russert, for instance, had the same cholesterol values 5 years before his death as on the day of his death. How would cholesterol have told his doctor that heart disease was present? Does an LDL cholesterol of 180 mg/dl tell you that someone has heart disease, while a value of 130 mg/dl does not?

Stress test? You mean like the normal stress test Bill Clinton had 3 months before his near-fatal collapse? Stress tests are a gauge of coronary flow, not of coronary atherosclerosis. Huge amounts of coronary plaque can be present while a stress test--flow--remains normal.

No, a physical exam does not uncover hidden heart disease. The annual physical is, in fact, a miserable failure for detection of hidden heart disease.


You already know that your risk for heart disease is low or high. The test works best in people who are at medium risk but have no symptoms.

This bit of fiction comes from a compromise statement in the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association "consensus" document detailing the role of heart scans in heart disease detection. Because conventional thinkers don't like the idea of very early detection in seemingly "low risk" people, nor do they like the idea of diabetics and smokers getting a heart scan because it's "obvious" that they are already at high risk, the middle ground was taken: Scan only people at "intermediate risk."

What the heck is "intermediate risk"? Are you intermediate risk?

In real life, using standard criteria (e.g., Framingham scoring) to decide who is low-, intermediate-, or high-risk fails to identify over 1/3 of people with heart disease, while subjecting many without heart disease (plaque) to needless treatment (meaning statins, since that's the only real preventive treatment on most doc's armamentarium).

Another fact: Heart scans are quantitative, not just normal or abnormal. Your heart scan score could be 5, it could be 150, it could be 500, or 5000---it makes a world of difference. The risk of someone with a score of 5000 is at very different risk than someone with a score of 5. It also provides much greater precision in determining a specific individual's risk.



The test could give a high score even if your arteries aren't blocked. This might lead to extra tests that you don't need.

This is true--if you doctor has no idea what he's doing.

This is like saying that you should never take your car to the repair shop because all mechanics are crooks. If you have an unscrupulous cardiologist who tells you that your heart scan score of 25 means you are a "walking time bomb" and heart catheterization is necessary to determine whether you "need" a stent . . . well, this is no different than the shady mechanic who advises you that your car's engine needs to be rebuilt for $3000, when all you really needed was a few new spark plugs.

Coronary plaque is coronary plaque, and all coronary plaque has potential for rupture (heart attack)--even if it doesn't block flow. This is true at a score of 10, or 100, or 1000--all plaque is potentially rupture-prone, though the more plaque you have, the greater the likelihood.


Not all blocked arteries have calcium. So you could get a low calcium score and still be at risk.

They're missing the point: ANY calcium score carries risk, so a low score should not be interpreted as having no risk. But, just because a procedure like stenting or bypass surgery is not necessary to restore flow, it does not mean that risk for plaque rupture is not present--it is.

Any heart scan score should be taken seriously, meaning sufficient reason to engage in a program of heart disease prevention.

Although not perfect, coronary calcium scoring remains the easiest, most accessible, and least expensive means for identifying and quantifying coronary atherosclerosis--whether or not WebMD and drug industry money endorse them.

Comments (3) -

  • steve

    1/23/2009 3:11:00 AM |

    i am surprised you did not discuss a main reason most are against heart scans: the lack of telling how much soft plaque exists.  I also, fail to see why a scan is necessary if you have tons of small LDL; afterall, it is unlikely that if you have tons of small dense LDL and no or very little plaque.  Perhaps scans are good for some cases, but like statins not for all cases.

  • Anna

    1/25/2009 9:41:00 PM |

    I never check Web MD anymore.  It's just more of the same-old baloney and rarely provides any insight that I haven't already come across.  I consider Web MD "Medicine for Dummies", or non-thinking "sheeple".  Not at all useful for thinking people.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 9:09:34 PM |

    No, a physical exam does not uncover hidden heart disease. The annual physical is, in fact, a miserable failure for detection of hidden heart disease.

Loading
Does fish oil raise LDL cholesterol?

Does fish oil raise LDL cholesterol?

Katie had an LDL (conventionally calculated) of 87 mg/dl, HDL of 48 mg/dl.

She added fish oil, 6000 mg per day. Three months later her LDL was 118 mg/dl, HDL 54 mg/dl. In other words, LDL increased by 31 mg. What gives?

Several studies have, indeed, shown that fish oil raises LDL cholesterol, usually by 5-10 mg/dl. Occasionally, it may be as much as 20-30.

Unfortunately, many physicians often assume that it's the (minor) cholesterol content of fish oil capsules, or some vague, undesirable effect of fish oil. It's nothing of the kind.

Since we based Katie's program on (NMR) lipoprotein analysis, not conventional lipids (HDL, calculated LDL, triglycerides, total cholesterol), I knew that Katie also had a severe excess of intermediate-density lipoprotein, or IDL, and very-low density lipoproteins, VLDL. This signifies that after a meal, dietary fats persist for 12, 24,or more hours. Fish oil is a very effective method to clear IDL and VLDL, though sometimes it also causes a shift of some IDL and VLDL into the LDL class. Thus, the apparent increase in LDL.

Another contributor: Conventional LDL is a calculated value, not measured. The calculation for LDL is thrown off by any reduction in HDL or rise in triglycerides. In Katie's case, the rise in HDL from 48 to 54 means that calculated LDL is becoming more accurate and rising towards the true measured value. At the start, Katie's true measured LDL was 122 mg/dl, 35 mg higher than the calculated value. Calculated LDL is therefore approximating measured LDL more accurately as HDL rises.

The most important lesson to learn is that, if LDL rises significantly on fish oil and you haven't had lipoproteins formally measured, there may have been a substantial postprandial abnormality like IDL that was unrecognized.

Comments (1) -

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 9:05:23 PM |

    Another contributor: Conventional LDL is a calculated value, not measured. The calculation for LDL is thrown off by any reduction in HDL or rise in triglycerides. In Katie's case, the rise in HDL from 48 to 54 means that calculated LDL is becoming more accurate and rising towards the true measured value. At the start, Katie's true measured LDL was 122 mg/dl, 35 mg higher than the calculated value. Calculated LDL is therefore approximating measured LDL more accurately as HDL rises.

Loading
What if wheat products were illegal?

What if wheat products were illegal?

Imagine if anything made of wheat were illegal: bread, bagels, crackers, pasta, pretzels, donuts, Shredded Wheat cereal, Raisin Bran, pastry, cookies, cakes, cupcakes. . . Your grocery store would then be unable to carry any of these products.

How empty would the grocery store shelves be?

There would be very little. The stores would be filled instead with vegetables and fruits, meats, and dairy products. But aisle after aisle would be empty. There'd be no cereal aisle. There'd be no snack chip aisle. The ordinarily overcrowded bread shelves wouldn't be there.

Bakery? Nope, not there either. Pasta and noodles? Empty. How about cakes and pastries? Also gone.

Getting the picture? American groceries are dominated by wheat products. What would happen to your health and the health of your family if wheat were abruptly removed from your choices? Would you be less healthy?

No. In fact, your health would be hugely improved. You'd lose a significant quantity of weight. Extraordinary numbers of people would lose diabetic or pre-diabetic tendencies. Feelings of sluggishness, sleepiness, and moodiness would dissolve. Blood pressure would be reduced. The incidence of cancer, skin disease, and inflammatory diseases would plumet.

From a plaque control perspective, your HDL cholesterol would rise, triglycerides drop. Small LDL would improve dramatically.

The message: Slash wheat products from your diet. Yes, you'll miss the smell and taste of freshly baked bread. But you'll do it for many more healthy years. And you may do it without a 14 inch scar in your chest.

Comments (3) -

  • bob kampmann

    5/11/2006 5:09:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis, I don't see many comments from readers on a day to day basis, but I want you to know I don't miss a word you have to say.

  • Nancy M.

    12/13/2006 2:28:00 AM |

    I love reading what you're saying about wheat.  I was just diagnosed with gluten intolerance and getting off wheat (all grains really) has changed my life in so many positive ways.  It has helped my brain, my intestines, my skin and hopefully it'll keep me from developing additional autoimmune diseases in the future!  

    I just wish it weren't so darned hard to live in the US today without having wheat pushed at you everywhere.

  • Dr. Davis

    12/13/2006 2:33:00 AM |

    Nancy--
    On the positive side, I often regard gluten intolerance as a blessing in disguise, provided the diagnosis is made early. People I've met with gluten intolerance tend to otherwise be healthy and slender due to avoiding wheat products.

Loading
When LDL is more than meets the eye

When LDL is more than meets the eye

Jerry wanted to know what to do with his LDL cholesterol of 112 mg/dl. "My doctor said that it's not high but it could be better."

So I asked him what the other numbers on his lipid panel showed. He pulled out the results:

LDL cholesterol 112 mg/dl

HDL 32 mg/dl

Triglycerides 159 mg/dl


I pointed out to Jerry that, given the low HDL and high triglycerides, his calculated LDL of 112 was likely inaccurate. In fact, if measured, LDL was probably more like 140-180 mg/dl. LDL particles were also virtually guaranteed to be small, since low HDL and small LDL usually go hand-in-hand (though small LDL can still occur with a good HDL).

So Jerry's LDL is really much higher than it appears. To prove it, Jerry will require an additional test, preferably one in which LDL is measured, such as LDL particle number (NMR), apoprotein B, or "direct" LDL.

It's really quite simple. Jerry likely has a high number of LDL particles that are too small. This pattern confers a three- to six-fold increased risk for heart disease.

Treatment requires more than just reducing LDL. Small LDL--an important component of this pattern, responds, for instance, to a reduction in processed carbohydrates like wheat products (breads, breakfast cereals, pretzels, etc.), NOT to a low-fat diet. Weight loss to ideal weight, especially loss of abdominal fat, will yield huge improvements in these numbers. Niacin may be a necessary component of Jerry's treatment program, since it increases LDL size and raises HDL.

For more discussion on measures superior to LDL cholesterol, see my upcoming editorial, Let Dr. Friedewald Lie in Peace (an expansion of a previous Heart Scan Blog). It will be posted on the Cardiologist on Call column on the Track Your Plaque website within the next week.)
Loading
Dr. Nieca Goldberg and heart healthy

Dr. Nieca Goldberg and heart healthy


In January, 2007, $11.6 billion (2006 net sales) cereal manufacturing giant General Mills rolled out three million boxes of Wheat Chex and Multi-Bran Chex, each boasting a picture of cardiologist, Dr. Nieca Goldberg's face on the box.

Dr. Goldberg has been a frequent national spokeswoman for the American Heart Association (AHA). In a media interview, American Heart Association President, Dr. Alice Jacobs, stated that she supports Dr. Goldberg's work with the General Mills’ products. "The AHA is always in favor of educating the public on how to make heart-healthy lifestyle choices." Dr. Jacobs added that the AHA doesn't consider Goldberg's appearance on the cereal boxes ‘an endorsement’ of the products. "The content on the box is basic heart health information," she said.

Putting images of someone like Dr. Goldberg on cereal boxes appeals to a certain audience, mothers worried about health in this instance. Manufacturers recognize that the perceptions of their food need to be created and nurtured.

Eerily reminiscent of tobacco company tactics of the 20th century? Recall the Brown and Williamson claim that Kool cigarettes keep the head clear and provide extra protection against colds? Lucky Strike, Chesterfield, and Camels all promoted the health benefits of cigarettes, including prominent endorsements by physicians.

How about Philip Morris’ ads for Virginia Slims cigarettes: "You've come a long way, baby"? Interestingly, food manufacturing behemoths Kraft and Nabisco were both majority-owned by Philip Morris, now renamed Altria.

Take a look at the composition of these two "heart healthy" breakfast cereals endorsed by Dr. Nieca Goldberg and the American Heart Association:



























Products like this:

--Make people fat--abdominal fat (wheat belly)
--Reduce HDL cholesterol
--Raise triglycerides
--Dramatically increase small LDL
--Increase inflammatory responses
--Increase blood pressure
--Increase likelihood of diabetes

These products are sugar and sugar-equivalents with a little fiber thrown in and a lot of marketing propaganda, aided and abetted by the misguided antics of the American Heart Association and Dr. Goldberg. It's hard to believe that Dr. Goldberg would sell her soul on something so knuckleheaded for a moment of notoriety.

As I've often said, if a product bears the AHA Check Mark of approval, be sure not to buy it.

Comments (1) -

  • Darcy Elliott

    3/25/2008 6:10:00 PM |

    Thank you for your efforts on topics like this! It's just not right that supposed experts are pushing this wheat and cereal garbage. Thankfully my wife has tapped in to some really good almond and coconut flour recipes recently, I don't miss wheat at all!

Loading