Fish oil: What's the difference? 10. December 2010 William Davis (27) Ultra-purified, pharmaceutical grade, molecularly distilled. Over-the-counter vs. prescription. Gelcap, liquid, emulsion. There's a mind-boggling variety of choices in fish oil today. A visit to any health food store, or any "big box" store for that matter, will yield at least several, if not dozens, of choices, all with varying and often extravagant claims of purity and potency.So what's the real story? Given the analyses conducted over the years, along with my experience with dozens of different preparations, I believe that several conclusions can be reached about fish oil:Fish oil is free of contamination with mercury, dioxin, PCBs, or furans. To my knowledge, only one fish oil preparation has been found to have a slight excess of PCBs. (This is different from cod liver oil that has been found by one source to have a slight excess of PCBs.)Oxidative breakdown products differ among the various brands. Consumer Lab (http://www.consumerlab.org/), for instance, has found that several widely available brands of fish oil contained excessive oxidative breakdown products (TOTOX). You can perform you own simple test of oxidative breakdown products: Sniff it. Your fish oil should pass the "sniff test." High quality fish oil should smell non-fishy to lightly fishy. Rancid fish oil with excessive quantities of oxidative breakdown products will smell nasty fishy.FDA approval does not necessarily mean greater potency, purity, or effectiveness. It just means that somebody assembled the hundreds of millions of dollars to obtain FDA approval, followed by lots of marketing savvy to squash the competition.This means that there are a number of excellent fish oil products available. My favorites are the liquid fish oils from Pharmax, Nordic Naturals, and Barleans. Capsules from Carlson, PharmaNutrients, and Fisol have also performed consistently. The "big box" capsules from Sam's Club and Costco have also performed well and are wonderfully affordable.
Wheat-free pie crust 9. December 2010 William Davis (17) I've been working on wheat-free yet healthy recipes these past two months. You can buy wheat-free, gluten-free foods at the store, of course. But the majority of these products are unhealthy because cornstarch, rice starch, potato starch, or tapioca starch are commonly used in place of wheat. Recall that these are among the few foods that increase blood glucose higher than even wheat.Here's a simple recipe for wheat-free pie crust that works best for cheesecake, pumpkin pie, and cream pies, but not for berry or other fruit pies like apple. You will need:?1½ cups ground pecans6 tablespoons melted butter?or melted coconut oil1 teaspoon vanilla extract?2 teaspoons cinnamon1 medium egg2 tablespoons Truvia™ or ½ teaspoon stevia extract or ½ cup Splenda®Mix all ingredients thoroughly in bowl. Pour mixture into pie pan and press onto bottom and sides. Fill pie crust with desired filling. You can fill it with your favorite cheesecake recipe (e.g., Neufchatel or cream cheese, sour cream, eggs, vanilla, and stevia; add pumpkin for pumpkin cheesecake) and bake, usually at 350 degrees F for one hour. Yes, the butter provokes insulin and artificial sweeteners can trigger appetite. But, for the holidays, a slice or two of pie made with this crust will not increase blood sugar nor trigger the uncontrolled impulse eating that wheat crust will trigger.
Have a cookie 9. December 2010 William Davis (0) Here's a great insight dating all the way back to 1966 from one of the early explorations in lipoproteins from the National Institutes of Health lab of Levy, Lees, and Fredrickson:The nature of pre-beta (very low density) lipoproteins The subject is a 19 year old female (among the total of 11 in the this small, diet-controlled study) who was first fed a low-carbohydrate (50 grams per day), low-cholesterol diet; followed by a high-carbohydrate (500 grams per day), low-fat (5 grams per day) diet.
To B or not to B 5. December 2010 William Davis (11) Apoprotein B (apo B) is the principle protein that resides in LDL particles along with other proteins, phospholipids, triglycerides, and, of course, cholesterol. There's a curious thing about apo B. Just like one child per family in China or one television per household in 1950s America, there is only one apo B for every LDL particle. So measuring apo B, in effect, provides a virtual count of LDL particles. (Actually, VLDL particles, the first lipoprotein to emerge from the liver, also have one apo B per particle but LDL particles far outnumber VLDL particles.) While apo B structure can show limited structural variation from individual to individual, the effect on measured apo B is negligible. One apo B per LDL particle . . . no more, no less. What about the other components of LDL particles? The other components of LDL particles are a different story. Cholesterol and triglycerides in LDL particles vary substantially. Diet has profound effects on cholesterol and triglyceride content of LDL particles. A diet rich in carbohydrates, for instance, increases triglycerides in LDL particles while reducing cholesterol. This means that measuring cholesterol in the LDL fraction will be misleading, since cholesterol will be falsely low. LDL cholesterol is therefore a flawed means to assess the behavior and composition of LDL particles. In particular, when LDL particles become enriched in triglycerides, they go through a process that transforms them into small LDL particles, the variety most likely to cause atherosclerosis. In other words, when the worst situation of all--an abnormal abundance of small LDL particles develops--it is usually not signalled by high LDL cholesterol. Because apo B is not sensitive to the composition of LDL particles--high cholesterol, low cholesterol, high triglycerides, etc.--it is a superior method to characterize LDL particles. While apo B doesn't tell you whether LDL particles are big, small, or in between, it provides a count of particles that is far more helpful than measuring this deeply flawed thing called "LDL cholesterol." (Even better: Count LDL particles and measure LDL size, since size gives us insight into sensitivity to oxidation, glycation, adhesiveness, ability to trigger inflammatory pathways via monocyte chemoattractant protein, various interleukins, tunor necrosis factor and others. This is why cholesterol panels should go the way of tie dye shirts and 8-track tapes: They are hopelessly, miserably, and irretrievably inaccurate. Cholesterol panels should be replaced by either apoprotein B or lipoprotein measures.)
Put lipstick on a dwarf 2. December 2010 William Davis (24) Today, virtually all wheat products are produced from the Triticum aestivum dwarf mutant. You might call it "multi-grain bread,""oat bread," or "flaxseed bread." You could call it "organic," "pesticide-free," "non-GMO," or "no preservatives." It might be shaped into a ciabatta, bruschetta, focaccia, or panini. It might be sourdough, unleavened, or sprouted. It could be brown, black, Pumpernickel, or white. It could be shaped into a roll, bun, bagel, pizza, loaf, pretzel, cracker, pancake, brioche, baguette, or pita. It could be matzah, challah, naan, or Communion wafers. No matter what you call it, it's all the same. It's all from the dwarf mutant Triticum aestivum plant, the 18-inch tall product of hybridizations, backcrossings, and introgressions that emerged from genetics research during the 1960s and 70s. According to Dr. Allan Fritz, Professor of Wheat Breeding at Kansas State University, and Dr. Gary Vocke at the USDA, over 99% of all wheat grown today is the dwarf variant of Triticum aestivum. (For you genetics types, Triticum aestivum is the hexaploid, i.e., 3 combined genomes, product of extensive hybridizations, while ancestral einkorn is a diploid, i.e., a single genome, grass. Hexaploid Triticum aestivum contains the especially hazardous "D" genome, the set of genes most commonly the recipient of genetic manipulations to modify the characteristics of flour, such as gluten content. Einkorn contains only the original "A" genome.) No matter what you call it, add to it, how you shape it, etc., it's all the same. It's all the dwarf mutant product of tens of thousands of hybridizations. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. By the way, lipstick may contain wheat.
What the Institute of Medicine SHOULD have said 1. December 2010 William Davis (47) The news is full of comments, along with many attention-grabbing headlines, about the announcement from the Institute of Medicine that the new Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for vitamin D should be 600 units per day for adults. What surprised me was the certainty with which some of the more outspoken committee members expressed with their view that 1) the desirable serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D level was only 20 ng/ml, and 2) that most Americans already obtain a sufficient quantity of vitamin D. Here's what I believe the Institute of Medicine SHOULD have said:Multiple lines of evidence suggest that there is a plausible biological basis for vitamin D's effects on cancer, inflammatory responses, bone health, and metabolic responses including insulin responsiveness and blood glucose. However, the full extent and magnitude of these responses has not yet been fully characterized. Given the substantial observations reported in several large epidemiologic studies that show an inverse correlation between 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels and mortality, there is without question an association between vitamin D and mortality from cancer, cardiovascular disease, and all cause mortality. However, it has not been established that there are cause-effect relationships, as this cannot be established by epidemiologic study. While the adverse health effects of 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels of less than 30 ng/ml have been established, the evidence supporting achieving higher 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels remains insufficient, limited to epidemiologic observations on cancer incidence. However, should 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels of greater than 30 ng/ml be shown to be desirable for ideal health, then vitamin D deficiency has potential to be the most widespread deficiency of the modern age. Given the potential for vitamin D's impact on multiple facets of health, as suggested by preliminary epidemiologic and basic science data, we suggest that future research efforts be focused on establishing 1) the ideal level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels to achieve cancer-preventing, bone health-preserving or reversing, and cardiovascular health preventive benefits, 2) the racial and genetic (vitamin D receptor, VDR) variants that may account for varying effects in different populations, 3) whether vitamin D restoration has potential to exert not just health-preserving effects, but also treatment effects, specifically as adjunct to conventional cancer and osteoporosis therapies, and 4) how such vitamin D restoration is best achieved. Until the above crucial issues are clarified, we advise Americans that vitamin D is a necessary and important nutrient for multiple facets of health but, given current evidence, are unable to specify a level of vitamin D intake that is likely to be safe, effective, and fully beneficial for all Americans. Instead of a careful, science-minded conclusion that meets the painfully conservative demands of crafting broad public policy, the committee instead chose to dogmatically pull the discussion back to the 1990s, ignoring the flood of compelling evidence that suggests that vitamin D is among the most important public health issues of the age. Believe it or not, this new, though anemic, RDA represents progress: It's a (small) step farther down the road towards broader recognition and acceptance that higher intakes (or skin exposures) to achieve higher vitamin D levels are good for health. My view: Vitamin D remains among the most substantial, life-changing health issues of our age. Having restored 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels in over 1000 people, I have no doubt whatsoever that vitamin D achieves substantial benefits in health with virtually no downside, provided 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels are monitored.
Coronary calcium: Cause or effect? 28. November 2010 William Davis (25) Here's an interesting observation made by a British research group. < Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in Pre-diabetes: An explanation for explosive coronary plaque growth 1. June 2006 William Davis (0) Art's first CT heart scan in March, 2006 yielded a concerning score of 1336. He felt fine--no chest discomfort, no breathlessness, etc. Art agreed to take the statin cholesterol drug his primary care doctor prescribed. He also agreed to take the fish oil, niacin, and some of the nutritional supplements that we advised. But Art just couldn't bring himself to make the commitment to lose weight. At the start of his program, Art--at 5 ft. 8 inches--was 40 lbs overweight (212 lb). This was important since his blood sugar wavered in the pre-diabetic range, going as high as 130 mg. (The American Diabetes Assn. defines diabetes as a blood glucose of 126 mg or greater.) One year later, Art's lipid and lipoprotein values were corrected to perfection. But he still weighed in at a hefty 209 lbs--essentially no change. His blood sugar likewise hovered in the 120's. I felt Art need to be prodded, so I asked him to undergo another heart scan. His score: 1935--a 600 point increase, or 45%! Only now has Art begun to comprehend to power of diabetes and pre-diabetes to fan the flames of plaque growth. Recent published data, in fact, show that the majority of recently diagnosed diabetics already have well-established coronary artery disease. Don't let this happen to you. Do not dismiss diabetic patterns as they will catch up to you. If Art can lose the 30-40 lbs in the abdominal weight that is creating the diabetic pattern, he will likely succeed in stopping plaque growth. Otherwise, it's just a matter of time before his heart attack, stent, or bypass. Who cares if you're pre-diabetic? 31. May 2006 William Davis 141516171819202122...121122Older posts Cholesterol is dead! 26. May 2006 William Davis (0) I saw a patient in the office yesterday. He came to me for an opinion regarding his high heart scan score of 525, putting him in the 90th percentile (5% annual risk of heart attack). His doctor had been puzzled because his LDL cholesterols had ranged from 110 to 131 mg--actually below average. (The average LDL for the U.S. is 132 mg.) Likewise, HDL was a favorable 63 mg. Lipoprotein analysis told the story loud and clear. His LDL particle number, a far more precise measure of LDL, was 2448 nmol/l. This means that his true LDL was more like 240-250 mg! (You can get a sense for what the true LDL is from LDL particle number by dropping the last digit: 2448 becomes 244.) Conventional LDL was therefore inaccurate by over 100 mg.He also had a severe small LDL particle pattern. The cause of his coronary plaque was a large excess of small LDL particles. LDL cholesterol (and total cholesterol, likewise) didn't even hint at this pattern. Nor did his favorable HDL. Think of LDL particle number as an actual count of LDL particles per volume, e.g., number of particles per cc of blood. This makes it easier to conceptualize. LDL particle number is the measure you get when you have an NMR lipoprotein profile, our preferred method of lipoprotein testing. If this is unavailable to you, apoprotein B is a reasonable second choice, though not as accurate in my view. More info on NMR is available at their website, www.lipoprofile.com. How to make a $1 million in cardiology 26. May 2006 William Davis (0) Want to make a $1,000,000 as a cardiologist in the next year? It's easy. All you have to do is:1) Perform heart catheterizations or other procedures on anybody you can, even if it's not necessary. Perform them even if the patient has no symptoms and the stress test is normal. 2) Perform heart catheterizations if the patient is too timid or ill-informed to object. 3) Insert coronary stents in blockages, even when they're minor and it's not necessary. 4) Turn every heart procedure into a revenue-producing stream by looking for other profit opportunties, such as minor kidney artery blockages. 5) Heart disease is frightening. Scare the heck out of patients by exagerrating the dangers so they'll go through testing and procedures gratefully. Sound absurd? Well, it would be if these weren't all true.These are real examples, as awful as it sounds. I've witnessed all these behaviors. Not just occasionally, but with regularity. Just today, I encountered a colleague who performs heart catheterizations routinely (up to several per day) when any symptom is present and the stress test is entirely normal. This is grossly inappropriate.Your protection is being better-informed and avoid being sucked into the vast and frightening cardiovascular machine of revenue-yielding procedures. Part of your protection is to get a CT heart scan, then engage in a program of heart disease prevention. Doctor, do I have lipoprotein (a)? 25. May 2006 William Davis (0) I met Joyce today for a 2nd opinion. She told me about this conversation she'd had with her cardiologist:"Doctor, do you think I could have lipoprotein (a)? I read about how it can cause heart attacks even when cholesterol is controlled.""What does it matter? Even if you have it, there's nothing we can do about it. There's no treatment for it."Joyce was understandably groping for some means to prevent her coronary disease from causing more danger. At 56, she'd already survived a heart attack that resulted in two stents to her left anterior descending. Around 9 months later, she received a 3rd stent to another artery. Her doctor had put her on Pravachol and said that was enough. "We know that cholesterol causes heart disease and the Pravachol reduces it. Why do we need to know anything more?"So Joyce came to me for another view. I explained to her that there are, in fact, several ways to deal with lipoprotein(a). It is, without a doubt, among the more difficult patterns to manage--but not impossible. In fact, we have a growing list of participants in the Track Your Plaque program who have stopped or reduced their heart scan scores. I continue to be horrified at the level of ignorance that prevails among my colleagues, the cardiologists, and the primary care community. If your doctor gives you advice like this, get a new doctor. << Older posts Newer posts >> Newer posts12...114115116117118119120121122123124Older posts
Pre-diabetes: An explanation for explosive coronary plaque growth 1. June 2006 William Davis (0) Art's first CT heart scan in March, 2006 yielded a concerning score of 1336. He felt fine--no chest discomfort, no breathlessness, etc. Art agreed to take the statin cholesterol drug his primary care doctor prescribed. He also agreed to take the fish oil, niacin, and some of the nutritional supplements that we advised. But Art just couldn't bring himself to make the commitment to lose weight. At the start of his program, Art--at 5 ft. 8 inches--was 40 lbs overweight (212 lb). This was important since his blood sugar wavered in the pre-diabetic range, going as high as 130 mg. (The American Diabetes Assn. defines diabetes as a blood glucose of 126 mg or greater.) One year later, Art's lipid and lipoprotein values were corrected to perfection. But he still weighed in at a hefty 209 lbs--essentially no change. His blood sugar likewise hovered in the 120's. I felt Art need to be prodded, so I asked him to undergo another heart scan. His score: 1935--a 600 point increase, or 45%! Only now has Art begun to comprehend to power of diabetes and pre-diabetes to fan the flames of plaque growth. Recent published data, in fact, show that the majority of recently diagnosed diabetics already have well-established coronary artery disease. Don't let this happen to you. Do not dismiss diabetic patterns as they will catch up to you. If Art can lose the 30-40 lbs in the abdominal weight that is creating the diabetic pattern, he will likely succeed in stopping plaque growth. Otherwise, it's just a matter of time before his heart attack, stent, or bypass.
How to make a $1 million in cardiology 26. May 2006 William Davis (0) Want to make a $1,000,000 as a cardiologist in the next year? It's easy. All you have to do is:1) Perform heart catheterizations or other procedures on anybody you can, even if it's not necessary. Perform them even if the patient has no symptoms and the stress test is normal. 2) Perform heart catheterizations if the patient is too timid or ill-informed to object. 3) Insert coronary stents in blockages, even when they're minor and it's not necessary. 4) Turn every heart procedure into a revenue-producing stream by looking for other profit opportunties, such as minor kidney artery blockages. 5) Heart disease is frightening. Scare the heck out of patients by exagerrating the dangers so they'll go through testing and procedures gratefully. Sound absurd? Well, it would be if these weren't all true.These are real examples, as awful as it sounds. I've witnessed all these behaviors. Not just occasionally, but with regularity. Just today, I encountered a colleague who performs heart catheterizations routinely (up to several per day) when any symptom is present and the stress test is entirely normal. This is grossly inappropriate.Your protection is being better-informed and avoid being sucked into the vast and frightening cardiovascular machine of revenue-yielding procedures. Part of your protection is to get a CT heart scan, then engage in a program of heart disease prevention.
Doctor, do I have lipoprotein (a)? 25. May 2006 William Davis (0) I met Joyce today for a 2nd opinion. She told me about this conversation she'd had with her cardiologist:"Doctor, do you think I could have lipoprotein (a)? I read about how it can cause heart attacks even when cholesterol is controlled.""What does it matter? Even if you have it, there's nothing we can do about it. There's no treatment for it."Joyce was understandably groping for some means to prevent her coronary disease from causing more danger. At 56, she'd already survived a heart attack that resulted in two stents to her left anterior descending. Around 9 months later, she received a 3rd stent to another artery. Her doctor had put her on Pravachol and said that was enough. "We know that cholesterol causes heart disease and the Pravachol reduces it. Why do we need to know anything more?"So Joyce came to me for another view. I explained to her that there are, in fact, several ways to deal with lipoprotein(a). It is, without a doubt, among the more difficult patterns to manage--but not impossible. In fact, we have a growing list of participants in the Track Your Plaque program who have stopped or reduced their heart scan scores. I continue to be horrified at the level of ignorance that prevails among my colleagues, the cardiologists, and the primary care community. If your doctor gives you advice like this, get a new doctor.