Fat and fiber composition of nuts

30. November 2008 William Davis (16)


From Mukuddem-Petersen J, Oosthuizen1 W, Jerling JC. J Nutr 2005.



If you haven't yet done so, adding raw nuts to your health program yields a broad panel of health benefits.

Contrary to conventional advice, nuts can be eaten in unlimited quantities. Provided they are raw--unroasted, unsalted (since salting only accompanies roasted nuts), not roasted in unhealthy oils like hydrogenated cottonseed or soybean (very common)--they do not make you fat, regardless of the quantity consumed. Beer nuts, honey-roasted nuts, mixed nuts roasted in unhealthy oils with salt added are either fattening or exert other unhealthy effects (e.g., hypertension, rise in Lp(a), and cancer from the hydrogenated fats).

Some notable observations from the chart:

--Hazelnuts and macadamians are the richest in monounsaturates
--Walnuts are the richest in the omega-6 linoleic acid, while also richest in the "omega-3" linolenic acid.
--From a fat composition standpoint, raw cashews and dry roasted peanuts aren't so bad.
--Pistachios figure pretty favorably in this analysis, rich in monounsaturates.
--Coconuts are unusually rich in saturated fat, though about half is lauric acid--an issue for future conversation.



Here's a listing of the fiber composition of nuts per 1 oz serving (about a handful):

Almonds (24 nuts) 3.5 g
Brazilnuts, dried (6-8 nuts) 2.1 g
Cashew nuts, dry roasted, with salt added (18 nuts) 0.9 g
Hazelnuts or filberts 2.7 g
Macadamia nuts, dry roasted, with salt added (10-12 nuts) 2.3 g
Mixed nuts, dry roasted, with peanuts, with salt added 2.6 g
Peanuts, all types, dry-roasted, without salt 2.3 g
Pecans (20 halves) 2.7 g
Pine nuts, dried 1.0 g
Pistachio nuts, dry roasted, with salt added (47 nuts) 2.9 g
Walnuts, English (14 halves) 1.9 g

Data courtesy USDA Nutrient Database


Note that almonds are the winners with 3.5 grams fiber per ounce, pistachios a close second. Pine nuts and cashews place last on the fiber content chart.

Not addressed by the charts is protein content of nuts, as well as the low sugar content, all additional beneficial aspects of nuts. Nuts are also a moderate source of magnesium (though seeds like pumpkin and sunflower shine in the magnesium content area).

Rather than micromanage the specific fat and fiber content of your diet, why not get a little of the good of everything on the list and just mix and match the nuts? (Mixed and matched on your own, of course, not a hydrogenated cottonseed oil nut mixture).

Flush-free niacin kills

29. November 2008 William Davis (12)
Here, I re-post a conversation I've posted before, that of the scam product, "no-flush" niacin, also known as "flush-free" niacin.

I find this issue particularly bothersome, since I have a patient or two each and every week who forgets the explicit advice I gave them to avoid these scam products altogether. Despite costing more than conventional niacin, they exert no effect, beneficial or otherwise. Niacin--the real thing--exerts real and substantial beneficial effects. No-flush or flush-free does nothing except drain your wallet. I continue to marvel at the fact that supplement manufacturers persist in selling this product. Ironically, it commands a significant premium over other niacin forms.

They are outright scams that should be avoided altogether.


My former post, No-flush niacin kills:

Gwen was miserable and defeated.

No wonder. After a bypass operation failed just 12 months earlier with closure of 3 out of 4 bypass grafts, she has since undergone 9 heart catheterization procedures and received umpteen stents. She presented to me for an opinion on why she had such aggressive coronary disease (despite Lipitor).

No surprise, several new causes of heart disease were identified, including a very severe small LDL pattern: 100% of LDL particles were small.

Given her stormy procedural history, I urged Gwen to immediately drop all processed carbohydrates from her diet, including any food made from wheat or corn starch. (She and her husband were shocked by this, by the way, since she'd been urged repeatedly to increase her whole grains by the hospital dietitians.) I also urged her to begin to lose the 30 lbs of weight that she'd gained following the hospital dietitians' advice. She also added fish oil at a higher-than-usual dose.

I asked her to add niacin, among our most effective agents for reduction of small LDL particles, not to mention reduction of the likelihood of future cardiovascular events.

Although I instructed Gwen on where and how to obtain niacin, she went to a health food store and bought "no-flush niacin," or inositol hexaniacinate. She was curious why she experienced none of the hot flush I told her about.

When she came back to the office some weeks later to review her treatment program, she told me that chest pains had returned. On questioning her about what she had changed specifically, the problem became clear: She'd been taking no-flush niacin, rather than the Slo-Niacin I had recommended.

What is no-flush niacin? It is inositol hexaniacinate, a molecule that indeed carries six niacin molecules attached to an inositol backbone. Unfortunately, it exerts virtually no effect in humans. It is a scam. Though I love nutritional supplements in general, it pains me to know that supplement distributors and health food stores persist in selling this outright scam product that not only fails to exert any of the benefits of real niacin, it also puts people like Gwen in real danger because of its failure to provide the effects she needed.

So, if niacin saves lives, no-flush niacin in effect could kill you. Avoid this scam like the plague.

No-flush niacin does not work. Period.


Disclosure: I have no financial or other relationship with Upsher Smith, the manufacturer of Slo-Niacin.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

CT coronary angiography is NOT a screening procedure

28. November 2008 William Davis (3)
I've recently had several hospital employees tell me that their hospitals offered CT coronary angiograms without charge to their employees.

Among these hospital employees were several women in their 30s and 40s.

Why would young, asymptomatic, pre-menopausal women be subjected to the equivalent of 100 chest x-rays or 25 mammograms? Is there an imminent, life-threatening, symptomatic problem here?

All of these women were without symptoms, some were serious exercisers.

There is NO rational justification for performing CT coronary angiography, free or not.

What they really want is some low-risk, yet confident means of identifying risk for heart disease. Cholesterol, of course, is a miserable failure in this arena. Framingham risk scoring? Don't make me laugh.

Step in CT coronary angiography. But does CT coronary angiography provide the answers they are looking for?

Well, it provides some of the answers. It does serve to tell each woman whether she "needs" a heart procedure like heart catheterization, stent, or bypass surgery, since the intent of CT angiography is to identify "severe" blockages, sufficient to justify heart procedures.

Pitfalls: Because of the radiation exposure, CT angiography is not a procedure that can be repeated periodically to reassess the status of any abnormal findings. A CT angiogram every year? After just four years, the equivalent of 400 chest x-rays will have been performed, or 100 mammograms. Cancer becomes a very real risk at this point.

CT angiography is also not quantitative. Sure, it can provide a crude estimation of the percent blockage--the value your cardiologist seeks to "justify" a stent. But it does NOT provide a longitudinal (lengthwise) quantification of plaque volume, a measure of total plaque volume that can be tracked over time.

What's a woman to do? Simple: Get the test that, at least in 2008, provides the only means of gauging total lengthwise coronary plaque volume: a simple CT heart scan, a test performed with an equivalent of 4 - 10 chest x-rays, or 1 - 2.5 mammograms.

Perhaps, in future, software and engineering improvements will be made with CT coronary angiography that reduce radiation to tolerable levels and allows the lengthwise volume measurement of plaque. But that's not how it's done today.

The Wheat Deficiency Syndrome

26. November 2008 William Davis (21)
Beware the dreaded Wheat Deficiency Syndrome.

Like any other syndrome, you can recognize this condition by its many tell-tale signs:

--Flat abdomen
--Rapid weight loss
--High energy
--Less mood swings
--Better sleep
--Diminished appetite
--Reduced blood sugar
--Reduced blood pressure
--Reduced small LDL and total LDL
--Increased HDL
--Reduced triglycerides
--Reduced C-reactive protein and other inflammatory measures


Of course, you could choose to cure yourself of this syndrome simply by taking the antidote: foods made with wheat flour, like bread, breakfast cereals, pastas, pretzels, crackers, and muffins.

All the signs of the syndrome will then disappear and you can have back your protuberant abdomen, irrational mood swings, exagerrated appetite, higher blood sugar, etc.

The Framingham Crap Shoot

22. November 2008 William Davis (2)
The Framingham risk score is a risk-assessment tool that has become the basis for heart disease prediction used by practicing physicians.

The Framingham system determines that:

· 35% of the adult population in the U.S., or 70 million, is deemed “low-risk.” Low-risk is defined as the absence of standard risk factors for heart disease; low-risk persons have no more than a 1-in-20 chance (5%) of dying from heart disease in the next 10 years. Physicians are advised by the American Heart Association (AHA) and its experts that no specific effort at risk reduction is necessary.

· 25%, or approximately 50 million, U.S. adults are deemed “high-risk,” based on the presence of 2 or more risk factors. High-risk persons experience a 20%-30% likelihood of heart attack in the next 10 years. People at high-risk are candidates for preventive efforts according to the guidelines set by the Adult Treatment Panel-III (Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults; ATP-III) for cholesterol-reducing statin drug treatment and for “lifestyle-modifying” advice.

· The remaining 40% of the adult population, or 80 million people, are judged “intermediate-risk,” with the likelihood of heart attack between 5-20% over the next 10 years. This group should receive preventive advice and might be considered for statin drug treatment.


Let’s do some arithmetic. By the above scheme, the low-risk population will experience 3,500,000 heart attacks over the next decade, or 350,000 heart attacks per year.

The intermediate-risk population (without preventive treatment) will experience 8,000,000 heart attacks over the 10-year time period, or 800,000 per year.

The high-risk population, the group most likely to receive standard advice on diet, exercise, and be prescribed statin cholesterol drugs, will have their risk reduced by 35% by preventive efforts over the 10-year period. This means that heart attacks over 10 years will be reduced from 12,500,000 to 8,125,000 by standard prevention efforts, or reduced to 812,500 heart attacks per year.

These numbers are no secret. They are well known facts that have simply come to be accepted by the medical community. In other words, the standard approach to heart attack prediction makes the fact that two million people will succumb to cardiovascular events in the next year no mystery. This exercise in prediction is coldly accurate when applied to a large population.

The problem is that this approach cannot reliably distinguish which individuals will have a heart attack from those who will not.

From 100 people chosen at random, for instance, the numbers game played above will not confidently identify who among those 100 will have a heart attack, who will not, who will develop anginal chest pains and end up with stents or bypass surgery, or who will die. We just know that some of them will. Some people at high risk will have a heart attack, some people at intermediate risk will have a heart attack, some people at low risk will have a heart attack.

For any specific individual (like you or me), it’s a crap shoot.

That's why precise individual measurement of cardiovascular risk is required for real risk assessment, not applying broad statistical observations and forcing them to conform to the unique life of a specific individual, particularly risk calculators with as few risk parameters as the Framingham risk score.

At what score should a heart catheterization be performed?

21. November 2008 William Davis (2)
That's easy: NONE.

(Although I've addressed this previously, the question has come up again many times and I thought it'd be worth repeating.)

In other words, no heart scan score--100, 500, 1000, 5000--should lead automatically to procedures in someone who underwent a heart scan but has no symptoms.

This question is a common point of confusion.

In other words, is there a specific cut-off that automatically triggers a need for catheterization?

In my view, there is no such score. We can't say, for instance, that everybody with a score above 1000 should have a catheterization. It is true that the higher your score, the greater the likelihood of a plaque blocking flow. A score of 1000 carries an approximately 25-30% likelihood of reduced blood flow sufficient to consider a stent or bypass. This can nearly always be settled with a stress test. Recall that, despite their pitfalls for uncovering hidden heart disease in the first place, stress tests are useful as gauges of coronary blood flow.

But even a score of 1000 carries a 70-75% likelihood that a procedure will not be necessary. This is too high to justify doing heart catheterizations willy-nilly.

Unfortunately, some of my colleagues will say that any heart scan score justifies a heart cath. I believe this is absolutely, unquestionably, and inexcusably wrong. More often than not, this attitude is borne out of ignorance, laziness, or a desire for profit.

Does every lump or bump justify surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy on the chance it could represent cancer? Of course not. There is indeed a time and place for these things, but judgment is involved.

In my view, no heart scan score should automatically prompt a major heart procedure like heart catheterization in a person without symptoms. If a stress test is normal, signifying normal coronary flow (and there are no other abnormal phenomena, such as abnormal left ventricular function), then there is no defensible rationale for heart procedures. Heart procedures like stents and bypass cannot prevent heart attacks in future; they can only restore flow when flow is poor, or stop the heart attack that is about to occur.

However, EVERY heart scan score above zero is a reason to engage in a program of prevention.

"It's genetic"

17. November 2008 William Davis (17)
At 53, Sam had been through the wringer with heart disease. After his first heart attack at age 50, he'd undergone four heart catheterizations, 5 stents, and, most recently, a bypass operation. He came to us to see if there was a better solution.

After hearing Sam's story, I asked,"Did your doctors suggest to you why you had heart disease?"

"Well, they said it was genetic, since my father went through the same thing in his early 50s, though he died after his second heart attack at age 54. They said it was bad luck and nothing could be done about it."

Though Sam's case is more dramatic than most, I hear this argument every day: Risk for heart disease is genetic.

It's true: There are indeed multiple reasons for inheriting causes for coronary heart disease, genes that heighten inflammatory responses, oxidative responses, modify lipoprotein particles, increase blood pressure, etc. There has even been some excitement over developing chromosomal markers for heightened risk.

That's all well and fine, but what can we do about it today?

In practical life, many inherited genetic patterns can be expressed in ways that you and I can identify--and correct. They are not chromosomal markers, but end products of genetic patterns. (Although there are indeed identifiable chromosomal markers, they have not yet led to meaningful treatments to my knowledge.)

These readily identifiable patterns include:

--Lipoprotein(a)--Clearly genetically transmitted, passed from mother or father to each child with a 50% likelihood, then you onto your children if you have it.

--Small LDL--Although small LDL is amplified by high-carbohydrate diets and obesity, it can also occur in slender people who do not indulge in carbohydrates --i.e., a genetic tendency. Or, it can be a combination of poor lifestyle magnifying the genetic tendency for small LDL.

--Low HDL--Particularly the extremes of low HDL below 30 mg/dl. (Although, interestingly, I am seeing more of these people, though not all, respond to vitamin D replacement. Perhaps an important subgroup of low HDL people are really Vitamin D Receptor (VDR) variants.)

--ApoE--Two variants are relevant: ApoE2 and ApoE4. In my experience, it's the E2 that carries far greater significance, though the data are somewhat scanty. ApoE4 people are more sensitive to the fats in their diet (greater rises in LDL with fats; thus, some people advocate a tighter saturated fat restriction with this pattern, though I am not convinced that is the best solution), while ApoE2 people are exceptionally sensitive to carbohydrates, develop extravagant increases in triglycerides, and are very diabetes-prone with even the most minimal weight gain. If two "doses" of the E2 gene are present (homozygotic), then the tendencies are very exagerrated. E4 people are also subject to greater likelihood of Alzheimer's, though it is not a certain risk in a specific individual.

--Postprandial disorders--We use the fasting intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL) as an easy, obtainable index of the ability to clear after-eating byproducts of meals from the blood. Increased IDL has been related to increased coronary, carotid, and aortic aneurysmal disease.

--Hypertriglyceridemia-i.e., increases in triglycerides, While not all forms of high triglycerides confer risk for atherosclerosis, many do, particularly if associated with IDL, small LDL, increased LDL particle number and/or apoB.


There are more, but you get the point. There are clear-cut genetically-transmitted reasons for greater risk for cardiovascular disease. Some, like lipoprotein(a), yield very high risk. Others, like increased triglycerides, yield mixed levels of risk.

Importantly, all of these patterns--ALL--are identifiable and are treatable. Treatment may not always be the easiest thing, but they are treatable nonetheless. While lipoprotein(a), for instance, is the most difficult pattern to correct in the above list, I remind everyone that our current "record holder" for reversal of plaque and heart scan scores--63% reduction--has lipoprotein(a) that we corrected.

If you've been told that your risk for cardiovascular disease or coronary plaque is "genetic" and thereby uncorrectable and hopeless, run the other direction as fast as you can. Get another opinion from someone willing to take the modest effort to tell you precisely why.

Tim Russert Revisited

16. November 2008 William Davis (7)
A Heart Scan Blog reader brought this piece by Dr. MacDougall to my attention.

Dr. MacDougall created a fictitious posthumous conversation between himself and the late Tim Russert. MacDougall paints a picture of a hardworking, hard-living man who adhered to an overindulgent lifestyle of excessive eating. He concludes that a vegetarian, low-fat diet would have saved his life.

Beyond being disrespectful, I would differ with Dr. MacDougall’s assessment. In fact, I’ve heard an interview with Mr. Russert’s primary care physician in which the doctor claimed that Mr. Russert had been counseled on the need for a low-fat diet and, in fact, adhered to it quite seriously. Far from being an overindulgent, overeating gourmand, he followed the dictates of conventional dietary wisdom according to the American Heart Association. The low-fat diet articulated by Dr. MacDougall is simply a little more strict than that followed by Mr. Russert.

What exactly could Mr. Russert have done to prolong his life? Several basic strategies:

--Added fish oil. This simple strategy alone would have reduced the likelihood of dying suddenly by almost half.

--Eliminated wheat and cornstarch—Mr. Russert developed diabetes in the last few years of his life. By definition, diabetes is an inability to handle sugars and sugar-equivalents. Wheat and cornstarch yield immediate and substantial surges in blood sugar greater than table sugar; elimination causes weight to plummet, blood sugar to drop, and diabetes (at least in its early phases) can be eliminated in many people, particularly those beginning with substantial excess weight.

Just those two strategies alone would more than likely have avoided the tragic death that brought Mr. Russert’s wonderful life and career to an abrupt end.

Of course, he could have even taken his heart health program even further, as we do in the Track Your Plaque program. While the conversation has focused on how to avoid tragic events like sudden cardiac death, why not take it a step farther and ask, "How can coronary plaque be measured, tracked, and reversed?"

In that vein, Mr. Rusert could have restored vitamin D to normal levels; identified all hidden sources of heart disease using lipoprotein testing (though he had small LDL without a doubt, given his generous waist size, HDL of 36 mg/dl and high triglycerides); considered niacin. Simple, yet literally lifesaving efforts, that make reversal much more likely.

Those simple steps, in fact, would have tipped the scales heavily in Mr. Russert’s favor, making a heart attack and/or sudden death from heart disease exceptionally unlikely.

Water: Bottled vs. tap

16. November 2008 William Davis (4)
The Fanatic Cook has a great post discussing the findings of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) on the quality of bottled water.

The full text of the study from the EWG can be viewed here.

They report that "the bottled water industry promotes an image of purity, but comprehensive testing by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reveals a surprising array of chemical contaminants in every bottled water brand analyzed" . . . After analyzing 10 brands, they conclude that "tests strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted. Given the industry's refusal to make available data to support their claims of superiority, consumer confidence in the purity of bottled water is simply not justified."

"EWG's study has revealed that bottled water can contain complex mixtures of industrial chemicals never tested for safety, and may be no cleaner than tap water. Given some bottled water company's failure to adhere to the industry's own purity standards, Americans cannot take the quality of bottled water for granted. Indeed, test results like those presented in this study may give many Americans reason enough to reconsider their habit of purchasing bottled water and turn back to the tap."


For these reasons, as well as environmental reasons (plastic bottles filling up dumpsites), I think it is becoming clearer and clearer that bottled water is something we should only use in a pinch, not habitually.

Can CRP be reduced?

13. November 2008 William Davis (17)
The JUPITER study has sparked a lot of discussion about c-reactive protein, or CRP.

If we follow the line of reasoning that prompted this study, reducing CRP may correlate with reduction of cardiovascular events. Thus, in the JUPITER study, Crestor 20 mg per day reduced cardiovascular events by nearly half.

From a CRP perspective, starting values were 4.2 mg/dl in the Crestor group of the trial, 4.3 mg/dl in the placebo group. After 24 months, CRP in the Crestor group was 2.2 mg/dl, 3.5 mg/dl in the placebo group, representing a 37% reduction.

Now, in our Track Your Plaque program--an experience that has yielded the virtual ELIMINATION of cardiovascular events--we aim for a CRP level of 1.0 mg/dl or less, ideally 0.5 mg/dl or less. The majority of people achieve these ambitious levels. In fact, it is a rare person who does not.

How do we achieve dramatic reductions in CRP? We use:

--Weight loss through elimination of wheat and cornstarch--This yields impressive reductions.

--Vitamin D--I have no doubt whatsoever of vitamin D's capacity to exert potent anti-inflammatory effects. I am not entirely sure why this happens (enhanced sensitivity to insulin, reduced expression of tissue inflammatory proteins like matrix metalloproteinase and others, etc.), but the effect is profound.

--Elimination of junk foods--like candies, cookies, pretzels, rice cakes, potato chips, etc.

--Exercise--Amplifies the benefits of diet on CRP reduction.

--Not allowing saturated fats to dominate--Yes, yes, I know. The demonization of saturated fat conversation has been largely replaced by the Taubesian saturated fat has not been confidently linked to heart disease conversation. But controlled feeding studies, in which a single component of diet is manipulated (e.g., saturated vs. monounsaturated vs. polyunsaturated fat) have clearly shown that saturated fats do activate several factors in the inflammatory response.

--Fish oil--Though I am a firm believer in the huge benefits of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation/restoration, the anti-inflammatory effect is modest from a CRP perspective. However, there are anti-inflammatory benefits beyond that of simple CRP (via normalization of eicosanoid metabolism and other pathways).

--Weight loss--A BIG effect. Weight loss drops CRP like a stone. The CRP-reducing effect is especially large if achieved via carbohydrate reduction.

Of course, this is much more complicated than taking a pill. But it is effective to achieve health benefits outside of cardiovascular risk, is enormously useful as part of a weight loss effort, and doesn't cost $1400 per year like Crestor.

In short, if CRP reduction is the goal, it certainly does not have to involve Crestor.
Unique vitamin D observations

Unique vitamin D observations

21. February 2009 William Davis (47)
It seems not a single day passes that I don’t learn something new about this unique hormone (mis)named “vitamin D.”

From its humble beginnings recognized only as the factor responsible for bone maturation (with deficiency leading to childhood rickets), vitamin D now commands a recognized role in almost every conceivable aspect of health and disease.

Among the unique observations I’ve made over the past several years, having corrected vitamin D in well over 1000 people:

--Ankylosing spondylitis—This fairly rare genetic disease programs a peculiar solidification of the spinal column that leads to disabling restriction of spinal mobility, accompanied by incapacitating pain. A physician came to my office after reading my Life Extension summary of vitamin D’s cardiovascular benefits, After reading it, he put himself on vitamin D 10,000 units per day and verified “therapeutic” levels with a blood test. He came to my office (he requested a consultation) and proudly showed me his near-normal spine flexibility that, until approximately 2 months earlier, had left him rigid and unable to even tie his shoes. He also reported that the chronic pain that had left him completely dependent on anti-inflammatory agents and narcotics was nearly entirely gone.

--Aortic valve disease—The list of people with either aortic valve stenosis (stiffness) or insufficiency (leakiness) that develops later in life (not congenitally deformed or bicuspid aortic valves) continues to grow. Not everyone responds, but some of the cases I’ve seen have been nothing short of miraculous. One man had severe aortic valve insufficiency (severe leakiness). After one year of vitamin D, 8000 units per day that yielded a blood level of 67 ng/ml, the insufficiency was down to a minimal level. Before vitamin D, I had never witnessed “spontaneous” reversal of aortic valve disease before.

--Chest pain—Not the chest pain of heart disease, but a chronic gnawing, toothache-like pain in the sternum that is relieved within days of initiating vitamin D. I don’t know precisely why this happens, but I speculate that, with vitamin D deficiency, there is disordered calcium metabolism, and perhaps the sternal pain represents cellular (osteoclastic) activity that is eroding sternal calcium for the purpose of maintaining blood calcium, since intestinal absorption of calcium is poor. Replace vitamin D and the abnormal calcium uptake ceases. Just my guess.

--Relief from claustrophobia—This one has me stumped. But one man’s vivid description of his previously terrifying experiences in elevators and other enclosed spaces, now entirely gone raises some fascinating questions. For instance, how much psychological disease is nothing more than the expression of disordered metabolism from vitamin D deficiency?

--Immunity from viral infections--I first learned of this association from Dr. John Cannell of the Vitamin D Council (www.vitamindcouncil.com). Dr. Cannell recounts his experience with the 2006 flu epidemic in the hospital in northern California, where he is a psychiatrist charged with the health of 200 inpatients held in closed wards. While the flu spread like wildfire to the patients in all the other wards, the 200 patients in Dr. Cannell’s ward failed to contract a single episode of flu while taking 2000 units of vitamin D per day.

I was a little skeptical at first, having been disappointed by the failure of several nutritional agents like zinc, vitamin C (perhaps, at best, a minimal effect). Now, three years into my vitamin D experience, I am absolutely convinced that Dr. Cannells’ early observation was correct: Vitamin D enhances immunity enormously. Not only have I personally not had a virus in several years, the majority of my staff and patients have been happily free of viral infections. There have been a few, to be sure. But the usual winters of hacking, coughing, and sneezing in the office have become largely a memory. It is a rare person who comes to the office with viral symptoms.


With new lessons being learned every day, it is inevitable that other fascinating new vitamin D observations have yet to be made.
Tags :

Comments (47) -

  • Jenny

    2/21/2009 1:33:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Vitamin D appears to have a very strong antidepressant effect, which may be behind the response in agorophobia. People who have numbed their emotions with SSRIs may not notice it, but for someone who is not taking artificial mood drugs, Vitamin D has an effect on mood very similar to that burst of cheer one feels when going out into strong sunlight.

  • baldsue

    2/21/2009 1:44:00 PM |

    I wish it relieved constant headaches.  I do think the level of pain has dropped a notch or two since I started taking 4000 IUs a day.  And I can definitely tell the difference in my general feeling of wellness, aside from the headache, when I forget to take a dose.  In fact, that's the first question I ask myself when I feel dragged down, "Did I take my vitamin D?"

    Thanks!  I never would have ramped up my dose had I not read your words.

  • Elise P

    2/21/2009 1:51:00 PM |

    I increased my vitamin D supplementation to 3000 IU per day last fall bringing my level of D3 to 53 (I've since increased to 4000 per day).  Every year, about 3 times, I used to get a sore throat that turns to congestion that lasts for a week of misery.  I did catch the bug once this winter but it was two days of congestion and was gone.  I also got pregnant soon after adding the vitamin D, after trying for two years to conceive.  Also, my husband had allergy like symptoms, waking up sneezing and stuffy, which had gone on for 6+ months.  Two months after he upped his D to 6000 IU per day they're gone.  One question I have is for pregnancy - all the books say limit your D to 600 IU and I know they're still using the old information that looks at vitamin D as a dangerous fat soluble vitamin that can be toxic.  I'm planning to keep my supplementation at 4000 IU until the summer when I'll lower it a little, but can anyone speak to the safety of vitamin D during pregnancy?

  • Shreela

    2/21/2009 1:57:00 PM |

    "Relief from claustrophobia"

    I fell asleep in the MRI, but if helps phobias in general, I get fairly freaked when bridges are skinny, steep, or curved (highway connectors).

    I've been taking the tablets since reading about the Vit D newsletter doctor (forget his name, sorry) recommending them, and the were 2 for 1, and I had 2 coupons also.

    I read your post about how taking tablets with oil might help -- I've been taking them with fish oil already, and now I'm using olive oil on my food before taking them.

    I'll get gelcaps when I run out of the tablets, and maybe handle bridges better 8^)

  • Joe E O

    2/21/2009 2:30:00 PM |

    I can personally vouch for the efficacy of Vitamin D in relieving a) chronic chest pain b) generalized anxiety.

    It seems like a bad dream at this point - but I was completely at the end of my rope for much of 2007 vis a vis the chest pain - which also nicely fed into the the anxiety. I was in bad shape....

    Another example of the the law of unintended consequences - i.e.  Avoid the Sun - leading to Vitamin D deficiency


    I wonder if the general "health advice" about avoiding salt is leading to iodine deficiency and the sub-clinical hypothyroidism.

    Peace

    Joe E O

  • steven

    2/21/2009 4:51:00 PM |

    can you explain the difference relationship and difference between D325(OH) and 1.25 measurement of D.  Thanks.

  • Anne

    2/21/2009 5:44:00 PM |

    Dear Dr Davis,

    Please can you tell the significance of the coconut at the top of your blog - is is because of coconut oil being such a good fat ?

    Anne

  • TedHutchinson

    2/21/2009 6:23:00 PM |

    Readers wanting to know more about the
    "Connection with Vitamin D and Cancer"
    will find this new Grassrootshealth 30 minute lecture from Donald Trump worth watching

    http://tinyurl.com/d3xeux

    and while short session of full body nonburning may a reasonable route for some to top up vitamin d in summer,  for many people, particularly those in Australia/NewZealand sun exposure at any time of day may not be worth the risk, but, neither is the use of sunscreen as safe as one might think or hope.
    You may be in for a shock when you listen to Edward Gorham. (and I'm not referring to the quality of his jokes)

    Skin Cancer/Sunscreen - the Dilemma

    http://tinyurl.com/buatue

  • Anonymous

    2/21/2009 7:51:00 PM |

    Another one to add to the unique list, I've noticed that vitamin D helps with improved demeanor.  I first noticed this after my brother-in-law began taking vitamin D along with fish oil.  The brother-in-law had always been a quite person with an unpleasant  demeanor to me.  After he began taking the two supplements he became sociable, and in general I and several others I know found him pleasant to be around.   At the time I didn't know if it was the supplements that helped but joked with other family members that for our sanity we MUST keep him supplied with D and fish oil.      

    After talking with my sister this morning, maybe I shouldn't joke.  My middle nephew is quite.  Talking with him for more than 5 minutes was rare.  He just wasn't a chatty person - much like his father used to be.  Well, my sister told me this morning that the middle nephew began taking vitamin D two weeks ago.  He will not drink milk and so my sister was worried he was not building strong bones - her quote.  

    It dawned on me that my parents had talked about receiving several surprising phone calls this week from the middle nephew - he never called anyone - and how pleasant it was to have long talks with him.  My parents thought their grandson was growing up.  I think it's the vitamin D.

  • Kismet

    2/21/2009 9:17:00 PM |

    Vitamin D supplementation seems almost too good to be true.
    Dr. Davis, although some data on zinc has been negative, zinc *acetate* and *gluconate* lozenges are backed up by some solid research(not for prevention, but to treat the common cold). Only recently there was a positive study published in the J Infect Dis, PMID: 18279051.

  • David Brown

    2/22/2009 12:10:00 AM |

    I've been taking 2,000 IU of vitamin D3 daily for a couple years and it seems to protect me from sunburn. It wasn't enough to protect me from a cold and bout with the flu last winter so I upped intake to 4,000 IU. No sickness so far this winter.

  • Anonymous

    2/22/2009 10:17:00 AM |

    I live in an extreme northern climate state and have been diligently taking 6,000 IU/d of NOW (brand) D3 (soft-gels) for the past seven months.

    I just had my 25(OH)D3 tested for the first time this past week.  It came in at 61 ng/ml.  YES!

    At work, I find my co-workers often coughing and sneezing all day long.  This, in a work place that requires continual contact with hundreds of retail customers.

    This is the first winter that I can remember I haven't had any viral/cold symptoms at all... not even a single runny nose.

    I learned of this hormone here first, and probably still would not have learned of it's importance if not for this blog.  I now continually stress to my family, friends, and co-workers this utmost importance of supplemental D3.

    Thank you Dr. Davis

  • mike V

    2/22/2009 6:14:00 PM |

    EliseP:
    Hope you will find this 2004 review helpful.

    Assessment of dietary vitamin D requirements during pregnancy and lactation.
    Bruce W Hollis and Carol L Wagner

    http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/VitDGenScience/Hollis%20vit%20D%20pregnacy.pdf

    Note: Do not correct "pregnacy" in the URL. It only works as spelled.

    MikeV

  • hoosierville

    2/22/2009 10:31:00 PM |

    Doc,
    I again want to thank you for this blog. I've directed my siste here. She has 7 stents and had a quadruple about 10 years ago. She's 67 not and doing well but she still hasn't quit smoking. But she's on the D and you'd never know how bad her heart was (is).

    Anyway, I'd like to share this anectdotal little story. A friend at work contracted a bacterial repsiratory infection back in April of 08. I hadn't seen her in several months and then she stopped into my library on January 13, 2009 for a visit (we work for the school system) and she was still very, very sick. Every time she spoke she coughed, and you could tell it was a very dry and painful cough. I started telling her about Vit D and ended up telling her to take 50,000 IUs that day and then take 10,000 IUs for the next week and then do it again the next two weeks. Guess what? She's cured. She's been on every antibiotic under the sun and none of them worked. The vitamin D did it. She's almost norman again. She was sick for almost a year.

    I have had life changing effects from taking vitamin d and I've now joined the grassroots health D action program too.

    I posted sometime back about how it's helped my lungs and how much strength and stamina I've gained just in one short year. It's been an amazing experience.

    Debbie in Indiana

  • Anonymous

    2/23/2009 9:41:00 AM |

    To everyone who has left a comment on this blog, could you say if you were taking vitamin d3 tablets or oil-filled gelcaps?

  • Elise P

    2/23/2009 10:07:00 PM |

    To Mike V. - thank you for the link to that article about Vitamin D and pregnancy - I feel much more confident that I'm benefiting myself and my baby by taking a higher amount of Vitamin D.
    To the comment asking what form I'm taking - the oil gelcaps.

  • TedHutchinson

    2/24/2009 11:16:00 AM |

    I live latitude 52N
    Previously I used BIOTECH 5000iu dry powder filled capsules (not solid tablets) taken with food.

    They raised my status but even with full body sun exposure only to 40ng ~ 120nmol/l.

    I now take 5000iu oil based gel capsules (3 caps over 2 days 7500iu/d)but have also lost weight (stopped eating wheat)
    25(OH)D jumped from
    Sept 08 48ng ~ 120nmol/l
    to Jan 09 110ng/ml ~ 275nmol/l.
    I suspect Dr Davis is correct that oil based caps are more effective although some of that rise will be due to sunbed use and maybe weight loss.
    I have never used solid D3 tablets.

    There is no significant difference in daily cost, both 5000iu powder and 5000iu oil based caps can be bought in the USA and including p&p to UK cost around 5p daily.

  • Anonymous

    2/24/2009 6:39:00 PM |

    I have ank spondy as well - Its a tough disease that I have fixed almost completely with diet BUT the vitamin D has made my back feel more flexible anyway! Three weeks in - I will take a blood test soon to verify levels and see whether I need to modify the dosage.

  • mike V

    2/25/2009 2:38:00 PM |

    Re: Tablets versus Oil based. I started out with tablets (Sam's club) some years ago, and pretty much eliminated colds and infections. Based on Dr Davis's observations I switched about 2 years ago, with similar results. I should mention that I usually take oil soluble vitamins/ supplements together, often with a tablespoon of extra virgin olive oil.
    FWIW I am almost 73, and have no detectable plaque.

    PS To Dr D.
    I challenge all readers of The Heart Scan Blog to send $25 to Dr Cannell at the Vitamin D Council.

    Dr D, if you are posting Cannell's latest newsletter, please edit from this comment.
    Thanks, MikeV



    The Vitamin D Newsletter

    February 24, 2009                                                
                            
    I know some of you want to unsubscribe but the system I used, like the formatting in this newsletter, is beyond my computer skills.  Thus, accept my apologies. If you want to unsubscribe, simply send a blank email
    to unsubscribe@vitamindcouncil.org.
    As readers from 3 years ago remember, this newsletter first published evidence vitamin D would prevent influenza and many varieties of the
    common cold in 2005:

    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2005-nov.shtml

    I then published the theory in:                                                      
    Cannell JJ, et al. Epidemic influenza and vitamin D. Epidemiology and Infection. 2006 Dec;134(6):1129-40.

    As Science News reported, I realized this after observing an influenza epidemic at Atascadero State Hospital.

    The antibiotic vitamin: deficiency in vitamin D may predispose people to infection.  Science News, November 11, 2006
    Last year, we used vitamin D to explain virtually all of the many unsolved mysteries of influenza.

    Cannell JJ, et al.  On the epidemiology of influenza. Virology Journal. 2008 Feb 25;5:29.

    Our second influenza paper is by far the most accessed paper in the journal this year.

    Top 20 most accessed articles for last year in Virology Journal

    Today, researchers from Harvard and the University of Colorado, writing in the Archives of Internal Medicine, published convincing evidence my observations at Atascadero State Hospital were correct.

    Vitamin D deficiency linked to more colds and flu. Scientific American, Feb 23, 2009

    Adit A, et al.  Association Between Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Level and Upper Respiratory Tract Infection in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(4):384-390.

    Influenza kill around 35,000 Americans every year and similar viruses cause additional mortality and untold morbidity. As I have said, It appears Linus Pauling was right about everything he said about vitamin C, but he was off by one letter. The Vitamin D Council, the nearly broke non-profit educational organization, now believes most influenza deaths and many other respiratory infections, like the common cold, could be prevented if Americans, and their doctors, understood some simple facts:

    ·         Vitamin D is not a vitamin, but a steroid hormone precursor, which has profound effects on innate immunity.
    ·         The amount of vitamin D in most food and nearly all multivitamins is literally inconsequential.
    ·         The correct daily dose of vitamin D for adults is approximately 5,000 IU/day, not the 200-600 IU recommended by the Institute of Medicine, the National Institutes of Medicine and the FDA.
    ·         The only blood test to determine vitamin D adequacy is a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D, not the 1,25-di-hydroxy-vitamin D test many physicians now order.
    ·         Healthy vitamin D blood levels are between 50-80 ng/ml, levels obtained by fewer than 5% of Americans.
    ·         Medicare’s new proposed rule change, which forbids Medicare carriers for paying for virtually all vitamin D blood tests (Draft LCD for Vitamin D Assay Testing (DL29510), will kill tens of thousands of Americans yearly.
    ·         The mechanism of action of vitamin D in infection, dramatically increasing the body’s production of broad-spectrum natural antibiotics (anti-microbial peptides or AMP) suggests pharmaceutical doses of vitamin D (1,000 IU per pound of body weight per day for several days) will effectively treat not only influenza and the common cold, but help treat a host of other seasonal infections, including meningitis, septicemia, and pneumonia, in both children and adults.
    ·         In 1997, when the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) set the current guidelines for vitamin D intake, they forgot to correct for the widespread sun avoidance that began in the late 1980’s when the AMA’s Council of Scientific Affairs warned against sun-exposure, and recommended that all Americans should make every effort to never let a photon of sunlight strike their skin.  The failure of the 1997 FNB to compensate for sun-avoidance, has led to millions of deaths around the world.
    ·         Physicians who ignore vitamin D deficiency will eventually suffer medical-legal consequences.
    ·         While many think the influenza virus causes influenza, Cannell notes it was George Bernard Shaw who first understood: “The characteristic microbe of a disease might be a symptom instead of a cause.” George Bernard Shaw, (Preface on Doctors, The Doctor’s Dilemma, 1911).

    If you want professional newsletter services, you will need to help find a foundation that will fund us.

    John Cannell, MD
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/

    The Vitamin D Council
    9100 San Gregorio Road
    Atascadero, CA 93422

    (Posted by Mikev)

  • Dr. William Davis

    2/25/2009 10:56:00 PM |

    Thanks, Mike V.

    Dr. John Cannell is truly a visionary when it comes to vitamin D. He also has some of the best understanding of this issue of anyone around.

    We are overdue for a donation to his cause, also. Thanks for reminding me.

  • karl

    2/26/2009 3:18:00 PM |

    I would like your opinions of the resveratrol studies - they are now combining it with D3.

  • Anonymous

    2/26/2009 3:34:00 PM |

    "Chest pain—Not the chest pain of heart disease, but a chronic gnawing, toothache-like pain in the sternum that is relieved within days of initiating vitamin D. I don’t know precisely why this happens, but I speculate that, with vitamin D deficiency, there is disordered calcium metabolism, and perhaps the sternal pain represents cellular (osteoclastic) activity that is eroding sternal calcium for the purpose of maintaining blood calcium, since intestinal absorption of calcium is poor. Replace vitamin D and the abnormal calcium uptake ceases. Just my guess". interesting? I have hypothyroid and high blood calcium, made me confused as to taking vitamin D or not. i have chest pain on left side. changing my medication from synthroid to armour and starting on the Iodine drops brought body temperature, brain fog, moon face, gained weight, depression, and confusion to normal but chest pain is still there. i thought about vitamin D but avoided because of already high blood calcium. But what you just speculated above does makes sense. I am in winnipeg and should be taking vitamin D all the time. I will start on vitamin D and see if it will make any difference? The other problem here is going to see a doctor is like going to a principal's office in high school. They never Liston, treat you like numbers and most of them are sick themselves and never up to date or they never want to tell. you have to educate your self in order to save your health, relationships and jobs which are connected to one's well being.

  • Anna

    2/27/2009 4:51:00 AM |

    I made a donation to the Vitamin D Council in late 2007, but forgot to do so in 2008.  I rectified that the other day when I received the latest VDC newsletter - this time I made a $100 donation.  And the Grassroots Health office is in my town, so I have volunteered to help stuff test kit envelopes so they can save on envelope stuffing service fees.  

    I really feel the VDC is doing important work.  Except for the friends and family who "listen" to me and take enough D3, everyone I know who tests is either deficient or very low in the reference range.  

    Reading The Vitamin D Cure book now.  While I have some issue with the diet advice, the info about determining sun exposure and supplementation dose is very good.

  • TedHutchinson

    2/27/2009 1:09:00 PM |

    Vitamin D and Cardiovascular Disease Prevention
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJHfdUKSD2A
    another in the series of Vitamin D talks sponsored by Grassrootshealth.org and hosted by University of Califorian television.
    Allow 45minutes and it may be a good idea to download it if you are not familiar with the research. There is a lot of information (the conference it is taken from was aimed at doctors rather than the general public) and as it is complex you may need to listen to it twice.

    I think this particular video is worthy of Dr Davis's scrutiny. I am sure if Dr Davis devoted a specific blog to the highlight this video, he could make a better job of explaining some of the slides.

    Listen right to the end to the last question from the floor for the rather cynical audience response.

  • Anonymous

    2/27/2009 5:56:00 PM |

    Dr. Cannell knows quite a bit about vitamin D, but his understanding of vitamin A is abysmal.  He's telling people that they do not need any preformed vitamin A in their diets because it blocks vitamin D action.  This is a partial truth, but the message is all wrong.  If he spreads this message far emough, we'll be entering into an era of subclinical vitamin A deficiency and night blindness.  Until he changes, or at least clarifies, his stance on vitamin A, I cannot support him.

  • mike V

    2/28/2009 6:56:00 PM |

    To Anonymous on Vitamin A.

    Presuming your characterization is correct, it is my best guess that Dr Cannell is saving many more lives by popularizing the existence of wide Vitamin D deficiency.

    Can we get any info you may have on the relative hazards of existing Vitamin A deficiency?

    Why not pass it on? He may well appreciate your insight as much as a contribution!

    Thanks.

    Mike V

  • homertobias

    3/1/2009 12:03:00 AM |

    Ted, Dr. David Sane's presentation was fair, in my opinion.  We have alot of association data, plausability, potential for multiple mechanisms of action, but a paucity of studies showing that supplementing works to prevent cardiovascular disease.  They will come.  Alot of us are still disappointed and cautious after mistakenly recommending high dose folate for hyperhomosystienemia.  

    Interesting to me was the German data looking not only at 25-oh levels but 1-25-oh vitamin D levels being independently associated with CHD.  Can't figure it out.

    Also very interesting was the Italian data showing correlation between CIMT and Vit D levels in diabetics. I wonder if low Vitamin D levels correllate with MDCT?  OK Dr. Davis.  Does it?  From my reading, cholesterol levels, NMR lipoprofile, HSCRP, LPPLA2, do NOT correlate with coronary calcium scores.  (Dr. Hecht's data) Will D???

  • Trinkwasser

    3/2/2009 1:41:00 PM |

    Anecdotal, but I suffer chronic atypical depression with symptoms related to SAD. Venlafaxine 225mg has been my best treatment to date (tricyclics work better but with more side effects, SSRIs don't work well at all and then stop, the connection seems to be to dopamine and norepinephrine)

    Getting my BG in line (I used to mostly do not-diabetic-yet highs dropping to not-quite-hypo lows several times a day) and I have dropped this to 37.5mg

    Taking D3 over a prolonged period and despite the appallingly dull winter I have had singificantly fewer SAD symptoms (while a lot of non-sufferers have been worse!)

    I've been taking tabs BUT with flax oil, EPO and actual complete fish so maybe the oil is helping the disposition, I'll replace them with gelcaps when I run out.

    Now the sun has finally started to come out and my energy levels have improved as they often do around this time of year (waking up from hibernation) I have dropped the venlafaxine to 17.75 mg and doing if anything even better.

    Meanwhile in Scotland a GP is finding clinical cases of Rickets for the first time in her career.

    One wonders whether apart from the too low RDA there are other factors interfering in D metabolism which have become commoner than in the past. Maybe the low fat diet prevents absorbtion? Maybe statins break one of the pathways? Otherwise surely someone would have noticed all these recent findings long ago?

  • mbarnes

    3/23/2009 4:20:00 PM |

    It is amazing how much concern folk raise about the potential toxicity of vitamin D when the literature clearly shows you can take as much as 10,000units per day without problems and there was a phase I study in MS patients that used 40,000IU per day without side effects. here is another good site on vitamin D with lots of reviews of the anti cancer data:
    www.vitaminD3world.com

  • Anonymous

    12/2/2009 5:50:47 PM |

    How interesting. I have been taking oral gelcap vitamin D for some years now and I never seem to get ill when other people all around me are stuck down with terrible symptoms. Or, if my husband has flown-blown flu, I might have a sore throat for a day and feel a bit more tired than usual for a day and then I'm fine.

    I was wondering whether my apparently amazing ability not to get sick might be because I have MGUS (monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance) -- I was wondering if it might be that my immune system is so 'good' it is also attacking me too -- whether there might be some link, that at some point in the future will be my undoing. ? But I much prefer the more optimistic vitamin D theory of my lack of colds and flu etc.

  • Anonymous

    12/2/2009 6:05:01 PM |

    To the person who asked about vitamin D and pregnancy, and to the other person who asked about tablets vs oil gel caps, I was taking tablets for years without it raising my serum D levels, It was when I switched to D3 oil gel caps as a result of reading this blog, that my levels started to climb. When I finally went up to 6000IUs that seemed to help a lot.

    When I became pregnant, I asked my (high risk) maternal foetal medicine doctor about it, and he said that is that was the level of supplementation it was taking to keep my vitamin D levels up to normal, I should keep taking it. He also said that I should continue to try to get some sun every day (I am not in a hot sunny place) that would be important too. He seemed to be saying that just taking the supplements is not enough. You need both.

  • Anonymous

    12/30/2009 3:45:58 PM |

    Hello!!! heartscanblog.blogspot.com is one of the most outstanding innovative websites of its kind. I take advantage of reading it every day. I will be back.

  • DougCuk

    1/9/2010 10:05:34 PM |

    I do not as a rule take any supplements - but I am now recommending all my family and friends to take high dose Vitamin D. I have been researching this topic for the last two months - I have a degree in Zoology and worked in Bio-Physics - and the more I read the more convinced I have become. I have created my own webpage with links to the best Vitamin D websites, charts and videos. Anything I find gets posted here: http://www.stargateuk.info/vitamind

  • Anonymous

    2/9/2010 5:16:44 PM |

    On Vitamin D and pregnancy, here's a quote about recent studies:

    "In two U.S. government-funded studies, Hollis is studying vitamin D supplementation of up to 6,000 IU daily in nursing women, and 4,000 units per day in pregnant women. So far "not one single adverse event" has been observed in women on the highest doses, he said in an interview."

  • Anonymous

    2/19/2010 8:06:00 PM |

    Dr Davis,
    I eliminated cereals from my diet 6 month ago and since then I haven't have an herpes outbreak that used to plague me if I didn't take VALACICLOVIR 500 mg every day I would get an outbreak 7 days after I did't take the pill, now I'm supplementing 6000 iu of vitamin D a day I hope that I will stay outbreak free for longer!!!! I have to tell you that I stopped eating cereals specially wheat after reading this blog   and have felt better than ever!!!

  • Anonymous

    3/7/2010 9:08:28 PM |

    Vitamin D controls T cell antigen receptor signaling and activation of human T cells. WOW

    http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ni.1851.html

    Regards
    Niels

  • vitamin D

    5/17/2010 5:23:29 AM |

    According to me after read this post I think that vitamin D is more good to take for better health because it helps blood to stay in normal level.

  • Anonymous

    8/24/2010 8:15:39 AM |

    I've suffered from depression for many years, along with joint pain that flares up from time to time, but have never tested positive for any antibodies, so have no idea what it is that causes the problem. I've just learned to deal with the pain and stiffness myself and only use over the counter anti-inflamatories when the pain gets too bad to handle without using anything because they've always upset my stomach.

    These last couple of years fatigue has plagued me as well. Last year my dr detected low levels of vitamin D and suggested I took 1,000 units a day. A couple of weeks ago, he retested my levels only to find that they had dropped significantly, from 36 to 20 (normal range 50-75). I am now on 2,000 units a day. Within 24 hours I began to feel more energy than I'd felt in years and my mood had lifted. I've always been aware that in winter I had less energy and was more morose, but never connected the dots. My daughter also suffers from depression and a couple of weeks was going through a really bad patch. I insisted the dr measured her D3 levels and sure enough she was low on D3.She started on 2,000 units of D3 and improved within 36 hours from being a crying mess to being full of energy.

    For someone like me who's always been a vitamin skeptic, I'm amazed at the difference in such a short time. I'm 3 weeks into taking 2,000 units a day and can't see any effect on my joints yet but have my fingers well and truely crossed on this one.

    Does anyone know if low D3 levels are also connected with chronic gastritis? I has diagnosed last year and have developed gastric intestinal metaplasia (which explains why I get stomach pain if I take NSAIDS or aspirin). However, there has been no cause established for me developing this condition and since I rarely take the NSAIDS that's not the cause either. I tested negative for HP infection and have never smoked and rarely drink alcohol. I'm now wondering if this condition is also due to low D3 levels.

  • Rhett

    9/29/2010 12:18:36 PM |

    I was recently diagnosed as severely vitamin D deficient and was unable to find a decent place dedicated to vitamin D discussion, so I decided to start my own forum http://www.vitamindforum.com . I would love to hear everyones experiences!

  • Philip Gower

    10/4/2010 3:27:38 AM |

    I have upped my daily dosage of D3to 15,000U,and feel great ! My lifelong psoriasis has largely melted away, and occasional angina has stopped. At age 73 I am able to walk our dogs in hills for hours daily, and I take no prescription medications.I also supplement with SSKI drops, and follow a low carb diet.In 6 months I have dropped 50 lbs, and seem to be levelled off at about 150 lbs.I am about to test for the "25" D3 blood level, mostly out of curiosity. I have stopped getting colds or flu !

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 2:53:06 PM |

    --Relief from claustrophobia—This one has me stumped. But one man’s vivid description of his previously terrifying experiences in elevators and other enclosed spaces, now entirely gone raises some fascinating questions. For instance, how much psychological disease is nothing more than the expression of disordered metabolism from vitamin D deficiency?

  • aashvi

    11/9/2010 10:31:42 AM |

    There can be several kinds of chest pen but when it is related to heart disease, it becomes dangerous.  It’s very important that we should keep this in mind. Dilse India provides information about  chest pain. The information can be helpful for those who have chest pain and there is danger of heart disease.
    Website : Risk of chest pain

  • online pharmacy

    3/7/2011 8:49:40 AM |

    Previous research has suggested that vitamin D levels were inherited, in part, but a new study of 33,996 people has found three specific genetic variants that seem to correlate with a person's levels of vitamin D.

  • Shashin Patel

    6/7/2011 1:04:18 PM |

    This is a great post. It contains a lot of important information about Vitamin D and how much should its requirement be. I came across one nice article about Vitamin D and wonder if you like it. To know more click on the link  below:
    Boca Wellness and Nutrition

  • Rohan

    6/9/2011 5:51:38 PM |

    Fruits and vegetables are excellent sources of potassium which helps to regulate fluids and maintain normal blood pressure. That includes bananas, sweet potatoes, avocados and cantaloupes in your diet.
    You may find more information on Boca Wellness and Nutrition

  • Shashin Patel

    6/15/2011 3:42:48 PM |

    Nice video about Vitamin D and its facts. You can find it at
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhWK6ktRI1Y

  • FYI: Flu vaccine for 2012-13 season - Christian Forums

    10/2/2012 7:23:15 PM |

    [...] around 50ng/ml. I've read others experiencing similar.   "Unique vitamin D observations"  Unique vitamin D observations | Track Your Plaque Blog  snippet:    ...–Immunity from viral infections–I first learned of this association [...]

Add comment

Loading
Cureality | Real People Seeking Real Cures

Stents, defibrillators, and other profit-making opportunities

16. April 2006 William Davis (2)
As a practicing cardiologst, every day I receive a dozen or more magazines or newspapers targeting practicing physicians, not to mention the hundreds of letters, postcards, invitations to "talks", etc. that I receive. All of these materials share one common goal: To get the practicing cardiologist/physician to insert more of a manufacturer's stents, defibrillators, prescribe more of their drugs, etc.

This is a highly effective and profitable area. Pfizer's Lipitor, for instance, generated $12.2 billion just last year alone. This kind of money will fund an extraordinary amount of marketing.

I'm on the www.heart.org mailing list, a website for cardiologists. I'd estimate that 90% or more of their content is device-related: discussions of situations in which to insert stents, the expanding world of implantable devices, the ups and downs of various drugs. Rarely are discussions of healthy lifestyles, exercise, nutritional supplements, part of the dialogue.

How can you protect yourself from the brainwashed physician, flooded with visions of all the devices he can put in you, all the drugs that can "cure" your disease? Simple: information. Be better informed. Ask pointed questions. The idiotic lay press tells you to ask a doctor about his education. That's not generally the problem. Some of the best educated doc's I know are also the most flagrantly guilty of profiteering medicine.

Ask your doctor about his/her philosphy about the use of medications, devices, etc. If their word is God, take it or leave it, run the other way.

Will radiation kill you?

16. April 2006 William Davis (4)
Several people have asked me lately if radiation is truly dangerous. These conversations were sparked by an editorial comment made on a column I wrote for Life Extension Magazine's April, 2006 issue on "Three ways to detect hidden heart disease".

Among the methods that were discussed in this piece was, of course, CT heart scanning. Anyone who is involved with CT heart scans Quickly recognizes the spectacular power of this test to uncover hidden, unsuspected heart disease, literally within seconds. In 2006, there's really nothing like it for the every day person to have hidden heart disease detected and precisely quantified.

Yet, the "rebuttal" to my article claimed that the broad use of heart scans was only my personal view and that, in truth, radiation kills people.

NONSENSE! If an ovarian cancer is discovered by a CT scan of the abdomen, is that unwise use of radiation? If pneumonia or lung cancer is discovered on a chest x-ray with minimal radiation exposure, have we performed a disservice. Of course not. In fact, these are often lifesaving applications of radiation.

Can radiation be used unwisely with excessive exposure? Of course. The 64 slice CT angiograms are just an example of this. Dr. Mehmet Oz announced on Oprah recently that this was a test to be used for broad screening of women for heart disease. This is wrong. The radiation required for a full 64 slice CT angiogram test is truly excessive for a screening application. You wouln't want to get breast cancer from your mammogram, would you? The radiation from a 64-slice CT angiogram is similar to that of a heart catheterization in the hospital--too much for screening. This is not to be confused with a CT heart scan for a calcium score performed on a 64 slice device. I think this can be performed with acceptable radiation exposure.

Think about what would happen, for instance, if you had your heart disease undetected, had a heart attack, and went to the hospital? During your hospitalization, you'd likely get five chest x-rays, a heart catheterization, perhaps one or more nuclear imaging tests, maybe even a full CT scan (with far more radiation than a screening heart scan). The amount of radiation of a heart scan is trivial compared to what you obtain in a hospital.

So take it all in perspective. The low level of radiation required for a simple heart scan (not an angiogram) does not by itself substantially add to your lifetime risk of radiation exposure. It may, in fact, save your life or reduce your life long exposure to radiation.

Are you using bogus supplements?

16. April 2006 William Davis (0)
I consider nutritional supplements an important, many times a critical,part of a coronary plaque control program.

But use the wrong brand or use it in the wrong way, and you can obtain no benefit. Occasionally, you can even suffer adverse effects.

Take coenzyme Q10, for instance. (Track Your Plaque Members: A full, in-depth Special Report on coenzyme Q10 will be on the website in the next couple of weeks.) Take the wrong brand to minimize the likelihood of statin-related muscle aches, and you may find taking Lipitor, Zocor, Crestor, etc. intolerable or impossible. However, take a 100 mg preparation from a trusted manufacturer in an oil-based capsule, and you are far more likely to avoid the inevitable muscle aches. (Though, of course, consult with your doctor, for all it's worth, if you develop muscle aches on any of these prescription agents.)

Unfortunately, you and I often don't truly know for a fact if a bottle from the shelf of a health food store or drugstore is accurately labeled, pure, free of contaminants, and efficacious.

One really great service for people serious about supplements is the www.consumerlab.com website. They are a membership website (with dues very reasonable) started by a physician interested in ensuring supplement quality. Consumer Lab tests nutritional supplements to determine whether it 1) contains what the label claims, and 2) is free of contamination. (I have no reason to pitch this or any other site; it's just a great service.) They recently found a supplement with Dr. Andrew Weil's name on it to have excess quantities of lead!

What Consumer Lab does not do is determine efficacy. In other words, they do a responsible job of reporting on what clinical studies have been performed to support the use of a specific supplement. However, true claims of efficacy of supplement X to treat symptom or disease Y can only come with FDA approval. Supplements rarely will be put through the financial rigors of this process.

If you're not a serious supplement user, but just need a reliable source, we've had good experiences with:

--GNC--the national chain
--Vitamin Shoppe--also a national chain
--www.lifeextension.com or www.lef.org--A great and low-priced source, but they do charge a $75 annual membership that comes with a subscription to their magazine, Life Extension (which I frequently write for) and several free supplements that you may or may not need. Again, I'm not pitching them; they are simply a good source.
--Solgar--a major manufacturer
--Vitamin World
--Nature's Bounty
--Sundown

There are many others, as well. Unfortunately, it's only the occasional manufacturer or distributor that permits unnacceptable contamination with lead or other poisons, or inaccurately labels their supplement (e.g., contains 1000 mg of glucosamine when it really contains 200 mg). I have not come across any manufacturer/distributor who has systemtically marketed uniformly bad products.

It really helps to have someone to lean on

16. April 2006 William Davis (0)
Among my patients are several husband and wife teams, both of whom have heart disease by some measure. Several couples, for instance, consist of a huband who's received a stent, survived a heart attack, or has some other scar of the conventional approach. The wives generally have a substantial heart scan score in the several hundred range.

There are a few couples for which the roles are reversed: wife with bypass, heart attack, etc. and husband with a substantial quantity of coronary plaque by CT heart scan.

From them all, however, I've learned the power of teamwork. When both wife and husband (or even "significant other") are committed to the effort of controlling or reversing heart disease risk, the likelihood of success is magnified many-fold. Everything is easier: shopping for and choosing foods, incorporating supplements in the budget, taking vacations with a healthy focus, following through and sticking with your program.

Several of the couples have succeeded in obtaining regression of plaque for both man and woman. Both have reduced their heart scan scores and, as a result, dramatically reduced the potential for future heart attack and procedures.

Unfortunately, I will also see the opposite situation: One spouse committed to the program but the other indifferent. They may say such things as "You can't control what happens in the future." Or, "There's no way you can get rid of risk for heart disease. My doctor says it's hereditary." Or, "I've eaten this way since I was a kid. I'm not changing now for you or for anybody else."

Such negative commentary can't help but erode your commitment to health. Most of us recognize these sorts of comments as self-fulfulling and self-defeating.

What should you do if you have an unsupportive partner? Not easy. But it really can help to seek out a supportive partner, whether it's a friend, relative, or other significant person in your life. Of course, not everybody can find such a person. Perhaps that's another way our program can help.

I'd like to hear from anyone who does obtain substantial support of someone close, or if you are struggling to do so.

Five foods that can booby trap your heart disease prevention program

14. April 2006 William Davis (0)
There are several foods that commonly come up on people's lists of habitual foods that are truly undesirable for a heart disease prevention program. Curiously, people choose these foods because of the mis-perception that they are healthy. My patients are often shocked when I tell them that they are not healthy and are, in fact, detrimental to their program.

I'm not talking about foods that are obviously unhealthy. You know these: fried foods, greasy cheeseburgers, French fries, bacon, sausage, etc. Nearly everyone knows that the high saturated fat content, low fiber, and low nutritional value of these foods are behind heart disease, hypertension, and a variety of cancers.

I'm talking about foods that people say they eat because they view them as healthy--but they're not.

Here's the list:

1) Low-fat or non-fat salad dressings--Virtually all brands we've examined have high-fructose corn syrup as one the main ingredients. What does high fructose corn syrup do? Triggers sugar cravings, makes your triglycerides skyrocket (causing formation of abnormal lipoproteins like small LDL), and causes diabetes. The average American now ingests nearly 80 lbs of this evil sweetener per year. You're far better off with olive, canol, grapeseed, or flaxseed based salad dressings.

2) Breakfast cereals--If you've been following these discussions, you know that the majority of breakfast cereals are sugar. They may not actually contain sugar, but they contain ingredients that are converted to sugar in your body. They may be cleverly disguised as healthy--Raisin Bran, Shredded Wheat, etc.

3) Pretzels--"A low-fat snack". That's right. A low-fat snack that raises blood sugar like eating table sugar from the bowl.

4) Margarine--Forget this silly argument about which is worse, butter or margarine. Which is worse, strychnine or lead? Both are poisons to the human body. Who cares which is worse? Fortunately, there are now healthy "margarines" like Smart Balance and Benecol that lack the saturated fat or hydrogenated fat of either.

4) Bananas--Bananas are not all that intrinsically unhealthy. The problem is that people will say to me, "Oh sure, I eat fruit. Two bananas a day." What I hear is "I don't really eat fruit with high nutrient value, fiber, and reduced sugar release. I reach for only bananas which yield extreme sugar rises in my blood and are low fiber." Aren't they high in potassium? Yes, but there are better sources. Cut back if you are a banana freak.


Why the mis-perceptions? A holdover from the low-fat diet days and marketing from food manufacturers are the principal reasons. Of course, foods are meant to be enjoyed, but be informed about it. Choose foods for the right reasons, not because of some cleverly-crafted marketing campaign.

Breakfast of champions?

12. April 2006 William Davis (1)
I spend time every day educating or reminding patients that breakfast cereals are not health foods.

I see jaws drop in shock when I tell them that, in my opinion and despite the marketing claims, Cheerios, Raisin Bran, Shredded Wheat, and the like do not yield health benefits. In fact, they do the the opposite: dramatically raise blood sugar and trigger an adverse cascade of events that eventually leads to diabetes and heart disease.

Why the health claims in advertising? Because these products contain insoluble fiber, the sort that makes your bowels regular. Yes, your bowels are important to health, too. But the benefits end there.

Breakfast cereals are a highly refined, processed food that are not good for your plaque control program. What they are is a highly profitable, multi-billion dollar business, deeply entrenched in American culture ("They'rrrre grrrrrreat!"--Tony the Tiger; "There's a whole scoop of raisins in every box of Post Raisin Bran!" Bet you remember them all.)

I find it particularly upsetting when I see the stamp of approval from the American Heart Association on some products. Gee, if the Heart Association says it's good for you, it must be true! Don't you believe it. The American Heart Association relies on corporate donations, just like any other charity.

If you must eat breakfast cereals, refer to www.glycemicindex.com for a full database of glycemic indexes. You can look up a specific product and it will list its glycemic index, or sugar-releasing properties. You should try to keep glycemic index of the foods you choose below 50.

For a revealing discussion of the influence of food marketers on our perceptions of food, see Track Your Plaque nutrition expert, Gay Riley's discussion The Marketing of Food and Diets in America at her website, www.netnutritionist.com.

In heart disease prevention, shoot for perfection

12. April 2006 William Davis (0)
It really struck me today that it's the people who've chosen to compromise their prevention program who end up with trouble--heart procedures, heart attack, even heart failure.

Take Bob, for example. Bob is 73 years old and had a bypass operation in 2000. The procedure went well and Bob enjoyed 6 years of seemingly trouble-free life. Bob had a seriously low HDL cholesterol for which he as taken a modest dose of niacin, but was unwilling to do much more. His HDL cholesterol was thererefore "stalled" at around 40 mg. (We aim for 60 mg or greater.) We talked repeatedly about the options for increasing HDL but Bob was content with his results. After all, since his bypass operation, he'd felt well and could do all he wanted without physical limitation.

But Bob underwent a stress test for surveillance purposes (which we routinely do 5 or more years after bypass surgery). The test was markedly abnormal with two major areas of poor blood flow to his heart (signalling potential heart attack in future). Bob ended up getting 5 stents to salvage two bypass grafts, both of which showed signs of substantial degeneration.

I've seen this scenario repeatedly: A person is unwilling to go the extra mile to obtain perfection in lipid/lipoprotein patterns, lifestyle changes, and taking the basic, required supplements. Compromises eventually catch up to you in the form of another heart attack, more procedures, heart failure, physical disability, even death.

The message: Don't draw compromises in heart disease prevention. Coronary plaque is a chronic process. It will take advantage of you if you ever let your guard down.

The epidemic of small LDL

11. April 2006 William Davis (0)
Of the patients I saw in my office yesterday, virtually EVERYONE had small LDL.

Small LDL is emerging as an extraordinarily prevalent lipoprotein pattern that drives coronary plaque growth. Previous estimates have put small LDL as affecting only 20-30% of people with coronary disease. However, in my experience in the last few years, I would estimate that greater than 80% of people with measurable coronary plaque have small LDL.

If you have a heart scan score >zero, chances are you have it, too.

I call small LDL a "modern" disease because it has skyrocketed in prevalence recently because of the great surge in inactivity in Americans.

When's the last time you walked to the grocery store and back, lugging two bags of groceries? How many years has it been since you've push-mowed your lawn? All the small conveniences of life have permeated further and further into our activities. Most of us spend the great majority of our day right where you are now--on your duff.

On the bright side, small LDL in most people is reducable by simply getting up and going. But the old teaching of 30 minutes of activity per day is now outdated. This was true when the other hours of your life included physical activities, like housework or a moderately active job. However, if the other 23 1/2 hours of your day are sedentary, then 30 minutes a day won't do it. An hour or more of activity, whether exercise or physical labor of some variety will get you better small LDL-suppressing results.

For most people with small LDL, fish oil and niacin are also necessary to fully suppress small LDL to the Track Your Plaque goal of <10 mg/dl.

A great discussion on vitamin D

10. April 2006 William Davis (0)
If you need better convincing that vitamin D is among the most underappreciated but crucial vitamins for health, see Russell Martin's review of vitamin D and its role in cancer prevention. You'll find it in March, 2006 Life Extension Magazine or their www.LEF.org website at:

http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1308&query=vitamin%20d&hiword=VITAM%20VITAMER%20VITAMERS%20VITAMI%20VITAMINA%20VITAMINAS%20VITAMINC%20VITAMIND%20VITAMINE%20VITAMINEN%20VITAMINES%20VITAMINIC%20VITAMINK%20VITAMINS%20d%20vitamin%20

Our preliminary experience over the past year suggests that vitamin D may be the crucial missing link in many people's plaque control program. We've had a handful of people who, despite an otherwise perfect program (LDL<60, HDL>60, etc.; vigorous exercise, healthy food selection, etc.--I mean perfect)continued to show plaque growth. The rate of growth was slower than the natural expected rate of 30% per year, but still frightening rates of 14-18% per year--until we added vitamin D. All of a sudden, we saw dramatic regression of 7-25% in 6 months to a year.

This does not mean that vitamin D all by itself regresses plaque. I believe it means that vitamin D exerts a "permissive" effect, allowing all the other treatments (fish oil, LDL reduction, HDL raising, correction of small LDL, etc.) to exert their full benefit. So please don't stop everything and just take D. This will not work. However, adding vitamin D to your program on top of the basic Track Your Plaque approach--that's the best way I know of.

MSNBC Report: We need more heart procedures!

10. April 2006 William Davis (0)
A recent headline from MSNBC by Robert Bazell reads:

NEW YORK - Angioplasty, bypass surgery and cholesterol-lowering medications are among the many interventions that have brought a sharp decrease in heart disease deaths in recent years. But, as Dr. Sharon Hayes of the Mayo Clinic points out, there is one big problem.

“The death rates in women have not declined as much as they have in men,” she says.

The piece goes on to suggest that women are getting short-ended in the diagnosis of heart symptoms and heart attack. The solution: More testing to assess the need for procedures like bypass.

This is typical of the device and medication-dominated media consciousness: More procedures, more medication, more devices. Who's paying for advertising, after all? The money at stake is huge. But is this what you want?

Don't be swayed by media reporters with limited understanding of the real issues (at best), consciousness of who's paying for advertising (at worst). Yes, heart disese is often underestimated or misdiagnosed in women. The answer is better detection earlier in life followed by efforts to halt the process--effective, safe treatments for people's benefit, not just profit.