America: The world’s diet laboratory 23. October 2007 William Davis (14) Low-fat, low-carb, high-protein, Pritikin, Ornish, Atkins, South Beach, Sonoma, Sugar-Busters, Weight Watchers, vegetarian . . . Have Americans tried them all?We’ve witnessed the relative success of diet habits in selected regions world-wide: the longevity of the Japanese on a spare soy and fish-based diet; the reduced heart disease incidence of the French despite an indulgent food-centered culture; the extreme heart disease-free lives of the Cretan Greeks. Contrast this with the startling failure of the American diet experiment: We’re all (speaking for the collective whole) fat, diabetic, and miserably mired in the diseases of obesity. We’ve experimented with every possible iteration of diet from grapefruit or cabbage only, to calorie deprivation (a al Weight Watchers), to restricting this or that element of diet. The “official” organizations have made their contributions, as well: the American Heart Association’s Therapeutic Lifestyle Changes (formerly Step I and II diets), a program eerily similar to what Americans are already eating and resulting in failure; the American Diabetes Association diet, incomprehensibly embracing carbohydrates when they are the root of the nutrition-habit-gone-wrong that caused the disease in the first place; the USDA and their Food Pyramid, encompassing a design that contains the germ of wisdom but is so heavily overweighted in grains that it is a sure-fire way to increase weight and heart disease were you to follow their recommendations. What have we learned from our grand experiment, our nationwide misadventure in nutrition? I believe that we’ve learned how not to eat: Processed snack foods, meals delivered in a fast-food setting with the offer to “super-size” your order, make-believe food ingested in your car eaten for the sake of staving off the inevitable hunger pangs. Few would argue that these are certain paths to obesity and poor health. Certainly, if we’ve learned how not to eat, can we extrapolate just how to eat? And not just for weight loss, since most diets focus just on that, but on health, particularly heart health?If Americans have so far failed to learn the lessons of the nutritional world, we certainly have not failed at talking about it. From books to blogs, websites, information gurus to infomercials, we certainly celebrate the capacity to share our experiences, our grief over our nutritional “misfortune,” despite a world of plenty. Yet we swim in a sea of information. Can we sift through the chaff to discover the essential truth? Let me articulate an extreme (extreme meaning closer to the truth, I hope) interpretation of nutritional wisdom:--If it requires a label or nutritional analysis, reject it. The wondrous green pepper, or bottle of olive oil, for instance, require no such qualifications. Some exceptions: milk, yogurt, cottage cheese (unless, of course, you purchase straight from a local producer). I am always impressed with the contortions and frustrations people experience trying to decipher labels. Ironically, the healthiest foods don’t even require labels. --If it is ingested in a rush, it’s likely to add to poor health. True food is meant to be consumed at leisure, not in haste to satisfy some irrational, unthinking impulse. --Search for natural, whole foods. Natural, whole foods require no marketing. You pay a premium for a company to adorn a product with glitz, glamour, and appeal. Repackage Cocoa Puffs as chocolate flavored, round overly-processed wheat flour, sans marketing spin, and what is left? Processed foods are?intentionally?addictive. They are added to, modified, high-fructose corn syruped, etc. to increase desirability, but also create addiction. Eliminate them just as a smoker eliminates cigarettes. --A corollary to the above issue: purchase foods that appear as if you had grown it or raised it yourself. If you were to grow corn in your backyard garden, you would eat it on the cob or some similar way. You would not grind it, pulverize, process it, nor serve it as cornstarch and add to a pile of chemicals to make breakfast cereal. Eat foods in their natural state, not the highly processed food-product that requires a colorful package and advertising to sell. --Don’t keep bags of chips, boxes of breakfast cereal and crackers, frozen dinners, all “just in case.” Don’t allow yourself that opportunity because you will more than likely seize it. An alcoholic who keeps a secret bottle of gin hidden in the cabinet is well aware that it’s there and will eventually give in to impulse.--When you eat meat, try to find free-range, organic products. Even better, purchase from a local producer who you trust. --For anyone with patterns like low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, and blood sugar >100 mg/dl, following a diet that is as free of wheat products as possible will yield enormous benefits. Wheat is a part of all breads, virtually all breakfast cereals, pretzels, crackers, bagels, cookies, cupcakes, pancakes, waffles, etc. Going wheat-free is also a surprisingly effective weight loss strategy. That’s just a few thoughts. The approach we use in the Track Your Plaque program helps achieve weight loss, but also helps correct lipoprotein patterns, often dramatically. Many diets have failed to keep pace with the changing nutritional habits of Americans. In 1960, we ingested close to zero high-fructose corn syrup. We’re now approaching 80 lbs per year per American. Breakfast cereal in 1950 consisted of a handful of products, eaten intermittently; today, it is a staple with enough products to fill a modern supermarket’s entire aisle. Meats have changed, thanks to the factory farm phenomenon feeding its animals corn in inhumanely restricted conditions, a dietary shift for livestock that has modified the fat composition to something far different than 50 years ago, not to mention the antibiotics and other chemicals used to accelerate growth and fight off infection from the artificial, overcrowded conditions. The American nutritional shift, along with rampant obesity, have also caused a relatively new cause of coronary heart disease to explode: small LDL particles. The contribution of small LDL has been enormously underestimated, since most physicians don’t know what it is, don’t know how to check for it, and don’t know what to do with it. Yet it has emerged as the number one cause for heart attack and heart disease nationwide.Stay tuned for our rewritten New Track Your Plaque diet to be released as a Special Report on the www.cureality.com website in future.
Dr. Jarvik, is niacin as bad as it sounds? 20. October 2007 William Davis (5) A popular health newsletter, Everyday Health, carried this headline:A Cholesterol-Busting Vitamin?Did you know that niacin, one of the B vitamins, is also a potent cholesterol fighter?Find out how niacin can help reduce choleseterol.At doses way above the Recommended Dietary Allowance — say 1,000–2,500 mg a day (1–2.5 grams) — crystalline nicotinic acid acts as a drug instead of a vitamin. It can reduce total cholesterol levels by up to 25%, lowering LDL and raising HDL levels, and can rapidly lower the blood level of triglycerides. It does so by reducing the liver’s production of VLDL, which is ordinarily converted into LDL. I'd agree with that, except that it is rare to require doses higher than 1000-1500 mg per day unless you are treating lipoprotein(a) and using niacin as a tool for dramatic drops in LDL. But for just raising HDL, shifting HDL into the healthy large class, reducing small LDL, and for reduction of heart attack risk, 1000-1500 mg is usually sufficient; taking more yields little or no further effect. But after that positive comment comes this:Niacin is safe — except in people with chronic liver disease or certain other conditions, including diabetes and peptic ulcer. . . However, it has numerous side effects. It can cause rashes and aggravate gout, diabetes, or peptic ulcers. Early in therapy, it can cause facial flushing for several minutes soon after a dose, although this response often stops after about two weeks of therapy and can be reduced by taking aspirin or ibuprofen half an hour before taking the niacin. A sustained-release preparation of niacin (Niaspan) appears to have fewer side effects, but may cause more liver function abnormalities, especially when combined with a statin. Strange. After a headline clearly designed to pull readers in, clearly stating niacin's benefits, the article then proceeds to scare the pants off you with side-effects. But look to the side and above the text: Ah . . . two prominent advertisements for Lipitor, complete with Dr. Robert Jarvik's photo. "I've studied the human heart for a lifetime. I trust Lipitor to keep my heart healthy." Niacin bad. Lipitor good. Even celebrity doc says so. Sounds like bait and switch to me. "You could try niacin--if you dare. But you could also try Lipitor." Who is Dr. Jarvik, anyway, that he serves as spokesman (or at least figurehead) for this $13 billion dollar a year drug? Of course, he is the 1982 inventor of the Jarvik artificial heart, surely an admirable accomplishment. But does that qualify him to speak about heart disease prevention and cholesterol drugs? Jarvik has never--never--actually prescribed Lipitor, since he never completed any formal medical training beyond obtaining his Medical Doctor degree, nor has he ever had a license to practice medicine. He does, however, continue in his effort to provide artificial heart devices, principally for implantation as a "bridge" to transplantation, i.e., to sustain a patient temporarily who is dying of end-stage heart failure. So where does his expertise in heart disease prevention come from? It's beyond me. Perhaps it was the thousands of dollars likely paid to him. That will make an "expert" out of just about anybody. Robert Bazell, science reporter, for CNBC, made this report on the Jarvik-Lipitor connection in his March, 2007 report, Is this celebrity doctor's TV ad right for you?Mr. Bazell writes:On May 16, 1988, an editorial in the New York Times dubbed the artificial heart experiments, “The Dracula of Medical Technology.”“The crude machines,” it continued, “with their noisy pumps, simply wore out the human body and spirit.”Since then, in a series of start-up companies, Jarvik has continued his quest to make an artificial heart — as have several other firms. One competitor recently won FDA approval to sell its device for implantation in extreme emergencies.Perhaps Jarvik’s chances of success with another artificial heart account for his willingness to serve as pitchman for Pfizer. I inquired, without success, to find the going rate for a semi- celebrity like Jarvik to appear in such ads. Thomaselli of Advertising Age said whatever it is, it is “infinitesimal” compared to Pfizer’s expenditures of $11 billion a year on advertising, much of it for Lipitor.Why spend so much marketing Lipitor? Because Lipitor is only one of six drugs in the class called statins that lower cholesterol. Many cardiologists say that for the vast majority of people any one of these drugs works just as well as the other. Two of them, Mevacor and Zocor, have already lost their patent protection so they cost pennies a day compared to $3 or more a day for Lipitor.In 2010, when Lipitor loses its patent protection, it, too, will cost pennies a day, and Pfizer will no longer need Dr. Robert Jarvik. So, is niacin so bad after all? Or is this Everyday Health report just another clever piece of advertising for Pfizer?
Is niacin as bad as it sounds? 20. October 2007 William Davis (0) A popular health newsletter, Everyday Health, carried this headline:A Cholesterol-Busting Vitamin?Did you know that niacin, one of the B vitamins, is also a potent cholesterol fighter?Find out how niacin can help reduce choleseterol.At doses way above the Recommended Dietary Allowance — say 1,000–2,500 mg a day (1–2.5 grams) — crystalline nicotinic acid acts as a drug instead of a vitamin. It can reduce total cholesterol levels by up to 25%, lowering LDL and raising HDL levels, and can rapidly lower the blood level of triglycerides. It does so by reducing the liver’s production of VLDL, which is ordinarily converted into LDL. I'd agree with that, except that it is rare to require doses higher than 1000-1500 mg per day unless you are treating lipoprotein(a) and using niacin as a tool for dramatic drops in LDL. But for just raising HDL, shifting HDL into the healthy large class, reducing small LDL, and for reduction of heart attack risk, 1000-1500 mg is usually sufficient; taking more yields little or no further effect. But after that positive comment comes this:Niacin is safe — except in people with chronic liver disease or certain other conditions, including diabetes and peptic ulcer. . . However, it has numerous side effects. It can cause rashes and aggravate gout, diabetes, or peptic ulcers. Early in therapy, it can cause facial flushing for several minutes soon after a dose, although this response often stops after about two weeks of therapy and can be reduced by taking aspirin or ibuprofen half an hour before taking the niacin. A sustained-release preparation of niacin (Niaspan) appears to have fewer side effects, but may cause more liver function abnormalities, especially when combined with a statin. Strange. After a headline clearly designed to pull readers in, clearly stating niacin's benefits, the article then proceeds to share the pants off you with side-effects. But look to the side and above the text: Ah . . . two prominent advertisements for Lipitor, complete with Dr. Robert Jarvik's photo. "I've studied the human heart for a lifetime. I trust Lipitor to keep my heart healthy." Sounds like bait and switch to me. "You could try niacin--if you dare. But you could also try Lipitor."Who is Dr. Jarvik, anyway, that he stands as the spokesman (or at least figurehead) for this $13 billion dollar a year drug. Of course, he is the 1982 inventor of the Jarvik artificial heart, surely an admirable accomplishment. But does that qualify him to speak about heart disease prevention and cholesterol drugs? Jarvik has, never actually prescribed Lipitor, since he never completed any formal medical training beyond obtaining his Medical Doctor degree, nor has he ever had a license to practice medicine. He does, however, continue in his effort to provide artificial heart devices, principally for implantation as a "bridge" to transplantation, i.e., to sustain a patient temporarily who is dying of end-stage heart failure. So where does his expertise in heart disease prevention come from?
Omega-3 fatty acids: Frequency vs. quantity 20. October 2007 William Davis (8) I believe I have been observing an unexpected phenomenon: When it comes to fish oil and omega-3 fatty acids, the frequency of dosing may be as important, perhaps more important, than the actual dose.First of all, why advocate omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil? There’s a list of lipid/lipoprotein reasons, including reduction of triglycerides and triglyceride-containing particles (VLDL, intermediate-density lipoproteins), reduction of small LDL, and increase in HDL. There’s also solid benefit in reduction of heart attack risk, reduction in death from heart attack, and reduction in stroke. There are also anti-inflammatory benefits and improvements in mood, reduction in depression.Fish oil is a crucial ingredient in the Track Your Plaque program. I am honestly uncertain of just how much success we would give up if fish oil were NOT a part of the program, but I am unwilling to find out. The data are simply too compelling to not include omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil. Of course, supplementation of omega-3 fatty acids assumes greater importance in a modern world in which your food has become terribly depleted of the omega-3 fraction of oils. (Cultures that rely heavily on fish or wild game probably would not benefit to the same extent, since these foods contain omega-3 fatty acids.) But I believe I have observed a curious effect over the past year or two. With the proliferation of many different preparations of fish oil that provide seemingly endless choices—low-potency fish oil, high-potency fish oil, paste forms of fish oil like Coromega, liquids such as Carlson’s, etc.¾I’ve observed that frequency of dosing may exert as much of an effect as the dose. For example, someone might take the basic, low-potency preparation like Sam’s Club that contains 180 mg EPA and 120 mg DHA per capsule, four capsules per day. That yields a total of 1200 mg EPA and DHA per day. This is our minimum dose that provides the basic heart attack-reducing effect, though with modest effect on triglycerides and associated patterns. Say someone switches to a high-potency preparation of 360 mg EPA and 240 mg DHA, providing a total of 600 mg omega-3 fatty acids per capsule, or twice the dose of the low-potency preparation. Would you expect double the effect? Curiously, no. What I have observed, however, is that more frequent dosing may provide a larger effect. The least effective dosing is once per day; twice per day is far more effective. Three times per day¾though cumbersome¾provides even greater effect. So, which is more important: dose or frequency? I can’t say for certain, since my observations are informal and have not been obtained by a formal statistical analysis of our data. That will come with time. For the present, suffice it to say that, if you are struggling with suppression of patterns like increased triglycerides, IDL, or low HDL, then at least twice- or three-times-per-day dosing might be worth considering, even before you increase the dose further. Best: Greater dose, or higher-potency preparation, combined with higher frequency.
Lipoprotein testing 19. October 2007 William Davis (5) This is an update of a post I made about a year ago. However, I'm reposting it since the question comes up so often. How can I get my lipoproteins tested?This question came up on our recent online chat session and comes up frequently phone calls and e-mails. If lipoprotein testing is the best way to uncover hidden causes of coronary heart disease, but your doctor is unable, unknowledgeable, or unwilling to help you, then what can you do?There are several options:1) Get the names of physicians who will obtain and interpret the test for you. That’s the best way. However, it is also the most difficult. Lipoprotein testing, despite over a decade of considerable scientific exploration and validation in thousands of research publications, still remains a sophisticated tool that only specialists in lipids will use. But this provides you with the best information on you’re your lipoproteins mean. 2) If you don’t have a doctor who can provide lipoprotein testing and interpretation, go to the websites for the three labs that actually perform the lipoprotein tests: www.liposcience.com (NMR); www.berkeleyheartlab.com (electropheresis or GGE); www.atherotech.com (ultracentrifugation). None of them will provide you with the names of actual physicians. They can provide you with the name of a local representative who will know (should know) which doctors in your area are well-acquainted with their technology. I prefer this route to just having a representative identify a laboratory in your area where the blood sample can be drawn, because you will still need a physician to interpret the results¾this is crucial. The test is of no use to you unless someone interprets it intelligently and understands the range of treatment possibilities available. Don’t be persuaded by your doctor if he/she agrees to have the blood drawn but has never seen the test before. This will be a waste of your time. That’s like hoping the kid next door can fix your car just because he says he fixed his Mom’s car once. Interpretation of lipoproteins takes time, education, and experience.3) Seek out a lipidologist. Lipidologists are the new breed of physician who has sought out additional training and certification in lipid and lipoprotein disorders. Sometimes they’re listed in the yellow pages, or you can search online in your area. One drawback: Most lipidologists have been heavily brainwashed by the statin industry and tend to be heavy drug users. 4) Contact us. I frankly don’t like doing this because I feel that I can only provide limited information through this method and, frankly, it is very time consuming. I provide a written discussion of the implications and choices for treatment with the caveat to discuss them with your doctor, since I can’t provide medical advice without a formal medical relationship. We also charge $75 for the interpretation. But it’s better than nothing. 5) Make do with basic testing. Basic lipids along with a lipoprotein(a), C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, and homocysteine would provide a reasonable facsimile of lipoprotein testing. You’ll still lack small LDL and postprandial (after-eating) information, but you can still do reasonably well if you try to achieve the Track Your Plaque targets of 60-60-60. It’s sometimes a necessary compromise.Our discussions on the Track Your Plaque Forum have impressed me with the difficulty many people encounter in getting lipoproteins drawn and interpreted. Some of our Members have been very resourceful identifying blood draw laboratories around the country, such as Lab Safe, that will at least provide the blood draw service. I wish it was easier and we are working on some ideas to facilitate this nationwide. It will take time. In 20 years, this will be a lot easier when doctors more commonly use lipoprotein testing. But for now, you can still obtain reasonably good results choosing one of the above alternatives.
Is it exercise or diet? 18. October 2007 William Davis (7) Wayne, a 61-year old retired school superintendent, had been an exercise fanatic all his adult life. If not running long distances and occasional marathons, he'd bike up to 70 miles a day. He did this year-round. In cold weather, he set his bicycle up on an indoor device and also ran on a treadmill and added weight training. That's why it was kind of surprising that he sported a large belly. At 5 ft 8 inch and 190 lbs, that put his Body Mass Index (BMI) also high at 28.8 (desirable <25). You'd think that vigorous, almost extreme, exercise like this would guarantee a slender build. Wayne also had lipoproteins to match: triglycerides 205 mg/dl, LDL 176 mg/dl but LDL particle number much higher at 2403 nmol/l (an effective LDL of 240 mg/dl); 75% of LDL particles were small. I asked Wayne about his diet. "I eat healthy. Cheerios for breakfast usually. Some days I'll skip breakfast. Lunch is almost always a sandwich: tuna, turkey, something like that on whole wheat bread or a whole wheat bagel. Chips, too, but I guess that's not too healthy. Dinners vary and we eat pretty healthy. Almost never pizza or junk like that.""Pasta?" I asked. "Oh. sure. Two or three tiems a week. Always whole wheat. With a salad." Wayne was well aware of the conventional advice for whole grains and, indeed, had been trying to increase his intake, particularly since his basic cholesterol numbers had been high in past. To his surprise, the more he tried at diet, the more LDL seemed to go up, as did triglycerides. I see this situation every day: The obsession with processed carbohydrate foods, worsened by the message perpetuated by the American Heart Association, the USDA Food Pyramid, Kraft, Kelloggs, Post, etc. Eat more fiber, eat whole grains. NY Times columnist, Jane Brody, chronicles her (embarassing) mis-adventure following the same mis-guided advice in Cutting Cholesterol, an Uphill Battle. According to the USDA Food Pyramid, Wayne is not getting enough grains and whole grains, particularly since he is highly physically active. Consistent with the message given by the food industry: "Eat more!" The food industry-supported Whole Grain Council advises:Whole Grains at Every MealThe US Dietary Guidelines recommend meeting the daily requirement by eating three "ounce-equivalents" of breads, rolls, cereals or other grain foods made with 100% whole grains. A slice of bread or a serving of breakfast cereal usually weighs about an ounce.Want an easier way to think about it? Just look at your plate at each meal, and make sure you've included some source of whole grains. That's why our slogan is "Whole Grains at Every Meal." By this scheme, if you are overweight, it's because you lack fiber and you're too inactive. "Get up and go!" It's not the diet, they say, it's you!See through this for what it is: Nonsense. Wayne was overweight, packing 20 extra pounds in his abdomen from his over-dependence on processsed carbohydrates--"whole grains"--not from inactivity.
Instant heart disease reversal 17. October 2007 William Davis (16) What if reversal of heart disease--regression of coronary atherosclerotic plaque--were achievable instantly? Just add water and--voila!!To my knowledge, it is not--yet. But I sometimes play with this idea in my head. I could imagine that such a program would consist of a few essential elements:--A fast or semi-fast, or at least a very spare diet, over a period like 10 days to promote net catabolism. It is also supremely anti-inflammatory to restrict calories.--High-dose vitamin D, e.g., 20,000 units per day of D3 to fully replenish depleted stores and achieve all the metabolism-correcting effects of D3 restoration. --EPA + DHA at a higher than usual dose with frequent throughout-the-day dosing to encourage replacement of cellular lipid constituents with the more stable omega-3 fraction of fatty acids. Beyond this, I'm uncertain. What role l-arginine, statins, niacin . . . conjugated linoleic acid? ApoA1 Milano infusions? This is simply whimsical at this point. I don't know if such an approach would work. But if it did, you might imagine that it would offer an opportunity--for the properly motivated--as an alternative treatment for angina, advanced coronary disease, a means to pull someone back from the brink. With the insights gained from our slow-but-powerful Track Your Plaque approach, perhaps we will also gain insights into how to accelerate such a process of reversal so that it is achievable in days, rather than months or years.
Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in (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 b
(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 b