Value of a zero heart scan score

Margaret is 73. She's a very good 73. She loves children and works full-time in a daycare. She manages her own household, goes to dinner at least once each week with one or more of her adult children. She is slender and has never been in the hospital--until she developed an abnormal heart rhythm called atrial fibrillation.

Most people who develop atrial fibrillation do so with no immediate identifiable cause. However, Margaret has been a widow since her husband died 15 years ago of a heart attack. She was therefore especially frightened of any heart issues in her own health. Her doctor also raised the question of whether atrial fibrillation might represent the first hint of future heart attack.

So we advised a CT heart scan. Score: zero, or no detectable plaque whatsoever. This put Margaret's risk for heart attack as close to zero as humanly possible. (Nobody is truly at zero risk for heart attack for a number of reasons. One reason is that people do irrational things like take cocaine or amphetamines, or they take too much decongestant medication, all of which can trigger heart attack.)

The heart scan settled it. Margaret has the sort of atrial fibrillation which likely simply develops as a result of "wear and tear" on the heart's electrical impulse conducting system and it has nothing to do with coronary heart disease or heart attack.

As that MasterCard commercial goes: Cost of a heart scan: About $200. Peace of mind: priceless.

Comments (1) -

  • Anonymous

    4/19/2009 4:42:00 AM |

    Not entirely true. With all due respect, Dr. Berman, who you have quoted elsewhere in you blog, has stated the following....

      â€œIn symptomatic patients, a calcium score of even zero does not sufficiently rule out the possibility of having an obstructed coronary artery, which was the case here.” Berman suggests that the coronary CTA may become the test of choice in symptomatic patients when the diagnosis is unclear."
    By the way, whatever was the upshot regarding the 'low dose CT angioplasty'? Safe? Revelatory or not?..... Dave in Chicago

Loading
Coronary calcium: Cause or effect?

Coronary calcium: Cause or effect?

Here's an interesting observation made by a British research group.

We all know that coronary calcium, as measured by CT heart scans, are a surrogate measure of atherosclerotic plaque "burden," i.e., an indirect yardstick for coronary plaque. The greater the quantity of coronary calcium, the higher the heart scan "score," the greater the risk for heart attack and other unstable coronary syndromes that lead to stents, bypass, etc.

But can calcium also cause plaque to form or trigger processes that lead to plaque formation and/or instability?

Nadra et al show, in an in vitro preparation, that calcium phosphate crystals are actively incorporated into inflammatory macrophages, which then trigger a constellation of inflammatory cytokine release (tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interleukins), fundamental processes underlying atherosclerotic plaque formation and inflammation.

Here's the abstract of the study:
Proinflammatory Activation of Macrophages by Basic Calcium Phosphate Crystals via Protein Kinase C and MAP Kinase Pathways:

A Vicious Cycle of Inflammation and Arterial Calcification?


Basic calcium phosphate (BCP) crystal deposition underlies the development of arterial calcification. Inflammatory macrophagescolocalize with BCP deposits in developing atherosclerotic lesionsand in vitro can promote calcification through the release of TNF alpha. Here we have investigated whether BCP crystals can elicit a proinflammatory response from monocyte-macrophages.BCP microcrystals were internalized into vacuoles of human monocyte-derived macrophages in vitro. This was associated with secretion of proinflammatory cytokines (TNF{alpha}, IL-1ß and IL-8) capable of activating cultured endothelial cells and promoting capture of flowing leukocytes under shear flow. Critical roles for PKC, ERK1/2, JNK, but not p38 intracellular signaling pathways were identified in the secretion of TNF alpha, with activation of ERK1/2 but not JNK being dependent on upstream activation of PKC. Using confocal microscopy and adenoviral transfection approaches, we determined a specific role for the PKC-alpha isozyme.

The response of macrophages to BCP crystals suggests that pathological calcification is not merely a passive consequence of chronic inflammatory disease but may lead to a positive feed-back loop of calcification and inflammation driving disease progression.



This observation adds support to the notion that increasing coronary calcium scores, i.e., increasing accumulation of calcium within plaque, suggests active plaque. As I say in Track Your Plaque, "growing plaque is active plaque." Active plaque means plaque that is actively growing, inflamed and infiltrated by inflammatory cells like macrophages, eroding its structural components, and prone to "rupture," i.e., cause heart attack. Someone whose first heart scan score is, say, 100, followed by another heart scan score two years later of 200 is exposed to sharply increasing risk for cardiovascular events which may, in part, be due to the plaque-stimulating effects of calcium.

Conversely, reducing coronary calcium scores removes a component of plaque that would otherwise fuel its growth. So, people like our Freddie, who reduced his heart scan score by 75%, can be expected to enjoy a dramatic reduction of risk for cardiovascular events.

Less calcium, less plaque to rupture, less risk.

Comments (25) -

  • Mike N

    11/28/2010 3:59:05 PM |

    Does this mean we shouldn't be taking calcium supplements? I've been taking 500 mg per day.

  • Richard Laurence

    11/28/2010 5:54:12 PM |

    Hello Dr Davis, I've read recently that calcium supplements are a bad idea - they increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

    Does dietary calcium have a similar effect? I would value you opinion.

    Thanks,

    Richard

  • Anonymous

    11/28/2010 5:56:34 PM |

    There is a lot of controversy in Canada currently for a treatment of MS; the opening of blocked or restricted neck veins.  Dr. D, you mentioned dementia, which, to my simple understanding, is either nerve damage or vascular dementia due to a series of small strokes. So my reason for this post is to ask the question; Is the tissue type of veins the same as arteries, and if so, would the same inflammation calcification cycle occur?  If the answer is yes, does that imply vitamin D3 /K2 and wheat elimination has potential for MS sufferers and people trying to avoid vascular dementia in old age?
    thanks
    Trev (recovering vegetarian)

    http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/11/18/multiple-sclerosis-vein-death-costa-rica-mostic.html

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/28/2010 6:27:06 PM |

    Mike and Richard--

    I have been advising my patients to take no more than 500 mg calcium per day, given the potential for increased cardiovascular events with higher doses per the studies coming from New Zealand. Also, achieving healthy vitamin D blood levels easily doubles the intestinal absorption of calcium, making supplementation of additional calcium less necessary.

  • Anonymous

    11/28/2010 6:57:46 PM |

    This research was published in 2005.
    Any updates on this?

    Thanks

  • rhc

    11/28/2010 8:20:22 PM |

    Dr. Davis, I hear/read so much about 'inflamation' in the body and 'anti-inflammatory' diets, etc.  So I was wondering if the C-reactive protein test is a reliable way to measure this? If so what is the suggested limit or safe range in YOUR opinion?

  • Anonymous

    11/28/2010 8:35:58 PM |

    Excellent blog! I eat an almost dairy free diet (grass-fed butter is the exception for vitamins K  and A and butyric acid etc and to add fat to overly lean protein)   that includes almonds, filberts, sardines and salmon with bones and greens for calcium. I also eat lots of very dark chocolate/cocoa.  I supplement with vitamin d.  I recently passed a calcium oxalate kidney stone and doc says my dairy free diet is far too rich in oxalates and phytic acid. I have also been plagued with calf and foot cramps. He suggests adding small amounts of cheese or a calcium supplement to block the oxalates.  Despite my magnesium rich diet -- he also says I need a magnesium supplement. It's only been a few days since I've added 2 calcium/mag tablets at night (only contain about 300mg calcium and 180 mag plus additional mag citrate powder in hot water) and my cramps seem to have subsided.  Anyone else get mineral deficiencies eating paleo style with nuts and bones but no supplements?

  • Lori Miller

    11/28/2010 11:11:37 PM |

    Anonymous, I take Mg supplements, too. I seem to have a hard time absorbing minerals.

    The nuts you're eating contain phytic acid, which blocks mineral absorption. The Weston A. Price Foundation recommends soaking and roasting nuts and seeds to neutralize the phytic acid.

  • john

    11/28/2010 11:50:12 PM |

    This is more complicated than the notion that high calcium intake=high "calcification" ...

    ...Blood Ca and its accumulation in soft tissues can increase (from bones) even though less is eaten. Ca metabolism is far more important than magnitude of intake.  It seems that Ca supplementation actually decreases intracellular amounts.

  • Martin Levac

    11/29/2010 2:26:12 AM |

    If the diet is acidic, calcium will be used to buffer this acid which will ultimately be excreted through the urine. On the other hand, if the diet is alkaline, then no calcium is needed for this purpose. So the question is, where does this un-needed calcium go?

    Maybe an alkaline diet isn't such a good thing after all is all I'm saying.

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/29/2010 2:26:24 AM |

    Anon about MS--

    I would be careful about extrapolating the wheat-dementia connection to MS. It would be deeply concerning if there were a connection, but I am not aware of such a connection.

    The one truly compelling observation being made in MS is the vitamin D discussion. To my knowledge, that clinical trial is still underway in Toronto.

  • nightrite

    11/29/2010 3:08:35 AM |

    I too had lots of trouble with kidney stones but no more.  The only change I made was stopping calcium supplements and starting magnesium.  I take 500 mg of mag at bedtime and have not had a kidney stone pain in almost 2 years.

  • Anonymous

    11/29/2010 5:15:36 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Wondering how you explain the paradox that statins seems to significantly increase coronary calcium, but to lower coronary events?


    Thanks,
    David

  • Pat D.

    11/29/2010 6:31:45 AM |

    Regarding magnesium supplementation - I've read that most magnesium supplements have little to no bio-availability, making it pointless to take them.  There are some on the market which address this concern and I've seen good reviews of them - but they do cost more.  I've also read at multiple nutrition sites that our foods have less and less magnesium as our soils are very depleted.  But almonds, pepitas and nut butters are good sources, as are some other foods, like black beans.  There are lists online.  I've also read that Epsom salt baths are a good source of magnesium.  So I take ES baths and I've made myself a magnesium skin lotion with ES.  Instructions for doing this can be found online.

  • Myron

    11/29/2010 7:00:01 PM |

    Basic Ca phosphate crystal deposition disease: Most pathologic calcifications throughout the body contain mixtures of carbonate-substituted hydroxyapatite and octacalcium phosphate. Because these ultramicroscopic crystals are nonacidic Ca phosphates, the term “basic Ca phosphate” (BCP) is much more precise than “apatite.”

    Nutritionally people eat hydroxyapatite not apatite  BCP

    I guessing the moral of the story is to eat acidic calcium, calcium citrate or hydroxyapatite not apatite.

  • Anand Srivastava

    11/29/2010 7:21:51 PM |

    I have read that Vitamin K2 is very helpful in getting rid of the Calcium.

    Martin Levac also raises a good point. I would think as long as the diet is balanced, then calcium will not stay in the arteries.

    It could be that too alkaline diets might cause this problem. In India several very strict vegetarian (not vegan) societies do not eat onions and garlic. Both are very highly alkaline.

    While Non-vegetarian societies eat a lot of them. I guess the difference may be due to the acid base theory. The over all diet should be very slightly alkaline to be best.

  • Anonymous

    11/30/2010 1:16:14 AM |

    This ACID/BASE diet argument is a little odd sounding to me but even a quick Google leads to the simple explanation that it is the influence of minerals in the diet on blood pH

    "The consumption of animal protein, grain, and high amounts of milk increases the acidity of the body, whereas foods rich in minerals such as green vegetables and fruit increase the alkalinity. Generally, the Western diet induces a chronic, low-grade metabolic acidosis.  This relates to the loss of calcium through excretion in urine.  Here is the link:-
    http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/9/2374.full#BIB7

    cool, but is there any link to heart heath?

  • Monique Hawkins

    11/30/2010 2:33:24 AM |

    I see that some readers asked the same question I was thinking related to calcium supplements. For instance, I hear quite a bit how much coral calcium is good for people. I would assume based on what you have said to take no more than 500 mg of that as well per day?

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/30/2010 3:20:33 AM |

    HI, David--

    While statins do not have much effect on slowing the progression of coronary calcium, I know of no data suggesting that they increase coronary calcium.


    Hi, Pat--

    While absorption of magnesium products varies widely, magnesium "salts" like the malate and glycinate are absorbed quite well.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    11/30/2010 4:52:20 AM |

    Basicly, calcium concentrated outside a cell has a safe bio-chemical role to perform & magnesium inside that same cell has it's major bio-chemical role. They both have vital cellular functions.

    When calcium "lingers" inside a cell it keeps over-stimulating things; building up in there is even worse. This inflammatory mechanism occurs in many tissues, not just blood vessels.


    Dietary deficiencies of calcium & magnesium naturally trigger a para-thyroid hormone activation. This hormone signal is for getting more calcium available to the body's tissue cells.

    As you get older there is commonly more para-thyroid hormone circulating in your blood. It can form a negative feedback loop with pro-inflammatory factors (like cytokines); as the inflammation keeps calcium inside the cell.

    Cause or effect of calcium being where it's not supposed to be may involve a vicious circle. Rare youngsters with coronary calcium would suggest uncommon genetics.

  • PY

    11/30/2010 9:20:02 PM |

    The preceding paragraph to the above-quoted passage is probably also very relevant to this discussion:

    "It is not clear how or why the claims for high vitamin D levels started, medical experts say. First there were two studies, which turned out to be incorrect, that said people needed 30 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood, the upper end of what the committee says is a normal range. They were followed by articles and claims and books saying much higher levels — 40 to 50 nanograms or even higher — were needed."

    Can you point us to other studies that point to the efficacy of 30 ng+ concentrations?  

    I am not attempting to be adversarial at all to your views -- I have been following them closely following my own research.  But given that I havea  data-driven bent, this report has given me a reason to reconsider, and I would love your guidance.

  • Anonymous

    12/2/2010 12:01:13 AM |

    I doubt anyone needs calcium or magnesium supplementation. Calcium and magnesium are virtually impossible to avoid - I believe they're in every plant food. I'll stick with D3, MK-7 and hormones.

  • Dr Matti Tolonen

    12/4/2010 1:39:56 PM |

    "Less calcium, less plaque to rupture, less risk."
    It is well known that ethylesterized omega-3 fatty acids, e.g., E-EPA, stabilize arterial plaques. This explains at least partly how these omega-3´s protect the heart and arteries. See for instance J Atheroscler Thromb. Epub ahead of print 2010 Nov 17

    http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jat/advpub/0/1011160316/_pdf

  • Leo

    12/5/2010 12:56:06 PM |

    Minä suosittelen K2-vitam.  Se poistaa kalkkia ja ehkäiseen sen kertymistä verisuoniin !!!

  • Anonymous

    12/13/2010 5:23:31 PM |

    Are all OTC omega 3 products ethylesterized? If not, which ones are?

Loading
Medicine ain't what it used to be

Medicine ain't what it used to be

The practice of medicine ain't what it used to be.

For instance:

White coats are out-of-date--Not only do they serve as filthy reservoirs of microorganisms (since they hang unwashed after repeated use week after week), they only serve to distance the practitioner from the patient, an outdated notion that should join electroshock therapy to treat homosexuality and other "disorders" in the museum of outdated medical practices.
Loading
Menopause unleashes lipoprotein(a)

Menopause unleashes lipoprotein(a)

Faye was clearly frustrated.

At age 52, she was having chest pains every day. A CT heart scan showed a score of zero. A CT coronary angiogram showed no plaque whatsoever.

"Everything went downhill when my menopause started. I gained weight, I started to have chest pains, my blood pressure went up, my cholesterol shot up."

She saw three physicians, none of whom shed much light on the situation. They ran through the predictable sequence of (horse, not human) estrogens, anti-depressants, suggestions for psychological counseling.

But we checked Faye for lipoprotein(a), which she proved to have at a high level of 182 nmol/l. This explained a lot.

A curious and predictable set of phenomenon occur to females with Lp(a) proceeding through the menopause. As estrogen recedes:

--Lp(a) levels rise dramatically.

--Blood pressure goes up, sometimes creating severe hypertension by mid- to late-50s.

--Chest pain can develop, presumably due to "endothelial dysfunction" or "microvascular angina", both representing abnormal coronary artery constriction facilitated by worsening expression of Lp(a).

All too often, these phenomena get dismissed as simply part of the menopausal package, when they are, in fact, important facets of this very important genetic pattern that confers high risk for heart disease.

If any of this rings familiar for you or a loved one, think Lp(a). Though Faye hadn't yet developed any measurable coronary plaque by her CT heart scan score, it was likely on its way, given the surge in Lp(a) expression as menopause unfolded--unless its recognized and appropriate preventive action taken.
Loading
Equal calories, different effects

Equal calories, different effects

A great study was just published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology:

Metabolic effects of weight loss on a very-low-carbohydrate diet compared with an isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet in abdominally obese subjects.

88 obese adults with metabolic syndrome were placed on either of two diets:

1) A very low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet (VLCHF): 4% calories from carbohydrates (truly low-carb); 35% protein; 61% fat, of which 20% were saturated. In the first 8 weeks, carbohydrate intake was severely limited to <20 grams per day, then <40 grams per day thereafter.

2) A high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (HCLF): 46% calories from carbohydrates; 24% protein; 30% total fat, of which <8% were saturated.

Both diets were equal in calories (around 1400 calories per day--rather restrictive) and participants were maintained on the program for six months.

At the end of the six month period, participants on the VLCHF diet lost 26.4 lb, those on the HCLF diet 22.2 lbs (though the difference did not reach statistical significance). Thus, both approaches were spectacularly successful at weight loss.

Surprisingly, blood pressure, blood sugar, insulin and insulin sensitivity (a measure called HOMA) were all improved with both diets equally. Thus, these measures seemed to respond more to weight loss and less to the food composition.

Lipids differed between the two diets, however:


VLCHF:
Total cholesterol: initial 208.4 mg/dl final 207.7 mg/dl

LDL: initial 125 mg/dl final 123 mg/dl

HDL: initial 55 mg/dl final 64.5 mg/dl

Triglycerides: initial 144 mg/dl final 74 mg/dl

Apoprotein B: initial 98 mg/dl final 96 mg/dl


HCLF
Total cholesterol: initial 208.4 mg/dl final 187.5 mg/dl

LDL: initial 126 mg/dl final 108 mg/dl

HDL: initial 51 mg/dl final 54.5 mg/dl

Triglycerides: initial 157.6 mg/dl final 111 mg/dl

Apoprotein B: initial 100 mg/dl final 95 mg/dl


Some interesting differences became apparent:
--The VLCHF diet more effectively reduced triglycerides and raised HDL.
--The HCLF diet more effectively reduced total and LDL.
--There was no difference in Apo B (no statistical difference).

The investigators also made the observation that individual responsiveness to the diets differed substantially. They concluded that both diets appeared to exert no adverse effect on any of the parameters measured, both were approximately equally effective in weight loss with slight advantage with the carbohydrate restricted diet, and that lipid effects were indeed somewhat different.


What lessons can we learn from this study? I would propose/extrapolate several:

When calories are severely restricted, the composition of diet may be less important. However, when calories are not so severely restricted, then composition may assume a larger role. When calories are unrestricted, I would propose that the carbohydrate restriction approach may yield larger effects on weight loss and on lipids when compared to a low-fat diet.

The changes in total cholesterol are virtually meaningless. Part of the reason that it didn't drop with the VLCHF diet is that HDL cholesterol increased. In other words, total cholesterol = LDL + HDL + trig/5. A rise in HDL raises total cholesterol.

Despite no change in Apo B, if NMR lipoprotein analysis had been performed (or other assessment of LDL particle size made), then there would almost certainly have seen a dramatic shift from undesirable small LDL to less harmful large LDL particles on the VLCHF diet, less change on the HCLF diet.

The lack of restriction of saturated fat in the VLCHF that failed to yield adverse effects is interesting. It would be conssistent with the re-analysis of saturated fat as not-the-villain-we thought-it-was put forward by people like Gary Taubes (Good Calories, Bad Calories).

In the Track Your Plaque experience, small LDL is among the most important measures of all for coronary plaque reversal and control. Unfortunately, although this study was well designed and does add to the developing scientific exploration of diet, it doesn't add to our insight into small LDL effects. But if I had to make a choice, I'd choose the low-carbohydrate, high-fat approach for overall benefit.

Comments (15) -

  • MAC

    1/9/2008 1:55:00 AM |

    Dr. Davis,
        You have to check out Dr. Eades blog on the same study. You both had different takes but came to the same conclusion. http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/

  • Dr. Davis

    1/9/2008 3:22:00 AM |

    Hi, MAC--

    Thanks for pointing out Dr. Eades post.

    I've lately come to read his posts regularly, as I have been thoroughly impressed with his insights.

    It's good to know there's some real thinkers out there!

  • rick

    1/9/2008 4:37:00 AM |

    Had the HCLF group enjoyed the same nearly 50% drop in TG as the VLCHF group, their calculated LDL would have dropped to 117 rather than 108.  So part of their comparative advantage is not a benefit at all.

  • Anonymous

    1/9/2008 5:33:00 AM |

    Hello,

    Dr. Davis, what is your viewpoint on saturated fat intake and arterial damage? Although perhaps saturated fat doesn't affect lipid values too negatively (in fact, it seems to raise HDL), maybe it can eventually lead to heart disease by other means -- inflammation/damage to arteries, leading to plaque build-up?

    There is a reference to a study here, which you've probably seen:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060808091635.htm

    I'm curious on your viewpoints, as we know not all fats are bad, but it seems a little muddy as to if certain saturated fats are bad or not.

  • chcikadeenorth

    1/9/2008 5:37:00 AM |

    Hi, you commented once on my high hdl..68...it happened after I low carbed, high calories( plus 1800 a day) and hi fat but under 20 gr of sat fat a day.My Ldl went up but lipoprotein(a) was still within the norm not for TYP but for lab values,
    I hear nothing but good results  with LC going back to Atkins,Bernsteins, Eades, Westman and you Dr D so keep plodding along. Soon everyone will know what a wheat belly is and rather than plod you'll be galloping writing another book SmileThnx for all.

  • Dr. Davis

    1/9/2008 1:33:00 PM |

    Most of the feeding studies like the one you cited are flawed in that they claim to have isolated the effect of saturated fat on some measure, brachial forearm dilatation, in this instance. Unfortunately, they did no such thing. They did not control well for carbohydrate effects. Gary Taubes would point out that they presumed that carbohydrates are good and therefore all adverse effects must be from the saturated fat component.

    We are planning a thorough review of the issue in future.

  • g

    1/9/2008 4:50:00 PM |

    You know... I'd love to see the CAC scores (or even IMT if possible?) for people on Protein Power?  Has that ever been studied?  Mac, have you ever had an EBT/CT scan? (are you > 40 yr?)

    I think that would be very very COOL data Smile   Thanks for sharing -- I've checked DR. Eades out since you started posting...  His wife does a nice 'tablescape' like Sandra Lee!  
    I loved his post on foie gras!  That's what I tell my elevated liver test patients -- they are making their fatty livers into FOIE GRAS (and good think I'm not Hannibal... but I like chianti *ha ahaaa*).

    g

  • andyj

    1/9/2008 5:53:00 PM |

    While I would dearly love to try this myself, I am still (as always) having a mental problem with the high-fat part.  I am currently trying to fine tune a plan to do a calorie-restricted diet (about 1600 calories) but I'm not sure how low I can get the carbohydrate segment to go  -- certainly not under 10%.   Most of the fat will be from nuts and chocolate (and salmon and sardines) and I will certainly do a NMR after the fact.  The biggest problem is crafting something you can actually live with for an extended period of time, not just a couple of months.  Therein lies the real problem.  Maybe we should just stop eating altogether!  I have plans for a blog entry on just this subject --  what if we ate only when we truly had to?  Some days I'd have no problem dropping down to about 1000 calories a day, but of course then exercise would be out of the question.  Yeah, this plan still needs some tinkering before I attempt it.  
              andysheart.blogspot.com

  • MAC

    1/9/2008 8:01:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
       New paper on Vitamin D and heart diseases. Paper says they cannot recommend testing for Vit D nor recommend supplementaion for those with a known deficiency.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases
    /2008/01/080107181600.htm

    To g: I am over 40 and only low carbing recently. Previous to that used vegan diet to lose weight successfully. Have not had a heart scan yet but seriously thinking of it as my father was diagnosed with Type 2 at 65 and had quadruple bypass.

    P.S. Went to doc the other day and we decided to do some blood work since it had been while and unbeknownst to me until I looked at the paper work he had ordered a Vit D 25OH test and I got him to order a lipoprotein analysis for the lipid part. No discussion, he agreed. I think he keeps up on  latest research.

  • Dr. Davis

    1/9/2008 8:25:00 PM |

    Hi, MAC--

    Progress!

  • MAC

    1/9/2008 11:18:00 PM |

    FYI.

    Posted by me on Dr. Eades site:

    "You and Dr. Davis both reviewed the same study in your respective blogs on the same day. Bit of different takes but same conclusion. http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/

    Hi MAC–

    I’m a reader of Dr. Davis’ blog from time to time. I guess today that great minds thought alike.

  • g

    1/10/2008 4:20:00 AM |

    MAC -- it sounds like you have a biochem background too?  Yes, I agree many great thinkers are coming up with vastly similar conclusions!  I think that the best balance betw being fed and 'fasting' maybe key (didn't u discuss earlier?). Where is that? maybe being mildly ketotic? at 5-10? or 0-20?  for CAD who knows yet?

    Here's an example of industry looking for a single drug ligand/target (a $325 million one)...  The answer has already been discovered.  you've found it, dude!  I'm not sure about the relationship betw protein and plaque and CAD yet...  do you have some insights?

    http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/01/08/rna-mania-genzyme-drops-325-million-on-cholesterol-shot/#comment-60086

    THANKS!! g

  • MAC

    1/10/2008 3:24:00 PM |

    To g: I think you have me confused with another poster. Sorry don't think that was me. Maybe Peter? Minor in chemistry and lots of science courses but no biochem.

    BTW, the great mind in this case was Dr. Davis, and that was Dr. Eades paying him the compliment.

  • g

    1/10/2008 8:49:00 PM |

    Sorry for the confusion -- so many quality post-ers here!  It's great that you're considering starting on vit D -- it improved insulin sensivity in a small trial 60% (that's more than any drug out there like metformin or Actos).

  • chickadeenorth

    1/11/2008 7:45:00 PM |

    g et al  do you have some reading material about Vit D improving insulin resistance I could take to my doc. I am on 4000 units a day, haven't noticed any difference but it is only about 2 weeks now.

Loading
"I gained 30 lbs from one cracker"

"I gained 30 lbs from one cracker"


Let me tell you a story, a tale of a woman who gained 30 lbs by eating one cracker.

At age 50, Claire's health was a disaster. Her initial lipoprotein patterns were a mess, including HDL 36 mg/dl, triglycerides 297 mg/dl, blood sugar 122 mg/dl (pre-diabetic range), blood pressure 155/99. Small LDL comprised over 90% of all LDL particles.

At 5 feet 3 inches, she weighed 210 lbs--90 lbs over her ideal weight. Her face was flushed and red, her eyes swollen and weighted down with bags, her eyes dull. While interested in hearing about how to improve her health, I would hardly call her enthusiastic.

We talked about how removing wheat products entirely from her diet could result in weight loss--enormous weight loss--yet with reduced appetite, increased energy, less daytime sleepiness and fogginess, improved sleep quality. Removing wheat would also allow substantial correction of her lipoprotein patterns with minimal medication.

At first, she seemed confused by this advice. After all, it ran directly opposite to what she'd been told by her family doctor, not to mention the advice from TV, food ads, and food packages.

To my surprise, Claire did it. She didn't return to the office for another 5 months. But she came in, a big beaming smile on her face.

Even at 167 lbs--still overweight--Claire looked great. She glowed. She'd already dropped nearly 2 1/2 inches from her waist. She felt lighter on her feet, discovered energy she thought she'd lost 10 years earlier. Her blood results matched, with dramatic shifts in each and every pattern.

I quizzed Claire on her diet, and she had indeed made substantial changes. In addition to eliminating all foods made of wheat flour, she also eliminated foods made with cornstarch, rice flour, snacks, and other sweets. She ate her fill of vegetables, fruits, raw nuts, lean meats, and healthy oils. She was less hungry while eating less. Even her husband, skeptical at first, joined Claire after the first two months and her initial 20 lbs of weight loss. He, too, was well on his way to dropping to ideal weight.

But a dinner party invitation came. In the few that Claire and her husband had gone to over the few months, she had religiously stuck to her program, choosing cheese, pickles, olives, vegetables that she dipped, but avoided the pretzels, breads, Doritos, potato chips, and others.

This time, a tray of whole wheat crackers was laid on the buffet table, covered with some sort of sweetened cheese. She had just one. She savored the taste that she'd missed. "Maybe one more. I'll be extra good this weekend,'" she told herself.

Now Claire was hungry. The bruschetta covered with tomatoes and mozzarella looked awfully good. "It's got some good things on it, too!" she thought. She had three.

The floodgates opened. I saw Claire three months later, weighing just shy of 200 lbs. "I almost cancelled this appointment," she whispered quietly, tears at the corner of her eyes. "I don't know what happened. I just lost control. After losing all that weight and feeling so good, I blew it!"

I've seen it before: Fabulous success eliminating the foods that created the situation--the insatiable appetite, the endless cycle of hunger, brief satiety, the rolling, rumbling hunger--followed by temptation, then disaster. The weight lost comes right back.

It's experiences like Claire's that have absolutely, positively convinced me: Wheat products are addictive. It's not true for everybody, but it's true for many people, certainly most people who have weight struggles. It triggers some sort of appetite button, a signal to eat more . . . and more, and more. Keep it up long enough, and you have drops in HDL, increases in triglycerides, upward jumps in blood sugar and blood pressure, diabetes, etc. It doesn't matter if it's whole grain, 7-grain, or 12-grain. Yes, the whole grains contain more fiber and more B vitamins. But they all share one characteristic: They trigger a desire for more.

So that's the story of how one whole wheat cracker caused one woman to gain 30 lbs.


Next week's story:

California woman claims: My children are aliens!


Just kidding.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Comments (19) -

  • Kristen's Raw

    5/23/2008 7:24:00 AM |

    Hi, I just found your blog. Very interesting Smile

    I'm curious...on average, what percent of your patients follow a vegan diet?

    Cheers,
    Kristen Suzanne

  • Chainey

    5/23/2008 8:01:00 AM |

    Interesting. Do you think the same applies to potatoes? I know that french fries are a major downfall for many people.

  • Jenny

    5/23/2008 11:21:00 AM |

    Dr Davis,

    If your patient had a fasting blood sugar of 122 she was most certainly fully diabetic, and her post-meal blood sugars, with carbs were likely in the high 200s.

    So the problem with that cracker might not have been that wheat is addictive but that in a person with diabetes the blood sugar spike caused by eating carbs causes relentless overwhelming physiological hunger.

    If that is understood, it is much easier to stop the cycle. If people interpret the physiological hunger as emotional--a personal weakness--it is much harder to deal with.

    But most importantly, this woman needed to be monitoring her post-meal blood sugar spikes no matter what she was eating. Had she seen the spike, she would have understood why she was so hungry, and if she was able to flatten that spike, she could have avoided the regain.

    I do not believe wheat is addictive, and I also believe VERY strongly after ten years of dealing with a low carb diet that if a person does not learn how to deal with the occasional off-plan day, and the resulting physiological hunger, it is only a matter of time until they DO crash off the diet.

    I've seen it far too often. People go two or three years on the diet and then, because they haven't learned how to go on and off it, they fail dramatically.

    So rather than demonizing wheat or carbs, let's put some effort into teaching people how to deal with the inevitable hunger that results from creating a high blood sugar spike so that they can lose their fear of carby foods and maintain the diet for many years.

    P.S. I learned this lesson the very hard way--three years of perfection, total regain, and now heading into year 6 of doing much better because I can go on and off the very low carb diet without regain.

    --Jenny Ruhl

  • Dr. William Davis

    5/23/2008 12:33:00 PM |

    Hi, Jenny--

    Thanks for your comments. I agree with your observations on her blood sugar.

    However, I strong disagree with the "wheat is not addictive" idea. I would warn you that it is dangerous to extrapolate broad truths from your single, personal experience. I have witnessed this in over 500 patients now. It is not true for everybody, but it is very true for many. Wheat products are unique. They also exert peculiar and exaggerated effects on lipoproteins, particularly small LDL. Even without the addictive quality, if you watch lipoproteins, you will see large effects just with elimination of wheat, effects that extend far beyond blood sugar.  

    I suspect that you do not have a wheat addiction. The comments from people who are spared this pattern are incomprehension or opposition. But, for some people, it is like a cloud lifted. And it is largely specific for wheat.

  • JoeEO

    5/23/2008 12:53:00 PM |

    I have to second Dr Davis opinion on wheat. I have found that eating any type of wheat -  even the 100% Bran crackers suitable for diabetics gives me a insatiable hunger. I don't get the same effect from eating a comparable amount of carbs via starchy vegetables or oat bran cereal

    Peace

    Joe E O

  • Anonymous

    5/23/2008 3:14:00 PM |

    I didn't think it was possible, but after seeing it, believe my mom is a wheataholic.  She has avoid wheat     a # of times, and each times she has done so she lost weight, and her blood pressure dropped nicely.  Unfortunately she has not been able to stick with the diet.  She goes  back to her old wheat eating ways and the weight came back.    

    This morning I heard mom and dad got into a somewhat heated debate over a bran muffin mom was eying.  Never thought I would see the day a bran muffin caused an argument.

  • Darcy Elliott

    5/23/2008 4:59:00 PM |

    Totally agree with you doc. We see a major wheat addiction problem with several of our patients. Not all of them, but a substantial percentage really struggle giving it up. There's some info "out there" on gluten exorphins - have you ever looked into it?

    Darcy

  • Anne

    5/23/2008 10:41:00 PM |

    Wheat protein contains a number of opiod peptides which can be released during digestion. Some of these are thought to affect the central and peripheral nervous systems.

    When I gave up gluten, I felt much worse for a few days. This is a very common reaction in those who stop eating gluten cold turkey.

    Anne

  • Anonymous

    5/24/2008 1:34:00 AM |

    I have low carbed since 03 and thought I was a master, no wheat passed these lips. Then one Christmas they did and since then, 06 I struggle to stay on my low carb clean program, I wish I had never 'fallen" off the wagon.

    Eating wheat was the trigger as it triggered cravings for me............ that were worse than in my "fat" yrs.

    I liken the addiction is same as drugs or booze, to me its no different. I come from a background of numerous alcoholics, diabetics and have nursing and psychology background.I am diabetic. I can see both things play a role with me, but have to say that to me wheat is like an addiction.

    I believe these soft comfort foods  escalate the bg, also signal to our brain the soothing of any emotions and very quickly we become psychologically and physiologically addicted to higher carb foods like wheat.

    Our first food is pablum, baby biscuits, the brain learns quickly this sweet soft food is soothing and quickly we become addicted to this.

    When I am really stressed my "drug" of choice is wheat products, yet I am educated, I know the drill yet my body craves something with wheat.
    Its an addiction to me, I have control of this addiction and craving if I keep my bg within normal so struggle with living with this insight.

    Sometimes my bg goes up after bigger low carb meal but doesn't provoke cravings as much as having just a cracker or 2 while I am out..it makes me want to have more..I can identify 110% with Claire.

    chick

  • Anonymous

    5/24/2008 3:10:00 AM |

    Well, I had such a strong craving to wheat that I switched to rice products, thinking that anything would be better than wheat. But I became just as addicted to rice as wheat. In fact, I don't even miss wheat products because there are so many rice products. I imagine if more baked goods were made of corn, instead of wheat or rice, then I'd be addicted to that. I agree there is a wheat addition for many, but for me it's the sugar high or the temporary good feelings I derive simply from eating a flour product.

    Vita

  • liefman

    5/24/2008 3:41:00 AM |

    I just saw an interesting piece of research suggesting also that artificial sweeteners have an effect on the brain that triggers sugar/carb craving. This was in rodents; anyone aware of human studies? Certainly nothing the makers of splenda or nutrasweet are going to fund . . .

  • Jenny

    5/26/2008 1:52:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    I've been thinking about your response to my earlier comment, and wanted to raise a couple more issues.

    Though I cited my own experiences in the comment, I've been active in online discussion groups for both low carb diets and diabetes for almost a decade now. And what I've observed over this period is that people who are low carbing who do NOT have diabetes or who have diabetes controlled only by a low carb diet are almost always the people who report "wheat addiction. "

    But what is fascinating--and was a real "Aha!" for me, is that hundreds of people with diabetes active online who gauge what they can eat by measuring their blood sugar after meals and eliminating blood sugar spikes, even mild ones,  with a combination of diet, safe meds and insulin do NOT report this wheat addiction issue, and most interestingly, they do manage to eat small amounts of wheat without going off the rails.  Most of them do not eat more than 120 g of carbs a day and many eat far less.  

    The only thing people with diabetes do report occasionally about wheat is that wheat ramps up heart burn.

    But people with diabetes have access to drugs, including insulin, that can flatten blood sugar which people without it do not have. And many of us find that even though we did not think our blood sugar spikes were that bad while controlling on diet alone--I sure didn't--when we add appropriate drugs we realize that we were experiencing a lot of hunger and that with the right meds it abates dramatically.

    This, not only my own experience, is why I believe that wheat addiction may really be pointing to blood sugar spiking and the related relentless hunger. Wheat is among the very fastest carbs--much faster than rice or most forms of cooked potatoes. This must not be underestimated.

    You say people who haven't experienced wheat addiction cannot imagine it. But what I'm saying is that people who have not experienced blood sugar-related hunger can have NO idea how overwhelming it can be and how it can push a person into a binge that is very hard to end. The two may be more related than you think. When I was controlling with diet alone wheat always made me terribly hungry. Add a bit of meal-time insulin timed properly and suddenly  wheat is just another food.

    Over my decade of watching people try to do the Low Carb WOE without blood sugar meds I have seen that very very few people are able to stick with the diet for more than 5 years and that the binge that gets out of control is all too frequent.

    So I think anyone who is trying to help people with their carb issues HAS to address the problem of teaching people how to get back on plan when they go off and how to deal with the hunger that comes from unaccustomed blood sugar spiking. Even if wheat addiction turns out to be a true physiological problem, people ARE going to eat wheat eventually, and if they panic and believe that they are now helpless in the face of their addiction, which is the kind of thinking that the addiction model tends to encourage that isn't helpful!

    So rather than build a fear of food  it is much more skillful to give people the tools they need to get back on track after they eat something that kicks up physiological hunger. This involves a combination of physiological and psychological tools.

    The people who succeed long term on the low carb diet do appear to be hose who learn how to get back on after they go off.

    And what I have learned in my years online is that the people with diabetes who have controlled carb intake very well for very long periods of time are those who take a more relaxed approach and have learned how to recover from overdoing it. That is why over my own decade of eating LC, I've moved from a very strict to a much more flexible approach that does not demonize any food on keeping a flat blood sugar no matter what is eaten.

    I am hearing recently from quite a few medical professionals who have gotten religion about cutting carbs over the past few years, and I'm very glad they have, but I think there is a certain extremism that we all go through that is an obstacle to making it through the decades of tight control we need to preserve health.

    I'm very glad that you do take the positions you take, my comments are mostly directed at making it possible for your current patients to continue their success a decade and two or three decades hence!

  • Anne

    5/26/2008 10:34:00 PM |

    Isn't if possible that wheat can be addictive, raise blood glucose. cause antibody reactions, damage organs and syetems and worsen lipids? That does not mean that everyone who eats wheat will have all or any of these reactions. There are hundreds of complex proteins in wheat. It makes sense they could cause multiple effects.

    I have an antibody reaction to wheat (gluten) and do have to watch out for the smallest crumb as it will make me ill.  Before I went gluten free, wheat was my favorite food. I craved it constantly. Perhaps this craving was related to increased blood glucose (BG) levels as I have found out that starches and sugars cause BG spikes. I have been able to  level them out with diet alone so far. I will never find out what wheat would do to my BG. As a person who is gluten sensitive, wheat is my enemy.

    Approximately 1% of the population has celiac disease - this is an autoimmune disease cause by wheat and other related grains. A growing number of doctors are saying that non-celiac gluten sensitivity affects at least 10% of the population.

  • Sue

    5/27/2008 3:19:00 AM |

    Jenny,
    You say "people ARE going to eat wheat eventually".

    Why do you think this is?  Why not just avoid wheat?  If a diabetic can eat wheat because they are medicated doesn't that mean without medication wheat causes too many cravings.  So for us un-medicated lot its probably better to avoid wheat.

    (BTW I like your blog).

  • Stephan

    5/29/2008 12:39:00 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

      I share your feeling that wheat is unique.  My opinion comes from researching and comparing different pre-industrial populations throughout the world.  Many of them eat high-carb diets and do just fine, but as soon as you throw wheat and sugar into the mix, they become overweight and unhealthy.  The story has repeated itself over and over again throughout history, and I've posted about it on my blog several times.

    I sometimes speculate on why this may be.  I have two ideas: first, the lectin wheat germ agglutinin (WGA) has an affinity for the leptin receptor, and can be found in the serum of some people.  It competes with leptin for binding at the receptor.  Overweight people are typically leptin-resistant.  I think you can understand the implications!  This hasn't been demonstrated in vivo.

    The second mechanism is through damage of the upper intestinal tract.  Gluten (and possibly other wheat toxins as well) is probably not good for anyone, and Celiac patients are probably just one end of the spectrum.  Innate immune responses are observed even in non-Celiac patient gut biopsies challenged with gliadin fragments.  The upper small intestine is intimately involved in regulating satiety and insulin release/sensitivity through hormone release and vagal signals to the brain/liver.  Thus, immune activation and/or frank damage could pervert these signals.

  • Bruce K

    6/1/2008 9:54:00 AM |

    Jenny: "Even if wheat addiction turns out to be a true physiological problem, people ARE going to eat wheat eventually,"

    This sounds like saying that people are going to drink alcohol, even if they know they are alcoholic. Smart people would eliminate a food if it caused them to suffer cravings and frequent binges. Many people should realize they are addicted to sugar, and milk. For example, anybody who routinely gobbles down a pint/quart of ice cream in a day or two. Those people should never eat milk/sugar. You are right that many of them do, or will, but this is self-delusion, like an alcoholic saying "just one" drink, then stopping at five.

    "The people who succeed long term on the low carb diet do appear to be hose who learn how to get back on after they go off."

    Change low-carb to alcohol-free and see if that theory still applies. I think if a food causes cravings and binges, it should be eliminated for ever. Some people can eat junk food in moderation, or they can binge on it and not become fat, because they have a fast metabolism. That should not imply that junk food is healthy or that people need to learn how to recover from a binge. They need to fortify their diet with nutritious, satisfying food, so they don't have any inclination to binge. Bingeing is caused by deficiencies, IMO. You don't binge or have any interest in bad food when you are eating right.

  • jpatti

    6/4/2008 4:24:00 PM |

    I have a carb addiction myself and I agree with Jenny.

    The reason I say I have an "addiction" to carbs is because of my experience when I did a low-fat diet for a few years.  If I had a bad day, extra pasta seemed to make me feel better.  If I couldn't sleep, a bagel would knock me right out.  This is not a "normal" reaction to carbs; this is more how people use alcohol than carbs.  For *me*, carbs are like a drug.

    Every time I go off low-carb, when I go back on, I have horrible cravings, headaches and feel sickly for a few days.  It's exactly like a withdrawal process.  The misery of going through induction again is often what keeps me *on* my diet, not wanting to feel that way.  It's not just that my bg will be high for a day or two if I cheat, but that I'll feel like crap for several days.

    So I low-carb, but not *very* low-carb.  Around 60-80g/day most of the time, which lets me have small servings of fruit and my preferred grains, barely and buckwheat, and a low-carb tortilla now and then.  This is as low as I can go long-term which is why I don't do seriously strict low-carb ala Bernstein; this is what I can live with.

    But I do cheat sometimes.  The longer the cheat, the longer I feel like hell when I go back on low-carb.  I can "afford" to cheat once a month for *one* meal and get back on low-carb with only a day of feeling minorly poorly, but if I "cheat" for a whole day, I feel badly for 2-3 days before being OK.

    I also agree with Jenny about managing cheats.  This is the deal... I'm just not ever going to agree to never, ever eat a cracker again!  I don't even *like* crackers that much, but if I have to *never* eat them again, I'm going to be craving them immediately!  I'll be having dreams about Ritz and thinking about Saltines all day and start fantasizing about Sociables instead of sex!  

    This is actually why I *do* plan to "cheat" once a month.  Psychologically, I can't deal with "never", but I can deal with postponing for a couple weeks.    Having cheated LOADS of times is how I *know* I can "afford" it for exactly *one* meal per month without going off the wagon or screwing my bg up too badly.  

    It's not specifically about wheat for me.  I tolerate low-carb tortillas 2-3x/week in my normal diet just fine without falling off the wagon.  I can use a bit of wheat flour or cornstarch to thicken a dish without any problem - if it's little enough over a bunch of servings.  

    Conversely, ANY type of carb can cause me to fall off the wagon - potatoes, sugar itself, even fruit.  Once the straw that broke the camel's back for me was tangerines, a normally healthy food, but not so much if you're diabetic and on your third one.  

    For me, it's about insulin resistance (IR).  When bg is elevated, the pancreas keeps producing insulin in an attempt to reduce bg.  Meanwhile, the high bg itself increases IR, so in spite of the insulin, very little glucose enters the cells.  In short, you have both insulin-induced hunger *and* a cellular-level hunger occurring.

    If you give in to your hunger and eat, bg rises, therefore increasing insulin and further reducing it's effectiveness.  

    With your cells not getting fed, you're fatigued and weak too.  So you not only overeat and get fat, but are "lazy" also.  

    It's a very, very vicious circle that you can only break by cutting the carbs and going through withdrawal until your bg is controlled again.  

    For me, the type of hunger I feel on a high-carb diet is literally painful, it can wake me from sleep.  It takes a lot of willpower to ignore that, which is part of what makes reinducting so difficult (besides that it feels awful).  

    On the other hand, on low-carb, hunger is a very minor feeling that I can easily ignore all day if I'm busy or distracted.  It's a whole other ballgame.  

    I know some people have very specific wheat issues, such as gluten intolerance.  

    But I don't see anything in your description of this lady's problem from the cracker that distinguishes it from problems I've seen other low-carb folks suffer from potato chips.  Like Jenny, I've been on low-carb forums and newsgroups for years.  I can't even tell you how many times someone comes back after being gone a few months or years and sheepishly admits they fell off the wagon and gained back 100 lbs.  It doesn't have to be wheat that kickstarted the binge, could be sugar, potatoes, corn - like I said, for me personally, once it was tangerines.  

    Wheat is a very pervasive carb source due to baked products, so it's *often* wheat that causes the problem.  But I bet that lady could've had the same reaction from a chocolate candy bar.

  • Bruce K

    6/14/2008 5:45:00 PM |

    There's an old saying: "If you fail to plan, you plan to fail." Why eat foods that cause even a day of less health and quality of life? You say you can't deal with "never" eating another cracker, but do not really like crackers. I haven't eaten any crackers in years. If you have to eat grains, there are better foods like sprouted breads or yeast-free sourdough from a health store. Why not eat those instead of crackers? The foods you "can't live without" are probably the foods you need to avoid. If crackers disappeared from the face of the Earth, you wouldn't die the next day from stress. You'd simply eat other foods. Why's it so hard to do that? Pretend there's no such thing as crackers, cookies, or other baked goods. The world is not going to end if those foods go away forever. Neither are you.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 10:23:18 PM |

    Even at 167 lbs--still overweight--Claire looked great. She glowed. She'd already dropped nearly 2 1/2 inches from her waist. She felt lighter on her feet, discovered energy she thought she'd lost 10 years earlier. Her blood results matched, with dramatic shifts in each and every pattern.

Loading