The case builds against wheat 29. October 2007 William Davis (21) Looking back over the past few posts I've made about the adverse health effects of wheat, I was surprised to see just how many people have posted descriptions of their dramatic experiences following this route. While I've seen it in real life many times, it always helps to have corroboration from others. Here is what a number of Heart Scan Blog readers and commenters have said: Barbara W said:It's true! We've done it. My husband and I stopped eating all grains and sugar in February. At this point, we really don't miss them any more. It was a huge change, but it's worth the effort. I've lost over 20 pounds (10 to go)and my husband has lost 45 pounds (20 to go). On top of it, our body shapes have changed drastically. It is really amazing. I've got my waist back (and a whole wardrobe of clothes) - I'm thrilled.I'm also very happy to be eating foods that I always loved like eggs, avocados, and meats - without feeling guilty that they're not good for me.With the extremely hot weather this week in our area, we thought we'd "treat" ourselves to small ice cream cones. To our surprise, it wasn't that much of a treat. Didn't even taste as good as we'd anticipated. I know I would have been much more satisfied with a snack of smoked salmon with fresh dill, capers, chopped onion and drizzled with lemon juice.Aside from weight changes, we both feel so much better in general - feel much more alert and move around with much greater flexibility, sleep well, never have any indigestion. We're really enjoying this. It's like feeling younger.It's not a diet for us. This will be the way we eat from now on. Actually, we think our food has become more interesting and varied since giving up all the "white stuff". I guess we felt compelled to get a little more creative.Eating out (or at other peoples' places) has probably been the hardest part of this adjustment. But now we're getting pretty comfortable saying what we won't eat. I'm starting to enjoy the reactions it produces.Weight loss, increased energy, less abdominal bloating, better sleep--I've seen it many times, as well. Dotslady said:I was a victim of the '80s lowfat diet craze - doc told me I was obese, gave me the Standard American Diet and said to watch my fat (I'm not a big meat eater, didn't like mayo ... couldn't figure out where my fat was coming from! maybe the fries - I will admit I liked fries). I looked to the USDA food pyramid and to increase my fiber for the constipation I was experiencing. Bread with 3 grams of fiber wasn't good enough; I turned to Kashi cereals for 11 years. My constipation turned to steattorrhea and a celiac disease diagnosis! *No gut pains!* My PCP sent me to the gastroenterologist for a colonscopy because my ferritin was a 5 (20 is low range). Good thing I googled around and asked him to do an endoscopy or I'd be a zombie by now.My symptoms were depression & anxiety, eczema, GERD, hypothyroidism, mild dizziness, tripping, Alzheimer's-like memory problems, insomnia, heart palpitations, fibromyalgia, worsening eyesight, mild cardiomyopathy, to name a few.After six months gluten-free, I asked my gastroenterologist about feeling full early ... he said he didn't know what I was talking about! *shrug*But *I* knew -- it was the gluten/starches! My satiety level has totally changed, and for the first time in my life I feel NORMAL!Feeling satisfied with less is a prominent effect in my experience, too. You need to eat less, you're driven to snack less, less likely to give in to those evil little bedtime or middle-of-the-night impulses that make you feel ashamed and guilty. An anonymous (female) commenter said:My life changed when I cut not only all wheat, but all grains from my diet.For the first time in my life, I was no longer hungry -no hunger pangs between meals; no overwhelming desire to snack. Now I eat at mealtimes without even thinking about food in between.I've dropped 70 pounds, effortlessly, come off high blood pressure meds and control my blood sugar without medication.I don't know whether it was just the elimination of grain, especially wheat, or whether it was a combination of grain elimnation along with a number of other changes, but I do know that mere reduction of grain consumption still left me hungry. It wasn't until I elimnated it that the overwhelming redution in appetite kicked in.As a former wheat-addicted vegetarian, who thought she was eating healthily according to all the expert advice out there at the time, I can only shake my head at how mistaken I was.That may be a record for me: 70 lbs!! Stan said:It's worth it and you won't look back! Many things will improve, not just weight reduction: you will think clearer, your reflexes will improve, your breathing rate will go down, your blood pressure will normalize. You will never or rarely have a fever or viral infections like cold or flu. You will become more resistant to cold temperature and you will rarely feel tired, ever!Ortcloud said:Whenever I go out to breakfast I look around and I am in shock at what people eat for breakfast. Big stack of pancakes, fruit, fruit juice syrup, just like you said. This is not breakfast, this is dessert ! It has the same sugar and nutrition as a birthday cake, would anyone think cake is ok for breakfast ? No, but that is exactly the equivalent of what they are eating. Somehow we have been duped to think this is ok. For me, I typically eat an omelette when I go out, low carb and no sugar. I dont eat wheat but invariably it comes with the meal and I try to tell the waitress no thanks, they are stunned. They try to push some other type of wheat or sugar product on me instead, finally I have to tell them I dont eat wheat and they are doubly stunned. They cant comprehend it. We have a long way to go in terms of re-education.Yes. Don't be surprised at the incomprehension, the rolled eyes, even the anger that can sometimes result. Imagine that told you that the food you've come to rely on and love is killing you! Anne said:I was overweight by only about 15lbs and I was having pitting edema in my legs and shortness of breath. My cardiologist and I were discussing the possible need of an angiogram. I was three years out from heart bypass surgery.Before we could schedule the procedure, I tested positive for gluten sensitivity through www.enterolab.com. I eliminated not only wheat but also barley and rye and oats(very contaminated with wheat) from my diet. Within a few weeks my edema was gone, my energy was up and I was no longer short of breath. I lost about 10 lbs. The main reason I gave up gluten was to see if I could stop the progression of my peripheral neuropathy. Getting off wheat and other gluten grains has given me back my life. I have been gluten free for 4 years and feel younger than I have in many years.There are many gluten free processed foods, but I have found I feel my best when I stick with whole foods.Ann has a different reason (gluten enteropathy, or celiac disease) for wanting to be wheat-free. But I've seen similar improvements that go beyond just relief of the symptoms attributable to the inflammatory intestinal effects of gluten elimination. Wccaguy said:I have relatively successfully cut carbs and grains from my diet thus far.Because I've got some weight to lose, I have tried to keep the carb count low and I've lost 15 pounds since then.I have also been very surprised at the significant reduction in my appetite. I've read about the experience of others with regard to appetite reduction and couldn't really imagine that it could happen for me too. But it has.A few weeks ago, I attended a party catered by one of my favorite italian restaurants and got myself offtrack for two days. Then it took me a couple of days to get back on track because my appetite returned.Check out Jimmy Moore's website for lots of ideas about variations of foods to try. The latest thing I picked up from Jimmy is the good old-fashioned hard boiled egg. Two or three eggs with some spicy hot sauce for breakfast and a handful of almonds mid-morning plus a couple glasses of water and I'm good for the morning no problem.I find myself thinking about lunch not because I'm really hungry but out of habit.The cool thing too now is that the more I do this, the more I'm just not tempted much to do anything but this diet. Going wheat-free, along with a reduction in processed sugary foods like Hawaiian Punch, sodas, and candy, is the straightest, most direct path I know of to lose weight, obtain all the health benefits listed by our commenters, as well as achieve the lipoprotein corrections we seek, like reduction of small LDL particles and rise in HDL, in the Track Your Plaque program.
Cheers to flavonoids 28. October 2007 William Davis (14) The case in favor of healthful flavonoids seems to grow bit by bit. Flavonoids such as procyanadins in wine and chocolate, catechins in tea, and those in walnuts, pomegranates, and pycnogenol (pine bark extract) are suspected to block oxidation of LDL (preventing its entry into plaque), normalize abnormal endothelial constriction, and yield platelet-blocking effects (preventing blood clots). Dr. Roger Corder is a prolific author of many scientific papers detailing his research into the flavonoids of foods, but wine in particular. He summarizes his findings in a recent book, The Red Wine Diet. Contrary to the obvious vying-for-prime-time title, Dr. Corder's compilation is probably the best discussion of flavonoids in foods and wines that I've come across. Although it would have been more entertaining if peppered with more wit and humans interest, given the topic, its straightfoward, semi-academic telling of the story makes his points effectively. Among the important observations Corder makes is that regions of the world with the greatest longevity also correspond to regions with the highest procyanidin flavonoids in their wines. Regading the variable flavonoid content of various wines, he states:Although differences in the amount of procyanidins in red wine clearly occur because of the grape variety and the vineyard environment, the winemaker holds the key to what ends up in the bottle. The most important aspect of the winemaking process for ensuring high procyanidins in red wines is the contact time between the liquid and the grape seeds during fermentation when the alcohol concentration reaches about 6 percent. Depending on the fermentation temperature, it may be two to three days or more before this extraction process starts. Grape skins float and seeds sink, so the number of times they are pushed down and stirred into the fermenting wine also increases extraction of procyanidins. Even so, extraction is a slow process and, after fermentation is complete, many red wines are left to macerate with their seeds and skins for days or even weeks in order to extract all the color, flavor, and tannins. Wines that have a contact time of less than seven days will have a relatively low level of procyanidins. Wines with a contact time of ten to fourteen days have decent levels, and those with contact times of three weeks or more have the highest. He points out that deeply-colored reds are more likely to be richer in procyanidins; mass-produced wines that are usually "house-grade" served at bars and restaurants tend to be low. Some are close to zero. Wines rich in procyanidins provide several-fold more, such that a single glass can provide the same purported health benefit as several glasses of a procyanidin-poor wine. So how do various wines stack up in procyanidin content? Here's an abbreviated list from his book:Australian--tend to be low, except for Australian Cabernet Sauvignon which is moderate. Chile--only Cabernet Sauvignon stands out, then only moderate in content.France--Where to start? The French, of course, are the perennial masters of wine, and prolonged contact with skins and seeds is usually taken for granted in many varieties of wine. Each wine region (French wines are generally designated by region, not by variety of grape) can also vary widely in flavonoid content. Nonetheless, Bordeaux rate moderately; Burgundy low to moderate (except the village of Pommard); Languedoc-Roussillon moderate to high (and many great bargains in my experience, since these producers live in the shadow of its norther Bordeaux neighbors); Rhone (Cote du Rhone) moderate to high, though beware of their powerful "barnyard" character upon opening; decanting is wise. Italy--Much red Italian wine is made from the Sangiovese grape and called variously Chianti, Valpolicella, and "super-Tuscan" when blended with other varietals. Corder rates the southern Italian wines from Sicily, Sardinia, and the mainland as high in procyanidins; most northern varieties are moderate. Spain--Moderate in general. United States--Though his comments are disappointingly scanty on the U.S., he points out that Cabernet Sauvignon is the standout for procyanidin content. He mentions only the Napa/Sonoma regions, unfortunately. (I'd like to know how the San Diego-Temecula and Virginian wines fare, for instance.)The winner in procyanidin content is a variety grown in the Gers region of southwest France, a region with superior longevity of its residents. The wines here are made with the tannat grape within the Madiran appellation; wines labeled "Madiran" must contain 40% or more tannat to be so labeled (such is a quirk of French wine regulation). However, among the producers Dr. Corder lists are Chateau de Sabazan, CHateau Saint-Go, Chateau du Bascou, Domaine Labranche Laffont, and Chateau d'Aydie. (A more complete can be found in his book.)How does this all figure into the Track Your Plaque program? Can you succeed without red wine? Of course you can. I doubt you could do it, however, without some attention to flavonoid-rich food sources, whether they come from spinach, tea, chocolate, beets, pomegranates, or red wine. Though my wife and I love wine, I confess that I've never personally drank or even seen a French Madiran wine. Any wine afficionados with some advice?
Wheat and the hunger factor 28. October 2007 William Davis (20) Low carbohydrate diets are becoming increasingly popular. In my experience, they also work exceptionally well. However, I have observed a specific aspect of low-carb diets that deserves special attention: When wheat products in particular are eliminated, hunger plummets enormously. It seems peculiar to wheat. Other high-glycemic index carbohydrates like a baked potato or white rice, for instance, don't seem to have the capacity to trigger appetite like a handful of pretzels or crackers can. There are exceptions: processed sweet drinks that contain high-fructose corn syrup can stimulate appetite, as do foods made with processed corn and corn starch. All posts by william-davis Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in Honey: More fructose than high-fructose corn syrup 11. August 2009 William Davis (21) Honey: It’s natural. Mom probably gave it to you, either straight or in tea for a sore throat when you were a kid. Even today, honey is touted as possessing almost supernatural qualities for promoting health. Honey contains B vitamins, minerals, and a handful of antioxidants. It also contains . . . fructose. 60% of honey, in fact, is fructose. While the average per capita intake of honey is only a modest 1.29 lb per year (National Honey Board; 2008) and therefore contributes only 0.77 lb of fructose per year, there are people who, believing honey to be healthy, use it to excess and use far more than 1.29 lb per year. How does that compare to table sugar, or sucrose? Sucrose is 50:50 glucose to fructose. How about high-fructose corn syrup, the sweetener found in virtually all processed foods that has replaced sucrose as the most common sweetener? Depending on the variety, high-fructose corn syrup is generally 42-55% fructose. Many of us (including me) believe that the proliferation of high-fructose corn syrup in processed foods is a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic. Yes: Judged by its fructose content, honey is worse than high-fructose corn syrup. It is also worse than sucrose. It means that honey can also contribute to the adverse health effects of fructose, as detailed in this prior Heart Scan Blog post. Sun, fish, and seaweed 8. August 2009 William Davis (9) Extraordinary heart health springs from three basic sources in our environment: Sun, fish, and seaweed. Sun: Sunlight exposure is nature's intended source of vitamin D. Humans were meant to run naked, or at least scantily clad, in tropical or sub-tropical climates. The large surface area of skin ensured plenty of skin activation of vitamin D, along with long days of intense sun (unlike the seasonal variation of day length and less intense sun further north).Fish: Fish are the principal source of omega-3 fatty acids, as are, to a lesser degree, wild land animals. Humans as hunter-gatherers tracked, captured, and slaughtered fish and wild game, eaten immediately, since there was no means of storage. Omega-3-rich game was the principal source of fat for primitive cultures. Seaweed: Seaweed is the world’s most concentrated source of iodine. While seafood like fish and shellfish also contain iodine, seaweed contains, on average, a thousand-fold greater quantity. Seaweed, like plants found on land, are also rich in phytonutrients. The healthiest cultures on earth follow this simple recipe for health. The unhealthiest population on earth-meaning Americans (i.e., without benefit of bail-out medications and procedures that keep us alive, or vaccinations that protect us from infectious diseases)--neglect all three. Witness the Okinawans, whose daily meals nearly always contain some form of fish and seaweed, and whose sub-tropical climate provides greater sun exposure. It is not unusual for Okinawans to live to 100 years of age, not as an exception, but the rule. Heart disease was virtually unknown except in 90-year olds and older-that is, until the recent adoption of Western practices like fast food and snacks.It's pretty incredible when you think about it: Simple practices can markedly reduce your likelihood of heart attack and developing heart disease. Perhaps you’d rather not run naked along a semi-tropical beach, spear fish, and gather seaweed. You could always do the modern equivalents and achieve similar benefits. Glycemic index: A flawed concept 7. August 2009 William Davis (0) Kallio P et al Am J Clin Nutr 2008Squares = rye bread, circles = oat bread Fructose is a coronary risk factor 4. August 2009 William Davis (21) As discussed in a previous Heart Scan Blog post, Say Goodbye to Fructose, a carefully-conducted University of California study demonstrated that, compared to glucose, fructose induces:1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol, doubled Apoprotein B 3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, 3-fold more than glucose 4) Increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.Other studies have shown that fructose:--Increases uric acid--No longer is red meat the cause for increased uric acid; fructose has taken its place. Uric acid may act as an independent coronary risk factor and increases high blood pressure and kidney disease. --Induces insulin resistance, the situation that creates diabetes--Increases glycation (fructose linked to proteins) and protein cross-linking, processes that underlie atherosclerosis, liver disease, and cataracts. Make no mistake: Fructose is a powerful coronary risk factor. There is no doubt whatsoever that a diet rich in fructose from fruit drinks, honey, raisins and other dried fruit like cranberries, sucrose (table sugar), and high-fructose corn syrup is a high-risk path to heart disease. Also note that many foods labeled "heart healthy" because of low-fat, low saturated fat, addition of sterol esters, or fiber, also contain fructose sources, especially high-fructose corn syrup. 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. << Older posts Newer posts >> Newer posts12...353637383940414243...121122Older posts
Honey: More fructose than high-fructose corn syrup 11. August 2009 William Davis (21) Honey: It’s natural. Mom probably gave it to you, either straight or in tea for a sore throat when you were a kid. Even today, honey is touted as possessing almost supernatural qualities for promoting health. Honey contains B vitamins, minerals, and a handful of antioxidants. It also contains . . . fructose. 60% of honey, in fact, is fructose. While the average per capita intake of honey is only a modest 1.29 lb per year (National Honey Board; 2008) and therefore contributes only 0.77 lb of fructose per year, there are people who, believing honey to be healthy, use it to excess and use far more than 1.29 lb per year. How does that compare to table sugar, or sucrose? Sucrose is 50:50 glucose to fructose. How about high-fructose corn syrup, the sweetener found in virtually all processed foods that has replaced sucrose as the most common sweetener? Depending on the variety, high-fructose corn syrup is generally 42-55% fructose. Many of us (including me) believe that the proliferation of high-fructose corn syrup in processed foods is a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic. Yes: Judged by its fructose content, honey is worse than high-fructose corn syrup. It is also worse than sucrose. It means that honey can also contribute to the adverse health effects of fructose, as detailed in this prior Heart Scan Blog post.
Sun, fish, and seaweed 8. August 2009 William Davis (9) Extraordinary heart health springs from three basic sources in our environment: Sun, fish, and seaweed. Sun: Sunlight exposure is nature's intended source of vitamin D. Humans were meant to run naked, or at least scantily clad, in tropical or sub-tropical climates. The large surface area of skin ensured plenty of skin activation of vitamin D, along with long days of intense sun (unlike the seasonal variation of day length and less intense sun further north).Fish: Fish are the principal source of omega-3 fatty acids, as are, to a lesser degree, wild land animals. Humans as hunter-gatherers tracked, captured, and slaughtered fish and wild game, eaten immediately, since there was no means of storage. Omega-3-rich game was the principal source of fat for primitive cultures. Seaweed: Seaweed is the world’s most concentrated source of iodine. While seafood like fish and shellfish also contain iodine, seaweed contains, on average, a thousand-fold greater quantity. Seaweed, like plants found on land, are also rich in phytonutrients. The healthiest cultures on earth follow this simple recipe for health. The unhealthiest population on earth-meaning Americans (i.e., without benefit of bail-out medications and procedures that keep us alive, or vaccinations that protect us from infectious diseases)--neglect all three. Witness the Okinawans, whose daily meals nearly always contain some form of fish and seaweed, and whose sub-tropical climate provides greater sun exposure. It is not unusual for Okinawans to live to 100 years of age, not as an exception, but the rule. Heart disease was virtually unknown except in 90-year olds and older-that is, until the recent adoption of Western practices like fast food and snacks.It's pretty incredible when you think about it: Simple practices can markedly reduce your likelihood of heart attack and developing heart disease. Perhaps you’d rather not run naked along a semi-tropical beach, spear fish, and gather seaweed. You could always do the modern equivalents and achieve similar benefits.
Glycemic index: A flawed concept 7. August 2009 William Davis (0) Kallio P et al Am J Clin Nutr 2008Squares = rye bread, circles = oat bread
Fructose is a coronary risk factor 4. August 2009 William Davis (21) As discussed in a previous Heart Scan Blog post, Say Goodbye to Fructose, a carefully-conducted University of California study demonstrated that, compared to glucose, fructose induces:1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol, doubled Apoprotein B 3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, 3-fold more than glucose 4) Increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.Other studies have shown that fructose:--Increases uric acid--No longer is red meat the cause for increased uric acid; fructose has taken its place. Uric acid may act as an independent coronary risk factor and increases high blood pressure and kidney disease. --Induces insulin resistance, the situation that creates diabetes--Increases glycation (fructose linked to proteins) and protein cross-linking, processes that underlie atherosclerosis, liver disease, and cataracts. Make no mistake: Fructose is a powerful coronary risk factor. There is no doubt whatsoever that a diet rich in fructose from fruit drinks, honey, raisins and other dried fruit like cranberries, sucrose (table sugar), and high-fructose corn syrup is a high-risk path to heart disease. Also note that many foods labeled "heart healthy" because of low-fat, low saturated fat, addition of sterol esters, or fiber, also contain fructose sources, especially high-fructose corn syrup.
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.