Emmer, einkorn, and agribusiness

10,000 years ago, Neolithic humans did not obtain wheat products from the bagel shop, grocery store, or Krispy Kreme. They obtained wheat by locating a nearby wild-growing field of wild emmer or einkorn wheat grass, then harvesting it with their stone sickles.

Neolithic humans, such as the Natufians of the Fertile Crescent, carried their freshly-cut wheat home, then ground it by hand using homemade mortar and pestle. As yeast-raised bread was still some 5000 years in the future, emmer and einkorn wheat was not used to bake bread, but was consumed as a porridge in bowls. Einkorn has the simplest genetic code of 14 chromosomes, while emmer has 28 chromosomes.

A third variety of wheat appeared on the scene around 9000 years ago, a natural hybridization between emmer and goat grass, yielding the 42-chromosome Triticum aestivum species. Egyptians learned how to cause wheat to rise around 3000 BC, yielding bread, rather than the unleavened flatbreads of their predecessors.

From the original three basic varieties of wheat available to Neolithic man, over the past 30 years wheat has exploded to over 25,000 varieties. Where did the other 24,997+ strains come from?

In the 1980s, thousands of new wheat strains arose from hybridization experiments, many of them conducted in Mexico. Then, in the late 1980s, genetic engineering quietly got underway in which geneticists inserted or deleted single genes, mostly designed to generate specific characteristics, such as height, yield per acre, drought resistance, but especially resistance to various pesticides and weed killers. The fruits of these efforts were introduced into the market in 1994. Most of the genetically modified foods were thought to be only minor modifications of the unmodified original and thus no safety testing in animals or humans was conducted.

We now have many thousands of wheat strains that are different in important ways from original emmer, einkorn, and Triticum aestivum wheat. Interestingly, it has been suggested that einkorn wheat fails to provoke the same immune response characteristic of celiac disease provoked by modern wheat gluten, suggesting a different amino acid structure in gluten proteins. Another difference: Emmer wheat is up to 40% protein, compared to around 12% protein for modern wheat.

In other words, the wheat of earlier agricultural humans, including the wheat of Biblical times, is NOT the wheat of 2010. Modern wheat is quite a different thing with differing numbers of chromosomes, different genes due to human manipulation, varying gluten protein composition, perhaps other differences.

Somewhere in the shuffle and genetic sleight-of-hand that has occurred over the last 30 years, wheat changed. What might have been the "staff of life" has now become the cause of an incredible array of diseases of "wheat" intolerance.

Near-death experience with nattokinase

This is a true story that I personally witnessed.

A 60-some year old man heard that nattokinase "thinned the blood." So he had been taking it for the past 6 months.

One week before he came to see me, he abruptly became quite breathless. He was unable to walk more than 20 feet or bend over to tie his shoes due to the breathlessness.

He came to see me in the office. I was alarmed by how breathless he was without signs of heart failure or other obvious explanation. I sent him for an immediate CT pulmonary angiogram. Within 30 minutes, we had the diagnosis: a large "saddle" pulmonary embolus, meaning a large blood clot that straddled the right and left main pulmonary arteries. One wrong move and . . . bang! He would have been dead within a couple of minutes, since a large clot can completely occlude the large arteries feeding the lung, essentially corking any blood circuiting through the lungs and back to the left side of the heart. (Causing, incidentally, electromechanical dissociation, in which the heart keeps beating for a few minutes but no blood is being pumped. CPR can keep you alive for a few minutes, then it's over.)

When I advised the patient of the diagnosis (after initiating the REAL anticoagulants), he said, "But I was taking nattokinase!"

Exactly. Blood clots are no laughing matter. They are potentially fatal events. Betting your life on some company's advertisement is nothing short of foolish.

Anyone who reads The Heart Scan Blog knows that I am an avid supporter of nutritional supplements. I even write articles and consult for the supplement industry. But I truly despise hearing unfounded marketing claims that some supplement companies will make in the pursuit of a fast buck.

There is no doubt that we need better, safer methods to deal with dangerous blood clots, whether in the lung, pelvis, or other areas. But, before anyone takes a leap based on the extravagant marketing claims made by a supplement manufacturer, you want to be damn sure there are real data--not marketing claims, REAL data--before you use something like nattokinase in place of a proven therapy.

Don't confuse the very interesting, though unpalatable, natto with nattokinase. Natto contains vitamin K2 and some other interesting compounds, including nattokinase.

Blame the gluten?

Wheat is among the most destructive components of the human diet, a food that is responsible for inflammatory disease, diabetes, heart disease, several forms of intestinal diseases, schizophrenia, bipolar illness, ADHD, behavioral outbursts in autistic children . . . just to name a few.

But why?

Wheat is mostly carbohydrate. That explains its capacity to cause blood sugar to increase after eating, say, a turkey sandwich on whole wheat bread. The rapid release of sugars likely underlies its capacity to create visceral fat, what I call "wheat belly."

But neither the carbohydrate nor the other components, like bran and B vitamins, can explain all the other adverse health phenomena of wheat. So what is it in wheat that, for instance, worsens auditory hallucinations in paranoid schizophrenics? Is it the gluten?

First of all, what is gluten?

Gluten protein is the focus of most wheat research conducted by food manufacturers and food scientists, since it is the component of wheat that confers the unique properties of dough, allowing a pizza maker to roll and toss pizza crust in the air and mold it into shape. The distinctive “doughy” quality of the simple mix of wheat flour and water, unlike cornstarch or rice starch, for instance, properties that food scientists call “viscoelasticity” and “cohesiveness,” are due to the gluten. Wheat is mostly carbohydrate, but the 10-15% protein content is approximately 80% gluten. Wheat without gluten would lose its unique qualities that make it desirable to bakers and pizza makers. Gluten is also the component of wheat most confidently linked to immune diseases like celiac.

The structure of gluten proteins has proven frustratingly elusive to characterize, as it changes over time and varies from strain to strain. But an understanding of gluten structure may be part, perhaps most, of the answer to the question of why wheat provokes negative effects in humans.

The term “gluten” encompasses two primary families of proteins, the gliadins and the glutenens. The gliadins, one of the protein groups that trigger the immune response in celiac disease, has three subtypes: a/ß-gliadins, ?-gliadins, and ?-gliadins. The glutenins are repeating structures, or polymers, of more basic protein structures.

Beyond gluten, the other 20% or so of non-gluten proteins in wheat include albumins, prolamins, and globulins, each of which can also vary from strain to strain. In total, there are over 1000 other proteins that serve functions from protection of the grain from pathogens, to water resistance, to reproductive functions. There are agglutinins, peroxidases, a-amylases, serpins, and acyl CoA oxidases, not to mention five forms of glycerinaldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenases. I shouldn’t neglect to mention the globulins, ß-purothionin, puroindolines a and b, tritin, and starch synthases.

As if this protein/enzyme smorgasbord weren’t enough, food processors have also turned to fungal enzymes, such as cellulases, glucoamylases, xylanases, and ß-xylosidases to enhance leavening and texture. Many bakers also add soy flour to enhance mixing and whiteness, which introduces yet another collection of proteins and enzymes.

In short, wheat is not just a simple gluten protein with some starch and bran. It is a complex collection of biological material that varies according to its genetic code.

While wheat is primarily carbohydrate, it is also a mix of gluten protein which can vary in structure from strain to strain, as well as a highly variable mix of non-gluten proteins. Wheat has evolved naturally to only a modest degree, but it has changed dramatically under the influence of agricultural scientists. With human intervention, wheat strains are bred and genetically manipulated to obtain desirable characteristics, such as height (ranging from 18 inches to over 4 feet tall), “clinginess” of the seeds, yield per acre, and baking or viscoelastic properties of the dough. Various chemicals are also administered to fight off potential pathogens, such as fungi, and to activate the expression of protective enzymes within the wheat itself to “inoculate” itself against invading organisms.

From the original two strains of wheat consumed by Neolithic humans in the Fertile Crescent 9000 years ago (Emmer and Einkorn), we now have over 200,000 strains of wheat virtually all of which are the product of genetic manipulations that have modified the protein structure of wheat. The extraordinary complexity of wheat proteins have therefore created a huge black box of uncertainty in pinpointing which protein causes what.

But there's an easy cure for the uncertainty: Don't eat it.

Glycemic gobbledygook

The concept of glycemic index is meant to help determine what foods raise blood sugar a lot vs. what foods raise blood sugar a little. Dr. Jennie Brand-Miller's searchable database can be found here.

I have to admit that glycemic index provided me with a sense of false assurance for some years. It screwed up my health until I came to understand the issues a lot better.

For those of you just starting out in nutritional conversations, glycemic index (GI) represents a comparison of the blood glucose area-under-the-curve (AUC) over 2 hours after consuming 50 grams of the food in question compared to the AUC of glucose or white bread. Volunteers involved in developing these values are healthy people who are generally of normal weight.

Glucose, by definition, has a GI of 100. An equal quantity of sucrose (50% glucose, 50% fructose) has a GI of 60, lower than glucose. An equal quantity of whole wheat bread has a GI of 68-77 (Yes: The GI of whole wheat is higher than sucrose). Non-carbohydrate foods, such as eggs or avocado, have no GI since they do not impact on blood glucose.

Because the GI is also sensitive to how much carbohydrate is contained, the concept of Glycemic Load (GL) was introduced:

GL = (GI x amount of carbohydrate) / 100

GL is therefore the GI that incorporates the glycemic potential of the food of interest. GI does not vary with portion size; GL varies with portion size.

Let's take whole wheat pasta, a food regarded by most people as a healthy choice. Whole wheat pasta has a GI of 55--fairly low--and a GL of 29. A serving of 180 g (approximately 6 oz cooked) provides 50 g carbohydrates.

People who advocate that low-glycemic index foods would say that this is a desirable profile and should therefore replace high-glycemic index foods.

I say WRONG. First of all, most of us are not slender 20-somethings. We will therefore not show the same response as a young, slender person (like the GI volunteers), but will show exagerrated blood sugar responses. So this much low-glyemic index whole wheat pasta will typically yield a blood sugar of 120-200 mg/dl in non-diabetic people, high enough to trigger glycation. Sure, a high-glycemic index food, such as white flour birthday cake with plenty of sugary icing, might trigger a blood sugar of 140-250 mg/dl, much worse. But that doesn't make the lower blood sugar following pasta any less bad--it's still terrible.

Another issue: GI is assessed over a 2-hour timeline. What if blood sugar remains high in a sustained way, say, over 6 hours? That's precisely what whole wheat pasta will do: Keep blood sugar high for an extended period.

So not only does a low-glycemic index food like pasta increase blood sugar in most of us extravagantly, it does so in a sustained way.

Lastly, low-glycemic index pasta still triggers small LDL particles to an extreme degree, as I discussed in the previous Heart Scan Blog post, Small LDL: Complex vs. simple carbohydrates.

Don't be false reassured by the notion of low GI or GL. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that NO glycemic index is a GOOD glycemic index (or load). The foods we want to dominate our diet are the foods that aren't even listed in the GI database.

Man walks after removing wheat

No, this isn't some National Enquirer headline like "Woman delivers alien baby."

Tom is a 26-year old man with a complex medical condition, a malformation he was born with and has had reconstructed. Aside from this, he leads a normal life: works, is married, and is, in fact, quite intelligent.

He came to me for an opinion regarding his overall health. Tom was worried that his congenital condition would impair his long-term health and longevity prospects, so he wanted to optimize all other aspects of his health.

But, when I examined Tom, he could barely get himself up on the exam table without wincing in pain. When I asked him to walk, he hobbled a few steps, again clearly in pain. When I asked him what hurt, he said "everything." He said that all his joints hurt just to move.

He told me that his several doctors over the years didn't know why he was in such pain: It wasn't rheumatoid arthritis, gout, pseudogout, or any of the other inflammatory joint diseases that might account for virtually incapacitating this 26-year old man. Even the rheumatologists were stumped. It was also unrelated to his repaired congenital condition. So Tom went on with his life, barely able to even go for a walk with his wife without pain, slowing him down to the pace of an 80-year old.

So I suggested that he eliminate all wheat products. "I don't know for a fact whether it will work, Tom. But the only way to find out is to give it a try. Why not try a 4-week period of meticulously avoiding wheat? Nothing bad will come of it."

He and his wife look perplexed, but were so desperate for a solution that they agreed to give it a try.

Tom returned 6 weeks later. He walked into the room briskly, then bounded up on the exam table. He told me that, within days, all his joint pains had completely disappeared. He could walk, stretch, do all the normal physical things with none of the pain he had suffered previously.

Tom told me, "I didn't think it could be true. I thought it was just a coincidence. So I had a sandwich about 2 weeks into it. In about 5 minutes, I got about half my pains back."

Tom now remains wheat-free and pain-free, thankfully with no discernible joint impairment.

So, yes, Tom walked freely and without pain simply by eliminating wheat from his life.

Is it an immune phenomenon? Does wheat gluten trigger some inflammatory reaction in some people? There is surely something like this underlying experiences like Tom.

Wheat contains far more than gluten. Modern wheat is a collection of hundreds of different proteins, though gluten is the most plentiful, the one that confers the "viscoelasticity" of dough. But there's plenty more to wheat than gluten or celiac disease.

AGEing gracefully

Advanced Glycation End-products, or AGEs, have the potential to change our entire conversation about diet.

AGEs come from two principal sources:

1) Endogenous--Glucose-protein interactions that arise from high blood glucose levels

2) Exogenous--From diet

The first is sensitive to glucose levels: the higher the glucose level, the greater the AGE formation. The second depends on the quantity of AGE in the food consumed.

A compelling body of evidence points towards AGEs as an agent of aging, as well as kidney dysfunction, dementia, and atherosclerosis. Some of the observations made include:

--If AGEs are infused into an experimental animal, it develops atherosclerosis, kidney disease, and other "diseases of senescence" within weeks to months.

--In endothelial cells (cells lining arteries), AGE induces expression of adhesion molecules and inflammatory signals. In fibroblasts, AGE provokes collagen production. In smooth muscle cells, AGE triggers migration and proliferation. In monocytes and macrophages, AGEs induce chemotaxis and release of inflammation mediators. In short, AGEs have been implicated in just about every step leading to atherosclerosis.

--In humans, greater quantities of AGEs are present in diabetics, pre-diabetics and people with insulin resistance. We all know that these people develop atherosclerosis, kidney disease, cataracts, and other conditions at an accelerated rate.

--Foods containing greater quantities of AGEs cause endothelial dysfunction, i.e., artery constriction via blockade of nitric oxide and other mechanisms.

Short of taking agents that block AGE activity, how can you minimize the absorption or production of AGEs? There are two general strategies:

1) Keep blood glucose low--The Whitehall study demonstrated increased cardiovascular mortality with a postprandial (actually 2-hour post- 50-gram glucose challenge) blood sugar of 83 mg/dl. Lower blood glucose, less glycation. Less carbohydrates in the diet, the lower the blood sugar, the less the glycation. Studies like Whitehall demonstrate that glycation begins with glucose values within the normal range. Thus, aging occurs even with normal glucose levels. It occurs faster with higher glucose levels.

2) Choose and prepare foods with lower AGE content. Food content of AGEs is a major determinant of blood AGE levels. Fats and meats are the primary dietary source of AGEs, particularly if cooked at high temperature (broiling, frying). While this does not mean that meats and fats need to be avoided, it can mean that limiting serving size of meats and fats, while being selective in how they are prepared, are important. This can mean cutting your meats in thinner slices or smaller pieces to permit faster cooking, eating rare when possible (not poultry, of course), avoiding cooking with sauces that contain sugar (which enhances AGE formation). Is this an argument in favor of sashimi?

Minimizing exposure to AGEs, endogenous or exogenous, has the potential to slow the aging process, or at least to lessen the likelihood of many of the phenomena of aging.

More on this to come.

Small LDL: Simple vs. complex carbohydrates

Joseph is a whip-smart corporate attorney, but one who accepts advice at his own pace. He likes to explore and consider each step of the advice I give him.

Starting (NMR) lipoprotein panel on no treatment or diet change:

LDL particle number 2620 nmol/L (which I would equate to 262 mg/dl LDL cholesterol)
Small LDL 2331 nmol/L--representing 89% of LDL particle number, a severe dominance of small LDL

I advised him to eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, while limiting other carbohydrate sources, as well. Joseph didn't like this idea very much, concerned that it would be impractical, given his busy schedule. He also did a lot of reading of the sort that suggested that replacing white flour with whole grains provided health advantages. So that's what he did: Replaced all sugar and refined flour products with whole grains, but did not restrict his intake of grains.

Next lipoprotein panel with whole grains replacing white refined flour:

LDL particle number 2451 nmol/L
Small LDL 1998 nmol/L--representing 81.5% of LDL particle number.

In other words, replacing white flour products with whole grain products reduced small LDL by 14%--a modest improvement, but hardly great.

I explained to Joseph that any grain, complex, refined, or simple--will, just like other sugars and carbohydrates, still provoke small LDL. Given the severity of his patterns, I suggested trying again, this time with full elimination of grains.

Next lipoprotein panel with elimination of whole grains:

LDL particle number 1320 nmol/L
Small LDL 646 nmol/L
--48.9% of total LDL particle number, but a much lower absolute number, a reduction of 67.6%.

This is typical of the LDL responses I see with elimination of wheat products on the background of an overall carbohydrate restriction: Big drops in precisely measured LDL as LDL particle number (i.e., an actual count of LDL particles, not LDL cholesterol) and big drops in the number of small LDL particles.

You might say that wheat elimination and limitation of carbohydrate intake can yield statin-like values . . . without the statin.

Is Cocoa Puffs no longer heart healthy?

Until recently, Cocoa Puffs enjoyed the endorsement of the American Heart Association (AHA) as a heart-healthy food.

For a price, the AHA will allow food manufacturers to affix a heart "check mark" signifying endorsement by the AHA as conforming to some basic "heart healthy" requirements.

Odd thing: The list of breakfast cereals on the check mark program has shrunk dramatically. When I last posted about this, there were around 50-some breakfast cereals, from Cocoa Puffs to Frosted Mini Wheats. Now, the list has been trimmed down to 17:

Berry Burst Cheerios-Triple Berry
Cheerios
Cheerios Crunch
Honey Nut Cheerios
Kashi Heart to Heart Honey Toasted Oat Cereal
Kashi Heart to Heart Oat Flakes & Wild Blueberry Clusters
Kashi Heart to Heart Warm Cinnamon Oat Cereal
Multi Grain Cheerios
Oatmeal Crisp Crunchy Almond
Oatmeal Crisp Hearty Raisin
Quaker Cinnamon Life
Quaker Heart Health
Quaker Life
Quaker Life Maple & Brown Sugar
Quaker Oat Bran
Quaker Oatmeal Squares - Brown Sugar
Quaker Oatmeal Squares - Cinnamon


According to sales material targeted to food manufacturers, the American Heart Association boasts that "The American Heart Association’s heart-check mark is the most recognized and trusted food icon today . . . Eighty-three percent of consumers are aware of the heart-check mark. Sixty-six percent of primary grocery shoppers say the heart-check mark has a strong/moderate influence on their choices when shopping."

So, is Cocoa Puffs no longer heart healthy?

I suspect that agencies like the AHA, the USDA, the American Diabetes Association as starting to understand that they have blundered big time by pushing low-fat, having contributed to the nationwide epidemic of obesity and diabetes, and that it is time to quietly start backpedaling.

While it's a step in the right direction, judging from the above list of breakfast cereal "survivors" of the check mark program, the criteria may have been tightened . . . but not that much.

Fractures and vitamin D

This is a bit off topic, but it's such an interesting observation that I'd like to pass it on.

Over the past several years, there have been inevitable bone fractures: People slip on ice, for instance, and fracture a wrist or elbow. Or miss a step and fracture a foot, fall off a ladder and fracture a leg.

People will come to my office and tell me that their orthopedist commented that they healed faster than usual, often faster than anyone else they've seen before. My son was told this after he shattered his hand getting slammed against the boards in hockey; his orthopedist took the screws and cast off much sooner than usual since he judged that healing had occured early. (My son was taking 8000 units vitamin D in gelcap form; I also had him take 20,000 units for several days early after his injury to be absolutely sure he had sufficient levels.)

My suspicion is that people taking vitamin D sufficient to enjoy desirable blood levels (I aim for a 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 60-70 ng/ml) heal fractures much faster, abbreviating healing time (crudely estimated) by at least 30%.

For any interested orthopedist, it would be an easy clinical study: Enroll people with traumatic fractures, randomize to vitamin D at, say, 10,000 units per day vs. placebo, watch who heals faster gauged by, for instance, x-ray. My prediction: Vitamin D will win hands down with faster healing and perhaps more assured fusion of the fracture site.

T3 for accelerating weight loss

Supplementation of the thyroid hormone, T3, is an underappreciated means to lose weight.

Thyroid health, in general, is extremely important for weight control, since even subtle low thyroid hormone levels can result in weight gain. The first step in achieving thyroid health is to be sure you are obtaining sufficient iodine. (See Iodine deficiency is real and Healthy people are the most iodine deficient) But, after iodine replacement has been undertaken, the next step is to consider your T3 status.

I've seen T3 ignite weight loss or boost someone out of a weight loss "plateau" many times.

Endocrinologists cringe at this notion of using T3. They claim that you will develop atrial fibrillation (an abnormal heart rhythm) and osteoporosis by doing this. I have yet to see this happen.

Adding T3 revs up metabolic rate at low doses. The idea is to push free T3 hormone levels to the upper limit of normal, but not to the hyperthyroid range. While an occasional person feels a little "hyper" like they've had a pot of coffee, most people just feel energized, clear-headed, and happier. And weight trends down much more readily.

Taking T3 by itself with no effort at weight loss generally yields only a modest weight reduction. However, T3 added to other weight reducing efforts, such as wheat elimination and exercise, accelerates the weight loss effect considerably. 5 lbs lost will likely be more like 8 to 10 lbs lost; 10 lbs lost will likely be more like 15 to 20 lbs, etc.

It's also my suspicion that more and more people are developing a selective impairment of T3, making it all the more important. I believe that you and I are being exposed to something (perchlorates, bisphenol A, perflurooctanoic acid, and others?) that may be impairing the 5'-deiodinase enzyme that converts the T4 thyroid hormone to the active T3. Relative lack of T3 leads to slowed metabolism, weight gain, and depressed mood. While avoiding or removing the toxin impairing 5'-deiodinase would be ideal, until we find out how to do this, taking T3 is a second best.

The tough part: Finding a prescriber for your T3.
All posts by william-davis

Disease Engineering

Imagine you contract pneumonia.

You have a fever of 103, you’re coughing up thick, yellow sputum, breathing is getting difficult. You hobble to the doctor, who then fails to prescribe you antibiotics. You get some kind of explanation about unnecessary exposure to antibiotics to avoid creating resistant organisms, yadda yadda. So you make do with some Tylenol®, cough syrup, and resign yourself to a few lousy days of suffering.

Five days into your illness, you’ve not shown up for work, you’re having trouble breathing, and you’re getting delirious. An emergency trip to the hospital follows, where a bronchoscopy is performed (an imaging scope threaded down your airway) and organisms recovered for diagnosis. You’re put on a ventilator through a tube in your throat to support your breathing and treated with intravenous antibiotics. Delayed treatment permits infection to escape into the fluid around your lungs, creating an “empyema,” an extension of the infection that requires insertion of a tube into your chest through an incision to drain the infection. You require feeding through a tube in your nose, since the ventilator prevents you from eating through your mouth. After 10 days, several healing incisions, and a hospital bill totaling $75,000, you’re discharged only to be face eights weeks of rehabilitation because of the extreme toll your illness extracted. Your doctor also advises you that, given the damage incurred to your lungs and airways, you will be prone to more lung infections in the future, and similar situations could recur whenever a cold or virus comes long.

A disease treatable by taking a two week, $20 course of oral antibiotics at home has been converted into a lengthy hospital stay that generated extravagant professional fees, testing, and costly supportive care. You’ve lost several weeks of income. You’re weak and demoralized, frightened that the next flu or virus could mean another trip to the hospital.

Such a scenario would be unimaginable with a common infection like pneumonia, or it would be grounds for filing a malpractice lawsuit. But, as horrific as it sounds in another sphere of healthcare, it is, in effect, analogous to how heart disease is managed in current medical practice.

First, you’re permitted to develop the condition. It may require years of ignoring the telltale signs, it may require your unwitting participation in unhealthy lifestyle choices. Palliative treatments that slow, but don't stop, the progression of disease are prescribed like cholesterol drugs. The process then eventuates in some catastrophe like heart attack or similar unstable heart situation, at which point you no longer have a choice but to submit to major heart procedures. That’s when you receive your heart catheterization, coronary stents, bypass, defibrillators, etc. and you're proudly declared a "success" of medical technology.

Of course, none of these procedural treatments cures the disease, no more than a Band Aid® heals the gash in your leg. The conditions that were present that created your heart disease continue, allowing a progressive disease to worsen. At some point, you will need to return to the hospital for yet more procedures when trouble recurs, which it inevitably does.

A coronary bypass operation costs, on average $85, 653 (AHA 2008 Update; based on 2004 data). That doesn't include the $25,433 cost for the heart catheterization performed by a cardiologist to provide the surgical roadmap of your coronary arteries. If there are any complications of your procedure, then your hospital bill may total a substantially higher figure.

$85, 653 is just the upfront financial pay-off. Over the long run, your life is actually worth far more to the cardiovascular healthcare system because no heart procedure yields a permanent fix. In fact, repeated reliance on the system is the rule.

In fact, over 90% of people who enter the American cardiovascular healthcare system do so through a revolving door of multiple procedures over several years. It is truly a rare person, for instance, who undergoes a coronary bypass operation, never to be seen again the wards of the hospital because he remains healthy and free of catastrophe. A much more familiar scenario is the man or woman who undergoes two or three heart catheterizations, receives 3,4, or 6 stents, followed a few years later by a heart bypass, pacemaker, defibrillator, as well as the tests performed for catastrophe management, such as nuclear stress test, echocardiogram, laboratory blood analysis, and consultation with several specialists. Re-do bypass surgeries--a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th bypass--now comprise 25% of all bypass procedures.

The total revenue opportunity is many-fold higher than the initial 80-some thousand dollars, but instead totals hundreds of thousands of dollars per person.

What motivation can there possibly be to 1) identify coronary disease early, when in its asymptomatic stage, then 2) identify its causes, then 3) correct the causes, and finally 4) shut off the disease? You and I can accomplish this with a few hundred dollars of cost, perhaps a few thousand over many years (to cover costs of fish oil, vitamin D, niacin, and whatever else it takes to stop the expression of the disease). Nobody therefore profits substantially from your prevention effort--except you.

Then what if nobody told you that heart disease could be managed this way? That's what I mean by "disease engineering."

Dr. Steven Gundry on The Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show

I stumbled on a great interview with cardiothoracic surgeon, Dr. Steven Gundry, on Jimmy Moore's Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show. (Or, cut and paste: http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/dr-steven-gundry-part-1-episode-179/)

Dr. Gundry has some fun ways of looking at eating and health. I found his comments on the activation of genes (discussed at a very light, non-scientific level) useful. He argues that when humans consume sugar-containing foods, the signal received by the body is that winter is approaching and it's time to build up fat stores in anticipation of the food shortages of cold weather. He finds parallels for this phenomenon in other species. Of course, for humans, winter (in the form of extended calorie deprivation) never comes. In fact, you might argue that, given our excessive reliance on grains, corn, and sugars, that we are, in effect, always in anticipation of a winter that never comes.

I've not read Dr. Gundry's books, but I found this light interview a lot of fun.

Does fish oil ADD to statin therapy?

Yet another patient came to my office today saying, "My primary doctor said that I should stop taking fish oil. He say's that I don't need it because I take Crestor."

The woman was in tears, confused and frightened over a potential disagreement between her doctors.

Is this true? If someone takes a statin drug, like Crestor, Lipitor, Zocor (simvastatin), pravachol, or lovastatin, they don't need to take anything else because the statin drug is so powerful that it eliminates risk?

No. Not even close to the truth.

First of all, let's accept that virtually the entire body of statin drug literature--hundreds of studies, billions of dollars spent--was paid for by the drug industry. It's no news that studies paid for by the sponsor are likely to favor the sponsor. Imagine Ford sponsored a study of Ford vs. GM cars vs. Toyota, paying $10 million to fund the effort. Guess who is likely to come out on top? "Studies show that Ford makes the best car in America." (Sorry, I don't mean to pick specifically on Ford. It's just a widely-recognized brand.)

So that means that the statin literature likely overestimates the benefit of statin drugs. Even so, it's clear from the hundreds of studies performed that the best we can hope for by taking statin drugs is a reduction of heart attack and death from heart attack of 30-35%--best case. That doesn't sound like elimination of risk to me.

What are the incremental benefits of adding omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil added to statins? The best data originate with the JELIS Trial (Effects of eicosapentaenoic acid on major coronary events in hypercholesterolaemic patients (JELIS): a randomised open-label, blinded endpoint analysis), in which 19,000 Japanese participants (who already have a high omega-3 intake from diet, usually ranging from 1800-3000 mg per day) experienced a 19% reduction (relative reduction) in cardiovascular events.

GISSI Prevenzione demonstrated a 28% reduction in heart attack, 45% reduction in death from heart attack with fish oil.

Omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil also:

--Reduce triglycerides dramatically
--Accelerate after-eating clearance of digestive by-products, i.e., they correct post-prandial abnormalities
--Modify the character (fragmentation potential, structural strength) of plaque
--Raise HDL modestly

If you buy your fish oil from Sam's Club, Costco, or other discounter, a healthy dose of fish oil might cost you $3 per month. Compare that to the $120 per month average cost of a statin agent. Why is there even a discussion over this?

Sadly, the doctor on Main Street, U.S.A, is the unwitting puppet of the pharmaceutical industry. The pretty drug company representative with nice legs and a cute smile promises lunch, dinner and . . who knows what else? Wink. The fifty-something, hairline-receding doctor can't resist. "Of course I'll prescribe your drug!"

Don't kid yourself: The drug industry knows precisely how to manipulate the behaviors of the deliverers of their products.

So, do statin drugs make omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil irrelevant? Absolutely not.

It's all about trying to inch closer and closer--not to reduction--but to elimination of risk for heart disease.

HDL: “H” is for “happy”

What role do emotions play in HDL cholesterol?

I’ve often observed a peculiar phenomenon: People who come to the office or hospital in the midst of a difficult emotional situation-e.g., stress at home, financial struggles, hospitalization (usually an unhappy occasion)- can show dramatic drops in HDL cholesterol. Not uncommonly, HDL drops 20 or more mg/dl.

Take Agnes’s case. Agnes had to go to the hospital for an elective procedure, one she’d been dreading for months. Previously, Agnes had been proud of the fact that she’d incrased HDL from 42 mg/dl range all the way up to 71 mg/dl. She accomplished this dramatic increase by eliminating wheat and cornstarch from her diet (which helped her lose 24 lbs), taking vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, exercise, 2 oz of dark chocolate per day, and a glass of red wine with dinner.

Although I wouldn’t have bothered checking a cholesterol panel for such a procedure, the hospital had a checklist that included a cholesterol panel regardless of necessity. (Such checklists are common in hospitals, meant to ensure that certain basic issues are not overlooked.)

Agnes’ HDL: 29 mg/dl-a 42 mg drop.

Agnes will recover and her HDL will rebound, but the same effect can occur with other stressful situations, such as death in the family, financial worries, marital stress, etc., as well as physical illness.

Interestingly, the opposite may also hold true: Low HDL may increase risk for depression and stress. A study from Finland of 124 depressed persons, for instance, showed a 240% increased likelihood of depression in those with lower HDL cholesterols.

In other words, there seems to be a curious interdependence between HDL and emotions.

Why? Does it represent the indirect effect of adrenaline, cortisol, or other “stress hormones”? Do factors that relate to low HDL, such as unhealthy diet full of carbohydrates and physical inactivity, also tend to cultivate depression?

It certainly seems to be a chicken-egg situation, with one often leading to the other.

Moral of the story: Maintaining a sense of optimism and engaging in activities that bring you satisfaction and enjoyment can help raise HDL, as can strategies such as those followed by Agnes. Avoiding unnecessarily stressful situations can help. HDL is important, since higher levels are associated with much reduced risk for heart disease . . . and perhaps depression.

Plaquology

Plaquology: A new term.

Plaquology: def: (plaque-: atherosclerotic plaque; -ology: study of.) The study of atherosclerotic plaque, originating in the early 21st century during the time period when the material underlying atherosclerosis gained recognition as a measure superior to "risk factors" for cardiovascular disease. Previous to the plaque concept, blood measures of cholesterol and adverse lifestyle habits, such as smoking and sedentary lifestyle, alone had been used to predict potential for cardiovascular events. With acceptance of the concept of plaque measurement, the concept of risk factors was abandoned.


Look it up in the current Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, or Webster's Dictionary, and I'm afraid that you still won't find plaquology . . . but you should.

I'm currently rewriting many parts of the Track Your Plaque book. The rewriting process has caused me to review just how much we've learned these past few years. One of the phenomena that fascinates me is that we now have non-medical people--teachers, software people, engineers, bankers, bed and breakfast owners, retired businesspeople, etc.--all discussing the finer points of coronary atherosclerotic plaque--plaquology--what constitutes plaque, what triggers plaque inflammation, how to quantify potential for plaque rupture or plaque quiescence, what effect various treatments have on plaque composition and behavior, etc.

We now have a legion of Plaquologists!

I'm very proud of our Plaquologists. Having devoted themselves to the study of plaque, their level of knowledge now exceeds that of 99% of practicing physicians, including my colleagues, the cardiologists. While cardiologists spend their day squashing/cutting/vaporizing plaque, they are no more experts in plaquology than a carpenter is an expert in trees. More often than not, cardiologists view plaque as just something that gets in their way, rather than the quantifiable, modifiable, reversible material that we can exert control over.

One of the software tools currently in the works for the Track Your Plaque website is a certification process. Members will be able to gain a "certification" in various topics relevant to plaquology, such as plaque quantification, lipoprotein testing, and nutritional supplements.

How about a Doctor of Plaquology?

Thyroid perspective update

Since the publication of the extraordinary HUNT Study relating the entire spectrum of thyroid function and heart issues, I have been vigorously and systematically examining thyroid function in numerous patients.

While there's no news in relating flagrant low thyroid function with triggering heart disease in several forms, the cut-off between low thyroid and normal thyroid has been a matter of dispute for decades.

In the early 20th century, low thyroid function wasn't diagnosed until someone gained 40 lbs, displayed extravagant amounts of edema (water retention) in the legs and huge bags under the eyes, hair fell out in clumps, and often eventually proved fatal. At autopsy, these unfortunates also showed advanced and extensive quantities of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

Low thyroid is usually diagnosed on the basis of the blood test, thyroid stimulating hormone, or TSH. TSH is a pituitary gland hormone responsible for stimulation of thyroid function. When thyroid function flags, the pituitary increases TSH release. Thus, a high TSH signals lower thyroid hormone levels.

The difficulty is in distinguishing normal thyroid function from low thyroid function judged by TSH levels. As the years have passed, in fact, the cut-off for "normal" TSH has drifted lower and lower.

The HUNT Study, I believe, clinches the argument: A TSH of 1.5 or lower, perhaps even 1.0 or lower, is desirable to eliminate the excess cardiovascular risk provided by an underactive thyroid, not to mention feel better: more energetic, clearer thinking, greater well-being.

Having now applied this renewed appreciation for thyroid, I have come to believe that:

--Low thyroid function, even subtle levels, are rampant and far more common than ever previously thought. In my office practice, the case could be made that several people per day are marginally or mildly hypothyroid (low in thyroid).
--Restoration of optimal thyroid levels facilitates correction of lipid measures, especially LDL cholesterol and, to a lesser degree, lipoprotein patterns dependent on the insulin axis such as triglycerides and small LDL. It's a lot happier way to correct lipids than statins.

I don't discount the value of feeling better. People who feel better--more energetic, more upbeat, clearer thinking--tend to do better in health overall. If thyroid restoration is a part of that equation, then greater attention should be paid to this facet of health on our way to optimal heart health.

Though I sometimes feel like an endocrinologist dispensing desiccated thyroid (rarely the synthetic T4), I believe that this has been a previously neglected and important part of our effort to achieve coronary plaque stabilization and reversal.

Accidental Health


"I shall never have smallpox for I have had cowpox; I shall never
have an ugly pockmarked face."

Such was the idle comment made by a milkmaid to Edward Jenner in 1768 when Jenner was 19, a remark that later prompted his investigations into using isolates of cowpox injected into humans as the first vaccination against the devastations of the European epidemic of smallpox.

(A caricature of Jenner administering cowpox vaccine to people, causing them to sprout bovine appendages. Image courtesy Wikipedia and the Library of Congress.)

When I look back, something similar has happened here.

Although the Track Your Plaque program is intended to stop and reverse coronary plaque using the only available means of tracking coronary plaque, i.e., heart scans, an unintended panel of benefits follow:

--People lose weight, often dramatically
--People gain greater energy
--Thinking is clearer, emotions more stable
--Sleep is deeper
--Bone density increases
--Physical strength and coordination improve
--Winter blues dissipate
--Blood sugar drops dramatically
--Blood pressure drops

Cholesterol (lipid) panels also settle to values that most physicians deem impossible or impractical, given our target of 60:60:60, i.e., LDL 60 mg/dl or less, HDL 60 mg/dl or higher, triglycerides 60 mg/dl or less. And medications are not always necessary to achieve these values. (When I show these values to my colleagues, they declare them flukes, unobtainable only in select people with high doses of medications.)

I didn’t set out to find the next weight loss solution, nor the key to boundless energy. My goal was "simpler": create a program of heart health. I am, after all, a cardiologist.

I was so intently focused on achieving incremental improvements over the steps leading to heart disease prevention that I failed to recognize the profound phenomena that accompanied it: people were quicker, smarter, thinner, and healthier.

In other words, I believe that we have inadvertently created a program of super health and performance.

Ironically, most people don't want to talk about heart disease, let alone reversal of heart disease. They do want to talk about getting thinner, feeling more energetic, living longer, better cholesterol values, etc.

Perhaps there's a lesson in this.

Livin' La Vida Low Carb interview


I recently provided an interview for Livin' La Vida Low Carb's irrepressible Jimmy Moore.

Jimmy runs a fun set of blogs, webcasts, and the like to broadcast this message of reducing carbohydrates in the diet. He credits his 210 lb weight loss to a strict low-carbohydrate and exercise program.

For the interview, just go to The Livin' the Vida Low Carb Show, Episode 185, or click here.

And click here for Part 2


For more of Jimmy Moore's spin on the entire low-carbohydrate diet experience, he maintains several popular blogs, including Carb Wire and The Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Blog.

Wheat withdrawal: How common?

In response to the recent Heart Scan Blog poll,

Have you experienced fatigue and mental fogginess with stopping wheat, i.e., "wheat withdrawal"?

the 104 respondents said:


Yes, I have experienced it: 26 (25%)

No, I stopped wheat and did not experience it: 65 (62%)

I'm not sure: 3 (2%)

I haven't tried it but plan to: 7 (6%)

I haven't tried it and don't plan to: 3 (2%)



So 25% of respondents reported experiencing the fatigue and mental fogginess of wheat withdrawal. This is similar to what I observe in my practice.

I counsel many patients to consider the elimination of wheat, as well as cornstarch products, in an effort to regain control over:

--Weight
--Appetite
--Low HDL
--High triglycerides
--Small LDL
--High blood sugar
--High blood pressure

All of these issues respond--often dramatically--to elimination of wheat and cornstarch.

Why would there be undesirable effects of eliminating wheat?

One clear issue is that elimination of wheat and other sugar-equivalents deprives your body of glucose. Your body then needs to resort to fatty acid metabolism to generate energy. Apparently, some people are inefficient at this conversion, having subsisted on carbohydrates for the last few decades of their lives. However, as fatty acid metabolism kicks in, energy generation improves. That is my (over-)simplified way of reasoning it through.

However, are there other explanations behind the mental fogginess, drop in energy, and overwhelming sleepiness? Some readers of this blog have suggested that, since opioid-like sequences (i.e., amino acide sequences that activate opiate receptors) are present in wheat, perhaps withdrawal from wheat represents a lesser form of opiate withdrawal. I find this a fascinating possibility, though I know of no literature devoted to establishing a cause-effect relationship.

Whatever the mechanism, I find it very peculiar that this food widely touted by the USDA, American Heart Association, and other agencies actually triggers a withdrawal syndrome in approximately 25% of people. Spinach does not trigger withdrawal. Nor does flaxseed, olive oil, almonds, and countless other healthy foods.

Then why would whole wheat grains be lumped with other healthy foods?

Treat the patient, not the test

"Treat the patient, not the test."

That is a common "pearl" of medical wisdom often passed on during medical training.

It refers to the fact that we should always view any laboratory or imaging test in the context of the live, human patient and not just treat any unexpected value that doesn't seem to make sense.

I raise this issue because it recently came up on a discussion on the Track Your Plaque Forum. A Member with a high heart scan score of around 1100 was advised by his doctor that it should be ignored, because he'd prefer to treat the patient, not the test. The patient is apparently slender, physically active, and entirely without symptoms, with favorable cholesterol values as well. The high heart scan score didn't seem to jive with the appearance of the patient, as viewed by this doctor.

This common phrase is meant to impart wisdom. It is a reminder that we treat real people, not just a jumble of laboratory values.

But the unspoken part of the equation is that judgment needs to be applied. A well looking person who shows an unexpected rise in white blood cell count could just have a screwy result, or could have leukemia. Liver tests (AST, ALT) that top 400 could represent a fluke, or dehydration incurred during a long workout, or hepatitis from a long ago blood transfusion.

Yes, treat the patient. But don't be an idiot and entirely dismiss the signficance of an unexpected laboratory or imaging test. A heart scan score of 1100 should be as readily dismissed as discovering a white blood cell count of 90,000 (normal is less than 12,000), or a 5 cm mass in the lung. The absence of symptoms or the failure of conventional risk factors to suggest causation is insufficient reason to dismiss the concrete findings of a test.

In this particular person, dismissing the significance of the heart scan finding by suggesting that the doctor should treat the patient, not the test, is tantamount to:

--Colossal ignorance
--Malpractice
--A certain sentencing of the hapless patient to future major heart procedures, heart attack or death (20-25% likelihood every year, or a virtual certainty over the next 5 years).

There is an ounce of wisdom in this old medical pearl. But there's also plenty of room for a knuckleheaded doctor to misconstrue and abuse its meaning for the sake of covering up his/her ignorance, laziness, or lack of caring.
Unexpected effects of a wheat-free diet

Unexpected effects of a wheat-free diet

Wheat elimination continues to yield explosive and unexpected health benefits.

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

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

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

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

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

--Reduction or elimination of irritable bowel syndrome

--Reduction or elimination of gastroesophageal reflux

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

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

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


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

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

Comments (59) -

  • Olga

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

    Hi Dr. Davis:

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

    Thanks so much for writing this blog.

  • Adam Wilk

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

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

  • Helena

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

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

  • Susan

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Chris

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

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

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

  • Gretchen

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

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

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/17/2009 9:06:54 PM |

    Hi, Chris--

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

    Anon--

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

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/17/2009 9:07:33 PM |

    Hi, Olga--

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

  • Sara

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

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

  • Thomas

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

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

  • Robert McLeod

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

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

  • William Trumbower

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

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

  • Anne

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

  • William Trumbower

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

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

  • donny

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

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

  • pooklaroux

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

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

  • DropYourAllergies

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

    Gluten >> Allergy ? > InTolerance ? > Celiac ?

    Did YOU Know / Have you been told ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Test to Determine if InTolerance of ALLERGY.

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

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

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

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

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

    Best Health = Wealth Regards

    Stephen
    DropYourAllergies.com

    Celiac Information:

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

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

    > Key Take HOME Message !

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

  • kris

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

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

  • Suresh

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

    Dr. Davis,

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

    Thanks!

    -Suresh

  • water

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

    Sara,

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

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

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

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

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

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

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/19/2009 1:59:09 PM |

    Suresh--

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

  • Anonymous

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

    Re: beer and barley

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

    Re: rice

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

  • Anne

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

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

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

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

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

  • taemo

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

    Dr. Davis,

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

    Thanks for all you do!

    madcook

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/21/2009 9:43:47 PM |

    Hi, Mad--

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

  • denparser

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

    @Anonymous (before me)

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

  • Stan (Heretic)

    9/23/2009 11:48:20 AM |

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

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

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

    Stan (Heretic)

  • Anonymous

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

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

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

  • dves

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

    @taemo

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

  • denparser

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

    @Thomas

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

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

  • trinkwasser

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

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

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

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

  • Sew Bee It

    10/6/2009 10:28:46 PM |

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

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

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

  • Jenny

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

  • Jamie

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

    Jenny,

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

  • Beverly

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

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

  • Beverly

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

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

    Beverly

  • Julianne

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

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

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

  • Alina M

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

    Is whole grain wheat also harmful?

    Thank your very much for all your information.

  • legend_018

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

    So people just give up having

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

    That seems hard to give up.

  • Anonymous

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

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

  • Rusa

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

    legend 018 said:
    So people just give up having

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

    That seems hard to give up.



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

  • KMebust

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

  • James

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

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

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

  • Ravi

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

    Hello Dr. Davis,

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

  • Ravi

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

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

  • Pixie

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

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

Loading
All posts by william-davis

D2 and D3 are two different things

Helena posted this instructive comment in response to the Heart Scan Blog post, Weight loss and vitamin D. It illustrates the confusion common among physicians and pharmacists on the differences between D2 and D3.

(Edited slightly for clarity.)

Not many weeks ago a colleague of mine (let’s call him Eric) asked me if I knew the difference between D2 and D3 and I told Eric that D2 comes from irradiated mushrooms and D3 comes from wool. In other words, D3 is the same kind of vitamin as humans get from the sun. Humans just don’t get enough and we can’t produce it on our own, like the sheep can. (D3 is natural for humans, D2 is not.)

After telling Eric this, he asked me how he would know what he is taking and I gave him the medical definitions of them both (D2 = Ergocalciferol; D3 = Cholecaliciferol). Since I was aware that he had gotten his Vitamin D by prescription, I told him “I am 99.9% sure that you are taking D2, but I would be thrilled to find out I am wrong.”

Eric called his pharmacy right away and got the answer I was expecting: ergocalciferol. On confronting the person Eric was talking to, the answer he got back was that Ergocalciferol is the only Vitamin D they are giving out.

A week later, Eric had a new appointment with his doctor and decided to ask him about the D2/D3 issue. The doctor said he knew that there was a difference in them both, but could not say what, not even the basic facts I mentioned above. But the doctor stamped a post-it with what he had sent to the pharmacy just to show Eric. “Vitamin D3; 50,000IU tab” is what the stamp said.

Eric, off course, got confused and was starting to believe that the pharmacy had made a mistake by giving him Ergocalciferol (D2) since the doctor had given him D3, or at least that is what was stamped on the little note he had.

Today, after getting a refill of his Vitamin D he also got and kept all his paperwork that came along with it. Still believing that stamp the doctor had given Eric earlier, he asked me to double and triple check that my definition of D2 and D3 was correct. I did, just for my own sanity, and I was still right.

One of the sheets Eric brought me today was the “Patient Education Monograph” sheet stating the drugs and how to use it and so on. The thing that jumped out the most to me was this:

Generic Name: Vitamin D – Oral
Common Brand name(s): Drisdol, Maximum D3
Identification: PA140 Green Oval Capsule

This is the Drug Eric was given: Vitamin D 1.25 MG softgel; Generic name: Ergocalciferol

My researching mind went into high concentration mood and I started to dig. And this is what I found:

The brand name Drisdol is Ergocalciferol (D2), not D3. The Brand name Maximum D3 seems to be hard to find out there in cyber space as a brand name. But the ones I found that were called Maximum D3 seems to be the real stuff, however none of them required a prescription.

When trying to find out through the identification number on the pills (PA140) I now know for sure that Eric is taking Vitamin D2 and not the preferred Vitamin D3. The brand name, Drisdol, had the identification W on one side and D92 on the other, but it is still Ergocalciferol.

The only conclusion I can draw from all this is that the medical industry does not know or care about the difference in D2 and D3 – it is all same to them. And as long as the pharmacies only give out D2 it does not matter what the doctor prescribe anyway.

I know that people are most likely to be prescribed a D2 pill than to be told to buy over-the-counter D3. But it was almost heart breaking to see the letter D and number 3 right next to the drug Drisdol, as we know is a D2 vitamin. It just didn’t make sense to me that they can be labeled as the same type of medication, when we know it is not!



Incredible.

Why prescribe plant form D2 when you can get perfectly reliable, safe, effective D3--the human form, at the health food store for about $6?

Once again, it's the peculiar false bias of physicians and pharmacists: If it's prescription, it must be good; if it comes from a health food store, it must be bogus.

Humans need human vitamin D. Plain and simple.

For more on the D2 vs. D3 issue, see the Heart Scan Post, The case against vitamin D2.

Weight loss: Different causes, different solutions

Heart Scan Blog reader, Kris, related this enlightening story of weight loss (slightly edited for clarity).

Kris learned that excess weight is gained through multiple causes. The solutions are therefore multiple, not just one change in diet or two.


I started studying about my thyroid issue much earlier and did lose some weight. But ever since I started following Dr. Davis’s blog, it has given me confidence that I was on the right track. I did have my thyroid and iodine figured out from other sources, but Dr. Davis helped me to understand the issues with not only the thyroid but vitamin D3, fructose, fish oil, niacin, wheat etc. I have lost 43lb in last 14 months.

It seems to me that there are certain percentages of weight connected with different issues. For example, after I gave up alcohol and sugar, I lost about 14lbs from total weight of 243lbs, weight came down to about 229lb. Then it stopped at 229lb, even though I was in the gym almost 5 to 6 days a week with full workouts.

After I changed my thyroid medication to natural thyroid hormones (took synthetic T4 for over 10 years), the weight dropped down further 13lbs or so in matter of few days, shape of the face changed from moon shape/double chin to ordinary long face. Then it kind of stopped at around 213-216 lbs.

After giving up wheat, reducing carbs, increasing protein intake (whey protein, chicken etc. no soya, no fructose) the weight came down another 14lbs. Now it is around 200-202lbs and I am over 6.2 tall with heavy set of bones.

I feel better than I have ever in my life. More stamina, more clarity/no fog, more confidence and 99% of the time relaxed and being able to see the situation from multiple angles.

I use to be able to drink a liter or more jack denial without a problem in one evening but now can’t stand half a can of beer (I miss JD). Drinking alcohol makes me sick. I sleep well and if I wake up in the middle of the night, I have no problem going back to sleep. No more out of breath stair climbing at all.

One other thing: I used to be the most attractive meal to the mosquitoes, but not anymore. This year I haven’t been bitten once. I take my dog to the park everyday and I do not use any mosquito repellent, what a relief. I don’t know if it is because of thyroid, iodine, wheat or something else. Skin texture has changed dramatically. I do not use full soap or shampoo, 20% borax, 10 percent of my soap or shampoo for scent and rest water, mixed in a 500ml bottle. No more dandruff, dry skin, pimples for me.

Dr. Davis I am thankful to people like you who have the ability to see beyond what you have been taught and have the guts to say the way it is. Most of us work to make living on daily basis but some make their living while spreading their knowledge to save lives. Dr Davis you are one of those few people. Please keep it going.

Calling all losers!

I'd like to invite anyone who has followed the Track Your Plaque Break the Weight Barrier program to consider posting their stories and photos on the Heart Scan Blog.

Because our focus is prevention and reversal of coronary heart disease, we have not made an effort to catalog the weight loss experience that people have while on the program. For many, weight loss has been substantial. (Several people this week alone have reported weight loss of 9 to 46 lbs in the past 6 months.)

It would be helpful to hear and see these results.

For those of you who don't mind having a story and photo on this Blog, please come back in future to post your results. You will find this post by entering "weight loss" into the site-specific search bar at the top of the page.

Weight loss and vitamin D

At the start of her program, Penny's 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level showed the usual deficiency at 22 ng/ml.

She supplemented with 8000 units of vitamin D. Another 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level several months later showed a level of 67.8 ng/ml, right on target.

But Penny also began our diet, including the elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, and, over 6 months, lost 34 lbs.

Now a much trimmer 146 lbs (still more to go!), another vitamin D blood level: 111 ng/ml.

Penny's weight loss means that the vitamin D is distributed in a smaller total volume, particularly a lower volume of fat.

This is a common phenomenon with substantial weight loss: lose weight and the need for vitamin D is reduced. The reduction in dose is roughly proportion to the weight lost. Vitamin D should therefore be reassessed with any substantial change in weight of, say, 10 lbs or more, either up or down, because of the influence of fat on vitamin D blood levels.

Some references on this effect:

Men and women over age 65:
Adiposity in relation to vitamin D status and parathyroid hormone levels: a population-based study in older men and women.

Obese women:
Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations in obese women: their clinical significance and relationship with anthropometric and body composition variables

Obese children:
Hypovitaminosis D in obese children and adolescents: relationship with adiposity, insulin sensitivity, ethnicity, and season.

African-Americans:
Relationship of vitamin D and parathyroid hormone to obesity and body composition in African Americans.

Although the bulk of the effect is most likely due to sequestration by fatty tissue, perhaps less sun exposure in obese people also contributes:
Body mass index determines sunbathing habits: implications on vitamin D levels.

Grasscutting, fertilizer, and healthcare

A guy named Jeff, a 60-something, taciturn, "How 'bout dem Brewers?" kind of guy, cuts my grass.

Once a week, Jeff drives over his rust-rimmed 1994 Chevy pickup and trailer, unloads his ride mower, and cuts the grass. For his 40 minutes of work, I pay him $35.

For $35, all he does is cut the grass--no trimming, no picking up debris, no working in the garden, no fertilizing, no weeding. Just cutting the grass. Occasionally, Jeff has proven to be a useful resource for peculiar problems. Last year, I had a drainage problem that he helped solve and two years ago he helped diagnose a tree disease that was killing a tree in the backyard; it's now recovered.

To save money, and because I like to work in the yard, I do the rest. I trim the edges, I fertilize the grass, plant new flowers and trees, fix damaged areas, trim wild branches.

In my view, my relationship with Jeff, a limited, as-needed relationship, in which I ask him to help with specific issues but I manage the rest myself, is how I believe that healthcare should also be conducted.

Your doctor should be like Jeff: Perhaps not taciturn, but an as-needed resource available while you do much of the work.

My simple relationship with Jeff is, I believe, the healthcare model of the future. You manage your own cholesterol issues, your own basic thyroid issues, supplement and monitor your vitamin D levels, use diet to suit your needs, order blood tests when necessary, even obtain basic imaging tests like heart scans, carotid ultrasound, bone density testing. Your doctor is a resource, near by when and if you need him or her: guidance when needed, an occasional review of what you are doing, someone to consult when you fracture an ankle.

What your doctor is NOT is a paternal, "do what I say, I'm the doctor," or a "You need these tests whether you like it or not" holder of your health fate.

It is a model of healthcare that will evolve over the next 20-30 years, only in its infancy now.

While we started Track Your Plaque as just a resource for in-depth information on prevention and reversal of coronary heart disease, I now see it as something much greater: a prototype for the emerging concept of self-directed health.

Enough for now. I've got some tomatoes to pick.

Iodine deficiency is REAL

Like many health-conscious people, Kurt avoids salt. In fact, he has assiduously avoided salt ever since his heart attack back in 1995.

Lately, Kurt had become tired, often for little or no reason. His thyroid panel:

TSH 4.2 mIU/L (0.27-4.20)
Free T3 1.74 pg/ml (2.50-4.30)
Free T4 1.05 ng/dl (0.9-1.7)

Kurt's TSH of 4.2 mIU/L is sufficient to increase LDL cholesterol by 20-30% and increase the (relative) risk for heart attack 3-fold.

Kurt's thyroid was also palpably enlarged. While it was just barely visible--just a minor bulge in the neck (in the shape of a bowtie), it could be clearly felt when I examined him.

I asked Kurt to add 500 mcg of iodine every day. Three months later, another thyroid panel showed:

TSH 0.14 mIU/L (0.27-4.20)
Free T3 2.50 pg/ml (2.50-4.30)
Free T4 1.1 ng/dl (0.9-1.7)

Kurt's thyroid function normalized to nearly ideal levels just with iodine replacement. (The free T3, while improved, remains low; an issue for another day!)

I see this response with some frequency: low-grade goiter and apparent hypothyroidism (low thyroid function) that responds, at least partially, to iodine replacement. In Kurt's case, iodine replacement alone normalized his thyroid measures completely.

With improved thyroid measures, Kurt also felt better with renewed energy and a 22 mg/dl reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Make no mistake: Iodine deficiency is real. While most of my colleagues have dismissed iodine deficiency as a relic of the early 20th century and third world countries, you can also find it in your neighborhood.

Fish oil for $780 per bottle

At prevailing pharmacy prices, one capsule of prescription Lovaza fish oil costs $4.33 each.

Yes, you heard right: $4.33 per capsule.

What do you get for $4.33 per capsule? By omega-3 fatty acid content, you get 842 mg EPA + DHA per capsule.

I can also go to Sam's Club and buy a bottle of their Triple-Strength fish oil with 900 mg omega-3 fatty acids per capsule at $18.99 per bottle of 180 capsules. That comes to 10.5 cents per capsule. That puts the price of fish oil from Sam's Club at 97.6% less cost compared to Lovaza for an equivalent quantity of omega-3 fatty acids.

What if we repriced Sam's Club's Triple-Strength and brought it "in line" with what we pay for Lovaza? That would put the value of one bottle of Sam's Club Triple-Strength fish oil at $780 per bottle.

I take patients off Lovaza every chance I get.

Organic really IS better

If you have any doubts about the value of organic foods vs. conventionally-grown foods, then take a look at the findings from a USDA--Yes, USDA--sponsored study.

In this study, the nutritional content of organic vs. conventionally-grown blueberries were compared. Ironically, these observations come from the USDA's Genetic Improvement of Fruits and Vegetables Laboratory of the Produce Quality and Safety Laboratory.

Their findings (all values expressed as weight per 100 grams fresh weight blueberries, or a bit less than 1/4 cup):


Total phenol content (e.g, flavonoids):

Organic: 319.3 mg
Conventional: 190.3 mg

Organic blueberries had 68% greater phenol content.


Total anthocyanins (an important class of flavonoids):

Organic: 131.2 mg
Conventional: 82.4 mg

Organic blueberries had 59% greater anthocyanin content.


Antioxidant capacity (ORAC):

Organic: 46.14 mg
Conventional: 30.8

Organic blueberries had 50% greater antioxidant capacity.


Flavonoids suspected to carry unusually potent health effects--malvidin, delphinidin, myricetin, and quercetin--were all contained in greater proportions in the organically-grown blueberries, also. These flavonoids are demonstrating pharmacologic-level health effects in preliminary studies.

Why a genetics laboratory? After all , the study findings came out heavily in favor of non-genetic, organic farming methods of growing produce. It certainly must have at least given pause to the vocal group within agriculture and the USDA that have long argued that organic produce is no different. I suspect that the laboratory will now try to recreate the nutritional value of organic through genetic manipulation of cultivars grown using conventional methods.

Regardless of the motivations behind the study, we see that there is no comparison: organic blueberries are superior in nutritional value to those grown with conventional pesticides and herbicides. While the study addressed only blueberries, the dramatic difference makes it likely that similar differences exist in other fruits and vegetables.

Coming on the Track Your Plaque website: An in-depth Special Report on the health effects of anthocyanins.

Do you really need calcium?

Why are we advised to take calcium supplements?

Men and women are advised to take calcium because it has been shown to reduce blood pressure modestly. Women, in particular, can stall the deterioration of bone strength (mineralization) by taking calcium supplements, 1200-1300 mg per day, and eating calcium-rich foods like dairy products.

Is that all true?

It is true insofar as we remain vitamin D deficient. A funny thing happens when you fully replete vitamin D: Intestinal absorption of calcium as much as quadruples. That means your body will efficiently absorb the calcium in broccoli and spinach.

Is it still necessary to force-feed your body megadoses of calcium once vitamin D has been repleted? I don’t think so.

While the evidence is indirect, several observations point towards the lack of necessity of calcium once vitamin D is addressed.
For instance:

Women who take calcium, 1200 mg per day, with vitamin D, 800 units per day, double their five-year risk for heart attack, according to a New Zealand study.

Men who take calcium, 1200 mg per day, with vitamin D, 800 units per day, also may substantially increase heart attack risk.

Bone density increases more with vitamin D than with calcium. Calcium may not even be necessary to increase bone mineralization, since there are data to suggest that vitamin D can accomplish this by itself.

Calcium suppresses parathyroid hormone, PTH. That is, in fact, how calcium stalls (usually does not reverse) bone mineral loss-not by adding calcium to bone, but by suppressing PTH release. (PTH causes bone demineralization.) Vitamin D suppresses PTH to a far greater degree than calcium.

What is needed is a broad reconsideration of the advice everyone is getting to take calcium. In an age when more and more people are appreciating the power of vitamin D supplementation to achieve normal blood levels, there may be danger ahead for those who fail to address their calcium overdosing.

The case against vitamin D2

Why would vitamin D be prescribed when vitamin D3 is available over-the-counter?

Let's review the known differences between vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) and vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol):

--D3 is the human form; D2 is the non-human form found in plants.

--Dose for dose, D3 is more effective at raising blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D than D2. It requires roughly twice to 250% of the dose of D2 to match that of D3 (Trang H et al 1998).

--D2 blood levels don't yield long-term sustained levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D as does D3. When examined as a 28-day area under the curve (AUC--a superior measure of biologic exposure), D3 yields better than a 300% increased potency compared to D2. This means that it requires around 50,000 units D2 to match the effects of 15,000 units D3 (Armas LA et al 2004).

--D2 has lower binding affinity for vitamin D-binding protein, compared to D3

--Mitochondrial vitamin D 25-hydroxylase converts D3 to the 25-hydroxylated form five times more rapidly than D2.

--As we age, the ability to metabolize D2 is dramatically reduced, while D3 is not subject to this phenomenon (Harris SS et al 2002).




From Armas LA, Hollis BW, Heaney RP 2004


While there are dissenters on this view, the bulk of evidence suggests that D2 is an inferior form of D3.

Then why is D2 prescribed by many doctors when the natural, human, and superior D3 is available over-the-counter?

You already know the answer: Much of your doctor's education did not come from scientific lectures nor from reading scientific studies. It came from the pretty drug representative in the waiting room who hands the doctor reprints of the "studies" performed by the drug industry to support the use of their drugs. There is no such nutritional supplement representative in the waiting room. This preference for the "drug" D2 over the supplement D3 also stems from the inherent preference of physicians for things they can control, whether or not there is proof of superiority.

In my view, there is absolutely no reason to take vitamin D2 over D3 except to enrich the drug industry.