I had a heart attack--and I don't know why! 25. October 2006 William Davis (0) Kevin came to my office for another opinion. A husband and father of two teenagers, Kevin had his first heart attack at age 39. Kevin received two stents to his right coronary artery. The entire process took place in a flurry with little explanation over 48 hours, start to finish.He smoked a pack of cigarettes a day, but the only history of heart disease in his family was his father, who, also a smoker, had his heart disease uncovered in his late 70s. His internist subsequently prescribed Zocor even though Kevin's LDL cholesterol was a relatively unimpressive 128 mg/dl. Kevin subsequently asked his cardiologist, "Where did I get the heart disease from?""Cigarettes. And genetics. You can quit the first. There's nothing you can do about the second." End of explanation. This left Kevin frightened and demoralized. If much of the cause of his heart disease couldn't be identified, why bother quitting smoking? Why not enjoy what time he had left?Kevin was understandably shocked when I told him that genetic causes were 1)identifiable, 2)quantifiable, and 3) correctable. Kevin's full lipoprotein analysis subsequently showed the most dire combination that commonly accounts for coronary disease in young people: Lp(a) with small LDL particles. This, along with smoking, fully accounted for this young father of two's heart disease. Along with starting Kevin on a new program for correction of his patterns, I also persuaded him to get a heart scan. What usefulness is a heart scan after the fact? Plenty. Even though Kevin's right coronary was no longer "scorable" because the steel in the stent obscured our measurements, the two remaining unstented arteries would still yield a score. This provides a baseline for future comparison. Even after a stent, Kevin could "track his plaque".
Butter basics 24. October 2006 William Davis (3) There’s lot of confusion about butter, margarines, and their substitutes. Butter/margarine substitutes that avoid the negative aspects and provide modest health benefits are available, but I find that people confuse what's what. So here’s a brief primer. Butter--Avoid it. Plain and simple. Butter is a rich source of saturated fat. Of 11.5 grams total fat per tablespoon, 7.3 grams are saturated. It is not better than margarine, contrary to simple-minded reports from some media sources. Butter raises LDL cholesterol, raises blood pressure, and has been related to various cancers. Margarine--Not better than butter, arguably worse. Some argue that the trans-fatty acids, or hydrogenated oils, used to solidify vegetable oils to make margarine solid are worse than butter. In addition to the ill-effects of butter, margarine reduces HDL and raises cancer risk, perhaps even more than saturated fats. Hydrogenation yields a very unnatural structure that modifies cellular behavior of the sort that may promote the appearance of cancer cells. More recently, however, some of the major manufacturers, like Blue Bonnet, have produced soft spread products without hydrogenation. These are reasonable substitutes when used sparingly. Smart Balance--This is a product made with canola oil, a source of monounsaturates (the best oil source after omega-3s), but manufactured without hydrogenation and therefore has no trans-fats. It does have, in my view, a bit too much saturated fat (1.5 gm per tbsp. in the 37% Light Spread; 2.5 gm per tbsp in the 67% regular spread). This is a reasonable product to use in small quantities. There is also a Smart Balance Omega PLUS product that contains added flaxseed oil and sterol esters. I do not recommend this product because of the sterol content (see below). I also object to the manufacturers who label their products “rich in omega-3s” when they mean linolenic acid (in flaxseed), which is converted to a trivial quantity of omega-3s. Linolenic acid may pose unique benefits of its own, but it should not be listed as an omega-3 source. Benecol--This is a butter substitute that contains stanol esters, a substance that reduces total and LDL cholesterol. Two tablespoons a day reduces LDL around 20 mg/dl, more or less depending on your starting cholesterol. There’s a light and regular spread. The light contains 20 calories less per tablespoon but somewhat less monounsaturates, but the same LDL-reducing stanol esters. The manufacturer does hydrogenate the oils, yielding 0.5 mg trans-fats per tablespoon--a small drawback.Take Control--Similar to Benecol, but made with sterol esters. Take Control also reduces LDL cholesterol. However, data from several high-quality studies from Finland suggest that sterol esters may, in some people, be absorbed into the blood. This is potentially concerning. There is a rare disease called sitosterolemia that results in coronary disease in teenagers and young adults in their 20s from increased absorption of sterol esters. While you can’t acquire this genetic disease, some people have the capacity to absorb sterol esters from their intestines very efficiently. I find it very disturbing and I suggest that you stay away this product and other sterol-containing products like HeartWise orange juice and Smart Balance Omega PLUS until the issue is clarified and safety assured. Brummel and Brown--A blend of vegetable oils (soybean and partially hydrogenated soybean) with calories and fats reduced by blending in yogurt. This is an okay product. The hydrogenation yields trans-fats below the FDA required declaration limit of 1.0 mg. There’s also 1.0 mg each of saturated and monounsaturated fats. The calories are relatively low as a consequence of the added yogurt, only 45 calories per tablespoon. This makes the Brummel and Brown a reasonable choice. Other products are making their way out to supermarkets. Look for the type of oil used. Canola, olive, and flaxseed are the best. Also look for trans-fats and saturated fat content; both should be low, preferably <1.0 mg per tablespoon, ideally none. The best choice among the above products in my view is Benecol, though it’s also the most expensive. It will yield substantial drops in LDL cholesterol. All the products in our informal tastings taste a lot like butter, or at least as well as we can remember what butter tasted like! The key with all of these products is use in moderation, since they all provide between 45?80 calories per tablespoon.
Let Dr. Friedewald rest in peace 24. October 2006 William Davis (1) In the 1960s, doctors struggled with the concept of cholesterol and its relationship to heart disease. It was becoming clear that higher levels of cholesterol were predictive of heart disease. It was also becoming clear that the low-density fraction of cholesterol, or LDL, was somewhat better than total cholesterol in predicting heart attack. Cholesterol was easily measurable in the 1960s. LDL was not. So, Dr. Friedewald, a noted lipid researcher at the National Institutes of Health, proposed an easy method to calculate LDL cholesterol from total choleseterol, HDL, and triglycerides:LDL cholesterol = Total cholesterol – HDL cholesterol – triglycerides/5This simple manipulation would put LDL cholesterols into the hands of the practicing physician and the American public. Dr. Friedewald recognized that this calculation only represented an approximation of LDL cholesterol and that it was thrown off, sometimes substantially, by any abnormal rise in triglycerides or reduction in HDL. But it served its purpose at an age when most doctors hadn’t even heard of cholesterol and the public was still sold on whole milk and “farm-fresh” butter, and Chesterfields were the cigarette choice of most doctors.The world has since changed. Most doctors have heard about cholesterol and, along with the public, have been drowned in drug company marketing for cholesterol-reducing drugs. Most people with some level of common sense and health awareness no longer use butter or whole milk, and no longer believe that the brand of cigarette you choose can be healthy. But we’re still using Dr. Friedewald’s original calculation for LDL cholesterol. When you get an LDL cholesterol from your clinic, doctor, or hospital, >99% of the time it is obtained using Dr. Friedewald’s calculation. Is it because there’s nothing better available? No, it’s not. There’s two reasons why your neighborhood primary care physician or cardiologist is still using this dinosaur of testing called LDL:1) The lag in science to practice is 20 years. Accept that most primary care doctors are 20 years behind the times on many issues, LDL cholesterol included.2) Insurance companies vigorously discourage testing beyond conventional lipids. The array of objections we get from insurance companies is mind-boggling. It would be funny if human life and finances weren’t at stake. These “new” tests are “experimental”, “unproven”, not endorsed by standard guidelines, not approved by some internal committee, or simply “We don’t know what this test is” ?we’ve heard them all. What are the tests that are superior to Dr. Friendewald’s calculated LDL? There are several, listed here in order of best to worst:1) LDL particle number--the value generated by NMR lipoprotein testing. This is the gold standard, most reliable test available, and the one I recommend. 2) Apoprotein B--More widely available even from conventional laboratories in hospitals. Not as accurate as NMR LDL particle number, but a pretty good choice. Apo B is the principal protein in LDL, VLDL, and IDL particles, and so it’s a better reflector of risk from all of these lipoprotein fractions, not just LDL. 3) “Direct” LDL--This is LDL that is actually measured. Unfortunately, it ignores the issues of LDL size and has some other pitfalls, but it’s still better than calculated LDL4) Non-HDL cholesterol--So-called because it incorporates all undesirable cholesterol-containing lipids except good HDL, thus “non-HDL”. This is another calculation, though better than LDL (because it sums up the risk from other apoprotein B-containing lipoproteins). Non-HDL is calculated from Total cholesterol – HDL. It’s therefore available from any standard lipid panel. It’s little used in everyday practice, however, because most people and their physicians find it confusing.5) Friedewald calculated LDL--You can see that calculated LDL is last on a list of choices. Yet this is the measure that doctors use day in, day out. It’s the measure that drug companies base billions of dollars of revenue and profits on. It’s an everyday occurrence in my office that calculated LDL is 89 mg/dl, but the real value is somewhere between 160 and 200 mg/dl. That’s a big difference. Imagine your realtor tells you your house’s estimated value is $200,000 and that’s what you sell it for to an eager buyer. After closing, you find out your house was really worth $300,000. You’d be upset. But that’s what you’re often getting with LDL cholesterol?a bum deal. It’s part of the reason people will say, “My doctor said my cholesterol was fine and that no cause for my heart disease can be found. He said it was genetic.” In reality, they could have sky-high LDL cholesterol revealed by LDL particle number or apoprotein B. Use LDL cholesterol in a pinch when you’ve got nothing else. It’s also helpful to gauge any treatment effect of diet, functional foods, drugs, etc. But it is a seriously flawed tool to diagnose your initial level of risk.
The key to losing weight 23. October 2006 William Davis (0) I saw three people this past week, all of whom set off on an effort to lose substantial quantities of weight. And all seriously needed to. All three started with at least 70 lbs. excess weight; all showed substantial weight-sensitive lipoprotein patterns like low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, VLDL, and pre-diabetic levels of blood sugar. They also all shared high blood pressure. All three also had high heart scan scores. Kate’s score was just over 1200. Tom, a 58-year old real estate developer, had a score of nearly 600. Susan, the youngest of the three at 52, had a heart scan score of 377¾99th percentile at this age. Losing weight was an absolute requirement for their plaque control program. Because their lipoprotein abnormalities and pre-diabetic patterns were triggered by weight, weight loss would provide powerful correction. Each and every one of them would need to lose much of their excess weight¾at least 50 lbs¾if they hoped to halt the relentless progression of their heart scan scores. All three of them returned after 6-8 weeks, and all had lost between 17-24 lbs: spectacular results. There’s no secret to weight loss. Each of them achieved their weight loss in slightly different ways. But they also shared several critical ingredients in their weight-loss efforts:1) All three dramatically slashed their intake of wheat flour-containing foods and other processed carbohydrates and did so consistently. All also avoided the usual high-fat, high caloric-density foods like butter, margarine, fried foods, greasy foods, nuts roasted in oil, etc. They concentrated on vegetables, salads, raw nuts, lean proteins (inc. turkey, chicken, fish, lean red meats, low-fat cottage cheese and yogurt). 2) They stopped using food as a reward or as a consolation tool. 3) Exercise for one hour a day at least 5 days a week. The exercise in 2 of 3 of these people was just walking. It wasn’t strenuous, it wasn’t expensive. The women both liked walking with friends or their spouse. Tom followed a more common male path of more strenuous work on his treadmill, elliptical, and biking at the fitness club. But they all did it religiously and missed rare sessions.4) They refrained from any and all alcoholic beverages. Yes, there are some advantages to 1-2 glasses of wine per day, but it stalls weight loss efforts. 5) They didn’t allow themselves any major indiscretions. There were no binges, major pig-outs at weddings, barbecues, or all-you-can-eat buffets. They did allow themselves an occasional “treat” but did so in small portions. That’s it. But for most people, that’s simply too much. Adhering to an effort to lose dramatic weight requires day-after-day consistency. Nobody can lose the equivalent of 70,000 calories (20 lbs.) just by skipping a meal, a 20-minute walk, skipping the mashed potatoes at dinner. It can be done. You’ve just got to be consistent about it.
How can I get my lipoproteins tested? Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in Who lost weight? 1. August 2009 William Davis (30) The results of the latest Heart Scan Blog poll are in.I went wheat-free and I . . . Gained weight 6 (3%)Lost no weight 41 (21%)Lost less than 10 lbs 28 (14%)Lost more than 10 lbs 34 (17%)Lost more than 20 lbs 22 (11%)Lost more than 30 lbs 28 (14%)I'm still losing weight! 30 (15%)(189 respondents)This means that, by eliminating wheat:24% had no success31% had moderate success (less than 10 lbs or more than 10 lbs)25% had extravagant results with 20 lbs or more lostIt would be interesting to know where along the weight-loss spectrum the last category, "I'm still losing weight," group falls. (Anyone with a good story please speak up!)I believe we can conclude from this casual exercise that, as a simple strategy, wheat elimination is surprisingly effective. Why would 3% gain weight? Well, without knowing the details, there are several possible explanations:1) Weight gain developed through other foods. For instance, I've had people eliminate wheat only to replace it with fattening gluten-free alternatives. Remember: wheat-free is not gluten-free. Others load up on the wrong foods, e.g., Craisins and other dried fruit; overdo dairy; or snack on wheat-free but unhealthy foods like ice cream and chips. 2) Too much alcohol3) Hypothyroidism--A lot more common than you'd think. In fact, this has been the case with a majority of people who have done everything right, yet either failed to lose weight or gained weight. Those are the biggies. I'd like to hear your personal stories of wheat elimination--the ups and downs, your success or failure, how you felt during the process, how easy or difficult, your eventual results. Just post them as a response to this blog post. A niacin primer 29. July 2009 William Davis (19) A reader of Life Extension reminded me of a piece I wrote about niacin a couple of years back. Anyone desiring a primer on how and why to use niacin to correct lipid and lipoprotein patterns might find this useful. While some people, no matter what they do, cannot tolerate niacin (about 10% of people), many others enjoy spectacular benefits. Q: I recently had a cholesterol profile blood test and learned that I may be at risk of heart disease because my levels of beneficial HDL (high-density lipoprotein) are too low. I read that niacin could help increase my HDL, but my doctor said niacin is dangerous. Whom should I believe?A: Your doctor would be right—if we were still living in 1985. Since then, however, we have learned how to use niacin (vitamin B3) safely and effectively. Unfortunately, many physicians have not yet caught up, or are still trapped by the idea that cholesterol-lowering statin drugs are the only way to decrease cardiovascular disease risk. I have personally prescribed niacin for thousands of patients as part of our program to reverse coronary disease. In fact, niacin is the closest thing we have available to a perfect treatment that corrects most of the causes of coronary heart disease.Continued here. What would life be like . . . ? 29. July 2009 William Davis (16) What if coronary heart disease could be prevented--no eliminated--applying methods that were accessible, easy, and cheap? What if coronary heart disease and, thereby, angina, heart attack, sudden cardiac death, ventricular tachycardia, heart failure, and the cerebrovascular equivalent, stroke, could be eliminated using readily available tools available to virtually everyone in the U.S.? And, over a year, it cost less than a once-a-week latte at Starbucks? How would the healthcare landscape change? What would become of hospitals, manufacturers of the billions of dollars of hospital equipment necessary to supply the cardiovascular hospital industry (e.g., stent manufacturers, catheter manufacturers, defibrillator and pacemaker manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers who no longer have to produce the volume of antiplatelet agents, inotropic drugs, antiarrhythmic agents, etc.)? How would our lives change? What would the end of life look like if people stopped dying of heart attack, sudden cardiac death, congestive heart failure at age 55, 65, or 75, but lived out their lives to die of something unrelated?What if the solution had little or nothing to do with drugs but evolved from simple nutritional strategies, supplements meant to correct the deficiencies that accompany modern lifestyles, and a few unique strategies targeted towards the genetic predispositions that lead to heart disease? What if all this were possible at a cost of a few hundred dollars per year? It would certainly be a cataclysmic change. Hospitals would shrink to a small remnant of their current gargantuan, dozens-per-city presence. The need for hospital staff would be slashed by over half. The rare cardiologist would tend to congenital heart disease sufferers and other unusual forms of heart disease and he or she might have a colleague or two in all of a major city. Healthcare costs would plummet, no longer having to sustain the enormous cardiovascular healthcare machine of hospitals, staff, industry, and long-term care. Health insurance, private or public, would drop by 50%. It would free up nearly a trillion dollars that could be redirected towards other pursuits, like schools and research. Extraordinary leaps forward in quality of life and science would emerge, given that magnitude of funding. It's not as grand a thought experiment as Alan Weisman's The World Without Us, in which he imagines what the world would be like without humans altogether. How long would it take to recover lost ground and restore Eden to the way it must have gleamed and smelled the day before Adam, or Homo habilis, appeared? Could nature ever obliterate all our traces? How would it undo our monumental cities and public works, and reduce our myriad plastics and toxic synthetics back to benign, basic elements? But I believe this thought experiment--what would life be like without heart disease because it was eliminated using inexpensive tools-- is more plausible, more likely to occur. In fact, it has already begun to occur. See those vines growing up the side of the hospital? Are jelly beans heart healthy? 27. July 2009 William Davis (0) Total Fat 3 g or less Less than 6.5 g Saturated Fat1 g or less 1 g or less Cholesterol 20 mg or less20 mg or less Sodium 480 mg or less per RACC* & labeled serving480 mg or less per RACC* & labeled servingNutrients Contain 10 percent or more of the daily value of 1 of 6 nutrients; vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, protein or dietary fiber Contain 10 percent or more of the daily value of 1of 6 nutrients; vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, protein or dietary fiber Trans fat Less than 0.5 g per RACC* and labeled serving Less than 0.5 g per RACC* and labeled serving Whole Grain N/A 51 percent by weight/RACC* Minimum Dietary Fiber N/A1.7 g/RACC of 30 g2.5 g/RACC of 45 g2.8 g/RACC of 50 g3.0 g/RACC of 55 g(RACC=Reference Amount Customarily Consumed) Thyroid correction: The woeful prevailing standard 27. July 2009 William Davis (16) Rich has been taking Synthroid or levothyroxine for many years. When Rich came to my office for continuing management 10 years after his bypass surgery, I checked his thyroid panel:TSH 7.44 uIU/LFree T4 1.88 ng/dl (Ref range 0.80-1.90 ng/dl)Free T3 2.0 pg/ml (Ref range 2.3-4.2 pg/ml)Rich's thyroid hormone distortions--high TSH, low T3--are sufficient to account for a tripling of heart attack risk long-term. As Richs' thyroid was being managed by his primary care physician, I notified this doctor of Rich's panel. He therefore increased Rich's levothyroxine from 75 mcg per day to 100 mcg per day. Another thyroid panel several months later showed:TSH 0.98 uIU/LFree T4 2.38 ng/dlFree T3 2.0 pg/ml As you would expect, increasing the intake of the T4 hormone (levothyroxine) increased free T4 and suppressed TSH. But what about T3? It's unchanged. Indeed, Rich says that he feels no better and, in fact, wakes up in the morning foggy and requires a nap in the afternoon. In my experience, the majority (approximately 70%, but not 100%) experience subjective improvement when T3 is added in some form and the free T3 level is increased. While the data (summarized here) are conflicted on whether there is objective benefit to T3 management and supplementation, there seems to be a poorly-quantified subjective improvement. Rich's increased levothyroxine dose decreased (calculated) LDL cholesterol by 10 mg/dl. Based on my experience, I'll bet that his lipid panel would likely be further improved with T3 correction. What I find incredible is the absolutely rabid resistance waged by primary care physicians and endocrinologists against this notion of T3, mostly due to fears of the remote likelihood of inducing atrial fibrillation and osteoporosis, while they are ready to prescribe lifelong statin drugs without a moment's hesitation. Launch of new Track Your Plaque newsletter: Cardiac Confidential 27. July 2009 William Davis (3) Track Your Plaque has just launched a new version of our newsletter. We call it Cardiac Confidential.Cardiac Confidential is meant to be a no-holds-barred, go-for-the-throat exposé of the world of heart disease. We will expose the dishonest, reveal what we view as the underlying truth. We'll even have an occasional "undercover" report of what goes on in hospitals and the go-for-the-money world of heart procedures. Read the first issue here (open to everyone) in which "Laurie" describes her encounter with a sleazy, profiteering cardiologist. She survives, but not without paying a dear price. Thyroid: Be a perfectionist 27. July 2009 William Davis (18) If you'd like to reduce LDL cholesterol with nearly as much power as a statin drug, think thyroid. When thyroid is corrected to ideal levels, LDL cholesterol drops 20, 30, 40 mg/dl or more, depending on how poor thyroid function and how high LDL are at the start. The poorer the thyroid function (the higher the TSH or the lower the T3 and T4) and the higher the LDL cholesterol, the more LDL drops with thyroid correction. (For those of you minding LDL particle size, such as Track Your Plaque Members, the "dominant" LDL species will drop: If you are genetic small LDL, small LDL will drop. If you have mostly large LDL because of being wheat-free and sugar-free, then large LDL will drop.)One of the problems is that many healthcare providers blindly follow what the laboratory says is "normal" or the "reference range," which is usually nothing more than a population average (actually the mean +/- 2 standard deviations, a common method of developing references ranges). In other words, a substantial degree of low thyroid function, or hypothyroidism, can be present when your doctor adheres to the reference range provided by the laboratory. What does it mean to achieve ideal thyroid status? My list includes:--Normal oral temperature of 97.3 F first upon arising. (The thyroid is the body's thermoregulatory organ.)--TSH 1.0 mIU/L or less--Free T3 upper half "normal" range--Free T4 upper half "normal" range--You feel good: mental clarity, energy, upbeat mood. You lose weight when you try. Iodine replacement should be part of any thyroid health effort. Iodine is not an optional trace mineral, no more than vitamin C is optional (else your teeth fall out). The only dangers to iodine replacement are to those who have been starved of iodine for many years; increase iodine and the thyroid can over-respond. I've seen this happen in 2 of the last 300 people who have supplemented iodine. In my view, neglecting T3 replacement is absurd. While it is not clear to me why many otherwise healthy people have low T3 at the low range of "normal" or even in the below-normal range, people feel better and have better health--faster weight loss, reduced LDL, reduced triglycerides, they are happier and enjoy more energy--when T3 is increased to the upper half of the reference range. (Crucial question: Why is the 5'-deiodinase enzyme that converts T4 to T3 inhibited, resulting in reduced free T3? What is in our diets or environment that is exerting this effect? I don't have answer, but we sorely need one.) It pays to be a perfectionist when it comes to thyroid. Not only do you feel better, but LDL cholesterol can drop with a statin-like magnitude, but with none of the adverse effects. If interested, Track Your Plaque offers fingerstick blood spot testing that you can perform in your own home. Each test kit will test for: TSH, free T3, free T4, along with a thyroid peroxidase antibody (a marker for Hashimoto's thyroiditis, an autoimmune inflammatory condition of the thyroid). Nutrition Syllogism 21. July 2009 William Davis (21) What do you think of these chains of logic?Cyanide is a potent lethal poison; carbon monoxide is a less lethal poison. Therefore: plenty of carbon monoxide is good. Having uterine cancer is a bad thing. Having uterine fibroids is a less bad thing. Therefore: plenty of uterine fibroids are good.These are obvious examples of seriously flawed logic. Students of logic and philosophy will recognize the above erroneous sequences as examples of the twisted arguments often used to persuade an argumentative opponent of the logic of a premise. As long ago as 335 B.C., Greek philosopher, Aristotle, recognized the pitfalls of thinking in such arguments. You think we’d know better by now. Try this one: White enriched flour is a bad for health; whole grains are less bad for health. Therefore: plenty of whole grains are good for health. Ouch! In the 1960s, we all ate hot dogs on white buns, white flour Wonder Bread® sandwiches, Mom made cookies and cupcakes with white flour. Then, during the 1970s and 1980s, clinical studies were performed demonstrating that whole wheat and whole grains reduced colon cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease compared to white flour. In other words, add back fiber and B vitamins and health benefits develop: No argument here. Therefore: whole grains must be good for health. Further, lots of whole grains?unlimited quantities of whole grains many times per day, every day?must be even better. Even the USDA says so on their nutrition pyramid, with 8-11 servings of grains per day, 4 of which should be whole grains, at the widest portion of the pyramid. But what happens when you follow this logic through and fill your diet with whole grains?Look around you and it’s easy to see: Appetite increases, people become obese, blood sugar increases, diabetes develops, HDL cholesterol plummets, triglycerides skyrocket, inflammatory patterns (e.g., c-reactive protein, or CRP) increase, small LDL (the number one cause for heart disease in the obese U.S.!) shoots through the roof.I would no more fill my diet with “healthy whole grains” than I would close my garage door with the car running. Is pomegranate juice healthy? 19. July 2009 William Davis (20) Pomegranate juice, 8 oz:Sugars, total 31.50 gSucrose 0.00 gGlucose (dextrose) 15.64 gFructose 15.86 gIn your quest to increase the flavonoids in your diet, do you overexpose yourself to fructose?Remember: Fructose increases LDL cholesterol, apoprotein B, small LDL, triglycerides, and substantially increases deposition of visceral fat (fructose belly?). How about a slice of whole grain bread with that glass of pomegranate juice? The Heart Association says it's all low-fat!(Coming on the Track Your Plaque website: A full in-depth Special Report on fructose in all its glorious forms and whether this is truly an issue for your health. Fructose tables and the scientific data to establish a safe "threshold" value will be included.)Image courtesy Wikipedia Honeydew melon 18. July 2009 William Davis (4) Honeydew melon:Sugars, total 51.97 gSucrose 15.87 gGlucose 17.15 gFructose 18.94 gBecause sucrose is half fructose (the other half is glucose), there are approximately 26 grams of fructose per one-half honeydew melon.Image courtesy Wikipedia << Older posts Newer posts >> Newer posts12...383940414243444546...123124Older posts
Who lost weight? 1. August 2009 William Davis (30) The results of the latest Heart Scan Blog poll are in.I went wheat-free and I . . . Gained weight 6 (3%)Lost no weight 41 (21%)Lost less than 10 lbs 28 (14%)Lost more than 10 lbs 34 (17%)Lost more than 20 lbs 22 (11%)Lost more than 30 lbs 28 (14%)I'm still losing weight! 30 (15%)(189 respondents)This means that, by eliminating wheat:24% had no success31% had moderate success (less than 10 lbs or more than 10 lbs)25% had extravagant results with 20 lbs or more lostIt would be interesting to know where along the weight-loss spectrum the last category, "I'm still losing weight," group falls. (Anyone with a good story please speak up!)I believe we can conclude from this casual exercise that, as a simple strategy, wheat elimination is surprisingly effective. Why would 3% gain weight? Well, without knowing the details, there are several possible explanations:1) Weight gain developed through other foods. For instance, I've had people eliminate wheat only to replace it with fattening gluten-free alternatives. Remember: wheat-free is not gluten-free. Others load up on the wrong foods, e.g., Craisins and other dried fruit; overdo dairy; or snack on wheat-free but unhealthy foods like ice cream and chips. 2) Too much alcohol3) Hypothyroidism--A lot more common than you'd think. In fact, this has been the case with a majority of people who have done everything right, yet either failed to lose weight or gained weight. Those are the biggies. I'd like to hear your personal stories of wheat elimination--the ups and downs, your success or failure, how you felt during the process, how easy or difficult, your eventual results. Just post them as a response to this blog post.
A niacin primer 29. July 2009 William Davis (19) A reader of Life Extension reminded me of a piece I wrote about niacin a couple of years back. Anyone desiring a primer on how and why to use niacin to correct lipid and lipoprotein patterns might find this useful. While some people, no matter what they do, cannot tolerate niacin (about 10% of people), many others enjoy spectacular benefits. Q: I recently had a cholesterol profile blood test and learned that I may be at risk of heart disease because my levels of beneficial HDL (high-density lipoprotein) are too low. I read that niacin could help increase my HDL, but my doctor said niacin is dangerous. Whom should I believe?A: Your doctor would be right—if we were still living in 1985. Since then, however, we have learned how to use niacin (vitamin B3) safely and effectively. Unfortunately, many physicians have not yet caught up, or are still trapped by the idea that cholesterol-lowering statin drugs are the only way to decrease cardiovascular disease risk. I have personally prescribed niacin for thousands of patients as part of our program to reverse coronary disease. In fact, niacin is the closest thing we have available to a perfect treatment that corrects most of the causes of coronary heart disease.Continued here.
What would life be like . . . ? 29. July 2009 William Davis (16) What if coronary heart disease could be prevented--no eliminated--applying methods that were accessible, easy, and cheap? What if coronary heart disease and, thereby, angina, heart attack, sudden cardiac death, ventricular tachycardia, heart failure, and the cerebrovascular equivalent, stroke, could be eliminated using readily available tools available to virtually everyone in the U.S.? And, over a year, it cost less than a once-a-week latte at Starbucks? How would the healthcare landscape change? What would become of hospitals, manufacturers of the billions of dollars of hospital equipment necessary to supply the cardiovascular hospital industry (e.g., stent manufacturers, catheter manufacturers, defibrillator and pacemaker manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers who no longer have to produce the volume of antiplatelet agents, inotropic drugs, antiarrhythmic agents, etc.)? How would our lives change? What would the end of life look like if people stopped dying of heart attack, sudden cardiac death, congestive heart failure at age 55, 65, or 75, but lived out their lives to die of something unrelated?What if the solution had little or nothing to do with drugs but evolved from simple nutritional strategies, supplements meant to correct the deficiencies that accompany modern lifestyles, and a few unique strategies targeted towards the genetic predispositions that lead to heart disease? What if all this were possible at a cost of a few hundred dollars per year? It would certainly be a cataclysmic change. Hospitals would shrink to a small remnant of their current gargantuan, dozens-per-city presence. The need for hospital staff would be slashed by over half. The rare cardiologist would tend to congenital heart disease sufferers and other unusual forms of heart disease and he or she might have a colleague or two in all of a major city. Healthcare costs would plummet, no longer having to sustain the enormous cardiovascular healthcare machine of hospitals, staff, industry, and long-term care. Health insurance, private or public, would drop by 50%. It would free up nearly a trillion dollars that could be redirected towards other pursuits, like schools and research. Extraordinary leaps forward in quality of life and science would emerge, given that magnitude of funding. It's not as grand a thought experiment as Alan Weisman's The World Without Us, in which he imagines what the world would be like without humans altogether. How long would it take to recover lost ground and restore Eden to the way it must have gleamed and smelled the day before Adam, or Homo habilis, appeared? Could nature ever obliterate all our traces? How would it undo our monumental cities and public works, and reduce our myriad plastics and toxic synthetics back to benign, basic elements? But I believe this thought experiment--what would life be like without heart disease because it was eliminated using inexpensive tools-- is more plausible, more likely to occur. In fact, it has already begun to occur. See those vines growing up the side of the hospital?
Are jelly beans heart healthy? 27. July 2009 William Davis (0) Total Fat 3 g or less Less than 6.5 g Saturated Fat1 g or less 1 g or less Cholesterol 20 mg or less20 mg or less Sodium 480 mg or less per RACC* & labeled serving480 mg or less per RACC* & labeled servingNutrients Contain 10 percent or more of the daily value of 1 of 6 nutrients; vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, protein or dietary fiber Contain 10 percent or more of the daily value of 1of 6 nutrients; vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, protein or dietary fiber Trans fat Less than 0.5 g per RACC* and labeled serving Less than 0.5 g per RACC* and labeled serving Whole Grain N/A 51 percent by weight/RACC* Minimum Dietary Fiber N/A1.7 g/RACC of 30 g2.5 g/RACC of 45 g2.8 g/RACC of 50 g3.0 g/RACC of 55 g(RACC=Reference Amount Customarily Consumed)
Thyroid correction: The woeful prevailing standard 27. July 2009 William Davis (16) Rich has been taking Synthroid or levothyroxine for many years. When Rich came to my office for continuing management 10 years after his bypass surgery, I checked his thyroid panel:TSH 7.44 uIU/LFree T4 1.88 ng/dl (Ref range 0.80-1.90 ng/dl)Free T3 2.0 pg/ml (Ref range 2.3-4.2 pg/ml)Rich's thyroid hormone distortions--high TSH, low T3--are sufficient to account for a tripling of heart attack risk long-term. As Richs' thyroid was being managed by his primary care physician, I notified this doctor of Rich's panel. He therefore increased Rich's levothyroxine from 75 mcg per day to 100 mcg per day. Another thyroid panel several months later showed:TSH 0.98 uIU/LFree T4 2.38 ng/dlFree T3 2.0 pg/ml As you would expect, increasing the intake of the T4 hormone (levothyroxine) increased free T4 and suppressed TSH. But what about T3? It's unchanged. Indeed, Rich says that he feels no better and, in fact, wakes up in the morning foggy and requires a nap in the afternoon. In my experience, the majority (approximately 70%, but not 100%) experience subjective improvement when T3 is added in some form and the free T3 level is increased. While the data (summarized here) are conflicted on whether there is objective benefit to T3 management and supplementation, there seems to be a poorly-quantified subjective improvement. Rich's increased levothyroxine dose decreased (calculated) LDL cholesterol by 10 mg/dl. Based on my experience, I'll bet that his lipid panel would likely be further improved with T3 correction. What I find incredible is the absolutely rabid resistance waged by primary care physicians and endocrinologists against this notion of T3, mostly due to fears of the remote likelihood of inducing atrial fibrillation and osteoporosis, while they are ready to prescribe lifelong statin drugs without a moment's hesitation.
Launch of new Track Your Plaque newsletter: Cardiac Confidential 27. July 2009 William Davis (3) Track Your Plaque has just launched a new version of our newsletter. We call it Cardiac Confidential.Cardiac Confidential is meant to be a no-holds-barred, go-for-the-throat exposé of the world of heart disease. We will expose the dishonest, reveal what we view as the underlying truth. We'll even have an occasional "undercover" report of what goes on in hospitals and the go-for-the-money world of heart procedures. Read the first issue here (open to everyone) in which "Laurie" describes her encounter with a sleazy, profiteering cardiologist. She survives, but not without paying a dear price.
Thyroid: Be a perfectionist 27. July 2009 William Davis (18) If you'd like to reduce LDL cholesterol with nearly as much power as a statin drug, think thyroid. When thyroid is corrected to ideal levels, LDL cholesterol drops 20, 30, 40 mg/dl or more, depending on how poor thyroid function and how high LDL are at the start. The poorer the thyroid function (the higher the TSH or the lower the T3 and T4) and the higher the LDL cholesterol, the more LDL drops with thyroid correction. (For those of you minding LDL particle size, such as Track Your Plaque Members, the "dominant" LDL species will drop: If you are genetic small LDL, small LDL will drop. If you have mostly large LDL because of being wheat-free and sugar-free, then large LDL will drop.)One of the problems is that many healthcare providers blindly follow what the laboratory says is "normal" or the "reference range," which is usually nothing more than a population average (actually the mean +/- 2 standard deviations, a common method of developing references ranges). In other words, a substantial degree of low thyroid function, or hypothyroidism, can be present when your doctor adheres to the reference range provided by the laboratory. What does it mean to achieve ideal thyroid status? My list includes:--Normal oral temperature of 97.3 F first upon arising. (The thyroid is the body's thermoregulatory organ.)--TSH 1.0 mIU/L or less--Free T3 upper half "normal" range--Free T4 upper half "normal" range--You feel good: mental clarity, energy, upbeat mood. You lose weight when you try. Iodine replacement should be part of any thyroid health effort. Iodine is not an optional trace mineral, no more than vitamin C is optional (else your teeth fall out). The only dangers to iodine replacement are to those who have been starved of iodine for many years; increase iodine and the thyroid can over-respond. I've seen this happen in 2 of the last 300 people who have supplemented iodine. In my view, neglecting T3 replacement is absurd. While it is not clear to me why many otherwise healthy people have low T3 at the low range of "normal" or even in the below-normal range, people feel better and have better health--faster weight loss, reduced LDL, reduced triglycerides, they are happier and enjoy more energy--when T3 is increased to the upper half of the reference range. (Crucial question: Why is the 5'-deiodinase enzyme that converts T4 to T3 inhibited, resulting in reduced free T3? What is in our diets or environment that is exerting this effect? I don't have answer, but we sorely need one.) It pays to be a perfectionist when it comes to thyroid. Not only do you feel better, but LDL cholesterol can drop with a statin-like magnitude, but with none of the adverse effects. If interested, Track Your Plaque offers fingerstick blood spot testing that you can perform in your own home. Each test kit will test for: TSH, free T3, free T4, along with a thyroid peroxidase antibody (a marker for Hashimoto's thyroiditis, an autoimmune inflammatory condition of the thyroid).
Nutrition Syllogism 21. July 2009 William Davis (21) What do you think of these chains of logic?Cyanide is a potent lethal poison; carbon monoxide is a less lethal poison. Therefore: plenty of carbon monoxide is good. Having uterine cancer is a bad thing. Having uterine fibroids is a less bad thing. Therefore: plenty of uterine fibroids are good.These are obvious examples of seriously flawed logic. Students of logic and philosophy will recognize the above erroneous sequences as examples of the twisted arguments often used to persuade an argumentative opponent of the logic of a premise. As long ago as 335 B.C., Greek philosopher, Aristotle, recognized the pitfalls of thinking in such arguments. You think we’d know better by now. Try this one: White enriched flour is a bad for health; whole grains are less bad for health. Therefore: plenty of whole grains are good for health. Ouch! In the 1960s, we all ate hot dogs on white buns, white flour Wonder Bread® sandwiches, Mom made cookies and cupcakes with white flour. Then, during the 1970s and 1980s, clinical studies were performed demonstrating that whole wheat and whole grains reduced colon cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease compared to white flour. In other words, add back fiber and B vitamins and health benefits develop: No argument here. Therefore: whole grains must be good for health. Further, lots of whole grains?unlimited quantities of whole grains many times per day, every day?must be even better. Even the USDA says so on their nutrition pyramid, with 8-11 servings of grains per day, 4 of which should be whole grains, at the widest portion of the pyramid. But what happens when you follow this logic through and fill your diet with whole grains?Look around you and it’s easy to see: Appetite increases, people become obese, blood sugar increases, diabetes develops, HDL cholesterol plummets, triglycerides skyrocket, inflammatory patterns (e.g., c-reactive protein, or CRP) increase, small LDL (the number one cause for heart disease in the obese U.S.!) shoots through the roof.I would no more fill my diet with “healthy whole grains” than I would close my garage door with the car running.
Is pomegranate juice healthy? 19. July 2009 William Davis (20) Pomegranate juice, 8 oz:Sugars, total 31.50 gSucrose 0.00 gGlucose (dextrose) 15.64 gFructose 15.86 gIn your quest to increase the flavonoids in your diet, do you overexpose yourself to fructose?Remember: Fructose increases LDL cholesterol, apoprotein B, small LDL, triglycerides, and substantially increases deposition of visceral fat (fructose belly?). How about a slice of whole grain bread with that glass of pomegranate juice? The Heart Association says it's all low-fat!(Coming on the Track Your Plaque website: A full in-depth Special Report on fructose in all its glorious forms and whether this is truly an issue for your health. Fructose tables and the scientific data to establish a safe "threshold" value will be included.)Image courtesy Wikipedia
Honeydew melon 18. July 2009 William Davis (4) Honeydew melon:Sugars, total 51.97 gSucrose 15.87 gGlucose 17.15 gFructose 18.94 gBecause sucrose is half fructose (the other half is glucose), there are approximately 26 grams of fructose per one-half honeydew melon.Image courtesy Wikipedia