End-stage vitamin D deficiency

Let me paint a picture:

A 78-year old woman, tired and bent. She's lost an inch and a half of her original height because of collapse of several vertebra in her spine over the years, leaving her with a "dowager's hump," a stooped position that many older women assume with advanced osteoporosis. It's also left her with chronic back pain.


(Image courtesy of National Library of Medicine)

This poor woman also has arthritis in her knees, hips, and spine. All three locations add to her pain.

She also has hypertension, a high blood sugar approaching diabetes, and distortions of cholesterol values, including a low HDL and high triglycerides.

Look inside: On a simple x-ray, we see that the bones of her body are unusually transparent, with just a thin rim of bone at the outer edges, depleted of calcium. Weight-bearing bones like the spine, hips, and knees have eroded and collapsed.

On an echocardiogram of her heart (ultrasound), she has dense calcium surrounding her mitral valve ("mitral anular calcium"), a finding that rarely impairs the valve itself but is a marker for heightened potential for heart attack and other adverse events. Her aortic valve, another of the four heart valves, is also loaded with calcium. In the aortic valve, unlike the mitral valve, the collection of calcium makes the valve struggle to open, causing a murmur. The valve is rigid and can barely open to less than half of its original opening width.

If a heart scan were performed, we'd see the coronary calcification, along with calcification of the aorta, and the mitral and aortic valves.

Obviously, it's not a pretty picture. It is, however, a typical snapshot of an average 78-year old woman, or any other elderly man or woman, for that matter.

This collection of arthritis, osteoporosis, coronary and valve calcification, high blood pressure, abnormal cholesterol patterns, and pain is not unusual by any stretch. Perhaps you even recognize someone you know in this description. Perhaps it's you.

Look at this list again. Does it seem familiar? I'd say that the common factor that ties these seemingly unrelated conditions together is chronic and severe deficiency of vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency leads to arthritis, osteoporosis, coronary and valve calcification, high blood pressure, abnormal cholesterol patterns, and pain.

Should we go so far as to proclaim that aging, or at least many of the undesirable phenomena of aging, are really just manifestations of vitamin D deficiency? I would propose that much of aging is really deficiency of vitamin D, chronic and severe, in its end stages.

My colleagues might propose a 30- or 40-year long randomized trial, one designed to test whether vitamin D or placebo makes any difference.

Can you wait?

Comments (7) -

  • Darren

    12/6/2007 5:43:00 PM |

    So I'm not a cancer patient but would the same 1,000 IU's / 30lbs of bodyweight be a good guideline for us as well?  

    Also he mentions blood calcium test monthly - how much of a concern is potentially elevating blood calcium for a 4K-6K IU/day intake of D3?  Would K2 reduce or increase blood calcium?  I'm just not sure it's practical for most people to get a monthly test...

  • chickadeenorth

    12/7/2007 5:12:00 AM |

    Wow interesting reads about Vit D.

    Could you help me understand more why the Vit D in softgel is better than the dry??Mainly absorption??

    Also why check the calcium levels monthly along with the 25(OH)D??

    I will support this newsletter, thanks once again.

  • Dr. Davis

    12/7/2007 11:48:00 AM |

    Softgels are oil-based; tablets are not. You can therefore force the tablet D to be absorbed by including a lot of oil, e.g., a teaspoon of olive oil. However, the absorption tends to be erratic, in my experience. Softgels are very consistent.

    We do not advocate monthly calcium levels.

  • Anonymous

    12/8/2007 1:00:00 PM |

    Just a commentary on the article,  I'm a believer in your program and as such have been telling everyone about it that will listen.  I'm a male, and I've found that convincing other males of TYP has been relatively easy.  Most guys I know now follow the TYP program somewhat to a degree.  Females I know though have been a tougher sale.  And I believe this lack of interest in TYP by females I know has probably been caused by  differences in how males and females relate to each other.

    I distribute your blog postings and this one apparently hit a cord with females.  I heard from a friend that his wife is now raiding his vitamin D bottle.  Another two female relatives have called wanting to know what vitamin D to use and where to buy.  As funny as this sounds, I think the new found interest in TYP by females I know is because of the female orientated subject in this blog.

  • Dr. Davis

    12/8/2007 1:27:00 PM |

    Interesting observation!

    Maybe there's a lesson for us to learn from your observation.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:18:21 PM |

    In other words, the findings of this substantial observation suggest that the ranges of TSH usually regarded as normal contribute to coronary events, cardiac death, as well as lipid patterns. While several other studies have likewise shown a relationship of higher TSH/lower thyroid function with lipid abnormalities and overt heart disease, no previous study has plumbed the depth of TSH to this low level and to such a large scale.

  • Tammy Regis

    8/5/2011 8:19:10 PM |

    I like all what you wrote except you make no mention at all about muscle tissue.  Her pecs and abdomals are locked short while her neck and spinal muscles are locked long.  There is a direct mind / body connection here that Western medicine has still not caught on to.  Anyone can take a moment to think of something sad or worrisome, and take note of their posture change when they think of something happy or exciting.  A lot of people are walking dead.

Loading
A victory for SHAPE, CT heart scans, and doing what is RIGHT

A victory for SHAPE, CT heart scans, and doing what is RIGHT

The efforts of Texas House of Representatives Rep. Rene Oliveira and the SHAPE Guidelines committee have paid off: The Texas legislature passed a bill that requires health insurers to cover CT heart scans.

(NOTE: Don't make the same mistake that the media often makes and confuse CT heart scans with CT coronary angiography: two different tests, two different results, two different levels of radiation exposure. The difference is discussed here.)

Track Your Plaque previously reported the release of the SHAPE Guidelines, an ambitious effort to open CT heart scanning to people who would benefit from a simple screening test for coronary disease. Rep. Rene Oliveira initially introduced the bill in 2006, after having a heart scan uncovered extensive coronary plaque that resulted in coronary bypass surgery.

The bill requires that health-benefit providers cover the cost of CT heart scans (and carotid ultrasound) in men between the ages of 45-76, women 55-76, as well as anyone with diabetes or at "intermediate-risk" or higher for coronary disease by Framingham risk score.

The usual panel of cardiology knuckleheads stepped to the media podium, expressing their incredulity that something as "unvalidated" as heart scans could gain the backing of legislative mandate. Heartwire carried this comment:

"Contacted by heartwire, Dr Amit Khera (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas) confirmed there are still no comprehensive, adequately powered studies showing that these screening tests lead to better outcomes. In a phone interview, Khera said he has major concerns about how physicians will use these tests, particularly primary-care physicians. "I gave a talk last week to primary-care doctors, and there were probably 250 people in the room, and when I asked how many people had ordered a calcium scan, just one person raised a hand. . . . Most people don't even know what to do with the Framingham risk score, so they're going to follow an algorithm that they don't know how to follow to order a test result that they don't know what to do with."

It's the same criticisms hurled at heart scans over the years despite literally thousands of studies validating their application.

Studies have conclusively shown that:

--Coronary calcium scores generated by a CT heart scan outperform any other risk measure for coronary disease, including LDL cholesterol, c-reactive protein, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure.
--Coronary calcium scores yield a graded, trackable index of coronary risk. Scores that increase correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular events; scores that remain unchanged correlate with much reduced risk.
--A coronary calcium score of zero--no detectable calcium--correlates with extremely low 5-year risk for cardiovascular events.
--Coronary calcium scores correlate with other measures of coronary disease. Heart scans correlate with coronary angiography, quantitative coronary angiography, carotid ultrasound (intimal-medial thickness and plaque severity), ankle-brachial index, and stress tests, including radionuclide (nuclear) perfusion imaging.

The reluctance of my colleagues to embrace heart scans stems from two issues, for the most part:

1) No study has yet been performed showing that knowing what the score is vs. not knowing what the score is changes prognosis. That's true. But it is also true of the great majority of practices in medicine. While many wrongs don't make a right, the miserable and widespread failure of other coronary risk measures, like LDL cholesterol or c-reactive protein, to readily and reliably detect hidden coronary disease creates a gaping void for improved efforts at early detection. If your LDL cholesterol is 140 mg/dl, do you or don't you have coronary disease? If your doctor's response is "Just take a statin drug anyway" you've been done a great disservice. (If and when this sort of study gets done, its huge cost--outcome studies have to be large and last many years--it will likely be a statin study. It is unlikely it will include such Track Your Plaque strategies that help reduce heart scan scores, like vitamin D and correction of small LDL particles.)

2) Fears over overuse of hospital procedures triggered by heart scans. This is a legitimate concern--if the information provided by a heart scan is misused. Heart scans should never--NEVER--lead directly to heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery. Heart scans do not change the indications for performing revascularization (angioplasty, stents, bypass). Just because 20% of my cardiology colleagues are more concerned with profit rather than patient welfare does not invalidate the value of the test. Just because the mechanic at the local garage gouged you by replacing a carburetor for $800 when all you need was a new spark plug does not mean that we should outlaw all auto mechanics. Abuse is the fault of the abuser, not of the tool used to exercise the abuse.


All in all, while I am not a fan of legislating behavior in healthcare, the blatant and extreme ignorance of this simple tool for uncovering hidden heart disease makes the Texas action a huge success for heart disease prevention. I hope that this success will raise awareness, not just in Texas, but in other states and cities in which similar systemic neglect is the rule.

Remember: CT heart scans are tools for prevention, not to uncover "need" for procedures. They serve as a starting point to decide whether or not an intensive program of prevention is in order, and I don't mean statin vs. no statin.

Though not a multi-million dollar statin drug study, I have NEVER seen a heart attack or "need" for procedure in any person who has stopped progression or reduced their heart scan score. A small cohort from my practice was reported:

Effect of a Combined Therapeutic Approach of Intensive Lipid Management, Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation, and Increased Serum 25 (OH) Vitamin D on Coronary Calcium Scores in Asymptomatic Adults.

Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M.

The impact of intensive lipid management, omega-3 fatty acid, and vitamin D3 supplementation on atherosclerotic plaque was assessed through serial computed tomography coronary calcium scoring (CCS). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with statin therapy has not been shown to reduce or slow progression of serial CCS in several recent studies, casting doubt on the usefulness of this approach for tracking atherosclerotic progression. In an open-label study, 45 male and female subjects with CCS of >/= 50 without symptoms of heart disease were treated with statin therapy, niacin, and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides /=60 mg/dL; and vitamin D3 supplementation to achieve serum levels of >/=50 ng/mL 25(OH) vitamin D, in addition to diet advice. Lipid profiles of subjects were significantly changed as follows: total cholesterol -24%, low-density lipoprotein -41%; triglycerides -42%, high-density lipoprotein +19%, and mean serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels +83%. After a mean of 18 months, 20 subjects experienced decrease in CCS with mean change of -14.5% (range 0% to -64%); 22 subjects experienced no change or slow annual rate of CCS increase of +12% (range 1%-29%). Only 3 subjects experienced annual CCS progression exceeding 29% (44%-71%). Despite wide variation in response, substantial reduction of CCS was achieved in 44% of subjects and slowed plaque growth in 49% of the subjects applying a broad treatment program.

Comments (7) -

  • billye

    6/24/2009 4:51:58 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    I know how frustrated you and a few other doctors are relative to the contrariness of some of your colleges.  They hide behind the necessity for long term CYA clinical trials that never seem to take place.  I know that the road to good health and fiscal solvency of health care lies in the direction of supplementation with wild omega 3 fish oil and high dose vitamin D3 along with a low carbohydrate and high fat program.  But a study along these lines will never take place.  After all, you can't get a Patent out of such a program, therefore, pharmaceutical companies will never fund it.  
    I am a study of one for the last 9 months.  My forward thinking nephrologist,www.nephropal.blogspot.com  who follows your blog intently, put me on the above mentioned program while reassessing and stopping many of my medications.   One in particular is Staten's. I have achieved a loss of 50 pounds, my Trig/Hdl ratio is 2.73. My hbA1c diabetes type 2 score dropped from 5.9 to 4.6.  Many other health markers have greatly improved.  I tell you all of this because I can't get the notion out of my head that if the above mentioned was a national policy,  Diabetes essentially cured along with heart disease and many other metabolic syndrome diseases brought on by the western healthy diet, would not the financial difficulty plaguing universal health care be over.

    Bravo to doctors like you that step out of the box and treat patients with the goal of cure not just a prescription and see you in 3 months.  You doctors are the unsung heroes of the medical profession.

  • Dr. William Davis

    6/24/2009 8:04:00 PM |

    Great results, Billye!

    And thanks for the kind feedback.

  • Roger

    6/25/2009 12:12:55 AM |

    What timing for your post!  I live in Texas and I am scheduled for my first CT heart scan...tomorrow.  I don't have any outward risk factors, except age and family history, but my doc thought it was a good idea.  I'm glad to know insurance is covering it!

  • stern

    6/25/2009 6:14:57 PM |

    you never seen hearth atach with hearth scan and no calcium even with lpa high?
    other dr had never seen hearth atack when magnesium hydroxide was taken routinly is it corelate each other meaning it digests the calcium?

  • Roger

    6/25/2009 11:31:32 PM |

    I posted yesterday that I was about to have my first CT heart scan...well, it was an interesting experience for reasons I coudn't possibly have anticipated.  Dr. Davis has commented in the past on the confusion in the media about the difference between a CT calcium score scan, and a CT angiography, the latter requiring a far higher dose of radiation.  I assumed this was a source of confusion only among patients and lay folks, but, lo and behold, I discovered today that doctors--or at least their helpers--can be just as confused.  

    Here's my story:

    After checking in, I asked the receptionist to see if she had any information on whether my medical insurance was covering the scan.  She called someone, and I heard her say over the phone, "he's here for a CT angiogram."  At that point my ears perked up.  I explained I wasn't here for a CT angiogram, only a regular CT scan.  "Well, do you want to call your doctor and talk about this?" she asked.  No, I said, I would like to ask one of their folks to verify exactly what test my doctor had ordered.  As luck would have it, the technician was walking by at that point.  "Is this a CT angiogram?" the receptionist asked.  "No, it's just a CT calcium score scan" was the reply.  But apparently the technician had been unclear herself, and had called my doctor just to verify.  In other words, the "default" procedure they were accustomed to doing at this august Houston vascular clinic was a CT angiogram.

    In fact, my appointment was even listed on their calendar as a "CT angiogram."  For all I know, my insurance will be billed for the same. Later, during the procedure, the technician acted surprised I wasn't doing the "full test."  I explained I had minimal risk factors (actually only one, an HDL of 34 a couple of years ago, which has since been raised to 50 partly as a result of taking advice from this site), but that my doctor was progressive (he is an MD for the Houston Astros) and thought it was a good idea since there is heart disease in my immediate family.  My doctor did indeed prescribe only a CT calcium score scan, but it seems to have been an order that this clinic, at least, wasn't all that used to seeing.

    So, I guess the message is: we have a lot of educating to do.  Had I not been a faithful reader of these pages, I certainly wouldn't have known what kind of test I was about to get, or what questions to ask!

    As for the heart scan itself, a piece of cake.  If you can hold your breath, you can take this test.  Just be sure it is the right one!

    Keep up the good work, Dr. Davis.

  • Dr. William Davis

    6/26/2009 3:18:54 AM |

    Thanks, Roger. And thanks for telling about your near-miss with a CT coronary angiogram!

    Your comment is so helpful that I'd like to use your story as the focus for a Heart Scan Blog post.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 10:29:04 PM |

    All in all, while I am not a fan of legislating behavior in healthcare, the blatant and extreme ignorance of this simple tool for uncovering hidden heart disease makes the Texas action a huge success for heart disease prevention. I hope that this success will raise awareness, not just in Texas, but in other states and cities in which similar systemic neglect is the rule.

Loading
Thyroid correction: The woeful prevailing standard

Thyroid correction: The woeful prevailing standard

Rich has been taking Synthroid or levothyroxine for many years.

When Rich came to my office for continuing management 10 years after his bypass surgery, I checked his thyroid panel:

TSH 7.44 uIU/L

Free T4 1.88 ng/dl (Ref range 0.80-1.90 ng/dl)

Free T3 2.0 pg/ml (Ref range 2.3-4.2 pg/ml)


Rich's thyroid hormone distortions--high TSH, low T3--are sufficient to account for a tripling of heart attack risk long-term.

As Richs' thyroid was being managed by his primary care physician, I notified this doctor of Rich's panel. He therefore increased Rich's levothyroxine from 75 mcg per day to 100 mcg per day. Another thyroid panel several months later showed:

TSH 0.98 uIU/L

Free T4 2.38 ng/dl

Free T3 2.0 pg/ml



As you would expect, increasing the intake of the T4 hormone (levothyroxine) increased free T4 and suppressed TSH.

But what about T3? It's unchanged.

Indeed, Rich says that he feels no better and, in fact, wakes up in the morning foggy and requires a nap in the afternoon.

In my experience, the majority (approximately 70%, but not 100%) experience subjective improvement when T3 is added in some form and the free T3 level is increased. While the data (summarized here) are conflicted on whether there is objective benefit to T3 management and supplementation, there seems to be a poorly-quantified subjective improvement.

Rich's increased levothyroxine dose decreased (calculated) LDL cholesterol by 10 mg/dl. Based on my experience, I'll bet that his lipid panel would likely be further improved with T3 correction.

What I find incredible is the absolutely rabid resistance waged by primary care physicians and endocrinologists against this notion of T3, mostly due to fears of the remote likelihood of inducing atrial fibrillation and osteoporosis, while they are ready to prescribe lifelong statin drugs without a moment's hesitation.

Comments (16) -

  • William Trumbower

    7/28/2009 9:46:33 PM |

    Dr. Davis    You are so right!  I always check Ft3 as well as thyroid antibodies for Hashimotos.   If the antibodies are elevated, the patient probably has gluten induced autoimmune disease.   I also suggest checking reverse T3 if they have been on L-thyroxine.  If elevated, they are converting their T4 into reverse T3 instead of T3.   Keep up the good work.  Bill Trumbower MD

  • Ross

    7/29/2009 12:50:40 AM |

    Follow the money.  Synthroid (T4 only)is a highly profitable drug being actively pushed by drug reps.  Armour Thyroid (T3 and T4) is cheap and profitless.

    Where was that recent article on how drug companies (and their sales reps) shamelessly said anything needed to get doctors to prescribe their higher-profit lines?

  • Dr. William Davis

    7/29/2009 2:52:49 AM |

    Dr. Trumbower--

    Thanks. I'd like to continue the conversation.

    I can be reached through contact@trackyourplaque.com.

    Plenty to share!

  • Dr. William Davis

    7/29/2009 2:54:24 AM |

    Ross--

    You've hit at the essence of the problem.

    The depth of this rabid adherence to the drug company-induced dogma is incredible. Endocrinologists will turn blood-red arguing that Synthroid is the only means of correcting thyroid and that iodine deficiency no longer exists.

    Believe me--I've seen it happen first hand.

  • Anna

    7/29/2009 4:52:03 AM |

    This is a littke off-topic, but still about thyroid health so I hope it's ok.  

    The word is getting out in some of the online hypothyroid forums (STTM & Mary Shomon's about.com forums) that many hypothyroid patients are not happy with the recent reformulation of Armour desiccated thyroid.  Apparently, the new Armour formula no longer dissolves well for those who prefer to take it sub-lingually.  Additionally, many (who take it sublingually or swallow it) are finding the change in binder formulation (sugar was also reduced) coincides with a return of some symptoms, so perhaps the hormone absorption has changed.

    And of course, the continued shortage of Armour in some doses continues with no end in sight.  

    I heard about this reformulation issue just before I planned to change from Levoxyl (T4) & Cytomel (T3) combo therapy to Armour, so I asked my doctor to write the Rx for Naturethroid instead of Armour.  

    It's been a very smooth transition from synthetic T4/T3 once a day to 1/2 grain Naturethroid natural desiccated thyroid hormone twice a day, with a huge improvement in the "afternoon slump" that was still a prominent feature even after several years of tweaking my T4/T3 treatment.  In fact, now I have to set a reminder on my phone to remind me to take the second dose, because I don't often have the afternoon slump "reminder".

  • Tom

    7/29/2009 11:57:20 AM |

    Question please:  does it make sense for those of us without known thyroid issues to take an iodine supplement such as kelp?

    Thank you for any thoughts.

    Sincerely,

    Tom

  • Mar

    7/29/2009 12:36:55 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    I think that your article is so correct re: the need to have both Free T4 and Free T3 corrected.  I can remember arguing with the endocrinologist that we needed to check a Free T3 level too.  He finally checked it, but only one time.  I continue to have low Free T3.  I pay for my own test since he doesn't do it. I am gluten sensitive and my replacement T4 works better now that I am GF, but my Free T3 is still low.

  • kris

    7/29/2009 8:23:37 PM |

    It is hard to find a doctor who would understand desiccated thyroid medication never mind prescribing it. To add injury to the insult, the medical system in Canada doesn’t cover desiccated medication to begin with. people with affordability problem, continue to stay on synthetic medication and in the long run it cost the medical system lot more in order to correct the spinoff of thyroid issue through other diseases.

  • Anne

    7/30/2009 12:30:54 AM |

    I seemed to be doing fine on Synthroid. My TSH was .8. I then changed to a generic med and I watched my TSH slowly rise to almost 4 and my energy decline. Of course my doctor was unconcerned, but I insisted on getting a free T3 done too - it was low.

    I am now back on Synthroid and will be getting my TSH, free T3 and free T4 retested soon.

    I am gluten free x6yrs and now grain free. I hope it is just the generic that caused the worsening TSH.

  • Anonymous

    7/30/2009 8:53:21 PM |

    In British Columbia, Canada it's almost impossible to get a prescription for desiccated thyroid hormone. Synthroid gives me a backache, T4 compounded alone gives me migraines. Severe incapacitating chills started in 2000; it took several years to get a possible diagnosis and start on desiccated, but that doctor has moved away. The chills are 80% improved but get worse with any stress. Would iodine or kelp or Lugols or Iodoral help? My health fell apart with quitting smoking, systemic Candidiasis, hypoglycemia, diabetes, severe depression, menopause, etc and I can now digest very few foods, supplements, etc. Also most foods and all hormones cause migraines. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

  • William Trumbower

    7/31/2009 11:09:49 AM |

    Dr Davis     I went to the site you mentioned, but I could not find how to reach you.  Sorry I must not be very experienced to figure it out.   Dr. Trumbower

  • Jim

    7/31/2009 12:19:34 PM |

    I stumbled on this article with tons of citations about a possible cause of the apparently huge increase in thyroid problems at http://www.earthclinic.com/fluoride_questions_and_answers.html

    The first quotation from an expert was, "Today, many people living in fluoridated communities are ingesting doses of fluoride (1.6-6.6 mg/day) that fall within the range of doses (2 to 10 mg/day) once used by doctors to reduce thyroid activity in hyperthyroid patients. This is of particular concern considering the widespread problem of hypothyroidism (under-active thyroid) in the United States. Symptoms of hypothyroidism include obesity, lethargy, depression, and heart disease."

    Paul Connett, PhD
    Co-Founder, Fluoride Action Network"

  • Dr. William Davis

    7/31/2009 2:52:15 PM |

    Dr. Trumbower--

    You could try this: Cut and paste following web address:

    http://www.trackyourplaque.com/fo06-00about.asp

    Hope to see you there.

  • scall0way

    11/10/2009 8:18:11 PM |

    I'm going back and reading all your thyroid related posts after getting diagnosed yesterday with Hashimoto's. It gets depressing reading about the state of thryoid treatment in the US - total tunnel vision. The Dr. I was absolutely and utterly will not prescribe dessicated thyroid, only the synthetic T4s. I'll start out there but if it doesn't seem to help I'll have to look outside my network somewhere I guess.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 12:21:38 PM |

    In my experience, the majority (approximately 70%, but not 100%) experience subjective improvement when T3 is added in some form and the free T3 level is increased. While the data (summarized here) are conflicted on whether there is objective benefit to T3 management and supplementation, there seems to be a poorly-quantified subjective improvement.

Loading