The Truth Behind Statins: Helpful or Harmful? with Dr. Aseem Malhotra

Coming up on this episode of the Doctor's Pharmacy. It's estimated potentially about 1 billion people around the world are prescribed statins. It's also one of the most lucrative drugs in the history of medicine. It's estimated I think last year total revenues from sales of statins reached a trillion US dollars.

Hey everyone, it's Dr. Mark. I know a lot of you out there are practitioners like me helping patients heal using real food and functional medicine as your framework for getting to the root cause. What's critical to understanding what each individual person and body needs is testing, which is why I'm excited to tell you about Rupa Health. Looking at hormones, organic acids, nutrient levels, inflammatory factors, gut bacteria, and so many other internal variables can help us find the most effective path to optimize health and reverse disease. But up till now, that meant you are usually ordering tests for one patient from multiple labs. and I'm sure many of you can relate how time consuming this process was, and then it could all feel like a lot of work to keep track of. Now there's Rupa Health, a place for functional medicine practitioners to access more than 2000 specialty labs from over 20 labs like Dutch, Vibrant America, Genova, Great Plains and more. Rupa Health helps provide a significantly better patient experience and it's 90% faster, letting you simplify the entire process of getting the functional medicine lab tests you need and giving you more time to focus on patients. This is really a much needed option in functional medicine space and I'm so excited about it. It means better service for you and your patients. You can check it out and look at a free live demo with a Q&A or create an account at RupaHealth.com that's R-U-P-A-Health.com One of today's episode sponsors is ButcherBox. With all the factory farmed animal products at the supermarket, it's hard to find meat that actually supports your health goals instead of hurting them. feedlot cows are pumped full of antibiotics and hormones and they're fed corn that makes the meat not so healthy. And that is why I love grass-fed grass finished ground beef from Butcher Box. Ground beef is probably the most dynamic protein out there. I love how quickly it makes up a healthy meal without a lot of fuss or muss. Grass-fed meat is also better for the environment so you can feel better eating it. In fact, grass-fed and grass finished beef actually helps put carbon back into the soil, reversing climate change. And with ButcherBox, I get 100% grass-fed and grass-finished beef delivered right to my doorstep. They also offer wild-caught salmon, which I love, including in my weekly meal plans too. And grass-fed ground beef is the first protein I recommend for people who are trying to get more comfortable in the kitchen because you can just throw in a pan with some salt, herbs, and spices, and it just makes a great meal. My favorite way to cook grass-fed ground beef is by sauteing it with lots of fresh garlic and onions and peppers and cumin and chili and oregano and tossing it over a bed of greens for a super easy homemade taco salad. Just talking about this makes me hungry. So if you've been looking for a way to get higher quality protein in your own diet, be sure to check out the grass-fed beef from ButcherBox along with all their other humanely raised meats that are never given antibiotics or added hormones. They make eating well easy, delicious, and accessible. And now new subscribers to ButcherBox will receive ground beef for life. That's right. Sign up today and ButcherBox will send you two pounds of 100% grass-fed, grass-finished beef free in every box for the life of your subscription. So to receive this limited time offer, go to butcherbox.com/pharmacy. F-A-R-M-A-C-Y. That's butcherbox.com/pharmacy. Now let's dive into today's show, the next episode of the Doctor's Pharmacy. Welcome to Doctor's Pharmacy. I'm Dr. Mark Hyman and that's Pharmacy Without a Place for Conversations that Matter. And if you are confused about cholesterol, well, listen up because you will not be by the end of this. And you might have your thinking completely overturned from what the traditional concepts are about cholesterol, statins, what we should be managing, and what the real causes of heart disease and how to prevent them. And we have none other than my good friend, my colleague, A co-revolutionary in transforming the food system and calling out the injustices that exist within our food system that cause obesity and chronic disease. Dr. Aseem Malhotra from the United Kingdom. He is a National Health Service trained consultant in cardiology. So he's a cardiologist. He's a visiting professor of evidence-based medicine in the, I don't know if I'm saying right, Bahiana School of Medicine, Public Health in Salvador, Brazil. He's a founding member of Action on Sugar. And he also became in 2015 the youngest member to be appointed to the Board of Trustees for the UK Health Charity, the King's Fund, which I think is a very important fund. He's always in the media. He's always talking up. He's always telling the truth. And he's called out in many ways for his radical views, but he's testified in front of Parliament and is really doing so much to change thinking about health and wellness in the UK and across the world. He's written many articles in scientific literature, many of which have influenced me. He's become a good friend and colleague, and I am so glad to welcome.

You, Usman, to the Doctors Pharmacy. Thank you, Mark. It's an absolute pleasure always to speak to you.

Now, you've written many books, the P Yap Diet, 21 Day Immunity Plan. Your latest book is one I'm most excited about. It's called the Statin Free Life, a Statin Free Life, a revolutionary life plan for tackling heart disease without the use of statins. And I have always had a love-hate relationship with statins because they are a drug which has some benefits But what seemed to have happened is that there's been a wholesale embracing of this class of medication as the panacea for preventing and treating heart disease. And your book challenges that thesis. One, that LDL cholesterol is the problem, which is primarily what the statins do is lower LDL. And two, that statins are not a free ride. that they come with a lot of inherent risks and side effects. And three, they're actually not that effective and that the data we have has been highly manipulated. And it reminds me of a quote from, I think, Mark Twain or maybe Roger Williams, he said, there's liars, there's damn liars, and they're statisticians. And I think the way that the, the data get squeezed and manipulated often give the impression of a profound benefit. But you challenge that whole hypothesis and you challenge us to think differently about statins. So I think it's gonna be a very controversial conversation. I'm really excited about it and I hope to learn a lot because even though I've studied this for the last 30 years, I'm still fricking confused because there's so much data and you've just gone into it and I'm so happy to have you as a team.

Welcome, welcome, welcome. Thank you, Mark. No, absolutely. I think before we continue down this track and more detailed discussion, I think what people need to realize is that we are, I am, we are coming from a position about ethical evidence-based medical practice and about giving the right patient, the right treatment at the right time with informed consent. So really the book is, premise of the book is really about informed consent. It's about helping and empowering members of the public, patients, even doctors, to really have a better understanding of cholesterol and its role in heart disease, but also have an equal, if not more important, understanding of the role of statins in preventing and managing heart disease. And I really lay it all out for the reader. Based upon the totality of evidence, we all have our own biases, and I've done my very best to ensure that I've looked at all the evidence and tried to break it down independently. And at the same time, Mark, also give people an alternative plan, whether or not they choose to take statin. And again, I would always argue that's the patient's choice ultimately. But also to not be ignoring something that you've pioneered magnificently over many, many years, the impact of lifestyle, which as you know is more impactful in many ways than medications and come without side effects. And most of the time, actually, it.

Has a lot of lifestyle Lifestyle has a lot of side effects. Well-being, happiness, joy, good health.

Sorry, yeah, you're right.

All the side effects are good ones.

Positive side effects.

Better sleep, better sex, weight loss. 100%.

That's what it's about, right? Because we were all going to die eventually, but we want to have the best chance of having authentic happiness for as long as possible. And of course, our happiness is very much linked to our physical health as well. So this is really the heart of the book. And, you know, I've researched this, as you know, in detail, probably over a decade, looking at cholesterol, trying to understand the root cause of heart disease and trying to shift the conversation and shift the balance towards, you know, overall improving individual patients' health, but also population health as well. And I think where we've gone wrong is we've grossly, first and foremost, grossly exaggerated the fear of cholesterol in its role of heart disease. We've then now, because of that fear, the focus has been that the primary way of preventing heart disease is to reduce cholesterol. And the most effective drugs at doing that have been statins. So widely prescribed, markets estimated potentially about 1 billion people around the world are prescribed statins. It's also one of the most lucrative drugs in the history of medicine. It's estimated, I think, last year total revenues from sales of statins have reached a trillion US dollars. So there's a lot of money involved as well. And I think that is important for people to be aware because that, I think, introduces a huge bias into the conversation. a lot of vested interests depend on fear of cholesterol lowering and statins, you know, and other cholesterol lowering drugs. So it's like, well, actually, let's just break it down so that people are better informed. And then, you know, one of the things I've also advocated for is something called shared decision making, which is an approach where you have a more equal partnership when it comes to conversations with patients about any kind of treatment or investigation that they're going to go through, but except that it's really important that we take into consideration patients' individual preferences and values. So if you look at the evidence-based medicine triad, which is geared towards improving patient outcomes, there are three big components. So you'll use your best available evidence, your individual clinical expertise, and last but not least, patient preferences and values. And what I teach my medical students is if you are adhering to those principles, then you are going to increase your chances of improving your patients' health and wellbeing. And that's really what it's about. So that's really the background to the book.

That's great. I think that's a very important framework. And what I would like to do is zoom out for a minute and have you answer a couple of key questions. Because I hear conflicting versions of the data from cardiologists. And it seems, yes, number one killer in the world is still heart disease. However, I've heard cardiologists say we're winning the war because death rates are going down. We're better at actually treating the disease or better at preventing the disease. Statins have played a big role in that, and we shouldn't ignore that fact. But you suggest that maybe that's not true. And in fact, maybe that the death rates aren't going down, maybe heart attack rates aren't going down. So can you kind of unpack the data for us? And what is the truth about One, this massive drive to put everybody on a statin if your cholesterol is a little high.

Yeah, absolutely.

And the fact that maybe it isn't doing all that it's cracked up to do. So talk about that.

Yeah, that's a very good point. So let's try and break all of that down. So death rates from heart disease started to increase in the 1920s. Look at data in the US. Let's just look at US data, which pretty much parallels most of Western Europe as well. And it peaked around 1970. And then since 1970, the death rates have started to drop. But, you know, something I've published on the BMJ before is to, if you break that down to try and see what are the different factors that reduced heart disease, the biggest impact actually was reduction in smoking prevalence, probably responsible about 50% reduction in death rates. Other factors, emergency care, emergency treatment of heart attacks. So we had thrombolysis, these drugs called thrombolytics that help people. We had emergency stenting, which in the acute phase in a heart attack certainly is life saving, not in the stable phase. That's a different discussion, but certainly in the acute phase, the development of coronary care units. So what a lot of people used to die from heart disease, Mark, because they would suffer even once they were in hospital, they would have a cardiac arrest, which is more likely to happen within 24, 48 hours of having a heart attack. And we then developed coronary care units where we could monitor patients and then defibrillate them.

It's better rescuing them from what happens.

Once you get a heart attack. Absolutely, and in fact they are lifesaving. If you have a cardiac arrest and it's witnessed then you have, oh you're in hospital and it's because of a heart attack, nine times out of ten you'll be saved from a defibrillator and then you're fine and your prognosis is the same as somebody that didn't have a cardiac arrest. So all these things are there, maybe to some degree the reduction of trans fats in the food supply as well, that also had a role. But when you look at statins, and this is something that's actually recently being analyzed, they looked at Western European countries over 12 years since 2000-2012, right? To see had an increase in statin prescription for different risk groups, low risk and high risk, did that correlate with any reduction in cardiovascular death, death rates and heart disease? And the answer was no. The question is, well, how can that be explained? So again, let's break the data down. If you look at the average increase in life expectancy from taking statins from industry sponsored data. So we take that with a pinch of salt because industry sponsored studies, which are most of the statin studies in general, are designed and the results are geared to kind of exaggerate the benefits and minimize the harms. But if we take that at face value, okay, even though- I want you.

To stop there for a minute because it's such an important point. Yeah. Most of the data we have on statins is from drug company funded studies. Yeah. In which they actually often are contracting with research organizations to do the research. They're hiring essentially Hitman names to put their name on the study. They design the study, they write up the study, and then they get a bunch of cardiologists to sign off on it. Is that fair to say?

Yeah, Mark, absolutely. You're spot on. In fact, just to take a step back for a second, if you look at the issues around health misinformation, We have something called the Health Misinformation Mess, a quote I take from John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine at Stanford. There's something called the Seven Sins that contribute to misinformed doctors and misinformed, unwittingly harmed patients. They're rooted in biased funding of research, so research that's funded because it's likely to be profitable, not beneficial for patients, biased reporting in medical journals, bias reporting in the media, bias patient pamphlets, commercial conflicts of interest, defensive medicine, and an inability of doctors to correctly communicate health statistics to patients and also doctors to not understand health statistics properly. That's something that isn't taught very well at medical school and it's certainly not something we're encouraged to do. So I've been involved with the BMJ and the medical colleges in the UK in 2015 to try and help revolutionize medical practice through medical education and postgraduate teaching. But it takes time. I mean, I was reading somewhere that when you try and revolutionize or change an approach to something that's been embedded for a very long time within medical practice, apparently it takes 17 years, Marc, before that change happens. So we've got to keep fighting and campaigning for it. But you're right, this is the issue with statins is not dissimilar to many other drugs. And given that information, given those biases, even if you take all those biases consideration. Best case scenario, there was an analysis done to look at randomized control trials of statins in people with heart disease. Forget about prevention for a second. Statins benefits seem to be there much stronger in people who've already had a heart attack or people who've been diagnosed with severe blockages in their arteries. Okay. If you look at the, if the, from those people from the trials who took statins religiously every day for about five years, because the trials only tend to last about five years. before they're approved and before it changes practice. The average or median increase in life expectancy is over a five-year period, 4.2 days. So if we accept that slight increase in life expectancy over a five-year period, and then you add in the real world Mark, within a few years of statin prescription, even people at high risk of heart disease, at least 50% of those patients stop taking statins within two to three years. you can understand from a scientific perspective, from a data perspective, forget about any fraud or any conspiracy theories, just from the data that's already there, you can explain why statins may have not had any impact on reducing death rates from heart disease in the population. Now, when you look at individuals, and this is what doesn't often take place in the conversation between doctors and cardiologists and patients, and to be fair and honest on this, I think most doctors actually don't even know this information. That's another reason I wrote the book is to educate doctors so they can have better discussions with their patients. If you've had a heart attack, and this is by the way what I do all the time in my practice, so all my patient letters that go back to general practitioners, all the patients I see, I always put this in there, you know, in the discussion. If you've had a heart attack over a five year period for an individual, the benefit of a statin taken religiously over five years is it prevents one in 39 of those patients from having a further heart attack. and one in 83 in terms of delaying their death or saving their life. Right now, these are people who already.

Have had a heart attack or are at very high risk.

Absolutely.

We're not talking, and by the way, for everybody listening, 75% of the prescriptions for statins are not for people who have had heart disease or very high risk. It's for primary prevention. And the data on that is even worse. And I want you to explain that after you kind of unpack the fact that Gee, only one in 83 people have a death prevented. It means 83 people have to take this drug for five years with all the risks and side effects for one death to be prevented.

Yeah, and Mark, so the caveat in that, what's interesting is these are also most likely the patients that tolerated the statin and didn't get side effects because those people are somehow weeded out of the trials. Often we have something called the pre-randomization running period before a randomized control trial starts, where patients who don't tolerate the drug or non-compliant, they use this word non-compliant, okay? Which doesn't make sense to me because if you're enrolling in a trial and you volunteered, you're likely to be somebody who's enthusiastic about taking a drug, right? So that doesn't make sense to me. But very likely the people with side effects are weeded out within the first few weeks of a trial. And then you then report on the results from the people who tolerated the drug. Okay, so this is still a bias. So I thought to myself, they say, well, it's more likely those 1 in 83, 1 in 39 figures are people that tolerated the drug and were able to take it for five years. If you add in people who get genuine side effects, and sometimes we don't know whether the side effects they experience are statin or not, and I'll explain what I do with my patients to kind of weed that out. It's highly likely that that benefit is much smaller, if not even potentially non-existent. you know, we don't really know, but there's a chance that it's nonexistent and that's uncertainties. And we have to have those discussions with patients. I think doctors aren't necessarily very good at saying, listen, there's a lot of things we don't know, but let's just tell you what we do know. And of course, the potential biases and uncertainties. And Mark, in my experience with all the patients I've had these discussions with, even about talking about industry bias and all that kind of stuff, patients appreciate that they want honesty from their doctors. Anyway, so that's on the second prevention, the high risk. if you look at primary prevention, and you're absolutely right, Mark, most of the people prescribed statins around the world are not high risk. Okay. These are people who have got maybe a slightly high cholesterol or even have a risk profile. More importantly, that suggests they may have a, say, a 10 to 20% risk of having a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years. And there are risk calculators. People can go online and look at those risk calculators. If you have a less than 20% risk, if you're lower risk of having, you're not high risk from having heart attack or stroke, in the next 10 years, then the statin data suggests approximately convicting data, a 1% benefit. So, 1 in 100 in preventing a non-fatal heart attack or stroke over five years. But this is crucial, no mortality benefit. You're not going to live one day longer.

That's right.

And when you look at data and studies looking at when we presented this sort of information to patients in this way, and this is without talking about potential side effects, not even gone there yet, most of those patients, Mark, would choose not to take the pill. Can you think, it's extraordinary. So if we are actually adhering to the principles of ethical, evidence-based medical practice and informed consent, in my view, most people who are prescribed statins around the world would choose probably not to take the pill.

Now, that's not to say that cholesterol isn't a problem. The question is, how is it a problem and why is it a problem? And it's quite different than what we think. And the overarching narrative has been that LDL cholesterol is the cause of heart disease. And it's convenient because that is what statins do. But it reminds me of that joke of this guy who lost his keys on the street and he's looking under this lamppost and his friend comes by and he says, Hey, what are you doing? He says, I'm just looking for my keys. he says, where did you drop them? Well, I dropped them down the street. He says, why are you looking over here? He says, well, the light's better here. So we have a drug that can treat LDL, but it actually doesn't deal with the real root causes. And I just want to take a second for people to unpack why we're looking at the wrong thing when we measure cholesterol today. For the most part, most people get a total cholesterol, HDL, LDL triglycerides. But it turns out that LDL isn't even that good of a predictor of heart disease. Absolutely.

Yeah, really good point, Mark.

So, yeah, absolutely. Let me just finish this thought. And the Jupiter trial, which is one of the largest trials looking at statins and heart disease, found that if the statin lowered the LDL cholesterol, but not the CRP, in other words, if the C-reactive protein or the inflammation marker was high and you lowered LDL, It didn't really have an impact only if the inflammation was lowered. And so we now know that the underlying risks for heart disease are inflammation and insulin resistance, which drives something that we call atherogenic dyslipidemia or a kind of cholesterol profile that makes you prone to heart disease. Hey everyone, it's Dr. Mark. I always say I want to be 120, but I really only want to do that as long as I'm feeling great and still able to do all the things I love. Aging well requires some mindfulness and intention, but that doesn't mean it has to be hard. As I've dug into the research on aging and how one thing becomes super clear: we have to take care of our mitochondria. These are our cellular energy factories, and as we age and eat too much or sit at our desks too much or expose the toxins, our mitochondria deteriorate and our bodies suffer. I discovered this product called Mitopure from Timeline Nutrition that specifically regenerates mitochondria and supports cellular energy production. MitoPure is the first and only clinically tested pure form of natural gut metabolite called urolithin A. Comes from pomegranate. It's really cool, actually, that clears damaged mitochondria away from our cells and supports the growth of new healthy mitochondria. We can't directly get urolithin A from foods because we need our gut bacteria to create it for us. And since most of us don't have a really healthy gut microbiome, to actually get enough your lithine a out of food, Myoplex is a great solution. And right now, Timeline Nutrition is offering my community 10% off Myoplex, which you can get in a capsule, powder or protein blend at TimelineNutrition.com that's TimelineNutrition.com T-I-M-E-L-I-N-E.com/DrHymanDRHYNAN and use the code DrHyman10 to get the discount. I've been using it for almost a year now and at 61, I feel stronger and more energized than ever. And now let's get back to this week's episode of the Doctor's Pharmacy. So tell us about a new way we need to be thinking about cholesterol rather than just a simplified, oversimplified dogma of LDL statin, LDL statin, LDL statin, which you hear all day long. What is the things we should be looking at and what are those things and what are the causes of abnormalities in the real biomarkers of cardiovascular disease.

Sure. Great points you make there, Mark. So taking a step back for a second, just so people kind of understand where we've gone wrong with the science on cholesterol or why certainly it's outdated. And it's important for people to realize, I think a lot of people have this misconception that medicine is an exact science. And if something is truthful at one time, it must be absolute truth and it can't be challenged. But the reality is- well, yeah, exactly. But you and I know, I mean, the founder, if you're like one of the founding fathers of the evidence-based medicine movement, David Sackett, said 50% of what you learn in medical school will turn out to be either outdated or dead wrong within five years of your graduation. The trouble is nobody can tell you which half, so you have to learn to learn on your own. So I bring that concept into how I start questioning that dogma. And I don't think this was a conspiracy theory or malicious. I think vested interests have taken advantage of what is now outdated science. But traditionally, when people are trying to investigate the cause of heart disease up until the, you know, the 50s, 60s, 70s, we knew that we found, and this is still true, is that people with genetically very high levels of LDL cholesterol, okay? So this would be people who are not everybody, but usually at least have an LDL of more than 4.9 millimoles, which I think in US units is translated to 139 milligrams per deciliter mark, right? So those people who had at least an LDL of that level, most of those people had the genetic condition which affects one in 250 people, they had a very strong association with the development of heart disease. At the same time, people who had genetically low cholesterol and total cholesterol certainly, we're talking about less than 3.8 millimoles per liter, which I think would be, I can't remember the cut off, but I think it's probably less than 150, if I'm not wrong, total cholesterol. those people, one milligrams per deciliter, would have less heart disease, although they won't live any longer. But most of the people in the middle, when you looked at that data from Framingham, which is one of the original big studies that followed up 5,000 people in Framingham, Massachusetts, starting in the late 40s, over several decades, to try and find links and associations with various markers or risk factors and heart disease, in that they found that there wasn't really a strong association if you didn't have cholesterol at the extreme ends. So the next question then is, does lowering cholesterol, if we move fast forward, does lowering LDL cholesterol mark make any significant impact on reducing heart disease? Is there a correlation? And I published a systematic review in 2020 in BMJ evidence-based medicine. We investigated this. I was co-author with two other cardiologists, and we found that this mantra which comes out from cardiology societies that there's something with every one millimole lowering of LDL, you have a 20% risk reduction in heart attack, stroke, whatever cardiovascular events. It was simply not true. It was not true. We falsified it. We said there was no correlation. So there is no consistent, if I'm being skeptical of my own research, I can say there is no consistent evidence to show reducing LDL reduces your risk of heart attack or stroke. or cause mortality. Then you add in the other issue is something other research helps involved in is if you're over 60, it is, we did systematically published in BMJ open several years ago as a co-author if you're over 60, there is no association at all between LDL cholesterol development, heart disease, and an inverse association with LDL cholesterol.

It means that when you're older, if your cholesterol is higher, you live longer.

Absolutely.

Statistically live longer. But then it may be confounded by other factors.

So go ahead. Of course. But one of the explanations is cholesterol has a crucial role in the immune system. And there's a very interesting so that may be why they're protected. Okay. People are older with higher cholesterol. And actually, if you look at the 19th century, you go back when our average life expectancy, for example, is about 40 or 50 years, people with FH, genetically high cholesterol, Mark, live longer than average. And the reason for that is likely because, well, infectious diseases was the biggest cause of death there. So it wasn't, you know, so this is really interesting. It's just something to think about. On the other side of it, the most recent data published in BMJ, and this was last year, a Danish study looking at 100,000 people following them up over 10 years, different age groups, they found when you look at all causes of death, the optimal LDL cholesterol was 3.6 millimoles, right? Which is way higher.

How would you translate that to American units? Cause that's nobody's gonna know that.

Yeah, it would probably be, if we say that, it would probably be in the, in between 200, 250, something like that. It was much higher than what people are recommended to lower LDL. Sorry, no, of LDL, it was something like, I think, 100, 120, something like that. Okay. Okay. Well, people should clarify that. I can't remember the conversion at the moment, but that paper's there and it's translated. So Danish study, maybe we, you know, we can pull it up later, but, and it looked at the optimal for all cause mortality. What they found is if your LDL was very low, Okay, then there was an increased risk of death from cancer. So there is this association with very low levels of cholesterol and cancer and it could be again an immune system mechanism. So it just encourages us to think a little bit differently. We shouldn't be obsessing as our primary focus in managing heart disease at the very least about lowering cholesterol the better now. How do you reconcile this information, Mark, with statins benefits? And you've alluded to this already, is statins, most people aren't aware of this, statins have an independent effect. So they may lower LDL, but they also have a slight anti-inflammatory and anti-clotting mechanism. And heart disease is a chronic inflammatory disease exacerbated by something called insulin resistance, which we'll talk about, but also linked to abnormal clotting. And the reason I bring up the clotting issue is when you look, and we published on this as well, and it's in the book, if you look at FH patients, so about 70 of FH patients who are females.

Familial hyperlipidemia. Familial hyperlipidemia genetic condition where your cholesterol is like 300-400. It's really high.

They will not, 70 of those will not develop premature heart disease without treatment. About 50% of men, right? Will not. So the question is, are we able to differentiate in the FH patients, the ones that will develop heart disease and the ones that don't? Now, the first thing that's really interesting is we found there's no difference in their LDL between the ones that develop heart disease and the ones that don't, which makes you think, well, hold on, then LDL probably isn't even the issue with them. What is an issue, and there is some research on this, is that they tend, the people that tend to develop heart disease have some abnormal clotting factors, not your routinely measured ones, all sorts of different things that people can check. But that seems to be from lab studies and from other studies that suggest that FH people with heart disease have clotting abnormalities. this is the good news. When you look at the risk, what do I do with my patients? Well, of course, statins may have a role from anti-inflammatory processes, so you could still prescribe it from them. But we don't have this data about 1 in 39, 1 in 80. There's never been a randomized controlled trial to break down the absolute benefits. So we're presuming there's some benefit. But the people who have low insulin levels and low waist circumference had the lowest risk of developing heart disease, almost only slightly higher than the average person.

Which is really interesting.

So the focus on FH patients should be lifestyle that targets insulin resistance, okay? Which is basically, you know, your body's getting resistant to the hormone insulin. You've spoken about this, Marco, but, you know, because of lifestyle factors, high glycemic index carbohydrates, ultra-processed foods, not getting enough sleep, being overstressed, being inactive, all these things contribute to insulin resistance. So that should be the lifestyle approach. And actually, heart disease, most of heart disease is rooted the biggest risk factor, if you like, is insulin resistance. And you asked me the question about what you look in the cholesterol profile, which is a marker of insulin resistance. And that's having high triglycerides and low HDL cholesterol. And the rule of thumb is you want your triglycerides to be lower than your HDL in general to be, to have your cholesterol levels optimized.

Yeah. And the way you do that lifestyle. Yeah. I think, I think it's so important what you bring up. Because when you look at the data, I don't know, I've looked at, and I wrote an article which was fat, what I Got Right, what I Got Wrong, where I sort of unpack this a little bit. And I wrote about this in my book, Eat Fat, Get Thin. where essentially the biomarkers that are most relevant for predicting heart disease is not just LDL cholesterol. In fact, it's not a very good predictor of when you look at it. What the best predictors is the triglyceride to HDL ratio, which you just talked about. And that should be one or less, right? And that goes up when you eat sugar and starch. So triglycerides go up, HDL goes down. also, you get small, dense particles. You get small HDL, dysfunctional HDL. So even if your HDL looks okay, it might be dysfunctional. And then you also get dysfunctional LDL, which is the small, dense LDL particles. So it's not just that, it's just not the total number. When you, when you get a regular cholesterol test, you're just measuring the weight, literally milligrams per deciliter, you know, per 10th of a liter. How many milligrams of cholesterol? It's just the weight. When you, when you don't know anything about the quality of that cholesterol. So when you look at particle size and particle number, through innovative testing called NMR or cardio IQ, which is developed in America from Quest or LabCorp. Those actually help you figure out whether you've got this phenomenon we call atherogenic dyslipidemia, which is far more predictive. And what causes that is not fat, it's starch and sugar. In fact, fat can often be the cure for that. It actually raises the HDL. It can actually lower the triglycerides. In fact, triglycerides are fat made from sugar in your liver, right? Absolutely. So those are the real predictors. So insulin resistance then drives inflammation, inflammation drives heart disease. so when you look at the data on this in America, and I'm sure you're catching up in the UK, but 88% of Americans are metabolically unhealthy, meaning they have high blood pressure, high cholesterol or high blood sugar. And, and all of those are caused by insulin resistance or pre-diabetes this whole spectrum of metabolic poor health. And that's really what's driving heart disease. And this, and, and so statins have become the go-to therapy, but it misses all these other factors. And it's surprising to me how many cardiologists and how many doctors just don't even look at this data, which is, which I don't, I could not treat a patient if I don't know what their numbers are. Because I could see someone with a cholesterol of 300, an HDL of 100, triglycerides of 40, and they might have very few particles and no small particles, and they're fine. Otherwise, I'll see someone with a cholesterol of like 150, but their triglycerides are 300, their HDL is 30, and I'm like terrified for that person, right? Even though they're cholesterol is 150, which sounds amazing. Perfect, but it's not. So I think, you know, the, the thing about statins to sort of jump back to the statins is that they have what we call pleiotropic effects. In other words, they have multiple actions. One is lowering cholesterol or LDL, two is lowering inflammation through its effect on nitric oxide synthase, which is a, you know, nitric oxide is what Viagra does. It makes nitric oxide, but it actually also is a great vasodilator, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant. so there's a lot of secondary benefits. It may affect clotting, but it also has some negative effects, which I think don't get talked about enough. And I sort of want to unpack that with you a little bit. There's a major one is, is muscle damage. And I, I love to hear your perspective on this because I read a study once that was a biopsy study where they looked at muscle biopsies. There were two that kind of really terrified me about taking statins. And I want to hear your perspective because I do think statins have a role, but I just think they're overprescribed. the first study was looking at muscle biopsies and actually found that anybody taking a Statin had mitochondrial injury. In other words, the energy factories that produce the fuel that your body runs on actually get damaged, and you get a damaged mitochondria, which you can measure on a muscle biopsy. And mitochondria are the key to longevity and healthy aging and metabolic Health. So on one end, you're doing something to help, but you're also maybe harming. Two, it seems to cause insulin resistance, which is kind of counterintuitive because insulin resistance is the thing that causes heart disease. So you've got that. And the third thing is that this is, I think, related to the muscle biopsy study. It was also a terrifying study where they took two overgre overweight groups of people and they put them on an intensive exercise workout regimen. One group got statin, like 20 milligrams of zocor. I think another group, nothing. And they actually measured all their Fitness markers, their, their VO2 max, their metabolism. their muscle, all of it. And at the end of 12 weeks, the group that took the statins, despite the exercise program, was worse off than before the exercise program because they took the statin and the other group actually got much more physically fit. So can you unpack that for us and take us down the road of, you know, the pros and cons and, and then take us down the road of, of who should take this? Because I don't think it's a drug that we should ban or get rid of, but I do think it's overused and we need to sort of focus on one. who should take it and who should benefit, how we measure the benefits and risks. And then we'll talk about the next part of the conversation will be how do we unpack what are the real root causes of heart disease, what should we really be looking at and how do we really prevent it and treat it?

No, absolutely, Mark. So all really good questions and the kind of questions that patients ask as well that's most important. So in terms of the side effects issue, I mean, that's been very controversial over many years. Statins do affect they can cause many side effects, but the most common that we see in clinical practice is one of muscle aches and fatigue. Other side effects include people with stomach upset, brain fog, erectile dysfunction, you know, they can affect pretty much every organ system. So the way I approach it is if a patient comes in with an unexplained symptom, the first thing, I mean, that's been my default now anyway, with all patients, I think, you know, you need to, this is a, so you have to think my mindset is this is a side effect until proven otherwise, okay? So you look at the medication, we have a over medicated society and what you often find, what I do is I, as a trial and error, from a trial and error perspective, you know, I will give patients information about the potential benefit of the statin and say listen, I think what we can, most of these side effects generally are reversible very quickly. So you stop the statin, you have an informed discussion. Say, listen, why don't we just stop? You know how you feel, you know, and this is, I ask the patient if they're complaining of a side effect and often they already have this in the background anyways. Is it interfering with the quality of your life? And that's the crucial thing. If it's like an occasional, legal here or there, nothing much of an issue, then, you know, you still have the informed discussion, but there isn't necessarily an urgent requirement to stop and stat unless, of course, the patient's now fully informed and they're like, doc, you know what? I'm given that information. I don't really. I want to take this drug. Fine. Okay. We've had an informed discussion. But if they've got, say, fatigue or memory disturbance or something else, and by the way, I do this, I've been doing this for a very long time with many, many patients now. So I've got a lot of, certainly a lot of anecdotal evidence in my practice of this, that usually the patient's side effects, if it's a statin, disappears within a few days to a couple of weeks. And people are amazed about how they feel their energy is back, all that kind of stuff. and then the question is, well, do they want to go back on the statin or a different statin? And then you can try a lower dose, say they're high risk and they're kind of like, well, you're actually less likely to get side effects at lower doses. Say, for example, you've got 80 milligrams of atorvastatin, which is the highest dose you give people who have heart disease. You can then say, well, let's try you on a lower dose. And I explained that there's a slight anti-inflammatory mechanism, for example, let's try you on a lower dose, see how you tolerate that, be reassured, most of these side effects are reversible. If this comes back again, we just stop it, for example. So that's my approach to it. In terms of the prevalence markets, very interesting. I mean, you know, data varies from say anything from, you know, if you trust the industry-sponsored trials, they say like 1% of people may get muscle aches or fatigue. And then, you know, in my practice, I don't know, I mean, it goes from 20%, 30%, whatever.

So, you know, it's like one in five people taking the drug have pain muscles and they stop it, right? 75% don't take it out.

Well, exactly. Well, that's another interesting thing. In the real world, when you look at studies and surveys, you know, in one study in the US, Statin Usage Survey, 75% of people stopped taking the pill within a year of prescription. And when you ask the patients why, 66% of those said it was because they had side effects. So that makes you think, hold on a minute, there's something that doesn't add up here. And I don't think it's about, you know, they talk about something called the placebo effect. If the patient is going to be aware of potential side effect, they'll imagine it. And of course, that exists. But a lot of the awareness of side effects of statins, Mark, in the mainstream only came out really in the last several years. I mean, they were prescribed for a very long time under the belief those side effects didn't really exist. So I don't think these patients were imagining it. I think it's more likely they genuinely suffered side effects. I think that's really important. But either way, I think people should, doctors should be aware, patients should be aware that these potential side effects, which aren't serious or life-threatening at all, but interfere with the quality of life, and that's of course very important for people. are very common and you shouldn't be afraid of discussing with our doctor and having a trial period potentially after discussing with your doctor often. The other thing that we didn't mention is that when we talk about all this issue about management of heart disease with statins is that for many people it gives them the illusion of protection. So they think I can eat what.

I like, my cheeseburger and whatever.

As long as I'm on statins, they continue to gain weight. You know, and there was one study in JAMA Internal Medicine a few years ago that showed if you follow the people of similar risk profiles who were on statins and ones that weren't on statins over a 10-year period, the ones on statins gained more weight. And the reason for that probably is to some degree the illusion of protection. So again, this is about educating informed patients alone.

Or maybe because insulin, maybe because insulin goes up and insulin makes you gain weight.

Absolutely. Absolutely. That can, and we also know it does now it's been established about 1% of people who take statins will develop type 2 diabetes because of the statin.

Right?

So that's another exception. So there's a lot of information that people aren't being told and would change the decision making process. And that's really where we, you know, we need to change the conversation across the whole of medical practice. And it's taking time. I think people are becoming more aware. Doctors are becoming more aware. I think one of the concerns and issues I've had and I've campaigned on in the UK is that when you financially incentivize doctors, to meet certain targets of cholesterol lowering or targets of treating certain people at certain risk, then it's more likely to bias a conversation and the patient really is the one that suffers at the downstream because they're not really getting involved in fully informed consent. And that for me is ethically dubious.

Yeah. I mean, the challenge is that, you know, most doctors are very busy and they are seeing patients and doing good work and they want to do the right thing and they don't have time to go into looking at all the data and analyzing and sifting through it and sorting through it. And so they're hearing the sound bites. they're hearing the sound bites that generally come from continuing medical education. And I was once skiing and I joined a chairlift and I sitting on this chairlift with this woman. I'm like, Hey, what do you do? She's like, well, I'm in pharmaceutical marketing. I said, oh, really? I said, what do you do? She said, well, I put on conferences for doctors. So essentially, a lot of the medical conferences are funded by the pharmaceutical industry and they are putting their speakers on their having their spin on the data. And so the average doctor really is very hard pressed to actually get into the nuances of what all this data shows. And it's really unfortunate because they're missing the boat. And the other problem is, you know, in medicine, we don't like to feel disempowered as doctors. And when most of us have zero training in nutrition or lifestyle medicine, and the biggest cause of heart disease is insulin resistance, which is a lifestyle driven disease where for which there's really no good medication. I mean, metformin maybe a little, but it's kind of marginal and doesn't work as well as lifestyle. That's been proven many times over in the diabetes prevention trial and other trials. So like you're, you're, you're, you're, you want to do something, right? And so as a doctor, you want to help some, you want to help your patient, but this is all they know how to do and they don't even know how to diagnose insulin resistance. 90% of people with prediabetes are completely undiagnosed. and one story I read in from, I think it was from the UK.

About.

If I get the numbers right, I think the, two-thirds of everybody coming into the hospital with a heart attack had either diabetes or, or undiagnosed pre-diabetes yeah. That was the biggest driver.

Yeah. So, so two-thirds of people admitted to this large U.S. study several years ago that showed that two-thirds of people admitted to hospital with heart attack metabolic syndrome. So that's the worst type of poor metabolic health. You've got five markers which will go through and if you have three of those abnormal, which basically is linked to high blood pressure, pre-diabetes or type 2 diabetes, increased waist circumference, high blood triglycerides and low HDL. Those are the five. If three of those are abnormal, you have metabolic syndrome. 66% of people admitted with heart attacks in the US have metabolic syndrome.

So three of those are abnormal. But 75% of them had normal LDL and normal cholesterol.

So clearly, what did you just say?

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Slow down. You're talking fast. Slow down. You just said that 75 of people admitted to the hospital with a heart attack have normal LDL cholesterol.

Yeah. But this is from 2009.

Yes. But only 10 had optimal HDL.

Yeah, probably. Yeah, that's true.

And I think, I think. I think about 70 had abnormal triglycerides.

Yeah.

Right.

Yeah. So, so the question is, at that time, so why have we not changed things? I think one of the things you say you hit on the nail on the head there about lack of awareness of nutrition and that kind of stuff, one of the things that's also there's a huge lack of awareness is about how rapid lifestyle changes with diet at the forefront, but the other things, of course, are crucial, can improve those risk markers of metabolic syndrome. So one study showed that in 50% of people with obesity, that had a dietary change, which in this particular trial was low carb, okay, reversed their metabolic syndrome within 21 to 28 days, Mark, right? That's massive, right? So those risk markers are triglycerides coming down, HDL coming up, even blood pressure coming down some degree, getting out of pre-diabetes, getting out of type 2 diabetes, they start to have an effect. And that's why I wrote this. It wasn't gimmicky. I mean, 21-day immunity plan was also based upon those principles. and the same thing I talk about in this book as well, is that people will see the improvements in those markers very, very quickly if they adhere to the prescription, the lifestyle prescription that we, you know, doctors prescribe for them that really focus on insulin resistance. That's it. If you focus on insulin resistance as your end goal to improve fat through various lifestyle mechanisms, but dietary change alone is the only intervention Mark from any study that lifestyle study that can rapidly improve those markers.

What'S really striking to me is even at major, major heart hospitals around the world, the heart disease prevention diet, the cardiology diet again, when they go in the hospital, is a low fat, high carb diet. I know. And I'm like, what's going on here? I know. It's like we're living in the, in the dark ages, and the data that's now here is not getting incorporated into the practice of medicine, which is really unfortunate. So I love your work because what you're doing is you're, you're, you're not just taking things at face value. You're looking under the hood, you're looking at the data. and you're creating nuanced conversations that aren't black and white. It's like statins bad, you know, absolutely. It's really about looking at the honest accounting of what we know, we don't know, and actually where should we be looking? So as a cardiologist, what really is the best predictor of heart disease if it's not LDL? And what can we do lifestyle-wise to both prevent, treat, and reverse the risk and even the status of actually having heart disease. Yeah. So, Mark, so I think again, I.

Would come back to this, keeping the basics stuff that relatively, relatively simple to measure, inexpensive. Okay. So, you know, the things I always go through with my patients, like, so let's go through these, these five markers. What's your blood pressure? You want your blood pressure ideally to be less than 120 over 80. Now, the diagnosis is if it's more than one between 120 and 140 systolic. or between 80 and 90 diastolic then you have pre-hypertension and that doubles your risk of stroke and also contributes to heart disease so you want to look at the blood pressure HBA1C should be less than 5.7% between five and different I know different countries have different ranges but essentially between 5.7% and 6.4 is pre-diabetic and 6.5 and above is type 2 diabetic so you want your HBA1C to be less than so 5.7% ideally. You want your waist circumference for a Caucasian man to be less than 102 centimeters measured around the belly button and less than 90 centimeters if you're female. And then your triglycerides should be ideally less than one millimole per liter, which the equivalent, I think, in the US is, I think, 150 milligrams of deciliter Mark, you would probably correct me on that if I'm wrong. I think that's the range you should be less than. 150 and the HDR to be similar. So when you're above 150, right? So greater than one millimole per liter. And if you have those all in range, which as you said earlier on, actually having all those markers in normal range for the average American adult is only about 12% of adults. So 88% of adults in the US don't have those in the normal range, which is very troubling, right? And this isn't just older people, only one in four adults aged between 20 and 40 mark in the US have those in the normal range. So this is what we're dealing with. But the good news is, again, those are really indirect markers of insulin resistance. If you want to do more, slightly more expensive tests, and people get this in the US more easily than the UK, is you do a fasting insulin level. And there's different units. I won't give you, I won't get it wrong with, but there'll be a normal range. I think it's less than, should be less than six international units, I think, if I'm not wrong, in terms of insulin, fasting insulin, right? So that's another marker that you can use. So once any of those are out of the normal range, then you've got some degree of insulin resistance. So the question is, what can you do about it? And then it's, well, let's just go back to very basic principles. I keep it simple. So avoid ultra-processed foods. What are ultra-processed foods? Well, the data now, and I know you've been a big advocate for this, Mark, in recent years as well, and writing about this, is that, you know, more than 50% of the UK diet, more than 60% of the US diet.

Is now coming in terms of calories from ultra-processed foods. I think kids are 67% 67. Right.

It's unbelievable.

This is food that comes out of.

A packet that usually has five or more ingredients, a combination of, of sugar, starch, unhealthy oils. Okay. Usually with additives and preservatives. And that's a very simple rule. So I tell my patients, if it comes out of a packet and has five or more ingredients, it's the ultra process avoided. And that includes even packaged bread. Right. So these are things to cut out and then low quality carbohydrates. So minimize sugar and low quality carbs. So these refined carbohydrates are like fiber, your white breads, your pastas, your rice, your potatoes. Now, it doesn't mean you have to completely eliminate it. It depends where you're starting from. So a lot of people have also metabolic health already who are generally doing this stuff right. 80 of the time probably don't need to be as strict. But if you're starting from a position where you're type two diabetic and all your markers are off, then you have.

To be more extreme to see the bigger benefits. Right. So, you know, I might, I'm like, I have my insulin levels are like, less than five, pretty much about two. I have a six percent body fat. Yes, I'm bragging, but I, I'm pretty met about how they exercise a lot. I eat really healthy. And I went to Sardinia last summer, and I'm like, you know, here I am for a week. I'm, I'm just gonna, like, eat whatever, and I'm gonna eat the pasta, the bread, I'm gonna drink the wine. And I went, I, you know, I was treated well and had a very, you know, abundant diet, and I gained, like, five pounds, and I got the belly fat and. you know, it was. So even if you are extremely healthy, if you start to eat more of that stuff, you're going to start accumulating that. And. Yeah. And it's really, you know, unless you're just, like, doing a marathon every day, it's really tough to keep up with that carbohydrate load that we have.

Sure. So. Well, that's a really important point. Yeah. I think we have to be aware of that again. We become. And the different people are more sensitive to these carbohydrates as well.

Right. So.

I think, you know, one of the, there's a quote in the book from Dean Ornish, I quoted him, just to give people a concept to understand a bit of nuance with this management Mark is that it takes more to reverse disease than it does to prevent it.

Well, I think he was borrowing from Benjamin Franklin, which says that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Absolutely, right. So, I think, yeah, but in the bigger picture for most adult, you know, in Europe, Americans around the world, the big issue is ultra processed food, low quality carbs, as you said. And I think if you get that out of the diet, then it's about patient preference and the values. I'm an advocate for the traditional Mediterranean diet, but minus in the way we're living now, you know, the ultra, obviously the starchy stuff, because there is, as you know, we've talked about gut microbiome as well. The positive side comes from with the best available evidence we have and things evolve. seem to be that there is antioxidants, anti-inflammatory components with whole fruit and vegetables, extra virgin olive oil, nuts and seeds. You want to be getting obviously enough protein, you want to get all your nutritional requirements as well. So you think about, okay, how am I going to get all my nutrition requirements? So I minimize the need for supplements. I mean, I know supplements have a role, but minimize the need for supplements, right? And also reduce the chances of me developing insulin resistance from the diet. and if you focus on that's what I do with my patients, then as long as you get the base of the diet, right, other things here or there doesn't matter so much. So get the base, right? Cut out the crappy stuff, pardon my language.

Right.

And then it's about the preference of value is different cultures, right? Different types of foods, Indian food, Chinese food, whatever.

There's going to be obviously some big differences in a lot of the food that people eat. Yeah, I think that's right. And I think the lifestyle stuff is so huge. And you talked about the Pioppi diet, I talked about the Pegan diet. It's essentially focusing on quality. So whatever you're eating, the key concept is it should be high quality, meaning nutrient dense, processed whole real food. And you can kind of go up the chain, you know, eating a feedlot steak is better than eating, for example, you know, a bunch of bread, right? But it's not as good as eating wild elk or eating a grass-fed steak. So you can keep going deeper in the quality chain. the second is to really understand that food is medicine and that everything you're eating is regulating your biology in real time. And three, it's personal. Everybody's biologically different. And some people may be more carbohydrate tolerant than others. Some people may be more fat intolerant than others. And there are ways to figure that.

Out, which is really important. Absolutely. Absolutely. So that, that really covers a lot of the diet side of stuff. And then obviously, as a heart, you know, from a heart disease perspective, exercise. I think we've somehow overedit. The most important message is keep moving, do what you enjoy. Be careful of overdoing it. A lot of people get injuries. They overdo it. There's a, you know, especially if you're stressed out and you're doing more than, say, 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise a day, more vigorous side that can actually worsen your stress. So the data really says that, you know, 30 minutes of moderate activity a day. And you can do different things. You do Pilates, you do yoga, you do cycling. You know, I'm not a particular big. I used to be a runner. I've kind shift in more to cycling now because, you know, running on the road generally is not particularly good for your knees. I mean, I do sprints once a week, I do hits, right? So all these things are there, but do enough, but don't overdo it, right? With the exercise. And then the big thing, Mark, something I've discovered in the last few years, which certainly has a big impact on my patients, is stress, psychological stress, chronic psychological stress, which in its own right, and I write about in this book, is the equivalent of another risk factor, like high blood pressure or type two diabetes in terms of this cardiovascular risk. but a lot of people aren't managing that, not realizing how important it is. And of course, it links to inflammation. There's a lot of emerging data. There's this stuff related to clotting problems, increase in fibrin in the blood, which is involved in as a clotting factor. And what I do with all my heart patients is I ask them, you know, I do a very simple questionnaire kind of on them, and I ask them in, you know, 0 to 10 in the last few years, you know, these are people come, we've already got diagnosed heart disease, some people who've had scans done, they've got some furring of the arteries. And I say to them, where is your stress levels in the last two or three years? I know it's obviously been pandemic time, so it's a bit skewed, but in general, most of them say that their stress levels are kind of eight, nine out of 10 for the last few years, and they've not done anything about it. And then I write about in the book, we need better quality data, more data, but what's fascinating, the largest study on heart disease reversal, which was done in India, by a interventional cardiology specialist called the Mount Abu Healthy Hearts trial. Basically, it took patients with significant coronary disease, so well over 100 patients, moderate to severe, so at least 50 to 70% blockage in their arteries. These are people that didn't want to have a bypass operation, they want to have stents. And he put them through his healthy lifestyle plan. Now, in India, there's a lot of vegetarians, so it was a very high fiber vegetarian diet. There was some starch in there, but it was very high fiber vegetarian diet. It was moderate exercise. So two 30 minute brisk walks a day. Okay. And then it was something called Raj yoga meditation, which also wasn't just about meditating. It was like there was a bit of counseling. It was about reconnecting with your family and your friends and the social aspect, trying to reduce stress levels. Long story short, the end of the, you know, after two years of the trial, then followed for five years. They found that in the people that adhered to the lifestyle program, there was a 20% reduction on average in the stenosis of the arteries, which is unheard of, right?

You mean that the clogged arteries got better?

Yes. Yeah. They reduced from say 70%, 50%, 5%, 30%. I mean, extraordinary, right?

And this is no statin.

No statin. This is pre-statin, no statin. And then when they tried to look into what was the most important factor by far, of all the lifestyle factors that contribute to the reversal, it was 40 minutes of meditation a day. Wow.

Right.

So this is a big missing area, I think. And, and I think the other thing about the stress reduction, which links to chronic inflammation, that's the mechanism is that we think now heart disease, these plots that develop these blockages, they're Dynamic processes. So you get some inflammation, you get a plot formation, it then progresses. You can potentially, it seems, it seems that you can potentially reverse those blockages or reduce them. But the biggest factor so far, I think, that's been ignored is stress reduction through meditation. And as you know as well, if people incorporate that, then they're also more likely to sustain the lifestyle, the other lifestyle factors in terms of adhering to the diet. But their mental health is better, Mark. So it's quality of life. It's not just about something potentially being helped within the long term. Within a few weeks when people do this and some people need more help, you know, I find it difficult to meditate. just from using an app. I have a Pilates teacher that I started seeing a few months ago that comes to see me once a week. I need to probably do more. It was fascinating within an hour, even that session of Pilates, one hour, which is also, you know, it's a great exercise, but it's meditative. Wow.

You feed your stress levels. You just feel like a different person. Yeah. Yeah. It's true. I mean, I think that, you know, the mechanisms are interesting. When you look at stress, what it does is a number of things. One, as you mentioned, increase inflammation. Two, it increases cortisol, which is a hormone. that your body makes that actually causes your blood sugar to go up, your blood pressure to go up, causes your lipids to get worse. If you look at race car drivers before and after a race, their cholesterol goes up a hundred points just from the stress. And not only that, but it actually causes your fat cells to store more fat. So if you eat under stress, there's nerve endings that innervate your fat cells and the stress response communicates through your nerves and your autonomic nervous system to your fat cells and tells them to store the fat. So it's kind of a big deal. And I agree with you. I think, you know, we are under such a barrage of stressors in our lives, whether it's work, family stresses, financial stresses, COVID stresses, climate change. I mean, the new, I mean, just, I don't watch the news anymore. It's just too stressful for me. and yet it's so simple, it's free, it's accessible. And I've been practicing meditation for years and it's such a key thing to help regulate your life and your biology in so many ways. It improves the stem cell production, it reduces inflammation, improves neuroplasticity, brain connectivity. The data is just so powerful in this. And if anybody's really interested, you can listen to the podcast I did with Daniel Goldman about his book, Altered Traits, which studied advanced meditators using very advanced imaging technology, looking at their brain function and their, and their brain waves and seeing what happens when you have somebody who's been meditating for a long time. But it really doesn't, you don't have to be a professional meditator or you're living in a cave for nine years. Just 20 minutes a day or 20 minutes twice a day is very powerful. And, I personally use a technique. It's called Ziva meditation, Z I V A meditation. You can look it up online. You can take an online course, learn how to do it. Super easy. and you don't need any special equipment except, you know, sit on the floor or chair. And, and through that technique, you're gonna have all kinds of benefits, not just heart disease, but all kinds of benefits. So I encourage people to take heart to what you're saying, because I think it is one of those neglected factors. So diet, exercise, stress reduction, sleep. I think the, the, the data you presented on the reversal is quite interesting because most of us don't think we can, unless where you take aggressive high , you know, Dean O'Shannessy's work showed that there may be possibility through lifestyle interventions to change the course and actually.

Reverse, reverse the treatment.

Yeah.

And Mark, anecdotally, I'm getting patients and I will be writing about this soon and hopefully I'll be able to even fund a trial to try and get a bit more definitive in terms of the answers. But I'm seeing patients, many of my patients coming back who have either halted the progression of heart disease. So, you know, from imaging and some have even had some reversal. One patient recently contacted me and I was, I'd forgotten, you know, I was, and they said, you know, Dr. Marta, I saw you in 2019. She'd suffered a TIA, a mini stroke. She'd had a blockage in one of her blood vessels of 75%. And she emailed back saying, I've followed your lifestyle protocol. And I was shocked to receive this. I had to read it again. And she said, I've repeated the imaging. And now the reduction is gone to less than 50% within two years. I mean, and I'm just doing what the data, you know, I'm saying the very least that's reduced your risk. I don't give people false hope. promises and say, you know, there is some potential here, but your quality of life is going to be improved. We're going to improve your risk factors. And you, and hopefully, you know, there may be some reversal, but at least we can help stop progression at the very least, you know, according to what would happen normally. And, and, and the feedback is extraordinary once people want, once people follow it. So we need to try and get this more data, of course, but we.

Need to get this more inculcated into medical practice as well across the board. I mean, the behavior change factor is a huge thing. That's a separate topic, which we could spend hours on. I've had, yeah, had BJ Fogg talking about behavior change and I talked about the Daniel Plan and behavior change. So the power of community and the power of group support or medically, you know, group appoint medical group appointments or shared medical appointments can be very, very effective. And we've seen this that even getting people to change their lifestyle is and the outcomes are almost three times better using groups than actually one-on-one doctor visits. we've done that at Cleveland Clinic. It's really quite interesting data to see.

Yeah.

One last question before we wrap up. I want to talk about what's a hypothetical patient because, you know, for me, let's just say my cholesterol would be a little high. And I do according to calcium score, which is a way of measuring calcium deposits around the heart and the arteries, which, by the way, calcium is the body's band-aid where there's inflammation, calcium goes. and so it's an indirect marker of potential plaque. However, there's some questioning of the data around the benefits of coronary calcium, and there's new imaging techniques like a coronary angiogram with a CT scan that looks at soft plaque. There's a company called Clearly that looks at the analytics. They use sort of artificial intelligence. And how do you use that technology to help influence your decision about how to treat the patient and which patient would benefit from a statin, which which wouldn't because, you know, one of the things we're talking about with these, these levels, these numbers, I mean, abnormal cholesterol is not a disease.

Right. No.

Right. But, but it, but it's a predictor, potential predictor. But it's, it's, it's, you know, drawing a one-to-one correlation with any one patient is very difficult.

Right.

So, but when you look at their, when you look at the actual plaque burden and not just the calcified plaque, but soft plaque, which is the more vulnerable plaque to rupture, the more vulnerable to actually cause heart attack. How do you sort of navigate that decision tree with a patient and who would get what?

Yeah, so great question. It's all individual based. I think we have to walk before we can run. So you've alluded to the issue of calcium scores, which in themselves are still very, very predictive and very good in terms of their risk stratification. So they supersede all the other risk markers in terms of heart attack risk, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, whatever else. If you get a calcium score that's zero, close to zero, less than 100, then you your risk is very, very low of having a heart attack in the next 10 years, despite what's going on. Although I would always tell my patients, listen, you're lucky at this, you know, where we are right now, it hasn't caused any significant damage. But if you're carrying as you are, probably this calcium score is going to increase. So at least we need to sort your lifestyle out. And often I will repeat calcium scores in a year and give them some.

Reassurance of what they're doing is having, making a difference. So that's some one way it can be used.

So sequential casting scoring in terms of soft regression of calcium, can you see like.

Lowering the.

And the calcium score. Absolutely. But I think the other thing is, Mark, you're right about soft plaque. So the calcium score can sometimes miss soft plaque, but it's still very reliable. So we come back to the basics of the history. Right. What is their risk from the risk factors and an individual patient based? And if they're also getting, like, for example, you know, I've some, seen some patients that have got quite typical symptoms of angina, but think that they should just have a calcium score, you know, and is, you know, often the calcium score could come back and being relatively low, but you do a CT coronary angiogram. I think that's what you're kind of referring to. Some of which actually looks more detail and we'll see soft block and you can see a significant soft block. They're relatively less common, so I think it's something to be aware of. I think calcium scores still have a very important role, but if there is doubt, then of course you can just go for the full CT coronary angiogram and then you can see both calcified plaque and non-calcified plaque. So I think they have a role, but I think still calcium score still should be used much more frequently than just CT coronary angiograms based upon all the different risk profiles of that individual patient.

Yeah, very important. And I think some patients, for example, with a high calcium score or soft plaque, they might be candidates for statins, right?

Yes, and again, the data that I've read most recently suggests that the ones with a calcium score of more than 400, but then you're already automatically into the high-risk group anyway, which we've talked about, which is the 1 in 39 benefit from non-fatal heart attack over five years, 183. So it's pretty consistent still with what we know about, but people with the calcium score less than 400, there doesn't seem to be any big benefit from statins. I think one of the other slightly confounding factors is statins also increase coronary calcium. So they can potentially stabilize plaques but increase coronary calcium. So you've got to also think about that in the context of patients come back two years later. They've been on statin. Oh my God, why has my calcium gone up? Well, actually it may well be the statin, but then it could be this progression of disease. So in that situation, Mark, you could then say, well, maybe we should have a CT coronary angiogram and actually look, you know, more in more detail to make sure there's not been any significant stenosis or soft plaque or whatever else developing. that's the way I would approach it. But I think, you know, overall, in terms of where we're going with this and trying to make sense of what's going on in the world with ill health and everything else, you know, I look at things also philosophically and rationally, you know, and I always think about my purpose and our purpose as doctors ultimately is to improve patient outcomes. But, you know, what do we do for that? We use knowledge and the ultimate purpose of knowledge is to reduce human suffering. And, but that knowledge needs to be based on the complete totality of evidence on the truth. And one person I've recently, I'm just going to throw this in there that I've been very fascinated with and I follow his work. I know he's a bit of a controversial figure, but I like what he says, is Jordan Peterson, the clinical psychologist. And, you know, ultimately we need to speak the truth, we need to know the truth. And if we move away from the truth, then we're really going to increase suffering. And we're, in his words, you know, we are going towards hell. We need to redeem the world from hell. And by not speaking the truth, and that also requires courage at times, you know, people speaking out doctors when there's misinformation being propagated from vested interests, we have a role to actually speak the truth from a rational perspective. Because if we don't, the situation's only going to get worse. And even if we're avoiding conflict in the short term, we're going to increase further damage down the line if not for us and for our kids and the kind of environment and their futures. So I also have to look at this from a philosophical point of view as well, when you come into the whole issue around trying to help people understand what's going on. And I think everybody knows Mark, you just look around you. In the last 10 to 20 years, ill health is getting worse, mental health is worsening. There's a whole issue on a separate discussion about, and I'm not going to go into any detail on this, but even our management of the pandemic, about COVID about vaccines, about informed consent, All of that's there. And if we don't speak the truth and we don't get access to the truth, then the whole of the world and society is going to suffer. And you combine that with hostility and division, people taking, becoming very tribal about statins or whatever else, then we're based and exacerbated by social media. We are also losing, my concern is losing our capacity for empathy. as well as access to the truth. And that's sending us down a very, very dark to a very, very dark place. So our job now is to reverse that.

Yeah. Well, thank you for Asim for your work. And thank you for being one of the, you know, really leading voices in showing us what the data actually say for, for taking the time, which is, you know, precious to do the hard work of looking at these studies, going back to the original data, dissecting them, making sense of them, and actually sharing with people what we know and what we don't know. And being honest and transparent about it, you're not anti-stat, you're just pro-truth.

Yes.

And I think just to kind of summarize, 'cause we unpacked a lot and then we'll close up, the most important thing people need to realize is that heart disease is not a statin deficiency. number two, that it's primarily driven by lifestyle and primarily by the amounts of carbohydrates that we're eating, sugar and starch, flour and sugar. And three, that the over focus on LDL is misguided. And then, in fact, it may be other biomarkers such as triglycerides and HDL or the total cholesterol to HDL ratio or the inflammation biomarkers or oxidative markers around cholesterol or the particle number particle size, things that we're not typically looking at insulin. I mean, if I had one test to look at heart disease, actually risk, I would do a glucose tolerance test measuring insulin fasting and one to two hours later because that I was going to tell me almost more than any of the other tests. And it's something that most people don't do. Sure. And then the, the other thing we kind of covered was that we need to do the right cholesterol profile, which is the NMR or Carter IQ test from LabCorp Quest, which you can from your doctor, it's a much better way of looking at the total picture along with the other biomarkers of blood sugar, insulin, A1C, inflammation markers, and so forth. And that, and that the good news is that according to the EPIC trial and many other studies, 90% of heart disease could be prevented by simple lifestyle changes, eating a whole foods, real food diet, exercising a little bit, not smoking, keeping to your ideal body weight, I mean, that's pretty simple. And yet on meditation, you might even get a better benefit. That's a 90% reduction, right? That's actually really relevant. And yet statins, although they are good for certain patients with high risk conditions or with lots of plaque or who've had heart attacks, they do form part of the toolkit. But I would just sort of emphasize that I saw this one sort of medical journal that said, lifestyle doubles the benefits of statins. And I'm like, oh God, that is such a poor framing. In fact, lifestyle may be all you need if you are aggressive enough. And I have patient after patient, I'm sure you do, who are on all the medications. They're on high blood pressure medication, they're on statins, they're on aspirin, they're on all kinds of cardiology medications. And they've had a heart attack and their numbers are better off the statin once we fix the underlying lifestyle issues. Actually, their whole profile looks better. So that's to say that you need to have a more nuanced view around statins, a nuanced view on heart disease to deal with the root causes of it. And I really encourage everybody listening to get a copy of Aseem's new book. It's called A Statin-Free Life. And it's such a good summary of the data and the research. He's done the hard work. He's told us actually what we need to be thinking about in a way that that is really refreshing. It's coming from a cardiologist. And of course, you're an honest broker. You don't have any vested interest. You're not getting big funding from pharma. You're often vilified in the press. You're taking a lot of arrows in your back, but you're telling the truth. And I think for people listening who are on a statin, who have high cholesterol, whose doctors told them to take a statin, this book is really important. A statin-free life, a revolutionary life plan for tackling heart disease without the use of statins. available anywhere you get your books. I want you to get it and read it. And if you know somebody who's got some issues, send it to them, too, as a good present. And if you love this podcast, share with everybody on social media. Subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Leave a comment. How have you manage your risks? How, how, how statins helped you or not? Or what side effects have you had? Tell us about your story. We want to hear. And we'll see you next. on the Doctor's Pharmacy.

Hey everybody, it's Dr. Hyman.

Thanks for tuning into the Doctor's Pharmacy. I hope you're loving this podcast. It's one of my favorite things to do and introducing you all the experts that I know and I love and that I've learned so much from. And I wanna tell you about something else I'm doing, which is called Mark's Picks. It's my weekly newsletter. And in it, I share my favorite stuff from foods to supplements to gadgets to tools to enhance your health. It's all the cool stuff that I use and that my team uses to optimize and enhance our health. And I'd love you to sign up for the weekly newsletter. I'll only send it to you once a week on Fridays. Nothing else, I promise. And all you have to do is go to drhyman.com/picks to sign up. That's drhyman.com/picks, P-I-C-K-S, and sign up for the newsletter and I'll share with you my favorite stuff that I use to enhance my health. and get healthier and better and live younger longer. Hi everyone, I hope you enjoyed this week's episode.

Just a reminder that this podcast is for educational purposes only. This podcast is not a substitute for professional care by a doctor or other qualified medical professional.

This podcast is provided on the understanding.

That it does not constitute medical or other professional advice or services. If you're looking for help in your journey, seek out a qualified medical practitioner. If you're looking for a functional medicine practitioner, you can visit ifm.org and search their find a practitioner database. It's important that you have someone in your corner who's trained, who's a licensed.

Healthcare practitioner, and can help you make changes, especially when it comes to your health. Don't forget, there's a way to listen completely ad free with Hyman plus on Apple podcasts. You can enjoy every episode without any breaks. Just open Apple podcasts and tap try free to start your seven day free trial.