| Continue Reading... Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next |
The all out assault on lowering cholesterol
has failed to reduce the incidence of heart disease because the root cause
of heart disease does not lie in cholesterol alone. To use total
cholesterol and LDL as a surrogate end point in measurement of cardiovascular
disease risk is rudimentary at best given the amount of scientific research
available.
Are there any alternative markers that
help us formulate a more complete picture of heart health from multiple
angles? Indeed there are and they have been known for years. However,
most of these markers have been ignored because there are no drugs available
to “normalize” them. No doubt as drugs are developed, these markers will
take on significant commercial value, and that is when their importance
will be publicized. For the mean time, as most medical students are taught:
never order a test when you know ahead of time you are not going to know
what to do with the results.
It is far better to incorporate the following sensitive and easily
obtainable indicators when assessing cardiovascular risk. They are listed
in decreasing order of importance (the most important and sensitive listed
first), as follows:
1. Lipoprotein (a) – indicator of
endothelial wall integrity
2. Homocysteine – indicator of free
radical activity
3. Fibrinogen – indicator of
thrombus formation and blood viscosity
4. Arterial Stiffness
–indicator of wall flexibility and blood pressure health
5. Cellular Energy Generation
– indicator of mitochondrial function
6. C Reactive Protein – indicator
of inflammatory response
7. Triglyceride – leading cause
of metabolic syndrome
8. Total cholesterol / HDL cholesterol
ratio –key indicator in lipid metabolism
9. LDL cholesterol – indicator
of the level of “bad” cholesterol
10. Total Cholesterol – overall
indicator of total cholesterol in blood.
As seen above, cholesterol is near the
bottom in terms of sensitivity and predictability of cardiac accidents when
compared to other indicators.
This paper examines each of these markers in more detail and suggests
conventional and nutritional therapeutics that can normalize each of these
indicators.
While none of these key indicators are by themselves and an absolute prognosticator of impending heart attack
or stroke, there is little doubt that as a group, the overall predictive
value is overwhelming significant and has a strong predictive
value. They offer the best that science can offer today, short
of scans and invasive procedures.
1.The
Lp(a)
Autopsy studies of heart attack victims have shown that many have clean
vessels and normal cholesterol levels. It is obvious that there are other
causes for heart disease. Indeed, researchers with the Framingham Heart
Study (the decades-long study that brought us the term "risk factor")
identified a relative of LDL-cholesterol called lipoprotein
(a) [Lp(a)], which is now recognized as a major independent risk factor for
heart disease. While LDL cholesterol maybe known as the "bad"
cholesterol, Lp(a) is even worse. Lp(a) is a plasma lipoprotein that structurally
resembles LDL, but with additional adhesive properties. Some of the natural
cholesterol produced by the liver in response to free radical damage is
converted into LDL cholesterol and its relative Lp(a). Lp(a) fosters cholesterol
deposition by enhancing oxidation of LDL-cholesterol. It is the oxidized
form of cholesterol that penetrates the endothelium, leading to both the buildup of plaque and vascular disease. It
should be noted that artery blockage (plaque) is composed mainly of Lp(a)
and not of ordinary cholesterol.
Oxidized cholesterol is a free radical generator. Research has shown that
rabbits that consumed a small amount of oxidized cholesterol for merely
12 weeks had atherosclerosis plaques that were two times as big as the control
population. Studies reveal that heart attack risk falls 2% for every 1%
drop in LDL cholesterol level.
Studies have also shown that Lp(a) holds fast to damaged blood vessels, attracting
other Lp(a) molecules, and finally constituting the atherosclerotic plaques.
In fact, a high Lp (a) level (more than 30 mg/dl) has been revealed to carry
a 10 times greater risks for heart disease than LDL cholesterol level.
Linus Pauling, two-time Nobel Laureate, postulated that Lp(a) may be the
surrogate for ascorbate in humans. Low dietary intake of ascorbate leads
to weaken blood vessels because ascorbate is required for the synthesis
of collagen and elastin, which strengthen the blood vessel wall. In the
absence of ascorbate, Lp(a) is mobilized to repair these structural defects
in arterial walls by being deposited to strengthen the tissue. However,
if the plasma concentration of Lp(a) is too high, the process goes too far.
Too much Lp(a) gets deposited in the arterial wall, and plaque formation
is initiated.
Chronic depletion of these essential nutrients such as vitamin C, lysine,
and proline in the endothelial and vascular smooth muscle cells impairs
their ability to function properly. Guinea pigs fed a diet low in ascorbate
rapidly developed atherosclerotic plaques, similar to those found in humans.
When large amounts of supplementary ascorbate were given to these guinea
pigs, there was a regression in plaque formation.
Because humans, other primates, and guinea pigs do not produce ascorbate
endogenously, they have to be supplemented from external sources. Dr. Pauling
concluded that the optimum intake of Vitamin C is perhaps 100 times more
than the RDA (85 mg). During the last 25 years of his life (he died
at age 93 from cancer), Dr Pauling increased his own intake of Vitamin C
many times, taking 3,000 mg to 18,000 mg per day. This amount is consistent
with the amount of ascorbate in animals that are capable of producing their
own on a daily basis. Dr. Pauling believed that cardiovascular disease is
the general result of ascorbate deficiency.
Lp(a) is a simple blood laboratory test
to perform. The optimum laboratory level should be under 20 mg/dl and preferably
under 14 mg/dl. Currently, there is
no medicine or drugs that effectively lowers Lp(a) to this level.
A high Lp(a) is genetically linked. The
most effective and natural way to normalize it is a nutritional cocktail
consisting of high dose Vitamin C ( 4-6 grams), L-lysine (2-4 grams), and
L-proline ( 1-2 grams). Other synergistic amino acids such as glutamine,
ornithine, and pine bark extract should also be included. Because high dose
vitamin C can lead to diarrhea, it is very important to incorporate the
fat-soluble form called ascobyl palmitate. Being fat soluble, this
form of vitamin C stays in the body much longer than regular vitamin C and
extends the efficacy of vitamin C in the body. At the same
time it reduces the amount of vitamin C needed.
This mega vitamin cocktail therapy will increase blood concentrations of
important substances and focuses on:
· Strengthening and healing damaged blood vessels
· Lowering LP(a) blood levels
· Inhibiting the binding of LP(a) molecules on the walls of blood vessels
This concept of endothelial repair advanced by Dr Pauling to lower Lp(a)
is simple and logical. Once the endothelium
is healed, the body will not send a signal to the liver to produce cholesterol
and its related products such as LDL and Lp(a). The
key is to focus on the endothelium and not focus on the liver.
Many conventionally trained physicians uses niacin or statin drugs to
reduce Lp(a). This works to a limited extent. Statin drugs have some
Lp(a) lowering effects by suppressing its production in the liver, but this
is a band-aid approach and comes with side effects. Niacin also reduces
the production of Lp(a) in the liver and helps to reduce its blood level
. However, this approach has its limitations because until the endothelial
wall is optimized and cleared, the Lp(a) level will not be reduced significantly.
The effects of niacin or statin drug therapy usually hit a plateau after
9-12 months of therapy. The Lp(a) level seldom goes below 30mg/dl because
until the endothelium is healed, the body will always instruct the liver
to make cholesterol.
On the other hand, with the proper nutritional cocktail focusing on endothelial
repair, drastic improvements on Lp(a) level can usually be seen within the
same time frame for the majority of people. The higher the starting
value, the more significant the reduction.
It is not unusual for the Lp(a) level to be slightly elevated from its baseline
level in the early months of therapy ( as it is cleared from the arterial
wall into the lumen) before normalizing. This is normal and is not a cause
for alarm. A follow up Lp(a) test should be done 9-12 months after starting
the nutritional program. While a majority of people respond favorably, some
are particularly resistant, and may take up to 1 year to see a minor
change. In a very small group or people, no change at all can be expected
after an extended period. The good news is that there are no negative side
effects. All people with high Lp(a) should be started on a nutritional cocktail
program. Even if repeated blood tests do not show any improvement, vascular
integrity is enhanced. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain.
2.
Homocysteine
Homocysteine is an amino acid by-product of food metabolism. It contributes
to atherosclerosis, reduces the flexibility of blood vessels, and increases
clotting by making platelets stickier and slowing blood flow. Studies show
a direct positive correlation between high serum homocysteine levels and
the risk of heart attack and stroke.
A high homocysteine level is also associated with Alzheimer's disease, as
well as depression, multiple sclerosis, menopausal symptoms, and rheumatoid
arthritis.
Homocysteine is formed naturally when protein is broken down. Too
much of it causes oxidative damage to the endothelium. Oxidative
damage is caused by free radicals (byproducts of the body's normal processes
that can damage body tissues). In fact, the risk for heart disease triples
when the homocysteine blood level exceeds 15.8 umol/L - a reading still
considered by many to be within the "normal” range (The optimum target
should be under 8 umol/L). Worse yet, the odds of heart disease are directly
proportional to the homocysteine concentration. The higher the blood homocysteine
level, the higher the risk of cardiac disease.
This direct correlation has been well researched, including a study conducted
at the University of Bergen of 2127 men and 2639 women aged 65 to 67 years
between 1992 and 1993. By February 1997, 162 men and 97 women had died;
121 from cardiovascular causes (including stroke), 103 from cancer, and
33 from other causes. Using a baseline homocysteine level of 9.0 umol/L
the researchers found that for every 5.0 umol/L increment increase in homocysteine
levels, all-cause mortality increased by 49%, cardiovascular mortality by
50%, cancer mortality by 26%, and deaths from other causes (respiratory,
gastrointestinal and central nervous system diseases) by 104%.
Looking at it another way, dropping the
homocysteine level by 5 points can reduce heart disease risk by 50%.
These percentages refer to values obtained after adjusting for a variety
of lifestyle factors including cholesterol level, blood pressure, smoking,
body mass index, physical activity, and baseline cardiovascular
disease risk, as well as a couple of non-changing factors such as age and gender. About 78% of this study group had homocysteine levels at or
above 9.0 umol/L and 12% had levels exceeding 15 umol/L. It is interesting
to note that smoking and drinking coffee were associated with higher homocysteine
levels while taking vitamins and exercising were associated with lower levels.
The result is clear – for optimum heart health, lower the homocysteine level.
In another study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology
(June 1, 2001;37:1858-1863), researchers found that heart disease patients
who took 5 milligrams (mg) of folic acid daily ( not microgram or mcg) for
12 weeks had slightly better functioning of their arterial inner lining,
or endothelium, and a greater ability to widen their arteries appropriately,
compared to those who took an inactive placebo.
It is sad to say, but only 11 percent of all Americans get enough folic acid
from its main sources - liver, kidney, broccoli, beef, kale, turnip
greens, and beats. Cooking destroys as much as 90 percent of a food's folic
acid content. The average American over 50 years old only takes in 130 mcg
of folic acid per day. The RDA (Recommended Daily Allowance) is 400 mcg a day. Its level is also depleted
by chronic alcohol consumption and medications such as anticonvulsants. In
fact, studies have shown that eating 400 mcg of folic acid from food alone
does not raise the serum folic acid concentration anywhere close to that
obtained by simple folic acid supplementation. You need more than what food
can provide.
Drugs easily deplete folic acid as well. The NSAID anti-inflammatory drugs,
including aspirin and ibuprofen, deplete folic acid. The popular class of
anti-ulcer drugs known as the H-2 receptor antagonists [Zantac, Tagamet,
Pepcid, etc.] also depletes folic acid.
Instead of encouraging simple folic acid supplementation, the US Food and
Drug Administration implemented a policy of mandating that certain food
be "enriched" with folic acid in 1998. Since that time, folic
acid has been added to certain grain products including cereals, breads,
pastas and flour. This has resulted in higher folic acid levels in adult
Americans. Unfortunately, the amount of enrichment, while enough to protect a pregnant women and their fetus from neural tube defect, is hardly enough
for optimum health. Only 636 mcg is present per pound of such "enriched
food”. While some of these foods are good, the majorities fall in to the
category of "junk food" because of its high grain and refined
sugar content. Clearly, eating such “junk food” as a method to supplement
folic acid is not the best way to optimize health.
There are no medications.
How much folic acid do you need?
RDA: 400 mcg a day
For heart heath: 400 mcg 800 mcg a day
To lower serum homocysteine level: 3-20 mg a day
| Continue Reading... Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next |