Bread equals sugar

22. June 2011 William Davis (36)
Bread, gluten-free or gluten-containing, in terms of carbohydrate content, is equivalent to sugar.

Two slices of store-bought whole grain bread, such as the gluten-free bread I discussed in my last post, equals 5- 6 teaspoons of table sugar:








 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some breads can contain up to twice this quantity, i.e., 10-12 teaspoons equivalent readily-digestible carbohydrate.
Tags :

Comments (36) -

  • A.B. Dada

    6/22/2011 4:35:12 PM |

    Whoa, that's a lot of photos of spoons, hah.

    I definitely get a worse effect from eating bread (historically, I don't anymore) than I have from eating table sugar (say in coffee or sprinkled on strawberries, neither of which I do anymore, either).

  • Chris Cornell

    6/22/2011 5:07:56 PM |

    And... is sugar bad?

  • Kristie Campbell

    6/22/2011 6:40:28 PM |

    I can think of tastier options for consuming that much sugar, but only on my cheat days! -Kristie

  • Carl

    6/22/2011 6:40:34 PM |

    Wrong. Table sugar is 50% fructose. Does bread starch break down to 50% fructose? Fructose and glucose are metabolized quite differently. The former only in the liver if I understand correctly.

  • Mary

    6/22/2011 7:04:49 PM |

    What about bread made from sprouted grains -- e.g., Ezekiel Bread?  I understand there's still gluten in it, but this particular bread actually has a short, easily understandable ingredient list -- seems far better than the highly processed "whole wheat" bread out there.  Any thoughts?

  • Jack Kronk

    6/22/2011 7:52:54 PM |

    Bread does not equal sugar. This is a too simplistic Doc, and you know it.

    Of course we all know that bread starch does indeed break down as glucose in the body, but there is so much more to bread than just that. Of all people, in the entire blogosphere, I would expect this post from you the least. You know ALL about wheat and bread. You post more on wheat than any other blogger. Yet you say bread equals sugar. I know what you mean, for sure. I get it, but I would like to suggest to you that sometimes people seriously take you word for word, especially when you have a large following of daily readers that know you're a Doctor and maybe don't understand the differences. Then they are gonna run out and tell their friends and family that eating bread is just like eating sugar.

    As another commenter mentioned, sugar is half fructose, and although the fructose is mostly bound to the glucose, some of it still definitely goes into your liver. A huge sugar overload is going to have drastically different effects on metabolism as a huge bread overload. Neither are good for you in any way. The bread comes with all kinds of problems that the sugar doesn't have. I'm not sure which is worse, but they're not equal to each other.

  • Princess Dieter

    6/22/2011 8:46:29 PM |

    I think I just spurted out a bunch of insulin looking at those pics. ; )

  • Cary

    6/22/2011 9:46:45 PM |

    Wow, take a chill-pill folks.

    It states in the very first sentence that he is speaking in terms of carbohydrate content.

    I don't believe for a second that the good doc's readers only read the headline and then run off making nutritional recommendations to their friends and family.

    Thanks for another great post. Smile

  • Dr. William Davis

    6/23/2011 1:18:30 AM |

    Thanks, Cary.

    It never ceases to amaze that talking about food is like insulting your mother: virtual fist fights inevitably break out.

    I was lumping wheat bread and gluten-free bread together. That is indeed misleading, because wheat-containing bread is far WORSE than sugar. The point I was trying to make, perhaps awkwardly, was that both wheat bread and gluten-free bread are, in effect, large carbohydrate loads. And I didn't insult your mother.

  • Shiveka

    6/23/2011 1:29:23 AM |

    Although 2 slices of bread are generally equivalent to 30 g carbohydrate (although some are less and some are more), they are not necessarily equal to 6 tsp of sugar/2 tbsp of sugar.  The carbohydrate in bread is not all sugar.  Bread, especially whole grain bread has fiber which is an indigestible carbohydrate.  2 slices of whole grain bread have 4g of fiber generally, which you will not find in table sugar.  Additionally, this fiber helps to slow down the absorption of the carbohydrate or sugar in the bread.  Therefore, plain table sugar (just glucose + fructose) is far more easily digested than 2 slices of whole grain bread.  Therefore, from the pov that whole grain bread is not 100% composed of sugar nor is it digested in the same manner as sugar (in terms of their glycemic index/how long it takes for the sugar to enter the bloodstream), it seems incorrect to say that 2 slices of whole grain bread= 6 tsp of sugar.  I understand the logic of your reasoning in the sense that all digestible carbohydrate eventually breaks down into glucose, however, fiber (found in whole grain bread) does not and therefore its erroneous to say that they are equivalent to each other and may be misleading to individuals reading this article.

  • huh

    6/23/2011 7:02:18 AM |

    Was there no point to this post but to keep the blog going and selling stuff?  What is going on here?

  • Stipetic

    6/23/2011 8:43:44 AM |

    What was that you said about my mother?

  • Moo

    6/23/2011 1:35:17 PM |

    Did you look at a table of glycemic indexes? Most bread, including whole wheat bread, has approximately the same glycemic index as table sugar.

  • Tyns

    6/23/2011 3:51:01 PM |

    Reduced/absence of fructose makes the bread less toxic, but I'm guessing this post was written from the perspective of the resulting insulin response - in which case, referring to six teaspoons of sugar is accurate for comparison purposes.

    I watched Nurse Jackie this week (or maybe last week?) and the head nurse was 'educating' overweight children.  She named a bunch of candy bars/candies and asked what they all had in common.  A child responded "Sugar?".  "Correct!" she replied.  She then told them that when she wants a snack, she eats "These" - then holds up a box of raisins.  Oh, and the children were all holding apples.

  • Jack Kronk

    6/23/2011 4:07:05 PM |

    you've covered this general concept in many of your other posts about bread and/or wheat in general. everybody knows that bread is carb heavy. but a carb is a carb is a carb is simply not true. besides that, i think the nasty ingredients in most gluten free breads are far worse than the carbohydrate content of the starch.

  • EMR

    6/23/2011 5:22:21 PM |

    We are just blind to many other foods when trying to avoid sugar to save us from diabetes.I think we must consult a specialist to formulate our diet which would be healthy and accurate.

  • Annabel

    6/23/2011 7:03:07 PM |

    If only it were true that "everyone" knows that bread is carb-heavy, or that starches convert to sugar, or even that fruits are carbs! I asked my brother to tell me what he eats in a typical day. "I don't eat a lot of carbs... For breakfast, two breakfast tacos on flour tortillas and a Sprite, for lunch I just eat an apple and another Sprite, and dinner is maybe chicken-fried [breaded] steak and some cornbread, or maybe mashed potatoes." I asked him if he thought soft drinks don't have carbs, and he said he thought clear sodas "don't count"--just colas have carbs. To say nothing of the flour, potatoes, corn, or fruit.

    That's a more typical (mis)understanding of carbs than we want to think. And that's why I dont mind reading posts like this.

  • HS4

    6/23/2011 10:52:09 PM |

    There are many ways to skin a cat, as the saying goes.  I, for one, appreciate Dr Davis attempts to get the message across by putting it out there in many different ways and using different analogies.  You never know which description will hit home with someone or at least make him stop and think.

    Many times I've come across exactly what Annabel describes - so many people lack even a basic understanding of which foods are carbohydrate-rich.  I was astounded when my husband mentioned that he'd always thought fruits were not carbs (and he's a scientist!).   To him, carbs are starches, only - bread, pasta, maybe potatoes, etc...

  • Jim Anderson

    6/24/2011 2:01:16 PM |

    I used to eat a lot of bread.  Now, none.  I don't have a problem passing up ordinary, store-bought, mass-produced loaves, but when I'm in a deli or restaurant with quality breads -- well, that's harder.  Still, I know I will get a lot hungrier a lot sooner if I eat the bread than if I don't, and so I don't.  It seems paradoxical that eating more food makes you hungrier sooner; knowing that is the key.

  • steve

    6/24/2011 3:59:02 PM |

    Doctor Davis:  It would be helpful to see a post of how you would construct a daily diet for heart health that minimizes the carbs.  There seems to be a full range of low carb alternatives ranging from Atkins like to Rosedale(high fat), etc.  Thanks,

  • Stcrim

    6/24/2011 6:46:03 PM |

    When I first started following Dr. Davis and the TYP eating guidelines, I had a hard time giving up wheat - hell it's in everything!!!  Plus it's a hard addiction to break.  

    Now that I'm wheat free thanks to Dr. Davis' recommendations you couldn't pay me any amount of money to go back.

    The debate over glucose vs. fructose is interesting but the only thing that's really important is how I feel.

    -s-

  • nightrite

    6/25/2011 1:34:53 PM |

    I used to be a wheat addict but no anymore.  I've had one wheat product in the last 6 months and since then have lost 30 pounds.  I've done nothing different in my diet or exercise program - just ditched the wheat.  The weight dropped off easily.  Dr. Davis rocks!!!

  • lucky Angel

    6/25/2011 8:39:45 PM |

    That is messed up
    fresh apples are better for children.  All of us.  Everyone.

    But, raisins are a better alternative to candy/packedged/processed food...even organic.  or hydroponic.  I say kids.  Eat the apple.

  • Marianne

    6/26/2011 1:14:45 AM |

    I stumbled across this blog quite a while ago and remain a casual reader of it.  What attracted my attention is how eliminating wheat was what I needed to do to get rid of my belly.  I have been sorely disappointed!  I am a 60 yo female, 5'7", weigh 132, small frame, have always been thin but started gaining weight around midsection in my 50s.  One year ago I gave up my daily glass of wine, and 8 months ago eliminated wheat from my diet.  That was hard!  I agree that I feel better and the hunger is not as intense, but I have long zero weight.  I walk briskly, as briskly as my bad knees allow (former jogger) every morning.  I eat fruit, yogurt and nuts for breakfast, a bowl of raw veggies for lunch (no dressing) and some protein and more veggies for dinner.  Will I ever lose this 5 to 7 pounds around my middle?  Thank you for letting me vent!

  • Lori

    6/26/2011 4:29:51 PM |

    Marianne, you're still running on carbs instead of dietary fat. Most fruit and yogurt and sugar bombs. And without dressing or other fat, you won't absorb the vitamins A, D, E or K in your vegetables. Eliminating wheat is great--and I admire your dedication--but I don't see much fat or protein in your diet. Try adding a boiled egg or two and some dressing to your salad for lunch, some fatty fish or other fatty meat and buttered veg for dinner, and leftovers for breakfast. Give it a two-week trial.

  • Joe

    6/26/2011 4:54:58 PM |

    I agree with Lori...not enough fat and protein, too many carbs.

    You might enjoy reading Dr.(s) Eades book, "The 6 Week Cure For The Middle Aged Middle."  You should be able to get rid of those 5-7 pounds in a couple of weeks.  At your age, it may be mostly visceral fat, not subcutaneous fat, and visceral fat is far more worrisome to your overall health because it's connected to inflammation.

    Joe

  • Lori

    6/26/2011 6:47:41 PM |

    Another thing: various studies and a lot of anecdotal evidence have shown that aerobic exercise is ineffective for losing weight. IME, it's just as overrated for weight loss as whole grains are for health. Weight training is better for improving your physique and possibly improving insulin resistance. The Eadeses also wrote a book, along with Fred Hahn, called Slow Burn; Dr. Davis has some posts on this.

  • majkinetor

    6/27/2011 11:03:46 AM |

    That doesn't give us any information about metabolic effects of the food.

  • majkinetor

    6/27/2011 11:10:03 AM |

    Don't eat fruit.  Use some caffeine creme.  Have a cheat day.
    When things get confusing, you have to log everything - you will be surprised, thats for sure.

  • majkinetor

    6/27/2011 11:15:18 AM |

    Yes, that seems to be truth. I would go for high intensity training as fast twitch muscles drain glucose much faster then slow twitch muscle, plus, its much more doable given the modern time constraints.

    There is a problem tho  - high probability for injury, with any type of exercise. Injury equals to even more sedentary life then before exercise.

    In Marrianes case, I guess, however, that lots of effort needs to be devoted to solving menopausal hormonal disturbances which promote weight gain. This is, to my knowledge done with concentrating to food quality rather then quantity.  Supplementation is essential.

  • Joe

    6/27/2011 5:05:11 PM |

    Lori, I don't think even weight training will rid her of her "middle-aged middle." Only a proper diet can do that (and pretty quickly, too), especially if it's all visceral fat, as is likely.

    Weight training will give her a stronger mid-section, of course, but it'll mostly remain hidden under the fat.

    Joe

  • Lori

    6/27/2011 5:57:30 PM |

    Agreed--weight training won't get rid of fat, but it'll make you generally firmer.

    One thing I really like about Fred Hahn's weight training method is that it's easy on the joints. In the doorknob squats, for instance, your feet are a little in front of your knees and you hold a door knob for support, making for a challenging exercise that doesn't hurt your knees.

  • Joe

    6/27/2011 7:33:56 PM |

    Still, I don't think she could do enough ab work to get rid of her "middle-aged middle," which she claims is her remaining objective.

    That's going to require a special diet, like the one the Eades recommend, for example.

    By the way, the best ab workout, in my opinion, is sprinting. Spend a little less time walking or jogging, and a little more time sprinting (provided you're already in relatively good shape). I'm about to enter my 8th decade, and I'm still sprinting.

    Works for me.

    Joe

  • jpatti

    7/9/2011 6:46:40 AM |

    I disagree that wheat is worse than sugar, generally.  

    Sure it's worse for celiacs, and others with gluten intolerance.  And sure it will raise worse than the equal "net carbs" of sugar since starch is a glucose polymer.

    But sugar is half fructose which is a LOT of fructose.  And fructose is very bad for fatty liver, for diabetes, for triglycerdies, for adiposity, for everything...

    On the other hand, this is sort of like arguing whether arsenic or cyanide is worse... doesn't really matter.

  • Dr. William Davis

    7/9/2011 2:41:02 PM |

    Hi, Jpatti--

    This is a confusing issue. It is the reason why I wrote Wheat Belly that will be hitting bookstore shelves in early September, 2011.

    I believe that, once you hear the entire rationale, you will agree that, not only is wheat worse than sugar, it is the most incredibly bad thing ever created by modern genetics and agribusiness and is responsible for more disease and suffering than any war ever waged.

  • Joe Lindley

    7/26/2011 6:19:16 PM |

    I'm looking forward to your book.  I had heavy whole wheat bread (plus butter and jam) for breakfast for years thinking I was being health conscious (mostly because it was fibrous enough that I didn't snack till lunch).   How wrong I was!  Now that I've gotten educated on the metabolism of carbohydrates plus the dangers in wheat, I realize how unhealthy that was.

Add comment

Loading

And you thought gasoline was expensive

2. June 2009 William Davis (5)
In 1995, the Palmaz coronary stent was introduced, the brainchild of Drs. Julio Palmaz and Richard Schatz. Medical device manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, priced the device at $2500 per stent.

Let's put this into perspective: At just 0.05 grams per 15 millimeter stent, that put the price of the common stainless steel used to manufacture the stent at $22,650,000 per pound.

Only after several competing stents finally made it to market did J&J reduce its price to its bargain price of $1200, or $10,872,000 per pound. And to think that most of us were shocked to find out that the U.S. military paid $200 for a hammer.

Since 1995, a competitive market for stents has developed, pushing prices down. Now, you can purchase a brand-new coronary stent for as little as $4,000,000 per pound.

Medical device manufacturers have been guilty of a degree of greed that would make many Wall Street bankers blush. That's why I call medical devices "the industry of infinite markups."

"Hey buddy, wanna buy some exorphins?"

31. May 2009 William Davis (18)
Dr. Christine Zioudrou and colleagues at the National Institutes of Mental Health got this conversation going back in 1979 with their paper, Opioid peptides derived from food proteins: The exorphins.

Exorphins are exogenously-derived peptides (i.e., short amino acid sequences obtained from outside the body) that exert morphine-like properties. Mimicking the digestive process that occurs in the gastrointestinal tract using the gastric enzyme, pepsin, and hydrochloric acid (stomach acid), Zioudrou et al isolated peptides from wheat gluten with morphine-like activity. They followed this research path because of the apparent association of wheat and mental illness.

In the bioassays used, wheat-derived exorphins competed successfully with the endogenous opiate, met-enkephalin. Interestingly, casein-derived (i.e., casein milk protein) exorphins were also identified that also displayed opiate-binding activity, though less powerfully. The morphine-like activity was also blocked by the drug, naloxone (the same stuff given to people exposed to morphine overdose).

Among the many devastating effects of celiac disease , the immune disease that develops from wheat gluten exposure, are mental and emotional effects, such as anxiety, fatigue, mental "fog," depression, bipolar illness, and schizophrenia, that disappear with removal of gluten. Many parents of autistic children also advocate wheat-free diets for similar reasons.

Among the many wonderful comments posted on the last Heart Scan Blog post, "I can't do it," was Anne's:

I am not the Anne in your post, but I was addicted to wheat. It was my favorite food. I lived on and for breads. Then I discovered I was gluten sensitive and I did go through a withdrawal of about 4 days. After 4 days I noticed my health problems were disappearing. Depression, brain fog and joint pain are 3 of the many symptoms that disappeared. That was 6 yrs ago.

Tell Anne that I had dreams about bread in the beginning - they will pass. Now the donuts, breads, cookies and cakes in the stores and at work don't even look good. In fact, I don't like the smell of bread anymore. It takes time, but the cravings do pass.


Combine wheat"s exorphin-driven addictive potential with its flagrant blood sugar-increasing properties, and you have a formula that:

1) makes you fat
2) increases likelihood of diabetes, and
3) makes you want to keep on doing it.

Reminds me of nicotine.

My personal view: I have absolutely no remaining doubt that wheat products have no place in the human diet. Not only does the research provide a plausible basis for its adverse health effects, but having asked hundreds of people to remove it from their habits has yielded consistent and remarkable health benefits. Just read the reader comments here and here.

"I can't do it"

30. May 2009 William Davis (20)
Anne sat across from me, bent over and sobbing.

"I can't do it. I just can't do it! I cut out the breads and pasta for two days, then I start dreaming about it!

"And my husband is no help. He knows I'm trying to get off the wheat. But then he brings home a bunch of Danish or something. He knows I can't help myself!"

Having asked hundreds of people to completely remove wheat from their diet, I witness 30% of them go through such emotional and physical turmoil, not uncommonly to the point of tears. For about 10-20% of people who try, it is as hard as quitting cigarettes.

Make no mistake about it: For many people, wheat is addictive. It meets all the criteria for an addictive product: People crave it, consuming it creates a desire for more, lacking it triggers a withdrawal phenomenon. If wheat were illegal, there would surely be an active underground trafficking illicit bagels and pretzels.

Withdrawal consists of fatigue and mental fogginess that usually lasts 5-7 days. Just like quitting smoking, wheat withdrawal is harmless but no less profound in severity.

People who lack an addictive relationship with wheat usually have no idea what I'm talking about. To them, wheat is simply a grain, no different than oats.

But wheat addicts immediately know who they are. They are the ones who can't resist the warm dinner rolls served at the Italian restaurant, need to include something made of wheat at every meal, and crave it every 2 hours (matching the cycle of blood sugar peaks and valleys, the "valley" triggering the craving). When they stop the flow of immediately-released glucose that comes from wheat (with blood sugar peaks that occur higher and faster than table sugar), irresistible cravings kick in. Then watch out: They'll bite your hand off if you reach for that roll before they do.

Break the cycle and the body is confused: Where's the sugar? The body is accustomed to receiving a constant flow of easily-digested sugars.

Once the constant influx of sugars ceases, it takes 5-7 days for metabolism to shift towards fat mobilization as a source of energy. But along with fat mobilization comes a shrinking tummy, reducing the characteristic wheat belly.

If you try to quit smoking, you've got "crutches" like nicotine patches and gum, Zyban, Chantix, hypnosis, and group therapy sessions. If you try and quit wheat, what have you got? Nothing, to my knowledge. Nothing but sheer will power to divorce yourself from this enormously destructive, diabetes-causing, small LDL-increasing, inflammation-provoking, and addictive substance.

Spontaneous combustion, vampires, and goitrogens

26. May 2009 William Davis (17)
What do the following have in common:

Lima beans
Flaxseed
Broccoli
Cabbage
Kale
Soy
Millet
Sorghum?

They are all classified as goitrogens, or foods that have been shown to trigger goiter, or thyroid gland enlargement. Most of them do this either by blocking iodine uptake in the thyroid gland or by blocking the enzyme, thyroid peroxidase. This effect can lead to reduction in thyroid hormone output by the thyroid gland, which then triggers increased thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) by the pituitary; increased TSH acts as a growth factor on the thyroid, thus goiter.

Add to this list of goitrogens the flavonoid, quercertin, found in abundance in red wine, grapes, apples, capers, tomatoes, cherries, raspberries, teas, and onions. Most of us obtain around 30 mg per day from our diet. Quercetin, often touted as a healthy flavonoid alongside resveratrol (e.g., Yang JY et al 2008), has been shown to be associated with reduced risk for heart disease and cancer. Many people even take quercetin as a nutritional supplement.

Quercetin has also been identified as a goitrogen (Giuliani C et al 2008).

What to make of all this?

Most of these observations have been made in in vitro ("test tube") preparations or in mice. Rabbits who consume a cabbage-only diet can develop goiter.

How about humans? The few trials conducted in humans have shown little or no effect. In most instances, the adverse effects of goitrogens have been eliminated with supplemental iodine. In other words, goitrogens seem to exert their ill thyroid effects when iodine deficiency is present. Restore iodine . . . no more goitrogens (with rare exceptions).

Should we as humans adopt a diet that avoids apples, grapes, tomatoes, red wine, tea, onions, soy etc. on the small chance that we will develop goiter?

I believe that we should avoid these common food-sourced goitrogens with as much enthusiasm as we should be worried about spontaneous combustion of humans or the appearance of vampires on our front porches. We are as likely to suffer low thyroid activity from quercetin or other "goitrogens" as we are to experience the "mitochondrial explosions" that are purported to set innocent people afire.

Magnesium and you-Part II

25. May 2009 William Davis (17)
Blood magnesium levels are a poor barometer for true body (intracellular) magnesium.

Only 1% of the body’s magnesium is in the blood, the remaining 99% stored in various body tissues, particularly bone and muscle. If blood magnesium is low, cellular magnesium levels are indeed low—very low.

If blood magnesium is normal, cellular or tissue levels of magnesium may still be low. Unfortunately, tissue magnesium levels are not easy to obtain in living, breathing humans. In all practicality, a blood magnesium test only helps if it’s low, while normal levels don’t necessarily mean anything and may provide false reassurance.

Short of performing a biopsy to measure tissue magnesium levels, several signs provide a tip-off that magnesium may be low:

• Heart arrhythmias—Having any sort of heart rhythm disorder should cause you to question whether magnesium levels in your body are adequate, since low magnesium levels trigger abnormal heart rhythms. In fact, in the hospital we give intravenous magnesium to quiet down abnormal rhythms.
• Low potassium— Low magnesium commonly accompanies low potassium. Potassium is another electrolyte depleted by diuretic use and is commonly deficient in many conditions (e.g., excessive alcohol use, hypertension, loss from malabsorption or diarrhea). Like magnesium, potassium may not be fully replenished by modern diets.
• Muscle cramps— Magnesium regulates muscle contraction. Leg cramps, or “charlie-horses”, painful vise-like cramps in calves, fingers, or other muscles, are a common symptom of magnesium deficiency. (Leg cramps that occur with physical activity, such as walking, are usually due to atherosclerotic blockages in the leg or abdominal arteries, not low magnesium.)
• Migraine headaches—Reflective of magnesium’s role in regulating blood vessel tone, low magnesium can trigger vascular spasm in the blood vessels of the brain. In some emergency rooms, they will actually administer intravenous magnesium to break a migraine.
• Metabolic syndrome—Magnesium plays a fundamental role in regulating insulin responses. Metabolic syndrome (low HDL, high triglycerides, small LDL, high blood pressure, increased blood sugar, excessive abdominal fat, etc.) is triggered by insulin responses gone awry and is clearly linked to low magnesium levels.

The absence of any of these tell-tale signs does not necessarily mean that tissue levels of magnesium are normal.

Then how do you really know? There really is no easy, available method to gauge body magnesium. As a practical solution, we therefore have aimed for maintaining serum levels of >2.1 mg/dl or RBC magnesium (a surrogate for tissue levels) of >6.0 mg/dl. (Going too high is not good either, so occasional monitoring really helps. However, I've only seen this once in a psychotic woman who drank ungodly amounts of magnesium-containing antacids for no apparent reason; she almost ended up on a respirator due to respiratory suppression by the magnesium level of 11 mg/dl!)

In all practicality, because of magnesium’s crucial role in health, its widespread deficiency in Americans, and the growing depletion of magnesium in water, supplemental magnesium is necessary for nearly everyone to ensure healthy levels.

More on magnesium to come.

Lethal Lipids II

22. May 2009 William Davis (7)
I call the combination of low HDL, small LDL, and lipoprotein(a) "lethal lipids," since the trio is an exceptionally potent predictor for heart disease. Uncorrected, the combination is a virtual guarantee of heart disease.

Ed is a perfect example of someone who came to my office recently with this pattern. His starting values:

HDL: 34 mg/dl

Small LDL: 78% of total LDL
NMR: Small LDL 1655 nmol/L; total LDL particle number 2122 nmol/L)

Lipoprotein(a): 205 nmol/L


The atherogenicity, or plaque-causing potential, of this pattern was reflected in Ed's heart scan score of 2133.

You can readily see that, of this combination, only HDL cholesterol would be adequately identified through conventional lipid testing. Small LDL and lipoprotein(a) need to be specifically measured via lipoprotein testing.

And, contrary to the drug industry's "statin drugs for everybody" motto, this pattern, while improved with statin therapy, is not shut off.

Specific correction of each abnormality is required. For instance, niacin addresses all three: increases HDL, reduces small LDL, and (usually) reduces lipoprotein(a). A standard low-fat diet makes this pattern worse by reducing HDL, increasing small LDL, and (usually) increasing lipoprotein(a).

"You've got 10 minutes"

20. May 2009 William Davis (0)
There's a new trend in office healthcare in Milwaukee: Time-restricted office visits.



I'm told by several physicians who are employed by a major healthcare system here in town that they are peridically watched--physically watched by an administrator--to make sure that they do not exceed the allotted 10 minutes of time. My cardiologist colleagues, I gather, were at first incredulous at such intrusions into their practices, but apparently had no choice: They were employees.



Goiter, goiter everywhere

20. May 2009 William Davis (25)
The results of the recent Heart Scan Blog poll are in.

The question:

Do you used iodized salt?

The responses:

Yes, I use iodized salt every day
94 (28%)

Yes, I use iodized salt occasionally
56 (16%)

No, I do not use any iodized salt
41 (12%)

No, I use a non-iodized salt (sea salt, Kosher)
126 (37%)

No, I use a non- or low-sodium substitute
15 (4%)


Thanks for your responses.

If only 28% of people are regular users of iodized salt, that means that the remainder--72%--are at risk for iodine deficiency if they are not getting iodine from an alternative source, such as a multivitamin or multimineral.

Even the occasional users of salt can be at risk. The common perception is that occasional use is probably sufficient to provide iodine. This is probably not true and not just because of the lower quantity of ingestion. Occasional users of salt tend to have their salt canister on the shelf for extended periods. The iodine is then lost, since iodine is volatile. In fact, iodine is virtually undetectable four weeks after a package is opened.

In my office, now that I'm looking for them much more systematically and carefully, I am finding about 2 people with goiters every day. They are not the obvious grotesque goiters of the early 20th century (when quack therapies like the last post, the Golden Medical Discovery, were popular). The goiters I am detecting are small and spongy. Yesterday alone I found 5 people with goiters, one of them visible to the eye and very distressing to the patient.

It seems to me that iodine deficiency is more prevalent than I ever thought. It is also something that is so simple to remedy, though not by increasing salt intake. Kelp tablets--cheap, available--have been working quite well in the office population. My sense is that the Recommended Daily Allowance of 150 mcg per day for adults is low and that many benefit from greater quantities, e.g., 500 mcg. What is is the ideal dose? To my knowledge, nobody has yet generated that data.

Thyroid issues being relatively new to my thinking, I now find it incredible that endocrinologists and the American Thyroid Association are not broadcasting this problem at the top of their lungs. This issue needs to be brought to the top of everyone's attention, or else we'll have history repeating itself and have goiters and thyroid dysfunction galore.

For more on this topic, see the previous Heart Scan Blog post, "Help keep your family goiter free."

Goiter and the Golden Medical Discovery

17. May 2009 William Davis (19)

Thick neck, or goitre . . . consists of an enlargement of the thyroid gland, which lies over and on each side of the trachea, or windpipe, between the prominence known as "Adam's apple" and the breast bone. The tumor gradually increases in front and laterally, until it produces great deformity, and often interferes with respiration and the act of swallowing. From its pressure on the great blood vessels running to and from the head, there is a constant liability to engorgement of blood in the brain, and to apoplexy, epilepsy, etc.

The causes of the affection are not well understood. The use of snow water, or water impregnated with some particular saline or calcareous matter, has been assigned as a cause. It has also been attributed to the use of water in which there is not a trace of iron, iodine, or bromine. . . The disease is often due to an impeded circulation in the large veins of the neck, from pressure of the clothing, or from the head being bent forward, a position which is often seen in school children.


Treatment

We have obtained excellent results in many cases, not too far advanced, by a method of treatment which consists in the employment of electrolysis. . . Many cases at the present time are operated upon with entire success.

Those who are afflicted with this disease and unable to avail themselves of special treatment cannot do better than to take Doctor Pierce's Alterative Extract, or Golden Medical Discovery, and apply over the skin around the tumor, night and morning, the following, which may be prepared at any drug store:

Resublimed Iodine--One dram
Iodide of Potassium--Four drams
Soft Water--Three ounces 


Apply to the tumor, twice daily, with feather or camel hair pencil.


From The People's Common Sense Medical Adviser by R.V. Pierce, MD; 1918.

Magnesium and you-Part I

15. May 2009 William Davis (11)
If this were 10,000 B.C., you'd get your drinking water from streams, rivers, and lakes, all rich in mineral content. Humans became reliant on obtaining a considerable proportion of daily mineral needs from natural water sources.

21st century: We obtain drinking water from a spigot or plastic bottle. Pesticides and other chemicals seep into the water supply. Municipal water purification facilities have intensified water purification in most communities to remove contaminants like lead, pesticide residues, and nitrates. (For a really neat listing of the water quality of various cities, the University of Cincinnati makes this data available.)

But intensive water treatment also removes minerals like calcium and magnesium.

Many people have added water filters or purifiers to their homes,, like reverse osmosis and distillation, that are efficient at extracting any remaining minerals, converting “hard” into “soft” water. In fact, manufacturers of such devices boast of their power to yield pure water free of any “contaminant,” minerals like magnesium included. The magnesium content of water after passing through most commercial filters is zero.

Modern enthusiasm for bottled water has compounded the problem. Americans consumed a lot of bottled water, nearly 8 billion gallons last year. In the U.S., nearly all bottled water has little or no magnesium.

The result is that we can no longer rely on drinking water to provide magnesium. The Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA)—the amount required to prevent severe deficiency—for magnesium is 420 mg per day for men, 320 mg/day for women. In cities with the highest magnesium water content, only 30% of the RDA can be obtained by drinking two liters of tap water per day. In most cities, only a meager 10–20% of the daily requirement can be obtained. That leaves between 70–90% that needs to come from other sources. As a result, the average American ingests substantially less than the RDA.