Diet Coke saves father's life

6. March 2007 William Davis (0)
Jason came to the office because of chest pain. At 34 years old, he works as manager of a (non-fast food) restaurant, but indulges in lots of the odds and ends. Among his indulgences: Diet Coke. Every time he'd have a diet Coke, he'd have chest pain. Not drinking diet Coke--no chest pain. If Jason drank coffee, no chest pain. Other foods, no chest pain. Anyway, just eliminating the diet Coke seemed to do the trick. (Aspartame?)

Anyway, that's not why I tell you Jason's story. In the midst of his evaluation, an echocardiogram showed a mildly enlarged aorta, measuring 4.0 cm in diameter. So we obtained lipoproteins. Jason showed lipoprotein(a) and small LDL particles, the dreaded duo. We talked about how to correct this pattern. Among the strategies we discussed was niacin.

But what bothered me was that neither of Jason's parents had a diagnosis of heart disease. Jason had to have gotten Lp(a) from either his mother or father, since you obtain the gene from one or the other parent. You cannot acquire Lp(a). So one of Jason's parents was sitting on a genetic time bomb of unrecognized Lp(a) and hidden heart disease.

Because Jason's paternal grandfather had a heart attack at age 62, only Jason's Dad had the heart scan (though I urged both to get one). Score: 1483. Recall that heart scan scores >1000 carry a risk of death or heart attack of 25% per year if no preventive action is taken. Now, of course, we have to persuade Jason's Dad that a program of prevention--intensive prevention is in order, including a measure of Lp(a).

So that's the curious story of how Diet Coke probably saved Jason's Dad's life. The lesson is that if you or someone you know has Lp(a), think about their children as well as their parents, each of whom carry a 50% chance of having the pattern.
Tags :

Add comment

Loading
More on the American Heart Association

More on the American Heart Association

9. June 2007 William Davis (1)
I'm very troubled by the American Heart Association's (AHA) willingness to lend its logo and stamp of approval to a multitude of garbage foods like Cocoa Puffs and Berry Kix cereals.

So I contacted the AHA and spoke to the manager of the Food Certification Program, Ms. Linda Rupp. Ms. Rupp proved very helpful in helping me to understand.

I originally called her to find out just how many products were turned down. In view of 768 products on the approved list, I wondered how many had been rejected to generate this "select" group.

Unfortunately, she said that the number of products rejected was not tracked, though she did intimate that it was not a lot. Sometimes, she added, a rejected product will undergo a few "improvements" to help it achieve the criteria necessary for AHA approval.

What exactly is considered in an application for the Food Certification Program?

A food must have 1)total fat 3.0 grams or less, 2) saturated fat 1.0 gram or less, 3) 20 grams or less cholesterol, 4) 480 mg or less sodium, all per serving.

She also pointed out that, given the fact that a food as useless and lacking in health qualitites as jelly beans could meet this criteria, the AHA employs a special "Jelly Bean Rule" that stipulates that 10% of the Daily Value of 6 nutrients (e.g., fiber, vitamins A and C, etc.) must also be contained in a serving.

So those are the startlingly lax requirements to gain the privilege of affixing the AHA Heart Check Mark on your product and informing the public that your box of Cocoa Puffs, Cookie Crisp cereal, or Berry Kix is "heart healthy."

There is an epidemic of obesity in the U.S. I don't believe that the AHA endorsement helps. In fact, I believe that it has been a contributor to obesity.

Pardon me while I eat this bag of M&M's for my heart.
Tags :

Comments (1) -

  • Bix

    6/11/2007 10:53:00 AM |

    Oh man, I agree with you.  That's a tragedy.

Add comment

Loading
Heart health for stupid people

Heart health for stupid people

4. October 2007 William Davis (3)
I'm kidding.

What I'm referring to is the incredibly lame information I come across that passes as "heart health" on the internet, magazines, and other media. Just to keep abreast of what is being said, I subscribe to multiple newsletters and magazines and I witness the sorts of advice offered to the reading public.

A recent long-winded article on a popular website listed the "exciting" strategies available for a healthy heart:

Eat healthy--by eating a "balanced" diet low in saturated fat

Don't smoke

Exercise

Don't ignore chest pain symptoms or breathlessness

Know your numbers! meaning your cholesterol numbers. "If your cholesterol is high, you may need to speak to your doctor about medication to reduce it."


Surely they must all believe we're stupid. Otherwise, why would they repeat the same obvious information over and over again? Quit smoking? Gee, you think so?

How about some real heart healthy advice:

Get a heart scan--since we have to accept that cholesterol values are a miserable failure in detecting hidden heart disease. So is waiting for symptoms to appear.

If you have any measure of coronary plaque, ask your doctor to assess lipoproteins, not lipids (cholesterol).

Take fish oil for omega-3 fatty acids--At a dose of 1000 mg or more of EPA + DHA, heart attack risk is reduced by at least 28%.

Eliminate wheat and other processed carbohydrates --Small LDL has emerged as the number one cause of coronary plaque, not high cholesterol from saturated fat.

Get vitamin D assessed--The effects are huge--HUGE. There's already a study in a kidney disease population that showed a substantial reduction in mortality with vitamin D supplementation. More data are coming, including our own.


That's a start--truly effective, practical heart healthy strategies that go way beyond the conventional bland advice.


Copyright 2007 William Davis, MD
Tags :

Comments (3) -

  • Anonymous

    10/4/2007 3:27:00 AM |

    Completely OT but I was wondering if you have
    an opinion on the cardio health claims for "selba" ?

    Thanks

    gene m

  • Anonymous

    10/4/2007 3:53:00 PM |

    I'm sorry Doc; I meant salba- a seed from Peru that some health practitioners are claiming as the new
    super food.

  • Dr. Davis

    10/4/2007 3:56:00 PM |

    Sorry. No opinion.

    But I'd like to know more.

Add comment

Loading
Heart disease "reversal" by stress test

Heart disease "reversal" by stress test

5. December 2006 William Davis (3)

Here's an interesting example of a 71-year old man who achieved "reversal" of an abnormality by a nuclear stress test.

This man underwent bypass surgery around 10 years ago, two stents three years ago. A nuclear stress test in April, 2005 showed an area of poor blood flow in the front of the heart. On the images, normal blood flow is shown by the yellow/orange areas. poor or absent blood flow is shown by the blue/purple areas within the white outline.

Now, I can tell you that this man is no paragon of health. He's only accepted limited changes in his otherwise conventional program--in other words, someone who I'd be shocked achieved true reversal of his heart disease. (I didn't have him undergo any CT heart scans because of the difficulties in scoring someone who has undergone bypass surgery and stents, and because of limited motivation. True plaque reversal is for the motivated.)This patient did, however, accept adding fish oil and niacin to his program.

Nonetheless, stress testing can be helpful as a "safety check". Here's the follow-up stress test:
You'll notice that the blue/purple areas of poor blood flow have just about disappeared. This occurred without procedures.

Does this represent "reversal"? No, it does not. It does represent reversal of this phenomenon of poor flow. It does not represent reversal of the plaque lining the artery wall. That's because improvement of flow, as in this man, can be achieved with relatively easy efforts, e.g., improvement in diet, statin drugs, blood pressure control, etc. True reversal or reduction of coronary plaque, however, is tougher.

If blood flow is improved, who cares whether plaque shrinks? Does it still matter? It does. That's because the "event" that gets us in trouble is not progressive reduction in blood flow, but "rupture" of a plaque. A reduction in plaque--genuine reversal--is what slashes risk of plaque rupture.
Tags :

Comments (3) -

  • Anonymous

    12/5/2006 5:17:00 PM |

    What are the measures one takes to reduce or reverse coronary plaque?

  • Dr. Davis

    12/5/2006 11:04:00 PM |

    That's what the entire www.trackyourplaque.com website is about.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 10:04:30 PM |

    Nonetheless, stress testing can be helpful as a "safety check". Here's the follow-up stress test:
    You'll notice that the blue/purple areas of poor blood flow have just about disappeared. This occurred without procedures.

Add comment

Loading
The Framingham Crap Shoot

The Framingham Crap Shoot

22. November 2008 William Davis (2)
The Framingham risk score is a risk-assessment tool that has become the basis for heart disease prediction used by practicing physicians.

The Framingham system determines that:

· 35% of the adult population in the U.S., or 70 million, is deemed “low-risk.” Low-risk is defined as the absence of standard risk factors for heart disease; low-risk persons have no more than a 1-in-20 chance (5%) of dying from heart disease in the next 10 years. Physicians are advised by the American Heart Association (AHA) and its experts that no specific effort at risk reduction is necessary.

· 25%, or approximately 50 million, U.S. adults are deemed “high-risk,” based on the presence of 2 or more risk factors. High-risk persons experience a 20%-30% likelihood of heart attack in the next 10 years. People at high-risk are candidates for preventive efforts according to the guidelines set by the Adult Treatment Panel-III (Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults; ATP-III) for cholesterol-reducing statin drug treatment and for “lifestyle-modifying” advice.

· The remaining 40% of the adult population, or 80 million people, are judged “intermediate-risk,” with the likelihood of heart attack between 5-20% over the next 10 years. This group should receive preventive advice and might be considered for statin drug treatment.


Let’s do some arithmetic. By the above scheme, the low-risk population will experience 3,500,000 heart attacks over the next decade, or 350,000 heart attacks per year.

The intermediate-risk population (without preventive treatment) will experience 8,000,000 heart attacks over the 10-year time period, or 800,000 per year.

The high-risk population, the group most likely to receive standard advice on diet, exercise, and be prescribed statin cholesterol drugs, will have their risk reduced by 35% by preventive efforts over the 10-year period. This means that heart attacks over 10 years will be reduced from 12,500,000 to 8,125,000 by standard prevention efforts, or reduced to 812,500 heart attacks per year.

These numbers are no secret. They are well known facts that have simply come to be accepted by the medical community. In other words, the standard approach to heart attack prediction makes the fact that two million people will succumb to cardiovascular events in the next year no mystery. This exercise in prediction is coldly accurate when applied to a large population.

The problem is that this approach cannot reliably distinguish which individuals will have a heart attack from those who will not.

From 100 people chosen at random, for instance, the numbers game played above will not confidently identify who among those 100 will have a heart attack, who will not, who will develop anginal chest pains and end up with stents or bypass surgery, or who will die. We just know that some of them will. Some people at high risk will have a heart attack, some people at intermediate risk will have a heart attack, some people at low risk will have a heart attack.

For any specific individual (like you or me), it’s a crap shoot.

That's why precise individual measurement of cardiovascular risk is required for real risk assessment, not applying broad statistical observations and forcing them to conform to the unique life of a specific individual, particularly risk calculators with as few risk parameters as the Framingham risk score.
Tags :

Comments (2) -

  • katherine

    11/24/2008 3:31:00 PM |

    just came across this...thoughts?

    http://thegearjunkie.com/the-runners-heart

  • John

    11/29/2008 3:33:00 AM |

    Good article. One of the most common mistakes made by health conscious individuals is the idea that if study X says A is bad or good then one should adjust one's lifestyle accordingly.

    If only it were that simple. A statistical analysis of a group is applicable to that group, not necessarily the specific individuals within that group; let alone those outside the studied group. We cannot determine individual risk on the basis of such studies yet time and again these studies are mentioned as "evidence" that we must accept. Sadly, too many health promoters, who should know better, tend to make the same logical error.

    Very pleased to see that this error is highlighted here.

Add comment

Loading