NY Times Jane Brody misses the mark 9. October 2007 William Davis (6) NY Times' health columnist, Jane Brody, recently wrote a bit of fluff for her paper: "CT Scans of the Heart Come With Trade-Offs In her report, she says:Coronary CT scans are being sold directly to the public, and they have found a market in health-conscious people who can afford them. But screening exams can have downsides. They can cause needless worry, and they sometimes reveal other potential conditions that require invasive procedures like biopsies to diagnose.I soon learned that among the strongest proponents of CT scans of coronary arteries were physicians with financial ties to drug companies that make statins and others connected to imaging centers that would profit directly from widespread CT screenings.She then goes on to discuss how the Framingham scoring calculation can tell you whether or not you are at low-, intermediate-, or high-risk for heart disease. She therefore concludes that heart scans are therefore irrelevant for the majority of people. She then proceeds to take a statin agent. This sort of nonsense continues to get published, despite the clear lack of real "digging" for the truth. She clearly fell for the conventional arguments that continue to mis-guide the majority of people, myths like: --the Framingham scoring system is reliable--Reliable it is NOT; it is susceptible to substantial "misclassification" bias, meaning people who appear low risk can actually be high risk, and people at high risk can actually be low risk. Among the latest studies that question the scoring system is Family history of premature coronary heart disease and coronary artery calcification: Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). This study pointed out how the Framingham scoring system, which leaves out family history, can cause people classified as low risk to actually have substantial heart scan scores. This is crucial. A heart scan gets beyond the uncertainties and shows with >95% certainty whether or not hidden coronary atherosclerotic plaque is present.--"Coronary risk" is a dynammic phenomenon, subject to changes in a person's life. What if, for instance, a person smoked for 20 years, quit 10 years ago, lost 30 lbs, dropped their blood pressure as a result of the weight loss, then relied on the Framingham Risk Calculator to determine risk. They would likely be classified as low- risk, since risk factors now appear favorable. This person could easily have a heart scan score of 500, or 700, or 1000, levels that carry a cardiovascular event risk of 5-25% per year, hardly low-risk, because much of their risk accumulated earlier in life and is no longer revealed by an assessment of risk factors. --There are sources of risk that have nothing to do with Framingham, such as lipoprotein(a), which is often revealed by family history; the presence of small LDL, which co-varies with HDL and triglycerides, but can behave independently also; and, my favorite, deficiency of vitamin D. This would explain part of the 60-70% of people who are typically mis-classified by Framingham. Where did Ms. Brody get the idea that proponents of heart scans had ties to drug companies? I think she's barking up the wrong tree on that one. Of course, she ends up on a statin drug. For my part, I am a critic of statin drugs. Yes, they play a role, but they are miserably misused and abused by practicing physicians, based on the endless onslaught of drug company-sponsored trials that have served to distort their usefulness. If I were Ms. Brody, I would be quaking in my shoes, not knowing what my true risk for heart disease was, relying on the--at best--30% reduction in heart attack risk of Lipitor or other statin drug. Ms. Brody: You are not cured, you're simply wearing a superficial Band-Aid. If you want to know your true risk for heart attack, and you want a precise value that you can track over time, the answer is simple: Reject the conventional notion and get a heart scan.
"There must be a mistake" 9. October 2007 William Davis (2) Neal is our current male record holder for greatest reduction in heart scan score. (Yes, the ladies have the lead!) You may remember that this 40-year old man reduced his heart scan score from 339 to 161--a 51% drop. If you haven't yet read his story, go to http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_07-001nealt51.aspNeal reminded me of the experience he had when he underwent his second heart scan. Both scans had been performed at the same scanning center. At this center, the radiologists provide the added service of sitting down with people and actually going over the images and results. After the scan, the radiologist pulled up the result from Neal's first scan for comparison. "There must be a mistake! This score is lower. Scores never drop." The radiologist was apparently stumped, unable to provide an explanation. However, Neal then proceeded to tell the radiologist that we had warned Neal that this could happen and that he might even be told that it was due to error of some sort. This yielded a puzzled look on the radiologist but no further comment. Of course it's not a mistake. It's something we achieve on purpose. Curiously, I still get comments that this is impossible, heart scan scores never drop, etc. Of course, those of you following this conversation know this is completely untrue. Heart scan scores DO drop, and sometimes drop enormous amounts, as it did for Neal. I would have liked the radiologist to have had the lightbulb of understanding go off in his head when he realized that a reduction in heart scan score is a cause for celebration. Unfortunately, this radiologist's reaction is all too common: disbelief, confusion, dismissal. Heart disease reversal is simply not in the realm of understanding of most doctors, radiologists and cardiologists alike. By conventional thought, if you have it, it just gets worse. "Maybe some high-dose Lipitor might help." Ironically, when they see it right in front of their eyes, plain as day on the computer screen, they don't understand what has happened. It's Greek to them. Should this happen to you, don't be surprised. Just bite your tongue, because you know better.
Jimmy Moore Interview: Is saturated fat the villain we thought? 7. October 2007 William Davis (45) Enter "weight loss" or "low carb" in your web search and you can't help but stumble across the prolific and widely-connected Jimmy Moore. On his Blog, Livin' la Vida Lo Carb , Jimmy conducts a wide-ranging and informative discussion of the benefits of a low carbohydrate diet, a la Atkins. Though his initial claim to fame was the 180 lbs he lost in his first year of dieting on this approach, Jimmy has extended the conversation and built a considerable community of like-minded individuals, all of whom are participating in this grand "experiment." Anybody who looks at lipoproteins and associated factors in health will quickly come to the conclusion that processed carbohydrates are the culprits in much of heart disease, diabetes, and heart disease. But I have had a hard time dismissing the ill-effects of saturated fat. After all, we've all been taught--drilled--with the idea that saturated fats cause LDL cholesterol to go higher, cause arterial constriction, growth of atherosclerotic plaque, inflammation, even cancer. But there does indeed seem to be a growing sentinment that this long-held dogma may not be true. So I went to the ever-entertaining and informative Jimmy Moore, an able spokesman for these concepts. TYP: It's certainly impossible to argue with the success you had in weight loss and the health you've regained on your program. I think that the approach we use in diet in the Track Your Plaque program and the nutrition approach you advocate overlap to a great extent. We both emphasize plenty of vegetables, fruits, healthy oils, nuts, etc. The major point of difference seems to lie in saturated fat: We say restrict it, you say don't restrict it. Could you elaborate?JM: Thank you for inviting me to your blog today, Dr. Davis. I have nothing but deep respect and admiration for the work you are doing to help educate others about how to keep their heart health in tip-top shape. Keep fighting the good fight, my friend.While we do agree on probably 99% of the basic tenets of what I describe as "livin' la vida low-carb," the issue of saturated fat to me is one where we indeed do not. It's not a deal breaker regarding my support for what you do just as I'm sure you would say the same regarding your backing of what I do. If we all agreed on everything, then what a boring world this would be!My thinking on saturated fat has evolved since I started eating this way nearly four years ago. Like most people, I was terrified to eat ANY fat at all because of the abject fear that people like Dr. Dean Ornish and other so-called health "experts" instilled in me about how dangerously unhealthy it is to consume it. This fat phobia is arguably the single biggest contributor to the ongoing obesity crisis our world faces today.With that said, you and I both know fat consumption is a part of a healthy lifestyle. There are just too many benefits to the body that come from the consumption of fats and even saturated fats such as coconut oil, butter, lard, nuts, seeds, and animal fat when it is combined with a restricted carbohydrate intake.An intriguing study was presented at a scientific conference in November 2006 by two highly-respected researchers--Dr. Stephen Phinney from the University of California at Davis and Dr. Jeff Volek from the University of Connecticut--who conducted a side-by-side comparison of the amount of saturated fat in the blood of people on a low-carb diet with those following those highly-touted low-fat diets. What they found was the low-carb study participants had "significantly less" saturated fat in their blood than the low-fatties did.Here are the actual numbers from the study:- LOW-FAT/HIGH-CARB DIETERS: lowered saturated fat by 24%- LOW-CARB/HIGH-FAT DIETERS: lowered saturated fat by 57%- Eating 3X the saturated fat cut the amount in the blood in halfIn an interview I conducted at my blog with Dr. Volek last year (here's the link: http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2006/09/volek-high-carb-low-fat-diet-useless-to.html), he said the conventional wisdom regarding fat, especially saturate fat, is dead wrong while the significance of carbs is all but ignored by those who claim to understand the metabolic response mechanism.Here's what Dr. Volek said in my interview: "Eating fat does not make you fat, storing fat makes you fat. And carbohydrates play a major role in storing fat. So the level of dietary carbohydrate is really the most important factor to control because it dictates what happens to fat. Carbs are dominant and fat is passive. When carbohydrates are low, fat tends to be burned, and when carbohydrates are high dietary fat tends to be stored. The same holds true for the atherogenic effects of saturated fat. The body handles saturated fat better when carbohydrates are low."Long-time low-carb practitioner and current President of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians (ASBP) Dr. Mary C. Vernon from Lawrence, Kansas confirms the findings of Dr. Volek and Dr. Phinney in a succinct recap of what their research showed.Here's what she said:"Eating fat (whatever kind) does not make you fat. It does not increase blood stream saturated fat. Eating carbs does make you fat. Eating carbs does put saturated fat in your blood stream."To me, as a simple layperson with no medical background, it's all a matter of who you believe. Do we continue to buy into the low-fat propaganda machine and assume that what they are telling us about saturated fat is true? Or do we instead start paying closer attention to the latest research that is coming out about saturated fat that doesn't exactly line up with the edicts of the last three decades? The choice for me is a simple one.And if you haven't read the brand new Gary Taubes book entitled GOOD CALORIES, BAD CALORIES yet, then it is REQUIRED reading to arm yourself with the research studies about fat. After you read that book, it will be almost impossible for ANYONE to believe fat, including saturated fat, is unhealthy.TYP: In our program, we advocate a wheat-free approach for many people, because of the addictive potential of wheat products, as well as the flagrant creation of the small LDL pattern that wheat products create, thereby adding to atherosclerotic plaque growth. However, many people express a concern over a lack of fiber in their diets if they eliminate whole wheat bread, pasta, Fiber One, Raisin Bran cereal, etc. Have you encountered any phenomena of low-fiber on your approach? JM: What an excellent question and I even wrote a humorous blog post about the importance of fiber intake called "Allow Your Bowel To Shake, Rattle, And Roll" (http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2006/06/allow-your-bowel-to-shake-rattle-and.html). Fiber consumption is another one of those issues that not everyone who advocates a controlled-carb approach agrees is necessary. I'm on the side that it IS a healthy part of your diet and should be consumed in high enough quantities to keep you regular...something many people think is impossible on a low-carb diet. Not true! I take a fiber supplement like FiberCon, eat plenty of high-fiber vegetables, drink lots of water, and even consume high-fiber, low-carb products that help me maintain high levels of fiber in my diet (see my favorite ones in this post: http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2007/04/there-are-plenty-of-low-carb-fiber.html).As for consuming the highly-touted "healthy whole grain" cereals that you mentioned, what a travesty that would be for people trying to manage their weight and health. While the cereal manufacturers have had a heyday in their marketing efforts promoting their whole grain content, it's all just a big fat ruse on the public trying to convince them that these cereals are somehow healthy for their bodies. Sure, they're better than the sugary cereals, but all those grains are metabolized as sugar inside the body, so you might as well be eating Lucky Charms and Fruit Loops!Many of these "healthy" cereals contain as many carbohydrates in a single bowl without the milk as I would eat in an entire day. Raisin Bran, for example, which used to be my favorite cereal before my low-carb lifestye, has a whopping 47 grams of carbohydrates. Needless to say, I don't touch that with a ten-foot pole nowadays because I would surely gain weight and get back on the blood sugar rollercoaster ride that I was on prior to beginning the Atkins diet on January 1, 2004. Plus, all those carbs just make you hungrier sooner, so it's better just to eat some delicious eggs cooked in butter, a couple of slices of sausage, and tomato slices to start your day off right. You'll get enough fiber in your body the rest of your day.TYP: 180 lbs of weight loss in your first year is absolutely astounding. I take it that you've continued this trend and have lost more weight since your early success. What role did exercise play during your first year and subsequently? How are your food choices today different from that first year? JM: Yes, that weight loss was indeed one of the greatest accomplishments I have ever experienced in my life. It was a hard-fought battle that even included a 10-week period where I was stalled with no weight loss. But I knew my chosen diet was the right one for me because I felt better than I ever had on a diet, was never hungry because I ate every 2-3 hours, and could see myself doing this for the rest of my life. So far, so good!It has been close to four years since I began this journey and I am indeed continuing this pathway to better health. My low weight in 2004 was 230 pounds and I currently weigh 225 pounds. As long as I keep my carbs reduced, I am able to maintain my weight right where it is. I've had minor fluctuations in both directions where I got down to as low as 215 pounds at one point (but didn't feel good at that weight) and as high as 252 pounds (when I was allowing myself one too many high-carb foods here and there).There's a balance that people need to find for themselves and it's different for all of us. I am one of the unlucky people who has to keep his carbohydrate intake below 50g daily or I gain. It's just a fact of life that I've come to grips with and realize is a necessity in order to manage my weight for the rest of my life. But I wouldn't have it any other way!Exercise was indeed a part of my low-carb weight loss success in 2004 as I forced myself to do cardio every single day as a commitment to this journey. In hindsight, that was probably not the best thing for me to do since the body has a rather peculiar way of telling you it needs to wiggle and move spontaneously on its own rather than forcing the issue. But I consider the exercise I did to be such an integral part of my success that I dedicated an entire chapter of my book to the subject.Today, my daily cardio routine is out the window and I choose instead to engage in activities outside the gym that let me burn calories and have some fun in the process. I regularly play volleyball, basketball, and referee flag football at my church which all give me quite a workout. I'm very physically active and fit on my 6'3" body and just enjoy burning off all this excess energy that I have been given since losing nearly have my weight! I do want to get into a little more organized resistance training routine soon to try to shape and tone some areas of my body that still show signs of that 410-pound man I used to be (although the loose, hanging skin in my abdomen and inner thighs isn't going to get any better with exercise since the elasticity has been ruined from being stretched out so far). Here is a link to some posts and pictures I have written about this subject:http://lowcarblinks.blogspot.com/2007/04/theme-based-low-carb-links-loose-skin.htmlAs for my food choices today compared to my weight loss year in 2004, they haven't really changed a whole lot. This was a lifestyle change in every sense of the phrase and I've learned to implement this way of eating into a permanent and healthy diet that I can and will gladly live with forever and ever amen. I probably eat more berries, melons, and nuts today than I did then, but otherwise it's the identical diet. TYP: I'm sure that you are as impressed as I am that much of the wisdom in healthy eating doesn't always come from doctors or clinical studies, but from the collective wisdom that emerges from this national experiment (inadvertent, for the most part) in eating. Your Livin' La Vida Low-Carb is, in my view, a perfect example of the sort of wisdom that is helping all of us understand what happened to our health over the last 20 years. Does the approach you advocate today differ in any substantial way from the diet as originally articulated by Dr. Atkins? JM: Actually, my personal diet is precisely based on the teaching of the late great Dr. Robert C. Atkins in his classic bestseller DR. ATKINS' NEW DIET REVOLUTION (DANDR) book. But most people are surprised when they learn I do not necessarily advocate the Atkins diet as the nutritional approach for everyone. Nope, I sure don't!Instead, my philosophy is simple: Find the diet plan that will work for YOU, read and research everything you can about that chosen plan, follow that plan exactly as prescribed by the author of that book, and then KEEP doing that plan for the rest of your life. If you do that, then there's no reason why you can't succeed just like I did.Anyone interested in doing the low-carb lifestyle and needs help finding which plan is right for them, let me HIGHLY encourage you to pick up a copy of Dr. Jonny Bowden's LIVING THE LOW-CARB LIFE (read my review: http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2005/05/must-have-book-for-everybody-doing-low.html). It's the perfect overview of low-carb living with a comparison and recap of the major plans.THANK YOU again for allowing me to share my story with you and your readers, Dr. Davis! TYP: And thanks to you, Jimmy! For more on Jimmy Moore's lively and informative discussion of these issues, go to Livin' la Vida Lo Carb Also, watch "Livin' La Vida Low-Carb on YouTube" Join the conversation at Jimmy's new low-carb forum called "Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Discussion" at LowCarbDiscussion.comAlso, Jimmy's 2005 book on his weight loss experience:"Livin' La Vida Low-Carb: My Journey From Flabby Fat To Sensationally Skinny In One Year"
Mammogram of the heart 6. October 2007 William Davis (3) Some people have called CT heart scans the "mammogram of the heart." The analogy contains a lot of wisdom.First of all, both--mammograms and CT heart scans--are screening tests, one for cancer, of course, the other for coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Both are performed in specific age groups, mammograms in women 40 years and over (generally), heart scans in women 50 years and over (generally).Mammograms: Left, normal; right, a small mass. (Courtesy Nat'l Institutes of Health and Wikipedia.)Both are also meant to be repeated periodically when normal as a surveillance process.Both use low quantities of radiation of about 0.3-0.4 mSv (the most real-life measure of total body exposure), a modest quantity of radiation.Both are good for their purposes, though not perfect. Can a mammogram performed properly miss a small cancerous mass? Sure it can, but it's still unusual. Can a CT heart scan miss the non-calcified plaque prone to rupture? Sure it can, but this is also unlikely (<5% probability).Given the exorbitant costs of medical tests, both are quite inexpensive. On the flip side, they are both also quite unprofitable for the centers providing the tests. Unfortunately, this means that mammography centers and heart scan centers come and go because of the difficulties of the profit-side of these services.Both tests initially struggled to gain acceptance among the medical community. In 1960, for instance, mammograms were performed on standard x-ray devices, the same as that used to perform chest x-rays--low precision, high radiation back then. In 1969, dedicated mammography devices made the scene. However, it took over 10 years for even these new dedicated devices to become widely used. Use of mammograms has gradually increased over the ensuing 20 years. In other words, 47 years have passed since the introduction of mammography. CT heart scans, of course, have had a shorter history of approximately 20 years, since engineer, Dr. Douglas Boyd, first invented the "ultra-fast" EBT devices, the first devices with sufficient scanning speed to scan the heart and coronary arteries. One interesting difference between the two: In a woman between the age of 50 and 60, the likelihood of detecting cancer is 1 in 237. The likelihood of detecting coronary atherosclerotic plaque? About 1 in 4. Coronary disease eventually kills 1 in 3 females, hugely overshadowing breast cancer in frequency. Progress on both fronts, one in cancer detection, the other in atherosclerotic coronary plaque detection. But still lots more progress to go.
Dr. Susie Rockway on conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) 5. October 2007 William Davis (7) I’m fascinated by the perspectives that nutritionists (free-thinking ones, at least), food scientists, and biochemists bring on nutrition and nutritional supplements. A few months ago, I met a fascinating nutritionist/biochemist named Susie Rockway, PhD. Dr. Rockway brings a world of experience in the world of nutritional supplements, clinical trials with supplements, and their development. She has special expertise in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), having been among the scientists who initially developed CLA as a supplement. We are also exploring CLA as a possible addition to the Track Your Plaque program and wanted to get Dr. Rockway’s perspectives. So I asked Dr. Rockway if she’d answer a few questions for us. TYP: Dr. Rockway, we understand that you are particularly excited about the prospects of CLA for FAT loss and perhaps for regression of atherosclerosis. Can you tell us about the origins of your interest in CLA and why you're so enthusiastic? Dr. Rockway: I have been fascinated with this unique fatty acid since the early 1990’s when CLA was first being discussed as nature’s most potent anti-carcinogen. I was then working in the granting/funding section of the National Dairy Council and saw this molecule as truly one of the future functional fats that would likely benefit people (next to omega-3’s!) I think the benefits of CLA have just begun to be investigated—animal studies are extraordinary for showing fat reduction, lean mass (muscle) increases, immune enhancements, blood glucose normalization, anti-inflammatory properties and plaque reduction! Human data to date is very encouraging for fat reduction. As a nutritionist seeing the massive increase in abdominal fat (stomach fat) in the world population and the direct relationship to cardiovascular disease, I see CLA as a great supplement to take to help this. Of course eating lots of vegetables, fruit, lean protein and whole grain products is also a must for maximizing good health. I am studying the impact of CLA in reducing muscle loss in aging women—a condition known as sarcopenia. As we lose muscle with age, we lose strength, falls increase, we become frailer, and eventually many of us lose our independence. Along with the muscle atrophy, most people gain fat—never a good thing! So, if CLA can reduce fat and increase muscle, our bodies are more likely to withstand the hurdles that life throws at us much more efficiently. So, how can you not be excited about this very bioactive molecule? TYP: What are your specific areas of interest in nutrition and health? Dr. Rockway: I strive to understand the role of bioactive molecules that can be taken to improve the aging process and enhance health. As a trained nutritional biochemist, we tend to look at cell metabolism in a very ideal sense: what we learned in our biochemistry texts years ago where all substrates, proteins, enzymes, etc. are made exactly when we need them, where all cells behave as they should. Unfortunately, little research has been devoted to understanding the changes in metabolism as we age. Do we still produce everything as efficiently as when we were 20? I suspect not. So, I think we need a little help, and supplements are a key to getting there. Two nutrients that I think are emerging as “super nutrients” are the fatty acids found in fish oil (EPA and DHA) and vitamin D. Where we know these two nutrients are essential for life, we are seeing that they play a huge role in the QUALITY of life. Mood, depression, PMS, wound healing, bone growth, atherosclerosis, and arthritis are clinical areas where we see a direct benefit with doses of omega-3 and Vitamin D that are probably much greater than the RDA. Our current requirements for nutrients are really based on fixing deficiencies and not maximizing health, and maximizing health is where I’m at. Thus, I am very interested molecules like CLA as mentioned above, and other bioactive ingredients such as plant derived ingredients (phytochemicals) called flavonoids that may well help explain why people who have diets high in fruits and vegetables are less likely to have certain cancers and heart disease. Reducing oxidative stress through foods that provide these active molecules (think colored fruits and veggies) is a new and exciting area of research. TYP:The big "diet experiment" in America has clearly steered people in the wrong direction, usually by 50 or more pounds. As a scientist in nutrition, what are your thoughts? Dr. Rockway: The American Heart Association was keen 20 years ago to promote the low-fat diet for all Americans as the key way to reduce cholesterol levels and decrease chance of heart disease, the number one killer of men and women. However, I must admit the nutritional community bought into this one, too. Unfortunately, the general public took this message to reduce percent fat in their diet (and they did a bit), but increased overall calories instead—and a large portion of the increased calories was from simple carbohydrates. I’m convinced that this in itself has been part of the huge rise in obesity…we simply eat more food and it’s not the healthy kind of food either.When you increase sugar intake beyond what you burn off, you will store some of it as glycogen in the liver and muscles, but you will convert most of the excess into fat—and that we can store very efficiently! The fat that is made in the liver is sent to the blood as VLDL’s which are the precursor to the class of lipids called low density lipoproteins (LDL) that are the “lethal” type of cholesterol circulating in our blood. So, Americans now have to listen to a new message that they need to eat more fruits and vegetables in hopes they will cut down on fast foods—tending to be high in fat (saturated particularly), low in fiber and low in nutrients and other high calorie dense foods. We nutritionists have our work cut out for us, that’s for sure. TYP: We are especially excited that nutritionists are assuming a leading role in shining light on the confusion in diet and nutrition that has characterized the last 40 years. Do you have a sense for the emerging important issues for the next 10 years? Dr. Rockway: Certainly, the scientists in the nutritional field are well aware of the problems facing this nation—it’s in fixing them that we fall short! We aren’t very well coordinated to get a single message out, nor do we all agree on what that message should be. I feel that people need to eat healthy MOST OF THE TIME, exercise all of the time, and take supplements that have clear evidence of benefit. Lots of my colleagues would not concur with supplement use. Our bodies were designed to move a lot and eat a lot…we just do the latter now and are paying the price!One emerging and very exciting area that we have to teach Americans is that all fat is not bad. The different types of fat—omega-6 vs. omega-3, are where we need to focus our education. Decreasing the corn oil we pour on everything needs to go out the window! Consume olive oil and eat fish or take fish oil supplements—we simply have tons and tons of research showing the benefits of reducing the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3. Did you know that cattle that are grass fed actually have less omega-6 in their tissues and more CLA? But most cattle are fed corn-based diets, so we have perturbed their natural selection of food and their fat composition. See, it all comes back to CLA!TYP: Thanks, Susie! Susie Rockway, Ph.D., C.N.S.Dr. Susie Rockway is an experienced scientist with accomplishments in both the academic and food and supplement industry business directing science/technology research. Her background includes faculty appointments at the graduate level in teaching and research at Rush University Medical Center and industrial experience managing basic and applied research studies. Dr. Rockway received her Ph.D. in Nutritional Sciences, Biochemistry from the University of Arizona. Dr. Rockway has authored several publications in journals such as the Physiological Genomics, Journal of Nutrition, the Journal of Food Science, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health and has published chapters on nutrition on inflammatory bowel diseases. She is a member of the American Society for Nutrition, American Oil Chemists Society, the Institute of Food Technology, American College of Nutrition and is a Certified Nutrition Specialist.We're also proud to add Dr. Rockway to our panel of Track Your Plaque Experts.
Which is better? 4. October 2007 William Davis (12) If you have the common pattern of high LDL particle number (NMR) with small LDL--a pattern highly related to coronary plaque--which is better:Lipitor or a combination of fish oil, vitamin D, and elimination of wheat? Lipitor quite effectively reduces LDL particle number, usually on the order of 40% or so. Effect on LDL particle size: None. Side-effects: plenty, including muscle aches (inevitable in my experience, not the ridiculous 2% they claim) and occasionally mental effects such as impaired short-term memory.Lipitor does seem to exert a modest effect on reduction of C-reactive protein, around 30%. It also reduces cardiovascular events by 30%. A combination of fish oil, vitamin D, and elimination of wheat: Reduces LDL particle number commonly by a similar 40% (though variable, depending on body weight). There is substantial improvement in LDL particle size, a large drop in C-reactive protein, often >50%, a 30% or more reduction in cardiovacular events. On this combination, however, you also:--Lose weight, often substantially. --Improve bone health, esp. osteoporosis and arthritis. --Reduce cancer risk from the vit D supplementation. --Reduce risk of stroke. --Reduce postprandial (after-eating) abnormalities like intermediate-density lipoprotein.--Reduce winter blues. --Experience more energy. --Obtain increased clarity of thought (from elimination of wheat). --Reduce blood pressure. Oh, and there's no muscle aches.
Heart health for stupid people 4. October 2007 William Davis (3) I'm kidding.What I'm referring to is the incredibly lame information I come across that passes as "heart health" on the internet, magazines, and other media. Just to keep abreast of what is being said, I subscribe to multiple newsletters and magazines and I witness the sorts of advice offered to the reading public. A recent long-winded article on a popular website listed the "exciting" strategies available for a healthy heart:Eat healthy--by eating a "balanced" diet low in saturated fatDon't smokeExerciseDon't ignore chest pain symptoms or breathlessnessKnow your numbers! meaning your cholesterol numbers. "If your cholesterol is high, you may need to speak to your doctor about medication to reduce it."Surely they must all believe we're stupid. Otherwise, why would they repeat the same obvious information over and over again? Quit smoking? Gee, you think so?How about some real heart healthy advice:Get a heart scan--since we have to accept that cholesterol values are a miserable failure in detecting hidden heart disease. So is waiting for symptoms to appear.If you have any measure of coronary plaque, ask your doctor to assess lipoproteins, not lipids (cholesterol).Take fish oil for omega-3 fatty acids--At a dose of 1000 mg or more of EPA + DHA, heart attack risk is reduced by at least 28%.Eliminate wheat and other processed carbohydrates --Small LDL has emerged as the number one cause of coronary plaque, not high cholesterol from saturated fat.Get vitamin D assessed--The effects are huge--HUGE. There's already a study in a kidney disease population that showed a substantial reduction in mortality with vitamin D supplementation. More data are coming, including our own.That's a start--truly effective, practical heart healthy strategies that go way beyond the conventional bland advice. Copyright 2007 William Davis, MD
Money, money, money, money 3. October 2007 William Davis (3) I've been asked the question numerous times:Why aren't heart scans more popular? First, let me qualify by saying that heart scan have indeed grown in popularity over the past decade. I think the real question is: Given the enormous usefulness of CT heart scanning to detect hidden, asymptomatic coronary atherosclerotic plaque, why haven't they more readily been incorporated into conventional medical practice? That's easy: There's no money in it.Say, for instance, your doctor orders a heart scan and somehow receives a $1000 for the test. Scan centers would be scanning 100 people a day, falling over themselves to do scans. This would be similar to a heart catheterization. Order a catheterization, do 30 minutes of work, and get $1000. Or, order a nuclear stress test. Depending on how its done and where, $1800-4000 is paid by the insurer. Order a CT heart scan and how much is paid to the doctor? Usually nothing. At most, a nominal fee might be paid if the doctor reads the scan. With heart scans, there simply is no big payoff. We learned the implications of this situation 10 years ago when I was trying to help my friend, Steve Burlingame, the owner of Milwaukee Heart Scan. (I am NOT and NEVER WAS an owner.) Steve was trying to let everybody know about this great new $2 million dollar heart scan device in the Milwaukee area. The first few years were tough for Steve: Carrying the substantial expense of this device while doctors essentially gave the technology the cold shoulder. It simply did not fit into the financial equation. Why change the way things were, particularly when there was virtually no financial reason to do so? To counter this, Milwaukee Heart Scan followed the model many other scan centers have followed and marketed directly to the public.I see this as yet another example of why people need to take control of health care away from doctors and hospitals, the current controllers of the system who are providing a disservice to the public they are supposed to be serving. These institutions, for the most part, serve their self-serving financial interests, not your health interests. It's the same equation that drives f Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in In search of wheat: We bake einkorn bread 12. June 2010 William Davis (6) With the assistance of dietitian and health educator, Margaret Pfeiffer,MS RD CD, author of Smart 4 Your Heart and very capable chef and breadmaker (previously, before she gave up wheat), we made a loaf of bread using Eli Rogosa's einkorn wheat. Recall that einkorn wheat is the primordial 14-chromosome wheat similar to the wild wheat harvested by Neolithic humans and eaten as porridge.The essential question: Has wheat always been bad for humans or have the thousands of hybridization experiments of the last 50 years changed the structure of gluten and other proteins in Triticum aestivum and turned the "staff of life" into poison? I turn to einkorn wheat, the "original" wheat unaltered by human manipulations, to figure this out. While einkorn wheat is still a source of carbohydrates, is it something we might indulge in once in a while without triggering the adverse phenomena associated with modern wheat? Here's what we did:This is the einkorn grain as we received it from Eli's farm. This was enough to make one loaf (approximately 3 cups). The einkorn grain is a dark golden color. I tried chewing them. They taste slightly nutty. They soften as they sit in your mouth.Here's Margaret putting the einkorn grain into the electric grinder.We tried to grind the grain by hand with mortar and pestle, but this proved far more laborious than I anticipated. After about 15 minutes of grinding, this is what I got:Barely 2 tablespoons. That's when Margaret fired up the electric grinder. (I can't imagine having to grind up enough flour by hand for an entire family. Perhaps that's why ancient cultures were thin despite eating wheat. They were just exhausted!)We added water, salt, and yeast, then put the mix into an electric breadmaker to knead the dough and keep it warm. We let the dough rise for 90 minutes, much longer than conventional dough. The einkorn dough "rose" very little. Margaret tells me that most dough made with conventional flour rises to double its size. The einkorn dough increased no more than 20-30%.The einkorn dough also distinctly smelled like peanut butter.After rising, we baked the dough at 350 degrees F for 30 minutes. This is the final product.Because I want to gauge health effects, not taste, the bread we made had no added sugar or anything else to modify taste or physiologic effect.On first tasting, the einkorn bread is mildly nutty and heavy. It had an unusual sour or astringent taste at the end, but overall tasted quite good. Next: What happens when we eat it? I'm going to give the einkorn bread (I've got to make some more) to people who experience acute reactions to conventional wheat and see if the einkorn does the same. I will also assess blood sugar effects since, after all, hybridizations or no, it is still a carbohydrate. Margaret Pfeiffer's book is available on Amazon: Ezekiel said what? 10. June 2010 William Davis (24) Some people are reluctant to give up wheat because it is talked about in the Bible. But the wheat of the Bible is not the same as the wheat of today. (See In search of wheat and Emmer, einkorn and agribusiness.) Comparing einkorn to modern wheat, for example, means a difference of chromosome number (14 chromosomes in einkorn vs. 42 chromosomes in modern strains of Triticum aestivum), thousands of genes, and differing gluten content and structure. How about Ezekiel bread, the sprouted wheat bread that is purported to be based on a "recipe" articulated in the Bible? Despite the claims of lower glycemic index, we've had bad experiences with this product, with triggering of high blood sugars, small LDL, and triglycerides not much different from conventional bread. David Rostollan of Health for Life sent me this interesting perspective on Ezekiel bread from an article he wrote about wheat and the Bible. David argues that the entire concept of Ezekiel bread is based on a flawed interpretation. "I Want to Eat the Food in the Bible." Are you sure about that?Some people, still wanting to be faithful to the Bible, will discard the "no grain/wheat" message on the basis of biblical example. After all, God told Ezekiel to make bread, he gave the Israelites "bread from heaven," and then Jesus (who is called the "Bread of Life"!) multiplied bread, and even instituted the New Covenant with what? Bread and wine! If you're going to live the Bible, it seems that bread and/or wheat is going to play a part. But this is unnecessary. Sure, the Bible can and does tell us how to live, but this doesn't mean that everything in the Bible is meant to be copied verbatim. Applying the Bible to our lives requires wisdom, not a Xerox machine. The Bible was written in a historical context, and the setting happened to be an agricultural one. Because of this, the language used to describe blessing spoke of things like fields full of grain, or barns overflowing with wheat. Had the Bible been written in the context of a hunter-gatherer culture, the language describing blessing probably would have been about the abundance of wild game, or baskets full of vegetables. Whatever is most valuable in your time and in your culture is a blessing. God accommodated His message to the culture as it existed at the time. This is done throughout Scripture. There is a danger, then, in merely copying what the Bible says, instead of extracting the principles by which to live. Take the above example of Ezekiel, for instance. There's a whole product line in health food stores called "Ezekiel Bread" that supposedly copies the recipe given in Ezekiel 4:9. This is from the website: "Inspired by the Holy Scripture verse Ezekiel 4:9., 'Take also unto thee Wheat, and Barley, and beans, and lentils, and millet, and Spelt, and put them in one vessel, and make bread of it...'" Believing that this "recipe" has some kind of special power just because it's in the Bible is ridiculous. How ridiculous is it? I'll tell you in a moment, but first let me say that this is why it's so important not to confuse descriptives with prescriptives. Is the Bible telling a story, or is it telling us to do something? We would be well-advised not to confuse the two. In the case of the Ezekiel Bread, what is going on in the passage? There's a siege going on, with impending famine, and Ezekiel is consigned to eating what was considered back then to be some of the worst possible food. It was basically animal chow. But that's not the worst thing going on in this passage. Apparently, when the makers of Ezekiel Bread were gleaning their inspiration for the perfect recipe, they stopped shortof verse 12: "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight." Um...what? Well, there was a good reason for this. God was judging His people, and by polluting this really bad bread with dung (which was a violation of Mosaic law; Lev. 5:3), He was saying that they were no different from the unclean Gentiles. So why would we take this story and extrapolate a bread recipe from it? Beats me. If you were going to be consistent, though, here's what you'd have to end up with:Let that be a lesson to you. We don't just go and do everything that we see in the Bible. Low-carb gynecologist 6. June 2010 William Davis (36) I met infertility specialist, Dr. Michael Fox, on Jimmy Moore's low-carb cruise just this past March. Dr. Fox is quiet and unassuming, but had incredible things to say about his experience with carbohydrate restriction in female infertility and pregnancy. While readers of The Heart Scan Blog already know that I advocate a diet free of wheat, cornstarch, and sugar for heart health and correction of multiple lipoprotein abnormalities, it was fascinating to hear how a similar approach seems to yield extraordinary benefits in this entirely unrelated area of female health. Obviously, female infertility and pregnancy are unrelated to heart health, but the extraordinary benefits witnessed by Dr. Fox in this area suggest that some fundamental lessons in human physiology can be learned. The results are so incredible that we are all sure to hear more about this approach as experience grows. So I tracked Dr. Fox down in his busy Jacksonville, Florida practice to fill us in on some details. WD: Dr. Fox, could you tell us something about yourself and what led you to use carbohydrate restriction in your female patients?MF: I have been in practice as a reproductive endocrinologist for 15 years. During that time, I have seen our specialty move from a broad based practice of reproductive endocrinology to a narrow IVF [in vitro fertilization] focus, with patients being pushed through IVF in a cookie-cutter fashion without any emphasis on non-medical therapy. Our focus has been to remain as a broad practice where we individualize care and attempt in every case to achieve pregnancy short of IVF. Five years ago, this continued quest for better care led us into the insulin resistance, low-carbohydrate metabolic world that has transformed our practice, although our practice offers all aspects of reproductive endocrinology including sub-specialized minimally invasive surgery, and all available infertility options.WD: I have been intrigued by your comments about improved fertility with the low-carb diet. Could you elaborate on this?MF: Yes, five years ago, as more information regarding Polycystic Ovarian Disease or Syndrome (PCOD/S) and its relationship to insulin resistance (high insulin levels) was emerging, we had a simple realization. As we've known for some time, insulin stimulates excess male hormone levels in the ovary, which disrupts ovulation and fertility. Then our job was to lower or virtually eliminate high insulin levels. Again, in simple fashion, we looked at physiology and realized that insulin is released only in response to dietary carbohydrates. Thus, elimination of carbohydrates should resolve the problem. This, in fact, is the effect that we have seen. In our previous approaches to PCOD, we utilized oral ovulation medicines generating pregnancy rates in the 40% range overall. Now, with the nutritional approach, for those patients that follow our recommendations, our pregnancy rates are over 90%! This has dramatically reduced the need for in vitro fertilization in these patients. To extend this idea further, we first started with relative low-carbohydrate diets, such as the South Beach diet, but quickly realized this didn't produce a metabolic effect. Over time, it has borne out that only the very low-carbohydrate diet (VLCD) approach produces significant metabolic change. Our impression then was that the current U.S. nutritional exposure probably increases insulin levels and that this has a detrimental effect on fertility. To counter this effect, we now recommend the VLCD to all fertility patients and their spouses. The pregnancy rates do seem much better overall, as well as seeing a reduction in miscarriage rates. For the first time at our national meeting last year, there were three articles that showed improved pregnancy rates in patients without PCOD or insulin resistance in IVF when Glucophage was used. This drug decreases insulin. This supports the idea that our entire population is subjected to fertility-reducing high-carbohydrate diet.WD: Do you see any other changes in these patients on the diet?MF: Yes. All metabolic parameters, as well as many common complaints, improve. Cholesterol and triglyceride levels improve, while "good" HDL cholesterol levels increase. Weight drops at a pace of 12 lbs per month very steadily and we have many many patients who have experienced 50lb wt loss. Blood pressure decreases steadily in these patients and we are often able to get them off of cholesterol and blood pressure medicines. Common symptoms such as anxiety, sleep disturbances, decreased energy, migraine headaches and depression all dramatically improve. Again we can often get patients off depression and migraine suppression medications. So this approach helps in a multitude of areas. WD:
In search of wheat: We bake einkorn bread 12. June 2010 William Davis (6) With the assistance of dietitian and health educator, Margaret Pfeiffer,MS RD CD, author of Smart 4 Your Heart and very capable chef and breadmaker (previously, before she gave up wheat), we made a loaf of bread using Eli Rogosa's einkorn wheat. Recall that einkorn wheat is the primordial 14-chromosome wheat similar to the wild wheat harvested by Neolithic humans and eaten as porridge.The essential question: Has wheat always been bad for humans or have the thousands of hybridization experiments of the last 50 years changed the structure of gluten and other proteins in Triticum aestivum and turned the "staff of life" into poison? I turn to einkorn wheat, the "original" wheat unaltered by human manipulations, to figure this out. While einkorn wheat is still a source of carbohydrates, is it something we might indulge in once in a while without triggering the adverse phenomena associated with modern wheat? Here's what we did:This is the einkorn grain as we received it from Eli's farm. This was enough to make one loaf (approximately 3 cups). The einkorn grain is a dark golden color. I tried chewing them. They taste slightly nutty. They soften as they sit in your mouth.Here's Margaret putting the einkorn grain into the electric grinder.We tried to grind the grain by hand with mortar and pestle, but this proved far more laborious than I anticipated. After about 15 minutes of grinding, this is what I got:Barely 2 tablespoons. That's when Margaret fired up the electric grinder. (I can't imagine having to grind up enough flour by hand for an entire family. Perhaps that's why ancient cultures were thin despite eating wheat. They were just exhausted!)We added water, salt, and yeast, then put the mix into an electric breadmaker to knead the dough and keep it warm. We let the dough rise for 90 minutes, much longer than conventional dough. The einkorn dough "rose" very little. Margaret tells me that most dough made with conventional flour rises to double its size. The einkorn dough increased no more than 20-30%.The einkorn dough also distinctly smelled like peanut butter.After rising, we baked the dough at 350 degrees F for 30 minutes. This is the final product.Because I want to gauge health effects, not taste, the bread we made had no added sugar or anything else to modify taste or physiologic effect.On first tasting, the einkorn bread is mildly nutty and heavy. It had an unusual sour or astringent taste at the end, but overall tasted quite good. Next: What happens when we eat it? I'm going to give the einkorn bread (I've got to make some more) to people who experience acute reactions to conventional wheat and see if the einkorn does the same. I will also assess blood sugar effects since, after all, hybridizations or no, it is still a carbohydrate. Margaret Pfeiffer's book is available on Amazon:
Ezekiel said what? 10. June 2010 William Davis (24) Some people are reluctant to give up wheat because it is talked about in the Bible. But the wheat of the Bible is not the same as the wheat of today. (See In search of wheat and Emmer, einkorn and agribusiness.) Comparing einkorn to modern wheat, for example, means a difference of chromosome number (14 chromosomes in einkorn vs. 42 chromosomes in modern strains of Triticum aestivum), thousands of genes, and differing gluten content and structure. How about Ezekiel bread, the sprouted wheat bread that is purported to be based on a "recipe" articulated in the Bible? Despite the claims of lower glycemic index, we've had bad experiences with this product, with triggering of high blood sugars, small LDL, and triglycerides not much different from conventional bread. David Rostollan of Health for Life sent me this interesting perspective on Ezekiel bread from an article he wrote about wheat and the Bible. David argues that the entire concept of Ezekiel bread is based on a flawed interpretation. "I Want to Eat the Food in the Bible." Are you sure about that?Some people, still wanting to be faithful to the Bible, will discard the "no grain/wheat" message on the basis of biblical example. After all, God told Ezekiel to make bread, he gave the Israelites "bread from heaven," and then Jesus (who is called the "Bread of Life"!) multiplied bread, and even instituted the New Covenant with what? Bread and wine! If you're going to live the Bible, it seems that bread and/or wheat is going to play a part. But this is unnecessary. Sure, the Bible can and does tell us how to live, but this doesn't mean that everything in the Bible is meant to be copied verbatim. Applying the Bible to our lives requires wisdom, not a Xerox machine. The Bible was written in a historical context, and the setting happened to be an agricultural one. Because of this, the language used to describe blessing spoke of things like fields full of grain, or barns overflowing with wheat. Had the Bible been written in the context of a hunter-gatherer culture, the language describing blessing probably would have been about the abundance of wild game, or baskets full of vegetables. Whatever is most valuable in your time and in your culture is a blessing. God accommodated His message to the culture as it existed at the time. This is done throughout Scripture. There is a danger, then, in merely copying what the Bible says, instead of extracting the principles by which to live. Take the above example of Ezekiel, for instance. There's a whole product line in health food stores called "Ezekiel Bread" that supposedly copies the recipe given in Ezekiel 4:9. This is from the website: "Inspired by the Holy Scripture verse Ezekiel 4:9., 'Take also unto thee Wheat, and Barley, and beans, and lentils, and millet, and Spelt, and put them in one vessel, and make bread of it...'" Believing that this "recipe" has some kind of special power just because it's in the Bible is ridiculous. How ridiculous is it? I'll tell you in a moment, but first let me say that this is why it's so important not to confuse descriptives with prescriptives. Is the Bible telling a story, or is it telling us to do something? We would be well-advised not to confuse the two. In the case of the Ezekiel Bread, what is going on in the passage? There's a siege going on, with impending famine, and Ezekiel is consigned to eating what was considered back then to be some of the worst possible food. It was basically animal chow. But that's not the worst thing going on in this passage. Apparently, when the makers of Ezekiel Bread were gleaning their inspiration for the perfect recipe, they stopped shortof verse 12: "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight." Um...what? Well, there was a good reason for this. God was judging His people, and by polluting this really bad bread with dung (which was a violation of Mosaic law; Lev. 5:3), He was saying that they were no different from the unclean Gentiles. So why would we take this story and extrapolate a bread recipe from it? Beats me. If you were going to be consistent, though, here's what you'd have to end up with:Let that be a lesson to you. We don't just go and do everything that we see in the Bible.
Low-carb gynecologist 6. June 2010 William Davis (36) I met infertility specialist, Dr. Michael Fox, on Jimmy Moore's low-carb cruise just this past March. Dr. Fox is quiet and unassuming, but had incredible things to say about his experience with carbohydrate restriction in female infertility and pregnancy. While readers of The Heart Scan Blog already know that I advocate a diet free of wheat, cornstarch, and sugar for heart health and correction of multiple lipoprotein abnormalities, it was fascinating to hear how a similar approach seems to yield extraordinary benefits in this entirely unrelated area of female health. Obviously, female infertility and pregnancy are unrelated to heart health, but the extraordinary benefits witnessed by Dr. Fox in this area suggest that some fundamental lessons in human physiology can be learned. The results are so incredible that we are all sure to hear more about this approach as experience grows. So I tracked Dr. Fox down in his busy Jacksonville, Florida practice to fill us in on some details. WD: Dr. Fox, could you tell us something about yourself and what led you to use carbohydrate restriction in your female patients?MF: I have been in practice as a reproductive endocrinologist for 15 years. During that time, I have seen our specialty move from a broad based practice of reproductive endocrinology to a narrow IVF [in vitro fertilization] focus, with patients being pushed through IVF in a cookie-cutter fashion without any emphasis on non-medical therapy. Our focus has been to remain as a broad practice where we individualize care and attempt in every case to achieve pregnancy short of IVF. Five years ago, this continued quest for better care led us into the insulin resistance, low-carbohydrate metabolic world that has transformed our practice, although our practice offers all aspects of reproductive endocrinology including sub-specialized minimally invasive surgery, and all available infertility options.WD: I have been intrigued by your comments about improved fertility with the low-carb diet. Could you elaborate on this?MF: Yes, five years ago, as more information regarding Polycystic Ovarian Disease or Syndrome (PCOD/S) and its relationship to insulin resistance (high insulin levels) was emerging, we had a simple realization. As we've known for some time, insulin stimulates excess male hormone levels in the ovary, which disrupts ovulation and fertility. Then our job was to lower or virtually eliminate high insulin levels. Again, in simple fashion, we looked at physiology and realized that insulin is released only in response to dietary carbohydrates. Thus, elimination of carbohydrates should resolve the problem. This, in fact, is the effect that we have seen. In our previous approaches to PCOD, we utilized oral ovulation medicines generating pregnancy rates in the 40% range overall. Now, with the nutritional approach, for those patients that follow our recommendations, our pregnancy rates are over 90%! This has dramatically reduced the need for in vitro fertilization in these patients. To extend this idea further, we first started with relative low-carbohydrate diets, such as the South Beach diet, but quickly realized this didn't produce a metabolic effect. Over time, it has borne out that only the very low-carbohydrate diet (VLCD) approach produces significant metabolic change. Our impression then was that the current U.S. nutritional exposure probably increases insulin levels and that this has a detrimental effect on fertility. To counter this effect, we now recommend the VLCD to all fertility patients and their spouses. The pregnancy rates do seem much better overall, as well as seeing a reduction in miscarriage rates. For the first time at our national meeting last year, there were three articles that showed improved pregnancy rates in patients without PCOD or insulin resistance in IVF when Glucophage was used. This drug decreases insulin. This supports the idea that our entire population is subjected to fertility-reducing high-carbohydrate diet.WD: Do you see any other changes in these patients on the diet?MF: Yes. All metabolic parameters, as well as many common complaints, improve. Cholesterol and triglyceride levels improve, while "good" HDL cholesterol levels increase. Weight drops at a pace of 12 lbs per month very steadily and we have many many patients who have experienced 50lb wt loss. Blood pressure decreases steadily in these patients and we are often able to get them off of cholesterol and blood pressure medicines. Common symptoms such as anxiety, sleep disturbances, decreased energy, migraine headaches and depression all dramatically improve. Again we can often get patients off depression and migraine suppression medications. So this approach helps in a multitude of areas. WD: