Unexpected effects of a wheat-free diet

Wheat elimination continues to yield explosive and unexpected health benefits.

I initially asked patients in the office to eliminate wheat because I wanted to help them reduce blood sugar and pre-diabetic tendencies.

A patient would come to the office, for example, with a blood sugar of 118 mg/dl (in the pre-diabetic range) and the other phenomena of pre-diabetes or metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high inflammation/c-reactive protein, low HDL, high triglycerides, small LDL), and the characteristic wheat belly. Eliminate wheat and, within three months, they lose 30 lbs, blood sugar drops to normal, blood pressure drops, triglycerides drop by several hundred milligrams, HDL goes up, small LDL plummets, c-reactive protein drops.

People also felt better, with flat tummies and more energy. But they also developed benefits I did not anticipate:

--Improved rheumatoid arthritis--I have seen this time and time again. Eliminate wheat and the painful thumbs, fingers, and other joints clear up dramatically. Many former rheumatoid sufferers people tell me that one cracker or pretzel will trigger a painful throbbing reminder that lasts a couple of hours.

--Improved ulcerative colitis--People incapacitated with pain, cramping, and diarrhea of ulcerative colitis (who are negative for the antibodies for celiac disease) can experience marked improvement. I've seen people be able to stop all their nasty colitis medications just by eliminating wheat.

--Reduction or elimination of irritable bowel syndrome

--Reduction or elimination of gastroesophageal reflux

--Better mood--Eliminating wheat makes you happier and experience more stable moods. Just as wheat is responsible for a subset of schizophrenia and bipolar illness (this is fact), and wheat elimination generates dramatic improvement, when you or I eliminate wheat, we also experience a "smoothing" of mood swings.

--Better libido--I'm not sure whether this is a consequence of losing a belly the size of a watermelon or improvement in sex hormones (esp. testosterone) or endothelial responses, but more interest in sex typically develops.

--Better complexion--I'm not entirely sure why, but various rashes will often dissipate, bags under the eyes are reduced, itching in funny places stops.

It's also peculiar how, after someone eliminates wheat for several months, re-exposure of an errant cracker or sandwich results in cramping and diarrhea in about 30% of people.

Obviously, people with celiac disease, who can even die of exposure to wheat, are even worse. What other common food do you know of that makes us sick so often, even occasionally with fatal outcome?

Niacin:

--Raises HDL and shifts HDL towards the healthier large (HDL2b) subclass.
--Reduces total LDL.
--Reduces small LDL particles.
--Reduces triglycerides and triglyceride-containing particles like VLDL and IDL (intermediate-density lipoprotein).
--Reduces fibrinogen.
--Reduces inflammatory responses.

Weight loss achieved through a low-carbohydrate (read "wheat-free") diet:

--Raises HDL and shifts HDL towards the healthier large (HDL2b) subclass.
--Reduces total LDL.
--Reduces small LDL particles.
--Reduces triglycerides and triglyceride-containing particles like VLDL and IDL (intermediate-density lipoprotein).
--Reduces fibrinogen.
--Reduces inflammatory responses.

Curious, isn't it? Niacin achieves virtually the same effect as weight loss achieved through a low-carbohydrate diet, particularly if free of wheat products. The only major difference is that niacin also reduces lipoprotein(a), though even that distinction shrinks if monounsaturated fat sources like almonds are included in a low-carbohydrate program.

So which should you do first if you have any of the above patterns? Well, it's a question of 1) severity, 2) how carbohydrate-rich your starting diet is, 3) how much weight you could stand to lose, and 4) how urgent your program is (determined largely by your heart scan score).

Niacin can also be very helpful if you've taken full advantage of weight loss through a carbohydrate-restricted program, yet still retain some of the abnormal lipoprotein patterns that could continue to grow coronary plaque. For instance, if HDL cholesterol rises from 28 to 40 mg/dl by eliminating wheat and reducing carbohydrates and losing weight, niacin could raise HDL to 50 mg/dl or higher.

As much as I love and use niacin for its broad array of plaque-controlling effects, a low-carbohydrate, wheat-free diet can achieve many of the same effects. Use this strategy to full advantage.

Every once in a while, we will see someone experience more-than-expected rate of coronary plaque growth, a sudden jump in heart scan scores. I'm talking about increases in score of 50%, even 100%, sometimes despite favorable lipid and lipoprotein patterns.

It's not always easy to pin this phenomenon down, since we often detect it after a year or more on a repeat heart scan. It would be wonderfully insightful to perform heart scans more frequently and track plaque growth more precisely, but of course, radiation exposure is the most important limiting factor, as is cost.

So this list is, admittedly, speculative. It is based on observation, on presumptive associations between events and heart scan scores. But, judging from what we do confidently know about coronary atherosclerotic plaque, I think these observations make physiologic sense.

These are the sorts of increases in heart scan score that can scare the heck out of you, silent yet explosive growth of coronary atherosclerotic plaque that can grow with no warning whatsoever.

Image courtesy Wikipedia and the United States Geological Survey.

Factors which I have observed to possibly be responsible for explosive plaque growth include:

--Overwhelming tragedy such as death of a loved one, financial ruin, divorce. One of my early and catastrophic failures was a young man in his early 40s who, in the space of just a few months, suffered the loss of his mother, a brother, and his mother-in-law, while working a high-stress job. His heart scan score doubled from around 100 to 200 in one year, despite perfect lipoproteins. He had a heart attack shortly after the second score, despite a normal stress test just months earlier. (Pessimism is tragedy's weak cousin, but one that still holds power to corrupt our otherwise best efforts at plaque reversal.)

--Substantial weight gain. In the early years of the Track Your Plaque program, before it was even called "Track Your Plaque," I witnessed a man more than double his score from 1100 to 2400 in 18 months just by allowing himself to gain 40 lbs. (I don't know what became of him. His life apparently suffered other disasters, as well, and we lost track of him.)

--Poorly-controlled diabetes. High blood sugars out of control have yielded explosive growth.

--Kidney disease--However, I am uncertain of how much this overlaps with a deficiency of vitamin D's active form, 1,25-OH-vitamin D3, the form that is often deficient in people with dysfunctional kidneys.

--An inflammatory disease that is out of control, e.g., rheumatoid arthritis.

--This is very speculative, but I've witnessed explosive growth after vaccine administration that yielded strange viral-like symptoms. In this one instance, the man was getting heart scans (on his own) every three to six months and described a severe illness following a vaccine administered in preparation for travel out of the U.S.

--Unrecognized low thyroid function--i.e., hypothyroidism. This is easily corrected with thyroid hormone replacement.

These factors can also be relative and they can be overcome. Look at our current Track Your Plaque reversal record-holder: a 53-year old woman who dropped her heart scan score an amazing 63% despite the loss of a loved one during the 15 months of her program. Despite an overwhelming tragedy, she overcame the potential adverse effects and set a record, probably a record for the entire world.

In his most recent Vitamin D Council Newsletter (reprinted in its entirety below, minus clickable links, as Dr. Cannell apparently lost his webmaster and this issue of the newsletter is therefore not posted on the Vitamin D Council website; if you would like to either donate money to the Vitamin D Council or pitch in with help with his website, go to www.vitamindcouncil.com), Dr. John Cannell once again enlightens us with some new insights into vitamin D and its enormous role in health. In this issue, he discusses the role of vitamin D in people diagnosed with cancer (treatment, not prevention).

While cancer is not our focus on the Heart Scan Blog, Dr. Cannell's always insightful comments provide some helpful thoughts for our management of vitamin D doses and blood levels.

Dr. Cannell cites a recent study from vitamin D research expert, Dr. Bruce Hollis:

In the first study of its kind, Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina gave all of us something to think about. He asked and answered a simple question: How much vitamin D do you have to take to normalize the metabolism of vitamin D?

Remember, unlike other steroid hormones, vitamin D has very unusual metabolism in most modern humans, called first-order, mass action, kinetics. All this means is that the more vitamin D you take, the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, and the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, the higher the levels of activated vitamin D in your tissues. No other steroid hormone in the body behaves like this. Think about it: would you like your estrogen level to be dependent on how much cholesterol you ate? Or your cortisol level? (I'd ask the same about testosterone levels but I know men well enough not to ask.) No, the body must tightly regulate powerful steroid hormones through substrate inhibition, that is, if an enzyme turns A into B, when the body has enough B, B inhibits the enzyme and so limits its own production.

Not so with vitamin D, at least at modern human vitamin D levels. Professor Reinhold Vieth was the first to write about this and Vieth's Chapter 61 in Feldman, Pike, and Glorieux's wonderful textbook, Vitamin D (Elsevier, 2005, second edition), is a great reason to buy the textbook or have your library do so. (I'm glad to see Amazon is out of stock of the new ones (someone must be reading about vitamin D) but you can still buy used editions.)

Why would the kinetics of vitamin D be different from all other steroids? Maybe they are not, Hollis reasoned, like Vieth before him. Maybe vitamin D levels are so low in modern humans that its metabolic system is on full blast all the time in an attempt to give the body all the vitamin D metabolites it craves. So Hollis asked, Is vitamin D's metabolism different in populations in the upper end of 25(OH)D levels (a population of sun-exposed people and a group of women prescribed 7,000 IU per day)? Note, the Hollis study is free on Medline, you can download the entire paper on the right hand of the PubMed page below.

Hollis BW, et al. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-634.

If you look at the two graphs, Figures 1 and 2 of Hollis' paper, you find vitamin D's kinetics can be normalized, made just like all other steroid hormones in the body, but you have to get enough sunshine or take enough vitamin D to get your 25(OH)D level above 50 ng/ml, and 60 ng/ml would be better. Then your body starts to store cholecalciferol in the body without much further increase in 25(OH)D levels. The reaction becomes saturable. This is a remarkable discovery and it implies levels of 30 and 40 ng/ml are usually not sufficient. It also implies actual vitamin D levels (cholecalciferol levels), not just 25(OH)D levels, may be useful in diagnosing and treating deficiency. Note, that not all of the sun-exposed individuals or women prescribed 7,000 IU/day achieved such levels. That's because the sun-exposed individuals were tested after an Hawaiian winter and because prescribing and taking are two different things.

In answer to the question, "How much vitamin D should someone with cancer take?," Dr. Cannell advises:
"Take enough to get your 25(OH)D level above 60 ng/ml, summer and winter." In doing so, you will have normalized the kinetics of vitamin D and stored the parent compound, cholecalciferol, in your tissues. In the absence of sunshine, you need to take about 1,000 IU/day per 30 pounds of body weight to do this. A 150 pound cancer patient may need to take 5,000 IU per day, a 210 pound cancer patient about 7,000 IU per day, all this in the absence of sunlight.

Dr. Cannell, no stranger to the resisitance among many practicing physicians unaware of the expanding and robust literature on vitamin D, advises people with cancer that:
In the end, if you have cancer and your physician won't do a risk/benefit analysis, do it yourself. The risk side of that equation is easy. Both Quest Diagnostics and Lab-Corp, the two largest reference labs in the USA, report the upper limit of 25(OH)D normal is 100 ng/ml and toxic is above 150 ng/ml, so 60 ng/ml is well below both. The reason levels up to 100 ng/ml are published normals is because there is no credible evidence in the literature that levels of 100 ng/ml do any harm and because sun worshipers often have such levels. (If you don't believe me, go to the beach in the summer for one month, sunbath every day for 30 minutes on each side in your bathing suit, and go home and have a 25(OH)D level.) By getting your level above 60 ng/ml, all you are doing is getting your levels into the mid to upper range of laboratory reference normals. Little or no risk.

For readers wishing to read the entire text of Dr. Cannell's newsletter, it is reprinted below:

The Vitamin D Newsletter
January, 2008

The January newsletter is coming early as I will be out of touch for awhile. If you remember, the last newsletter was on preventing cancer, not treating it. Below is a sampling of the tragic emails the last newsletter generated:

"Dr. Cannell, I was just diagnosed with breast cancer, how much vitamin D should I take?"

"My mother has colon cancer, how much vitamin D should she take?"

"I've had prostate cancer for four years, is there any reason to think vitamin D would help?"

"Dr. Cannell, my son has leukemia, should I give him vitamin D?"

It's one thing to talk about evidence vitamin D may prevent cancer but something quite different to discuss evidence vitamin D might help treat cancer. I used to think the answers to all the above questions were the same. Like anyone else, people with cancer should be screened for vitamin D deficiency and be treated if deficiency is present. Simple. However, it's not that simple. The real questions are, What are reasonable 25-hydroxy-vitamin D [25(OH)D] levels for someone with a life-threatening cancer? How much vitamin D do they need to take to obtain such levels? Is there any evidence, of any kind, that vitamin D will help treat cancer? The risk/benefit analysis of taking vitamin D is quite different if you are in perfect health than if your life, or your child's life, is on the line.

Remember, unlike cancer prevention, not one human randomized controlled trial exists showing vitamin D has a treatment effect on cancer. By treatment effect, I mean prolongs the lives of cancer patients. However, as I cited in my last newsletter, Dr. Philippe Autier of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and Dr. Sara Gandini of the European Institute of Oncology, performed a meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials showing even low doses of vitamin D extend life but they looked at all-cause mortality, not just cancer (Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(16):1730-1737). However, some epidemiological studies indirectly address the treatment issue and are quite remarkable. The first are a series of discoveries by Professor Johan Moan, Department of Physics at the University of Oslo, with Dr. Alina Porojnicu as the lead author on most of the papers.

Moan J, et al. Colon cancer: Prognosis for different latitudes, age groups and seasons in Norway. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2007 Sep 19

Lagunova Z, et al. Prostate cancer survival is dependent on season of diagnosis. Prostate. 2007 Sep 1;67(12):1362-70.

Porojnicu AC, et al. Changes in risk of death from breast cancer with season and latitude: sun exposure and breast cancer survival in Norway. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007 May;102(3):323-8.

Porojnicu A, et al. Season of diagnosis is a predictor of cancer survival. Sun-induced vitamin D may be involved: a possible role of sun-induced Vitamin D. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):675-8.

Porojnicu AC, et al. Season of diagnosis is a prognostic factor in Hodgkin's lymphoma: a possible role of sun-induced vitamin D. Br J Cancer. 2005 Sep 5;93(5):571-4.

Porojnicu AC, et al. Seasonal and geographical variations in lung cancer prognosis in Norway. Does Vitamin D from the sun play a role? Lung Cancer. 2007 Mar;55(3):263-70.

What Professor Moan's group discovered, repeatedly, is quite simple, whether it be cancer of the breast, colon, prostate, lung, or a lymphoma. You live longer if your cancer is diagnosed in the summer. And it is not just Moan's group who has found this. A huge English study recently confirmed Moan's discovery.

Lim HS, et al. Cancer survival is dependent on season of diagnosis and sunlight exposure. Int J Cancer. 2006 Oct 1;119(7):1530-6.

What do these studies mean? Something about summer has a treatment effect on cancer. Whatever it is, you live longer if you are diagnosed in the summer but die sooner if you are diagnosed in the winter. What could it be about summer? Exercise? Fresh air? Melatonin? Sunlight? Pretty girls? Remember, these patients already had cancer. Whatever it is about summer, it is not a preventative effect that Professor Moan discovered, it is a treatment effect. Something about summer prolongs the life of cancer patients.

Dr. Ying Zhou, a research fellow, working with Professor David Christiani at the Harvard School of Public Health, went one step further. The stuffy Harvard researchers assumed summer worked its magic, not by pretty girls, but by summer sunlight making vitamin D. So they looked at total vitamin D input, from both sun and diet, to see if high vitamin D input improved the survival of cancer patients. Yes, indeed, remarkably. They found that early stage lung cancer patients with the highest vitamin D input (from summer season and high intake from diet) lived almost three times longer than patients with the lowest input (winter season and low intake from diet). Three times longer is a huge treatment effect, a treatment effect that most conventional cancer treatment methods would die for.

Zhou W, Vitamin D is associated with improved survival in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005 Oct;14(10):2303-9.

And that's not all, Marianne Berwick and her colleagues, at the New Mexico Cancer Institute, found malignant melanoma patients with evidence of continued sun exposure had a 60% mortality reduction compared to patients who did not. That implies a robust treatment effect from sunlight.

Berwick M, et al. Sun exposure and mortality from melanoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Feb 2;97(3):195-9.

I will not list the thousands of animal studies that indicate vitamin D has a treatment effect on cancer as almost all of them studied activated vitamin D or its analogs, drugs that bypass normal regulatory mechanisms, cannot get autocrine quantities of the hormone into the cell, and that often cause hypercalcemia. However, Michael Holick's group found that simple vitamin D deficiency made cancers grow faster in mice. That is, vitamin D has a cancer treatment effect in vitamin D deficient mice. Professor Gary Schwartz, at Wake Forest, recently reviewed the reasons to think that vitamin D may have a treatment effect in cancer.

Tangpricha V, et al. Vitamin D deficiency enhances the growth of MC-26 colon cancer xenografts in Balb/c mice. J Nutr. 2005 Oct;135(10):2350-4.

Schwartz GG, Skinner HG. Vitamin D status and cancer: new insights. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2007 Jan;10(1):6-11.

Finally, one human interventional study exists. In 2005, in an open trial, Professor Reinhold Vieth and his colleagues found just 2,000 IU of vitamin D per day had a positive effect on PSA levels in men with prostate cancer.

Woo TC, et al. Pilot study: potential role of vitamin D (Cholecalciferol) in patients with PSA relapse after definitive therapy. Nutr Cancer. 2005;51(1):32-6.

So we come back to the crucial question. If you have cancer, how much vitamin D should you take, or, more precisely, what 25(OH)D level should you maintain? We don't know. You can correctly say that definitive studies have not been done and, incorrectly, conclude physicians treating cancer patients should do nothing. I say incorrectly because standards of medical practice have always demanded that doctors make reasonable decisions based on what is currently known, doing a risk/benefit analysis along the way to decide what is best for their patients based on what is known today. If a patient has a potentially fatal cancer, the doctor cannot dismiss a relatively benign potential treatment modality just because definitive studies have not been done, and passively watch his patient die. Standards of care require doctors consider what is known now, using information currently available, perform a risk/benefit analysis, and then act in the best interest of their patient.

Luckily, such doctors recently obtained some guidance. In the first study of its kind, Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina gave all of us something to think about. He asked and answered a simple question: How much vitamin D do you have to take to normalize the metabolism of vitamin D?

Remember, unlike other steroid hormones, vitamin D has very unusual metabolism in most modern humans, called first-order, mass action, kinetics. All this means is that the more vitamin D you take, the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, and the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, the higher the levels of activated vitamin D in your tissues. No other steroid hormone in the body behaves like this. Think about it, would you like your estrogen level to be dependent on how much cholesterol you ate? Or your cortisol level? (I'd ask the same about testosterone levels but I know men well enough not to ask.) No, the body must tightly regulate powerful steroid hormones through substrate inhibition, that is, if an enzyme turns A into B, when the body has enough B, B inhibits the enzyme and so limits its own production.

Not so with vitamin D, at least at modern human vitamin D levels. Professor Reinhold Vieth was the first to write about this and Vieth's Chapter 61 in Feldman, Pike, and Glorieux's wonderful textbook, Vitamin D (Elsevier, 2005, second edition), is a great reason to buy the textbook or have your library do so. [ I'm glad to see Amazon is out of stock of the new ones (someone must be reading about vitamin D) but you can still buy used editions.)

Why would the kinetics of vitamin D be different from all other steroids? Maybe they are not, Hollis reasoned, like Vieth before him. Maybe vitamin D levels are so low in modern humans that its metabolic system is on full blast all the time in an attempt to give the body all the vitamin D metabolites it craves. So Hollis asked, Is vitamin D's metabolism different in populations in the upper end of 25(OH)D levels (a population of sun-exposed people and a group of women prescribed 7,000 IU per day)? Note, the Hollis study is free on Medline, you can download the entire paper on the right hand of the PubMed page below.

Hollis BW, et al. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-4.

If you look at the two graphs, Figures 1 and 2 of Hollis' paper, you find vitamin D's kinetics can be normalized, made just like all other steroid hormones in the body, but you have to get enough sunshine or take enough vitamin D to get your 25(OH)D level above 50 ng/ml, and 60 ng/ml would be better. Then your body starts to store cholecalciferol in the body without much further increase in 25(OH)D levels. The reaction becomes saturable. This is a remarkable discovery and it implies levels of 30 and 40 ng/ml are usually not sufficient. It also implies actual vitamin D levels (cholecalciferol levels), not just 25(OH)D levels, may be useful in diagnosing and treating deficiency. Note, that not all of the sun-exposed individuals or women prescribed 7,000 IU/day achieved such levels. That's because the sun-exposed individuals were tested after an Hawaiian winter and because prescribing and taking are two different things.

So my answer to "How much should I take if I have cancer?" is "Take enough to get your 25(OH)D level above 60 ng/ml, summer and winter." In doing so, you will have normalized the kinetics of vitamin D and stored the parent compound, cholecalciferol, in your tissues. In the absence of sunshine, you need to take about 1,000 IU/day per 30 pounds of body weight to do this. A 150 pound cancer patient may need to take 5,000 IU per day, a 210 pound cancer patient about 7,000 IU per day, all this in the absence of sunlight. And this may not be enough; cancer patients may use it up faster (increased metabolic clearance) and children may do the same due to their young and vital enzymes. Or you may need less, because you get more sun than you think, more from your diet, or because you are taking a modern medicine that interferes with the metabolism of vitamin D. An even easier way to do it is go to a sun tanning booth every day and obtain and keep a dark, full-body, tan. Then you don't have to worry about blood levels but I'd get one anyway, just to be sure it was above 60 ng/ml.

Given what Hollis discovered, given the well-known potent anti-cancer properties of activated vitamin D, given epidemiological evidence that summer extends the life of cancer patients, given a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that vitamin D prolongs life, given animal data that simple vitamin D has a treatment effect on cancer, and given a patient with a life-threatening cancer, what would a reasonable physician do? Simply let their patient die while muttering something about the lack of randomized controlled trials?

No, they would simply check a 25(OH)D level every month and advise cancer patients to take enough vitamin D or frequent sun tanning parlors enough to keep their level above 60 ng/ml. Toxicity does not start until levels reach 150 ng/ml but if you take more than 2,000 IU per day have your doctor order a blood calcium every month or two along with the 25(OH)D. Both you and he will feel better and because if you have cancer, you are probably taking lots of other drugs and little is known about how modern drugs interact with vitamin D metabolism. By getting your level above 60 ng/ml, all you are doing is getting your level to where most lifeguards' levels are at the end of summer, to levels our ancestors had when they lived in the sun, to levels regular users of sun-tan parlors levels achieve, and most importantly, to levels where vitamin D's pharmacokinetics are normalized.

In the end, if you have cancer and your physician won't do a risk/benefit analysis, do it yourself. The risk side of that equation is easy. Both Quest Diagnostics and Lab-Corp, the two largest reference labs in the USA, report the upper limit of 25(OH)D normal is 100 ng/ml and toxic is above 150 ng/ml, so 60 ng/ml is well below both. The reason levels up to 100 ng/ml are published normals is because there is no credible evidence in the literature that levels of 100 ng/ml do any harm and because sun worshipers often have such levels. (If you don't believe me, go to the beach in the summer for one month, sunbath every day for 30 minutes on each side in your bathing suit, and go home and have a 25(OH)D level.) By getting your level above 60 ng/ml, all you are doing is getting your levels into the mid to upper range of laboratory reference normals. Little or no risk.

What are the potential benefits? It probably depends on a number of things. Did your cancer cells retain the enzyme that activates vitamin D? Many do. Did your cancer cells retain the vitamin D receptor? Many do. If your cancer cells get more substrate [25(OH)D], will that substrate induce the cancer cells to make more vitamin D receptors or more of the activating enzyme? Some cancer cells do both. In practical terms, vitamin D is theoretically more likely to help your cancer the earlier you start taking it. However, no one knows. Certainly there is no reason, other than bad medicine, for cancer patients to die vitamin D deficient. Unfortunately, most do.

Tangpricha V, et al. Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in patients attending an outpatient cancer care clinic in Boston. Endocr Pract. 2004 May-Jun;10(3):292-3.

Plant AS, Tisman G. Frequency of combined deficiencies of vitamin D and holotranscobalamin in cancer patients. Nutr Cancer. 2006;56(2):143-8.

It is very important that readers understand I am not suggesting vitamin D cures cancer or that it replace standard cancer treatment. Oncologists perform miracles every day. Do what they say. The only exception is vitamin D. If your oncologist tells you not to take vitamin D, ask him three questions. 1) How do you convert ng/mls to nmol/Ls? How many IU in a nonogram? 3) How do you spell "cholecalciferol?" If he doesn't know how to measure it, weigh it, or spell it, chances are he doesn't know much about it.

All of the epidemiological and animal studies in the literature suggest cancer patients will prolong their lives if they take vitamin D. I can't find any studies that indicate otherwise. However, none of the suggestive studies are randomized controlled interventional trials; they are all epidemiological or animal studies, or, in the case of Vieth's, an open human study. However, if you have cancer, or your child does, do you want to wait the decades it will take for the American Cancer Society to fund randomized controlled trials using the proper dose of vitamin D? Chances are you, or your child, will not be around to see the results.

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

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you don't want to get the newsletter, please hit reply and let us know. This newsletter is not copyrighted. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. Remember, we are a non-profit and rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:

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

PS: The Vitamin D Council lost our webmaster. If you want to donate your time to a good cause, know all about maintaining websites, are interesting in keeping up with the latest press about vitamin D, and are willing to do so for free, please hit reply and let me know. We currently have $405.52 in our bank account so we cannot pay you now but may be able to pay you in the future.

Let me paint a picture:

A 78-year old woman, tired and bent. She's lost an inch and a half of her original height because of collapse of several vertebra in her spine over the years, leaving her with a "dowager's hump," a stooped position that many older women assume with advanced osteoporosis. It's also left her with chronic back pain.

(Image courtesy of National Library of Medicine)

This poor woman also has arthritis in her knees, hips, and spine. All three locations add to her pain.

She also has hypertension, a high blood sugar approaching diabetes, and distortions of cholesterol values, including a low HDL and high triglycerides.

Look inside: On a simple x-ray, we see that the bones of her body are unusually transparent, with just a thin rim of bone at the outer edges, depleted of calcium. Weight-bearing bones like the spine, hips, and knees have eroded and collapsed.

On an echocardiogram of her heart (ultrasound), she has dense calcium surrounding her mitral valve ("mitral anular calcium"), a finding that rarely impairs the valve itself but is a marker for heightened potential for heart attack and other adverse events. Her aortic valve, another of the four heart valves, is also loaded with calcium. In the aortic valve, unlike the mitral valve, the collection of calcium makes the valve struggle to open, causing a murmur. The valve is rigid and can barely open to less than half of its original opening width.

If a heart scan were performed, we'd see the coronary calcification, along with calcification of the aorta, and the mitral and aortic valves.

Obviously, it's not a pretty picture. It is, however, a typical snapshot of an average 78-year old woman, or any other elderly man or woman, for that matter.

This collection of arthritis, osteoporosis, coronary and valve calcification, high blood pressure, abnormal cholesterol patterns, and pain is not unusual by any stretch. Perhaps you even recognize someone you know in this description. Perhaps it's you.

Look at this list again. Does it seem familiar? I'd say that the common factor that ties these seemingly unrelated conditions together is chronic and severe deficiency of vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency leads to arthritis, osteoporosis, coronary and valve calcification, high blood pressure, abnormal cholesterol patterns, and pain.

Should we go so far as to proclaim that aging, or at least many of the undesirable phenomena of aging, are really just manifestations of vitamin D deficiency? I would propose that much of aging is really deficiency of vitamin D, chronic and severe, in its end stages.

My colleagues might propose a 30- or 40-year long randomized trial, one designed to test whether vitamin D or placebo makes any difference.

Can you wait?

Here's a fascinating e-mail we received recently. It came from a man in Hawaii who dropped his heart scan score a modest amount, but did it in two months using fasting. He also has the advantage of access to the Holistica Hawaii scan center with our friend, Dr. Roger White. His experience is so fascinating that we asked for his permission to reprint his story which he did enthusiastically.

So here is Don's story:

I am a 61 year old male with a history of heart disease in my family. My maternal grandfather, for instance, died at age 39 of a
heart attack and my mother died of a stroke. There are other instances in my family as well.

I, personally, before going to Holistica had had three heart procedures; one radio catheter ablation for WPW Syndrome, and two radio catheter ablations for atrial fibrilations. After suffering with WPW for over 30 years and A-Fibs for about a year, those issues seem to be behind me fortunately.

Three or four months back, however, I was suffering from shortness of breath and slight chest pains when doing the uphill part of a 5 mile walk that I do almost every day. My wife had had a coronary heart scan several years back at Holistica so that's how I knew about it.

I had a scan done on October 4th this year. The scan did show fairly
advanced plaque build up; my total coronary plague burden was
312.9. The day following the scan I felt absolutely terrible; lightheaded, weak, much like feeling you were at death's door.

I had read a book a number of years back about therapeutic fasting
(water only) called "Fasting and Eating for Health" by Dr. Joel
Furhman.

According to his book, one on the areas where he consistently has dramatic and quick results with fasting is with reducing arterial plaque. Based on how badly I was feeling at the time, I decided to start an immediate fast. Within just the first 24 hours, the relief was dramatic and amazing. I continued the water only fast for 3 weeks.

Yesterday, December 1st I went in for another cardio scan instead of the coronary angiogram that I had previously been scheduled for. I could tell they were a little confused why I was doing that but went ahead and did another coronary EBT scan.

When I went in for the doctor consultation, Dr. McGriff said, "OK, exactly what is it you've done since last time." In less than two months, my coronary plaque burden had dropped to 296.2. That's a 6% reduction in less than 2 months. Had I gone back in for the second scan right after my 3 week fast then it probably would have a 6%
reduction in less than a month.

Frankly, based on how good I've been feeling (I'm even thinking of
getting back into jogging instead of walking), I was surprised it was
only 6%. Based on the common experience, however, that it sometimes
takes a year or two to just stabilize your plaque increase, much less
actually start losing it, the doctor was truly startled and
surprised. He said he had never seen such a sudden reduction as that
before!

We are still going to proceed with the coronary angiogram and I
intend to apply what I find in your book but I thought you might be interested in these results since I've never heard or read of anyone actually measuring the effectiveness of a fast with before and after EBT Scans.

I admire your direction and work focusing on prevention instead of catastrophic management like most doctors. Dr. Fuhrman is very much the same with the greatest attention on prevention so if you haven't heard of his book you might be interested. Especially interesting regarding this particular issue is Chapter 5 entitled, "The Road Back to a Healthy Heart-the Natural Way."

I can personally verify everything he has said about the fasting procedure itself from start to finish. I consider his book the Bible about fasting. As I mentioned, given your similar direction in medicine, I thought I would bring my personal experience on the matter to your attention for your consideration. Maybe in a future edition of your book, you might want to include some information on fasting.

Anyhow, I hope you will find this helpful. Any other questions,
don't hesitate to e-mail back. Please keep up your good work and
thanks for what your doing!

Yours truly,

Don P.
Honolulu, Hawaii

Isn't that great?

Now, in all honesty, a change of 6% could conceivably be within the margin of error for heart scanning. (Although several studies from a number of years ago suggested that variation in heart scan scoring was about 10%, sometimes more, in my experience, on EBT devices like the one Don used, variation is <5% at this score range.) Genuine regression would probably be better documented by yet another scan down the road. If the trend is consistent, then it is probably real.

Nonetheless, Don's story may support we've been saying for some time: Fasting is a rapid method to gain control over plaque--but I didn't know it might be that quick! Perhaps Don is a living example of what I've called "instant" heart disease reversal.

Don is potentially off to a good start. But, unless he can periodically repeat his fast, he will still have to engage in a program that allows continuing control over coronary plaque in between fasts. Also, fasting cannot address issues like vitamin D deficiency, lipoprotein(a), and any residual lipid/lipoprotein issues. But I am continually impressed with the power of fasting to "jump start" a program of heart disease reversal.

It would be a fascinating study to perform, with serial heart scans within brief periods of weeks or months to gauge rapid response. However, we need to keep in mind that as wonderful as heart scans are, they do involve modest radiation exposure.

It might be interesting in future to add a fasting "arm" to the virtual clinical trial. That might yield some great insights.

Copyright 2007 William Davis,MD

This continues a series I've begun recently that discusses studies that have emerged over the past 10 years relevant to heart scan scoring and reversal of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

The St. Francis Heart Study from St. Francis Hospital, Roslyn, New York, was released in 2005. This was yet another study that set out to determine whether Lipitor exerted a slowing effect on coronary calcium scores. This time, Lipitor (atorvastatin), 20 mg per day, was combined with vitamin C 1 g daily, and vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) 1,000 U daily, vs. placebo. A total of 1,005 asymptomatic men and women, age 50 to 70 years, with coronary calcium scores 80th percentile or higher for age and gender
participated in the study.

After four years, heart scan scores in the placebo group increased 73%, compared to 81% in the treatment group. Statistically, the cocktail of drug, vitamins C and E had no effect on heart scan scores.

Other findings included:

--Participants experiencing heart attack and other events during the study showed greater progression of scores than those not experiencing heart attack: score increase of 256 vs. increase of 120.

--While treatment did not reduce the number of heart attacks and events overall, participants with starting heart scan scores >400 did show a benefit: 8.7% with events on treatment (20 of 229) vs. 15.0% with placebo (36 of 240).

(Note what is missing from the treatment regimen: efforts to raise HDL (starting average HDL 51 mg/dl); reduce triglycerides (starting average 140 mg/dl); identify those whose LDL was false elevated by lipoprotein(a); omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil; correction of other factors like vitamin D deficiency.)

Are we pretty in agreement that just taking Lipitor and following an American Heart Association low-fat diet is an unsatisfactory answer to gain control over coronary plaque growth? No slowing of heart scan score growth seen in the St. Francis Heart Study and similar studies is consistent with the 25-30% reductions in heart attack witnessed in large clinical trials. Yes, heart attack and related events are reduced, but not eliminated--not even close.

And when you think about it, it should come as no surprise that the simple strategy studied in the St. Francis Heart Study failed to completely control plaque growth. Lipitor and statin drugs exert no effect on small LDL particles, barely raise HDL cholesterol at all, and have no effect on Lp(a), factors that increase heart scan scores substantially.

Though these discussions have frightened some people because of the suggestion that increasing heart scan scores are inevitable and unavoidable, they shouldn't. It really should not be at all shocking to learn that taking one drug all by itself should cure coronary heart disease.

Instead, findings like those of the St. Francis study should cause us to ask: What could be done better? How can we better impact on heart scan scores and how can we further reduce heart attack, particularly in people with higher heart scan scores?

My answer has been the Track Your Plaque program, a comprehensive effort to 1) address all causes of coronary plaque, and then 2) correct all the causes.

Here is Dr. John Cannell's Vitamin D Council Newsletter reprinted in its entirety. It answers some of the questions that came up on The Heart Scan Blog about the recent release of a study of vitamin D and cancer

The Vitamin D Newsletter

December, 2007

Does vitamin D prevent cancer? If it does, will doctors who ignore the research end up with blood on their hands? The press makes it easy for doctors to believe what they want to believe. Below are six stories about the same scientific study; read the six different headlines. According to your a priori beliefs, you can choose the story you want to believe and read that one. Don't feel bad, we all do it. As Walter Lippman once said, "We do not see and then believe, we believe and then we see."

Vitamin D cuts colon cancer death risk

Study Finds No Connection Between Vitamin D And Overall Cancer Deaths

Vitamin D protects against colorectal cancer

Vitamin D May Not Cut Cancer Deaths

Vitamin D protects against colorectal cancer

Scientists advise a vitamin D downgrade as there is no real proof ...

Another option is to read the study yourself.

Freedman DM, et al. Prospective Study of Serum Vitamin D and Cancer Mortality in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Oct 30; [Epub ahead of print]

What Dr. Freedman actually discovered is that when you take a very large group of people (16,818), some as young as seventeen, measure their vitamin D levels, and then wait about ten years to see who dies from cancer, you find 536 die and that a vitamin D level from ten years earlier is not a good predictor of who will die from cancer. However, even a level drawn ten years earlier predicted that those with the lowest level were four times more likely to die from colon cancer, suggesting, as Ed Giovannucci has, that colon cancer may be exquisitely sensitive to vitamin D. Furthermore, 28 women got breast cancer, 20 in the group with the lowest vitamin D level but only 8 in the highest. The breast cancer findings were not statistically significant - even during a very long breast cancer awareness month - but can you imagine what critics at the American Cancer Society would be telling women if the numbers were reversed, if the 20 women who got breast cancer were in the high vitamin D group?

Another large epidemiological study appeared about breast cancer the very next day. This time, the press passed on the story and the American Cancer Society was mum, no editorials by Dr. Lichtenfeld, their spokesman, in spite of breast cancer awareness month.

Abbas S, et al. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer - results of a large case-control study. Carcinogenesis. 2007 Oct 31; [Epub ahead of print]

In the above study, 1,394 women with breast cancer were case-controlled with a similar number of women without breast cancer. The women with breast cancer were three times more likely to have low vitamin D levels. That is a lot of women who may be dying during next year's breast cancer awareness month.

Both of the above studies were epidemiological, not randomized controlled trials. Of course a randomized controlled trial has already shown a 60% reduction in internal cancers in women taking even a modest 1,100 IU per day of vitamin D.

Lappe JM, et al. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.

What is interesting is the difference in the response of the Canadian Cancer Society and the American Cancer Society. The Canadian Cancer Society has advised all Canadians to take 1,000 IU per day - not enough but a good first step - and for immediate additional large scale clinical trials. The Canadians simply performed a risk/benefit analysis. What is the risk of treating vitamin D deficiency versus what are the potential benefits? They quote the American Food and Nutrition Board, which says 2,000 IU/day is safe for anyone over the age on one to take, on their own, without being under the care of a physician. If there is little or no risk, then the next question is what are the potential benefits of treating vitamin D deficiency? This is not quantum mechanics.

Cancer society calls for major vitamin D trial

The Canadians acted because the Canadian government knows it could save billions of dollars by treating vitamin D deficiency.

Vitamin D Deficiency Drains $9 billion From Canadian Health Care ...

If wide spread treatment of vitamin D deficiency became the rule, ask yourself, "Who would be helped and who would be hurt." First ask yourself that question about Canada and then about the USA. Remember, in Canada, the government directly pays for its citizen's health insurance; in the USA, private insurance is the norm. In Canada, the government is realizing they could save billions if vitamin D deficiencies were treated. In the USA, a large segment of the medical industry would be hurt, some anti-cancer drug manufacturers would have to close their doors, thousands of patents would become worthless, lucrative consulting contracts between industry and cancer researchers would dry up.

Both Canadians and Americans are shocked to think their doctors care about money, are in the illness business. In some ways people think of their doctors like they do their local public schools. They know medicine is a business and know doctors do things for money but they don't think their own doctors do. Likewise they think public schools are in bad shape but think their local schools are above average. They think their doctor is above average, like their "Lake Woebegone" kids.

Lake Woebegone Effect

The fact is that doctors, hospitals, regional cancer centers, and the cancer drug manufacturers are all in business to make money and all of these businesses make money off the sick, not off the well. Just a fact, but, as Aldous Huxley once observed, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

Vitamin D will save the Canadian government enormous amounts of money but will cause widespread economic disruption in the USA. Do the physicians leading the American Cancer Society have strong economic ties to the cancer industry in the form of patents, stock options, and consulting fees? If so, what do you expect them to do? What would you do? It's simple. You would believe what you have to believe, what you need to believe, that is, anything with the word "vitamin" in it is simply the latest Laetrile. Look to Canada, not the USA, to lead the way.

Vitamin D may fight cancer

What about American physicians? They are apparently waiting for the American trial lawyers to smell a tort. After all, the case is quite simple. Doctor, did you advise Mrs. Jones to avoid the sun? Doctor, did you tell her the sun is the source of 90% of circulating stores of vitamin D? Doctor, did you prescribe vitamin D to make up for what the sun would not be making? Doctor, did you measure her vitamin D levels? So you had no way of knowing if your sun-avoidance advice resulted in vitamin D deficiency? Doctor, do you know our expert tested her vitamin D level and it was less than 20? Doctor, did you tell her about any of the studies indicating vitamin D deficiency causes cancer? Doctor, did you know Mrs. Jones has terminal breast cancer and will be leaving behind a loving husband and two young children?

And what about the American Cancer Society? Dr. Lichtenfeld, their spokesman, quickly gave his opinion; from what I can tell the first time he ever commented on a vitamin D study. That is, he has ignored the hundreds of positive epidemiological studies, ignored the incredible randomized controlled trial, but he jumped on this one:

Maybe Vitamin D Isn't The Answer After All

Dr. Lichtenfeld, implied the Canadian Cancer Society has acted precipitously in recommending that all Canadians take 1,000 IU of vitamin D daily. He implied that Americans should placidly wait until more randomized controlled trials, such as Lappe JM, et al (above), accumulate before they address their vitamin D deficiency. That is, nothing should be done until more randomized controlled trials prove vitamin D prevents cancer, one randomized controlled trial is not enough; epidemiological studies are not enough, animal studies are not enough, multiple anti-cancer mechanisms of action are not enough? If that is his position, I challenge him to point to one human randomized controlled trial that proves smoking is dangerous?

If he cannot, then he must admit that the American Cancer Society's position on smoking is entirely derived from epidemiological studies, animal studies, and a demonstrable mechanism of action, not on human randomized controlled trials? Vitamin D not only has hundreds of epidemiological studies, thousand of animal studies, and at least four anti-cancer mechanisms of action, vitamin D deficiency has something smoking does not have, it has a high quality randomized controlled trial. If future randomized controlled trials fail to show vitamin D prevents cancer - and Dr. Lichtenfeld better hope they do - he can have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so." If future randomized controlled trials confirm vitamin D prevents cancer, then he needs to look at his hands, the red he sees is the blood of needless cancer deaths.

John Cannell, MD

The Vitamin D Council

9100 San Gregorio Road

Atascadero, CA 93422

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you don't want to get the newsletter, please hit reply and let us know.

Remember, we are a non-profit and rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:

The Vitamin D Council

9100 San Gregorio Road

Atascadero, CA 93422

A Heart Scan Blog reader recently posted this comment:

You wouldn't believe the trouble I'm having trying to get someone to give me a CT Heart Scan without trying to talk me into a Coronary CTA [CT angiogram]. Every facility I've talked to keeps harping on the issue that calcium scoring only shows "hard" plaque...and not soft.

I also had a nurse today tell me that 30% of the people that end up needing a coronary catheterization had calcium scores of ZERO. That doesn't sound right to me. What determines whether or not someone needs a coronary catheterization anyway?

There was a time not long ago when I saw heart scan centers as the emerging champions of heart disease detection and prevention. Heart scans, after all, provided the only rational means to directly uncover hidden coronary plaque. They also offered a method of tracking progression--or regression--of coronary plaque. No other tool can do that. Carotid ultrasound (IMT)? Indirectly and imperfectly, since it measures thickening of the carotid artery lining, partially removed from the influences that create coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Cholesterol? A miserable failure for a whole host of reasons.

Then something happened. General Electric bought the developer and manufacturer of the electron-beam tomography CT scanner, Imatron. (Initial press releases were glowing: The Future of Electron Beam Tomography Looks Better than Ever.The new eSpeed C300 electron beam tomographic scanner features the industry’s fastest temporal resolution, and is now backed by the strength of GE Medical Systems. Imatron and GE have joined forces to provide comprehensive solutions for entrepreneurs and innovative medical practitioners.)

Within short order, GE scrapped the entire company and program, despite the development of an extraordinary device, the C-300, introduced in 2001, and the eSpeed, introduced in 2003, both yanked by GE. The C-300 and eSpeed were technological marvels, providing heart scans at incredible speed with minimal radiation.

Why would GE do such a thing, buy Imatron and its patent rights, along with the fabulous new eSpeed device, then dissolve the company that developed the technology and scrap the entire package?

Well, first of all they can afford to, whether or not the device represented a technological advancement. Second (and this is my reading-between-the-lines interpretation of the events), it was in their best financial interest. Not in the interest of the public's health, nor the technology of heart scanning, but they believed that focusing on the multi-detector technology to be more financially rewarding to GE.

GE, along with Toshiba, Siemens, and Philips, saw the dollar signs of big money with the innovations in multi-detector technology (MDCT). They began to envision a broader acceptance of these devices into mainstream practice with the technological improvements in CT angiography, a device (or several) in every hospital and major clinic.

Anyway, this represents a long and winding return to the original issue: How I once believed that heart scan centers would be champions of heart disease detection and reversal. This has, unfortunately, not proven to be true.

Yes, there are heart scan centers where you can obtain a heart scan and also connect with people and physicians who believe in prevention of this disease. I believe that Milwaukee Heart Scan is that way, as is Dr. Bill Blanchet's Front Range Preventive Imaging, Dr. Roger White's Holistica Hawaii, and Dr. John Rumberger's Princeton Longevity Center.

But the truth is that most heart scan centers have evolved into places that offer heart scans, but more as grudging lip service to the concept of early detection earned with sweat and tears by the early efforts of the heart scan centers. But the more financially rewarding offering of CT coronary angiograms, while a useful service when used properly, has corrupted the prevention and reversal equation. "Entry level" CT heart scans have been subverted in the quest for profit.

CT angiograms pay better: $1800-4000, compared to $100-500 for a heart scan (usually about $250). More importantly, who can resist the detection of a "suspicious" 50% blockage that might benefit from the "real" test, a heart catheterization? Can anyone honestly allow a 50% blockage to be without a stent?

CT angiograms not only yield more revenue, they also serve as an effective prelude to "downstream" revenue. By this equation, a CT angiogram easily becomes a $40,000 hospital procedure with a stent or two, or three, or occasionally a $100,000 bypass. Keep in mind that the majority of people who are persuaded that a simple heart scans are not good enough and would be better off with the "superior" test of CT angiography are asymptomatic--without symptoms of chest pain, breathelessness, etc. Thus, the argument is that people without symptoms, usually with normal stress tests, benefit from prophylactic revascularization procedures like stents and bypass.

There are no data whatsoever to support this practice. People who have no symptoms attributable to heart disease and have normal stress tests do NOT benefit from heart procedures like heart catheterization. They do, of course, benefit from asking why they have atherosclerotic plaque in the first place, followed by a preventive program to correct the causes.

So, beware: It is the heart scan I believe in, a technique involving low radiation and low revenue potential. CT angiograms are useful tests, but often offered for the wrong reasons. If we all keep in mind that the economics of testing more often than not determine what is being told to us, then it all makes sense. If you want a simple heart scan, just say so. No--insist on it.

Take trust out of the equation. Don't trust people in health care anymore than you'd trust the used car salesman with "a great deal."

Finally, in answer to the reader's last comment about 30% of people needing heart catheterizations having zero calcium scores, this is absolute unadulterated nonsense. I'm hoping that the nurse who said this was taken out of context. Her comments are, at best, misleading. That's why I conduct this Heart Scan Blog and our website, www.cureality.com. They are your unbiased sources of information on what is true, honest, and not tainted by the smell of lots of procedural revenue.

Russ had a beer belly, a big protuberant, hanging-over-the belt-on-top-of-skinny-legs sort of beer belly. Except he didn't get it from beer (only). Yes, he did drink beer, up to 3 or 4 per day on weekends, rarely during the week.

Russ got his "beer belly" from snack foods, processed foods, and yes, wheat products.

He came to my office for consultation for unexplained breathlessness. His primary care physician was stumped and asked for an opinion.

So, part of Russ' evaluation included laboratory work. Russ proved to have a blood sugar (glucose) of 136 mg/dl, well into the diabetic range. His insulin level was 102 microunits/ml, way above the desirable range of <10. I interpreted this to mean that Russ had early diabetes but still maintained vigorous pancreatic function, since the pancreas is the abdominal organ responsible for insulin production. In pre-diabetes and early diabetes, insulin levels can be high, reflecting the revved up output of the pancreas. However, the pancreas eventually "burns out," unable to keep up with the demand to product enormous quantities of insulin. That's when blood sugar skyrockets.

Along with the blood sugar and insulin, Russ showed all the expected markers of this syndrome (the "metabolic syndrome"): low HDL of 34 mg/dl, high triglycerides of 257 mg/dl, severe small LDL (80% of total LDL), high c-reactive protein, and high blood pressure.

A heart scan showed a surprisingly small amount of coronary plaque with a score of only 4. Thus, Russ' symptoms were unlikely to represent a coronary issue ("ischemia"). Breathlessness was far more likely to be from 1) his obesity and protuberant abdomen, large enough to encroach on his chest and lung volume, and 2) high blood pressure (which can, in turn, lead to high heart pressure and breathlessness, often called "left ventricular diastolic dysfunction").

I persuaded Russ to eliminate his previously flagrant and abundant over-reliance on wheat products and snack foods. Two months later, 15 lbs lighter, and a modestly less protuberant beer belly, Russ' laboratory evealuation showed:

--Blood sugar 90 mg/dl--normal.

--Insulin 12 microunit/ml--darn near normal.

Blood pressure was down 20 points. Russ' breathlessness was now entirely gone. He has another 30-40 lbs to go, but he's off to a great start. He is now clearly, solidly, and confidently NON-diabetic.

I see experiences like this every day, as do committed diabetes fighters like Jenny at Diabetes Update.

Why isn't this common practice? If pre-diabetes and diabetes can be cured by such a simple approach, why isn't it more widely embraced? After all, what other devastating diseases can claim to have such a simple, straightforward way to achieve cure?

And why does the American Diabetes Association (ADA) actually condone the inclusion of abundant carbohydrates in diabetics? Their modified food pyramid shows the widest part of the pyramid filled with "breads, grains, and other starches."

How about this question taken from a Q&A on the ADA website:

Can I eat foods with sugar in them?

For almost every person with diabetes, the answer is yes! Eating a piece of cake made with sugar will raise your blood glucose level. So will eating corn on the cob, a tomato sandwich, or lima beans. The truth is that sugar has gotten a bad reputation. People with diabetes can and do eat sugar. In your body, it becomes glucose, but so do the other foods mentioned above. With sugary foods, the rule is moderation. Eat too much, and 1) you'll send your blood glucose level up higher than you expected; 2) you'll fill up but without the nutrients that come with vegetables and grains; and 3) you'll gain weight. So, don't pass up a slice of birthday cake. Instead, eat a little less bread or potato, and replace it with the cake. Taking a brisk walk to burn some calories is also always helpful.

The answer is simple. Just as the American Heart Association focuses on ways to deliver the message of palliation, so does the ADA. So ADA diet advice is designed to help diabetics maintain a stable blood sugar on their medication. It is definitely not intended to reverse or eliminate diabetes. My patient Russ would be deep into diabetes on the ADA diet, enjoying his rolls, whole wheat bread, breakfast cereals, and birthday cake.

Once again, another example of the growing irrelevance of the "official" arbiters of health information for those of us looking for reversal of disease.

I'd like to start an occasional series of blog posts on The Heart Scan Blog in which I review studies relevant to the whole heart scan score reversal experience.

In a previous post, Don't be satisfied with "deceleration,"I discussed the BELLES Trial (Beyond Endorsed Lipid Lowering with EBT Scanning (BELLES)), in which either atorvastatin (Lipitor), 80 mg, or pravastatin (Pravachol),40 mg, was given to 615 women. Both groups showed an average of 15% annual plaque growth, regardless of which agent was taken and regardless of the amount of LDL cholesterol reduction.

I cited another study in which 471 participants received either Lipitor, 80 mg, or Lipitor, 10 mg. The rate of annual score increase was 25-27%, regardless of drug dose or LDL lowering.

Here's yet another study, a small German experience in 66 patients, with a curious design and using the now-defunct statin drug, cerivastatin (Bayccol, pulled in 2001, nearly simultaneous with the publication of this study, due to greater risk of muscle damage, particularly when used in combination with gemfibrozil). Achenbach et al in Influence of lipid-lowering therapy on the progression of coronary artery calcification: A prospective evaluation reported on this trial in which all participants underwent heart scanning to obtain a heart scan score; no treatment was initiated based on the score. A second scan was obtained after the no treatment period, followed by treatment with cerivastatin, 0.3 mg per day. A third scan was finally obtained.

In year one without treatment, the average increase in heart scan scores was 25%. In year two with cerivastatin, the average increase in heart scan score was 8.8%. In 32 participants who achieved LDL<100 mg/dl on the drug, there was an average modest reduction in heart scan scores of 3.7% (i.e., -3.7%).

Now, that was eye-opening. Why did this small study achieve such startlingly different results from the other two studies that showed relentless progression despite even high doses of Lipitor? That remains unanswered. Was cerivastatin unique among statins? Did the unique two-phase trial design somehow change the outcome by triggering participants to change lifestyle habits after their first scan (since most exhibited an increase in score; they were not "blinded" to their scores). Those questions will remain unanswered, since the drug has been made unavailable. This smal l study had actually been intended to be larger, but was prematurely terminated because of cerivastatin's withdrawal.

This experience is unique, as you can see, compared to the two other studies. But it was also smaller. The results are also different than what I have seen in day-to-day practice when I've seen people treated with statin drugs alone (not cerivastatin, of course): rarely do heart scan scores stop increasing. While slowing does usually occur (18-24% per year rates of annual score increase are very common in people who do nothing but take a statin drug and make modest lifestyle changes), I have personally seen only two people stop their score with this strategy alone. Nobody has ever dropped their score taking a statin alone, in my experience.

You can also see the nature of clinical studies: single or limited interventions instituted in order to control for unexpected or complex effects. If three different treatments are used, then what desirable or undesirable effects, or lack of an effect, is due to which treatment agent?

My experience is that no single treatment stops or reduces heart scan scores. It requires a more rational effort that includes 1) identification of all causes of coronary plaque (e.g., low HDL, high triglycerides, Lp(a), small LDL, deficiency of vitamin D, etc, none of which are substantially affected by statin drugs), and 2) correction of all causes. That simple concept has served us well.

Olga
9/17/2009 1:08:20 PM |

Hi Dr. Davis:

Are you familiar with Dr. Wolfgang Lutz from Austria. He has a book entitled "Life Without Bread." He has been treating patients with a low carbohydrates diet for over 40 years and he has seen improvements in the same conditions in his patients. In his book he presents data from his patients over the last 40 years and it's very impressive. Here is the amazon.com link to the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Life-Without-Bread-Low-Carbohydrate-Diet/dp/0658001701/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253192708&sr=8-1

Thanks so much for writing this blog.

Adam Wilk
9/17/2009 1:23:39 PM |

I absolutely agree with what you're saying here--for the most part, I do not eat wheat, but I must tell you, the desire for any wheat product never leaves (in my case, anyway) and is frequently craved--but what a punishment for indulging, even once in a great while:
A few days ago, whilst enjoying a delicious mostly protein and fat dinner at Outback, my wheat devil got the best of me, and I took a mere slice of that delicious bread they put on the table, with a generous pat of butter. Within 5-10 minutes, I literally felt my nose and sinuses swelling up on me. Not fair, but reality.
Hmmph.

Helena
9/17/2009 1:43:44 PM |

Oh this is so true! I love myself when I stop eating wheat and a lot of sugars - can't get enough sex och have much more energy!

But from time to time I fall back and just crave that pasta... and every time I do, I regret it; Stomach cramps is always what will be served for dessert!

Anonymous
9/17/2009 2:35:30 PM |

Dairy and lots of sugar.
But wheat might be the worst.

Susan
9/17/2009 2:48:41 PM |

Two years ago, my knees hurt so badly that I avoided sitting in low chairs (I couldn't get out of them) and I was "one-footing" stairs. Then I went on a low-carb diet and the pain cleared up. I failed to put two and two together until a trip to France where I "allowed" myself small amounts of bread and suddenly it became important to know if a metro stop had an escalator. Now I know that eating wheat will result in knee pain 48 hours later.

Fast forward to this summer when my 24-year-old daughter was having stomach pain--it was after meals, but sometimes the pain woke her in the night. "Heartburn," said her physician, maybe related to stress, and put her on Nexium for a month to see if it cleared up. It did, but returned when her prescription was over. Having read about the side effects of PPI use, I suggested to my daughter that she consider eliminating gluten and/or milk products for a while to see if that helped. She did (although she whimpered a bit about giving up beer). The pain disappeared almost immediately, and a bit of experimentation showed that it was wheat and only wheat that caused the pain (cheers).

When my daughter described the pain, I realized that I had the same symptom when I was her age, but I didn't have it looked into because it never lasted long enough to bother with (I'm one of those doctors' kids who avoid doctors).

So my question is, in light of all of the signs that point to wheat intolerance as a cause of gastrointestinal distress and joint pain and a whole lot of other things, why is eliminating wheat not the first course of action?

By the way, I found the recent article in Scientific American on celiac disease, leaky gut and automimmune disease to be very interesting.

Chris
9/17/2009 3:37:49 PM |

Does wheat elimination include eliminating beer, particularly, wheat beer?

It's the only wheat--or grain for that matter--in my regular diet.

Gretchen
9/17/2009 6:25:00 PM |

"after someone eliminates wheat for several months, re-exposure of an errant cracker or sandwich results in cramping and diarrhea in about 30% of people."

I gave up wheat a long time ago when I found it triggered acid reflux. And I found just the opposite.

As long as I didn't eat wheat regularly, I could have the occasional wheat with no problems.

Anonymous
9/17/2009 8:01:42 PM |

Does anyone know if Ezekial 100% sprouted whole grain bread (yes contains some sprouted wheat + many other grains) is still considered "wheat" as I want to have a zero wheat diet. Hmmm think I just answered by own question. thanks!

Dr. William Davis
9/17/2009 9:06:54 PM |

Hi, Chris--

Beer is clearly the least desirable of all alcoholic beverages, partly because of its wheat origin. However, perhaps because of fermentation or some other modification, it doesn't seem to exert all the adverse effects of other products, though celiacs will still react to the gluten.

Anon--

Likewise with Ezekiel. I believe it's better, though not necessarily perfect. It still trigers carbohydrate responses.

Dr. William Davis
9/17/2009 9:07:33 PM |

Hi, Olga--

Amazing how we are re-learning many lessons learned previously before drugs and fancy hospital procedures.

Sara
9/17/2009 9:29:02 PM |

Another factor in the increased libido may be a reversal of very early nerve damage from high glucose levels. Peripheral neuropathy starts at blood glucose levels that are not really very high at all -- around 140mg/dL, which a person may be seeing after meals for YEARS before they hit the diabetic diagnostic criteria of 180mg/dL after meals or 126mg/dL fasting (and very many diabetics do have measurable neuropathy at diagnosis, for exactly this reason). People worry about their feet when they're considering diabetic neuropathy, but ALL the nerves are adversely affected by being bathed in excessive glucose, and those in the sexual organs are among the most sensitive; I think it's a reasonable theory that one would see a decrease of sensation there even before you have measurable effects in the hands and feet. Fortunately, if neuropathy isn't very advanced, it can be reversed by getting blood glucose under control, and of course that would improve sensation and increase the enjoyability of sexual activity, which would naturally factor into the desire for same. I'm sure there's more to the story, including some or all of the factors you've named, but I think this is probably part of it too.

Thomas
9/17/2009 10:11:38 PM |

How do the various grains compare: wheat, rye, barley, corn, rice etc.?

Robert McLeod
9/17/2009 10:16:22 PM |

It's called wheat allergy, look it up. Different antibodies to celiac, different symptoms, but same cause and same cure.

William Trumbower
9/17/2009 11:13:05 PM |

There are gluten free beers available, based on sorgum. Budweiser makes one called Red Bridge, but there are others on the market. My sister has active celiac and so I eat an anti-inflamatory gluten-free diet. Last year at my highschool reunion I had pizza and beer with the boys. I had bloody stools for several days after! I believe that most of us are gluten intolerant, that is we cannot really digest the gluten molecule. Many of us develop "leaky gut" from the gluten and then go on to antibody production against the gluten-gliadin molecule. This protein has several key amino acid sequences in common with tissue proteins in many various organ systems (thyroid, pancreas, adrenal,gut, skin, uterus, placenta etc) and autoimmune disease begins. Which organ system is affected depends on your genetic make up. The persistance of GI docs in refusing to diagnose gluten enteropathy without a small bowel biopsy is amazing to me. see enterolab.com

Anne
9/18/2009 2:21:33 AM |

A lifelong depression lifted when I went wheat and gluten free 6 yrs ago. I am 66 years old and I wake up with no joint pain. Peripheral neuropathy is better, but not perfect. I have a long list of health improvements.

As far as my heart, dropping wheat and gluten totally relieved my pitting leg edema and shortness of breath. I had cardiac bypass over 9 years ago, but I did not start to heal until I went gluten free. I am sure that gluten contributed to my CAD.

I have no idea what would happen if I were to eat a wheat cracker or a slice of wheat bread. I never want to feel that sick again so I have not been tempted to try even one bite. An accidental crumb is enough to cause my brain to fog and my energy level to bottom out.

This past year I dropped sugars and all grains in order to level out my blood glucose - this has worked well.

I have heard the celiac experts say that no one is able to digest wheat well.

Anonymous
9/18/2009 3:30:27 AM |

Dr. Davis,
A majority of beer recipes are based on Barley, not wheat. Sure it could contain wheat as an ingredient and most "summer" beers often contain a malted barley/malted wheat mix with the latter as a minor component. Beer (at least other than the generic mass market brews like coors, bud etc) contain substantial polyphenols from hops which I would assume have antioxidant value.

I don't buy this obsession approach that everything that might contain a grain is probably bad. H1N1 is called the "swine flu" so what has happened; people have stopped eating pork....... I am grateful for the discussion on this site but just sometimes I get a little disheartened with the generalizations.
Trevor

Anonymous
9/18/2009 5:18:01 AM |

Dr. Davis, my diabetic friend just announced to me today that her Triglycerides dropped from 400 to 200, her total cholesterol dropped to 178 and all other blood values are now within normal range just by changing her diet and eliminating all starchy foods (white and brown rice, all wheat products, etc.). Her wheat-free diet truly gave her some unexpected effects. Josephine

Anonymous
9/18/2009 10:08:32 AM |

Dr. Davis
I'm 66 years and was diagnosed with migrene from 20. At 62 I startet to eat lowcarb and high fat. My migrene was gone after 14 days. I thougt that sugar was the worst, but I have come to understand that wheat and barley trigger my headaches more than sugar does.
Other pleasant side effects are no more anal- itching and nearly no more nightly peeing.

William Trumbower
9/18/2009 1:14:22 PM |

My concern about the sprouted grain breads is the inclusion of soy. I am not sure that the sprouting process eliminates all the toxins from soy (phytic acid, estrogen, goiterogens, protease inhibitors etc. ). Traditional cultures often soaked grains, sprouted them, and then used lactofermentation (sourdough) methods to prepare their breads or porridges. This reduced many of the toxic portions of the grains, but soy is much more resistant. Traditional Asian cultures often fermented soy for months before using as food.

donny
9/18/2009 1:33:52 PM |

Before the phrase "wheat-belly" was phrased, there was the phrase "beer-belly." Personally, I don't care if it's made from barley or wheat, beer poses a clear danger either way.

pooklaroux
9/18/2009 4:50:34 PM |

I suffered from IBS for years, and discovered the "cure" when I went on Atkins in 1999. I'm afraid, though that in my case, eliminating wheat alone isn't sufficient, I seem to have problems with any grain that is high in fiber. One or two amaranth based cookies was enough to trigger IBS symptoms for a whole weekend.

DropYourAllergies
9/18/2009 5:34:49 PM |

Gluten >> Allergy ? > InTolerance ? > Celiac ?

Did YOU Know / Have you been told ?

That > If YOU suspect that You have a Gluten InTolerance / Celiac Disease > Do NOT begin a Gluten Free DIET > Until You have been Medically Diagnosed ( See Below ).

IF ..
You would like information regarding a >  Personal Use >  Self Test / Finger Stick Kit > That will test You for presence of Celiac AntiBody ..
Contact / CALL >  DropYourAllergies.com

> FDA Approval Status ? > In the Works > But already used extensively WorldWide by Medical Communities to Screen their populations for Celiac Disease ...
And this Test > CAN be obtained for YOUR Personal Use... NOW !

Why Wait ? > Certainly > Your Celiac Disease and HEALTH Will Not.

Research indicates that > Children will visit 6 Pediatricians BEFORE their Celiac Disease is Diagnosed... WHY ?

ALSO > Allergy Mothers of Allergy Children > Who wish to > Take the FEAR Out of FOOD > i.e. Eat a Peanut = Trouble for their Child > Need only visit their Primary Care Dr. for an Insurance covered, FOOD Allergy Blood Test.

Test to Determine if InTolerance of ALLERGY.

Once Test IDâ€™ed > You receive a Custom FOOD allergy DIET Plan > Suggesting FOODs to Eat, Not Eat, Restrict & ReIntroduce > All based on EACH Patientâ€™s unique Test Result.

And..
The SAME Blood Test CAN be used to Identify YOUR Child's Offending Seasonal & Year-round Enviro Allergens .. with Neutralization via Child Friendly, Drug FREE > NaturesAllergyDrops.com > Immuno-DROPs ( Think SHOTs But No OUCH !) > Which Neutralize the SOURCE of Your Child's Test Identified Offending Enviro Allergens / Allergy Disease.

STOP ! > A Lifetime of Medicating Your allergy SYMPTOMs > While your Enviro Allergy Disease > Continues / Exacerbates UnAbated ..

Leading EACH Sufferer on a LifeTime, Slippery Slope of â€œAllergy Drivenâ€ diseases ( allergic ASTHMA to Name One ), recalcitrant Health Issues & compromised Quality of Life / Poor Self Image. > Achoo & OUCH !

YES > You CAN take ALLERGIES > Out of Your Child's Future ...

Best Health = Wealth Regards

Stephen
DropYourAllergies.com

Celiac Information:

> Serology ( Blood testing ) as well as Biopsy requires the presence of antibodies to gluten.

> A gluten-free diet reduces circulating antibodies thus compromising a proper diagnosis.  There are no clear guidelines for a proper gluten challenge to ensure sufficient circulating antibodies for a positive result; some individuals requires 1 month, other years.

> Key Take HOME Message !

With 1 in 100 being affected,
Rule out Celiac Disease > Before going Gluten-Free
Regardless of Rationale.

kris
9/18/2009 7:55:11 PM |

Susan,
couple weeks ago, I had to take a trip and drove for 8 hours right after my hard work out at gym. didnt have time to eat at my regular time. that night i had stomich spasm, so bad that it almost made me cry. (now i am completely wheat free for more than 10 months now). only thing that helped me immediate,was powdered Magnesium. the pain would start around 2am and stay on until I take liquid magnesium. the pain wouldnt go away for week or so. funny thing is that in the morning i would go to gym and workout hard with no pain at all. 4 days ago I had to see my doctor and he put me on on Nexium. That was the first night that there was no pain how ever the side effects of Nexium were sharp headache and stomach spasm for 5 minutes. I think that when body is firing on all cylinders, it is important to eat regularly, small meals, more often.

Suresh
9/18/2009 8:38:46 PM |

Dr. Davis,

I have seen the mention of eliminating wheat from the diet in many of your articles. Does that mean something like rice is not as bad as wheat namely is wheat is the worst among the grains rice, barley, corn etc ?

Thanks!

-Suresh

water
9/18/2009 9:04:16 PM |

Sara,

I found your comments extremely interesting and would like to know more about your research, especially relative to this:
"those in the sexual organs are among the most sensitive" Do you have reference I can follow?

I've been reading about periperhal neuropathy and autonomic neuropathy and this article was particularly interesting:

Unlike PN, AN is often asymptomatic. Among symptomatic patients (55%), erectile dysfunction seems to be the sole symptom, in line with the higher degree of parasympathetic damage.

pns.ucsd.edu/JPNS/Ravaglia.accepted.06.16.04.pdf

An improvement in his ED was definitely an unexpected results of a gluten free diet (wheat free was not enough), but my spouse saw further improvements without dairy and soy.

Anonymous
9/19/2009 3:23:47 AM |

William,
Your comment on the fermentation of soy in Asian cultures appears to imply that this is important to render "safe" food from Soy. So do you make the same generalization about cow's milk.....? IE it should be cheese and yoghurt before consumption?

Donny,
what is the scientific relation between "wheat belly" and "beer belly" ? none, I would argue. Other than both are not desirable and result from over indulgence.

There are a surprising number of people who are sensitive to specific foods. I love sushi. My wife is allergic to raw seafood yet she can down a piece of wheat gluten (seitan) with no affects. I have friends who can't go near gluten without severe cramps. My wife can also eat beef yet it gives me terrible gas. On the other hand, beans have absolutely no impact to my gas productivity. I write this to highlight that many many people have issues with certain foods while other remain unaffected. YMMV as the saying goes, so lets celebrate those who find relief in changing their diets but lets not claim panacea
Trevor

Dr. William Davis
9/19/2009 1:59:09 PM |

Suresh--

Yes, wheat stands out as a uniquely destructive grain. While other grains can also increase blood sugar and trigger adverse patterns, wheat is undoubtedly the worst. I know of no other grain than wheat that is accompanied by addictive behavior, also.

Anonymous
9/19/2009 3:24:20 PM |

Re: beer and barley

Barley also contains gluten, so if you're avoiding wheat because of the gluten, you'll need to avoid barley (and rye) as well.

Re: rice

The data that the idiotic "China Study" book is allegedly based on suggest that rice is the best grain to eat if you're going to eat grain. The highest rate of heart disease in China is found in the province where wheat is a dietary staple and little meat is consumed.

Anne
9/19/2009 4:27:57 PM |

1:100 may have celiac disease, but estimates of those with non-celiac gluten sensitivity range from 10-40% of the population.

It is true, if you want to be tested for celiac disease(villous atrophy), then you do need to keep eating gluten until the testing is completed. If the tests come out negative it does not mean that you have no problem with gluten. You may still have latent celiac disease, non-celiac gluten sensitivity, wheat allergy or wheat intolerance. I am beginning to see more journal articles about gluten sensitivity. Dr. Green recently wrote in the JAMA that more attention needs to be given to gluten sensitivity.

I did not go through blood a biopsy testing as my doctors refused to run these tests. I used Enterolab to confirm I have antibodies to gluten. This was enough proof for me. Enterolab cannot diagnose celiac disease, but it can tell you if you are reacting to gluten and you can be wheat/gluten free for up to 2 years for this test.

There is nothing dangerous about a gluten free or wheat free diet and, luckily, we don't need a doctor's prescription to change our diet. A gluten free diet can be as healthy or as unhealthy as one wants to make it. Along with gluten free, I follow Dr. Davis' recommendation of a low sugar diet to keep my blood glucose in check.

taemo
9/21/2009 1:23:30 PM |

Ouch! much sugar? Damn! diabetes is you will get.

Anonymous
9/21/2009 5:20:19 PM |

Dr. Davis,

Okay... wheat is BAD. But... does this include wheat bran, often used as a source of fiber in the diet? I mean the bran only, NOT wheat germ, or whole wheat, or wheat flours.

Thanks for all you do!

madcook

Dr. William Davis
9/21/2009 9:43:47 PM |

Hi, Mad--

No, wheat bran is essentially inert. It does not interact with anything and so does not exert any adverse effects. It's like eating wood.

Anonymous
9/22/2009 9:25:21 PM |

I disagree with wheat bran being inert. It is a source of phytic acid which has mineral binding properties. Also, reading sites like FiberMenace.com, bran fiber is certainly not benign.

denparser
9/22/2009 11:40:04 PM |

@Anonymous (before me)

I agree with your statement. Its a fact, try read health book.

Stan (Heretic)
9/23/2009 11:48:20 AM |

I have to mention one more benefit to your list, that I noticed:

- hugely improved dental health and self-healing (sealing) of damaged teeth.

We know that wheat's agglutins (WGA) affect and reduce D3 transport, I have a suspicion that wheat may be also interfering with K2 (thus teeth) but haven't seen much esearch on this yet.

Stan (Heretic)

TedHutchinson
9/23/2009 4:58:14 PM |

Re FiberMenace author Konstantin Monastyrsky
Perhaps those wishing to make a value judgement out this website might first want to checkout Jimmy Moore's blog
Jimmy's interview with Konstantin Monastyrsky
and then compare/contrast it with this one in which a certain Dr Davis is interviewed

Anonymous
9/24/2009 7:41:01 PM |

TedHutchinson, there are many other sources that agree that fiber is not beneficial and is indeed harmful if you don't care for the one referenced.

Nevertheless, Dr. Davis is incorrect about bran being inert. It does contain phytic acid which interferes with mineral absorption. Another reason wheat avoidance helps teeth and bones.

dves
9/27/2009 12:53:06 PM |

@taemo

haha. you're right.. control use of sugar to avoid diabetes.

denparser
9/27/2009 12:54:22 PM |

@Thomas

it has different nutrition level and most of all, its taste.

Anonymous
9/28/2009 5:34:44 PM |

I have a question: after spending a year in France, I realized that yes, French people are typically lean and thin, however, they eat so much wheat! Pastries, white pastas, cereals...
Do French people display the same numbers when it comes to celiacs disease and wheat intolerance? I am curious to know. Or might it have more to do with volume or the fact that their breads are more often homemade? Thoughts?

I went gluten free for nearly two years and then have been dabbling back into spelt and wheat. My primary reasons for trying the elimination were skin-related (itch, chronic eczema). Sad to say, it don't help much, though I did feel pretty healthy. I just ate a croissant the other day from an organic bakery that stone mills. It was heavan. I didn't feel foggy or anything, so perhaps the key is moderation?
Anyway, great site, very informative. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on those skinny french people.
PS-I don't have a weight problem and ironically I didn't lose weight when I went gluten free. Ended up eating more meat (allergic to nuts)...

trinkwasser
10/2/2009 4:03:33 PM |

Interesting that inflammation would appear to be a component of nearly all these symptoms which wheat elimination "cures".

My depression and mood swings appear to be closely correlated with blood glucose swings, which may be why that also improves.

I'm another one for whom wheat bran is not inert: it generates BG spikes, although not to the degree of whole wheat. Lectins, phytic acid or wheat germ agglutinin?

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-toxic-is-wheat-well-first-point-is.html

Anonymous
10/3/2009 2:40:52 AM |

Ted,
Thanks for the link to the livin lavida low carb site interview with Dr. Davis. Your links are always informative.
In my opinion, all newbies visiting this web site should be directed to this reference for a great summary of what is important in taking care of your heart via diet changes. v.cool, thanks
Trevor

Sew Bee It
10/6/2009 10:28:46 PM |

I've just found your blog via Feed the Animal, and I'm so happy I did! Thank you so much for you posts, I'll be reading often.

You have a few comments here, but I figured I'd add to your collection of anecdotal evidence: I'd gone paleo for about a month when I took one 24 hour period off (dinner to dinner). 3/4 of a medium pizza, a snickers bar, 1/2 can pringles, and a dozen chocolate coated gingerbread cookies ended up on the menu. Within 30 minutes of eating the pizza my heartburn had returned, withing hours of eating bits of the rest I was in PAIN. Why I kept eating this junk for the next day, I have no idea. The more of it I ate the worse my stomache got. Severe upset stomache, badly sufuric burps, bowel discomfort, you name it! And after that 24 hours I finally reached a level of toxicity where my body literally rejected the food. So toxic was this junk that use to be "normal" food, that my body threw it up in self defense.

Needless to say I'm totally commited to the paleo eating now!

Jenny
10/10/2009 12:59:02 AM |

What element in wheat are you referring to? everyone needs fiber which is a major component of wheat, people can't be allergic to fiber as their digestive system would pack up if you didn't have any.

Anonymous
10/12/2009 11:24:02 PM |

Does abstaining from wheat include staying away from spelt and kammut and Emmer wheat as well..or is it the GMO wheat that is the problem?
Some doctors believe spelt is more digestable than regular wheat.

Jamie
11/2/2009 1:06:55 AM |

Jenny,

Not true at all. I eat very little fiber and am more regular and have less digestive issues than I ever have. As long as one eats enough fat, there is no need for fiber.

Beverly
3/28/2010 6:24:41 PM |

You can get Gluten-Free beer. One brand is called Red Bridge. There's another, but I forget the name. I drink the Red Bridge. Not bad.

Beverly
3/28/2010 6:48:23 PM |

Besides, you can get your "roughage" from raw veggies and salad. I've been low-carb for about 6 wks. now; haven't had any bread, rice, pasta, wheat, etc. I've never felt better and have more energy. My brain is functioning better, too. Also, have lost 4 lbs.

Beverly

Julianne
6/25/2010 11:17:42 PM |

Hi Dr Davis,
Thanks for a great blog.
I just wanted to share my experience of wheat free (I actually went paleo so fully grain and legume free)
No more swelling knees. Probably mild auto-immune, mother has it also.
Large - I mean large and multiple bumps - ganglion cyst that I had for 10 years shrank and disappeared.
PMS with horrid breast pain - gone.
Menstrual pain - less with fish oil, gone with paleo.
Constipation - gone
Pre-menopausal spotting the week prior to menstruation, had this for 10 years - gone.
Lost weight - that last 3 pounds that make me look my best.

I wrote about it here, I for one want to spread the news as a nutritionist.
http://paleozonenutrition.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/my-nutrition-journey/

Alina M
9/7/2010 1:51:47 PM |

Is whole grain wheat also harmful?

Thank your very much for all your information.

legend_018
9/10/2010 1:16:13 AM |

So people just give up having

1. bread and butter with meals or crusty bread with pasta
2. peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, tuna fish sandwiches etc.
3. pancakes

That seems hard to give up.

Anonymous
9/12/2010 10:03:37 AM |

As an experiment and in an attempt to lose weight, I put my whole family on a low-carb diet. Cutting out wheat was part of it.
My husband has suffered from a mild type of colitis for the last 15 years. One year ago an awful smell developed with the colitis. Whenever he went to the toilet or passed wind an obnoxious, sour smell like old cheese/rotten eggs lingered a long time after. It caused me to move out of our bedroom, as the smell would cause me to wake up repeatedly. 3 weeks on the wheat-free diet the smell was suddenly gone. It was nothing short of a miracle. It was not something I had expected from the diet, but a very welcome side-effect indeed, as I hate bad smells. By the way - can anyone tell me what generates that particular sour, rotten smell?

Rusa
9/28/2010 11:51:02 PM |

legend 018 said:
So people just give up having

1. bread and butter with meals or crusty bread with pasta
2. peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, tuna fish sandwiches etc.
3. pancakes

That seems hard to give up.

Yes. They are addictive, aren't they? Isn't that the point? Wheat is addictive.

KMebust
11/9/2010 4:16:59 PM |

A criticism, then a question:
Any food you give up for months will cause diarrhea and cramping when you come back to it, because you've lost the bacteria that help you digest it. I've experienced this with dairy, meat, and potatoes. I am skeptical that wheat is any different than other foods in that regard.
I have family members who have experienced benefits from gluten free diets, but don't want to give it up altogether, for various reasons. Does cutting back-- say, not eating bread but not actively eliminating gluten from all your food choices-- have lesser but similar effects?

Anonymous
12/17/2010 7:55:34 PM |

Thank you so much Dr. Davis. You have confirmed our worst fears that seemingly "healthy" wheat is actually a form of subtle malnutrition. Please mention that it is the gluten that causes the problems. Not in the allergic sense, but by blocking the important nutrients from fruits and veggies to vitamins and minerals. Gluten forms a mucoid plaque which covers the small intestine thus causing subtle malnutrition and is therefore responsible for dozens of illnesses.

James
1/18/2011 8:13:42 PM |

I have given up wheat because of its effects on myself including acid reflux, rapid heart beat, irritated hemmoroids.

All of the effects you have mentioned have been documented as far back as 1995. This is especially true of RA. I remember articles in the nutrition press stating that wheat was one of the triggers for RA. Thanks for all the information.

Ravi
2/9/2011 5:28:47 PM |

Hello Dr. Davis,

We would like to invite you to summit your exceptional posts to our new ParadigmShift BlogShare at DaiaSolGaia.
Please check it out! Thank you. http://daiasolgaia.com/?p=2212

Ravi
2/9/2011 5:30:25 PM |

... fingers: type "submit"... thank you.

Pixie
3/11/2011 10:59:55 PM |

I wish this was the case for me. I have suffered with IBS for 27 years. I have gone on gluten elimination diets for up to 30 days twice in the past 15 years with no change. Incorporating it back in, the only thing I noticed was a little bit of heartburn if I had wheat in the morning. I've tested negative for Celiac's and wheat allergies.
I'm not saying your are wrong. But for me a wheat free diet was no cure for IBS. (I WISH!)
-Karen

Related posts

Comments (59) -

Olga

Adam Wilk

Helena

Anonymous

Susan

Chris

Gretchen

Anonymous

Dr. William Davis

Dr. William Davis

Sara

Thomas

Robert McLeod

William Trumbower

Anne

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

William Trumbower

donny

pooklaroux

DropYourAllergies

kris

Suresh

water

Anonymous

Dr. William Davis

Anonymous

Anne

taemo

Anonymous

Dr. William Davis

Anonymous

denparser

Stan (Heretic)

TedHutchinson

Anonymous

dves

denparser

Anonymous

trinkwasser

Anonymous

Sew Bee It

Jenny

Anonymous

Jamie

Beverly

Beverly

Julianne

Alina M

legend_018

Anonymous

Rusa

KMebust

Anonymous

James

Ravi

Ravi

Pixie

Add comment