We hear the words Heart Healthy a lot, especially when it comes to our nutrition.

By now, you’re likely used to seeing cereals with the “heart healthy” moniker. Is it really heart healthy? We all too frequently refer to foods as “heart healthy”, or we say that our doctor gave our hearts a “healthy” checkup.  

It all sounds nice. But what does it mean? How do we define heart health?

How does LDL Cholesterol affect Heart Health?

Unfortunately, most of our current definitions center around LDL cholesterol concentration.  While LDL cholesterol plays a role in heart health, it by no means defines heart health in totality.

In fact, in many cases it is the least important factor.

Our healthcare system has simplified things too much, so as a result we focus on one bad guy, one demon to fight. In reality heart disease is caused, and made more likely to occur, by a constellation of contributing issues.

Elevated blood sugar, elevated insulin levels, inflammation, high blood pressure, poor nutrition, and yes, lipids all contribute to heart health.  It does us all an injustice to over simplify it to one single cause.

What food is heart healthy?

Our superficial definition of cardiac risk is how industrial seed oils containing polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) became known as “heart healthy.”

Studies show that they can lower LDL. But they can also increase inflammation and have no clinical benefit and even increase risk of dying. According to our simplified definitions, that doesn’t stop them from being defined as “heart healthy.”

 That’s right! Something that increases our risk of dying is still termed “heart healthy.”  How’s that for a backwards medical system?!

Same for blood sugar. If you have a diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes (DM2) that is a risk for cardiovascular disease. If you don’t have the diagnosis, you are fine. That ignores the disease of insulin resistance that can predate diabetes for decades and increases the risk of heart disease and possibly even cancer and dementia.

Cereal can also be called “heart healthy” as they may minimally lower LDL. But is that a good thing if they contain grains that also worsen your insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome? I say definitely not.

Time has come to stop this basic, simplified evaluation and start looking at the whole picture.

How Low Carb High Fat Diets Improve Heart Health

Low carb high fat diets have been vilified as they can increase LDL. But the fact of the matter is that it does so only in a minority of people. The truth is that they can improve everything else!

These diets reduce blood pressure, reduce inflammation, improve HDL and triglycerides, and reverse diabetes and metabolic syndrome! Shouldn’t that be the definition of “heart healthy” we seek? Instead of focusing on one isolated marker, shouldn’t we define heart health by looking at the whole patient?

Only by opening our eyes and seeing the whole picture of heart healthy lifestyles can we truly make an impact on our cardiovascular risk and achieve the health we deserve.

Join me in demanding more. Demand better.

Thanks for reading,

Bret Scher, MD FACC

Don’t look now, but the updated clinical practice cholesterol guidelines from the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association and others are getting personal. Although the guidelines still contain their familiar approach — that I consider too aggressive with drug therapy — the latest 2018 version of the guidelines now includes an impressive update to emphasize lifestyle intervention, plus a more individualized approach for risk assessment.

MedPage Today: AHA: Revised Lipid Guide Boosts PCSK9s, Coronary Calcium Scans

Could this be the start of a progressive trend away from shotgun statin prescriptions? I sure hope so.

Prior guidelines emphasized the 10-year ASCVD risk calculator as the main determining factor for statin therapy. In the 2018 update, the guidelines acknowledge that the calculator frequently overestimates the risk in those individuals who are more involved with prevention and screening. (In other words, those patients more interested in and proactive about their health; I find many in the low-carb world fall into this category.)

The ensuing discussion with a healthcare provider should then focus on:

[T]he burden and severity of CVD risk factors, control of those other risk factors, the presence of risk-enhancing conditions, adherence to healthy lifestyle recommendations, the potential for ASCVD risk-reduction benefits from statins and antihypertensive drug therapy, and the potential for adverse effects and drug–drug interactions, as well as patient preferences regarding the use of medications for primary prevention… and the countervailing issues of the desire to avoid “medicalization” of preventable conditions and the burden or disutility of taking daily (or more frequent) medications.

I appreciate the attention the new guidelines bring to the depth of the discussion that should ensue between doctor and patient. Considering the treatment burden is equally as important as the burden of disease, and possibly even more important in patients who have not been diagnosed with heart disease, these individualized discussions about trade-offs are critical to personalized care.

Also worthy of mention is the increased use of coronary artery calcium scores (CAC) to help individualize risk stratification. The updated guidelines specify CAC may be useful for those age 40-75 with an intermediate 10-year calculated risk of 7.5%-20%, who after discussion with their physician are unsure about statin therapy. They specify that a CAC of zero would suggest a much lower risk than that calculated by the ASCVD risk formula, and thus take statins off the table as a beneficial treatment option.

This is huge. I cheered when I read this! I have been critical of prior guidelines that focused on ways to find more people to place on statins. The mention of finding individuals unlikely to benefit from statins is a giant step in the right direction.

The guidelines go even further: they mention that a CAC either over 100 or greater than the 75th percentile for age increases the CVD risk and the likely benefit of a statin. A CAC between 1-99 and less than the 75th percentile does not affect the risk calculation much and it may be worth following the CAC in five years in the absence of drug therapy. I would still argue that a CAC >100 does not automatically equal a statin prescription and we need to interpret it in context, but I greatly appreciate this attempt at a more personalized approach.

The guidelines also go beyond the limited risk factors included in the ASCVD calculator by introducing “risk modifying factors” such as:

• Premature family history of CVD
• Metabolic syndrome
• Chronic kidney disease
• Chronic inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis
• Elevated CRP > 2.0 mg/L
• Elevated Lp(a) > 50 mg/dL or 125 nmol/L
• Elevated triglycerides > 175 mg/dL

Although they use these criteria to define an increased risk, the opposite would likely hold true. An absence of those criteria could define a lower risk situation.

Some changes deserve mention from a controversy standpoint as well. For instance, the new guidelines recommend checking lipid levels as early as two years old in some circumstances. Two!

They also recommend statin therapy for just about everyone with diabetes with no mention of attempting to reverse diabetes before starting a statin, a drug that has been shown to worsen diabetes and insulin resistance. In addition, the new guidelines do not mention the likely discordance between LDL-C and LDL-P in those with diabetes.

Last, the new guidelines define an LDL-C > 190 mg/dL as an absolute indication for statin therapy with a treatment goal of 190 mg/dL is in familial hypercholesterolemia populations (and even then has heterogenous outcomes). There is a clear lack of data supporting that same recommendation for metabolically healthy individuals with no other cardiac risk factors and no other characteristics of familial hypercholesterolemia. This is a clear example of when a guideline turns from “evidence based” to “opinion based.”

In summary, the guideline committee deserves recognition for its emphasis on an individualized care approach, its use of CAC, and its broader description of discussing potential drawbacks of drug treatment. It still combines opinion with evidence and believes all elevated LDL is concerning, but I for one hope it will continue its progression away from generalizations and someday soon see that individual risk variations exist, even at elevated LDL-C levels.

Thanks for reading,
Bret Scher MD FACC

Originally Posted on the Diet Doctor Blog 

Dr. Scher’s six-month program has been helping me make progress on my health journey. I started the program five months ago after I decided to get more serious about my health and reduce my coronary heart disease (CHD) risk by making healthy diet and lifestyle changes.

The program is not only providing me with excellent video and written content that helps me progressively realize my health goals with effective plans of action, but also individualized attention via email and with monthly video calls with Dr. Scher. I’m grateful for this individualized attention and for Dr. Scher’s insights and suggestions. His advice has honored my preference to continue following a low-carbohydrate lifestyle and has helped me select appropriate macronutrient targets such as daily intake of carbohydrates and protein based on my goals and his review of my medical history and lab test results.

Ken Carrillo
Chemical Engineer

Despite what the sugary beverage and processed snack food companies want us to believe, all calories are not created equal.

A new study from Harvard shows that individuals following a low-carbohydrate (20% of total calories) diet burn between 209 and 278 more calories per day than those on a high-carbohydrate (60% of total calories) diet. So the type of calories we eat really does matter.

The New York Times: How a low-carb diet might help you maintain a healthy weight

This isn’t the first study to investigate this topic, but it is likely the best.

The current study was a meticulously controlled, randomized trial, lasting 20 weeks. Even more impressive, the study group provided all the food for participants, over 100,000 meals and snacks costing $12 million for the entire study! This eliminated an important variable in nutrition studies — did the subjects actually comply with the diet — and shows the power of philanthropy and partnerships in supporting high-quality science.

After a run-in period where all subjects lost the same amount of weight, participants were randomized to one of three diets: 20% carbs, 40% carb, or 60% carbs, with the protein remaining fixed at 20%. Importantly, calories were adjusted to stabilize weight and halt further weight loss, thus making it much more likely that any observed difference in calorie expenditure was not from weight loss, but rather from the types of food consumed.

After five months, those on the low-carb diet increased their resting energy expenditure by over 200 calories per day, whereas the high-carb group initially decreased their resting energy expenditure, exposing a clear difference between the groups. In addition, those who had the highest baseline insulin levels saw an even more impressive 308-calorie increase on the low-carb diet, suggesting a subset that may benefit even more from carbohydrate restriction.

Why is this important? It shows why the conventional wisdom to eat less, move more and count your calories is not the best path to weight loss. Numerous studies show better weight loss with low-carb diets compared to low-fat diets, and now studies like this one help us understand why.

Our bodies are not simple calorimeters keeping track of how much we eat and how much we burn. Instead, we have intricate hormonal responses to the types of food we eat. It’s time to accept this and get rid of the outdated calories in-calories, calories-out model, thus allowing for more effective and sustainable long-term weight loss.

Originally Posted on the Diet Doctor Blog 

45 million Americans “should” take statins. Are you one of them?

 It may surprise you to find out that you might be. When your doctor plugs your information into a cardiac risk calculator, he or she may tell you that you should to take a statin.

You may not feel bad. You may not have many other cardiovascular risk factors. Yet you may be labelled with the “disease” of elevated cholesterol.

“New” Guidelines- Questionable Sources, Questionable Guidelines

Why are so many more previously healthy Americans now being treated for high cholesterol? We can thank the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines, which increased the intensity with which physicians prescribe statins.

Interestingly, these were not based on any new data. Instead, they were based on new interpretations of old data, much of which has not been made available for third party reviewers. None the less, it is now recommended that physicians consider prescribing a statin to anyone with a 5% 10-year risk of cardiac disease (increased from a previous 20% risk).

To me it seems that a recommendation to dramatically increase the use of these drugs should save lives left and right and have almost no down side.  Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Don’t get me wrong. Statins are not useless. They can reduce the incidence of heart attacks and strokes. For someone who has never had a heart attack (referred to as primary prevention) we need to treat between 60 and 104 people for 5 years to prevent one heart attack without any significant difference in the risk of dying.

That’s a little underwhelming, is it not? That seems like a “shotgun” approach where you send a hundred bullets out knowing that one will hit the right person (in this case getting hit by a bullet is a good thing). It doesn’t have to be this way.

In addition, statins are not perfect drugs. For every 50 people treated over five years there will be one new case of diabetes. There will also be at least 10% risk of muscle aches and pains with potential damage to the mitochondria (the energy producing part of the cell), and may even be linked to onset of dementia and memory dysfunction.

A system that potentially harms more people than it helps doesn’t seem like a viable solution to me. We can do better.

Better Define Your Risk

The problem is that our medical culture emphasizes prescribing drugs more than further defining your risk, and more than exploring alternatives to reducing your risk.

The current cardiac risk calculator uses:

• Age
• Gender
• Race
• Total cholesterol
• HDL
• Blood pressure or previous diagnosis of hypertension
• Diagnosis of diabetes
• Smoking status

Those are all reasonable initial risk factors to evaluate. But doesn’t it make sense that if we are using a drug that will only benefit one in 100, maybe we should try to further define those at high risk? To me that is a no-brainer.

For instance, one study showed that by measuring a coronary calcium score on statin eligible individuals, we could reclassify 50% of them so that they no longer “qualify” for statin treatment. We can avoid an enormous number of statin prescriptions with one simple test. A test that is readily available now. A test that has minimal risk (very low radiation dose, and a small chance of incidental findings), and is relatively low cost (about $100).

And we don’t have to stop there.

The Scripps Research Institute has developed an app to allow people to use their genetic information to better define their risks. This could potentially be used to define those who are not at high genetic risk for heart disease and therefore would likely not benefit from statin therapy.

Now we are starting to get somewhere. What if we could better define cardiac risk so that one in 5 people benefit from a statin, as opposed to the current 1 in 100? That is an admirable goal.

Even Better Than A Statin

Once we better define our risk, let’s not forget all the alternative to statins.

One recent study demonstrated that even those at the highest genetic risk for heart disease can cut their risk in half with healthy lifestyle habits (eating healthy, getting regular physical activity, not smoking and not being overweight). And that was the highest risk group! That’s likely just as good as, if not better than, a statin could do.

So why don’t we write prescriptions for intensive healthy lifestyle education programs instead of drugs?

Lifestyle changes are “harder.” Lifestyle changes take longer to see results. Lifestyle changes require more education, encouragement and follow up.

Do you know what else is associated with healthy lifestyle changes? Decreased risk of heart attack, strokes and death. Decreased risk of diabetes, high blood pressure and depression. And the only side effects are feeling better, having more energy, and being in control of your health.

That sounds like something that is well worth the extra work, the needed patience, and the more vigorous follow-up. Don’t you agree?

Start Asking Questions

So, what should you do if your doctor recommends a statin? Start asking questions. Lots of them.

• How high is your calculated cardiovascular risk?
• How much will a statin reduce that risk?
• What else can be done to better define your risk (i.e. coronary calcium score)?
• What else can be done to lower your risk (i.e. intensive lifestyle modifications)?

Ask yourself questions as well.

• How can I improve my nutrition to focus on a vegetable based, real food, Mediterranean style eating that focuses on healthy fats and appropriate proportions of high quality animal products?
• How can I improve my daily physical activities in addition to increasing my weekly exercise?
• How can I improve my stress management and sleep habits?

Remember, the benefits of statins are small. Not zero, but small.

Also, remember that statins have not been directly compared to healthy lifestyle habits. We don’t know if they add anything to a comprehensive lifestyle modification program. In fact, I would wager that if you have healthy eating habits, you get regular physical activity, you exercise regularly, and you practice regular stress management, then statins will not reduce your cardiovascular risk at all.

It may seem like a bold prediction, but to me it seems obvious.

Unfortunately we will likely never see a head-to-head study between statins and healthy lifestyle interventions (I discuss the specifics of the study I would like to see in my prior blog post here).

We can do better than a drug

In the end, remember that we can do better than drugs. We can be in control of our health. We can achieve real health that is not dependent on blood tests or medications.

So, don’t blindly accept a prescription for a statin (or any drug for that matter) without further defining your risk, and without further exploring your alternatives. You and your health deserve at least that much.

Thanks for reading.

Bret Scher, MD FACC

Cardiologist, author, founder of Boundless Health

www.DrBretScher.com

Action Item:

If you are on a statin, or any drug for that matter, make sure you ask your doctor why you are on it, exactly what benefit you should expect, and what the potential short- and long-term side effects are. Also, ask what the alternatives are, specifically regarding your lifestyle and healthy habits. If you aren’t getting adequate answers, ask me! info@drbretscher.com. I welcome your emails.