Do you eat wheat? I thought so.

2. September 2011 William Davis (85)
I'm itching to say that face-to-face to anyone from the wheat industry--agribusiness, baking, retail distribution . . . anybody. Because it's obvious; it's written on the face . . . and belly, and brain, and knees, and hips. And I believe I will soon have the opportunity.

Taking such a controversial stand in my new book, Wheat Belly, i.e., that wheat products, whole or refined, have NO ROLE IN THE HUMAN DIET whatsoever, was bound to provoke criticism and counterattacks. The wheat world has already taken a blow to the chin with the growing popularity of the (misguided) gluten-free movement and they're going to have to get into the business of media damage control.

Take a look at this press release from the Grain Foods Foundation:

RIDGWAY, COLO. — The Grain Foods Foundation has unveiled plans to counter media publicity attracted by “Wheat Belly.”

“Mullen, working with key members of the Grain Foods Foundation’s scientific advisory board, is addressing ‘Wheat Belly’ through proactive media outreach and its ongoing rapid response program,” said Ashley Reynolds, a Mullen account executive. “In particular, the public relations team will be contacting health and nutrition reporters at print and on-line media outlets, as well as editors at major women’s magazines to influence any diet-related stories that may be published in the coming months.”

. . . Ms. Reynolds, a registered dietitian, noted the author relies on anecdotal observations rather than scientific studies; wheat elimination “means missing out on a wealth of essential nutrients;” six servings of grain-based foods are recommended daily in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans; healthy weight loss depends on energy balance rather than elimination of specific foods; and elimination of wheat products makes sense only for those with medical diagnoses such as celiac disease or gluten sensitivity.

She said the group will lean on its scientific advisory board members to “discredit the book and ensure our messages are backed by sound science. “

Here's some of their starting salvos on their Six Servings Blog.

This reminds me of the fight with Big Tobacco in the '70s: "No, sir, we in the tobacco industry know of no research demonstrating that smoking is bad for health," complete with shots of tobacco executives puffing away on cigarettes.

So brace yourself for a fight. These people are protecting a multi-billion dollar franchise, not to mention their livelihoods and incomes. It could get ugly.
Tags :

Comments (85) -

  • Peter Silverman

    9/2/2011 3:32:14 PM |

    I don't eat wheat, at your suggestion.  But while it's clear to me that processed foods are a huge health problem, it's not clear to me if the biggest problem is wheat, or sugar, or processed meat, or processed vegetable oils, or some other problem due to factory food production.  It does seem like cultures with traditional diets are better off before they start eating American processed foods, but I don't know of any research that pinpoints the problem.

  • Linda

    9/2/2011 3:57:05 PM |

    @Peter
    Good point, however, I feel that if a person DOES give up all wheat products and then sees/feels a dramatic change in their body or the control of a particular disease or just a feeling of improved over-all well being, then something is definitely going on.

    The older I get, the less confidence I have in either the majority of physicians I see or in the advice/guidelines from my government.

  • Amy

    9/2/2011 4:23:17 PM |

    This reaction just means you're onto something important.  Keep fighting the good fight!  Loved your interview on The Paleo Solution this week.  I ordered your book and can't wait to read it.

  • Melissa

    9/2/2011 4:37:46 PM |

    On the Six Servings blog they write, "Cutting out one specific food is not only unrealistic, it’s dangerous. Omitting wheat entirely removes the essential (and disease-fighting!) nutrients it provides including fiber, antioxidants, iron and B vitamins."

    . . . um, yeah . . . because you can't get fiber, antioxidants, iron or B vitamins *anywhere* else. How uninformed do they think people are?

  • Chowstalker

    9/2/2011 4:52:35 PM |

    Dr. Davis, I'm really curious, what do you mean by the "misguided" gluten-free movement?

  • Mike

    9/2/2011 5:09:08 PM |

    I am looking forward to reading your book and adding it to my growing health-related library of books. I just visited that blog you referenced and here is something they stated,
    “Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the gold standard of scientifically-sound nutritional advice…”

    That is laughable...if it wasn't so scary when you think about it's implications.
    Keep up the good work!

  • Patty Amidon

    9/2/2011 5:09:15 PM |

    I received my copy of  "Wheat Belly"  yesterday. It is even better than I expected Dr. Davis. Very readable and amusing too. You have really started a fire storm and you have alot of people behind you including me!

  • Tyler

    9/2/2011 5:10:07 PM |

    I am doubting this comment will make it past the moderation on the SixServings.org website, but here is what I posted (all of which I believe is absolutely true):

    I haven’t read Wheat Belly, but this quote strikes me as odd:

    “Omitting wheat entirely removes the essential (and disease-fighting!) nutrients it provides including fiber, antioxidants, iron and B vitamins.”

    What about the lectins, phytates, gluten, and blood-sugar elevation?

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but can’t you simply get more fiber, more antioxidants, more iron, and more B vitamins (amongst others) from fruits and veggies? Without them being fortified and bound up with the anti-nutritious phytates in our digestive system?

  • Daren

    9/2/2011 5:10:53 PM |

    Chow -- Dr. Davis has talked a lot about most "gluten-free" foods are almost as bad as wheat.  In other words, the replacement grains they use to make "gluten-free" baked products (pizza, bread, cereal, etc.) are just not good for you.  Of course, if you just stick to whole foods - fruit, veggies, nuts, meat - primarily found in the outer supermarket aisles, you can be gluten free and healthy.
    I also loved the assertion that cutting classes of food is "unrealistic."  Huh?  it is very easy to do, provided you want to.  I quit cold turkey on a dime last year after following the Paleo movement (primarily Art Devaney) and once I noticed how much better I felt -- especially with no wheat and grains -- I was motivated to continue to quit.  I don't feel "cheated" or "deprived".  I feel liberated.  Keep up the great work, Dr. Davis.

  • Dave, RN

    9/2/2011 5:27:25 PM |

    Yup. Next door neighbor works for one of the largest bakeries in the US here in Fort Worth Texas.  And yes, it shows.

  • Dave, RN

    9/2/2011 5:43:25 PM |

    I'll bet my comment on their website doesn't make it either. Funny how their post was days ago yet there are no comments. I wonder how many they've removed? All of them... either that or people aren't jumping in to sing the praises of grains.

  • fredt

    9/2/2011 5:59:22 PM |

    If there was no evidence, the grain lobby would be in a legal process to shut you down, not a media process of discrediting. Keep up the fine work.

    No sugar, no grain, no omega 6 oil.

  • Chowstalker

    9/2/2011 6:10:29 PM |

    Thanks Daren, I thought that might be it, but wasn't quite sure.

  • Princess Dieter

    9/2/2011 6:12:23 PM |

    I put a review up as fast as I could at Amazon, convinced 3 folks already (they bought the book). Last night my sister calls me that she read about Wheat Belly in Woman's World and is gonna try the wheat free thing to see how she feels, as she looked back at her life and realized whenever she gave up bread, she felt BETTER. (This after weeks of me pleading with her to try gluten free, as she and my other sister both have lupus, I have Hashimoto's and asthma/allergies, and our family is riddled with auto-immune stuff. She'd been tested "allergic" to wheat ages ago.) So, hopefully, the message really branches out. I just want my family to get better. As the third of three sisters, two with lupus, and a mom dead from auto-immune aplastic anemia, and a niece sans hair with alopecia, if we can tame the autoimmune beast, we'd do ourselves a huge service.

    Thanks for the good word.

  • cancerclasses

    9/2/2011 6:14:28 PM |

    @Tyler @Melissa,  Fruits and vegetables aren't much better than grains for mineral bioavailability again because they are locked up by phytates, and vitamin content of fruits & vegies is lower today than 50 years ago because of the nutrient depleted soils they are grown in.

    Just Google 'Phytates are Mineral Magnets', here's a cut & paste:    "Iron and other minerals required for cellular respiration aren’t usable by humans if they are ingested in plant or vegetable foods, because plants contain phytates. Phytates biochemically lock up the minerals with the plant fiber, rendering them unusable. This makes minerals, as well as the fiber, UNUSABLE BY HUMAN cells. That’s why it was shown, and reported in the “Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2000,71:446-471,” that WOMEN EATING THE MOST FIBER AND THE LOWEST AMOUNT OF FAT HAD 20% LOWER CALCIUM RETENTION.

    Eating meat did NOTHING to increase colon cancer risk. Yet this shocking result hasn’t been reported in the popular press. “Fiber fiction” has run rampant in America for many years.

    An exceptional article was written for the general public in 1997 by “Albion Research Notes – A Compilation of Vital Research Updates on Human Nutrition”, Albion Laboratories, Clearfield, UT (Vo.. 6, No. 2, June 1997). Here is what it said:

    “Natural sources of fiber, such as cereals and fruits, generally have a DEPRESSING EFFECT on absorption of minerals such as calcium, iron, zinc, and copper.” Imagine taking mineral supplements and still going into a negative balance for the very minerals that are being supplemented! Too few of us saw this important paper.

    Minerals can’t be separated from the fiber in human digestion so, because you aren’t a cow with four stomachs designed to accomplish that difficult task, you can’t make effective use of the minerals in plants. “Consumer Reports on Health” reported on this – in fact, the magazine actually published the statement that eating spinach was worthless for obtaining necessary iron. It’s “in there” but not usable for a human being.

    We keep getting misled with what sounds good, but isn’t based on science.

    Phytates TAKE OUT MINERALS (the respiratory co-enzymes Dr. Warburg speaks of) – JUST THE OPPOSITE of what we desire and require to avoid contracting cancer.

    Think of fiber as bad “mineral magnets”, removing the precious minerals from your body and inhibiting oxygen transfer through the blood, whereas Essential Fatty Acids  are the good “oxygen magnets” helping bring an abundance of needed oxygen into your cells."

  • Dave, RN

    9/2/2011 7:01:21 PM |

    Huh, that's funny. All my comments on the sixservings grain website got deleted. Must be a technical glitch.

  • Rob K

    9/2/2011 7:11:55 PM |

    It's called "Reasoned Discourseâ„¢". It's what happens when organizations make claims on their blog, and the other side shows up with overwhelming logic and scientific evidence that pounds them into the ground. It's pretty obviously broken out there.

  • cancerclasses

    9/2/2011 7:30:23 PM |

    @Peter Silverman;  There's plenty of research out there if you know how to look for it or if you have  sources you can trust to give you the real truth and scientifically solid references.  

    Also you must realize that the term "biggest problem" is relative to time and degree of disease progression, in other words it depends on how fast and how bad you want to get sick or suffer the effects of an industrial foods diet.  For my money the "food" that is the biggest problem in having the most immediate negative effect on humans is the nutrient depleted & stripped white flour used in ALL processed "foods" that is known to cause severe dental decay and physical degeneration and under development as was clearly established by Weston Price in his 1938 book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration."  To see the entire book for free just google 'nutrition and physical degeneration online', it's the first result, and at least look at the pictures and read the captions to see how the effects of processed "foods" can be seen with the outcome of just the next pregnancy!  Both wheat flours and sugars are carbs, and as ALL carbs reduce to glucose molecules they are essentially one and the same, which is why a diet high in just breads even from the much lauded whole grains can quickly rot your teeth.  In the section about the Arctic Inuit in his book, Weston Price details how the Inuit eating their native diet would go their entire lives and only get maybe one or two dental cavities, and their teeth would eventually repair themselves and get even harder as the people got older.  

    As bad as the almost immediate physical degeneration effects of industrial flours are, the other "biggest problem" has to be the toxic, adulterated, pre-oxidized trans molecule fats in partial & fully hydrogenated vegetable oils that are KNOWN to be a direct cause of cancer and arterial plaque formation.  Can't find it now but I once saw a chart somewhere overlaying the use of trans fat vegetable oils & margarines with the incidence rates of cancer & heart disease since the introduction of the bad oils into processed "foods" around 1920 and the curves matched almost exactly.  The problem with industrial oils is that the latency period of cancer and heart disease progression due to trans fat intake is measured in decades, so people tend to not see the association of those diseases with those oils until they are shown the facts, such as the fact that at the turn of the century in 1900 when most people subsisted on a pre industrial  "farm style" diet of eggs, butter & whole milk & cream, cancer and heart disease affected only 3 percent of the population and obesity was only 5 percent (google 'margarine vs. butter newsflash' see the top hit).

    As for processed meats just google ' avoiding nitrates in foods is unnecessary', you'll see this:  "No one mentions that nitrate is naturally occurring in greens such as lettuce and spinach. The article, “Bad Rap for Nitrate: Infamous Preservative Maj Help Defend Against Bacteria,” by J.R. Minkel, Scientific American Biochemistry Section, September 2004, page 24, details that “they” were wrong again and sets the record straight. It was known in 1994, that the stomach contains lots of nitric oxide. Nitric oxide kills germ in the bloodstream. Therefore, it is obvious that nitrate is a helpful substance. Why this has taken ten years to be publicized is astounding, Here are some key points from the article:

    ” … [D]ietary nitrate is actually part of the body’s inherent defense against infection ….

    “Bacteria in the mouth convert nitrate to nitrite, which gets swallowed, so the stomach can naturally produce nitric oxide …. “

    ”’We’ve gone from considering all of these things to be toxic and carcinogenic to realizing that [nitrates are] playing a fundamental homeostatic role [safe and required, and NOT cancerous],’ says microbiologist Ferric Fang of the University of Washington.” (Emphasis added.)"

    Hope that answers your question and helps round out the nutritional picture.  Live long and prosper.

  • Renfrew

    9/2/2011 7:32:44 PM |

    "Wheat Belly" arrived today at my door (in Germany). Great reading and a real eye opener. I am distributing the message here as well and will loan the book to others. Would make a good candidate for translating into other languages. How about Nihongo?
    Renfrew

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/2/2011 7:55:08 PM |

    Thanks, Amy! Be sure to come back and share your impressions.

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/2/2011 7:56:22 PM |

    Hi, Chow--
    I was referring to the terrible practice of replacing wheat/gluten with cornstarch, rice starch, tapioca starch, and potato starch that make you diabetic, give you cataracts, arthritis, and heart disease. We should be eating wheat-free and low-carb.

  • Gary

    9/2/2011 8:08:05 PM |

    Dr. Davis, is it true that there are no sound scientific studies referenced in the book that support your case?

  • Steve Brecher

    9/2/2011 8:17:09 PM |

    I haven't looked at the book, but I have the same question.

    I've been a subscriber to this blog for a while, and I recall when Dr. Davis solicited reader experiences, along the lines of, "if you stopped eating wheat and it helped your health let me know!" I don't recall any solicitations along the the lines of, "if you stopped eating wheat and nothing happened, let me know!"  In sum, I suspect that the grains marketing group's criticism of the book's advice being based on anecdotal evidence may be substantially correct.

    I should mention that for a variety of reasons, I don't eat wheat.

  • Don

    9/2/2011 10:11:34 PM |

    Are there studies to show the current version of wheat is safe? It would seem to me the burden is on the produce of a new food.

  • Don

    9/2/2011 10:12:38 PM |

    Make that "producer of a new food"

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    9/2/2011 11:03:07 PM |

    Hi cancerclasses,
    Maybe (?) you'd like last week's Oncogen journal's full "Dynamic epigenetic regulation of ... tumorigenesis" ,see  http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/vaop/
    current/full/onc2011383a.html

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/2/2011 11:43:16 PM |

    Hi, Don-

    Absolutely none. Of course, wheat lobby defending the status quo will quote the studies that say things like replacing white flour products with whole grains yields less diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and colon cancer--that is indeed true. What they fail to ask is what happens when you replace wheat products with NO wheat products? The products of "traditional breeding methods" have also been assumed to be safe for human consumption, essentially no questions asked.

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/2/2011 11:44:24 PM |

    Noted. However, Steve, I would reserve judgement until you read the book. It is not just a compilation of anecdotes; all the science is laid out as plain as day.

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/2/2011 11:46:41 PM |

    Hi, Gary--

    No, of course not. There are several hundred relevant references over 16 pages. And that was just a partial compilation of the literature already published.

  • Serge

    9/3/2011 12:09:46 AM |

    I think you need to package your book with Tom Naughton's "Fat Head" movie.  It could be the Fat Head/Wheat Belly combo!

    (Seriously.)

  • LINDA

    9/3/2011 12:30:17 AM |

    Dear Doctor Davis,
    I'm so glad that  you've published your book. I will be buying it for myself and others. Also,my library is waiting for it to come in, 5 people are waiting for it!.  I have a calcium score of 206. I HAVE HASHIMOTO THYROID and b 12 intrinsic factor problems,,,I HAVE ALSO HAD LYME DISEASE AND BABESIA A FEW YEARS AGO ,,I have been wheat (and grain -free) since 4/11 and I'm down to 130 pound (from 150) and with a thyroid problem.....this is amazing.  MY lipids have dropped significantly .  Thank you...I hope to contact your office to look at my NMR in the future....Linda

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    9/3/2011 1:29:21 AM |

    Wheat adherents are mostly orientated to a nutritional perspective; and so miss out on Doc's point that unique byproducts of wheat digestion affect the brain, irregardless of one's intestinal and/or metabolic response. His clinical results seem to indicate that some wheat digestion byproducts acting in the brain influence the gene BDNF (brain derived neuro-trophic factor) to either encode different proteins for expression &/or down-regulate the DNF total output; BDNF is inherently related to being overweight and obesity (but not "morbid" obesity).

    BDNF experimentally  injected into the cerebral ventricle affects circulating triglycerides,  the size of adipocytes and most importantly visceral fat mass ( see Doc's recent 27 Aug post "Good Fat Bad Fat" for orientation on non-nutritional relevance of visceral fat). When there is more BDNF produced the lower the blood glucose levels go and the more peripheral insulin sensitivity improves; as well as the less visceral fat there is. The mechanism whereby BDNF expression works is  apparently via a cortico-trophin releasing hormone (CRH)-urocotin-CRH R2 pathway in the hypo-thalamus PVN (para-ventricular nucleus). Nutritional needs on a fad diet isn't the same as practicing medicine; Doc elsewhere said no one diet is right for every person (nor all life long, I'd add).

  • Kurt

    9/3/2011 2:17:32 AM |

    My comment at sixservings.org has also not appeared.

  • Tracy

    9/3/2011 2:52:59 AM |

    Dr. Davis,  What do you think of The Esselstyn diet?  They are making some of the same claims you are but with a different diet with about the only thing the same is to eat lots of fresh vegetables.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    9/3/2011 3:17:20 AM |

    2 days ago in  "Adipose Tissue Dysregulation in Patients with Metabolic Syndrome" from Sept.  Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism lead author ( I. Jialal, 34 years in endocrinology , quote) " ... some body fat may actually be toxic. .. dysfunction in the fat of people with metabolic syndrome is more than can be explained by obesity. " Report shows when fat cells outgrow their supply of blood those cells have macrophage crusts crowning them; the macrophage inflammation has cardiovascular implications. Team previously found those with metabolic syndrome visceral fat have less endothelial progenitor cells to preserve blood vessel lining functional integrity.

  • Chuck

    9/3/2011 3:25:21 AM |

    I like how Ashley at SixServings.org infers in her statement that being a vegan or vegetarian in "not only unrealistic, but dangerous." And she's their crack PR person - what a joke. Wheat Brain!

  • Helen

    9/3/2011 3:38:06 AM |

    I so need to get your book.  I test positive for the DNA that leads to Celiac disease and was diagnosed with IBS (before I went low-carb, now I'm symptom-free).

    My only concern is my kids.  They have my genes, LOL.  Is there a resource for feeding them properly so they're not getting wheat, or spelt, but still get to eat "bready" style things?  Basically I guess I mean a cookbook.

  • pam

    9/3/2011 4:17:01 AM |

    yes, this book deserved to be translated into multiple languages!
    am going to order one!
    my colleagues won't believe me that "wheat is evil" & causes "man boobs" & belly.

  • Steve L AU

    9/3/2011 5:06:23 AM |

    comments I just posted (awaiting moderation) at Six Sevings:


    No Comments
    Steve L says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    September 3, 2011 at 4:45 am
    So, cutting wheat is not a cure all for coeliac disease??

    Well, I have coeliac disease.

    Sure, there are other sources of gluten in western diets, but wheat is by far the most important source…by a country mile.

    So, maybe cutting wheat is not a cure all for coeliac disease, but it goes pretty damn close.

    Steve L AUS 20110903.14.45

    Reply
    Steve L says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    September 3, 2011 at 4:58 am
    …further to my comment (above) regarding the nonsense in this article about coeliac disease, let’s also consider the value of wheat (and other grains) for various nutrients.

    Look at nutrient density tables. Wheat is only a good/cheap source of energy/calories, especially if your government subsidises its production. Maybe fibre too, depending on how heavily its processed. As to other nutrients, its a pretty poor source compared to vegetables and meat (incl poultry and fish).

    This is without getting into more contentious issues such as whether wheat (and other grains) damage the gut of even non-coeliacs, causing leaky guy syndrome and possibly being involved in the pathogenesis of some autoimmune diseases….

    Then there is the high glycaemic load wheat provides in the diet, with metabolic consequences.

    Remember too that there is not unanimity amongst experts regarding official dietary guidelines: far from it. So, you can’t reasonably appeal to a consensus among experts.

    But leave that aside, and also the damage it does to coeliacs (I was VERY ill for 10 years because of wheat), wheat is a pretty poor source of nutrients apart from calories.

    Steve L Australia 20110902.1500

  • rhinoplasty

    9/3/2011 7:52:58 AM |

    It does seem like cultures with traditional diets are better off before they start eating American processed foods.
    These days people are becoming more and more health conscious as well conscious about their outer look. Skin care is part of healthy lifestyle.How do we ensure that we have all that we need to have a healthy living? This is a big question among everyone. We need proper nutrition and a fit and healthy body. Good Health is all that one craves for. Becoming healthier and fitter though not very difficult needs dedicated efforts.u can see some more suggestions on:

    rhinoplasty
    in this u will surely find out some important tips to be healthy.

  • Michia

    9/3/2011 10:20:56 AM |

    Challenge them on Twitter and Facebook. Ask them why they are not allowing comment on the Wheat Belly post.

  • Debbie B in MD

    9/3/2011 11:46:23 AM |

    What struck me from this post is the "concern" that those who do not eat wheat are missing out on essential nutrients, but there seems to be none of this concern for those who do not eat wheat because of celiac disease or gluten-intolerance. So does that mean that since I have celiac, I wouldn't "suffer" by eliminating that nutrious wheat? Eliminating that wonderful wheat has transformed me. I was constantly in pain, muscular and headaches, terrible heartburn, skin issues, etc. Eliminating that nutritious wheat has been amazing. I believe that everyone can take in all of the nutrients they need by eating the good stuff. I can't wait until my copy of "Wheat Belly" arrives. It will be on my 17 year od son's reading list too.

  • Debbie B in MD

    9/3/2011 11:49:18 AM |

    Sadly lots of people are that clueless.

  • Debbie B in MD

    9/3/2011 11:59:05 AM |

    Check out everydaypaleo.com. I don't know about wating "bready" things but that blog is all about getting the kids on board.

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/3/2011 1:42:14 PM |

    Hi, Debbie--

    Yes, a crucial point. Provided wheat calories are replaced with real foods like vegetables, nuts, avocados, cheese, eggs, etc., there is absolutely no deficiency that develops. Of course, Mary Q. Dietitian automatically assumes that you replace lost calories with Slurpies, Twinkies, and French fries--the default position being we're stupid.

    Be wheat-free, be healthy!

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/3/2011 1:42:38 PM |

    Yes, Michia. We should all do that and not let up!

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/3/2011 1:44:35 PM |

    Thank you, Steve. I find it incredible, also, that for every person who knows he/she has celiac disease, nine others don't know it.

    Keep on punching away!

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/3/2011 1:45:19 PM |

    Thanks, Pam. This is why I wrote Wheat Belly: to bring to light all that is ALREADY known about wheat and its relationship with human health.

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/3/2011 1:47:16 PM |

    Hi, Helen--

    The world is indeed a field of wheat landmines, especially for kids who eat at friends' houses, school cafeterias, etc. There's little to do except educate them and help them understand why they shouldn't eat the foods their friends are eating.

    Rodale has mentioned the possibility of a Wheat Belly Cookbook, but it's still pretty early, only 5 days after release of the book! So stay tuned . . .

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/3/2011 1:47:47 PM |

    Yes, indeed: impaired, foggy, wheat-added thinking!

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/3/2011 1:48:53 PM |

    Yes, Might: a crucial issue in understanding how visceral fat is bad, bad, bad, unlike the fat, say, on the arms or backside.

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/3/2011 1:52:02 PM |

    Hi, Tracy--

    A strict vegetarian low-fat diet can be better than an average American diet--minus fast food; junk food; hydrogenated fats; meats from warehouse-raised livestock given corn, hormones, and antibiotics--but it is far from an ideal diet. Esselstyn and Ornish, while they have great intentions, are beating a dead horse in this diet. This is the diet, by the way, that made me diabetic 20 years (yes, 20 years! that's how long they've been preaching this nonsense), made me gain 30 lbs, and gave me lipid distortions: HDL 27 mg/dl, triglycerides 350 mg/dl. It all reversed when I stopped following their advice.

  • Mike

    9/3/2011 5:04:58 PM |

    I just checked that blog you referenced and they didn't post my comment that questioned their approach...interesting.

  • Peter Silverman

    9/3/2011 7:10:37 PM |

    Since people eat clusters of foods rather than single foods (wheat, sugar, vegetable oil; hot dogs, hot dog buns, Coke; brown rice, tofu, broccoli) it must be hard to single out individual foods as being lifesavers or villains.

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/3/2011 9:31:58 PM |

    HI, Peter--

    Nope, I don't think so.

    Wheat stands apart at many levels, unique in its protein content (glutens, gliadin, and others), carbohydrate (amylopectin A), and glycoprotein lectins (wheat germ agglutinin).

    Parallel to this is allergy: You can have fatal allergy to peanuts but not to walnuts. That's a bit difference, though on the surface they seem roughly similar. Food composition is a crucial factor in human tolerance and foods cannot be lumped together willy nilly.

  • CathyN

    9/3/2011 11:48:39 PM |

    Great interview with Robb Wolf. I have been waiting for Wheat Belly to come out, so we're getting ours and several others to share ASAP. LIke many, many others, eliminating wheat (and other bad juju) from my diet dramatically changed my health (it's been almost 2 years, now).

    The Go with the Grain commentary was rubbish. And I find it very telling that they are not printing the critical comments. Not to mention that their site is sponsored by the Grain Foods Foundation. I'm sure they only have everyone's best interest at heart - yeah, right.

    Thanks for your bold move with this book. It is needed.

  • Corina

    9/4/2011 12:04:42 AM |

    I have just gotten started in your book (around 50 pages) and am really enjoying it.  Who would have thought a book about wheat and science would be such a page turner!

    I have a question though:  Why?  Why are the doctors/dieticians/nutritionists so uninformed?   Why is this seemingly such a 'fad' diet to so many?  Is it really just about money and keeping the cycle going?  I just find this concept so hard to fathom.  Do 'they' really want us sick and fat or have they just created a mess that is far too big to clean up and now they are just saving face?  

    I also posted over at that six serving's blog and thought something was a bit fishy when I didn't see any other comments.  It is clear that she/they can't take any form of reasonable, informed rebuttal.  Mostly though, my thought was: that's it?  That is all you are coming with?  That is your review?  Saying nothing would have been better than what she tried to pass off as an honest review of your book.  I would be very surprised if she even read it.  If you had, one can't remain that misguided can they?

  • Fat Guy Weight Loss

    9/4/2011 1:44:33 AM |

    Hmm, wonder if my comment will ever get approved on the sixservings.org site Smile

  • Tony Plank

    9/4/2011 3:12:54 AM |

    I was struck by the tenor of the wheat-industrialist organs in that they seem a bit defensive. If I were in charge of their message, I would have a very low key response. I would make some low level noise about the science being on our side and use some back handed compliments directed at “fringe nutritional ideas”.

    In other words, I think it is a mistake for them to act provoked. It is actually in their power to control this because in my experience, people do not want to listen to the message of wheat-belly. If the noise level stays down a bit, people will keep on eating their “healthy whole grains” and downing Twinkies when no one is looking because fundamentally they do not want to change. Everyone wants to know what I did to transform my health, but when I tell them, they look at me like someone who escaped from a mental institution and generally, they never bring it up again. I understand that completely too, because at one time, I would’ve said you’ll have to pry the baguette from my cold dead fingers.

    The best thing that can happen for you, Dr. Davis, is a full scale onslaught by the evil empire. That is the only way people like me will take note of the message in a serious way.

  • Susan Moles

    9/4/2011 4:20:48 AM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,

    This is my comment I left at sixservings.  I am pretty sure it will not get posted either:

    Honestly,
    If you don’t start posting some of the comments coming your way from the folks that have been commenting about their experiences regarding wheat consumption, then people are just going to think of this organization as a bunch of intellectual cowards! What is so hard about defending your position?

    Or, are you just having technical challenges?
    Susan Moles

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/4/2011 1:16:23 PM |

    Thanks, Susan.

    It looks like they've censored--CENSORED--all of our comments, so I posted a challenge on their Facebook page (though I had to "Like" them to do it).

    I'm itching to engage these people. I'm not hoping to convert them, just to allow me to bring all the incredible and damning evidence against wheat out into the open.

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/4/2011 1:18:04 PM |

    Hi, Tony--

    You clearly understand the ways of the world! I am going to hammer away and try to embarrass and shame them into responding!

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/4/2011 1:18:53 PM |

    It looks like they've blocked all of our comments. I've counted 5 people who say they've posted comments, none show on their blog. Yes, I believe they are practicing CENSORSHIP.

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/4/2011 1:21:06 PM |

    Thank you for joining the fight, Corina! You are absolutely correct: NONE of our comments are showing up.

    They are choosing to not engage in the fight face-to-face. I suspect they will never engage in a public debate, since it will allow me and others to publicly air all the damning evidence against wheat. Instead, they will rely on the misleading and deceptive research showing that whole grains are better than white flour.

    All I want is not to convert them to our way of thinking, but a chance to articulate these ideas to the broader public.

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/4/2011 1:22:55 PM |

    Thank you, Cathy. "Wheat and other bad juju" . . . that made me laugh!

    I knew the fight was coming. It would be nice if they would not just say nasty things and then run away, but confront me and others face-to-face.

  • Ari

    9/4/2011 3:15:03 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoyed Wheat Belly.  Not only was it informative, but it was fantastically well written as well.  Over at Tom Naughton's blog, I joked that your huge number of synonyms for "extreme" and "extremely" show that you must have either a massive vocabulary or the Deluxe Edition of Roget's Thesaurus.

    But in all seriousness, it is a great book!

  • damaged justice

    9/4/2011 3:43:12 PM |

    Who profits? Follow the money:

    http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/Meeting2/CommentAttachments/GrainFoodsFndn-182REF.pdf

    ConAgra, Pepperidge Farm, various milling companies.

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/4/2011 4:08:49 PM |

    Yes, indeed, Damaged. And a LOT of money--hundreds of billions.

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/4/2011 4:09:42 PM |

    Thanks, Ari. I'm extremely happy you like Wheat Belly!

  • Alexandra

    9/5/2011 12:49:44 PM |

    Sarah  from Everyday Paleo did a great podcast over at The Paleo Solution, here is the link:
    http://robbwolf.com/2011/01/11/the-paleo-solution-episode-62-everyday-paleo/

  • Leslie

    9/5/2011 9:10:22 PM |

    So why don't they go after vegans and vegetarians?

  • Leslie

    9/5/2011 9:23:32 PM |

    How can these people live with themselves?

    Rhetorical question, yes ... sigh.

    Looking forward to reading WB after being blown away by Dangerous Grains.  Have been eating a paleo diet for 6 months and the improvement in my health is nothing short of astonishing.  In my 50s, I look and feel 20 again, actually better.  I truly believe if everyone dumped grains from their diet for a month, you could kiss Cargill, Monsanto and ADM good-bye.

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/6/2011 12:14:15 PM |

    Hi, Leslie--

    Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. Feel and look like in your 20s while in your 50s? That's great!

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/6/2011 12:14:52 PM |

    I think they're worried about Wheat Belly"s head-on attack. This is the most direct attack they've suffered yet.

  • Leslie

    9/6/2011 1:03:18 PM |

    Don't take it personally  ... in looking over all the blog posts on that site there are no comments on any of them.  Comments likely encounter a script that reads, "send acknowledgement message then delete"  Wonder what happens if someone posts a positive comment?  Smile

  • Karn

    9/9/2011 12:51:31 AM |

    I posted a comment over there, I loved that 99% of the comments were anti-wheat.  This is awesome.  Great book and great interview on LLVLC.

    Thanks for all you do!

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/9/2011 2:18:37 AM |

    Hi, Karn--

    The battle being waged over at Good Grains Foundation has been nothing short of an anti-wheat rally with placards reading: "We won't eat wheat!"

  • Curmujeon

    9/9/2011 11:56:01 AM |

    Read a bit of "Wheat Belly" while in the bookstore taking a break from flood traffic.  I probably won't buy it for awhile since I already have a long reading list and consider myself in the "choir" since I've been eating Paleo/Primal for almost a year.  I do have three diabetics in the family that are so stuck in conventional wisdom that I don' t think it would be much help for them.  Lent Mom my Paleo book at her request but she never got around to reading it.  I had hoped that she would take to it and become n=2 and turn their T2D and Dad's congestive heart failure around, but maybe they are two far down that path.  Time is running out and all they do now is treat the diseases and resulting symptoms and are clueless about the underlying causes.  Death by Conventional Wisdom and "Modern Medicine".   I was happy to see the book make the NYTBS list.  This may be a good shot at getting the health/healthcare situation turned around.  Unfortunately, 99.99% of people are not paying attention or are fixed on the CW way.  "Eat less fat!  More healthy whole grains!  More cardio!"  The rest just wants food thats cheap and tastes good(sweet or salty).  Just waiting for the other shoe to drop and the book get recalled from the stores and the Kindles since it presents such radical, subversive information and viewpoints.   The book will become a black market item and will only be shared in meetings of the anti-wheat cell groups in private homes of those trying to stop the Great Amirican Wheat Machine.

  • m

    9/12/2011 10:49:07 AM |

    Your book is great!
    I happened upon your blog through another blog 6 months ago.
    I am gluten free but became fat from all the new products and assumed I was eating real food.
    With a bit of reading, I connected the sugar
    being the problem. I am a 58 yr old woman who runs 5 miles 5 days a week and who by accident through trial and error happen to eat your diet and was convinced to by another doctor friend to go for the higher fats.
    My old body is back less 2 sizes in 5 mos. I feel wonderful again. I too feel like a lean machine again while jogging. It feels great!
    The body fat is so noticably gone that people in the large community I live in have asked me how I did it.
    I have directed them to read your book. Better understanding of the real reasons to get fit may change their old beliefs and give it a try.
    I am curious to see Dr. Oz's new live show today. He will be discussing how to lose belly fat. I hope you
    are his guest!!! congrats to you on your contributions to a better life!

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/12/2011 11:49:39 PM |

    Thanks, M!

    I, too, had to stumble my way to find the path to a diet that truly works. So why are given this information at the outset? Why do we all have to inadvertently commit egregious errors of dietary misbehavior to learn from mistakes?

  • Momof2Groks

    11/22/2011 7:46:58 PM |

    I agree so much Dr. Davis.  In fact, I often think that the replacing of gluten containing products with other very processed starches is the reason why so many parents and studies have concluded that GFCF diets do not work for kids on the autism spectrum.  GFCF was where we started with my son, but he did not show significant improvement until we went grain and sugar free, including severely limiting fructose.  Low carb GAPS/Paleo or Primal diets are much more helpful for kids with neurological and digestive issues, but do not get nearly the press.  Love your blog.  Keep it up.

Add comment

Loading
All posts by william-davis

Calcium reflects total plaque

4. December 2006 William Davis (0)




People frequently ask, "Why measure coronary artery calcium? My doctor said that calcium only tells you if there's hard plaque, and that hard plaque is stable. He/she says that calcium doesn't tell you anything about soft plaque."

Is that true? Is calcium only a reflection of "hard" plaque? Is hard plaque also more stable, less prone to rupture and causes heart attack?

Actually, calcium is a means of measuring total plaque, both soft and hard. That's because calcium comprises 20% of total plaque volume. Within plaque, there may be areas that are soft (labeled "lipid pool" in the diagram). There are also areas made of calcium (shown in white arcs within the plaque). Even though this is just a graphic, it's representative of what is seen when we perform intracoronary ultrasound of a live human being's coronary artery. In other words, this cross section contains both "soft" (lipid pool) as well as "hard" (calcium) elements.

Is this artery "soft" or "hard"? It's both, of course. The artery compostion can vary millimeter by millimeter, having more soft or hard elements. The artery can also change over time in either direction. Thus, "soft" plaque may indeed be soft today, only to be "hard" in 6 months, and vice versa.

The essential point is that measuring just "soft" plaque provides limited information. What the CT heart scan does is provide a gauge of total plaque, soft and hard, and it does so easily, safely, precisely. If your score increases, the lengthwise volume of total plaque has also grown. If your score decreases, the total amount of plaque has also decreased.

Don't mistake marketing for truth

2. December 2006 William Davis (0)
We're all so inundated with marketing messages for food. Unfortunately, many people confuse the messages delivered through marketing with the truth.

For instance:

Pork: "The other white meat." Pork is a high-saturated fat food.

"Bananas: A great source of potassium." Bananas are a high glycemic index (rapid sugar release), low fiber food.

"Pretzels: A low-fat snack." A high glycemic index food made from white wheat flour. It makes you fat and skyrockets blood sugar.

Jif peanut butter: "Choosy moms choose Jif." Do they also choose hydrogenated fats?

Hi-C: Upbeat jingles like "Who put the straw in my Hi-C fruit drink, a new cool straw that wriggles and bends? Who put the straw in my Hi-C fruit drink, with Vitamin C for me and my friends? Who was that man, I'd like to shake his hand, he made my Hi-C cooler than before!" What about the 25 grams of sugar per 4 oz serving? And the high fructose corn syrup that creates an insatiable sweet tooth, raises triglycrides 30%, and exagerates pre-diabetes?


Marketing is not reliable, unbiased information. If Ford boasts that their cars are superior to GM, do you say "Well then, I need to buy a Ford?" Of course not. Take marketing for what it is: A method of persuading people to buy. It may or may not contain the truth. It's a big part of the reason Americans are the fattest people on earth and are experiencing an explosion of chronic diseases of excess.

Tattered Red Dress

1. December 2006 William Davis (0)
"Are you taking your health to heart? Perhaps you understand the importance of eating a diet low in cholesterol or getting 30 minutes of exercise a day. But do you know your own risk of developing cardiovascular disease?


It’s time to take your heart health personally. Heart disease is the No. 1 killer of American women — and that means it is not “someone else’s problem.” As a woman, it’s your problem.

That’s where the Go Red Heart Checkup comes in. This comprehensive evaluation of your overall heart health can help you now and in the future. By knowing your numbers and assessing your risks now, you can work with your doctor to significantly reduce your chances of getting heart disease tomorrow, next year, or 30 years from now!"


So reads some of the materials promoted by the American Heart Association Red Dress campaign to increase awareness of heart disease in women. The effort is well-intended. There is no doubt that most women are unaware of just how common coronary disease is in females.

But I've got a problem with the solutions offered. "Know your numbers"? Eat healthy, don't be overweight, be active, don't smoke. That's the gist of the program's message--nothing new. In 2006, why would some sort of screening effort for detectin of heart disease not be part of the message? Why isn't there any message about the real, truly effective means to detect hidden heart disease in women--namely, heart scanning?

Does a 58-year old woman with normal blood pressure, LDL 144, HDL 51, 20 lbs overweight have hidden heart disease? I've said it before and I'll say it again: You can't tell from the numbers. She could die of a heart attack tomorrow without warning, or maybe she'll be dancing on our graves when she's 95 and never have experienced any manifestation of heart disease. The numbers will not tell you this.

I'm glad the American Heart Association has seen fit to invest its sponsors' money in a campaign to promote prevention. I wish they hadn't fallen so far short of a truly helpful message. Perhaps the sponsors (like Pfizer, maker of Lipitor) will benefit, anyway.

Panic in the streets

29. November 2006 William Davis (0)
Several days ago, I wrote about a local prominent judge in my neighborhood who was unexpectedly found dead in bed of a heart attack at age 49.

As expected, I've received multiple calls from patients and physicians who want heart catheterizations. For instance, an internist I know called me in a panic. He asked that I perform a heart catheterization in a patient with a heart scan score of 768. I've been seeing this patient for about a year. He's without symptoms, even with strenuous exercise; stress tests (i.e., tests of coronary bloow flow) have been normal.

I remind patients and colleagues every day, day in day out: Having a heart scan score revealing some measure of coronary plaque is not a sufficient reason by itself to proceed with procedures. Fear of suffering a fate like the unfortunate judge is also not a reason to proceed with procedures.

Increased awareness of the gravity of heart disease is a good thing. Some good can come out of a needless tragedy like this. The lesson from the judge's unfortunate experience: he needed a CT heart scan. I'm told that the judge's doctor advised him that a heart scan was a waste of time. I hope that appropriate legal action for negligence is taken by the judge's family against this physician.

Not doing a heart scan is wrong. That's the lesson to learn. The lesson is not that everybody with coronary plaque needs a procedure. Had the judge undergone a simple heart scan, intensified prevention could have been instituted and he'd still be alive with his wife and children today.

The indications for procedures are unchanged by your heart scan. If a stress test is abnormal and indicates poor flow to a part of the heart, that would be a reason. If symptoms like chest discomfort or breathlessness appear, that's an indication. If there's evidence of poor heart muscle contraction, that's a reason to proceed with a procedure. But just having coronary plaque is not a sufficient reason.

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.)

(Lack of ) Quality of nutritional supplements

16. May 2007 William Davis (0)
In my last post, I blogged about how we must not confuse marketing with truth. They are often two different things.

A patient I saw today was absolutely convinced that his fish oil was the best available in the world: purer, uncontaminated by mercury or pesticides--"not like that other crap on the shelves." I asked him how he knew this. "They say so," he proudly declared.

Do you recognize this? He fell for the marketing. While there may be some truth in the manufacturer's claims, you can't believe it from the mouth of the manufacturer. True judgements about quality and purity have to come from an independent source like Consumer Reports, Consumer Lab, or the FDA.

But the FDA doesn't regulate the quality and purity of nutritional supplements. On the positive side, this has allowed supplement manufacturers to keep costs down, not having to navigate arcane and complex regulatory restrictions.

On the negative side, a fair number of supplement manufacturers get away with 1) producing supplements that fail to contain the stated amounts of ingredients, occasionally containing none of the essential ingredient(s), 2) contain contaminants like lead, and 3) make extravagant and often unfounded claims like "superior", "more effective", and "purer". (DHEA, for instance, is a particular landmine of poor quality. I recently suggested that a patient take DHEA; despite consistently taking 50 mg of a specific brand for several months, the blood level of DHEA-S didn't budge one bit--there was likely little or none in the capsule.)

The Fanatic Cook at http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com has posted some very insightful discussions on this issue and the proposed FDA regulations of supplements. They're worth perusing.

I really wish regulation weren't necessary and that the industry could have policed itself. But it clearly has failed and perhaps federal oversight is not such a bad thing, as long as the FDA regulations restrict themselves to oversight over quality and purity and not to efficacy. It's the efficacy regulation that could hogtie innovation in supplement development.

Marketing and truth are not the same

15. May 2007 William Davis (0)
I often remind people: Don't confuse marketing with the truth.

Today, I spent a total of probably an hour and a half dissuading patients that some crazed piece of marketing trying to sell them something was not the same as truth.

I spent approximately 40 minutes alone with a woman who was absolutely convinced that:

--Nattokinase would cure her of all heart disease. It does not. Despite the promising health benefits of natto and vitamin K2 supplementation, nattokinase is a scam with no basis in science nor logic.

--Niacin destroys your liver and homeopathic remedies are superior. Quite simply, homeopathy = quackery. No rational thinking scientist endorses the utter nonsense practiced in this strange and outrageous set of practices that requires you to suspend all reason.

--Sufficient vitamin D is obtainable through a "potent" multivitamin. I know of no multivitamin preparation that even begins to provide the dose of vitamin D that is actually required by adults, nor is it absorbed since these D preparations are powder based.

--Fish oil will poison you with mercury. Accordingly, one brand of fish oil claims to be the only safe form. Those of you following these posts, or the reports of the USDA and FDA, as well as the reports of Consumer Reports and Consumer Lab (www.consumerlab.com) know that, unlike fish itself, there is no mercury in fish oil capsules.

--All coronary atherosclerotic heart disease is caused by heavy metal poisoning. Thus chelation with EDTA represents a cure for heart disease.


People are inundated with marketing that promise extravagant cures, remove need for any medication, make you smarter, sexier, thinner, and on and on.

If you see a TV ad for Ford that says they make the best cars in the U.S., do you immediately run out and put a For Sale sign on your GM car and buy a Ford? No, of course not. You recognize the ad for what it is: marketing. It may be true, but a TV commercial is not enough to convince you.

Then why would an ad promising extraordinary cures for cancer or heart disease convince you that this is true? It should not. Marketing ads should only serve to alert you to the possibility of value or benefit, but should never-- never--stand alone as proof. Take marketing for what it is: marketing of a product or service, not a scientific report, not a factual report, not news.

Marketing is advertising. Period.

More on erectile dysfunction

13. May 2007 William Davis (8)
Several facts on erectile dysfunction and coronary plaque:


If you have erectile dysfunction, there's at least a 50% chance you also have coronary plaque.

If you have coronary plaque by a CT heart scan, there's a 50% chance you have erectile dysfunction.

If you have symptomatic coronary disease (chest pains, breathlessness, prior heart attack), there's a 90% chance you also have erectile dysfunction.


Coronary disease is characterized by a dysfunctional state of the "endothelium", or inner lining of the coronary arteries. Erectile dysfunction is characterized by dysfunction of the endothelium of the penile circulation. Same phenomenon, different territories. (There are other differences, of course, but the two conditions share this fundamental phenomenon.)


If you have any doubts about the physiologic effects of the supplement, l-arginine, just give it a try if you have erectile dysfunction. The erection enhancing effects alone should convince you that a genuine artery-dilating effect is exerted by this very powerful nutritional supplement.

If l-arginine fails by itself to restore full erectile capacity, there are additional strategies, both nutritional and medical, that you can consider.

Our newest Track Your Plaque Special Report on erectile dysfunction is coming out any day now.

High LDL cholesterol--only

11. May 2007 William Davis (3)
As a sequel to my last post, just how often can we blame an isolated high LDL cholesterol as the cause of coronary plaque and a heart scan score?

In other words, how often does someone prove to have only LDL cholesterol as the cause of a heart scan score . . . and nothing else? No low HDL, small LDL, lipoprotein(a), a post-prandial (after-eating) intermediate-density lipoprotein, inflammatory responses, phospholipase A2, high triglycerides, vitamin D deficiency, etc.

Rarely. In fact, I can truly count the number of people who have only LDL cholesterol as their sole cause of coronary atherosclerotic plaque on one hand. It is really an infrequent situation.

Far more commonly, people have 5, 6, 7 or more reasons for coronary plaque.

Thus, the idea that a statin drug to reduce LDL will cure heart disease is completely folly. It does happen--but rarely. I think I've seen it happen twice. Much more commonly, a program that addresses all the causes of coronary plaque yields far superior benefits.

In my view, an effort to identify all the causes is relatively easy, makes far better sense, and provides you much greater assurance that you will succeed in conquering heart disease and removing its evil influence from your life.

Heart disease = statin deficiency

10. May 2007 William Davis (1)
Judging from the conversations I hear from colleagues, what I hear from the media, and drug company advertising, you'd think that heart disease has one cause--a deficiency of statin drugs.

As their thinking goes, if you have coronary disease, you need a statin drug (Lipitor, Zocor, Crestor, pravachol, etc.). If you have progressive coronary disease, you need more statin drug. If you have a heart attack while on a statin drug, you need even more statin drug.

Some "experts" have even proposed that we do away with LDL cholesterol and we just give everybody a statin drug at high doses.

Does this make any sense to you?

Doesn't it make better sense that if someone has progressive heart disease or heart attack while on a statin drug, then target the other causes largely unaffected by a statin drug? Perhaps if LDL cholesterol remains high on the statin drug, then a higher dose is justified. But more often than not, it's not a high LDL on statin drugs that responsible, it's other causes. And there's many of them: low HDL, VLDL, IDL, Lp(a), deficiency of omega-3 fatty acids, inflammatory processes, vitamin D deficiency, among others. (An important exception to this is when the conventional calculated LDL substantially underestimates true LDL as measured by LDL particle number by NMR, apoprotein B, or 'direct' LDL.)

Imagine someone has pneumonia. After 2 weeks of antibiotics, they are only partly better. The solution: a higher dose of the same antibiotic--but never question if it was the right antibiotic in the first place. That's what is going on in heart disease.

The doctors have been brainwashed into believing this $22 billion dollar per year bit of propaganda. The drug companies actively try to recruit the public into believing the same. Don't fall for it.

The statin drugs do indeed have a role. But they are not the complete answer. More of the same when disease progresses makes no sense at all.

Fish oil and mercury

9. May 2007 William Davis (2)
I often get questions about the mercury content in fish oil. I've even had patients come to the office saying their primary care doctor told them to stop fish oil to avoid mercury poisoning.

Manufacturers of fish oil also make claims that this product or that ("super-concentrated", "pharmaceutical grade", "purified", etc.) is purer or less contaminated than competitors' products. The manufacturers of the "drug" Omacor, or prescription fish oil, have added to the confusion by suggesting that their product is the most pure of all, since it is the most concentrated of any fish oil preparation (900 mg EPA+DHA per capsule). They claim that "OMACOR is naturally derived through a unique, patented process that creates a highly concentrated, highly purified prescription medicine. By prescribing OMACOR® (omega-3-acid ethyl esters), a prescription omega-3, your doctor is giving you a concentrated and reliable omega-3. Each OMACOR capsule contains 90% omega-3 acids (84% EPA/DHA*). Nonprescription omega-3 dietary supplements typically contain only 13%-63% EPA/DHA."

How much truth is there in these concerns?

Let's go to the data published by the USDA, FDA, and several independent studies. Let's add to that the independent (and therefore presumably unbiased) analyses provided by Consumer Reports and Consumer Labs (www.consumerlab.com). How much mercury has been found in fish oil supplements?

None.

This is different from the mercury content of whole fish that you eat. Predatory fish that are at the top of the food chain and consume other fish and thereby concentrate organic methyl mercury, the toxic form of mercury. Thus, shark, swordfish, and King mackerel are higher in mercury than sardines, herring, and salmon.

The mercury content of fish oil capsules have little to do with the method of processing and much more with the animal source of oil. Fish oil is generally obtained from sardines, salmon, and cod, all low in mercury. Fish oil capsules are not prepared from swordfish or shark.

Thus, concerns about mercury from fish oil--regardless of brand--are generally unfounded, according to the best information we have. Eating whole fish--now that's another story for another time. But you and I can take our fish oil to reduce triglycerides, VLDL, IDL, small LDL, and heart attack risk without worrying about mercury.

How much omega-3s are enough?

8. May 2007 William Davis (7)
The basic dose we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program is 1200 mg per day of EPA + DHA, the essential omega-3 fatty acids.

1200 mg EPA+DHA is generally obtainable by taking 4 capsules of 1000 mg of fish oil, since the majority of preparations contain 180 mg EPA and 120 mg DHA per capsule.

But how will you know if a higher dose wouldn't be even better?

The principal parameter to look at is triglycerides. If triglycerides remain above 60 mg/dl, we usually consider increasing fish oil.

Another measure that's very important is intermediate-density lipoprotein, or IDL, also called "remnant lipoproteins" on a VAP panel. Persistence of any IDL or remnant lipoproteins is reason to consider more fish oil. Most commonly, if there is some persistence of either, we increase fish oil to 6000 mg per day of a standard preparation, or 1800 mg/day of EPA+DHA.

The only time we see persistence of IDL or remnant lipoproteins with this higher dose is when triglycerides are really high. If starting triglycerides are, for instance, 500 mg/dl, then even this higher dose may be insufficient. This is when more highly concentrated preparations of fish oil may be necessary, occasionally even the prescription form, Omacor. (We currently use Omacor only when high doses of EPA+DHA are required, most because of its outrageous cost. Two capsules per day costs around $120 per month; three capsules per day to provide 1800 mg/day of EPA+DHA costs $180 per month. I think this is outrageous and so we use it only when absolutely necessary.)

You might even argue that a higher dose of 1800 mg EPA+DHA, or 6000 mg of a standard capsule, might be preferable for more assured reduction of heart attack risk--even when triglycerides and IDL are perfectly under control. I wouldn't argue with you. But you won't observe any measurable feedback that tells you that a heightened effect is being obtained. I take that dose myself, in fact, despite the fact that elimination of wheat products and weight loss was sufficient to drop my triglycerides to the target level. I figure it's a small additional effort for added peace of mind.

Repentance for past sins

7. May 2007 William Davis (0)
If you are new to the Track Your Plaque program and would like to jump start your effort, or if you are struggling with losing weight and excess weight is a part of the situation that created your CT heart scan score, then don't forget about fasting.

Fasting is the cessation of eating. However, recall from the Track Your Plaque Special Report, Fasting: Fast Track to Control Plaque at http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_04-012fasting.asp, there are many variations on fasting that permit some intake of healthy foods. (Thus, they are not, in the strict sense, "fasting". Accurate or no, there are variations that may be more palatable or do-able in the real world by real people.)

My personal favorite method to fast is to use a low-sugar, low-fat soy milk such as Light Silk, available at most major grocery stores. This high-protein, low-fat, low-sugar soy milk takes the edge off hunger and provides a minimal quantity of calories. A minimum of 72 hours is required for substantial results. (My one reservation about this brand of soy milk is that the Fanatic Cook claims that the manufacturer, Dean Foods, is a factory farm operation that abuses livestock--a discussion for another day.)

Fasting yields more than weight loss. It refreshes your appreciation for food. It reawakens you to the amount and quality of food you've been putting in your body. Fasting also allows you to recognize just how bad you might feel from the diet you were eating.

You also emerge from a fast with a reduced appetite and a renewed sense of appreciation for food. It makes the discipline of healthy eating a lot easier when you break your fast.

I tell people that fasting is not punishment. It is a form of enlightenment, of re-experiencing food and life. Fasting allows you to "catch up" on all the indiscretions you've been guilty of over the years.

It also provides enormous advantage in gaining control over coronary plaque.

A fanatic for Fanatic Cook

6. May 2007 William Davis (1)
If you haven't already done so, I'd urge you to peruse the wonderfully insightful, sophisticated, and biting commentary provided by the Fanatic Cook Blog at http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com.

She (I assume it's a she) has been discussing the proposed Safe Food Act recently, an effort to address all the dangers in foods that have come to attention lately, like melamine in pet food and E. coli in bagged spinach. Her most recent post is:

Nebraska Farm Bureau Thinks Food Safety Act Bad Idea, the latest in a series of posts exploring this issue.

I'd like to know who the Fanatic Cook is, or "Bix" as she calls herself. (I assume it's a "she" but I don't really know that for a fact.) I've corresponded with her and she prefers to remain anonymous for unspecified reasons. I'd like to know who this person is both for a more secure sense of credibility, as well as I'd simply like to know who can write so intelligently and why. I suspect that she's a professional nutrition scientist or something along those lines, since the level of insight into many scientific issues is quite impressive. Her Blogs will make great material for a book, if compiled and organized. Watch out for this one.

Erectile dysfunction and coronary plaque

6. May 2007 William Davis (5)
Erectile dysfunction (ED), previously known as "impotence," and coronary atherosclerotic plaque go hand in hand.

A recent study in men with advanced coronary disease showed that 93% experienced ED. The participants in the Track Your Plaque program, for the most part, do not have advanced coronary atherosclerosis, but have an earlier form detected by a CT heart scan.

What proportion of men with asymptomatic coronary plaque as measured by a CT heart scan have ED? Around 50%. In other words, it's not a rare occurrence.

The conversation about ED (and even its renaming from impotence) really gained momentum with the development of ED-drugs like Viagra and Cialis. The drugs are reasonably effective and safe. However, you will hear little about all the strategies that can either precede your need for these drugs and/or enhance your response to these drugs if the response is partial. That part of the conversation, of course, doesn't yield loads of drug company revenues.

One of the most helpful and specific nutritional supplements available that can partially restore the nitric oxide-deficiency of ED is l-arginine. L-arginine is the body's source of nitric oxide (NO), the master dilator (relaxing agent) for all arteries of the body. NO dilates penile arteries, it dilates coronary arteries. Lack of NO disables the penile capacity for erection and encourages growth of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Track Your Plaque Members are already familiar with l-arginine as a facilitator of coronary plaque regression.

We will detail the supplements that you can use safely in your Track Your Plaque program to both enhance erectile function if you suffer ED, as well as impact positively on coronary health, in an upcoming and detailed Special Report on the www.cureality.com website.