Heart scan curiosities 1 27. November 2006 William Davis (3) Heart scans often reveal more than coronary plaque. From time to time, I'll show some curious findings that people have displayed during routine heart scans. This 65-year old man had a relatively low heart scan score of 73, but showed an impressive quantity of calcification of his pericardium, the usually soft-tissue sack that encases the heart. The calcified pericardium is the white arcs that surround the heart in the center of the image. Thankfully, because he's without any symptoms of breathlessness, excessive fatigue, or leg swelling, he won't need to have it surgically corrected. When the pericardium becomes rigid and encircles the heart, it can literally squeeze the heart, a condition called "constrictive pericarditis". The surgery is pretty awful. This man's calcified pericardium likely resulted from one or more viral infections over his lifetime.
Annual physical 26. November 2006 William Davis (0) A judge who lives in my neighborhood was found dead in his bed this week from a heart attack. He was 49 years old. His teenage kids found him and performed CPR, but he was cold and long-gone by then. A close friend of the judge told me that he'd passed an annual physical just weeks before. This sort of tragedy shouldn't happen. It is easily--easily--preventable. Had this man undergone a heart scan, a score of at least 400 if not >1000 would have been uncovered, and appropriate preventive action could have been taken. The conversation could have centered around the strategies to correct the patterns that triggered his plaque and how he could reduce his score. Of course, hospitals make use of stories like this to fuel fear that brings hordes to their wards for procedures. Would the judge have required a procedure to save his life, had his heart disease been diagnosed at his annual physical? Not necessarily. Hospitals and cardiologists would try to persuade you that procedures have an impact on mortality. This is simply not true. In fact, the mortality benefits of procedures are questionable except in the midst of acute illness (e.g., unstable chest pain symptoms or heart attack).Don't be falsely reassured by passing a physical. A physical does nothing to screen you for heart disease. An EKG and stress test, if included, is a lame excuse for heart disease screening. Remember that a stress test is a test of coronary blood flow, not for the presence of coronary plaque. The unfortunate judge most likely had a 30% "blockage" that did not block flow, but ruptured and closed an artery off sometime in the night when he died. A stress test even on the day of his death would not have predicted this. A CT heart scan would have uncovered it easily, unequivocally, safely.
A curious case of regression 25. November 2006 William Davis (0) Randi came to me at age 43. Before I'd met her, she'd undergone two heart scans about one year apart. The initial score was 57--not terribly high, but very high for a 41-year old, pre-menopausal female. Recall that rarely do women have any heart scan score above zero before age 50. Randi's 2nd scan had yielded a score of 72, a 27% increase. Randi even had her lipoproteins assessed and she had the dreaded Lp(a). So when I met her, we discussed the possible choices in Lp(a) treatment: niacin and estrogens as primary treatment, along with LDL reduction to rock-bottom numbers, along with adjunctive DHEA, almonds, ground flaxseed, and fish oil. Sandi was okay with the adjunctive treatments and was already slender and active (BMI <25), and did not show Lp(a)'s evil partner, small LDL. But Randi had no interest in estrogens, even bio-identical preparations, because of the usual uncertainties associated with estrogen replacement. She also proved to be one of the people truly intolerant to anything but the most minute dose of niacin, experiencing prolonged flushing and abdominal cramps with any dose >250 mg. Randi even attempted a trial of the Mathias Rath concoction of high-dose vitamin C, lysine, and proline as treatment for Lp(a), but we saw no effect on Lp(a). Unfortunately, this left Randi's Lp(a) essentially uncorrected. Another scan one year later: 90, another 25% increase. 18 months after that, another scan: 120, a 30% increase. Now 47-years old, Randi had resigned herself to not being able to control her plaque. We'd run out of options. At that point, I'd started to have everyone's vitamin D blood level assessed and then replaced with vitamin D. I did this with Randi, too. A year after her last scan, she underwent another. The score: 92, a 23% reduction--substantial reversal following a course of unrelenting progression. Randi and I, of course, both rejoiced with this unexpected success. But it raised some interesting questions: How important is Lp(a) when vitamin D is normalized and small LDL is not a part of the picture? How consistent with regression be with this strategy over time? Would normalization of vitamin D have stopped plaque from becoming established in the first place? I hope these issues will clarify over time. For now, I'm thrilled with Randi's success. She remains on her present, "incomplete", though successful program.Note: I would not ordinarily advise a young woman to undergo serial heart scanning with this frequency. Randi had unusual access to a scan center through a relationship with the staff. I am nonetheless grateful for the lessons her experience have taught us.
Fortune teller 25. November 2006 William Davis (0) Whenever your doctor uses your cholesterol values--total, LDL, HDL, triglycerides--to judge your heart disease risk, he/she is trying to act as your fortune teller. In some states, fortune telling is illegal, a misdemeanor. The New York State lawbooks say:A person is guilty of fortune telling when, for a fee or compensation which he directly or indirectly solicits or receives, he claims or pretends to tell fortunes, or holds himself out as being able, by claimed or pretended use of occult powers, to answer questions or give advice on personal matters or to exorcise, influence or affect evil spirits or curses; except that this section does not apply to a person who engages in the aforedescribed conduct as part of a show or exhibition solely for the purpose of entertainment or amusement.(Source : Wikipedia) Rather than occult powers, your physician claims to use "medical judgement" to tell your fortune. Except for that distinction, it might be construed as a misdemeanor. Let's take three typical examples:58-year old Laura has a high LDL of 195 mg/dl. Her HDL is 52 mg/dl, triglycerides 197 mg/dl. Does she have heart disease?51-year old Jonathan has an LDL of 174 mg/dl, HDL 34 mg/dl, triglycerides 156 mg/dl. Does Jonathan have heart disease?71-year old Marian has an LDL cholesterol of 135 mg/dl, HDL 84 mg/dl, triglycerides of 67 mg/dl. None of the three have symptoms. They all feel well. Nobody is taking a statin cholesterol drug or other agent that would modify the numbers. Jonathan is around 30 lbs overweight. Nobody has an impressive family history of heart disease. Can you tell who has heart disease and who doesn't? If you can, you're smarter than I am, because I certainly can't tell. But your doctor tries to divine your future by looking at these numbers.Do they know something that we don't know? No. It's a crude odds game, a guessing game. A guessing game that frequently comes up on the losing end. These are three real people. Laura, despite her high LDL, has no identifiable coronary heart disease. Jonathan has advanced coronary disease. These were his numbers just prior to his stent. Marian has a moderate quantity revealed by a CT heart scan score of 419. Don't even try predicting your future from your cholesterol numbers--it simply can't be done. Every day, I see patients and physicians beating their heads over this dilemma. Telling your fortune using pretended occult powers is illegal. Telling your fortune using cholesterol numbers should be, too.If you want to know if you have coronary plaque, that's the role of the CT heart scan. Plain and simple.
Heart scan score drops like a stone 23. November 2006 William Davis (2) Matt was dumbfounded when he found out about his heart scan score of 317 in the summer of 2005.Earlier that year he'd unintentionally lost 20 lbs. in the space of two months and was feeling awful. He was diagnosed with diabetes and put on several medications. He told me that the heart scan score was just adding insult to injury. As you'd expect in someone with diabetes, Matt had a low HDL, increased triglycerides, and small LDL. Blood pressure and inflammation (C-reactive protein) were issues as well.Matt's primary care physician had put him on a statin cholesterol drug as soon as he heard about Matt's heart scan score, so we kept this going. What Matt's primary care physician didn't know was that his "true" LDL had been much higher than the conventional calculated LDL had suggested, so the statin agent was a reasonable solution. (Matt was also not terribly motivated to make dramatic changes in lifestyle or food choices. The statin drug was a compromise.)We added fish oil and vitamin D to his regimen. Though recent data have cast doubt on the value of treating homocysteine levels of around 12.5, Matt's much higher value of 28 was treated with vitamins B6, B12, and folic acid, with a resultant homocysteine of 7.6. 17 months into the Track Your Plaque approach, and Matt's repeat heart scan score: 244, a 23% reduction. How's that for an early Christmas gift?
"You don't have a uterus. You don't need progesterone" 21. November 2006 William Davis (2) I was talking with a hospital nurse recently who told me about her lack of energy, blue moods, and other assorted complaints. At age 49, she was exasperated. So I suggested that she ask her gynecologist about progesterone cream. The gynecologist advised her, "You don't have a uterus. You don't need progesterone." He went on to explain that the only reason to take progesterone was to prevent uterine cancer caused by estrogen. Then what about progesterone's weight loss benefits? It's effects on increased energy, improved mood, deeper sleep? These benefits, of course, have nothing to do with the uterus. I've witnessed these benefits in women many times, both in the peri-menopausal period (which starts around your late 30's) and menopause. Why talk about progesterone when our focus is heart disease and reduction of heart scan scores? Because if progesterone in a woman helps her feel better, more upbeat, and accelerates weight loss, she's more likely to succeed in her plaque-control program. For additional comments on progesterone, read the Track Your Plaque interview with women's hormone expert, Dr. Nisha Jackson, Females, hormones, and weight control:An interview with Dr. Nisha Jackson found at http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_04-008njacksonhormones.asp. Dr. Jackson also has a book available called "The Hormone Survival Guide to Perimenopause". Or, read Dr. John Lee's pioneering books, What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Menopause: The Breakthrough Book on Natural Hormone Balance and What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Premenopause: Balance Your Hormones and Your Life from Thirty to Fifty . (An edition that combines the two books is available, also.)
Take a niacin "vacation" 20. November 2006 William Davis (2) I've been seeing a curious niacin phenomenon that has not, to my knowledge, been reported anywhere in the medical literature. People with lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), are best treated with niacin, particularly given the relative lack of other effective therapies. I now have seen approximately 10 people with great initial responses to niacin, only to observe Lp(a) levels slowly drift back up to the starting level over a period of 2-3 years. In other words, if starting Lp(a) is 200 All posts by william-davis Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in "I gained 30 lbs from one cracker" 23. May 2008 William Davis (19) Let me tell you a story, a tale of a woman who gained 30 lbs by eating one cracker.At age 50, Claire's health was a disaster. Her initial lipoprotein patterns were a mess, including HDL 36 mg/dl, triglycerides 297 mg/dl, blood sugar 122 mg/dl (pre-diabetic range), blood pressure 155/99. Small LDL comprised over 90% of all LDL particles. At 5 feet 3 inches, she weighed 210 lbs--90 lbs over her ideal weight. Her face was flushed and red, her eyes swollen and weighted down with bags, her eyes dull. While interested in hearing about how to improve her health, I would hardly call her enthusiastic. We talked about how removing wheat products entirely from her diet could result in weight loss--enormous weight loss--yet with reduced appetite, increased energy, less daytime sleepiness and fogginess, improved sleep quality. Removing wheat would also allow substantial correction of her lipoprotein patterns with minimal medication. At first, she seemed confused by this advice. After all, it ran directly opposite to what she'd been told by her family doctor, not to mention the advice from TV, food ads, and food packages. To my surprise, Claire did it. She didn't return to the office for another 5 months. But she came in, a big beaming smile on her face. Even at 167 lbs--still overweight--Claire looked great. She glowed. She'd already dropped nearly 2 1/2 inches from her waist. She felt lighter on her feet, discovered energy she thought she'd lost 10 years earlier. Her blood results matched, with dramatic shifts in each and every pattern. I quizzed Claire on her diet, and she had indeed made substantial changes. In addition to eliminating all foods made of wheat flour, she also eliminated foods made with cornstarch, rice flour, snacks, and other sweets. She ate her fill of vegetables, fruits, raw nuts, lean meats, and healthy oils. She was less hungry while eating less. Even her husband, skeptical at first, joined Claire after the first two months and her initial 20 lbs of weight loss. He, too, was well on his way to dropping to ideal weight. But a dinner party invitation came. In the few that Claire and her husband had gone to over the few months, she had religiously stuck to her program, choosing cheese, pickles, olives, vegetables that she dipped, but avoided the pretzels, breads, Doritos, potato chips, and others. This time, a tray of whole wheat crackers was laid on the buffet table, covered with some sort of sweetened cheese. She had just one. She savored the taste that she'd missed. "Maybe one more. I'll be extra good this weekend,'" she told herself. Now Claire was hungry. The bruschetta covered with tomatoes and mozzarella looked awfully good. "It's got some good things on it, too!" she thought. She had three. The floodgates opened. I saw Claire three months later, weighing just shy of 200 lbs. "I almost cancelled this appointment," she whispered quietly, tears at the corner of her eyes. "I don't know what happened. I just lost control. After losing all that weight and feeling so good, I blew it!" I've seen it before: Fabulous success eliminating the foods that created the situation--the insatiable appetite, the endless cycle of hunger, brief satiety, the rolling, rumbling hunger--followed by temptation, then disaster. The weight lost comes right back. It's experiences like Claire's that have absolutely, positively convinced me: Wheat products are addictive. It's not true for everybody, but it's true for many people, certainly most people who have weight struggles. It triggers some sort of appetite button, a signal to eat more . . . and more, and more. Keep it up long enough, and you have drops in HDL, increases in triglycerides, upward jumps in blood sugar and blood pressure, diabetes, etc. It doesn't matter if it's whole grain, 7-grain, or 12-grain. Yes, the whole grains contain more fiber and more B vitamins. But they all share one characteristic: They trigger a desire for more. So that's the story of how one whole wheat cracker caused one woman to gain 30 lbs. Next week's story:California woman claims: My children are aliens!Just kidding. Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD Wheat-free is not gluten-free 21. May 2008 William Davis (10) Eliminate wheat from your diet and wonderful things happen:--Lose 15-20 lbs, sometimes in the first 1-3 months. (More or less, depending on your prior dietary habits, weight, age, etc.)--HDL cholesterol goes up, triglycerides go down--Blood sugar drops--Small LDL is reduced--C-reactive protein is reduced--Pre-diabetics often convert to non-diabetics--Diabetics gain far better control over blood glucose. Some even become non-diabetic (as long as they maintain the wheat-free, low-glycemic index diet and weight control).--You feel better: Less mental fogginess, more energy, better sleep.--Appetite shrinks dramatically. (Many diet programs makes lots of money promising similar results. Prescription medications like the pre-diabetes drugs, Actos and Avandia, and the fibrates, Tricor and Lopid, nearly--nearly--reproduce the effects of eliminating wheat. Of course, these medications do not lead to weight loss or make you feel better. In fact, Actos and Avandia usually trigger a weight gain of 8 lbs in the first year of use.) All of these wonderful effects develop with elimination of wheat. . . unless you confuse wheat-free with gluten-free. There's a difference. Remove wheat from your diet, but discover the world of gluten-free products made for people with celiac disease, or gluten enteropathy, and you can regain the weight and recreate many of the phenomena associated with wheat. I've talked about this in past, but it trips up so many people that it's worth talking about again.The concept that I am advocating is really low-glycemic index (or low glycemic load, actually). Foods that trigger a substantial rise in blood sugar, whether immediate (like whole wheat crackers) or delayed (like whole wheat pasta) are the culprits. The same effects develop with candy, cookies, fruit drinks, pizza, chips, table sugar, and other junk foods. However, I pick on wheat specifically because it so dominates the American diet. It has grown to fill so many processed food products. It is also a food ingredient that is falsely advertised as healthy. In reality, pretzels, whole wheat crackers, whole grain bread, high-fiber cereals, etc. exert the same effect on blood sugar as candy or white table sugar. They also generate all the "downstream" phenomena listed above. But wheat is hardly the only food that makes us fat, diabetic, and unhealthy. This is true for foods made with cornstarch (taco shells, cornbread, tortillas, chips, breakfast cereals); rice flour, puffed rice, and polished rice; and potatoes, particularly pulverized potato starch (potato chips). There are others. These are the gluten-free products that are marketed to the gluten enteropathy (celiac disease) market. Yes, you can make muffins with cornstarch and no wheat gluten, but is it good for you? No. It is nearly as bad as wheat. It can still skyrocket blood sugar, drop HDL, raise triglycerides, create small LDL, heighten inflammation, etc.Ground flaxseed, oat bran, barley, quinoa, are some of the alternatives that do not create these effects. But not the majority of gluten-free products on the market. Ingredients: Potato starch, rice flour, modified corn starch, olive oil, yeast, vegetable protein(lupine), corn syrup, sugar, salt, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, sodium bicarbonate, ammonium bicarbonate, diacetyltataric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides of edible fats, natural flavor.". . . only naturally gluten-free and wheat-free ingredients and adhere to the strictest quality processes, testing every batch for gluten using the ELISA assay."NUTRITION FACTSServing Size 7 bread sticks (31g)Servings per container 5Calories 120 Calories from fat 25Amount per serving Total Fat 2.5g Saturated Fat 0.5g Trans Fat 0gCholesterol 0mg Sodium 310mg Total Carb 24g Dietary Fiber 1g Sugars less than 1gProtein less than 1g Death to chelation? 19. May 2008 William Davis (5) Does chelation work?It's a question I get asked fairly frequently. Although I have never performed chelation, IV or oral, and therefore have no direct experience, my concerns for this purported therapy have included:1) The concept of extracting calcium from atherosclerotic plaque by removing it first from the blood is absurd. Early chelationists believed that this was the means by which EDTA might reverse coronary atherosclerosis. However, removing calcium from blood would more likely lead to osteoporosis or calcium extraction from bone, since bone is a more ready repository for calcium. Blood calcium levels are also tightly and narrowly controlled; any significant reduction in calcium ("hypocalcemia") can be life-threatening. And, indeed, there have been deaths from hypocalcemia in people receiving chelation. More recently, chelationists have argued that removal of heavy metals like lead and mercury are responsible for the purported benefits of chelation. And, indeed, blood levels of these heavy metals can be reduced by chelation. That alone may be a benefit. But to then make the leap to say that it also regresses atherosclerotic plaque by the same mechanism has no basis in science. 2) Practitioners associated with chelation tend to be shady. I have seen homeopathic therapies (among THE most ridiculous of concepts), "energy balance" therapies, desiccated organ extracts ("applied kinesiology"), and a variety of other fringe treatments offered by practitioners offering chelation. This doesn't necessarily mean, of course, that chelation is also fringe or suspect, but it tends to be offered by practitioners who engage in generally unscientific, unfounded practices. The few people I've seen go through multiple courses of chelation (usually 30 or so infusions) have shown no impact on heart scan scores or any other measure of heart disease. In response to the many questions I receive on chelation, I had been answering that, if we would simply wait for the publication of the NIH-sponsored trial of IV chelation therapy, perhaps we'd know once and for all. However, in a lengthy criticism, four expert authors argue that the TACT trial to assess chelation study is doomed to failure for an entire list of reasons and should therefore be abandoned. The discussion is available on Medscape Cardiology. (Free sign-in required.) Why the NIH Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) Should Be AbandonedWe investigated the social and the scientific histories of chelation therapy beginning in the 1950s. We examined TACT protocols and consent forms, which, in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, the NIH provided to us with curious redactions. We examined the existing RCTs and the numerous case series cited by the TACT protocols. We examined evidence for risks, including information that is not in the standard medical literature. We examined various hypotheses that advocates have offered to explain how chelation "works."We present our findings in 4 parts. First, we provide a brief history of the use of disodium EDTA as a treatment for CAD. Next, we describe the origin and nature of the TACT. Next, we discuss the evidence for chelation as a treatment for CAD and for atherosclerosis in general, and place it in the context of other proposed treatments that have been ineffective after an initial period of enthusiasm. Finally, we discuss the risks. For each topic, we contrast our findings with relevant statements in the TACT literature, to the extent that such statements exist. Among the highlights:--Since the mid-1970s, court documents and newspapers have reported at least 30 deaths associated with IV disodium EDTA, most of it administered by ACAM members. --Early chelation investigators had chosen the disodium salt of EDTA, reasoning that if it could remove calcium from atherosclerotic plaques, it might shrink them. That notion was soon demonstrated to be invalid. It has largely been replaced by a "toxic heavy metals" antioxidant hypothesis, which is based on the potential for metal ions to produce free radical damage. Chelationists now cite "removing heavy metals" as the basis for their claim that chelation is effective for approximately 70 conditions, ranging from schizophrenia and autism to cancer. This provides them with numerous reasons to ignore any trial that finds chelation ineffective for CAD.--Biochemical literature, either not cited or misrepresented in the TACT protocols, has demonstrated that the heavy metals hypothesis is implausible. Antithetically, it also demonstrates that the chelation mixture used in the TACT has pro-oxidant effects in vitro.--In our opinion, TACT literature -- including 2 versions of the protocol, the consent form, information posted on the NCCAM Web site, and 2 editorials co-authored by the PI -- has misrepresented chelation, its risks, and the facts of the study. It has exaggerated the value of supportive case series, not only by ignoring evidence of bias and incompetence, but by misrepresenting citations and reporting erroneous data. It has minimized the dangers, both by understatements and by omissions of specific, published complications. It has not acknowledged the deaths mentioned above. It has repeatedly conflated disodium EDTA and a different drug, calcium-sodium EDTA.--The TACT includes nearly 100 "chelation site" co-investigators who, in our opinion, are unsuitable to care for human subjects or to report trial data. Most espouse implausible health claims while denigrating proven methods; several have been disciplined, for substandard practices, by state medical boards; several have been invol
"I gained 30 lbs from one cracker" 23. May 2008 William Davis (19) Let me tell you a story, a tale of a woman who gained 30 lbs by eating one cracker.At age 50, Claire's health was a disaster. Her initial lipoprotein patterns were a mess, including HDL 36 mg/dl, triglycerides 297 mg/dl, blood sugar 122 mg/dl (pre-diabetic range), blood pressure 155/99. Small LDL comprised over 90% of all LDL particles. At 5 feet 3 inches, she weighed 210 lbs--90 lbs over her ideal weight. Her face was flushed and red, her eyes swollen and weighted down with bags, her eyes dull. While interested in hearing about how to improve her health, I would hardly call her enthusiastic. We talked about how removing wheat products entirely from her diet could result in weight loss--enormous weight loss--yet with reduced appetite, increased energy, less daytime sleepiness and fogginess, improved sleep quality. Removing wheat would also allow substantial correction of her lipoprotein patterns with minimal medication. At first, she seemed confused by this advice. After all, it ran directly opposite to what she'd been told by her family doctor, not to mention the advice from TV, food ads, and food packages. To my surprise, Claire did it. She didn't return to the office for another 5 months. But she came in, a big beaming smile on her face. Even at 167 lbs--still overweight--Claire looked great. She glowed. She'd already dropped nearly 2 1/2 inches from her waist. She felt lighter on her feet, discovered energy she thought she'd lost 10 years earlier. Her blood results matched, with dramatic shifts in each and every pattern. I quizzed Claire on her diet, and she had indeed made substantial changes. In addition to eliminating all foods made of wheat flour, she also eliminated foods made with cornstarch, rice flour, snacks, and other sweets. She ate her fill of vegetables, fruits, raw nuts, lean meats, and healthy oils. She was less hungry while eating less. Even her husband, skeptical at first, joined Claire after the first two months and her initial 20 lbs of weight loss. He, too, was well on his way to dropping to ideal weight. But a dinner party invitation came. In the few that Claire and her husband had gone to over the few months, she had religiously stuck to her program, choosing cheese, pickles, olives, vegetables that she dipped, but avoided the pretzels, breads, Doritos, potato chips, and others. This time, a tray of whole wheat crackers was laid on the buffet table, covered with some sort of sweetened cheese. She had just one. She savored the taste that she'd missed. "Maybe one more. I'll be extra good this weekend,'" she told herself. Now Claire was hungry. The bruschetta covered with tomatoes and mozzarella looked awfully good. "It's got some good things on it, too!" she thought. She had three. The floodgates opened. I saw Claire three months later, weighing just shy of 200 lbs. "I almost cancelled this appointment," she whispered quietly, tears at the corner of her eyes. "I don't know what happened. I just lost control. After losing all that weight and feeling so good, I blew it!" I've seen it before: Fabulous success eliminating the foods that created the situation--the insatiable appetite, the endless cycle of hunger, brief satiety, the rolling, rumbling hunger--followed by temptation, then disaster. The weight lost comes right back. It's experiences like Claire's that have absolutely, positively convinced me: Wheat products are addictive. It's not true for everybody, but it's true for many people, certainly most people who have weight struggles. It triggers some sort of appetite button, a signal to eat more . . . and more, and more. Keep it up long enough, and you have drops in HDL, increases in triglycerides, upward jumps in blood sugar and blood pressure, diabetes, etc. It doesn't matter if it's whole grain, 7-grain, or 12-grain. Yes, the whole grains contain more fiber and more B vitamins. But they all share one characteristic: They trigger a desire for more. So that's the story of how one whole wheat cracker caused one woman to gain 30 lbs. Next week's story:California woman claims: My children are aliens!Just kidding. Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD
Wheat-free is not gluten-free 21. May 2008 William Davis (10) Eliminate wheat from your diet and wonderful things happen:--Lose 15-20 lbs, sometimes in the first 1-3 months. (More or less, depending on your prior dietary habits, weight, age, etc.)--HDL cholesterol goes up, triglycerides go down--Blood sugar drops--Small LDL is reduced--C-reactive protein is reduced--Pre-diabetics often convert to non-diabetics--Diabetics gain far better control over blood glucose. Some even become non-diabetic (as long as they maintain the wheat-free, low-glycemic index diet and weight control).--You feel better: Less mental fogginess, more energy, better sleep.--Appetite shrinks dramatically. (Many diet programs makes lots of money promising similar results. Prescription medications like the pre-diabetes drugs, Actos and Avandia, and the fibrates, Tricor and Lopid, nearly--nearly--reproduce the effects of eliminating wheat. Of course, these medications do not lead to weight loss or make you feel better. In fact, Actos and Avandia usually trigger a weight gain of 8 lbs in the first year of use.) All of these wonderful effects develop with elimination of wheat. . . unless you confuse wheat-free with gluten-free. There's a difference. Remove wheat from your diet, but discover the world of gluten-free products made for people with celiac disease, or gluten enteropathy, and you can regain the weight and recreate many of the phenomena associated with wheat. I've talked about this in past, but it trips up so many people that it's worth talking about again.The concept that I am advocating is really low-glycemic index (or low glycemic load, actually). Foods that trigger a substantial rise in blood sugar, whether immediate (like whole wheat crackers) or delayed (like whole wheat pasta) are the culprits. The same effects develop with candy, cookies, fruit drinks, pizza, chips, table sugar, and other junk foods. However, I pick on wheat specifically because it so dominates the American diet. It has grown to fill so many processed food products. It is also a food ingredient that is falsely advertised as healthy. In reality, pretzels, whole wheat crackers, whole grain bread, high-fiber cereals, etc. exert the same effect on blood sugar as candy or white table sugar. They also generate all the "downstream" phenomena listed above. But wheat is hardly the only food that makes us fat, diabetic, and unhealthy. This is true for foods made with cornstarch (taco shells, cornbread, tortillas, chips, breakfast cereals); rice flour, puffed rice, and polished rice; and potatoes, particularly pulverized potato starch (potato chips). There are others. These are the gluten-free products that are marketed to the gluten enteropathy (celiac disease) market. Yes, you can make muffins with cornstarch and no wheat gluten, but is it good for you? No. It is nearly as bad as wheat. It can still skyrocket blood sugar, drop HDL, raise triglycerides, create small LDL, heighten inflammation, etc.Ground flaxseed, oat bran, barley, quinoa, are some of the alternatives that do not create these effects. But not the majority of gluten-free products on the market. Ingredients: Potato starch, rice flour, modified corn starch, olive oil, yeast, vegetable protein(lupine), corn syrup, sugar, salt, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, sodium bicarbonate, ammonium bicarbonate, diacetyltataric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides of edible fats, natural flavor.". . . only naturally gluten-free and wheat-free ingredients and adhere to the strictest quality processes, testing every batch for gluten using the ELISA assay."NUTRITION FACTSServing Size 7 bread sticks (31g)Servings per container 5Calories 120 Calories from fat 25Amount per serving Total Fat 2.5g Saturated Fat 0.5g Trans Fat 0gCholesterol 0mg Sodium 310mg Total Carb 24g Dietary Fiber 1g Sugars less than 1gProtein less than 1g
Death to chelation? 19. May 2008 William Davis (5) Does chelation work?It's a question I get asked fairly frequently. Although I have never performed chelation, IV or oral, and therefore have no direct experience, my concerns for this purported therapy have included:1) The concept of extracting calcium from atherosclerotic plaque by removing it first from the blood is absurd. Early chelationists believed that this was the means by which EDTA might reverse coronary atherosclerosis. However, removing calcium from blood would more likely lead to osteoporosis or calcium extraction from bone, since bone is a more ready repository for calcium. Blood calcium levels are also tightly and narrowly controlled; any significant reduction in calcium ("hypocalcemia") can be life-threatening. And, indeed, there have been deaths from hypocalcemia in people receiving chelation. More recently, chelationists have argued that removal of heavy metals like lead and mercury are responsible for the purported benefits of chelation. And, indeed, blood levels of these heavy metals can be reduced by chelation. That alone may be a benefit. But to then make the leap to say that it also regresses atherosclerotic plaque by the same mechanism has no basis in science. 2) Practitioners associated with chelation tend to be shady. I have seen homeopathic therapies (among THE most ridiculous of concepts), "energy balance" therapies, desiccated organ extracts ("applied kinesiology"), and a variety of other fringe treatments offered by practitioners offering chelation. This doesn't necessarily mean, of course, that chelation is also fringe or suspect, but it tends to be offered by practitioners who engage in generally unscientific, unfounded practices. The few people I've seen go through multiple courses of chelation (usually 30 or so infusions) have shown no impact on heart scan scores or any other measure of heart disease. In response to the many questions I receive on chelation, I had been answering that, if we would simply wait for the publication of the NIH-sponsored trial of IV chelation therapy, perhaps we'd know once and for all. However, in a lengthy criticism, four expert authors argue that the TACT trial to assess chelation study is doomed to failure for an entire list of reasons and should therefore be abandoned. The discussion is available on Medscape Cardiology. (Free sign-in required.) Why the NIH Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) Should Be AbandonedWe investigated the social and the scientific histories of chelation therapy beginning in the 1950s. We examined TACT protocols and consent forms, which, in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, the NIH provided to us with curious redactions. We examined the existing RCTs and the numerous case series cited by the TACT protocols. We examined evidence for risks, including information that is not in the standard medical literature. We examined various hypotheses that advocates have offered to explain how chelation "works."We present our findings in 4 parts. First, we provide a brief history of the use of disodium EDTA as a treatment for CAD. Next, we describe the origin and nature of the TACT. Next, we discuss the evidence for chelation as a treatment for CAD and for atherosclerosis in general, and place it in the context of other proposed treatments that have been ineffective after an initial period of enthusiasm. Finally, we discuss the risks. For each topic, we contrast our findings with relevant statements in the TACT literature, to the extent that such statements exist. Among the highlights:--Since the mid-1970s, court documents and newspapers have reported at least 30 deaths associated with IV disodium EDTA, most of it administered by ACAM members. --Early chelation investigators had chosen the disodium salt of EDTA, reasoning that if it could remove calcium from atherosclerotic plaques, it might shrink them. That notion was soon demonstrated to be invalid. It has largely been replaced by a "toxic heavy metals" antioxidant hypothesis, which is based on the potential for metal ions to produce free radical damage. Chelationists now cite "removing heavy metals" as the basis for their claim that chelation is effective for approximately 70 conditions, ranging from schizophrenia and autism to cancer. This provides them with numerous reasons to ignore any trial that finds chelation ineffective for CAD.--Biochemical literature, either not cited or misrepresented in the TACT protocols, has demonstrated that the heavy metals hypothesis is implausible. Antithetically, it also demonstrates that the chelation mixture used in the TACT has pro-oxidant effects in vitro.--In our opinion, TACT literature -- including 2 versions of the protocol, the consent form, information posted on the NCCAM Web site, and 2 editorials co-authored by the PI -- has misrepresented chelation, its risks, and the facts of the study. It has exaggerated the value of supportive case series, not only by ignoring evidence of bias and incompetence, but by misrepresenting citations and reporting erroneous data. It has minimized the dangers, both by understatements and by omissions of specific, published complications. It has not acknowledged the deaths mentioned above. It has repeatedly conflated disodium EDTA and a different drug, calcium-sodium EDTA.--The TACT includes nearly 100 "chelation site" co-investigators who, in our opinion, are unsuitable to care for human subjects or to report trial data. Most espouse implausible health claims while denigrating proven methods; several have been disciplined, for substandard practices, by state medical boards; several have been invol