FB-TW

Friday, January 17, 2014

Ascorbic Acid to Coronary Artery Calcium

Relation of Ascorbic Acid to Coronary Artery Calcium

The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study

Abstract

Ascorbic acid is an antioxidant nutrient possibly related to the development of atherosclerosis. To examine the relation between ascorbic acid and coronary artery calcium, an indicator of subclinical coronary disease, the authors analyzed data from 2,637 African-American and White men and women aged 18–30 years at baseline who were enrolled in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study (1985–2001). Participants completed diet histories at enrollment and year 7, and plasma ascorbic acid levels were obtained at year 10. Coronary artery computed tomography was performed at year 15. The authors calculated odds ratios in four biologically relevant plasma ascorbic acid categories, adjusting for possible confounding variables. When compared with men with high plasma ascorbic acid levels, men with low levels to marginally low levels had an increased prevalence of coronary artery calcium (multivariate odds ratio = 2.68, 95% confidence interval: 1.31, 5.48). Among women, the association was attenuated and nonsignificant (multivariate odds ratio = 1.50, 95% confidence interval: 0.58, 3.85). Ascorbic acid intakes from diet alone and diet plus supplements were not associated with coronary artery calcium. Low to marginally low plasma ascorbic acid levels were associated with a higher prevalence of coronary artery calcium among men but not among women.
.
.
.

DISCUSSION

Overall, our study produced mixed findings. The main positive finding was that low to marginally low plasma ascorbic acid levels (measured at year 10) were associated with an approximately threefold higher prevalence of coronary artery calcium (ascertained at year 15) among men independently of other cardiovascular disease risk factors, including smoking. We did not, however, observe a similar relation among women, perhaps because fewer women had coronary artery calcium, thereby limiting our statistical power to detect such an association. We also cannot exclude the possibility that our findings resulted from chance or residual confounding. The findings among men concur with findings from cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of participants in the Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II) (7, 15). Simon et al. (15) reported previously that NHANES II participants with low to marginally low serum ascorbic acid levels had an increased prevalence of self-reported coronary heart disease. In the NHANES II Mortality Study, which followed participants for a mean of 14 years, Simon et al. (7) found a trend toward increased cardiovascular disease mortality among individuals with low to marginally low serum ascorbic acid levels. Similar to our current findings, those from the NHANES II Mortality Study did not reflect a relation between dietary intake of ascorbic acid and cardiovascular disease endpoints (7).
                 
Our current findings are also consistent with results from some observational studies that also reported low blood ascorbic acid levels to be a risk factor for coronary heart disease (3–5, 8, 16, 17). Not all observational studies have reported such an association (6, 18), and the few randomized trials examining the effect of vitamin C supplementation on coronary heart disease endpoints, typically in combination with other antioxidants, have produced inconsistent results, ranging from decreased risk to no effect to increased risk (19–22). Specifically determining whether marginal vitamin C deficiency is a factor in the development of atherosclerotic coronary disease would be of considerable public health importance, since blood levels consistent with marginal deficiency are prevalent in the population (7) and readily modifiable.
                 
Conclusions based on our findings are qualified by limitations in the study design. We collected information on plasma levels of ascorbic acid 5 years before the coronary artery calcium measurement, but we do not have coronary artery calcium scores before year 15. Therefore, we cannot be certain that differences in plasma ascorbic acid preceded the development of coronary artery calcium since we cannot exclude the possibility that subclinical coronary disease lowered plasma ascorbic acid levels. The concern about the direction of causality is underscored in part because we were unable to find an association between dietary ascorbic acid intake (measured at baseline and year 7) and coronary artery calcium; that is, since blood levels of ascorbic acid are generally correlated with intake, a similar association between lower ascorbic acid intakes and coronary artery calcium would have been expected.
                 
There are several potential explanations for these findings. Because the dietary assessments were performed at baseline and year 7 and plasma ascorbic acid levels were assayed at year 10, we cannot exclude the possibility that dietary and supplement use changed during the intervening period, although we did find a weak, albeit statistically significant, correlation between dietary ascorbic acid intake and plasma ascorbic acid levels (r = 0.14; p < 0.0001). It is also possible that the dietary assessments were not sufficiently accurate or precise to permit the detection of the association. Prospective studies that examined dietary intake of ascorbic acid as a predictor of cardiovascular disease have produced contradictory results. An analysis of data from the First National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Epidemiologic Follow-up Study found that individuals with the highest intakes of ascorbic acid had 25–50 percent lower cardiovascular disease mortality (23). Dietary ascorbic acid intake was also associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease death among Finnish women (24) and a group of 747 noninstitutionalized elderly Massachusetts residents (25). The Nurses’ Health Study (26), the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (27), and others (28, 29), however, found no significant association between ascorbic acid intake and risk of coronary heart disease.
                 
Ascorbic acid may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease by a number of mechanisms. Antioxidant status has been hypothesized to be an important factor in atherogenesis, and ascorbic acid is a highly effective water-soluble antioxidant capable of inhibiting lipid peroxidation (30, 31). In some studies, ascorbic acid blood levels and dietary intake have been associated with increased levels of high density lipoprotein cholesterol and decreased levels of total cholesterol (1, 32, 33). The inverse relation between plasma ascorbic acid levels and coronary artery calcium that we observed, however, was independent of cholesterol levels. Ascorbic acid promotes endothelial prostacyclin production (34), improves endothelium-dependent vasodilation (2), and is essential for vascular collagen formation, all factors that may be associated with cardiovascular disease risk. Despite the potential for ascorbic acid to lower the risk for cardiovascular disease, recent clinical trials using antioxidant cocktails that contain ascorbic acid have failed to lower cardiovascular disease risk (19–22). We are unaware, however, of clinical trials using ascorbic acid supplementation specifically among individuals with low to marginally low blood levels, our postulated high-risk group.
                 
In addition to the limitations discussed, we were also limited by having only a single measurement of plasma ascorbic acid, which may not reflect long-term plasma concentrations optimally. However, plasma ascorbic acid levels reflect at least the previous several months of dietary intake, even during periods of seasonal variation (35), and are strongly correlated with leukocyte ascorbic acid levels, an indicator of tissue ascorbic acid levels (36, 37). We cannot exclude the possibility that our findings were affected by residual confounding (especially from smoking) or that plasma ascorbic acid levels were simply a healthy diet or lifestyle marker. The association of low plasma ascorbic acid levels with higher prevalence of coronary artery calcium among men was, however, independent of the effects of other lifestyle-related variables, such as education and exercise.
                 
In conclusion, we found that low to marginally low plasma ascorbic acid levels were independently associated with a higher prevalence of coronary artery calcium in young adult men but not in young adult women. Because we cannot exclude chance or residual confounding as an explanation of our findings, our results need to be confirmed by other investigators.
 

References

  1. 1.↵
  2. 2.↵
  3. 3.↵
  4. 4.
  5. 5.↵
  6. 6.↵
  7. 7.↵
  8. 8.↵
  9. 9.↵
  10. 10.↵
  11. 11.↵
  12. 12.↵
  13. 13.↵
  14. 14.↵
  15. 15.↵
  16. 16.↵
  17. 17.↵
  18. 18.↵
  19. 19.↵
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.↵
  23. 23.↵
  24. 24.↵
  25. 25.↵
  26. 26.↵
  27. 27.↵
  28. 28.↵
  29. 29.↵
  30. 30.↵
  31. 31.↵
  32. 32.↵
  33. 33.↵
  34. 34.↵
  35. 35.↵
  36. 36.↵
  37. 37.↵
    Abstract/FREE Full ============================================================ Read the complete article here.

Monday, January 13, 2014

Does Wheat Cause Coronary Heart Disease?

Does Wheat Cause Coronary Heart Disease?

Introduction

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of deaths worldwide - killing 7 millions people every year. In the following text, we will see that wheat consumption is probably a risk factor for CHD.

Conventional Wisdom on Wheat

Most health organizations currently view wheat as a safe food except for people having celiac disease - affecting up to 1% of the population - and people having non-celiac gluten sensitivity. Also whole wheat - as part of whole-grains - is considered to be one of the healthiest food. In fact a diet rich in whole-grains is considered to be protective against CHD.

Why? Because observational studies consistently find that whole-grain consumption is associated with a decreased risk of CHD. Do these results contradict wheat consumption causing CHD?

Are Whole-Grains Protective Against CHD?

According to this study:
Whole-grain intake consistently has been associated with improved cardiovascular disease outcomes, but also with healthy lifestyles, in large observational studies. Intervention studies that assess the effects of whole-grains on biomarkers for CHD have mixed results.
Indeed many studies show that whole-grain consumption is associated with a decreased risk of CHD. But these studies are observational and can only show correlation but not causation.

In fact there is an health-conscious population bias in these studies: for example people consuming the most whole-grains also exercise more and smoke less:
Whole-grain intake and lifestyles
Data from Majken K Jensen et al., Intakes of whole grains, bran, and germ and the risk of coronary heart disease in men, 2004

Of course researchers adjust the data with these risk factors. But it is very difficult, maybe impossible, to adjust for all risk factors. For example the two previously cited studies did not adjust for important risk factors like socioeconomic status or social support.

A classic example of an occurrence of this bias can be found in hormone replacement therapy (HRT): observational studies had found that HRT was decreasing the risk of heart disease risk while a controlled study finally found that HRT was indeed slightly increasing the risk of heart disease.

A proof that this health-conscious bias could explain the seemingly protective effect of whole-grains can be found in randomized controlled studies: many of them fail to find any beneficial effect of whole-grains compared to refined grains.

So according to these randomized controlled studies whole-grains are neutral toward CHD risks. How then can we say that wheat causes CHD?

Are All Grains Created Equal?

Many randomized controlled studies compared wheat with other grains. These trials are usually quite short. So instead of looking at the number of heart attacks, short-term studies focus on risk predictors of CHD like weight gain or markers of inflammations. Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) level is another risk factor. It represents the number of LDL particles - often called “bad cholesterol”. It is now considered to be a better predictor than LDL-C - the amount of cholesterol contained in LDL particles. The lower the level of ApoB the lower is the risk of CHD.

Here are some results of these studies:
  • a study concluded that a bread diet may promote fat synthesis/accumulation compared with a rice diet
  • wheat increased BMI compared to flaxseed in a 12 months study
  • wheat increased ApoB level by 5.4% compared to flaxseed in a 3 weeks study
  • wheat increased ApoB level by 7.5% compared to flaxseed in a 3 months study
  • wheat increased ApoB level by 0.05 g/L compared to flaxseed in a 12 months study
  • oat decreased ApoB level by 13.7% while wheat had no significant effect in a 21 days study
  • wheat increased the number of LDL particles by 14% while oat decreased them by 5% in a 12 weeks study
  • ApoA to ApoB ratio (a risk predictor similar in efficiency to ApoB alone - here the higher the better) was increased by 4.7% for oat bran and 3.9% for rice bran compared to wheat bran in a 4 weeks study
These studies show that some grains like oat improve the risk factors of CHD compared to wheat. In addition, these studies often show an absolute improvement of the CHD risk profile in groups eating oat and an absolute deterioration in groups eating wheat. Although we cannot say for sure, it would suggest that oat is protective against CHD - which is confirmed by other studies - while wheat increase the risk of CHD.

That could help explaining why people eating more whole-grains are healthier in observational studies since it looks like that they eat more grains like rice and oat and less typically wheat-made food like white bread, pasta and doughnuts:
Whole-grain intake and different grain intakeData from Andersson A. et al., Intakes of whole grains, bran, and germ and the risk of coronary heart disease in men, 2007

Now let’s have a look at studies linking wheat and CHD.

Observational Studies on Wheat

Some observational studies linked wheat and waist circumference gains - waist circumference being a strong predictor of CHD:
  • a study showed a correlation between consumption of white bread and waist circumference gains
  • a study concluded that: ”reducing white bread, but not whole-grain bread consumption, within a Mediterranean-style food pattern setting is associated with lower gains in weight and abdominal fat”
  • a Chinese study found that ”vegetable-rich food pattern was associated with higher risk of obesity” but as noted by obesity researcher Stephan Guyenet the association between obesity is in fact stronger with wheat flour than with vegetables
A more pertinent result is found in the data of a large observational study in China. Researchers analysed these data and found a 0.67 correlation between wheat flour intake and CHD. They also found a 0.58 correlation between wheat intake and BMI.
CHD mortality and wheat intake
From Denise Minger
But this is just a single unadjusted correlation and does not prove much. However blogger Denise Minger thoroughly analysed the data of this study and found that the association held strongly after multivariate analysis with any other variable available like latitude, BMI, smoking habits, fish consumption, etc.

Since it is an observational study it cannot prove anything but it is yet another evidence suggesting that wheat consumption causes CHD. Let’s now have a look at randomized controlled trials.

Randomized Controlled Trials on Wheat

In addition to the previous randomized controlled trials comparing wheat with other grains there are two additional studies suggesting that wheat consumption causes CHD.

The first one is a study involving rabbits. While studies involving animals are not always relevant to humans - especially studies with herbivore animals like rabbit - the results of this study are quite interesting.

The researchers fed rabbits an atherogenesis diet (i.e. promoting formation of fatty masses in arterial walls) with a supplement of cottonseed oil, hydrogenated cottonseed oil, wheat germ or sucrose. And as they concludes:
Severity of atherosclerosis after 5 months was greatest on the wheat germ-supplemented diet, whereas there were no differences among the other three groups.
The second study is the Diet And Reinfarction Trial (DART). In this 2-year randomized controlled trial, people who already had recovered from an heart attack were split into groups receiving various advices. The main result of this study was that the group advised to eat fatty fish had a reduction in mortality from CHD.

One other advice - the fibre advice - was:
to eat at least six slices of wholemeal bread per day, or an equivalent amount of cereal fibre from a mixture of wholemeal bread, high-fibre breakfast cereals and wheat bran
Seeing this advice we can guess that most of cereal fibres intake by this group was from wheat although we cannot be sure.

This advice resulted on a 22% death increase:
Total mortality in the fibre advice groupFrom Stephan Guyenet
However this result bordered on statistical significance: the 95% confidence interval being 0.99–1.65.
For people not familiar with statistics, a result is usually defined as statistically significant when there is less than 5% chance that the result is due to luck alone. Here there is a 95% probability that the relative risk is between 0.99 (1% decreased chance of dying) and 1.67 (67% increased chance of dying).

Since the probability that the fibre advice resulted in a protective or neutral effect was a little too high, this result has been quite overlooked. Had the study last a little longer, it would have raised way more suspicion toward whole-grains.

In fact, researchers found this effect to be statistically significant in a follow-up study. After adjusting for pre-existing conditions and medication use, we can see in the table 4 of this study an hazard ratio of 1.35 (95% CI 1.02, 1.80) for the 2-year period of the randomized controlled trial.

These results are quite telling: according to these researchers, a 2 year randomized controlled trial showed that advising people recovering from an heart attack to eat at least six slices of wholemeal bread per day resulted in a statistically significant 35% percent chance increase of CHD compared to people not receiving this advice.

Wheat, Vitamin D Deficiency And Heart Disease

Many studies found that vitamin D deficiency is associated with CHD.
However vitamin D deficiency does not seem to cause heart disease. For example several studies found that vitamin D supplementation did not prevent heart disease.
As this study concludes:
A lower vitamin D status was possibly associated with higher risk of cardiovascular disease. As a whole, trials showed no statistically significant effect of vitamin D supplementation on cardiometabolic outcomes.
Wheat consumption causing CHD could help explaining these results. A study found that wheat consumption depletes vitamin D reserves. That could explain why vitamin D deficiency is associated with heart disease and why it does not seem to cause it: both vitamin D deficiency and heart disease could be consequences of wheat consumption.

Of course this is not the only explanation. For example the DART study shows that fish consumption prevents CHD and fish is a food rich in vitamin D.

Not the Perfect Culprit

To be clear, if it seems likely that wheat consumption is a risk factor of CHD it is not the only one nor the primary one. There are many other factors like smoking, hypertension, lack of exercice or stress. Even among dietary factors wheat is probably not the main one. For example the DART study shows that the protective effect of fish intake is stronger than the adverse effect of wheat.

In addition, deleterious wheat effects might not affect everybody. One study showed that the ApoB level variation following wheat and oat bran intake was different depending on the genotype of the individuals. In another study whole-wheat intake worsened the lipid profile only in people having a specific genotype compared to refined wheat.

How the wheat is cooked may have a role too. Studies show that sourdough bread improve mineral bioavailability (such as magnesium, iron, and zinc) compared to yeast bread or uncooked whole-wheat. Also content in proteins with potential adverse consequences like gluten or wheat germ agglutinin differs depending of the food type.

Conclusion

There are strong evidences that wheat consumption is a risk factor for CHD. People at risk of CHD should avoid wheat as should those trying to lose weight. In all cases, stopping wheat consumption for a month for example to see how one feel without wheat is always a good idea since there is currently no available method to diagnose non-celiac wheat sensitivities and that even for celiac disease the average delay in diagnostic is 11 years in the US.

More studies looking at the links between wheat and CHD are urgently needed since CHD is the leading cause of deaths while wheat is the second most widely consumed food and whole-wheat is often advised to lower risk of CHD. Studies considering grains as a whole are bound to give inconsistent results since different grains seem to have opposite effects in the case of CHD. So as much as possible future studies should treat grains separately and consider things like type of wheat products and genetic variability.

===============================================================
Read the complete article here or here.

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Dietary Iron Intake & Body Iron Stores Are Associated with Coronary Heart Disease


Dietary Iron Intake and Body Iron Stores Are Associated with Risk of Coronary Heart Disease

Abstract

The link between iron intake as well as body iron stores and coronary heart disease (CHD) has been contentiously debated, and the epidemiologic evidence is inconsistent. We aimed to quantitatively summarize the literature on the association between dietary iron intake/body iron stores and CHD risk by conducting a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. PubMed was used to find studies published through June 2013 in peer-reviewed journals. Embase or a hand search of relevant articles was used to obtain additional articles. The pooled RRs of CHD incidence and mortality with 95% CIs were calculated by using either a random-effects or fixed-effects model, as appropriate. Twenty-one eligible studies (32 cohorts) including 292,454 participants with an average of 10.2 y of follow-up were included. Heme iron was found to be positively associated with CHD incidence (RR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.28, 1.94), whereas total iron was inversely associated (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73, 0.999). Neither heme-iron nor total iron intakes were significantly associated with CHD mortality. Both transferrin saturation and serum iron were inversely related to CHD incidence [RR (95% CI): 0.76 (0.66, 0.88) and 0.68 (0.56, 0.82), respectively], but only transferrin saturation was inversely associated with CHD mortality (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73, 0.99). In conclusion, total iron intake and serum iron concentrations were inversely associated with CHD incidence, but heme iron intake was positively related to CHD incidence. Elevated serum transferrin saturation concentration was inversely associated with both CHD incidence and mortality. Future research is needed to establish the causal relation and to elucidate potential mechanisms.
==================================================================
Read the complete article here.

My 'take away' points from this abstract:
1. The link between iron intake as well as body iron stores and coronary heart disease (CHD) has been contentiously debated.
2. the epidemiologic evidence is inconsistent
3. Heme iron was found to be positively associated with CHD incidence
4. total iron was inversely associated with CHD incidence
5. Neither heme-iron nor total iron intakes were significantly associated with CHD mortality
6. Both transferrin saturation and serum iron were inversely related to CHD incidence
7. heme iron intake was positively related to CHD incidence and mortality.
8. Elevated serum transferrin saturation concentration was inversely associated with both CHD incidence and mortality

Cholesterol, Nutrition and Violence. - Morell

Sally Fallon Morell discusses nutrition and violence.

Sally is the president of the Weston A.  Price Foundation

Please watch this short video!... http://t.co/sIJc0U2h8t



An excellent discussion by Sally Fallon Morell on the brains need for cholesterol and vitamins from animal fats in out diet. She draws the connection between low cholesterol and depression and violence.

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Statins For Elderly People - Sigurdsson

Statins For Elderly People – Was the Message Corrupted?

Doc's Opinion | January 7, 2014 at 8:36 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p2urWY-Me


People older than 65 years are at increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Such disease accounts for more than 80 percent of deaths in this population. Age itself appears independently associated with risk, and risk factors such as high blood pressure, lipid disorders and diabetes are common among the elderly. An important question facing the medical community is whether statin drugs can reduce risk among elderly people without established CVD. Limited clinical research is available addressing statin treatment among healthy individuals above 65 years old.
Recently a meta-analysis was published by Savarese and coworkers in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) addressing the effects of statins in elderly subjects without established cardiovascular disease. Eight trials were included in the final analysis. The results made the headlines and the message was quite clear. The authors concluded that their “meta-analysis provided the first-time evidence that the benefits of statins on major cardiovascular events extended to people above 65 years old”. Such a message is certainly something for authors of clinical guidelines to chew on.
In an accompanying editorial in JACC, David D. Waters, MD, wrote: “Older people differ more among themselves than younger people do in many ways, and the decision to treat or not treat an older individual with a statin often requires clinical discernment. The clear results of this meta-analysis will hopefully lead to more older individuals receiving treatment that vill reduce their cardiovascular risk”.
Savarese and coworkers conclude from their meta-analysis that 24 patients need to be treated with statins for a year to prevent one heart attack (myocardial infarction) and 42 patents need to be treated for a year to prevent one stroke. However, I suspect they may have miscalculated their data. My calculation, based on data presented in the paper, indicates that the number needed to treat (NNT) is approximately ten times higher. If this is true the effect of statin therapy is seriously exaggerated in the paper.

The Number Needed to Treat.
The meta-analysis by Savarese and coworkers did not show a significant effect of statin treatment on mortality compared to placebo. Myocardial infarction occurred in 2.7% of subjects allocated to statins compared with 3.9% of those on placebo during a mean-follow up of 3.5 years. The annual rate of myocardial infarction was 1.1% on placebo and 0.8 percent on statins. The absolute risk reduction is about 0.3 percent. Although the risk reduction is statistically significant, it is obvious that the number of patients needed to be treated for a year to prevent one event can not be 24.
The NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction (ARR): NNT = 1/ARR.
  • If ARR is 1 percent, the NNT will be 100 (1/0.01).
  • If ARR is 10 percent, the  NNT will be 10 (1/0.1).
  • If ARR is 0.1 percent, the NNT will be 1.000 (1/0.001).
Accordingly, if the absolute risk reduction that is less than 1 percent, the NNT will always be above 100.
My calculation based on data from Table 2 in the paper indicates that about 234 patients need to be treated for one year to prevent one myocardial infarction, and that about 389 patients need to be treated for one year to prevent one stroke. I hope someone corrects me if I’m wrong. If I’m right, I may have a hard time understanding how such miscalculation can survive a peer-reviewed process in a respected medical journal. NNT is an important number to look at when deciding whether to give a certain treatment or not.
Studies of statins in primary and secondary prevention suggest these drugs increase the risk of diabetes. For comparison, it is estimated that 250 patients need to be treated with a statin for one case of diabetes to be caused. So by looking at the data we can assume that by treating 250 elderly people with statins for a year, we may actually exchange one myocardial infarction for one case of diabetes .

The Emperors New Clothes
One of the authors of the above mentioned meta-analysis, Dr. Antonio Gotto JR said in an interview following the publication of the paper: “Taking statins may not prolong life in older adults, but it may certainly improve the quality of life for people who might otherwise become disabled by heart attacks and strokes”.
Savarese and coworkers point out that statins reduce the risk of myocardial infarction by 39.4 percent and the risk of stroke by 23.8 percent compared with placebo. These are the numbers they get when calculating relative risk reduction. The results are statistically significant, certainly suggesting a positive effect of statin therapy.
However, let’s look closer at the magnitude of treatment effect. An individual not given statin therapy has a 98.9 percent chance of not having a heart attack, and a 99.2 percent chance of not having a stroke in a year. If given statins, the chance of not having a heart attack will be increased to 99.2 percent and the chance of not having a stroke will be increased to 99.4 percent. Not very impressive if we look at it this way.
Keep in mind when looking at these numbers that we don’t have access to data on the side effects of statins from these trials. Furthermore, it is possible that older people are more vulnerable to side effects than young people. There is evidence of harm linked to statins when given to elderly individuals, including muscle pain, liver disorders, impaired memory, increased risk of diabetes and gastrointestinal stress.
In my opinion, the meta-analysis by Savarese and coworkers does not provide strong support for statin treatment of elderly people with elevated cardiovascular risk. More data is needed until such marching orders are given to practicing clinicians.
===================================================
Read the complete article here.

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Published on Dec 30, 2013
          
Heart disease prevention and reversal pioneers Dr. William Davis and Dr. William Blanchet meeting for the first time to have a frank discussion on how to beat heart disease and heat attack. This is the first of a multi-part series documenting this historic meeting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYiZtfNBI80

Monday, December 9, 2013

Ask This Question Before Taking Statins - Penberthy

This article may be reprinted free of charge provided 1) that there is clear attribution to the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, and 2) that both the OMNS free subscription link http://orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html and also the OMNS archive link http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml are included.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, December 3, 2013

Ask This Question Before Taking Statins

Commentary by W. Todd Penberthy, PhD

(OMNS Dec 3, 2013) Before taking statins, ask yourself one question. Why is it, given two people with identical environmental backgrounds, that on average one of them dies early due to cardiovascular disease? Is it because that individual has taken less statin drugs? Of course not. It is likely due to something different in their genetics, which causes differences in enzymes and levels of other proteins. This leads to differing requirements for essential vitamins and minerals.
Cardiovascular disease is largely caused by deficiencies of essential nutrients. Thus adjusting the diet makes sense. When your car breaks down, do you have the repair shop install a gadget not in the car's parts list? Of course not. We clean, tighten, remanufacture, or replace the correct part. Similarly, the body needs maintenance and some tender loving care. Statins are not one of our parts. Essential nutrients are what we need.
The reason people die of cardiovascular disease usually begins with inflammation and progressive calcification, not cholesterol levels. The correlations between inflammation, calcification and death by cardiovascular disease (CVD) are much stronger than for correlations between cholesterol levels and death by CVD (Bolland et al, 2008).
Following the guidelines of the American Heart Association (AHA) may be useful for liability and good business, but is not always useful for maintaining optimal health. To understand what's going on inside of the body, just take a look at the images of vascular calcification. In response to inflammation in arteries, plaques form. At the center of an arterial plaque sits a hard calcification that contains calcium carbonate. Around this calcified nucleus, the plaque develops with fat deposits and a fibrous cap. In many cases the plaque can be reversed with excellent nutrition.
Considering the media attention given to statins, it's quite remarkable to learn that they only reduce the risk of mortality from CVD by less than 1 percent. In contrast, in clinical trials involving over 8,000 patients over 6 years, high dose niacin (3,000 mg daily) reduced mortality by 11%. And this lowered risk was tabulated 15 years after the clinical trial ended! (Canner et al., 1986) That represents a huge improvement over treatment with statins. Recent advances in molecular biology explain how this works. Niacin's amazing sustained effect is likely due to its effect on regulating sirtuin proteins that cause long lasting epigenetic changes in the structure of DNA. This type of epigenetic modulation is known to have long-lasting effects. The nutrition you get in early childhood, or even that your parents got before you were born, can affect your genes over a long period. The data from this study implies that 3,000 mg of niacin is far superior to statins for preventing CVD death. And it only costs about 35 cents per day.
Anyone who has the risk factors for death from CVD would be well advised to consider taking up to three 1,000 mg daily doses (or, for less flushing, 12 doses of 250 mg) of regular "fast-release" niacin (Hoffer et al, 2012). It would also be wise to add 100 mg of the MK7 form of vitamin K2 and 1,000 mg flax seed oil with every dose of niacin. These nutrients reduce flushing and provide anti-inflammatory benefits. For a healthy heart, include 3,000-10,000 mg of vitamin C (Roberts and Hickey, 2011), 400-1200 IU natural vitamin E, and five cups of kale mixed with colorful vegetables and a bit of grass fed butter every day. Further, to remove calcifications, it may help to daily take two 200-400 mg doses of magnesium (citrate, chelate, malate, or chloride). This can help to dissolve the calcium deposits in arteries (Dean, 2007). None of these essential nutrients requires any prescription, and together they have tremendous advantages for health compared to a statin pill.
(Dr. Todd Penberthy is a research consultant, medical writer and one of the world's prominent niacin researchers. A list of his recent papers is posted at http://www.cmescribe.com/resume/ )

References:

Bolland, M.J., Barber, P.A., Doughty, R.N., Mason, B., Horne, A., Ames, R., Gamble, G.D., Grey, A., and Reid, I.R. Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium supplementation: randomised controlled trial. Bmj; 2008. 336(7638): 262-266.
Canner, P.L., Berge, K.G., Wenger, N.K., Stamler, J., Friedman, L., Prineas, R.J., and Friedewald, W. Fifteen year mortality in Coronary Drug Project patients: long-term benefit with niacin. J Am Coll Cardiol; 1986. 8(6): 1245-1255.
Dean, C. The Magnesium Miracle. New York, NY: Ballantine, 2007.
Hoffer A, Saul AW, Foster HD. Niacin: The Real Story. Basic Health Publications, 2012.
Roberts H, Hickey S. The Vitamin Cure for Heart Disease: How to Prevent and Treat Heart Disease Using Nutrition and Vitamin Supplementation. Basic Health Publications, 2011.

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org

Find a Doctor

To locate an orthomolecular physician near you: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n09.shtml

The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.

Editorial Review Board:

Ian Brighthope, M.D. (Australia)
Ralph K. Campbell, M.D. (USA)
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. (USA)
Damien Downing, M.D. (United Kingdom)
Dean Elledge, D.D.S., M.S. (USA)
Michael Ellis, M.D. (Australia)
Martin P. Gallagher, M.D., D.C. (USA)
Michael Gonzalez, D.Sc., Ph.D. (Puerto Rico)
William B. Grant, Ph.D. (USA)
Steve Hickey, Ph.D. (United Kingdom)
Michael Janson, M.D. (USA)
Robert E. Jenkins, D.C. (USA)
Bo H. Jonsson, M.D., Ph.D. (Sweden)
Peter H. Lauda, M.D. (Austria)
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D. (USA)
Stuart Lindsey, Pharm.D. (USA)
Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. (Puerto Rico)
Karin Munsterhjelm-Ahumada, M.D. (Finland)
Erik Paterson, M.D. (Canada)
W. Todd Penberthy, Ph.D. (USA)
Gert E. Schuitemaker, Ph.D. (Netherlands)
Robert G. Smith, Ph.D. (USA)
Jagan Nathan Vamanan, M.D. (India)
Atsuo Yanagisawa, M.D., Ph.D. (Japan)
Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D. (USA), Editor and contact person. Email: omns@orthomolecular.org This is a comments-only address; OMNS is unable to respond to individual reader emails. However, readers are encouraged to write in with their viewpoints. Reader comments become the property of OMNS and may or may not be used for publication.

To Unsubscribe from this list: http://www.orthomolecular.org/unsubscribe.html
This news release was sent to bill@wmodavis.com. If you no longer wish to receive news releases, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: unsubscribe
This article may be reprinted free of charge provided 1) that there is clear attribution to the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, and 2) that both the OMNS free subscription link http://orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html and also the OMNS archive link http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml are included.
Orthomolecular.org | 3100 N. Hillside Ave | Wichita, KS 67219 | USA