Fat and fiber composition of nuts

30. November 2008 William Davis (16)


From Mukuddem-Petersen J, Oosthuizen1 W, Jerling JC. J Nutr 2005.



If you haven't yet done so, adding raw nuts to your health program yields a broad panel of health benefits.

Contrary to conventional advice, nuts can be eaten in unlimited quantities. Provided they are raw--unroasted, unsalted (since salting only accompanies roasted nuts), not roasted in unhealthy oils like hydrogenated cottonseed or soybean (very common)--they do not make you fat, regardless of the quantity consumed. Beer nuts, honey-roasted nuts, mixed nuts roasted in unhealthy oils with salt added are either fattening or exert other unhealthy effects (e.g., hypertension, rise in Lp(a), and cancer from the hydrogenated fats).

Some notable observations from the chart:

--Hazelnuts and macadamians are the richest in monounsaturates
--Walnuts are the richest in the omega-6 linoleic acid, while also richest in the "omega-3" linolenic acid.
--From a fat composition standpoint, raw cashews and dry roasted peanuts aren't so bad.
--Pistachios figure pretty favorably in this analysis, rich in monounsaturates.
--Coconuts are unusually rich in saturated fat, though about half is lauric acid--an issue for future conversation.



Here's a listing of the fiber composition of nuts per 1 oz serving (about a handful):

Almonds (24 nuts) 3.5 g
Brazilnuts, dried (6-8 nuts) 2.1 g
Cashew nuts, dry roasted, with salt added (18 nuts) 0.9 g
Hazelnuts or filberts 2.7 g
Macadamia nuts, dry roasted, with salt added (10-12 nuts) 2.3 g
Mixed nuts, dry roasted, with peanuts, with salt added 2.6 g
Peanuts, all types, dry-roasted, without salt 2.3 g
Pecans (20 halves) 2.7 g
Pine nuts, dried 1.0 g
Pistachio nuts, dry roasted, with salt added (47 nuts) 2.9 g
Walnuts, English (14 halves) 1.9 g

Data courtesy USDA Nutrient Database


Note that almonds are the winners with 3.5 grams fiber per ounce, pistachios a close second. Pine nuts and cashews place last on the fiber content chart.

Not addressed by the charts is protein content of nuts, as well as the low sugar content, all additional beneficial aspects of nuts. Nuts are also a moderate source of magnesium (though seeds like pumpkin and sunflower shine in the magnesium content area).

Rather than micromanage the specific fat and fiber content of your diet, why not get a little of the good of everything on the list and just mix and match the nuts? (Mixed and matched on your own, of course, not a hydrogenated cottonseed oil nut mixture).

Flush-free niacin kills

29. November 2008 William Davis (12)
Here, I re-post a conversation I've posted before, that of the scam product, "no-flush" niacin, also known as "flush-free" niacin.

I find this issue particularly bothersome, since I have a patient or two each and every week who forgets the explicit advice I gave them to avoid these scam products altogether. Despite costing more than conventional niacin, they exert no effect, beneficial or otherwise. Niacin--the real thing--exerts real and substantial beneficial effects. No-flush or flush-free does nothing except drain your wallet. I continue to marvel at the fact that supplement manufacturers persist in selling this product. Ironically, it commands a significant premium over other niacin forms.

They are outright scams that should be avoided altogether.


My former post, No-flush niacin kills:

Gwen was miserable and defeated.

No wonder. After a bypass operation failed just 12 months earlier with closure of 3 out of 4 bypass grafts, she has since undergone 9 heart catheterization procedures and received umpteen stents. She presented to me for an opinion on why she had such aggressive coronary disease (despite Lipitor).

No surprise, several new causes of heart disease were identified, including a very severe small LDL pattern: 100% of LDL particles were small.

Given her stormy procedural history, I urged Gwen to immediately drop all processed carbohydrates from her diet, including any food made from wheat or corn starch. (She and her husband were shocked by this, by the way, since she'd been urged repeatedly to increase her whole grains by the hospital dietitians.) I also urged her to begin to lose the 30 lbs of weight that she'd gained following the hospital dietitians' advice. She also added fish oil at a higher-than-usual dose.

I asked her to add niacin, among our most effective agents for reduction of small LDL particles, not to mention reduction of the likelihood of future cardiovascular events.

Although I instructed Gwen on where and how to obtain niacin, she went to a health food store and bought "no-flush niacin," or inositol hexaniacinate. She was curious why she experienced none of the hot flush I told her about.

When she came back to the office some weeks later to review her treatment program, she told me that chest pains had returned. On questioning her about what she had changed specifically, the problem became clear: She'd been taking no-flush niacin, rather than the Slo-Niacin I had recommended.

What is no-flush niacin? It is inositol hexaniacinate, a molecule that indeed carries six niacin molecules attached to an inositol backbone. Unfortunately, it exerts virtually no effect in humans. It is a scam. Though I love nutritional supplements in general, it pains me to know that supplement distributors and health food stores persist in selling this outright scam product that not only fails to exert any of the benefits of real niacin, it also puts people like Gwen in real danger because of its failure to provide the effects she needed.

So, if niacin saves lives, no-flush niacin in effect could kill you. Avoid this scam like the plague.

No-flush niacin does not work. Period.


Disclosure: I have no financial or other relationship with Upsher Smith, the manufacturer of Slo-Niacin.


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

CT coronary angiography is NOT a screening procedure

28. November 2008 William Davis (3)
I've recently had several hospital employees tell me that their hospitals offered CT coronary angiograms without charge to their employees.

Among these hospital employees were several women in their 30s and 40s.

Why would young, asymptomatic, pre-menopausal women be subjected to the equivalent of 100 chest x-rays or 25 mammograms? Is there an imminent, life-threatening, symptomatic problem here?

All of these women were without symptoms, some were serious exercisers.

There is NO rational justification for performing CT coronary angiography, free or not.

What they really want is some low-risk, yet confident means of identifying risk for heart disease. Cholesterol, of course, is a miserable failure in this arena. Framingham risk scoring? Don't make me laugh.

Step in CT coronary angiography. But does CT coronary angiography provide the answers they are looking for?

Well, it provides some of the answers. It does serve to tell each woman whether she "needs" a heart procedure like heart catheterization, stent, or bypass surgery, since the intent of CT angiography is to identify "severe" blockages, sufficient to justify heart procedures.

Pitfalls: Because of the radiation exposure, CT angiography is not a procedure that can be repeated periodically to reassess the status of any abnormal findings. A CT angiogram every year? After just four years, the equivalent of 400 chest x-rays will have been performed, or 100 mammograms. Cancer becomes a very real risk at this point.

CT angiography is also not quantitative. Sure, it can provide a crude estimation of the percent blockage--the value your cardiologist seeks to "justify" a stent. But it does NOT provide a longitudinal (lengthwise) quantification of plaque volume, a measure of total plaque volume that can be tracked over time.

What's a woman to do? Simple: Get the test that, at least in 2008, provides the only means of gauging total lengthwise coronary plaque volume: a simple CT heart scan, a test performed with an equivalent of 4 - 10 chest x-rays, or 1 - 2.5 mammograms.

Perhaps, in future, software and engineering improvements will be made with CT coronary angiography that reduce radiation to tolerable levels and allows the lengthwise volume measurement of plaque. But that's not how it's done today.

The Wheat Deficiency Syndrome

26. November 2008 William Davis (21)
Beware the dreaded Wheat Deficiency Syndrome.

Like any other syndrome, you can recognize this condition by its many tell-tale signs:

--Flat abdomen
--Rapid weight loss
--High energy
--Less mood swings
--Better sleep
--Diminished appetite
--Reduced blood sugar
--Reduced blood pressure
--Reduced small LDL and total LDL
--Increased HDL
--Reduced triglycerides
--Reduced C-reactive protein and other inflammatory measures


Of course, you could choose to cure yourself of this syndrome simply by taking the antidote: foods made with wheat flour, like bread, breakfast cereals, pastas, pretzels, crackers, and muffins.

All the signs of the syndrome will then disappear and you can have back your protuberant abdomen, irrational mood swings, exagerrated appetite, higher blood sugar, etc.

The Framingham Crap Shoot

22. November 2008 William Davis (2)
The Framingham risk score is a risk-assessment tool that has become the basis for heart disease prediction used by practicing physicians.

The Framingham system determines that:

· 35% of the adult population in the U.S., or 70 million, is deemed “low-risk.” Low-risk is defined as the absence of standard risk factors for heart disease; low-risk persons have no more than a 1-in-20 chance (5%) of dying from heart disease in the next 10 years. Physicians are advised by the American Heart Association (AHA) and its experts that no specific effort at risk reduction is necessary.

· 25%, or approximately 50 million, U.S. adults are deemed “high-risk,” based on the presence of 2 or more risk factors. High-risk persons experience a 20%-30% likelihood of heart attack in the next 10 years. People at high-risk are candidates for preventive efforts according to the guidelines set by the Adult Treatment Panel-III (Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults; ATP-III) for cholesterol-reducing statin drug treatment and for “lifestyle-modifying” advice.

· The remaining 40% of the adult population, or 80 million people, are judged “intermediate-risk,” with the likelihood of heart attack between 5-20% over the next 10 years. This group should receive preventive advice and might be considered for statin drug treatment.


Let’s do some arithmetic. By the above scheme, the low-risk population will experience 3,500,000 heart attacks over the next decade, or 350,000 heart attacks per year.

The intermediate-risk population (without preventive treatment) will experience 8,000,000 heart attacks over the 10-year time period, or 800,000 per year.

The high-risk population, the group most likely to receive standard advice on diet, exercise, and be prescribed statin cholesterol drugs, will have their risk reduced by 35% by preventive efforts over the 10-year period. This means that heart attacks over 10 years will be reduced from 12,500,000 to 8,125,000 by standard prevention efforts, or reduced to 812,500 heart attacks per year.

These numbers are no secret. They are well known facts that have simply come to be accepted by the medical community. In other words, the standard approach to heart attack prediction makes the fact that two million people will succumb to cardiovascular events in the next year no mystery. This exercise in prediction is coldly accurate when applied to a large population.

The problem is that this approach cannot reliably distinguish which individuals will have a heart attack from those who will not.

From 100 people chosen at random, for instance, the numbers game played above will not confidently identify who among those 100 will have a heart attack, who will not, who will develop anginal chest pains and end up with stents or bypass surgery, or who will die. We just know that some of them will. Some people at high risk will have a heart attack, some people at intermediate risk will have a heart attack, some people at low risk will have a heart attack.

For any specific individual (like you or me), it’s a crap shoot.

That's why precise individual measurement of cardiovascular risk is required for real risk assessment, not applying broad statistical observations and forcing them to conform to the unique life of a specific individual, particularly risk calculators with as few risk parameters as the Framingham risk score.

At what score should a heart catheterization be performed?

21. November 2008 William Davis (2)
That's easy: NONE.

(Although I've addressed this previously, the question has come up again many times and I thought it'd be worth repeating.)

In other words, no heart scan score--100, 500, 1000, 5000--should lead automatically to procedures in someone who underwent a heart scan but has no symptoms.

This question is a common point of confusion.

In other words, is there a specific cut-off that automatically triggers a need for catheterization?

In my view, there is no such score. We can't say, for instance, that everybody with a score above 1000 should have a catheterization. It is true that the higher your score, the greater the likelihood of a plaque blocking flow. A score of 1000 carries an approximately 25-30% likelihood of reduced blood flow sufficient to consider a stent or bypass. This can nearly always be settled with a stress test. Recall that, despite their pitfalls for uncovering hidden heart disease in the first place, stress tests are useful as gauges of coronary blood flow.

But even a score of 1000 carries a 70-75% likelihood that a procedure will not be necessary. This is too high to justify doing heart catheterizations willy-nilly.

Unfortunately, some of my colleagues will say that any heart scan score justifies a heart cath. I believe this is absolutely, unquestionably, and inexcusably wrong. More often than not, this attitude is borne out of ignorance, laziness, or a desire for profit.

Does every lump or bump justify surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy on the chance it could represent cancer? Of course not. There is indeed a time and place for these things, but judgment is involved.

In my view, no heart scan score should automatically prompt a major heart procedure like heart catheterization in a person without symptoms. If a stress test is normal, signifying normal coronary flow (and there are no other abnormal phenomena, such as abnormal left ventricular function), then there is no defensible rationale for heart procedures. Heart procedures like stents and bypass cannot prevent heart attacks in future; they can only restore flow when flow is poor, or stop the heart attack that is about to occur.

However, EVERY heart scan score above zero is a reason to engage in a program of prevention.

"It's genetic"

17. November 2008 William Davis (17)
At 53, Sam had been through the wringer with heart disease. After his first heart attack at age 50, he'd undergone four heart catheterizations, 5 stents, and, most recently, a bypass operation. He came to us to see if there was a better solution.

After hearing Sam's story, I asked,"Did your doctors suggest to you why you had heart disease?"

"Well, they said it was genetic, since my father went through the same thing in his early 50s, though he died after his second heart attack at age 54. They said it was bad luck and nothing could be done about it."

Though Sam's case is more dramatic than most, I hear this argument every day: Risk for heart disease is genetic.

It's true: There are indeed multiple reasons for inheriting causes for coronary heart disease, genes that heighten inflammatory responses, oxidative responses, modify lipoprotein particles, increase blood pressure, etc. There has even been some excitement over developing chromosomal markers for heightened risk.

That's all well and fine, but what can we do about it today?

In practical life, many inherited genetic patterns can be expressed in ways that you and I can identify--and correct. They are not chromosomal markers, but end products of genetic patterns. (Although there are indeed identifiable chromosomal markers, they have not yet led to meaningful treatments to my knowledge.)

These readily identifiable patterns include:

--Lipoprotein(a)--Clearly genetically transmitted, passed from mother or father to each child with a 50% likelihood, then you onto your children if you have it.

--Small LDL--Although small LDL is amplified by high-carbohydrate diets and obesity, it can also occur in slender people who do not indulge in carbohydrates --i.e., a genetic tendency. Or, it can be a combination of poor lifestyle magnifying the genetic tendency for small LDL.

--Low HDL--Particularly the extremes of low HDL below 30 mg/dl. (Although, interestingly, I am seeing more of these people, though not all, respond to vitamin D replacement. Perhaps an important subgroup of low HDL people are really Vitamin D Receptor (VDR) variants.)

--ApoE--Two variants are relevant: ApoE2 and ApoE4. In my experience, it's the E2 that carries far greater significance, though the data are somewhat scanty. ApoE4 people are more sensitive to the fats in their diet (greater rises in LDL with fats; thus, some people advocate a tighter saturated fat restriction with this pattern, though I am not convinced that is the best solution), while ApoE2 people are exceptionally sensitive to carbohydrates, develop extravagant increases in triglycerides, and are very diabetes-prone with even the most minimal weight gain. If two "doses" of the E2 gene are present (homozygotic), then the tendencies are very exagerrated. E4 people are also subject to greater likelihood of Alzheimer's, though it is not a certain risk in a specific individual.

--Postprandial disorders--We use the fasting intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL) as an easy, obtainable index of the ability to clear after-eating byproducts of meals from the blood. Increased IDL has been related to increased coronary, carotid, and aortic aneurysmal disease.

--Hypertriglyceridemia-i.e., increases in triglycerides, While not all forms of high triglycerides confer risk for atherosclerosis, many do, particularly if associated with IDL, small LDL, increased LDL particle number and/or apoB.


There are more, but you get the point. There are clear-cut genetically-transmitted reasons for greater risk for cardiovascular disease. Some, like lipoprotein(a), yield very high risk. Others, like increased triglycerides, yield mixed levels of risk.

Importantly, all of these patterns--ALL--are identifiable and are treatable. Treatment may not always be the easiest thing, but they are treatable nonetheless. While lipoprotein(a), for instance, is the most difficult pattern to correct in the above list, I remind everyone that our current "record holder" for reversal of plaque and heart scan scores--63% reduction--has lipoprotein(a) that we corrected.

If you've been told that your risk for cardiovascular disease or coronary plaque is "genetic" and thereby uncorrectable and hopeless, run the other direction as fast as you can. Get another opinion from someone willing to take the modest effort to tell you precisely why.

Tim Russert Revisited

16. November 2008 William Davis (7)
A Heart Scan Blog reader brought this piece by Dr. MacDougall to my attention.

Dr. MacDougall created a fictitious posthumous conversation between himself and the late Tim Russert. MacDougall paints a picture of a hardworking, hard-living man who adhered to an overindulgent lifestyle of excessive eating. He concludes that a vegetarian, low-fat diet would have saved his life.

Beyond being disrespectful, I would differ with Dr. MacDougall’s assessment. In fact, I’ve heard an interview with Mr. Russert’s primary care physician in which the doctor claimed that Mr. Russert had been counseled on the need for a low-fat diet and, in fact, adhered to it quite seriously. Far from being an overindulgent, overeating gourmand, he followed the dictates of conventional dietary wisdom according to the American Heart Association. The low-fat diet articulated by Dr. MacDougall is simply a little more strict than that followed by Mr. Russert.

What exactly could Mr. Russert have done to prolong his life? Several basic strategies:

--Added fish oil. This simple strategy alone would have reduced the likelihood of dying suddenly by almost half.

--Eliminated wheat and cornstarch—Mr. Russert developed diabetes in the last few years of his life. By definition, diabetes is an inability to handle sugars and sugar-equivalents. Wheat and cornstarch yield immediate and substantial surges in blood sugar greater than table sugar; elimination causes weight to plummet, blood sugar to drop, and diabetes (at least in its early phases) can be eliminated in many people, particularly those beginning with substantial excess weight.

Just those two strategies alone would more than likely have avoided the tragic death that brought Mr. Russert’s wonderful life and career to an abrupt end.

Of course, he could have even taken his heart health program even further, as we do in the Track Your Plaque program. While the conversation has focused on how to avoid tragic events like sudden cardiac death, why not take it a step farther and ask, "How can coronary plaque be measured, tracked, and reversed?"

In that vein, Mr. Rusert could have restored vitamin D to normal levels; identified all hidden sources of heart disease using lipoprotein testing (though he had small LDL without a doubt, given his generous waist size, HDL of 36 mg/dl and high triglycerides); considered niacin. Simple, yet literally lifesaving efforts, that make reversal much more likely.

Those simple steps, in fact, would have tipped the scales heavily in Mr. Russert’s favor, making a heart attack and/or sudden death from heart disease exceptionally unlikely.

Water: Bottled vs. tap

16. November 2008 William Davis (4)
The Fanatic Cook has a great post discussing the findings of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) on the quality of bottled water.

The full text of the study from the EWG can be viewed here.

They report that "the bottled water industry promotes an image of purity, but comprehensive testing by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reveals a surprising array of chemical contaminants in every bottled water brand analyzed" . . . After analyzing 10 brands, they conclude that "tests strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted. Given the industry's refusal to make available data to support their claims of superiority, consumer confidence in the purity of bottled water is simply not justified."

"EWG's study has revealed that bottled water can contain complex mixtures of industrial chemicals never tested for safety, and may be no cleaner than tap water. Given some bottled water company's failure to adhere to the industry's own purity standards, Americans cannot take the quality of bottled water for granted. Indeed, test results like those presented in this study may give many Americans reason enough to reconsider their habit of purchasing bottled water and turn back to the tap."


For these reasons, as well as environmental reasons (plastic bottles filling up dumpsites), I think it is becoming clearer and clearer that bottled water is something we should only use in a pinch, not habitually.

Can CRP be reduced?

13. November 2008 William Davis (17)
The JUPITER study has sparked a lot of discussion about c-reactive protein, or CRP.

If we follow the line of reasoning that prompted this study, reducing CRP may correlate with reduction of cardiovascular events. Thus, in the JUPITER study, Crestor 20 mg per day reduced cardiovascular events by nearly half.

From a CRP perspective, starting values were 4.2 mg/dl in the Crestor group of the trial, 4.3 mg/dl in the placebo group. After 24 months, CRP in the Crestor group was 2.2 mg/dl, 3.5 mg/dl in the placebo group, representing a 37% reduction.

Now, in our Track Your Plaque program--an experience that has yielded the virtual ELIMINATION of cardiovascular events--we aim for a CRP level of 1.0 mg/dl or less, ideally 0.5 mg/dl or less. The majority of people achieve these ambitious levels. In fact, it is a rare person who does not.

How do we achieve dramatic reductions in CRP? We use:

--Weight loss through elimination of wheat and cornstarch--This yields impressive reductions.

--Vitamin D--I have no doubt whatsoever of vitamin D's capacity to exert potent anti-inflammatory effects. I am not entirely sure why this happens (enhanced sensitivity to insulin, reduced expression of tissue inflammatory proteins like matrix metalloproteinase and others, etc.), but the effect is profound.

--Elimination of junk foods--like candies, cookies, pretzels, rice cakes, potato chips, etc.

--Exercise--Amplifies the benefits of diet on CRP reduction.

--Not allowing saturated fats to dominate--Yes, yes, I know. The demonization of saturated fat conversation has been largely replaced by the Taubesian saturated fat has not been confidently linked to heart disease conversation. But controlled feeding studies, in which a single component of diet is manipulated (e.g., saturated vs. monounsaturated vs. polyunsaturated fat) have clearly shown that saturated fats do activate several factors in the inflammatory response.

--Fish oil--Though I am a firm believer in the huge benefits of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation/restoration, the anti-inflammatory effect is modest from a CRP perspective. However, there are anti-inflammatory benefits beyond that of simple CRP (via normalization of eicosanoid metabolism and other pathways).

--Weight loss--A BIG effect. Weight loss drops CRP like a stone. The CRP-reducing effect is especially large if achieved via carbohydrate reduction.

Of course, this is much more complicated than taking a pill. But it is effective to achieve health benefits outside of cardiovascular risk, is enormously useful as part of a weight loss effort, and doesn't cost $1400 per year like Crestor.

In short, if CRP reduction is the goal, it certainly does not have to involve Crestor.
All posts by william-davis

Why not just get "perfect" lipids and call it a day?

5. September 2006 William Davis (0)
What if you achieved the Track Your Plaque lipid targets: LDL cholesterol 60 mg/dl, HDL 60 mg/dl, and triglycerides 60 mg/dl?

After all, these are pretty stringent standards. Compared to national guidelines (the ATP-III Guidelines of the National Cholesterol Educational Panel), the Track Your Plaque 60-60-60 goals are laughably ambitious. There's a lot of wisdom hidden in those numbers. The triglyceride level of 60, for instance, is a level at which triglycerides become essentially unavailable for formation of triglyceride-containing lipoprotein particles such as small LDL and VLDL.

If you get to the 60-60-60 target, isn't that good enough? What if you just held your values there and went about your business? Will coronary plaque stop growing and will your CT heart scan score stop increasing?

Sometimes it will. But, unfortunately, many times it will not. The experience generated through clinical trials bear this out. Studies like the St. Francis Heart Study and the BELLES Trial both showed that just reducing LDL cholesterol is insufficient to stop plaque growth. Beyond the Track Your Plaque experience, there's no clinical trial experience that shows whether the 60-60-60 approach does any better.

In our experience, achieving 60-60-60 is indeed better than just reducing LDL. That makes sense. Just raising HDL from the average of 42 mg/dl for a male, 52 mg/dl for a woman adds advantage. Compound this with triglyceride reduction from the plaque-creating equation, and you've doubled success.

But there's even more. What if you had hidden patterns not revealed by conventional lipids? How about lipoprotein(a)? Small LDL? Postprandial (after-eating) abnormalities? Hypertensive effects (more common than you think)!

In 2006, stopping the increase in your heart scan score is, for most of us, not just a matter of taking Lipitor or its equivalent and sitting back. For nearly all of us, stopping the progression of your score is a multi-faceted effort.

Hospitals: Then and Now

2. September 2006 William Davis (0)
It's 1920. The hospital in your city is a facility run by nuns or the church. It's a place for the very ill, often without hope of meaningful treatment, but nonetheless a place where surgeries take place, babies are born, the injured and chronically ill can find care. No one has health insurance and there's no Medicare. Everyone pays what they can. The hospital is accustomed to doling out plenty of care without compensation. For that reason, they welcome donations and sometimes will build new additions or other facilities in honor of a major donor.

Volunteeers are common, since the wards are understaffed and generally suffering from a shortage of trained nurses and personnel associated with the church. Drugs, such as they are, are often prepared from basic ingredients in the hospital pharmacy. Product representatives hawking medicines and devices are virtually unheard of.

Though their therapeutic tools are limited, the physicians are a proud group, dedicating their careers to healing. The majority of the medical staff volunteer large portions of their time to care for the poor who come to the hospital with very advanced stages of disease: metastatic tumors, advanced heart failure, debilitating strokes, overwhelming septicemia, etc.

Hospitals are usually governed by a board of clergy and physicians who make decisions on how to apply their limited resources and continually seek charitable donations.


Fast forward to present day: Hospitals are high-tech, professional facilities with lots of skilled people, complicated equipment,and capable of complex procedures. While they still house people with advanced illnesses, the floors are also filled with people with much earlier phases of disease. In general, they do a good job, with quality issues scrutinized by a number of official agencies to police practices, incidence of hospital-related infections, medication errors, care protocols, etc.

The hospital of 2006 is a more more effective place than the hospital of 1920. But its aims and operations are different, also. Though some churches are still involved in hospitals, more and more are owned by publicly-traded companies that answer to shareholders--shareholders who want share value to increase. Though donations are still sought, much of the revenues are obtained by concentrating on profitable, large-ticket procedures. More procedures are often generated by advertising.

Because they operate to generate profits, several hospitals in a single city or region compete with one another. The 21st century has therefore witnessed the phenomenon of hospital-owned physicians: more and more practicing physicians are employees of their hospital. That way, the physician brings all his patients and procedures to his hospital, not to a competitor. The top of the funnel is the primary care physician, who tends to see all disease when it first occurs. The primary care physician then sends the patient to the specialist, who is obliged (by contract) to perform his/her procedure in the hsopital paying their salary.




Representatives from companies manufacturing and selling expensive hospital equipment and drugs are everywhere, falling over themselves to gain attention of the physicians using their equipment and the hospital buyers who make purchasing decisions. Millions of dollars can be transacted with just one sale.

The number of volunteers has dwindled. The poor and uninsured are commonly diverted elsewhere, often to a government-funded, and often second-rate, institution. Hospitals measure success by comparing annual revenues and numbers of major procedures.

The hospital of 2006 is a vastly different place than 1920. If you're expecting charitable treatment, compassion, and selfless care, you're in the wrong century. In 2006, the hospital is a business. You don't expect charitable treatment at Wal-Mart or from your car dealer. Don't expect it from your hospital. They are businesses and you are a customer. Recognize this fact, lose the nostalgia for the hospitals of yesterday, and a lot more will become clear to you.

The dreaded small LDL particle

1. September 2006 William Davis (0)
Brian is a 59-year old landscape architect whose starting CT heart scan score was 276.

Brian's food choices at the start were deplorable: a pound of sausage per week, sometimes more; butter on anything and everything; up to two pounds of cheese per week; hot dogs; etc. His lipoproteins were accordingly just as miserable: low HDL, high triglycerides, excessive (postprandial, or after-eating) IDL. Small LDL was a particularly stand-out pattern, with 95% of all LDL particles in the small category.

Brian made a dramatic turnaround in lifestyle and corrected all of his patterns--except for small LDL. After one year, small LDL still occupied 95% of all LDL particles, even though the quantity of LDL had been reduced. In order to help convince Brian that correction of his small LDL was going to be necessary to achieve control oover coronary plaque, I suggested that he undergo another heart scan. His score: 435, or a 57% increase.

Each day that passes, I gain more and more respect for small LDL as a cause for coronary plaque growth. Conventional thought among lipid experts is that small LDL should no longer be a factor if total LDL (e.g., LDL particle number) is reduced. But our experience suggests otherwise: when small LDL persists, we tend to see continued, sometimes frightening, plaque growth.

I therefore asked Brian to intensify his efforts: additional weight loss off his somewhat prominent abdomen (since visceral fat increases small LDL), further reduce wheat products and processed carbohydrates, increase niacin (to 1500 mg per day), and use more raw almonds and oat bran.

Don't let small LDL get the best of you. It is a nasty, sometimes persistent abnormality that has impressive effects on plaque growth.

Winning Through Intimidation

31. August 2006 William Davis (0)
Do you remember the book, Winning Through Intimidation by author Robert J. Ringer?



In his 1984 bestseller, author Ringer details how to succeed in business by overwhelming clients and competition by appearing hugely successful and powerful. Rather than a business card, he'd hand out an elegant book to represent himself. He'd show up in a limousine to a meeting, even when he could barely afford it. He used these tactics, even when he was a small-fry, in commercial real estate and built a successful business following such techniques.

This reminds me a lot of what happens in conventional medical practice: The large and successful hospitals, filled with trained staff and technology, exude legitimacy and success. How can they possibly be wrong? Such overwhelming know-how and multiple levels of expertise mustbe right!

Let's be grateful that we do have access to such high-tech, capable care. Unfortunately, just as Mr. Ringer used deceptive practices to appear something he wasn't, this is also true in hospitals. Not all physicians have your best interests in mind. Their principal concern is how profitable your care can be for them--can you be persuaded to have your stent, bypass, etc.. After all, look around you: Aren't all this equipment and personnel impressive? Aren't you intimidated?

The patient that most recently drove home this issue for me recently was a smart and capable executive who came in for consultation. He had been told by his internist that a surgery (to replace his aorta, a HUGE procedure) was probably necessary. In my view, it was not--his process was simply not that far progressed. The risks for danger over the next several years was virtually nil. Unfortunately, this man, now confused and worried, sought an opinion from the chief of thoracic surgery (in the usual white coat and with professorial demeanor, I'm sure) in a major metropolitan hospital (in Chicago), who promptly rushed him off to the operating room.

The pathology report, cleverly not mentioned in any other of the hospital documentation, showed what I had suspected: this man had mild disease that wasn't even close to requiring surgery. But, with all that technology, $100,000 or so of costs, chief of surgery who looked the part, etc.--they must be right!

Robert Ringer's concepts only ring too true for hospitals and some of the unscrupulous physicians in practice. Don't allow yourself to be intimidated.

Can natural treatments "cure" or "treat" any disease?

30. August 2006 William Davis (0)
According to current FDA policy, the answer is a flat "NO!"

No natural treatment, whether it be fish oil (as a nutritional supplement), l-arginine, vitamin D, magnesium, various flavonoids like theaflavin or resveratrol, can be declared to treat or cure any disease. That's why you see the evasive and vague wording on nutritional supplements, nutraceuticals, and various foods, like "Supports heart health" or "Supports healthy cholesterol". Claiming, for instance, that taking 6000 mg per day of a standard OTC fish will reduce triglycerides and stating so on the label of a supplement is unlawful and prosecutable.

Think what you will of Mr. Kevin Trudeau (author of Natural Cures They Don't Want You to Know About"): visionary, consumer advocate, David vs. the Goliath of the FDA and "Big Pharma", or huckster, scam artist, and one-time felon. But Trudeau got it right on one important issue: The FDA dictates what claims can be made to treat disease. On one of his ubiquitous informercials, Trudeau states:


"...the way the system works today, you have the Food and Drug Administration—the FDA, and you have the drug industry. They really work in tandem. Unfortunately, there’s an unholy alliance there. People don’t know that the majority of commissioners of the FDA, which allegedly regulates the drug industry, and the food industry—Food and Drug Administration, the commissioners of the FDA—the majority of them—go to work directly for the drug companies upon leaving the FDA and are paid millions and millions and millions of dollars. Now in any other format, that would be called bribery; that would be called a conflict of interest; that would be called payoffs. That’s exactly what’s happening right now. So what has occurred is the Food and Drug Administration is really working in tandem with the drug industry to protect their profits. Example: The Food and Drug Administration says that only a drug can diagnose, prevent, or cure any disease."


He goes on to say that

"...the Food and Drug Administration says only a drug--nothing else--can cure, prevent, or diagnose a disease. Therefore the Food and Drug Administration continues to call more and more and more things diseases. Therefore they eliminate all-natural remedies. No one can say what a natural remedy can do if it’s been classified as a disease. So Attention Deficit Disorder is now a disease. Therefore only a drug can cure, prevent, or diagnose it. Cancer is a disease. Acid reflux is now a disease. Obesity is now a disease."

(PLEASE do not construe this as an endorsement of Mr. Trudeau's overall opinions. But I do think he's right on this one point.)

The stated purpose of this restrictive policy is to protect the public. Indeed, in years past before protective legislation, ineffective and even poisonous products were commonly sold as therapeutic treatments. (Remember cocaine and morphine in cold remedies? Lead and other toxic agents were also common.) Unfortunately, a huge gap has emerged as clinical data accumulates that support the efficacy of nutritional treatments and other non-traditional methods to treat or alleviate diseases. Any disease, or anything construed as disease as Trudeau points out, can onlybe treated by a drug.

In the FDA's defense, they have made slow progress in allowing "claims" of benefits for several supplements and food substances, such as the beta-glucan of oat products, soy protein, and most recently barley (for cholesterol reduction). The scrutiny is quite thorough and the wording of the policy is quite specific. Regarding oat products, for instance, the policy states:

"FDA concluded that the beta-glucan soluble fiber of whole oats is the primary component responsible for the total and LDL blood cholesterol-lowering effects of diets that contain these whole oat-containing foods at appropriate levels. This conclusion is based on review of scientific evidence indicating a relationship between the soluble fiber in these whole oat-containing foods and a reduction in the
risk of coronary heart disease.

Food products eligible to bear the health claim include oat bran and rolled oats, such as oatmeal, and whole oat flour...To qualify for the health claim, the whole oat-containing food must provide at least 0.75 grams of soluble fiber per
serving. The amount of soluble fiber needed for an effect on cholesterol levels is about 3 grams per day."

(Source: FDA Talk Paper which can be viewed in its entirety at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00782.html.)

In light of the boom in nutritional and non-traditional research that validate or refute efficacy, is such a policy still necessary? Or does it inhibit the open dissemination of information and result in a extraordinary monopolization of health treatment for the drug companies?

This debate will likely rage for the next two or more decades, particularly as drug companies are increasingly viewed as profit-seeking enterprises and more validation is gained by non-drug treatments.

For the moment, don't dismiss a "treatment" because it doesn't come by prescription. But don't reject a drugjust because it is a prescription. We need to strike a healthy, rational balance somewhere in between.

Can procedures alone keep you alive?

29. August 2006 William Davis (0)
My days in the hospital remind me of what heart disease can be like when no preventive efforts are taken--what it used to be like even with my patients before taking a vigorous approach to prevention (though over 12 years ago).

Several cardiologists in my hospital, for instance, express skepticism that heart disease prevention works at all. Yes, they know about the statin cholesterol drug trials. But they claim that, given their experience with the power of coronary disease to overpower an individual's control, statin drugs are just "fluff". Coronary disease is a powerful process that can only begin to be harnessed with major procedures, i.e., a mechanical approach.

So these cardiologists routinely have their patients in the hospital, often once a year, sometimes more, for heart catheterization and "fixing" whatever requires fixing: balloon angioplasty, stents, various forms of atherectomy. Year in, year out, these patients return for their "maintenance" procedures. Their cardiologists maintain that this approach works. The patients go on eating what they like, taking little or no nutritional supplements, and medications prescribed by their primary care physicians for blood pressure, etc. But no real effort towards heart disease prevention beyond these minimal steps.

Can this work? Very little at-home, preventive efforts, but periodic "maintenance" procedures?

It can, perhaps, for a relatively short time of a few years, maybe up to 10 years. But it crumbles after this. The disease eventaully overwhelms the cardiologist's ability to stent or balloon this or that, since it has progressed and plaque has growth diffusely the entire period that maintenance procedures have been performed. In addition, acute illness still occurs with some frequency--in other words, plaque rupture is not affected just because there's a stent in the artery upstream or downstream.

Not to mention this can be misery on you and your life, with risk incurred during each procedure. It's also terribly expensive, with hospitalization easily costing $25,000-$50,000 or more each time. (Compare that to a $250 or so CT heart scan.)


As people become more aware of the potential tools for prevention of heart disease, fewer are willing to submit to the archaic and barbaric practice of "maintenance" heart procedures in lieu of prevention. But it still goes on. If you, or anybody you know, are on this pointless and doomed path, find a new doctor.




Bloodletting, another antiquated health practice

Support your local hospital: HAVE A HEART ATTACK!

25. August 2006 William Davis (0)
I'm kidding, of course. But, in your hospital's secret agenda, that's not too far from the truth. Catastrophes lead to hospital procedures, which then yields major revenues.

Prevention, on the other hand, yields nothing for your hospital. No $8,000 to $12,000 for heart catheterization, several thousand more for a stent, $60,000-plus for a bypass, $25,000 or more for a defibrillator. In other words, prevention of heart attack and all its consequences deprive your hospital of a goldmine of revenue.

The doctors are all too often conspirators. I heard of yet another graphic example today. A man I didn't know called me out of the blue with a question. "I had a heart scan and I had a 'score' that I was told meant a moderate quantity of plaque in my arteries, a score of 157. My doctor said to ignore it. But I got another scan a year later and my score was 178. So I told this to my doctor and he said, 'Let's get you into the hospital. We'll set up a catheterization and then you'll get bypassed.' Of course, I was completely thrown off balance by this. Here I was thinking that the heart scan was showing that my prevention program needed improvement. But my doctor was talking about bypass surgery. Can you help? Does this sound right?"

No, this is absolutely not right. It's another tragedy like the many I hear about every day. Heart scans are, in fact, wonderfully helpful tools for prevention. This man was right: he felt great and the heart scan simply uncovered hidden plaque that should have triggered a conversation on how to prevent it from getting worse. But the doctor took it as a license to hustle the patient into the hospital. Ka-ching!

This sort of blatant money-generating behavior is far from rare. Don't become another victim of the cardiovascular money-making machine. Be alert, be skeptical, and question why. Of course, there are plenty of times when major heart procedures are necessary. But always insist on knowing the rationale behind such decisions, whether it's you or a loved one.

Hospitals contain experts in ILLNESS

25. August 2006 William Davis (0)
Hospitals contain many experts in sickness. This seems obvious. But walk down the hallways of any hospital, and you'll quickly be convinced that hospitals contain almost no experts in health.

People (hospital staff, that is, not the patients) in hospitals are especially good at identifying and treating disease. They lack knowledge of health.

If your nurse is 100 lbs overweight and struggles to walk down the hall because of arthritis in both knees, would you entrust her with health advice?

If your doctor sits down in the cafeteria and eats his lunch of a ham sandwich with cheese on a bun, fried onion rings, and a milkshake and pastry, can you believe that he/she possesses any insight into health and nutrition?

If your physical therapist or cardiac rehabilitation counselor struggles nearly as much as you while climbing a single flight of stairs, can you accept their advice on how to regain your stamina and use exerise to full health advantage?

The answer to all these questions is, of course, no. Hospital staff are generally expert at dressing surgical wounds, stopping bleeding, identifying infections, and providing the support services for surgical and diagnostic procedures. In contrast, they are generally miserable at conveying genuine health advice. They certainly fall short in being examples of health themselves.

To hospitals and their staff, health is a temporary situation that persists only until you become ill. Illness is an inevitability in the hospital staff mindset. Health is a temporary state in between illnesses.

We need to shake off this perverse mentality. Health is the state of life that should dominate our practices and philosophies. Illness via the occasional catastrophe, e.g., broken leg from skiing, car accident, etc., is the province of hospitals. We should gravitate towards this philosphy and away from the over-reliance on hospitals that has come to dominate our present perceptions of health. Hospitals are not glamorous. They are, for the most part, profit-seeking businesses intent on portraying themselves as champions of health.

When I walk down the halls of hospitals, I am shocked and ashamed at the extraordinary examples of ill-health presented by hospital staff. Yet they falsely paint themselves as experts in both illness and health. Don't believe it for a second.

Are there still unexplored causes of heart disease?

23. August 2006 William Davis (0)
I met a woman today. She had her first heart attack at age 37. She just had her 2nd heart attack this morning, at age 40.

Several issues are surprising about her story. First, she's pre-menopausal. Heart attacks before menopause are unusual. We'll occasionally see women have a heart attack before or during menopausal years only if they're heavy smokers and/or they have had diabetes (either type I or type II) for many years. But this young woman had neither. She is slender and has never smoked.

Even more surprising are her basic lipid values: LDL cholesterol 35 mg/dl, HDL 150 mg/dl, triglycerides 317 mg/dl. This is a very unusual pattern.

Unfortunately, this is all developing acutely in the hospital. (I've just met her today--she's not a Track Your Plaquer!) Lipoprotein analysis would be extremely interesting. In particular, I'd like to see whether she has any other markers besides elevated triglycerides of a "post-prandial" abnormality, i.e., persistence of abnormal particles after eating. The high triglycerides make this quite likely.

If this proves true, the omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil will be a lifesaving treatment for her, since they dramatically reduce both triglycerides as well as persistent postprandial particles like intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL). (Track Your Plaque Members: See the Special Report on Postprandial Abnormalities on the present home page at www.cureality.com for a more in-depth discussion of this fascinating collection of patterns that is just started to be explored.)

In the real world, especially acute care medicine, there's always a kicker: she speaks no English. Unfortunately, communicating the intricacies of a powerful program like ours that aims to identify all causes of heart disease, then corrects then and aims for coronary plaque regression, is difficult if not impossible.

I also do occasionally worry that, given this woman's extraordinary risk at a young age, and overall very unusual lipid patterns (HDL 150?!), if there are causes presently beyond our reach. We have to make use of the tools available to us for now.

Everything causes heart attack!

22. August 2006 William Davis (1)
The media are presently gushing about a recent study that associates caffeine intake with heart attack.

CBS News: That cup of coffee you're craving might not be such a good idea. Research in the September issue of Epidemiology suggests coffee can trigger a heart attack within an hour in some people.


Some reporters and their quoted sources are musing about whether it's the caffeine, cream vs. other whiteners, time of day, interaction with other risk factors, etc.

My advice: Get a grip! How many relatively benign, every day factors in life can be blamed for dire health risks?

The problem with many of these studies is that they are cross-sectional. They do not enroll participants, then "treat" with coffee (or other substance in question) vs. placebo. In other words, it is not a randomized trial, the sort of trial necessary to prove a hypothesis. That's all that can be generated by a study like this one: a hypothesis.

Perhaps there's a bit of warning for the person with uncorrected lipids and lipoproteins, has no idea that they have extensive coronary plaque because they've never had a heart scan, and have a slovenly lifestyle. Maybe that person might have exaggerated risk from a cup of coffee.

But for us, involved and intensively addressing all causes of coronary plaque to the point of stabilizing or reducing it, coffee is likely a non-issue.

For more conversation on coffee and this report, go to the www.cureality.com home page.