What is Cureality all about?


“Looking over your medical record, Nancy, I’m a bit concerned about your risk for osteoporosis and hip fracture. It looks like your mom had a hip fracture at age 67. Is that right? ”

“Yes, she did,” Nancy responded. “And her life was never quite the same for the 15 years she lived after that.

“You’re 53 year old. Bone thinning develops over many years. Let’s get you scheduled for a bone scan.”

Two weeks later:

“Your z-score is 1.5, Nancy. This means you’ve got a mild form of osteoporosis called ‘osteopenia.’ Here: This is a prescription for alendronate, what used to be called Fosamax.”

“Aren’t there side-effects with that drug? A friend of mine said that her mom had a leg fracture from it.”

“Well, yes. All prescription drugs have potential side-effects. They’re rare, but they can happen and we can’t predict it. Besides leg fracture, there’s something called jaw osteonecrosis in which the jawbone dies and has to be surgically replaced. But would you rather run the risk of a hip fracture?”

“Before we jump to drugs, aren’t there natural things I could do first?”

(Big sigh.) “You can take calcium, but that only helps a bit. You’ve got to make a choice: Take the drug or risk a hip fracture.”

“I’m going to explore some natural remedies on my own first.”

Nancy’s dialogue with her doctor is fictional but based on similar encounters that occur thousands of times every day nationwide. Identify a problem, prescribe a drug. Natural remedies? “They don’t work.” “I don’t know anything about that.” “None of that is proven.” “I only practice evidence-based medicine.” You’ve probably heard a few of these explanations yourself if you ever question the wisdom of conventional medical care.

Each of Nancy’s fictitious interactions were no more 10 minutes long. If she is like most people, she will have one or two such interactions over the course of a year, unless she develops some acute illness. So she’s got something like 20-30 minutes per year to compress all of her “health” advice into the time allotted. 20-30 minutes per year to discuss bone health, nutrition, blood sugar issues, cholesterol issues, blood pressure, female issues, and all the other facets of health. Perhaps she has developed some chronic gastrointestinal complaints, too, and an odd rash on her elbows, maybe headaches a few times per week that she didn’t have before. Regardless, she’s going to have to make do with those few minutes, likely receiving one or more prescriptions or imaging procedures for each.

Such is the nature of modern healthcare: Provide the minimum interaction, address only a few, perhaps no more than one, problem, then prescribe a drug. This is, more often than not, wrong. Plain wrong. Tragically, awfully, unethically, unnecessarily wrong.

Let’s pick up again with Nancy. Upon learning of her osteopenia and long-term risk for hip fractures of the sort that changed her mom’s life and health irretrievably, Nancy started searching for solutions. Not only did she discover that, yes, there are indeed a number of safe and effective ways to deal with osteopenia. She also learned that such strategies have even been examined in clinical trials, some of the strategies pitted head-to-head with drugs and performed on a par, sometimes better, than prescription drugs. She also found that there are online communities that she could join and discuss her health situation with people all sharing the same health interests. During one such interaction at the start of her effort, when she was still a bit unsure and tentative, a woman she didn’t know but who shared a similar interest in restoring bone health, commented to Nancy, “Don’t sweat it, Nancy. I was in your shoes a little over a year ago. I followed a program for bone health: vitamin D, vitamin K2, magnesium, I made sure that I included leafy green vegetables at least once or twice per day, and I added strength training for a few minutes twice per week. I started with osteoporosis. My most recent bone density test showed that I reversed it completely—it’s entirely normal! So hang in there and be sure to share your questions and concerns with us here.”

THAT is what Cureality is all about. Cureality fills the gap of knowledge in health that is not being provided in a few minute-long medical interaction. Cureality reveals the astounding amount of credible, safe, scientific information that allows you to participate, sometimes take over completely, various aspects of health. You don’t have to fire your doctor; these efforts supplement the information and advice you obtain (or don’t obtain) in the doctor’s office. While critics may sometimes say that this can be dangerous or that misdiagnoses and dangerous treatments might be risked, our experience is the exact opposite: People do better by taking the reins of health themselves, choosing to use the health care system for acute or catastrophic illness—but not necessarily for health.

Our fictional woman, Nancy, returns to her doctor one year later after undergoing a repeat bone scan. The doctor opened her chart, clearly expecting to scold her for her foolhardy and careless attitude. Instead, he was speechless. After a pause, he said, “I don’t know how you did it, but your bone density is now normal, the density of a healthy 30-year old woman. Just continue doing what you’re doing.” He closed the chart and walked out.

Yes: “Just continue what you are doing”—not “Please tell me what you did so that I might learn something new,” or “Where did you learn about such strategies? I knew nothing about this!” Just “do what you’re doing.” Too often, that is the response you get that defines what modern health care has become.

You don’t want that kind of health care. Sure, it’s reassuring to know that the doctor and hospital are there in case you injure yourself or develop pneumonia. But obtain day-to-day health advice of the sort that keeps you slender, keeps blood pressure normal, maintains normal insulin and blood pressure responses, helps keep bowel health ideal, can even be used to reverse conditions such as autoimmune joint pain, diabetes, osteoporosis, or skin rashes, while costing next to nothing and yielding health care benefits for you and your family in multiple areas of health? That is the kind of health care you want.

That’s why we developed Cureality.


William Davis, MD
Author of 
#1 New York Times Bestseller Wheat Belly: Lose the wheat, lose the weight and find your path back to health, The Wheat Belly Cookbook, and Wheat Belly 30-Minute (or Less!) Cookbook published by Rodale, Inc.  
Author, Track Your Plaque: The only heart disease prevention program that shows how the new CT heart scans can be used to detect, track, and control coronary plaque
Is it mainstream or alternative?

Is it mainstream or alternative?

A question I get about once a week: "Is your program a kind of alternative medicine?"

Our program for control and reversal of coronary plaque using CT heart scans applies an eclectic panel of tools to achieve its goals. We use high-tech methods like lipoprotein analysis and CT heart scans; nutritional supplements like fish oil, vitamin D, and l-arginine; diet strategies and "functional foods" (using foods as a therapeutic tool); and conventional medication.

I don't consider this approach "alternative" in the sense that it uses unmeasurable or spiritual strategies. But I don't consider it mainstream, either, since current mainstream practice of heart disease prevention is far less rigorous with far less satisfactory results.

I think I can sum up the Track Your Plaque approach by saying that we use tools that work. Our measure of success is whether or not your heart scan score is stopped or reduced--that's hard to fudge. You can call it what you will, but I call it the best program for heart disease prevention I know of, alternative or mainstream.
Loading
Don't be satisfied with "deceleration"

Don't be satisfied with "deceleration"

In the Track Your Plaque program, we aim to stop or reduce your heart scan score.

Recall that, without any preventive efforts, heart scan scores can be expected to increase at the average rate of 30% per year (faster at lower scores, slower at higher scores by a quirk of arithmetic).

I am continually surprised at how often people--that is, people not in the Track Your Plaque program--are often content with what I term "deceleration," or the slowing of plaque growth. In truth, most people are content with deceleration of plaque growth because they simply don't know that plaque continues to grow.

For instance, the BELLES Trial (Beyond Endorsed Lipid Lowering with EBT Scanning (BELLES)), reported in 2005 showed that 650 women participants continued to increase heart scan scores 15% whether they took "high-intensity" statin therapy in the form of Lipitor 80 mg or "low-intensity" statin therapy as pravastatin 40 mg, even though the group taking Lipitor experienced twice the amount of LDL reduction. In other words, heart scan scores continued to increase at the same rate of 15% per year regardless of the intensity of LDL lowering by statin drug.

Another study reported in 2006, Effect of intensive versus standard lipid-lowering treatment with atorvastatin on the progression of calcified coronary atherosclerosis over 12 months: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial reported similar results. Of the 471 participants, those taking Lipitor 80 mg per day experienced 27% per year plaque growth (LDL cholesterol 87 mg/dl); those taking 10 mg Lipitor experienced 25% plaque growth (LDL 107 mg/dl). The intensity of statin therapy made no difference on the rate of plaque growth.

In other words, if we are content to sit back and take Lipitor or other statin drug, follow the conventional American Heart Association low-fat, low-cholesterol diet, we will experience somewhere between 15 to 27% annual plaque growth--year after year.

No wonder that conventional advice offered by your friendly neighborhood doctor will avoid (postpone?) only one heart attack in four.

Such is the nature of coronary plaque deceleration: growth is modestly slowed, but is not stopped. Nor is it reversed.

In the Track Your Plaque program, we grade deceleration of plaque growth into three distinct stages out of a total of five. (See Winning Your Personal War with Heart Disease: The Track Your Plaque 5 Stages of Success.)

Why be satisfied with deceleration? Why not aim for a total stop to plaque growth? Why not aim for stage 5 of Track Your Plaque success: reversal?

Comments (2) -

  • Nancy M.

    11/16/2007 3:36:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    I wish all doctors were as receptive of self-education as you are.  There's an article in Time Magazine about how many doctors are contemptuous of patients with initiative that take it upon themselves to learn about their ailments.

    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1681838,00.html?imw=Y

    Keep up the great work!

  • Dr. Davis

    11/17/2007 1:44:00 PM |

    Hi, Nancy--

    Thanks for pointing out the Time article.

    The article is sadly representative of the prevailing view my colleagues hold on people struggling to get answers by helping themselves. As the author says, "When to punt is not a topic taught in medical school."

    Instead, the focus should be on how to develop BETTER information tools so that patients are empowered to overcome the jargon, sift through irrelevant information, and hone in on what is helpful and relevant.

Loading
Super-carbohydrate

Super-carbohydrate

Wheat starches are composed of polymers (repeating chains) of the sugar, glucose. 75% of wheat carbohydrate is the chain of branching glucose units, amylopectin, and 25% is the linear chain of glucose units, amylose.

Both amylopectin and amylose are digested by the salivary and stomach enzyme, amylase, in the human gastrointestinal tract. Amylopectin is more efficiently digested to glucose, while amylose is less efficiently digested, some of it making its way to the colon undigested.

Amylopectin is therefore the “complex carbohydrate” in wheat that is most closely linked to its blood sugar-increasing effect. But not all amylopectin is created equal. The structure of amylopectin varies depending on its source, differing in its branching structure and thereby efficiency of amylase accessibility.

Legumes like kidney beans contain amylopectin C, the least digestible—hence the gas characteristic of beans, since undigested amylopectin fragments make their way to the colon, whereupon colonic bacteria feast on the undigested starches and generate gas, making the sugars unavailable for you to absorb.

Amylopectin B is the form found in bananas and potatoes and, while more digestible than bean amylopectin C, still resists digestion to some degree.

The most digestible is amylopectin A, the form found in wheat. Because it is the most readily digested by amylase, it is the form that most enthusiastically increases blood sugar. This explains why, gram for gram, wheat increases blood sugar to a much greater degree than, say, chickpeas.

The amylopectin A of wheat products, “complex” or no, might be regarded as a super-carbohydrate, a form of highly digestible carbohydrate that is more efficiently converted to blood sugar than nearly all other carbohydrate foods.

Comments (18) -

  • Jim Purdy

    5/22/2010 3:30:00 PM |

    QUOTE:
    "... gram for gram, wheat increases blood sugar to a much greater degree than, say, chickpeas. "

    Well, that ain't good.

  • David

    5/22/2010 4:21:52 PM |

    I've really enjoyed these last couple of posts about wheat. Very informative and accessible. Thanks for taking the time to make this kind of info available to the wider audience.

    David

  • Anonymous

    5/22/2010 5:12:17 PM |

    fascinating

  • pjnoir

    5/22/2010 8:48:14 PM |

    WOW- a classic lose-lose. 25% remains in your colon, to become a bacteria feast and the rest (75%) increases blood sugar and insulin production to store it as a fat cell.  hmmmmm, thank goodness for science, we may save ourselves.

  • Anonymous

    5/22/2010 10:15:53 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    While not on a directly related note, do you have any general feelings on moderate consumption of buckwheat as a carbohydrate source? From what I have read, this "pseudo" grain seems to be far less problematic than true grains. It would still not give most folks a license to consume it ad libitum, but I am curious if you'd consider this a decent choice in controlled amounts (with the actual amount varying by context and the overall health of the person in question).

    -Dave Balon

  • Mike

    5/22/2010 10:37:12 PM |

    Excellent explaination, Dr Davis.

  • Anonymous

    5/23/2010 1:55:46 AM |

    I'm really enjoying your posts about wheat.  Very interesting.  Thanks

  • Apolloswabbie

    5/23/2010 3:27:45 PM |

    Thank you Dr. D

  • Jill

    5/24/2010 3:04:47 PM |

    Dear Heart Scan Blog,

    I am a student at the  University of Rochester working on an internship project in conjunction with RateADrug.com to collect primary user data about side effects and benefits from commonly used treatments for Atherosclerosis & Arterial Disease.  The goal is to build a large, public access database of unbiased, anecdotal data about Atherosclerosis & Arterial Disease treatments.

    We want to let both patients and practitioners know about how they can participate in or benefit from the project.  Users can add their experiences with a treatment and learn more about how the treatment is affecting them by taking a short, confidential survey. They can also use RateADrug to compare aggregate data for different Atherosclerosis & Arterial Disease treatments- both conventional and alternative (http://www.rateadrug.com/Atherosclerosis-and-Arterial-Disease-symptoms-feedback.aspx) - and forward the results of their own surveys to their doctors or family members.

    Rateadrug is an independent data gathering and information website that does not accept funding or advertisement from drug companies.

    Would it be possible for you to make this information available to your viewers so they can help us collect important data on Atherosclerosis & Arterial Disease treatments?

    Thank you in advance. I'd be happy to speak with you if you have any questions or comments.

    University of Rochester
    www.RateADrug.com student intern
    jillian@radpprep2.com

  • Dr. William Davis

    5/24/2010 10:28:41 PM |

    Hi, Paul--

    Yes, indeed. The data relating high-carbohydrate intake with multiple forms of cancer is getting very scary.

  • Anonymous

    5/25/2010 4:18:17 AM |

    Wow, I am a long time fan of heartscanblog, but Paul's citation is the most misleading EVER.   The authors found that carbs were associated with pancreatic cancer only in the FIRST FOUR years of follow-up, whereas fat and saturated fat were associated with pancreatic cancer during follow-up GREATER than four years.  Since pancreatic cancer takes years to develop, the authors conclude that carbohydrates are NOT CAUSAL to pancreatic cancer - fat may be.

  • DrStrange

    5/25/2010 2:43:32 PM |

    "The data relating high-carbohydrate intake with multiple forms of cancer is getting very scary."

    I would think at least in part from the higher blood sugars.  Much less problematic w/ whole, intact grains (boiled vs ground into flour and refined (and then higher temp. baked or fried)!

  • discombobulated

    5/25/2010 7:50:36 PM |

    I love your blog.  We have switched out diets to something much closer to what you recommend due to the fact that my husband's psoriasis gets so much better if he avoids wheat,potatoes, corn, refined sugars, and dairy.  We figure it's better than using steroids for the problem.  We also have one son who has been biopsied for celiac after is blood work and we were told he doesn't have the correct atrophy but does have a damaged intestine.  

    So we are committed to eating this way.  But one thing I have wondered about is if you feel that carb blockers work for blocking starch.  There are times when I would kill for a baked potato but try not to because it starts a negative cycle.  And now I know that it's not so hot for my heart either.  

    This post made me wonder if there isn't some merit in them.

  • Breast Augmentation Los Angeles

    5/26/2010 6:20:52 PM |

    Thanks for discussing this.I thought whet is sort of better than the white bread for the diabetic and the heart patients.

  • best pharmacy

    12/7/2011 11:28:22 PM |

    This is one of greatest blogs I’ve read since ever. Your site contains a lot of useful information and I’m sure many people will like it as I do. I'll keep visiting your blog very frequently.

  • best pharmacy

    12/7/2011 11:28:46 PM |

    This is one of greatest blogs I’ve read since ever. Your site contains a lot of useful information and I’m sure many people will like it as I do. I’ll keep visiting your blog very frequently.

  • Mary Wier

    7/10/2012 8:38:03 AM |

    Bill and I found our Wheatbelly book and have been off gluten for 9 months, it was hard at first but we now
    feel so different, Bill's blood sugar dropped 25 points, and we look at all our food so differently now!
    The display of wheat rolls and pastry at our buffet looks more and more like hidden poison.
    We are off sugar, too it is so tempting but our body says, Thank you Dr. Davis!

Loading