Still More Evidence That Fish Oil Supplements Do Not Prevent Cardiovascular Disease

Avid readers of the skeptical cardiologist know that he is not an advocate of fish oil supplements.

One of my first posts (1/2013) was devoted to taking down the mammoth OTC fish oil industry because recent scientific evidence was clearly showing no benefit for fish oil pills.

I concluded:

", the bottom line on fish oil supplements is that  the most 
recent scientific evidence does not support any role for them  inpreventing heart attack, stroke, or death. There are potential 
down sides to taking them, including contaminants and the impact on the marine ecosystem. I don’t take them and I advise my
patients to avoid them (unless they have triglyceride levels 
over 500.)"

Despite a lack of evidence supporting taking them, the fish oil business continues to grow,  buttressed by multiple internet sites promoting various types of fish oil (and more recently krill oil)  for any and all ailments and a belief in the power of “omega-3 fatty acids”.

Another Meta-Analysis Concludes No Benefit To Fish Oil Supplements

A publication this month evaluated the 10 randomized controlled trials involving 77 917 thousand individuals that have studied fish oil supplements in preventing heart disease. The writers concluded that fish oil supplements do not significantly prevent any cardiovascular outcomes under any scenario.

It was written by a group with the ominous title of “The Omega-3 Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration.”

The Omega-3 Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration was established to conduct a collaborative meta-analysis based on aggregated study-level data obtained from the principal investigators of all large randomized clinical trials of omega-3 FA supplements for the prevention of cardiovascular disease, using a prespecified protocol and analysis plan. The aims of this meta-analysis were to assess the associations of supplementation with omega-3 FAs on (1) fatal CHD, nonfatal MI, stroke, major vascular events, and all-cause mortality and (2) major vascular events in prespecified subgroups.

The authors conclusions:

. Randomization to omega-3 fatty acid supplementation (eicosapentaenoic acid dose range, 226-1800 mg/d) had no significant associations with coronary heart disease death (rate ratio [RR], 0.93; 99% CI, 0.83-1.03; P = .05), nonfatal myocardial infarction (RR, 0.97; 99% CI, 0.87-1.08; P = .43) or any coronary heart disease events (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P = .12). Neither did randomization to omega-3 fatty acid supplementation have any significant associations with major vascular events (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.01; P = .10), overall or in any subgroups, including subgroups composed of persons with prior coronary heart disease, diabetes, lipid levels greater than a given cutoff level, or statin use.

Nothing. Nada. No benefit.

There is clearly no reason to take fish oil supplements to prevent cardiovascular disease!

American Heart Association Sheepishly Recommends Fish Oil Supplements

If the science was conclusive on this in 2013 why did the American Heart Association (AHA) issue an “advisory” in 2017  suggesting that the use of omega-3 FAs for prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) is probably justified in individuals with prior CHD and those with heart failure and reduced ejection fractions?

The AHA advisory is clearly misguided and relies heavily in its discussion on a 2012 meta-analysis from Rizos, et al. published in 2012.

Oddly, this is the study that prompted me to write my first fish oil post in 2013

The AHA advisory totally distorts the completely negative conclusions of the Rizos meta-analysis, writing:

A meta-analysis published in 2012 examined the effects of omega-3 PUFA supplementation and dietary intake in 20 RCTs that enrolled patients at high CVD risk or prevalent CHD and patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (total n=68 680). That meta-analysis demonstrated a reduction in CHD death (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85–0.98), possibly as the result of a lower risk of SCD (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75–1.01).11

Strangely enough, if you look at the conclusions of Rizos, et al. they are

No statistically significant association was observed with all-cause mortality (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.02; risk reduction [RD] -0.004, 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.02), cardiac death (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85 to 0.98; RD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.00), sudden death (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.01; RD, -0.003; 95% CI, -0.012 to 0.006), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.04; RD, -0.002; 95% CI, -0.007 to 0.002), and stroke (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.18; RD, 0.001; 95% CI, -0.002 to 0.004) when all supplement studies were considered.

Nothing. Nada. No significant benefit!

The AHA was so confused by their own advisory that in the AHA news release on the article they quote Dr. Robert Eckel, a past AHA president as saying he remains “underwhelmed” by the current clinical trials.

“In the present environment of evidence-based risk reduction, I don’t think the data really indicate that fish oil supplementation is needed under most  circumstances.”

The end of the AHA news article goes on to quote Eckel as indicating he doesn’t prescribe fish oil supplements and the science advisory won’t change his practice:

Eckel said he doesn’t prescribe fish oil supplements to people who have had coronary events, and the new science advisory won’t change that. “It’s reasonable, but reasonable isn’t a solid take-home message that you should do it,” he said.

AHA: Wrong On Coconut Oil and Fish Oil

It’s hard for me to understand why the AHA gets so many things wrong in their scientific advisories. In the case of the recent misguided attack on coconut oil , their ongoing vilification of all saturated fats, and their support for fish oil supplements I don’t see evidence for industry influence. The authors of the fish oil supplement advisory do not report any financial conflicts of interest.

There is, however, one bias that is very hard to measure which could be playing a role: that is the bias to agree with what one has previously recommended.  The AHA issued an advisory in 2002 recommending that people take fish oil. Changing that recommendation would mean admitting that they were wrong and that they had contributed to the growth of a 12 billion dollar industry serving no purpose.

Personally, I am aware of this kind of bias in my own writing and strive to be open to new data and publications that challenge what I personally believe or have publicly recommended.

In the case of fish oil supplements for preventing cardiovascular disease, however, the most recent data supports strongly what I wrote in 2013:

Don’t take fish oil supplements to prevent heart disease.

Americans want a “magic-bullet” type pill to take to ward off aging and the diseases associated with it. There isn’t one. Instead of buying pills and foods manipulated and processed by the food industry which promise better health, eat real food (including fish) eat a lot of plants and don’t eat too much.

Piscinely Yours,


N.B. I have no patients on the two prescription fish oil supplements available, Lovaza and Vascepa. I wrote about Vascepa here

Below is an excerpt:

Like the first prescription fish oil available in the US, Lovaza, VASCEPA is only approved by the FDA for treatment of very high triglycerides (>500 mg/dl).

This is a very small market compared to the millions of individuals taking fish oil thinking that  it is preventing heart disease.

The company that makes Vascepa (Amrin;$AMRN)would also like to have physicians prescribe it to their patients who have mildly or moderatelyelevated triglycerides between 200 and 500 which some estimate as up to 1/3 of the population.

The company has a study that shows that Vascepa lowers triglycerides in patients with such mildly to moderately elevated triglycerides but the FDA did not approve it for that indication.

Given the huge numbers of patients with trigs slightly above normal, before approving an expensive new drug, the FDA thought, it would be nice to know that the drug is actually helping prevent heart attacks and strokes or prolonging life.

After all, we don’t really care about high triglycerides unless they are causing problems and we don’t care about lowering them unless we can show we are reducing the frequency of those problems.

Data do not exist to say that lowering triglycerides in the mild to moderate range  by any drug lowers heart attack risk.

In the past if a company promoted their drug for off-label usage they could be fined by the FDA but Amarin went to court and obtained the right to promote Vascepa to physicians for triglycerides between 200 and 500.

Consequently, you may find your doctor prescribing this drug to you. If you do, I suggest you ask him if he recently had a free lunch or dinner provided by Amarin, has stock in the company (Vascepa is the sole drug made by Amrin and its stock price fluctuates wildly depending on sales and news about Vascepa) or gives talks for Amarin.

If he answers no to all of the above then, hopefully, your triglycerides are over 500.






What Should Your Maximal Exercise Heart Rate Be?: The Importance Of Using The Right Age-Predicted HRmax Formula

A reader who runs 5Ks posted a question recently which indicated concern that his heart rate during intense exercise was much higher than his age-predicted heart rate.  He writes

I’m 65, exhaustion HRmax is 188, HRave for 5k is usually 152-154 and interval HRmax is usually 175-179 depending on how hard I push”

He wondered if he should be concerned about being a “high-beater.”

This prompted the skeptical cardiologist to examine the literature on age-predicted maximal heart rate which led to the shocking discovery that the wrong formula is being utilized by most exercise trainers and hospitals.

First , some background.

The peak heart rate achieved with maximal exertion or HRmax has long been known to decline with aging for reasons that are unclear.

The HR achieved with exercise divided by the HRmax x 100 (percentage HRmax) is widely used in clinical medicine and physiology as a basis for prescribing exercise intensity in cardiac rehab programs, disease prevention programs and fitness clinics.

During stress tests we seek to have patients exercise at least until  their heart rate gets to at 85% of HRmax.

The Traditional Formula For HRmax

The formula that is widely used for HRmax is

HRmax = 220-age

It appears to have originated from flawed studies in the early 1970s. These studies included subjects with cardiovascular disease, smokers and patients on cardiac medications.

The Improved HRmax Formula

Tanaka, et al in 2001 performed a meta-analysis of previous data on HRmax along with accumulating data in their own lab. This was the first study to examine healthy, unmedicated, nonsmokers. In addition each subject achieved a verified maximal level of effort as documented by metabolic stress testing.

Their analysis obtained the regression equation (which I term the Tanaka equation)

HRmax = 208-(0.7 x age) 

Below is the graph of the laboratory measurements from which the regression equation was obtained.

Relation between maximal heart rate (HRmax) and age obtained from the prospective, laboratory-based study.(Tanaka, et al)

This graph shows how  inaccurate the traditional equation is, especially in older  individuals like my reader:

Regression lines depicting the relation between maximal heart rate (HRmax) and age obtained from the results derived from our equation (208 − 0.7 × age) (solid linewith 95% confidence interval), as compared with the results derived from the traditional 220 − age equation (dashed line). Maximal heart rates predicted by traditional and current equations, as well as the differences between the two equations, are shown in the table format at the top.(from Tanaka, et al)

The traditional equation in comparison to the Tanaka equation  overestimates HRmaxin young adults, intersects with the present equation at age 40 years and then increasingly underestimates HRmaxwith further increases in age. For example, at age 70 years, the difference between the two equations is ∼10 beats/min. Considering the wide range of individual subject values around the regression line for HRmax(SD ∼10 beats/min), the underestimation of HRmaxcould be >20 beats/min for some older adults.

There are likely lots of perfectly healthy individuals in their sixties and seventies then who have heart rates at maximal exertion that exceed by 10 to 20 beats per minute the HR max predicted by the traditional formula.

This is due to a combination of the inaccuracy of the traditional formula and the wide variation in normal HR max at any given age (standard deviation (SD) of approximately 10 beats/min.)

Thus, my reader at age 65 would have a HRmax predicted by the Tanaka equation as

208-0.7 x 65=162

If we allow for a 10 BPM range of normality above and below 162 BPM we reach 172 BPM which gets close to  but doesn’t reach the reader’s 188 BPM.

If you examine the scatterplot of the Tanaka data you can see that several of the points for age 65 reach into the 180s so chances are my reader is still within normal limits

The Bottom Line on HRmax

The widely used traditional formula for predicting HR max is inaccurate.

Athletes, trainers, physicians and hospitals should switch to using the superior Tanaka HR max formula.

Individuals should keep in mind that there is a wide range of HR response to exercise in normals and variations of 10 BPM above and below the predicted response are common and of no concern.

Chronotropically Yours


Addendum. The 220-age formula is so heavily etched into my brain that I used 220 instead of 208 when I initially calculated the predicted max HR for my reader. this has been corrected.Thanks to Chris Sivewright for pointing this out.

Can AliveCor’s Mobile ECG Device Combined With Its Kardia Pro Cloud-Based Platform Replace Standard Long Term Rhythm Monitors?

In March of 2017 AliveCor introduced Kardia Pro, a cloud-based software platform that allows physicians to monitor patients who use the Kardia mobile ECG device.

I have been utilizing the Kardia mobile ECG  device since 2013 with many of my atrial fibrillation (AF)  patients and have  found it be very useful as a personal intermittent long term cardiac monitor. (see here and here)

I signed up for the Kardia Pro service about 3 months ago and all of my patients who purchased Kardia devices prior to March of 2017 have been migrated automatically to Kardia Pro by AliveCor.

Now (post March 2017),  patients who acquire a Kardia device must sign up for the Kardia Pro service at $15 per month to connect with a  physician.

I think this is money well spent and I’ll demonstrate how the service works with a few examples.

Monitoring Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

 I saw a 68 year old man with persistent atrial fibrillation that was first diagnosed at the time of pneumonia in late 2017.

He underwent a cardioversion after recovering from the pneumonia but quickly reverted back to AF. His prior cardiologist offered him the option of repeat cardioversion and long term flecainide therapy for maintenance of normal sinus rhythm (NSR) but he declined.

When I saw him for the first time in the office  a  month ago I  listened to his heart and to my surprise, noted a regular rhythm: an AliveCor recording in the office confirmed he was in NSR. The patient had been unaware of when he was in or out of rhythm

We discussed methods for monitoring his rhythm at this point which include a 24 Holter monitor, a 7 to 14 day Long Term Monitor, a Cardiac Event Monitor and a Mobile Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry device. These devices are helpful and although expensive are often covered by insurance.  They require wearing electrodes or a patch continuously and the results are not immediately available.

I also offered him the option of monitoring his AF using a Kardia device with the recordings connected to me by Kardia Pro.

He purchased the device on his own for $99, downloaded the app for his smartphone and began making recordings.

I enrolled him in my Kardia Pro account and he received an email invitation with a code that he entered which connected his account with mine, allowing me to view all of his recordings as they were made.

When I log into my Kardia Pro account I can now view a graphic display of the recordings he has made with color coding of whether they were considered normal or abnormal by Kardia.

The patient overview page also displays BP information if the patient is utilizing certain Omron devices which work with Kardia.

kardia pro wc monthly

The display shows that after our office visit he maintained NSR for 3 days (green dots) and then intermittently had ECG recordings classified as AF (yellow dots) or unclassified (black).

The more he used the device and got feedback on when he was in or out of rhythm the more he was able to recognize symptoms that were caused by AF.

I can click on any of the dots and six second strips of the full recording are displayed.  In the example below I clicked on 2/27 which has both an unclassified recording (which is atrial flutter) and an AF recording

Clicking on the ECG strips brings up  the full 30 second recording on a page that also allows me to assign my formal  interpretation. In the example below I added atrial flutter as the diagnosis, changing it from Kardia’s unclassified (Kardia’s algorithm calls anything it cannot clearly identify as AF that is over 100 BPM as unclassified.)

The ECG can then be archived or exported for entry into an EHR.

The benefits of this patient being connected
to me are obvious: we now  have an instantaneous patient-controlled method for knowing what his cardiac rhythm is doing whether he is having symptoms or not.

This knowledge allows me to make more informed treatment decisions.

The Kardia Pro Dashboard

When I  log into kardia pro I see this screen.

dashboard karia pro It contains buttons for searching for a specific patient or adding a new patient. Adding new patients is a quick and simple process requiring input of patient demographics including  email and birthdate.

From the opening screen you can click on your triage tab. I have elected to have all non normal patient recorded ECGS go into the triage tab.

Other Examples

Another patient’s Kardia Pro page shows that he records an ECG nearly every day and most of the time Kardia documents NSR in the 60s. Overall, he has made 773 recordings and 677 of them were NSR, 28 unanalyzed (due to brevity) , 13 unclassified and 55 showing AF.

Monitoring Rate  Control  In Patients With AF and Reversion Post-Cardioversion

Another patient I saw for the first time recently has had long-standing persistent AF.  His previous cardiologist performed an electrical cardioversion a year ago but the patient reverted back to AF in 40 hours.   Before seeing me he had purchased a Kardia mobile ECG device and was using it  to monitor his heart rate.

After he accepted my email invitation to connect via Kardia Pro I was able to see his rhythm and rate daily. The Kardia Pro chart belowshows his daily heart rate while in atrial fibrillation. We utilized this to guide titration of his rate controlling medications.  Such precise remote monitoring of heart rate in AF (which is often difficult to accurately assess by standard heart rate devices) obviates the need for office visits for 12 lead ECGs or periodic Holter monitors.

I performed a  second cardioversion on him after which he made  daily recordings documenting maintenance of NSR. With this system we can determine exactly when AF returns, information which will be very helpful in determining future treatment options.

Kardia Pro Plus Kardia Mobile ECG Creates Personal Intermittent Long Term Rhythm Monitor

There are many potential applications of the Kardia ECG device beyond AF monitoring (assessing palpitations, PVCs, tachycardia, etc.) but they are all enhanced when the device is combined with a good cardiologist connected to the device by Kardia Pro.

I’ve gotten spoiled by the information I get from my AF patients who are on  Kardia Pro now. When they call the office with palpitations or a sense of being out of rhythm I can determine within a minute what their rhythm is wherever I am (excluding tropical beaches and mountain tops)  or wherever the patient is (for the most part.)

On the other hand patients who are not on Kardia Pro have to come into the office for  12-lead ECGs. When they call I feel like my diagnostic tools are limited. Such patients usually end up getting one of the standard Long Term Monitoring (LTM) Devices. If I am fortunate, after a  few days to weeks , the results of the LTM will be faxed to my office.

I am optimistic based on this early experience with Kardia Pro that ultimately this service in conjunction with the Kardia Mobile ECG device (or similar products) will replace many of the more expensive and inconvenient long term monitoring devices that cardiologists currently use.

Skeptically Yours,


Should You Take An Antioxidant (Supplement or Vitamin) To Prevent Or Treat Heart Disease

Antioxidant-rich foods, vitamins and supplements are incessantly promoted to Americans as effective and safe means to stave off the chronic diseases of aging and even aging itself.

The simple concept that sells billions of dollars of these  products seems logical and seems to be supported by science: damaging and disease-causing  free radicals  are neutralized by super hero antioxidants.  All you have to do to benefit from these disease-fighting agents is identify foods with the highest level of antioxidants or take supplements with super antioxidant vitamins or chemicals.

To remain young  and free of heart disease, cancer and dementia, the glowing marketing material for antioxidant products proclaims,  eat this magical Italian fruit or drink this fruit juice or take this concentrated substance that we have carefully extracted from a super fruit.

Unfortunately, the early hopes that antioxidant therapy would reduce heart disease,in particular, and other chronic diseases of aging in general have been dashed by excellent scientific studies  performed in the 1990s.

For antioxidant vitamins, in particular, which continue to be heavily promoted for heart disease and cancer prevention, over the last 20 years a wealth of studies have accumulated which clearly demonstrate a lack of efficacy.

Despite data clearly showing no benefit in well done randomized trials (and in some cases evidence for harm) sales of antioxidant vitamins C, E and beta-carotene continue to thrive.

Why did scientists strongly believe in the idea that antioxidants in pure and concentrated form would prevent heart disease?

Antioxidants: Free Radical Scavengers

Laboratory and animal studies beginning in the 1950s suggested that excess free radicals generated by oxidative processes could be responsible for the chronic degenerative diseases of aging.

Oxygen, which is essential to animal life, undergoes processing in cells which creates unstable free radicals. Free radicals are short an electron and seek other molecules which can donate an electron and make them more stable. This process is termed oxidation.

The molecules produced by oxidation play an important role in a a number of biological processes such as the killing of bacteria and in cell signaling. These same unstable molecules, however,  have been implicated in a number of deleterious processes as they can participate in unwanted side reactions and create cell damage.

Thus, too many free radicals have been implicated as potentially causal in diseases ranging from cancer to cardiovascular disease to dementia.

Antioxidants can reduce damage from free radical reactions because they can donate electrons to neutralize free radicals or their offspring without forming another free radical.

This observation logically lead to the theory that large amounts of antioxidants taken as an oral supplement or within (either naturally or added artificially)  food and beverages can prevent the free radical damage presumably causing chronic disease  and aging.

Investigators early on identified three vitamins as the most important cellular antioxidants:

  • Vitamin E or  d-alpha tocopherol is a fat soluble vitamin.
  • Vitamin C or ascorbic acid. is a water soluble vitamin, deficiency of which leads to scurvy
  • Beta-carotene is a precursor to vitamin A (retinol)

Early Observational Studies Suggest  Taking An Antioxidant Prevents Heart Disease 

Based on laboratory, animal and human clinical trials many investigators by the early 1990s were convinced that oxidation of LDL cholesterol was the major cause of atherosclerosis and that antioxidant supplementation , in particular Vitamin E, could prevent the heart attacks and strokes caused by atherosclerosis.

The introduction to the landmark Nurses Health Study  summarizes the seemingly compelling evidence leading to these conclusions:

Rapidly growing evidence suggests that oxidation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) plays an important part in atherosclerosis. As Steinberg et al. have found,1-3 oxidized LDL is taken up more readily than native LDL by macrophages to create foam cells. Also, oxidized LDL is chemotactic for circulating monocytes,4 and it inhibits the motility of tissue macrophages5. It may also be cytotoxic to endothelial cells6 and may increase vasoconstriction in arteries7. Oxidized LDL has been identified in atherosclerotic lesions,8-10 and elevated titers of circulating autoantibodies to epitopes of oxidized LDL are found in patients with atherosclerosis11. Lipid peroxide concentrations have been found to be higher in patients with atherosclerosis12. In addition, the susceptibility of LDL to oxidation was correlated with the severity of atherosclerosis13.

Vitamin E is a potent lipid-soluble antioxidant carried in LDL14,15. It inhibits the proliferation of smooth-muscle cells in vitro,16 and when added to plasma, it increases the resistance of LDL to oxidation17. LDL from volunteers given alpha-tocopherol supplements showed increased resistance to oxidation18

Starting in 1980  the Nurses Healthy Study began gathering information on diet and supplement use in 87,245 female nurses 34 to 59 years of age who were free of diagnosed cardiovascular disease and cancer. Information on diet was assessed every two years  and the participants were monitored for cardiovascular outcomes for 8 years.

High consumers of Vitamin E compared to lower consumers had a 34% lower risk of major coronary disease. Those who took Vitamin E for more than 2 years had a 41% reduction in risk which was significant after adjustment for age, smoking status, risk factors for coronary disease, and use of other antioxidant nutrients (including multivitamins).

After reading this study I and many of my colleagues began recommending that our patients take Vitamin E. These observational trials, however, could only show an association between antioxidants and disease, they didn’t prove causality.

Good Quality Randomized Trials Fail To Show Any Benefit of Antioxidants and Raise Concerns of Possible Danger

Given the strong evidence for antioxidants in reducing heart disease from the observational and laboratory studies the theory that antioxidant supplementation would reduce heart disease needed to be tested in randomized trials.

Fortunately, multiple well done randomized studies have tested whether supplementation with the major proposed antioxidants will reduce heart disease, cancer or mortality.

Sadly, the consensus assessment is that they are useless and in some cases antioxidant vitamin supplementation may increase risks.

The Physicians’ Health Study II is a great example:

Published in 2008, This study randomly assigned 14,641 physicians without heart disease to treatment with vitamin E 400 international units every other daily, vitamin C 500 mg daily, both, or neither; After  eight years, treatment with vitamin E  and Vitamin C either alone or in combination had no effect on major cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality.

Those participants taking Vitamin E had a significant 70% increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke compared to those taking placebo.

After this trial was published I took all my patients off Vitamin E.

Multiple good quality randomized controlled studies of Vitamin E, Vitamin C and beta-carotene in various combinations have also been done on patients who have established coronary heart disease and have shown no benefit in reducing cardiovascular events or mortality. This 2003 Lancet meta-analysis nicely summarizes the data.

These studies strongly called into question the theory that supplementation with antioxidants reduce chronic disease and by 2003 there was a broad consensus among serious scientists, cardiologists and nutritionists that Vitamin E and Vitamin C in various doses and in diverse populations had no benefit in reducing mortality, cardiovascular disease or cancer.

In fact, Vitamin E may increase hemorrhagic stroke and high-dose vitamin E supplementation (≥400 international units/day) may be associated with an increase in all-cause mortality

Studies with beta-carotene overall suggested an increase in overall mortality and one study has shown an increased risk of lung cancer in male smokers who received supplementation.

More recently, a 2012 BMJ meta-analysis   concluded that there was no benefit for any vitamin or antioxidant supplement in reducing cardiovascular risk or mortality.


Despite Scientific Studies Showing No Benefit, Antioxidant Sales Continue To Grow

You might conclude that based on high quality studies showing no benefits and potential harm that sales of antioxidants would taper off. Unfortunately, the opposite has occurred.

Nutraceuticals World reported that sales of antioxidant supplements are growing steadily, reaching all time highs.

Combining top antioxidant ingredient sales such as green tea, dark chocolate, superfruit juice and dietary supplements, Euromonitor estimated the combined global sales in these categories totaled $34 billion in 2010. According to Euromonitor, the top antioxidant markets are Japan, the U.S. and China, with sales growing steadily in all five ranked product areas in the past five years. Growth from 2005 to 2010 was 43% in current terms. As a point of comparison, the global organic packaged food and beverage market was only $27 billion.

The Sneakiness of the Nutraceutical Snake Oil Salesmen

The quacks and charlatans that make their living selling useless vitamins, minerals, supplement and nutraceuticals are masters at creating the appearance of a scientific basis for buying their snake oil.

Their promotional material always features references to scientific studies.  Almost invariably, these references do not prove any health benefit for the product being sold.

In cases like antioxidants where initial studies suggest a benefit and subsequent higher quality studies have shown no benefit, only the earlier studies will be quoted.

If relevant negatives studies for an antioxidant are referenced, the talented snake oil salesman will explain to his gullible audience that the lack of efficacy was because the wrong form of the antioxidant was utilized.

Fortunately, for you, the snake oil salesman has developed his own special formulation which is superior. Such formulations are typically described as containing additional ingredients that enhance efficacy. Often, the special formulation is described as somehow better at getting into the body or being absorbed.

None of these special formulations has any scientific support for treating or preventing any disease.

Dr. Mercola, A Master of Pseudoscientific Support For Selling Useless Vitamins

The most successful marketers of useless antioxidant supplements and vitamins convince their audience that they alone have the insight and wisdom to provide the consumer with the knowledge and products they need to be healthy.  To accomplish this, they must create mistrust of standard medical advice and prescription medications, often portraying doctors as ignorant of proper nutrition and hostile to allegedly superior “natural” or alternative cures.

Doctors, in this portrayal, are the enemy, pushing dangerous prescription medications along with unneeded procedures like coronary stents and bypass surgery because we are in the pay of the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

Joseph Mercola, an osteopath, has created an alternative medicine internet empire by convincing millions to follow his advice and buy his useless supplements. He is arguably the master of alternative medicine misinformation. (See this article to fully understand how dangerous Mercola’s ideas are.)

Hoovers reports that Mercola makes 9.8 million dollars per year selling useless stuff and Alexa describes his website as the top “alternative medicine” website. Mercola sells so much snake oil it is mind-numbing.

Mercola (or more likely his marketing department)  has  an astonishingly long and  detailed  list of reasons why you should buy only his own special formulation of Vitamin E. None of them are supported by scientific references.

-His form is natural versus synthetic.

-Other natural forms of vitamin E come from soy which you should avoid because it is genetically engineered.

-You need all 8 forms of natural vitamin E and they must be balanced in the way that he deems most healthy. His form comes from sunflower seeds.

-Science has ignored the tocotrienol form of Vitamin E but has “started to wake up to the potential benefits.”

-Tocotrienols potentially “help support normal cholesterol levels., protect again  free radical damage and the normal effects of aging” and promote brain health.”

Mercola vitamin E

The average consumer reading this long and complicated discussion is likely to be impressed with the pseudoscientific language, the complicated chemical names, and  the appeal to a more natural approach and has no way of knowing that it is all unsubstantiated marketing hype.

The average consumer is not likely to see buried in small print at the bottom of the page the truth:

*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.

These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Don’t Buy Antioxidant Supplements and Vitamins

What have we learned?

  1. Although early research suggested a role for antioxidant vitamins in preventing heart disease when high quality randomized controlled rials were performed they showed no benefit and in some cases increased risk.
  2. Despite this, antioxidant sales are booming.
  3. Supplement marketers are brilliant at confusing consumers with pseudoscience and sell billions of dollars of useless product.

There is minimal regulation of the nutraceutical/supplement industry. The snake oil purveyors get away with their lies and escape (for the most party) FDA scrutiny by admitting that their products don’t “treat, cure or prevent any disease.”

Rather than hiding this information, at a minimum, they should be forced to put it in large, bold letters at the beginning of every page on their website.


Please don’t buy them any more.

Uncleoxidantly Yours,



What Can America Learn Now From Australian Gun Laws?

I wrote a post in December of 2016 which asked “What Can America Learn From Australian Gun Laws?”

Since then we’ve had more mass shootings in the US, most recently at least 17 have died in a high school in Florida, shot by a 19 year old with an AR-15 he purchased legally.

After the Las Vegas mass shooting I noticed that there was a call from the editors of most of the medical journals I follow for physicians to advocate for gun control.

These comments from an editorial in the Annals of Internal Medicine are typical:

Here’s a short list of how health care professionals can use our skills and voices to fight the threat that firearms present to health in the United States.
Educate yourself. Read the background materials and proposals for sensible firearm legislation from health care professional organizations. Make a phone call and write a letter to your local, state, and federal legislators to tell them how you feel about gun control. Now. Don’t wait. And do it again at regular intervals. Attend public meetings with these officials and speak up loudly as a health care professional. Demand answers, commitments, and follow-up. Go to rallies. Join, volunteer for, or donate to organizations fighting for sensible firearm legislation. Ask candidates for public office where they stand and vote for those with stances that mitigate firearm-related injury.
Meet with the leaders at your own institutions to discuss how to leverage your organization’s influence with local, state, and federal governments. Don’t let concerns for perceived political consequences get in the way of advocating for the well-being of your patients and the public. Let your community know where your institution stands and what you are doing. Tell the press.
Educate yourself about gun safety. Ask your patients if there are guns at home. How are they stored? Are there children or others at risk for harming themselves or others? Direct them to resources to decrease the risk for firearm injury, just as you already do for other health risks. Ask if your patients believe having guns at home makes them safer, despite evidence that they increase the risk for homicide, suicide, and accidents.
Don’t be silent. We don’t need more moments of silence to honor the memory of those who have been killed. We need to honor their memory by preventing a need for such moments. As health care professionals, we don’t throw up our hands in defeat because a disease seems to be incurable. We work to incrementally and continuously reduce its burden. That’s our job.

What follows is my original 2016 post.

In April of 1996, a 28-year old man murdered 35 people in Tasmania primarily utilizing a Colt AR-15 rifle (a lightweight, 5.56×45mm, magazine-fed, air-cooled semi-automatic rifle with a rotating bolt and a direct impingement gas-operation system.)

This event led to public outcry in Australia and  bipartisan passage of a comprehensive set of gun regulation laws (the National Firearms Agreement (NFA)).

In the 20 years since the law was put into place (1997-2016), there has not been a single fatal mass shooting in Australia.

In the 17 years prior to the NFA enactment 13 mass fatal shootings (defined as ≥5 victims, not including the perpetrator) occurred in Australia.

An analysis of this process was recently published in JAMA.

Australia’s 1996 NFA mandated:

  • the ban and buy-back of semiautomatic long guns.
  • licensing of all firearm owners and registration of firearms.
  • that  persons seeking firearm licenses  must document a “genuine need,” have no convictions for violent crimes within the past 5 years, have no restraining orders for violence, demonstrate good moral character, and pass a gun safety test.
  •  uniform standards for securing firearms to prevent theft or misuse, record-keeping for fire arms transfers, purchase permits, and minimum waiting periods of 28 days.
 I agree with the comments in an accompanying editorial written by Daniel Webster of the John Hopkins School of Public Health, Center for Gun Policy and Research(:gun-regulation.)

Research evidence should inform the way forward to advance the most effective policies to reduce violence. However, research alone will not be enough. Australian citizens, professional organizations, and academic researchers all played productive roles in developing and promoting evidence-informed policies and demanding that their lawmakers adopt measures to prevent the loss of life and terror of gun violence. Citizens in the United States should follow their lead.


N.B. Of the 46 mass shooting since 2004, 14 featured assault rifles, including Newtown, Aurora, Orlando and San Bernardino. Apparently there are 10 million AR-15 type rifles in private hands in the USA and as Vox has pointed out

“the AR-15 is caught in a cycle. The more it’s used in high-profile mass shooting cases, the more people want to ban it. The more people want to ban it, the more AR-15s are sold. And the more AR-15s are sold, the harder it becomes to create a ban that would be able to stop the next tragedy.”

For more on assault-style rifles you can view this Washington Post video created after the Orlando shootings.



Tom Brady Lost The Super Bowl: Can We Now Dismiss His Ridiculous, Pseudoscientific “Alkaline” Diet?

I think Tom Brady is the best professional quarterback of all time (IMBO Baker Mayfield of the Oklahoma Sooners is the best all-time college QB).

However, I think he has succeeded despite, not due to, the silly diet he follows as outlined in his best selling book, TB12.

Although he set a Super Bowl record for passing a few days ago his team lost and I’m really hoping that this will tamp down the unjustified enthusiasm in his lifestyle.

Tom Brady being “strip-sacked”. by Philly defensive end Brandon Graham. Clearly Brady’s diet is responsible for this and should be abandoned by all adherents.

Brady, according to reports, attempts to follow a diet that is 80% alkaline and 20% acidic. As Business Insider points out:

His extreme diet is a key part of what he refers to as the TB12 Method, an approach consisting of 12 fitness principles that Brady outlines in his book, called “The TB12 Method: How to Achieve a Lifetime of Sustained Peak Performance”. He also sells a selection of rather expensive products and supplements designed to help adherents live according to his fitness gospel.

For an outstanding take down of the nonsensical pH balancing diet (free of any TB references strangely enough) please read Harriet Hall’s typically outstanding article at entitled “PH Mythology: Separating pHacts from pHiction.”

She concludes correctly that:

“systematic analyses of all the published scientific studies have determined that the evidence does not support the acid/alkaline theory of disease, so it should be dismissed as pseudoscience.”

Although  Brady eats a lot of fresh, organic vegetables he avoids those in the nightshade family because Brady  and his wife, Gisele Bündchen’s personal chef, Allen Campbell, believes they cause inflammation (according to a 2016 The Boston Globe’interview, )

The nightshade family includes vegetables which nutritionists believe are very good for you like tomatoes, peppers, mushrooms, and  eggplants.  In fact there are more putative anti-inflammatory chemicals in these plants than inflammatory.

You should no more base your diet on Tom Brady’s success than  you should on the manner in which Nathan Pritikin or Robert Atkins died.

If Tom Brady is diagnosed with pancreatic cancer tomorrow will you conclude that it was due to the absence of the health-promoting phytochemical, lycopene, from his diet due to avoiding tomatoes?

Following the latest trends in diet or exercise based on anecdotes from celebrities is a fool’s game. Those celebrities that cash in on their good fortune to promote pseudoscientific quackery like Brady and Gwyneth Paltrow (aka GOOP) should be ashamed that they are contributing to this idiocy.

Nightshadily Yours,


N.B. Perhaps Phlly fans should start following some of the “sci-fi” training tools that Brandon Graham’s trainer utilizes:

  • When the workout is finished, Graham is fitted with something called an ECP (External Counterpulsation), a medical device that’s used for cardiac patients. They lay him down, put the ECP on his legs and hook him up to an EKG machine to monitor his heart. When his heart is in the relaxation phase, the device will compress, which apparently “enhances oxygenated blood flow through the coronary arteries to the heart muscle” and, according to Barwis, promotes quicker healing.


Thoughts On Physician Assisted Suicide

A beloved patient of the skeptical cardiologist committed suicide two years ago.


Although 90 years in chronological age, Phyllis appeared and behaved as one much younger. She was full of life, energy and happiness when she came to my office for treatment of her atrial fibrillation and heart failure.


Her daughter and I discussed what happened and how it could have been prevented.  Her perspective follows:

My mother, Phyllis, was a complicated woman.  She was intelligent, charming, beautiful, spirited and fun with an inquisitive mind and many interests.  She could play competitive Bridge and win, even in her 90’s. She drove a little red convertible and had the top down whenever possible. She liked to dress stylishly and had excellent taste.  She had a lifelong habit of health and always exercised and ate carefully…except for chocolate.  She had a legendary addiction to chocolate and I think she will be remembered in our family for many generations to come by all of the wonderful chocolate stories. She was always working to improve herself and to that end almost never read fiction, preferring biography or autobiography. In her 40’s she took up synchronized swimming and water ballet.  She was very single minded in her goal to improve her skills, participated in the Sr. Olympics in Denmark in 1989 and won a silver medal!  At the age of 50 she decided to take up skiing and although she gave it up at 65, she did get good enough to ski the black slopes.  She was very happily married to my father, Jack, until his death at 69.  A few years later she married Earl and they had a solid union until his death.

She made the decision to end her life very soberly with much deliberation.  This had been on her mind for years before she actually accomplished it.  The prior Spring she had set a date and only due to much family intervention, involving lots of fun, did she cancel it.  She felt the odds of something happening to her, which would keep her bed or wheelchair bound or would take away her mental facilities, became greater and greater with each passing year. In her final year she could see differences with each passing month.  She never wanted to be dependent on anyone or anything. She was not depressed.  She had several falls in the last few months, nothing serious, just cuts or bruises, but she could see it was just a matter of time before a bad fall could take her out.  She no longer could eat chocolate or drink coffee or wine, all of which had been a great comfort to her. She had developed a heart problem, which she knew would only get worse as she aged. And she was very scared that her lifelong habit of heath would backfire on her.  That she would go on and on and on trapped in a bed or left with no mind.

She had discussed suicide with all her family at great length in the years leading up to her death. She didn’t like the idea anymore that we did but she was afraid that something would happen to her and she would no longer have the ability to make this decision if she felt it was necessary.

So in the early hours of February 19, 2016 she put a gun in her mouth and pulled the trigger.

How unfair that she had to do this gruesome and scary thing all by herself. She would still be alive if she knew that when the time came in which she no longer felt she had an acceptable quality of life she could have taken a pill or be given a shot and then died gently surrounded by all who loved her.

I think everyone needs to look at their own life and ask themselves – what do I want the final years of my life to look like?  Medical science has given us the ability to live much longer healthier lives.  But that comes at a cost.  Many people live on and on in nursing homes, just shells of humans because medical science can keep them alive almost indefinitely.  Is this what the average person wants?  Do most people think to themselves – I’m really looking forward to those years when I’m fed, bathroomed and bathed by strangers?

I think Physician Assisted Suicide can be a good answer for those people who do not want to live in this manner and have made their intentions very clear to family and doctors.

I miss my mom.  I miss our long talks and walks.  I miss lunches out with her. I even miss our disagreements.  And I know that if Physician Assisted Suicide had been legalized in Missouri, she would still be here, playing Bridge, laughing, talking about good books, enjoying family visits, shopping for pretty clothes and getting ready for all the parties of the Holiday season.


Physician-Assisted Suicide

Since this happened I have become an advocate of state laws allowing physician-assisted suicide (PAS).  These laws are intended  for patients with terminal disease, but I think if Phyllis had lived in a state where these existed she would not have felt compelled to do what she did.

Physicians are divided on the topic of PAS with 55-65% in state medical society surveys favoring allowing such laws.

Despite this, the American College of Physicians recently published a position paper stating its opposition to PAS:

It is problematic given the nature of the patient–physician relationship, affects trust in the relationship and in the profession, and fundamentally alters the medical profession’s role in society. Furthermore, the principles at stake in this debate also underlie medicine’s responsibilities regarding other issues and the physician’s duties to provide care based on clinical judgment, evidence, and ethics. Society’s focus at the end of life should be on efforts to address suffering and the needs of patients and families, including improving access to effective hospice and palliative care.

Stat news has two physician-authored pieces on this topic which are well worth reading. In the first article, Ira Byock, M.D., a palliative care physician, writes that “there are some things doctors must not do. Intentionally ending patients’ lives is chief among them.” He decries excessive pain and suffering at the end of life but thinks that “so much of that kind of suffering could have been avoided with good care.”

The second article was written by Roger Kligler a physician in his sixties who is dying of metastatic prostate cancer. He writes:

When my suffering becomes intolerable, I hope my doctors will permit me the option to end it peacefully with medical aid in dying — something I have been working to get explicitly authorized in Massachusetts, where I live. Medical aid in dying gives mentally capable, terminally ill adults with six months or less to live the option to request a prescription medication they can choose to take in order to end unbearable suffering by gently dying in their sleep.

For more information on this topic I recommend the website of Death with Dignity, the organization which authored the Oregon statute governing the prescribing of life-ending medications to eligible terminally ill people. About 100 patients a year have taken advantage of the Oregon Death With Dignity Statute. The website notes that “Overall, 1,545 patients obtained a lethal prescription from 1998 through 2015. On average, 64 percent took the drugs.  Almost all died but six people woke up and died later of natural causes.”





Medical Emergencies On Airplanes: Should Doctors “Heed The Call”?

In a recent episode of Larry David’s hilarious HBO series,  Curb Your Enthusiasm, (“Accidental Text on Purpose”), Larry, (after giving up his aisle seat to a woman with a supposedly overactive bladder) finds himself sitting next to Dr. Nathan Winocour. When a call for medical assistance for a stricken airplane passenger is issued, Larry is perturbed that the doctor fails to “heed the call.”

Winocour justifies his inaction with two comments:

“Give it a minute. He’s gonna be fine.” and

“Have you ever been part of an emergency landing? Is that what you want, Larry? To spend the night in Lubbock, Texas, at a Days Inn with a $15 voucher from Cinnabon? Think about it.”

He’s correct that the vast majority of medical “emergencies” resolve without any specific intervention.

And if he had attended on a patient with a serious non-transient medical problem he would suddenly find himself having to make an incredibly difficult and life-deciding decision on whether or not to  divert the plane or make an emergency landing with insufficient diagnostic tools and inadequate information.

Dr. Winocour is not alone in this failure to heed the call. Many physicians are conflicted about identifying themselves as a physician in medical emergencies-on planes or elsewhere.

Last year, a British physician was described in an article as having assisted in 3 medical emergencies while on American Airlines flights in the previous year. This man is so eager to assist in in-flight emergencies that he “pre-identifies” himself as a physician as he boards the plane.

I wondered how many physicians enthusiastically pre-identify themselves as ready to heed the call, so I posted a poll in 2017 on the physician social media site, SERMO.

Most Physicians Don’t Want To Assist In Medical Emergencies In Flight

A majority of physicians indicated that they were not interested in assisting in medical emergencies in flight.

Screen Shot 2018-02-01 at 8.14.01 AM

Only 3% would pre-identify (with another 2% agreeing to pre-identify if they were upgraded to first class). Another 19% would not pre-identify but would respond it there was a call for a physician.

Medical Liability Issues

In 1998 Congress passed the Aviation Medical Assistance Act, which tries to protect medical Good Samaritans who heed an airplane call. The act protects physicians, nurses, physician assistants, state-qualified EMTs and paramedics:

“An individual shall not be liable for damages in any action brought in a Federal or State court arising out of the acts or omissions of the individual in providing or attempting to provide assistance in the case of an in-flight medical emergency unless the individual, while rendering such assistance, is guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct.”

Despite this apparent protection, many physicians left comments like the one below on SERMO indicating they would not heed the call due to concerns about medical liability:

Yes, I am aware of good samaritan docs trying to come to the rescue but were sued anyway. The standard of care still applies to doctors rendering care, whether they are acting as a good samaritan or not- thus we are held to a much higher standard of care than any bystander would be rendering aid. Good samaritan laws in several states note that doctors remain bound to the physician standard of care whether charging the patient or not. Even if it is a life threatening situation involving a complete stranger, the doctors are held to a higher standard of care that permits the patient or their families to sue you. In Florida, there are no caps on malpractice, therefore you can be held personally liable for all your assets, with the exception of those held in “tenancy in entirety”. Therefore I never identify myself as a doctor when coming on a scene to help anyone outside my office, and never give my name if rendering aid.

Other Factors Limiting Heeding

Other physicians noted the lack of appropriate medical supplies on airplanes and the hassle factor.

I’ve responded several times. The last time was when the plane hit an air pocket and the drink cart came down on a flight attendant’s foot. I needed an Ace bandage. Opened the small kit–lots of stuff but no Ace. Opened the big kit to see the contents list. I could have run a code or taken out a GB–but nothing for a compression dressing. Finally wrapped her foot with her panty hose and put an ice pack on it. Then they insisted I fill out a raft of forms about opening the kits, although nothing had been touched. They had my name and address but didn’t bother to say thanks. I did hear from the flight attendant–her foot was fractured.
Never fill out those damn forms unless they agree to pay you for it. And take your own ace bandage.

One MD expressed concerns that failure to heed the call could lead to legal consequences:

I don’t think the risk is zero (in the US) if no other passenger identifies himself/herself as a physician in the event of a flight emergency. For example, if a passenger dies en route and it was later discovered you were on that flight and that had you intervened you might have saved a life, the family members could come after you.

Hm. Now I have another reason to wear ear plugs and close my eyes when flying; can’t be dinged when I did not hear/see the announcement for a physician.

This urologist’s comments are typical of those who have volunteered, but feel like they didn’t help too much and were inadequately thanked or compensated for their time and effort.

I assisted on a flight from Ireland back to the states. Woman had a vasovagal episode and passed out. Spent about 15 minutes and only thanks I got was asking me for my name and license number “just in case.” It was United Airlines. Will never offer my services again unless someone needs a foley.

Dr. Winocour’s failure to heed the call ended up costing him dearly. When he desperately needed a joke for a speech he was giving,  Larry refused to heed the comedian call.

How do you feel? Should physicians heed the call in the air?

Airobatically Yours,


What Is A Plant-Based Diet (And Should I Be On One)?

The phrase “plant-based diet” is being tossed around a lot these days. The skeptical cardiologist never knows what people mean when they use it and so must assume that most of the world is also puzzled by this trendy term.

Is A Plant-Based Diet Code For Veganism?

For some, a “plant-based diet” (PBD) is what vegans eat.

Veganism combines a diet free of animal products, plus a moral philosophy that reject the “commodity status of animals.” Vegans are the strictest of vegetarians, eschewing milk, fish and eggs.

One PBD advocate in the introduction to a Special Issue of the Journal of Geriatric Cardiology,  defines it as follows:

“a plant-based diet consists of all minimally processed fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds, herbs, and spices and excludes all animal products, including red meat, poultry, fish, eggs, and dairy products.”

You will notice that this cardiologist “excludes all animal products”  and that the qualifying phrase “minimally processed” has crept into the definition.

Forks Over Knives-Whole-food, plant-based diet

The “documentary” Forks Over Knives brought the phrase “whole food, plant-based diet” to national prominence. The movie focused on the diets espoused by Caldwell Esselstyn and T. Colin Campbell. Since its release in 2011 a whole industry based on the Forks Over Knives (FON) brand has been launched. FON uses the following definition:

 “A whole-food, plant-based diet is centered on whole, unrefined, or minimally refined plants. It’s a diet based on fruits, vegetables, tubers, whole grains, and legumes; and it excludes or minimizes meat (including chicken and fish), dairy products, and eggs, as well as highly refined foods like bleached flour, refined sugar, and oil.”

I’ve written detailed posts on the Esselstyn diet here and here. I think it is needlessly restrictive and not supported by scientific evidence. (Esselstyn’s website and book state unequivocally “you may not eat anything with a mother or a face (no meat, poultry, or fish” and “you cannot eat dairy products” which differs from the FON definition.)

The key new terms in the FON approach to note are:

Whole Food. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines whole food as “food  that has been processed or refined as little as possible and is free from additives or other artificial substances.”

Unrefined or minimally refined. The OED defines refined as:

“With impurities or unwanted elements having been removed by processing.”

The FON definition for a PBD then is similar to our first definition-minimally processed vegan-but allows (at least theoretically)  minimal meat, dairy and eggs. The FON Esselstyn/Campbell diets choose to define vegetable oil, including olive oil, as highly refined foods and do not allow any oils.

U.S. News and World Report Definition Of Plant-Based Diets

U.S. News and World Report publishes an annual rating of diets based on the opinion of a panel of nationally recognized experts in diet, nutrition, obesity, food psychology, diabetes and heart disease.

US News defines a plant-based diet as “an approach that emphasizes minimally processed foods from plants, with modest amounts of fish, lean meat and low-fat dairy, and red meat only sparingly.”

This definition is radically different from the first two. Notice now that you can have “modest amounts” of meat and dairy, foods which are anathema to vegans. Also, note that “low-fat dairy” is being recommended, a food which (in my opinion) is highly processed and that lean meat is to be preferred and red meat avoided.

I was happy to see that for the first time, the Mediterranean Diet ranked as  Best Diet Overall, but shocked to find that the Mediterranean diet came out on top of the US News list of “Best Plant-Based Diets.”

Readers will recognize that this is the diet I recommend and follow (with slight modifications). On this diet I regularly consume hamburgers, steak, fish and whole egg omelettes.

The plant-based diet of vegans or of Forks Over Knives is drastically different from the Mediterranean Diet.

For example, olive oil consumption is emphasized in the Mediterranean Diet, whereas the Esselstyn diet featured in FON forbids any oil consumption.

The FON/Esselstyn diets are very low in any fats, typically <10%, whereas the Mediterranean Diet is typically 30-35% fat.

Esselstyn really doesn’t want you to eat nuts and avocados because he thinks the oil in them is bad for you. This is nuts! I’m handing out nuts to my patients just as they were given to the participants in the PREDIMED randomized trial showing the benefits of the Med diet.

Dr. Pearson’s Plant-Based Diet

Since the term “plant-based diet” apparently means whatever a writer would like it to mean, I have come up with my own definition.

With the  Dr. P Plant-Based Diet© your primary focus in meal planning is to make sure that you are regularly consuming a large and diverse amount of healthy foods that come from plants.

If you don’t make it your focus, it is too easy to succumb to all the cookies, donuts, pies, cakes, pretzels, chips, French fries,  breakfast bars and other  calorie-dense but nutrient-light products that are cheap and readily available.

In Dr. P’s Plant-Based Diet© meat, eggs, and full fat dairy are on the table. They are consumed in moderation and they don’t come from plants (i.e. factory farms).

I, like the PBD  definers of yore, have taken the liberty of including many vague terms in my definition. Let me see if I can be more precise:

Regularly = at least daily.

Large amount = 3 to 4 servings daily.

Healthy = a highly contentious term and one, like “plant-based” that one can twist to mean whatever one likes. My take on “healthy” can be seen on this blog. I’m not a fan of plant-based margarines, added sugar, whether from a plant or not, should be avoided, and the best way to avoid added sugar is to avoid ultra-processed foods.

Ultra-processed foods (formulations of several ingredients which, besides salt, sugar, oils and fats, include food substances not used in culinary preparations, in particular, flavours, colours, sweeteners, emulsifiers and other additives used to imitate sensorial qualities of unprocessed or minimally processed foods and their culinary preparations or to disguise undesirable qualities of the final product).

Ultra-processed foods account for 58% of all calories in the US diet, and contribute nearly 90% of all added sugars.

I do like the food writer Michael Pollan’s simple rules to “Eat Food. Mostly Plants. Not Too Much.” and this NY Times piece summarizes much of what is in his short, funny and helpful Food Rules book:

you’re much better off eating whole fresh foods than processed food products. That’s what I mean by the recommendation to eat “food.” Once, food was all you could eat, but today there are lots of other edible foodlike substances in the supermarket. These novel products of food science often come in packages festooned with health claims, which brings me to a related rule of thumb: if you’re concerned about your health, you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Why? Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it’s not really food, and food is what you want to eat.

On Dr. P’s Plant-Based Diet© you can add butter to your leeks and green onions.You can add eggs to your onions, tomatoes and peppersAnd you can eat salads full of lots of cool different plants for lunch.

To answer my titular question-if you are using Dr. P’s definition of a plant-based diet then you definitely should be on one.

Viva La Plant!


Which Kind of Baby Aspirin Should I Take To Prevent Heart Attack? Chewable Versus Enteric Coated Versus Regular

The skeptical cardiologist recently asked his Eternal Fiancée to grab a bottle of baby aspirin  while she was at the local Walgreen’s. Aspirin or acetyl salicylic acid (ASA) comes in either a 325 mg dose or in a low dose which can be between 75 to 100 mg and is often called “baby” aspirin.

However, since a link between aspirin use and a potentially lethal disease called Reye’s syndrome was identified in the 1980s, no authorities recommend aspirin in children or babies, and the low dose ASA (LDASA) is primarily marketed and used for prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Although Bayer and Dr. Oz would have us believe that all individuals over the age of 55 should be taking LDASA, as I pointed out here in 2014, the FDA no longer recommends it for prevention of cardiovascular disease.

The US Preventive Services Task Force, on the other hand, recognizes certain individuals without heart disease who benefit from LDASA:

The USPSTF recommends initiating low-dose aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and colorectal cancer (CRC) in adults aged 50 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, are not at increased risk for bleeding, have a life expectancy of at least 10 years, and are willing to take low-dose aspirin daily for at least 10 years.
I’m 63  years old, so the USPTF recommendation for me to take LDASA is a little less enthusiastic:
The decision to initiate low-dose aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD and CRC in adults aged 60 to 69 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk should be an individual one. Persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding, have a life expectancy of at least 10 years, and are willing to take low-dose aspirin daily for at least 10 years are more likely to benefit. Persons who place a higher value on the potential benefits than the potential harms may choose to initiate low-dose aspirin.
Following my own advice (see here), I have started taking 81mg of aspirin regularly (well, when I remember) in order to prevent stroke and heart attack. I do have subclinical atherosclerosis with a plaque in my LAD, and I think the aspirin will make my platelets less sticky and less likely to form clots if my plaque ruptures, thereby reducing my chances of an acute heart attack.
I am willing to accept the increased risk of bleeding from the gastrointestinal tract and hemorrhagic stroke associated with LDASA use.

Previous to this I had been taking ASA from little sample bottles that Bayer sends to my office. These bottles are quite annoying as they are stuffed with cotton and contain very few pills making extrication of the tiny pills an exercise in futility (I am using this as an excuse for my lack of regularity in taking them).

There’s no reason to pay the premium for Bayer ASA despite the company’s advertising attempts to link inextricably their name with ASA.  Aspirin is aspirin, whether Bayer made it or Walgreens. In Bayer’s defense, their website has reasonable information on heart attacks and they appear to be giving aspirin away to people named Smith.

But what type of aspirin should you get? Enteric-coated, safety-coated, delayed release, chewable?

Chewable Aspirin

I asked the Eternal Fiancée to buy the cheapest baby aspirin possible.

She ended up buying a chewable formulation with orange flavoring, presumably aimed at children:

When I put one of these in my mouth I tasted the sickly sweet taste of an artificial sweetener. The ingredients are listed as: Dextrates, Ethyl Cellulose, FD&C Yellow 6 Aluminum Lake, Orange Flavor, Sodium Saccharin, Starch. Saccharine! Yikes!

The only reason to chew ASA is if you are having an acute heart attack.

In this situation, chew 4 of the LDASA or one regular 325 mg aspirin.  Chewing the aspirin makes the levels rise faster in your blood stream and can help dissolve the clot causing your heart attack more rapidly.

How do you know if you are having a heart attack? This is actually a very difficult question to answer with certainty. See here for a reasonable discussion.

Low Dose Aspirin: Enteric-Coated versus Non-coated

It is very difficult (perhaps impossible) to find low dose, non-chewable ASA that has not been “safety-coated” or “enteric-coated.” These formulations have become popular by promoting the idea that they are less likely to cause stomach pain or bleeding.

The concept is that the coating leads to delaying the aborption of the ASA until it reaches the small intestines where, presumably, it will do less damage. However, there is no good evidence to support lower bleeding risk with enteric-coasted (EC) ASA.

There is, on the other hand, very good evidence that therapeutic levels of aspirin in the bloodstream, and therefore the speed and efficacy of ASA in preventing heart attacks, is reduced by these “safety” formulations.

The most recent study showing this was published in 2017.

Volunteers were given either 325mg regular ASA or 325mg EC ASA and researchers looked at how each formulation effected platelet activity.  The onset of antiplatelet activity was determined by the rate and extent of inhibition of serum thromboxane B2(TXB2) generation.

The EC ASA took longer and was less effective at blocking platelet activity than plain ASA. Presumably, this translates into lower efficacy in preventing heart attacks and strokes.

Therefore,  if you feel like you are having a heart attack, chew ASA which is not enteric or safety-coated. Yes, you can chew a regular 325 mg ASA pill. Or you can chew 4 of the LDASA, preferably uncoated but still helpful if coated.

If it turns out you weren’t having a heart attack there is no down side to having chewed 325 mg ASA.

I just spent a fair amount of time trying to find non EC, non-chewable LDASA online and failed.

For the time being I will be swallowing daily the orange chewable LDASA and I will carry a bottle around in my satchel for emergency use.

Salicylically Yours,


N.B. Aspirin is generally recommended in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, ie. for those who have had heart attacks, stents or bypass surgery . For a good review of the evidence for this see here.

Unbiased, evidence-based discussion of the effects of diet, drugs, and procedures on heart disease

%d bloggers like this: