Triglyceride and chylomicron "stacking" 10. November 2009 William Davis (24) Continuing the comments started in Grazing is for cattle, here's an interesting study from the Oxford Center for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism.Volunteers were fed a test meal breakfast of Rice Krispies, a banana, and a chocolate milkshake (76.4 grams carbohydrates, 51.9 grams fat, 12.2 grams protein). Lunch was served 5 hours later and consisted of a cheese sandwich and a second chocolate milkshake 43.4 grams carbohydrates, 49.6 grams fat, 24.0 grams protein). Frequent blood samples were then assessed over the day. (Don't try this at home: These are obviously very dangerous foods!)Here's the pattern of triglycerides that was observed (1st dotted vertical line = breakfast, 2nd dotted vertical line = lunch):Note that triglycerides only begin to decline 3-4 hours after breakfast, only to peak higher after lunch.Here's the pattern observed for chylomicrons, the "granddaddy" of lipoproteins that derives from intestinal absorption of fatty acids:Both graphs from Heath RB et al Am J Phyiol Endocrinol Metab 2006.With chylomicrons, note a similar pattern to triglycerides: Chylomicrons begin to decline at 3-4 hours, only to peak higher after lunch. This is the first study to examine the effect of sequential meals on such postprandial (after-eating) patterns. But it makes the graphic point that, if insufficient time is permitted between meals, both triglycerides and chylomicrons will "stack" themselves higher and higher. (Chylomicrons are subjected to processing by the enzyme, lipoprotein lipase, to form highly atherogenic, or plaque-causing, chylomicron remnants.)While not examined in this study, my bet is that "grazing," i.e., eating small meals or snacks frequently, is an extreme instance of triglyceride, chylomicron, and chylomicron remnant stacking. That can only lead to one thing: accelerated heart and vascular plaque.
What is a healthy vitamin D blood level? 9. November 2009 William Davis (32) When measuring blood levels of vitamin D (as 25-hydroxy vitamin D), what constitutes a desirable level? There's no study that directly examines this question, no study that enrolled thousands of people and assigned a placebo group and groups receiving escalating doses of vitamin D and/or achieved higher levels of vitamin D, then observed for development of cancer, diabetes, depression, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, etc. Such a study would requires many thousands of participants (particularly to observe cancer and multiple sclerosis incidence), many years of observation, and many tens of millions of dollars. Nope, only a drug company could afford such costs. So we have to piece together various observations and extrapolate what we believe to be the ideal level of vitamin D. Epidemiologic observations in several cancers (breast, colon, prostate, and bladder) suggest that a 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 30 ng/ml or higher is desirable (with less cancer incidence above this level). Other data suggest a level of 52 ng/ml or greater is desirable. Unfortunately, much cancer research looked at intake of vitamin D from food and supplement sources, rather than actual blood levels. We also have to factor in the great individual variation in vitamin D metabolism, with a single dose yielding variable blood levels (as much as a 10-fold difference). There's also the variation introduced by vitamin D-receptor variation (genetic polymorphisms). A new study using vitamin D administration helps chart the desirable levels of vitamin D. Vitamin D supplementation reduces insulin resistance in South Asian women living in New Zealand who are insulin resistant and vitamin D deficient - a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.In this New Zealand study, 42 women (23 to 68 years old) were given 4000 units vitamin D, 39 women given placebo. Median 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels increased from 21 nmol/L (8.4 ng/ml) to 75 nmol/L (30 ng/ml). Both HOMA (a measure of insulin sensitivity) and fasting insulin levels improved, with greatest improvement seen at 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels of 80-119 nmol/L (32-47.6 ng/ml) or greater. We also know that a vacation on a Caribbean beach in a bathing suit will increase vitamin D blood levels to the 80-110 ng/ml range without ill-effect (at least in young people who maintain the capacity to activate vitamin D in the skin, a phenomenon that declines as we age). So do we really know the truly ideal level of vitamin D to achieve? I believe that, given the above observations, it is reasonable to extrapolate that the ideal vitamin D blood level likely lies somewhere above 50 ng/ml. We also know that vitamin D toxicity (i.e., hypercalcemia) is virtually unheard of until vitamin D blood levels approach 150 ng/ml, and even then is inconsistent. The health benefits of vitamin D supplementation are so tremendous, that I am not willing to wait for the prospective data to explore this question fully. For now, I aim for a blood level of vitamin D of 60-70 ng/ml (150-175 nmol/L).
Grazing is for cattle 5. November 2009 William Davis (17) Many dietitians and nutritionists advise many people today to "graze," i.e., to eat small snacks every couple of hours. They argue that it blocks the drop in insulin and blood sugar that can trigger greater appetite and claim it can facilitate weight loss. This is an absurd notion. Humans are not meant to graze. Humans are meant to find a wild boar or other animal, kill it, gorge on the meat, organs, and fat, then revert to berries, roots, leaves, and other foraged foods until the next kill. A human living in the wild does not have a cupboard or refrigerator full of ready-to-eat snacks to graze on. The several hours after a meal is the most dangerous for creating coronary atherosclerotic plaque, i.e., the post-prandial period. In other words, eat dinner and, for the next 6-12 hours, your intestinal tract degrades the food; food byproducts are absorbed into the blood or lymph system. The blood is literally flooded with the byproducts of your meal. Postprandial abnormalities are emerging to be a potent, and much underappreciated, means of causing heart disease and atherosclerosis in other vascular territories (especially carotid arteries and thoracic aorta). Not eating--i.e., the fasting state--for extended periods is good for you. Encouraging people to graze amplifies atherosclerotic risk, since it creates an abnormal prolonged postprandial state.
The disastrous results of a low-fat diet 4. November 2009 William Davis (16) Rob was never that committed to following the program in the first place. I met Rob because of a modest heart scan score and consultation for a cholesterol abnormality. Rob had been cycled through all the statin agents by his primary care physician, all of which resulted in terrible muscle aches that he found intolerable. I started out, as usual, characterizing his cholesterol abnormality with lipoprotein testing (NMR):LDL particle number 1489 nmol/L LDL cholesterol (Friedewald calculation) 143 mg/dlSmall LDL 52% of total LDLHDL 50 mg/dlTriglycerides 82 mg/dl(LDL particle number is the emerging gold standard for LDL quantification, superior to calculated or Friedewald LDL cholesterol for prediction of cardiovascular events.)Rob is a busy guy. After only a couple of brief visits, life and work got in the way and Rob let his attentions drift away from heart health. Since the information I provided made little impact on his thinking, he reverted to the low-fat diet his primary care doctor had originally prescribed and that he read about in magazines and food packages. He also ran out of the basic supplements I had advised, including fish oil and vitamin D, and just never restarted them. A couple of years passed and Rob decided that just poking around on his own might not cut it. So he came back to the office. We repeated his NMR lipoprotein analysis: LDL particle number 2699 nmol/L LDL cholesterol (Friedewald calculation) 229 mg/dlSmall LDL 81% of total LDLHDL 53 mg/dlTriglycerides 78 mg/dlTwo years of a low-fat diet had caused Rob's LDL particle number to skyrocket by 81%, nearly all due to an explosion of small LDL. Recall that small LDL is more susceptible to oxidation, more inflammation-provoking, more adhesive--the form of LDL particles most likely to cause heart disease. Also, note that, despite the enormous increase in small LDL, HDL and triglycerides remained favorable. This counters the popular rule-of-thumb offered by some that small LDL is not present when HDL is "normal." Low-fat diets as commonly practiced are enormously destructive. In Rob's case, a low-fat diet caused both calculated Friedewald LDL as well as LDL particle number to increase dramatically. In many other people, low-fat diets increase calculated Friedewald LDL modestly or not at all, but cause the more accurate LDL particle number to increase significantly, all due to small LDL. I'm happy to say that, once Rob witnessed how far wrong he could go on the wrong program, he's back on Track. (Sorry, pun intended.) He has resumed his supplements and eliminated the food triggers of small LDL--wheat, cornstarch, and sugars.
Dr. David Grimes reminds us of vitamin D 3. November 2009 William Davis (13) In response to the Heart Scan Blog post, Fish oil makes you happy: Psychological distress and omega-3 index, Dr. David Grimes offered the following argument. Dr. Grimes is a physician in northwest England at the Blackburn Royal Infirmary, Lancashire. He is author of the wonderfully cheeky 2006 Lancet editorial, Are statins analogues of vitamin D?, questioning whether the benefits of statin drugs simply work by way of increased vitamin D blood levels. There is a fashionable interest in Omega-3 fatty acids, and these become equated with fish oil.But fish oil is much more. Plankton synthesise the related squalene (shark oil) which, in turn, is converted into 7-dehydrocholesterol (7-DHC). The sun now comes into play and it converts 7-DHC into vitamin D (a physico-chemical process).Small fish eat plankton, large fish eat small fish, and we eat large fish. So vitamin D passes through the food chain. This has been a vital source of vitamin D for the the Inuits and also for the Scots and other dwellers of northwest Europe. (Edinburgh is on the same latitude as Hudson Bay and Alaska, further north than anywhere in China). In these locations there is not adequate sunlight energy to guarantee synthesis of adequate amounts of vitamin D, again by the action of sunlight on 7-DHC in the skin.When the Scots moved from coastal fishing villages to industrial cities such as Glasgow, they became seriously deficient in vitamin D, and so the emergence of rickets. This was followed by a variety of other diseases resulting from vitamin D deficiency: tuberculosis, dental decay, coronary heart disease, and even multiple sclerosis and depression (the Glasgow syndrome).And so it was with the Inuits. When their diet changed from fish for breakfast, fish for lunch, fish for dinner, they became deficient of vitamin D and they developed diseases characteristic of industrial cities, where there is indoor work for long hours, indoor activities, and atmospheric pollution.It is the vitamin D component of fish and fish oils that is important.I recently saw an elderly lady from Bangladesh living in northwest England. I would have expected her to have a very low blood level of vitamin D, as her exposure to the sun was minimal. However the blood level was 47ng/ml, not 4 as expected. She eats oily fish from Bangladesh every day, showing its value as a source of vitamin D with subsequent good health. I expect her blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids would also be high.But it is unfashionable vitamin D that is important, not fashionable omega-3.David Grimeswww.vitamindandcholesterol.comExcellent point. The health effects of omega-3 and vitamin D are intimately intertwined when examining populations that consume fish.In this study of Inuits, it is indeed impossible to dissect out how much psychological distress was due to reduced vitamin D, how much due to reduced omega-3s. My bet is that it's both. Thankfully, we also have data examining the use of pure omega-3 fatty acids in capsule (not intact fish) form, including studies like GISSI Prevenzione. Nonetheless, Dr. Grimes reminds us that both vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil play crucial roles in mental health and other aspects of health, and that it's the combination that may account for the extravagant health effects previously ascribed only to omega-3s.
Why does fish oil reduce triglycerides? 2. November 2009 William Davis (9) Beyond its ability to slash risk for cardiovascular events, omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil also reduce triglycerides. There's no remaining question that omega-3s do this quite effectively. After all, the FDA approved prescription fish oil, Lovaza, to treat a condition called familial hypertriglyceridemia, an inherited condition in which very high triglycerides in the 100s or 1000s of milligrams typically develop. The omega-3 fraction of fatty acids are unique for their triglyceride-reducing property. No other fraction of fatty acids, such as omega-6 or saturated, can match the triglyceride-reducing effect of omega-3s. But why does fish oil reduce triglycerides? First of all, what are triglycerides? As their name suggests, triglycerides consist of three ("tri-") fatty acids lined up along a glycerol (sugar) "backbone." Triglycerides are the form in which most fatty acids occur in the bloodstream, liver, and other organs. (Fatty acids, like omega-3, omega-6, mono- or polyunsaturated, or saturated, rarely occur as free fatty acids unbound to glycerol.) In various lipoproteins in the blood, like LDL, VLDL, and HDL, fatty acids occur as triglycerides. Of all lipoproteins, chylomicrons (the large particle formed through intestinal absorption of fatty acids and transported to the liver via the lymph system) and VLDL (very low-density lipoprotein, very low-density because they are mostly fat and little protein) particles are richest in triglycerides. Thus, we would expect that omega-3s exert their triglyceride-reducing effect via reductions in either chylomicrons or VLDL. Indeed, that seems to be the case. The emerging evidence suggests that omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil reduce triglycerides through:--Reduced VLDL production by the liver (Harris 1989)--Accelerating chylomicron and VLDL elimination from the blood --Activation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR-gamma)--Omega-3s ramp up the cellular equipment used to convert fatty acids to energy (oxidation) (Gani 2008)Combine omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil with wheat elimination and you have an extremely potent means of reducing triglycerides. Read a previous Heart Scan Blog post here to read how a patient reduced triglycerides 93.5% from 3100 mg/dl to 210 mg/dl in just a few weeks using fish oil and wheat elimination.
Fish oil makes you happy: Psychological distress and omega-3 index 30. October 2009 William Davis (24) For another perspective on omega-3 blood levels, here's an interesting study in northern Quebec Inuits. Traditionally, Inuits consumed large quantities of omega-3-rich seal, fish, caribou, and whale, even eating the fat. However, like the rest of the world, modern Inuits have increased consumption of store-bought foods, largely processed carbohydrates. Along with this trend has emerged more heart disease, diabetes, and depression. A group from Laval University and University of Guelph, both in Canada, examined the relationship of plasma EPA + DHA levels and measures of psychological distress. This group had previously shown that Inuits older than 50 years had twice the plasma omega-3 levels (11.5%) compared to those younger than 50 years (6.5%), reflecting the shift away from the traditional diet. Psychological distress was measured with The Psychological Distress Index Santé-Québec Survey (PDISQS-14): the higher the score, the greater the psychological distress. (In the graphs, tertile 1 is least distressed; tertile 5 is most distressed. Sorry about the small chart graphic--click on the graphic to make it bigger.)From Lucas M et al 2009 (http://www.nutrasource.ca/NDI/Assets/Articles/Plasma%20omega-3%20and%20psychological%20distress%20among%20Nunavik%20Inuit.pdf)"Our main finding was that women in the second and third tertiles of EPA+DHA concentrations in plasma PLs [phospholipids] had a 3 times lower risk of having a high-level PD [psychological distress] score than women in the lowest tertile."While the relationship is stronger for women, you can see that, the higher the EPA + DHA plasma level, the lower the likelihood of psychological distress. Interestingly, the tertile with the greatest distress and lowest EPA + DHA levels had a plasma level of 7.0-7.5%--far higher than average Americans. (Plasma levels of EPA + DHA were used in this study, which tend to reflect more recent omega-3 intake than the more stable and slower-to-change RBC Omega-3 Index that we use. Plasma levels also tend to run about 10-20% lower than RBC levels.)Of course, there's more to psychological distress than omega-3 blood levels. After all, eating fish or taking fish oil capsules won't make money worries go away or heal an unhappy marriage. But it is one variable that can be easily and safely remedied.
Hospitals are a hell of a place to get sick 29. October 2009 William Davis (19) I answered a page from a hospital nurse recently one evening while having dinner with the family. RN: "This is Lonnie. I'm a nurse at _____ Hospital. I've got one of your patients here, Mrs. Carole Simpson. She's here for a knee replacement with Dr. Johnson. She says she's taking 12,000 units of vitamin D every day. That can't be right! So I'm calling to verify." WD: "That's right. We gauge patients' vitamin D needs by blood levels of vitamin D. Carole has had perfect levels of vitamin D on that dose." RN: "The pharmacist says he can replace it with a 50,000 unit tablet."WD: "Well, go ahead while Carole's in the hospital. I'll just put her back on the real stuff when she leaves." RN: "But the pharmacist says this is better and she won't have to take so many capsules. She takes six 2,000 unit capsules a day." WD: "The 50,000 units you and the pharmacist are talking about is vitamin D2, or ergocalciferol, a non-human form. Carole is taking vitamin D3, or cholecalciferol, the human form. The last time I checked, Carole was human." RN: (Long pause.) Can we just give her the 50,000 unit tablet? WD: "Yes, you can. But you actually don't need to. In fact, it probably won't hurt anything to just hold the vitamin D altogether for the 3 days she's in the hospital, since the half-life of vitamin D is about 8 weeks. Her blood level will barely change by just holding it for 3 days, then resuming when she's discharged." RN: (Another long pause.) Uh, okay. Can we just give her the 50,000 units?"WD: "Yes, you can. No harm will be done. It's simply a less effective form. To be honest, once Carole leaves the hospital, I will just put her back on the vitamin D that she was taking." RN: "Dr. Johnson was worried that it might make her bleed during surgery. Shouldn't we just stop it?" WD: "No. Vitamin D has no effect on blood coagulation. So there's no concern about perioperative bleeding."RN: "The pharmacist said the 50,000 unit tablet was better, also, because it's the prescription form, not an over-the-counter form." WD: "I can only tell you that Carole has had perfect blood levels on the over-the-counter preparation she was taking. It works just fine."RN: "Okay. I guess we''ll just give her the 50,000 unit tablet."From the alarm it raises trying to administer nutritional supplements in a hospital, you'd think that Osama Bin Laden had been spotted on the premises. I laugh about this every time it happens: A patient gets hospitalized for whatever reason and the hospital staff see the supplement list with vitamin D, fish oil at high doses, iodine, etc. and they panic. They tell the patient about bleeding, cancer, and death, issue stern warnings about how unreliable and dangerous nutritional supplements can be. My view is the exact opposite: Nutritional supplements are a wonderful, incredibly varied, and effective array of substances that, when used properly, can provide all manner of benefits. While there are selected instances in which nutritional supplements do, indeed, have interactions with treatments provided in hospitals (e.g., Valerian root and general anesthesia), the vast majority of supplements have none.
Does fish oil cause blood thinning? 27. October 2009 William Davis (20) Omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil have the capacity to "thin the blood." In reality, omega-3s exert a mild platelet-blocking effect (platelet activation and "clumping" are part of clot formation), while also inhibiting arachidonic acid formation and thromboxane. But can fish oil cause excessive bleeding? This question comes up frequently in the office, particularly when my colleagues see the doses of fish oil we use for cardiovascular protection. "Why so much fish oil? That's too much blood thinning!" The most recent addition to the conversation comes from a Philadelphia experience reported in the American Journal of Cardiology:Comparison of bleeding complications with omega-3 fatty acids + aspirin + clopidogrel--versus--aspirin + clopidogrel in patients with cardiovascular disease.(Watson et al; Am J Cardiol 2009 Oct 15;104(8):1052-4). All 364 subjects in the study took aspirin and Plavix (a platelet-inhibiting drug), mostly for coronary disease. Mean dose aspirin = 161 mg/day; mean dose Plavix = 75 mg/day. 182 of the subjects were also taking fish oil, mean dose 3000 mg with unspecified omega-3 content. During nearly 3 years of observation, there was no excess of bleeding events in the group taking fish oil. (In fact, the group not taking fish oil had more bleeding events, though the difference fell short of achieving statistical significance.) Thus, 3000 mg per day of fish oil appeared to exert no observable increase in risk for bleeding. This is consistent with several other studies, including that including Coumadin (warfarin), with no increased bleeding risk when fish oil is added. Rather than causing blood thinning, I prefer to think that omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil restore protection from abnormal clotting. Taking omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil simply restores a normal level of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood sufficient to strike a healthy balance between blood "thinning" and healthy blood clotting.
Heart Scan Blog readers take impressive doses of omega-3s All posts by william-davis Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in Heart scan book 20. April 2009 William Davis (0) There are only two books on heart scans available. One, of course, is Track Your Plaque. The other is the basic book on heart scans, What Does My Heart Scan Show? Lost in the navigation column to the left on this blog is the link to get the electronic version of the book. In case you didn't know, we make this available for free. If you're interested, just go here. This book can provide many basic answers to the questions that often arise regarding heart scans, such as the expected rate of increase in score, how your score compares to other people, when should a stress test be considered. Many heart scan centers use this book for educational purposes to help patients understand the importance of their heart scan scores. (The sign-up for the book requires that an e-mail address be entered.)The hard copy of What Does My Heart Scan Show? is available from Amazon, also, for $12.99. Lies, damned lies, and statistics 18. April 2009 William Davis (8) In the last Heart Scan Blog post, I discussed the question of whether statin drugs provide incremental benefit when excellent lipid values are already achieved without drugs. But I admit that I was guilty of oversimplification. One peculiar phenomenon is that, when plaque-causing small LDL particles are reduced or eliminated and leave relatively benign large LDL particles in their place, conventional calculated LDL overestimates true LDL. In other words, eliminate wheat from your diet, lose 25 lbs. Small LDL is reduced as a result, leaving large LDL. Now the LDL cholesterol from your doctor's office overestimates the true value. Anne raised this issue in her comment on the discussion:I eliminated wheat - and all grains - from my diet nearly three years ago (I eat low carb Paleo). My fish oils give me a total of 1680 mg EPA and DHA per day, and my vitamin D levels since last year have varied between 50 ng/ml and 80 ng/ml. However, my lipid profile is not like either John's or Sam's:LDL cholesterol 154 mg/dlHDL cholesterol 93 mg/dlTriglycerides 36 mg/dlTotal cholesterol 255 mg/dlMy cardiologist and endocrinologist are happy with my profile because they say the ratios are good, no one is asking me to take a statin. My calcium score is 0. However, if we were to measure LDL, not just calculate it from the miserably inaccurate Friedewald equation, we would likely discover that her true LDL is far lower, certainly <100 mg/dl. (My preferred method is the bull's eye accurate NMR LDL particle number; alternatives include apoprotein B, the main apoprotein on LDL.)So Anne, don't despair. You are yet another victim of the misleading inaccuracy of standard LDL cholesterol determination, a number that I believe should no longer be used at all, but eliminated. Unfortunately, it would further confuse your poor primary care doctor or cardiologist, who--still believe in the sanctity of LDL cholesterol.By the way, the so-called "ratios" (i.e., total cholesterol to HDL and the like) are absurd notions of risk. Take weak statistical predictors, manipulate them, and try to squeeze better predictive value out of them. This is no better than suggesting that, since you've installed new brakes on your car, you no longer are at risk for a car accident. It may reduce risk, but there are too many other variables that have nothing to do with your new brakes. Likewise cholesterol ratios. Aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet 17. April 2009 William Davis (0) Despite all the hoopla heart disease receives in the media, I continue to marvel at how many people I meet who still think that aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet constitute an effective heart attack prevention program. It doesn't. No more than washing your hands prevents all human infections. It helps, but it is a sad substitute for a real prevention program. Of course, aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet is the same recipe followed by the unfortunate Tim Russert and his doctors. You know how that turned out. Mr. Russert's experience is far from unique. What is so magical about aspirin, Lipitor and a low-fat diet? There is a simple rationale behind this approach. Aspirin doesn't reduce atherosclerotic plaque growth, but it inhibits the propagation of a blood clot on top of a coronary plaque that has "ruptured," thereby reducing likelihood of heart attack (which occurs when the clot fills the artery). So aspirin only provides benefit if and when a plaque ruptures. Lipitor and other statin drugs reduce LDL cholesterol, promote a modest relaxation of constricted plaque-filled arteries (normalization of endothelial dysfunction), and exerts other effects, such as inflammation suppression. A low-fat diet is intended to reduce saturated fat that triggers LDL cholesterol formation and to encourage intake of whole grains that reduce cardiovascular events and LDL cholesterol. If that is the extent of your heart disease prevention program, you will have a heart attack, bypass surgery, or stent--period. It may not be tomorrow or next Friday, or even next month. Aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet may delay your heart attack or procedure for a few years, but it will not stop it.Some flaws in the aspirin, Lipitor, low-fat program: --Aspirin can only exert so much blood clot-blocking effect. It can be overwhelmed by many other factors, such as increased blood viscosity, increased fibrinogen (a blood clotting protein that also triggers plaque), and plaque inflammation. --Lipitor reduces LDL, but does not discriminate between the relatively harmless large LDL and the truly plaque-triggering small LDL--it reduces all LDL, but small LDL can still persist, even at extravagant levels since neither aspirin nor Lipitor specifically reduces small LDL, while a low-fat diet increases small LDL. --Low-fat diet--A diet reduced in fat and loaded with plenty of "healthy whole grains" will trigger increased small LDL (an enormous effect), c-reactive protein, high blood sugar, resistance to insulin, high blood pressure, and an expanding abdomen ("wheat belly").Aspirin, Lipitor and a low-fat diet do not address: --Vitamin D deficiency--Omega-3 fatty acid deficiency and the eicosanoid path to inflammation--High triglycerides--Small LDL particles--Distortions of HDL "architecture" --Lipoprotein(a)--the worst coronary risk factor nobody's heard of--Thyroid statusIn other words, the simple-minded, though hugely financially successful, conventional model of heart disease prevention is woefully inadequate. Don't fall for it. Statin drugs for everybody? 17. April 2009 William Davis (10) Who is better off? John takes Crestor, 40 mg per day: LDL cholesterol 60 mg/dlHDL cholesterol 60 mg/dlTriglycerides 60 mg/dlTotal cholesterol 132 mg/dl Or Sam:LDL cholesterol 60 mg/dlHDL cholesterol 60 mg/dlTriglycerides 60 mg/dlTotal cholesterol 132 mg/dl who obtained these values through vitamin D normalization (to increase HDL); wheat elimination (to reduce triglycerides and LDL); and omega-3 fatty acids (to reduce triglycerides). Believe the drug industry (motto: If some statin is good, more statin is better!), then John is clearly better off: He has obtained all the "benefits" of statin drugs. They refer to the "pleiotropic" effects of statin drugs, the presumed benefits that extend outside of cholesterol reduction. The most recent example are the JUPITER data that demonstrated 55% reduction in cardiovascular events in people with increased c-reactive protein (CRP). Media reports now unashamedly gush at the benefits of Crestor to reduce inflammation. However, on Sam's program, elimination of wheat and vitamin D both exert anti-inflammatory effects on CRP, typically yielding drops of 70-90%--consistently, rapidly, and durably. So which approach is really better? In my experience, there is no comparison: Sam is far better off. While John will reduce his cardiovascular risk with a statin drug, he fails to obtain all the other benefits of Sam's broader, more natural program. John will not enjoy the same cancer protection, osteoporosis and arthritis protection, relief from depression and winter "blues," and increased mental and physical performance that Sam will. If our goal is dramatic correction of cholesterol patterns and reduction of cardiovascular risk, for many, many people statin drugs are simply not necessary. No BS weight loss 13. April 2009 William Davis (18) If there's something out there on the market for weight loss, we've tried it. By we, I mean myself along with many people and patients around me willing to try various new strategies. Maybe you say: "Well that's not a clinical trial. How can we know that there aren't small effects?" Who cares about small effects? If a weight loss strategy causes you to lose 1.2 lbs over 3 months--who cares? Sure, it may count towards a slight measure of health in a 230 lb 5 ft 3 inch woman. But it is insufficient to engage that person's interest and keep them on track. That little result, in fact, will discourage interest in weight loss and cause someone to return to previous behaviors. What I'm talking about is BIG weight loss--20 lbs the first month, 40 lbs over 4 months, 50-60 lbs over 6 months.Right now, there are only three things that I know of that yield such enormous effects: 1) Elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars2) Thyroid normalization (I don't mean following what the laboratory says is "normal")3) Intermittent fastingCombine all three in various ways and the results are accelerated even more. Self-directed health is ALREADY here 12. April 2009 William Davis (12) It can't happen. People are too stupid/ignorant/lazy or simply don't care. It is irresponsible. People will misuse, abuse, misdiagnose, fail to recognize all manner of medical conditions. It's all true. Most of the medical establishment believes it. And it is self-fulfulling: If you believe it, it will happen. But it's not true for everybody. If readers of this blog, for instance, were to view the conversations we have in our Track Your Plaque Forum, you would immediately recognize that we have a following that is more sophisticated and knowledgeable about coronary heart disease than 90% of cardiologists. That is really something. Perhaps they can't put in a stent or defibrillator, but they understand an enormous amount about this disease we are all trying to control and reverse, sufficient to seize control over much of their own healthcare for this process and related conditons. Anyway, self-directed health is already here. And it's happening on an incredible scale. Witness:--Nutritional supplements--Now a $21 billion (annual revenues) phenomenon, booming sales of nutritional supplements are a powerful testimonial to the enthuasiasm of the public for self-directed health treatments. Sure, there are plenty of junk supplements out there, but there are also many spectacularly effective products. Information, not marketing, will help tell the difference. Over the long-run, the truth will win out. The 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act has allowed the definition of “nutritional supplement” to be stretched to the limit. "Nutritional supplements" includes obviously non-nutritional (though still potentially interesting) products like the hormones pregnenolone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), and melatonin to be sold on the same shelf as vitamin C. There are also amino acids, polysaccharides, minerals and trace minerals, herbal preparations, flavonoids, carotenoids, antioxidants, phytonutrients. In fact, I believe that the nutritional supplement pipeline is likely to yield far more exciting and effective products than the drug research pipeline! And you will have access to all of it--without your doctor's involvement. --Self-ordered laboratory testing--In every state except New York and California, an individual can obtain his or her o
Heart scan book 20. April 2009 William Davis (0) There are only two books on heart scans available. One, of course, is Track Your Plaque. The other is the basic book on heart scans, What Does My Heart Scan Show? Lost in the navigation column to the left on this blog is the link to get the electronic version of the book. In case you didn't know, we make this available for free. If you're interested, just go here. This book can provide many basic answers to the questions that often arise regarding heart scans, such as the expected rate of increase in score, how your score compares to other people, when should a stress test be considered. Many heart scan centers use this book for educational purposes to help patients understand the importance of their heart scan scores. (The sign-up for the book requires that an e-mail address be entered.)The hard copy of What Does My Heart Scan Show? is available from Amazon, also, for $12.99.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics 18. April 2009 William Davis (8) In the last Heart Scan Blog post, I discussed the question of whether statin drugs provide incremental benefit when excellent lipid values are already achieved without drugs. But I admit that I was guilty of oversimplification. One peculiar phenomenon is that, when plaque-causing small LDL particles are reduced or eliminated and leave relatively benign large LDL particles in their place, conventional calculated LDL overestimates true LDL. In other words, eliminate wheat from your diet, lose 25 lbs. Small LDL is reduced as a result, leaving large LDL. Now the LDL cholesterol from your doctor's office overestimates the true value. Anne raised this issue in her comment on the discussion:I eliminated wheat - and all grains - from my diet nearly three years ago (I eat low carb Paleo). My fish oils give me a total of 1680 mg EPA and DHA per day, and my vitamin D levels since last year have varied between 50 ng/ml and 80 ng/ml. However, my lipid profile is not like either John's or Sam's:LDL cholesterol 154 mg/dlHDL cholesterol 93 mg/dlTriglycerides 36 mg/dlTotal cholesterol 255 mg/dlMy cardiologist and endocrinologist are happy with my profile because they say the ratios are good, no one is asking me to take a statin. My calcium score is 0. However, if we were to measure LDL, not just calculate it from the miserably inaccurate Friedewald equation, we would likely discover that her true LDL is far lower, certainly <100 mg/dl. (My preferred method is the bull's eye accurate NMR LDL particle number; alternatives include apoprotein B, the main apoprotein on LDL.)So Anne, don't despair. You are yet another victim of the misleading inaccuracy of standard LDL cholesterol determination, a number that I believe should no longer be used at all, but eliminated. Unfortunately, it would further confuse your poor primary care doctor or cardiologist, who--still believe in the sanctity of LDL cholesterol.By the way, the so-called "ratios" (i.e., total cholesterol to HDL and the like) are absurd notions of risk. Take weak statistical predictors, manipulate them, and try to squeeze better predictive value out of them. This is no better than suggesting that, since you've installed new brakes on your car, you no longer are at risk for a car accident. It may reduce risk, but there are too many other variables that have nothing to do with your new brakes. Likewise cholesterol ratios.
Aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet 17. April 2009 William Davis (0) Despite all the hoopla heart disease receives in the media, I continue to marvel at how many people I meet who still think that aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet constitute an effective heart attack prevention program. It doesn't. No more than washing your hands prevents all human infections. It helps, but it is a sad substitute for a real prevention program. Of course, aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet is the same recipe followed by the unfortunate Tim Russert and his doctors. You know how that turned out. Mr. Russert's experience is far from unique. What is so magical about aspirin, Lipitor and a low-fat diet? There is a simple rationale behind this approach. Aspirin doesn't reduce atherosclerotic plaque growth, but it inhibits the propagation of a blood clot on top of a coronary plaque that has "ruptured," thereby reducing likelihood of heart attack (which occurs when the clot fills the artery). So aspirin only provides benefit if and when a plaque ruptures. Lipitor and other statin drugs reduce LDL cholesterol, promote a modest relaxation of constricted plaque-filled arteries (normalization of endothelial dysfunction), and exerts other effects, such as inflammation suppression. A low-fat diet is intended to reduce saturated fat that triggers LDL cholesterol formation and to encourage intake of whole grains that reduce cardiovascular events and LDL cholesterol. If that is the extent of your heart disease prevention program, you will have a heart attack, bypass surgery, or stent--period. It may not be tomorrow or next Friday, or even next month. Aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet may delay your heart attack or procedure for a few years, but it will not stop it.Some flaws in the aspirin, Lipitor, low-fat program: --Aspirin can only exert so much blood clot-blocking effect. It can be overwhelmed by many other factors, such as increased blood viscosity, increased fibrinogen (a blood clotting protein that also triggers plaque), and plaque inflammation. --Lipitor reduces LDL, but does not discriminate between the relatively harmless large LDL and the truly plaque-triggering small LDL--it reduces all LDL, but small LDL can still persist, even at extravagant levels since neither aspirin nor Lipitor specifically reduces small LDL, while a low-fat diet increases small LDL. --Low-fat diet--A diet reduced in fat and loaded with plenty of "healthy whole grains" will trigger increased small LDL (an enormous effect), c-reactive protein, high blood sugar, resistance to insulin, high blood pressure, and an expanding abdomen ("wheat belly").Aspirin, Lipitor and a low-fat diet do not address: --Vitamin D deficiency--Omega-3 fatty acid deficiency and the eicosanoid path to inflammation--High triglycerides--Small LDL particles--Distortions of HDL "architecture" --Lipoprotein(a)--the worst coronary risk factor nobody's heard of--Thyroid statusIn other words, the simple-minded, though hugely financially successful, conventional model of heart disease prevention is woefully inadequate. Don't fall for it.
Statin drugs for everybody? 17. April 2009 William Davis (10) Who is better off? John takes Crestor, 40 mg per day: LDL cholesterol 60 mg/dlHDL cholesterol 60 mg/dlTriglycerides 60 mg/dlTotal cholesterol 132 mg/dl Or Sam:LDL cholesterol 60 mg/dlHDL cholesterol 60 mg/dlTriglycerides 60 mg/dlTotal cholesterol 132 mg/dl who obtained these values through vitamin D normalization (to increase HDL); wheat elimination (to reduce triglycerides and LDL); and omega-3 fatty acids (to reduce triglycerides). Believe the drug industry (motto: If some statin is good, more statin is better!), then John is clearly better off: He has obtained all the "benefits" of statin drugs. They refer to the "pleiotropic" effects of statin drugs, the presumed benefits that extend outside of cholesterol reduction. The most recent example are the JUPITER data that demonstrated 55% reduction in cardiovascular events in people with increased c-reactive protein (CRP). Media reports now unashamedly gush at the benefits of Crestor to reduce inflammation. However, on Sam's program, elimination of wheat and vitamin D both exert anti-inflammatory effects on CRP, typically yielding drops of 70-90%--consistently, rapidly, and durably. So which approach is really better? In my experience, there is no comparison: Sam is far better off. While John will reduce his cardiovascular risk with a statin drug, he fails to obtain all the other benefits of Sam's broader, more natural program. John will not enjoy the same cancer protection, osteoporosis and arthritis protection, relief from depression and winter "blues," and increased mental and physical performance that Sam will. If our goal is dramatic correction of cholesterol patterns and reduction of cardiovascular risk, for many, many people statin drugs are simply not necessary.
No BS weight loss 13. April 2009 William Davis (18) If there's something out there on the market for weight loss, we've tried it. By we, I mean myself along with many people and patients around me willing to try various new strategies. Maybe you say: "Well that's not a clinical trial. How can we know that there aren't small effects?" Who cares about small effects? If a weight loss strategy causes you to lose 1.2 lbs over 3 months--who cares? Sure, it may count towards a slight measure of health in a 230 lb 5 ft 3 inch woman. But it is insufficient to engage that person's interest and keep them on track. That little result, in fact, will discourage interest in weight loss and cause someone to return to previous behaviors. What I'm talking about is BIG weight loss--20 lbs the first month, 40 lbs over 4 months, 50-60 lbs over 6 months.Right now, there are only three things that I know of that yield such enormous effects: 1) Elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars2) Thyroid normalization (I don't mean following what the laboratory says is "normal")3) Intermittent fastingCombine all three in various ways and the results are accelerated even more.
Self-directed health is ALREADY here 12. April 2009 William Davis (12) It can't happen. People are too stupid/ignorant/lazy or simply don't care. It is irresponsible. People will misuse, abuse, misdiagnose, fail to recognize all manner of medical conditions. It's all true. Most of the medical establishment believes it. And it is self-fulfulling: If you believe it, it will happen. But it's not true for everybody. If readers of this blog, for instance, were to view the conversations we have in our Track Your Plaque Forum, you would immediately recognize that we have a following that is more sophisticated and knowledgeable about coronary heart disease than 90% of cardiologists. That is really something. Perhaps they can't put in a stent or defibrillator, but they understand an enormous amount about this disease we are all trying to control and reverse, sufficient to seize control over much of their own healthcare for this process and related conditons. Anyway, self-directed health is already here. And it's happening on an incredible scale. Witness:--Nutritional supplements--Now a $21 billion (annual revenues) phenomenon, booming sales of nutritional supplements are a powerful testimonial to the enthuasiasm of the public for self-directed health treatments. Sure, there are plenty of junk supplements out there, but there are also many spectacularly effective products. Information, not marketing, will help tell the difference. Over the long-run, the truth will win out. The 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act has allowed the definition of “nutritional supplement” to be stretched to the limit. "Nutritional supplements" includes obviously non-nutritional (though still potentially interesting) products like the hormones pregnenolone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), and melatonin to be sold on the same shelf as vitamin C. There are also amino acids, polysaccharides, minerals and trace minerals, herbal preparations, flavonoids, carotenoids, antioxidants, phytonutrients. In fact, I believe that the nutritional supplement pipeline is likely to yield far more exciting and effective products than the drug research pipeline! And you will have access to all of it--without your doctor's involvement. --Self-ordered laboratory testing--In every state except New York and California, an individual can obtain his or her o