Diabetes: Better than hedge funds 7. March 2011 William Davis (23) Diabetes is where the action is. While, for virtually all of history, type 2 diabetes was an uncommon condition of adults, the disease has spread so much to all levels of American society that even kids are now developing the adult form. Researchers from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention predict that, by 2050, one in three adults will be diabetic. The diabetes market is booming, handily surpassing growth of the oil industry, the housing market, even technology. It makes Bernie Madoff’s billions look like small potatoes. In health, few markets are growing as fast as diabetes—-not osteoporosis, not heart disease, not cancer. Americans are getting fat from carbohydrate consumption, becoming diabetic along with it. While kids hanging around the convenience store gulp down 26 teaspoons of sugar in 32-ounce sodas and 56-grams-of-sugar in 16-ounce frozen ices, health-minded adults are more likely eating two slices of 6-teaspoons sugar-equivalent “healthy whole grain” bread, wondering why last year’s jeans are too tight. The U.S. is not the only nation affected. Globally, 2.8% of the world’s population are diabetic, a number expected to double over the next 20 years. Pharmaceutical companies boast double-digit growth for diabetes drugs, growth rates that keep profit-hungry investors happy. Merck’s Januvia, for instance, introduced in 2006, recently catalogued 30% growth in sales, with annual sales approaching $1 billion. Recently FDA-approved Victoza, requiring once-a-day injection, is expected to reap $4 billion in sales per year for manufacturer Novo Nordisk. Such numbers can only warm a drug company CEO’s heart. Most diabetics don’t just take one medication, but several. A typical regimen for an adult diabetic after a couple of years of treatment and following the dietary advice of the American Diabetes Association includes metformin, Januvia, and Actos, a triple-drug treatment that costs around $420 per month. Two forms of insulin (slow- and fast-acting), along with two or three oral medications, is not at all uncommon. “Collateral” revenues from the other health conditions that develop from a diet rich in “healthy whole grains,” such as drugs for hypertension, drugs to slow the progression of kidney disease in diabetes, drugs for “high cholesterol,” and drugs for high triglycerides, and you have a pharmaceutical drug bonanza. You, too, would throw all-expenses-paid, fly-the-entire-sales-force-to-the-Caribbean sales meetings. The global diabetes market has already topped $25 billion and is growing at double-digit rates. Forget the Internet, gold stocks, or solar energy—-diabetes is where the money is. This fact has not been lost on the very market-savvy pharmaceutical industry. As with any successful business, they have devoted substantial resources to develop and grow this booming business.
270 lb man in diapers 5. March 2011 William Davis (20) Alex is a big guy: 6 ft 4 inches, 273 lbs. On 10,000 units per day of vitamin D in gelcap form, his 25-hydroxy vitamin D level was 38.4 ng/ml. One year earlier, his 25-hydroxy vitamin D level, prior to any vitamin D supplementation was 9.8 ng/ml. According to the latest assessment offered by the Institute of Medicine (IOM):Vitamin D need for a 13-month old infant: 600 units per dayVitamin D need for a 6 ft 4 in, 273 lb male: 600 units per dayI paint this picture to highlight some of the absurdity built into the smug assumptions of the IOM's report. It would be like trying to fit a large, full-grown man into the diapers of a 13-month old. Few nutrients or hormones (in fact, I can't think of a single one) are required in similar quantity by an infant or toddler and a full grown adult. However, according to the IOM's logic, their vitamin D needs are identical, regardless of age, body size, skin color, genetics, etc. One size fits all.Just as the original RDA assessment by the Institute of Medicine kept thinking about vitamin D somewhere in the Stone Age, so does this most recent assessment.
90% small LDL: Good news, bad news 4. March 2011 William Davis (11) Chris has 90% small LDL particles. On his (NMR) lipoprotein panel, of the total 2432 nmol/L LDL particles ("LDL particle number"), 2157 nmol/L are small, approximately 90% (2157/2432).Bad news: Having this severe excess of small LDL particles virtually guarantees heart attack and stroke in Chris' future.Good news: It means that Chris potentially has spectacular control over his lipoprotein and lipid values, achieving statin-like values without statin drugs.Typically, extravagant quantities of small LDL particles are accompanied by low HDL, high triglycerides, and pre-diabetes or diabetes. Chris' HDL is 26 mg/dl, triglycerides 204 mg/dl; HbA1c 5.9% (a reflection of prior 60-90 days average blood glucose; desirable 4.8% or less), fitting neatly into the expected pattern.Chris' pattern tells me several things:1) He overconsumes carbohydrates, since carbohydrates trigger this pattern.2) He likely has a genetic susceptibility to this effect (e.g., a variant of the gene for cholesteryl ester transfer protein, perhaps hepatic lipase). Only the most gluttonous and overweight carbohydrate consumers can generate this high a percentage small LDL without an underlying genetic susceptibility. 3) Provided he follows the diet advised, i.e., elimination of all wheat, cornstarch, oats, and sugars, he is likely to have an extavagant drop in LDL particle number. Should he achieve the goal I set of small LDL of 300 nmol/L or less, his LDL particle number will likely be around 500 nmol/L. This translates to an LDL cholesterol of 50 mg/dl . . . 50 mg/dl. In many people, this notion of taking statin drugs for "high cholesterol" is an absurd oversimplification. But it is a situation that, for many, is wonderfully controllable with the right diet.
The American Heart Association has a PR problem 2. March 2011 William Davis (17) The results of the latest Heart Scan Blog poll are in. The poll was prompted by yet another observation that the American Heart Association diet is a destructive diet that, in this case, made a monkey fat. Because I am skeptical of "official" organizations that purport to provide health advice, particularly nutritional advice, I thought this poll might provide some interesting feedback. I asked:The American Heart Association is an organization that:The responses:Tries to maintain the procedural and medication status quo to benefit the medical system and pharmaceutical industry for money240 (64%)Doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground121 (32%)Is generally helpful but is misguided in some of its advice79 (21%)Accomplishes tremendous good and you people are nuts6 (1%)Worrisome. Now, perhaps the people reading this blog are a skeptical bunch. Or perhaps they are better informed. Nonetheless, one thing is clear: The American Heart Association (and possibly other organizations like the American Diabetes Association and USDA) have a serious PR problem. They are facing an increasingly critical and skeptical public. Just telling people to "cut the fat and cholesterol" is beginning to fall on deaf ears. After all, the advice to cut fat, cut saturated fat, cut cholesterol and increase consumption of "healthy whole grains" in 1985 began the upward ascent of body weight and diabetes in the American public.Believe it or not, my vote would be for something between choices 1 and 3. I believe that the American Heart Association achieves a lot of good. But I also believe that there are forces within organizations that are there to serve their own agendas. In this case, I believe there is a substantial push to maintain the procedural and medication status quo, the "treatments" that generate the most generous revenues. I believe that I will forward these poll results to the marketing people at the American Heart Association. That'll be interesting!
The formula for aortic valve disease? 28. February 2011 William Davis (60) I've discussed this question before:Can aortic valve stenosis be stopped or reversed using a regimen of nutritional supplements?I had a striking experience this past week. Don has coronary plaque and began the Track Your Plaque program. However, discovery of a murmur led to an echocardiogram that measured his effective aortic valve area at 1.5 cm2. (Normal is between 2.5-3.0 cm2.) Because of his aortic valve issue, I suggested that, in addition to the 10,000 units of vitamin D required to increase his 25-hydroxy vitamin D level to 70 ng/ml, he also add vitamin K2, 1000 mcg per day, along with elimination of all calcium supplements. (I asked Don to use a K2 supplement that contained both forms, short-acting MK-4 and long-acting MK-7.) One year later, another echocardiogram: aortic valve area 2.6 cm2--an incredible increase. This is not supposed to happen. By conventional thinking, aortic valve stenosis can only get worse, never get better. But I've now witnessed this in approximately 10% of the people with aortic valve stenosis. The majority just stop getting worse, an occasional person gets worse, while a few, like Don, get better. Aortic valve stenosis is to the aortic valve as degenerative arthritis is to your knees: A form of wear-and-tear that leads to progressive dysfunction. When the aortic valve becomes stiff enough (i.e., "stenotic"), then it leads to chest pains, lightheadedness or losing consciousness, heart failure, and, eventually, death. Bad problem. Aortic stenosis typically starts in your 50s with calcification of the valve, getting worse and worse until the calcium makes the valve "leaflets" unable to move. The treatment: a new valve, a major undertaking involving an open heart procedure. What if taking vitamins D and K2 and avoiding calcium do not just reverse or stop aortic valve stenosis once established, but prevents it in the first place? Tantalizing possibility.Pressures on my time being what they are, I've not had the freedom to put together a prospective study to further examine this fascinating question. But it is definitely worth pursuing.
Blood glucose 160 26. February 2011 William Davis (28) What happens when blood glucose hits 160 mg/dl? A blood glucose at this level is typical after, say, a bowl of slow-cooked oatmeal with no added sugar, a small serving of Cheerios, or even an apple in the ultra carb-sensitive. Normal blood sugar with an empty stomach, i.e., fasting; high blood sugars after eating. Conventional wisdom is that a blood sugar of 160 mg/dl is okay, since your friendly primary care doctor says that any postprandial glucose of 200 mg/dl or less is fine because you don't "need" medication. But what sort of phenomena occur when blood sugars are in this range? Here's a list:--Glycation (i.e., glucose modification of proteins) of various tissues, including the lens of your eyes (cataracts), kidney tissue leading to kidney disease, skin leading to wrinkles, cartilage leading to stiffness, degeneration, and arthritis. --Glycation of LDL particles. Glycated LDL particles are more prone to oxidation. --VLDL and triglyceride production by the liver, i.e., de novo lipogenesis.--Small LDL particle formation--The increased VLDL/triglyceride production leads to the CETP-mediated reaction that creates small LDL particles which are, in turn, more glycation- and oxidation-prone. --Glucotoxicity--i.e., a direct toxic effect of high blood glucose. This is especially an issue for the vulnerable beta cells of the pancreas that produce insulin. Repeated glucotoxic poundings by high glucose levels lead to fewer functional beta cells. A blood glucose of 160 mg/dl is definitely not okay. While it is not an immediate threat to your health, repeated exposures will lead you down the same path that diabetics tread with all of its health problems.
Indian buffet 24. February 2011 William Davis (56) I took my family to a local all-you-can-eat Indian buffet. It was delicious. I confined my food choices mostly to vegetables and soups. Within about 30 minutes, I started to get that odd buzz in my head that usually signals a high blood sugar. When I got home, my fingerstick blood glucose: 173 mg/dl. Darn it! Must have been cornstarch or other sugars in the sauces. I got on my supine stationary bike and pedaled for 40 minutes at a moderate pace while I played Modern Warfare on XBox. (A great way, by the way, to fit in some low- to moderate-intensity exercise while occupying your brain. My wife often has to yell at me to get off, it's so much fun.) Blood glucose at the conclusion of exercise: 93 mg/dl-- a nice 80 mg/dl drop. This is a useful strategy to use in a pinch when you've either been inadvertently exposed to more carbohydrate than you can tolerate, or if you'd like to blunt the adverse glucose effects of a bowl of ice cream or other carbohydrate indulgence. Should we explore the idea of a "morning-after" pill, or actually a "meal-after" pill, a supplement pill or liquid that blunts or eliminates the blood glucose rise after a meal? I've considered such an idea, but have been fearful that people would start to use it habitually. Thoughts?
American Heart Association diet makes a monkey out of you 21. February 2011 William Davis (38) Heart Scan Blog reader, Roger, brought this New York Times article to my attention. In an effort to develop a better experimental model for obesity than mice, scientists have turned to monkeys and other primates. The emerging observations are eerily reminiscent of what you and I witness just by going to the local grocery store or fast food outlet:"'It wasn’t until we added those carbs that we got all those other changes, including those changes in body fat,' said Anthony G. Comuzzie, who helped create an obese baboon colony at the Southwest National Primate Research Center in San Antonio.""Fat Albert, one of her monkeys who she said was at one time the world’s heaviest rhesus, at 70 pounds, ate “nothing but American Heart Association-recommended diet,” she said."Yes, indeed: The American Heart Association diet makes monkeys fat. Extrapolate this a little higher on the evolutionary ladder and guess what? This is one of the many reasons why, when I have a patient who is counseled by the hospital dietitian on the American Heart Association diet, I advise them to 1) ignore everything the dietitian told them, and then 2) follow the wheat-free, cornstarch-free, sugar-free, whole food diet I advocate. Not unexpectedly, much of this primate research is not being devoted to just manipulating diet to achieve weight loss and health, but to develop new drugs to "treat" obesity. Would you like a banana?
Construct your glucose curve 19. February 2011 William Davis (24) In a previous Heart Scan Blog post, I discussed how to make use of postprandial (after-meal) blood sugars to reduce triglycerides, reduce small LDL, increase HDL, reduce blood pressure and inflammatory measures, and accelerate weight loss. In that post, I suggested checking blood glucose one hour after finishing a meal. However, this is a bit of an oversimplification. Let me explain. A number of factors influence the magnitude of blood glucose rise after a meal:--Quantity of carbohydrates--Digestibility of carbohydrates--The amylopectin A of wheat, for example, is among the most digestible of all, increasing blood sugar higher and faster.--Fat and protein, both of which blunt the glucose rise (though only modestly).--Inclusion of foods that slow gastric emptying, such as vinegar and fibers.--Body weight, age, recent exerciseJust to name a few. Even if 10 people are fed identical meals, each person will have a somewhat different blood glucose pattern. So it can be helpful to not just assume that 60 minutes will be your peak, but to establish your individual peak. It will vary from meal-to-meal, day-to-day, but you can get a pretty good sense of blood glucose behavior by constructing your own postprandial glucose curve. Say I have a breakfast of oatmeal: slow-cooked, stoneground oatmeal with skim milk, a few walnuts, blueberries. Blood glucose prior: 95 mg/dl. Blood glucose one-hour postprandial: 160 mg/dl. Rather than taking a one-hour blood glucose, let's instead take it every 15 minutes after you finish eating your oatmeal:In this instance, the glucose peak occurred at 90-minutes after eating. 90-minute postprandial checks may therefore better reflect postprandial glucose peaks for this theoretical individual. I previously picked 60-minutes postprandial to approximate the peak. You have the option of going a step better by, at least one time, performing your own every-15-minute glucose check to establish your own curve.
Why is type 1 diabetes on the rise? 16. February 2011 William Davis (43) Type 1 diabetes, also called "childhood" or "insulin-dependent" diabetes, is on the rise. Type 2 diabetes, or "adult," diabetes, is also sharply escalating. But the causes for this are easy-to-identify: overconsumption of carbohydrates and resultant weight gain/obesity, inactivity, as well as genetic predisposition. A formerly rare disease is rapidly becoming the scourge of the century, expected to affect 1 in 3 adults within the next several decades. Type 1 diabetes, on the other hand, generally occurs in young children, not uncommonly age 3 or 4. Type 1 diabetes also shares a genetic basis to some degree. But the genetic predisposition should be a constant. Obviously, lifestyle issues cannot be blamed in young children.Then why would type 1 diabetes be on the rise? For instance, this study by Vehik et al from the University of Colorado documents the approximate 3% per year increase in incidence in children with type 1 diabetes between 1978 and 2004:(From Vehik 2007)(For an excellent discussion of the increase in type 1 diabetes in the 20th century, see this review.)This is no small matter. Just ask any parent of a child diagnosed with type 1 diabetes who, after recovering from hearing the devastating diagnosis, then has to stick her child's fingers to check glucose several times per day, mind carefully what he or she eats or doesn't eat, watch carefully for signs of life-threatening hypoglycemic episodes, not to mention worry about her child's long-term health. Type 1 diabetes is a life-changing diagnosis for both child and parents.Various explanations have been offered to account for this disturbing trend. Some attribute it to the increase in breast feeding since 1980 (highly unlikely), exposure to some unidentified virus, or other exposures.I'd like to offer another explanation: wheat.Lest you accuse me of becoming obsessed with this issue, let me point out the four observations that lead me to even consider such an association:1) Children diagnosed with celiac disease, i.e., the immune disease of wheat gluten exposure, have 10-fold greater likelihood of developing type 1 diabetes.2) Children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes are 10-fold more likely to have abnormal levels of antibodies (e.g., transglutaminase antibodies) to wheat gluten.3) Experimental models, such as in these mice genetically susceptible to type 1 diabetes, showed a reduction of type 1 diabetes from 64% to 15% with avoidance of wheat.4) The increase in type 1 diabetes corresponds to the introduction of new strains of wheat that resulted from the extensive genetics research and hybridizations carried out on this plant in the 1960s. In particular, unique protein antigens (immune-provoking sequences) were introduced with the dwarf variant attributable to alterations in the "D" genome of modern Triticum aestivum.Proving the point is tough: Would you enroll your newborn in a study of wheat-containing diet versus no wheat, then watch for 10 years to see which group develops more type 1 diabetes? It is a doable study, just a logistical nightmare. Perhaps the point will be settled as more and more people catch onto the fact that modern wheat--or this thing we are being sold called "wheat"--is a corrupt and destructive "foodstuff" and eliminate it from their lives and the lives of their young children from birth onwards. Then a comparison of wheat-consuming versus non-wheat-consuming populations could be made. But it will be many years before this crucial question is settled.Yet again, however, the footprints in the sand seem to lead back to wheat as potentially underlying an incredible amount of human illness and suffering. Yes, the stuff our USDA puts at the bottom, widest part of the food pyramid.
Fish oil makes you happy: Psychological distress and omega-3 index 30. October 2009 William Davis (24) For another perspective on omega-3 blood levels, here's an interesting study in northern Quebec Inuits. Traditionally, Inuits consumed large quantities of omega-3-rich seal, fish, caribou, and whale, even eating the fat. However, like the rest of the world, modern Inuits have increased consumption of store-bought foods, largely processed carbohydrates. Along with this trend has emerged more heart disease, diabetes, and depression. A group from Laval University and University of Guelph, both in Canada, examined the relationship of plasma EPA + DHA levels and measures of psychological distress. This group had previously shown that Inuits older than 50 years had twice the plasma omega-3 levels (11.5%) compared to those younger than 50 years (6.5%), reflecting the shift away from the traditional diet. Psychological distress was measured with The Psychological Distress Index Santé-Québec Survey (PDISQS-14): the higher the score, the greater the psychological distress. (In the graphs, tertile 1 is least distressed; tertile 5 is most distressed. Sorry about the small chart graphic--click on the graphic to make it bigger.)From Lucas M et al 2009 (http://www.nutrasource.ca/NDI/Assets/Articles/Plasma%20omega-3%20and%20psychological%20distress%20among%20Nunavik%20Inuit.pdf)"Our main finding was that women in the second and third tertiles of EPA+DHA concentrations in plasma PLs [phospholipids] had a 3 times lower risk of having a high-level PD [psychological distress] score than women in the lowest tertile."While the relationship is stronger for women, you can see that, the higher the EPA + DHA plasma level, the lower the likelihood of psychological distress. Interestingly, the tertile with the greatest distress and lowest EPA + DHA levels had a plasma level of 7.0-7.5%--far higher than average Americans. (Plasma levels of EPA + DHA were used in this study, which tend to reflect more recent omega-3 intake than the more stable and slower-to-change RBC Omega-3 Index that we use. Plasma levels also tend to run about 10-20% lower than RBC levels.)Of course, there's more to psychological distress than omega-3 blood levels. After all, eating fish or taking fish oil capsules won't make money worries go away or heal an unhappy marriage. But it is one variable that can be easily and safely remedied.
Hospitals are a hell of a place to get sick 29. October 2009 William Davis (19) I answered a page from a hospital nurse recently one evening while having dinner with the family. RN: "This is Lonnie. I'm a nurse at _____ Hospital. I've got one of your patients here, Mrs. Carole Simpson. She's here for a knee replacement with Dr. Johnson. She says she's taking 12,000 units of vitamin D every day. That can't be right! So I'm calling to verify." WD: "That's right. We gauge patients' vitamin D needs by blood levels of vitamin D. Carole has had perfect levels of vitamin D on that dose." RN: "The pharmacist says he can replace it with a 50,000 unit tablet."WD: "Well, go ahead while Carole's in the hospital. I'll just put her back on the real stuff when she leaves." RN: "But the pharmacist says this is better and she won't have to take so many capsules. She takes six 2,000 unit capsules a day." WD: "The 50,000 units you and the pharmacist are talking about is vitamin D2, or ergocalciferol, a non-human form. Carole is taking vitamin D3, or cholecalciferol, the human form. The last time I checked, Carole was human." RN: (Long pause.) Can we just give her the 50,000 unit tablet? WD: "Yes, you can. But you actually don't need to. In fact, it probably won't hurt anything to just hold the vitamin D altogether for the 3 days she's in the hospital, since the half-life of vitamin D is about 8 weeks. Her blood level will barely change by just holding it for 3 days, then resuming when she's discharged." RN: (Another long pause.) Uh, okay. Can we just give her the 50,000 units?"WD: "Yes, you can. No harm will be done. It's simply a less effective form. To be honest, once Carole leaves the hospital, I will just put her back on the vitamin D that she was taking." RN: "Dr. Johnson was worried that it might make her bleed during surgery. Shouldn't we just stop it?" WD: "No. Vitamin D has no effect on blood coagulation. So there's no concern about perioperative bleeding."RN: "The pharmacist said the 50,000 unit tablet was better, also, because it's the prescription form, not an over-the-counter form." WD: "I can only tell you that Carole has had perfect blood levels on the over-the-counter preparation she was taking. It works just fine."RN: "Okay. I guess we''ll just give her the 50,000 unit tablet."From the alarm it raises trying to administer nutritional supplements in a hospital, you'd think that Osama Bin Laden had been spotted on the premises. I laugh about this every time it happens: A patient gets hospitalized for whatever reason and the hospital staff see the supplement list with vitamin D, fish oil at high doses, iodine, etc. and they panic. They tell the patient about bleeding, cancer, and death, issue stern warnings about how unreliable and dangerous nutritional supplements can be. My view is the exact opposite: Nutritional supplements are a wonderful, incredibly varied, and effective array of substances that, when used properly, can provide all manner of benefits. While there are selected instances in which nutritional supplements do, indeed, have interactions with treatments provided in hospitals (e.g., Valerian root and general anesthesia), the vast majority of supplements have none.
Does fish oil cause blood thinning? 27. October 2009 William Davis (20) Omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil have the capacity to "thin the blood." In reality, omega-3s exert a mild platelet-blocking effect (platelet activation and "clumping" are part of clot formation), while also inhibiting arachidonic acid formation and thromboxane. But can fish oil cause excessive bleeding? This question comes up frequently in the office, particularly when my colleagues see the doses of fish oil we use for cardiovascular protection. "Why so much fish oil? That's too much blood thinning!" The most recent addition to the conversation comes from a Philadelphia experience reported in the American Journal of Cardiology:Comparison of bleeding complications with omega-3 fatty acids + aspirin + clopidogrel--versus--aspirin + clopidogrel in patients with cardiovascular disease.(Watson et al; Am J Cardiol 2009 Oct 15;104(8):1052-4). All 364 subjects in the study took aspirin and Plavix (a platelet-inhibiting drug), mostly for coronary disease. Mean dose aspirin = 161 mg/day; mean dose Plavix = 75 mg/day. 182 of the subjects were also taking fish oil, mean dose 3000 mg with unspecified omega-3 content. During nearly 3 years of observation, there was no excess of bleeding events in the group taking fish oil. (In fact, the group not taking fish oil had more bleeding events, though the difference fell short of achieving statistical significance.) Thus, 3000 mg per day of fish oil appeared to exert no observable increase in risk for bleeding. This is consistent with several other studies, including that including Coumadin (warfarin), with no increased bleeding risk when fish oil is added. Rather than causing blood thinning, I prefer to think that omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil restore protection from abnormal clotting. Taking omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil simply restores a normal level of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood sufficient to strike a healthy balance between blood "thinning" and healthy blood clotting.
Heart Scan Blog readers take impressive doses of omega-3s 24. October 2009 William Davis (28) Here are the results from the latest Heart Scan Blog poll:What is your dose of omega-3 fatty acids, EPA + DHA, from fish oil? (Add up the total content of EPA + DHA per capsules; multiply times number of capsules.)The 479 respondents answered:Less than 1000 mg per day 65 (13%) 1000-1999 mg per day 145 (30%) 2000-2999 mg per day 98 (20%) 3000-3999 mg per day 79 (16%) 4000-4999 mg per day 33 (6%) 5000-5999 mg per day 14 (2%) 6000 mg per day or more 45 (9%)The poll did not discriminate between who has heart disease, who does not; who is taking omega-3 fatty acids for high triglycerides or for reduction of lipoprotein(a) (which requires high doses), or other indications. So variation is to be expected. We can say that nearly all respondents are likely receiving sufficient omega-3s to impact cardiovascular risk, since the benefits begin just by consuming fish twice per month. I am especially impressed at the proportion of respondents (53%) who take at least 2000 mg per day of EPA + DHA. It's clear that people are really embracing the notion that omega-3 fatty acids pack a real wallop of health benefits. Because different people in different situations and lipid/lipoprotein patterns have different omega-3 needs, there is really no "right" or "wrong" dose of omega-3 fatty acids. However, there are several factors that enter into knowing your ideal omega-3 intake:--Higher triglycerides require higher doses--Lipoprotein(a) can respond to higher doses--Having coronary or carotid plaque means you desire a "therapeutic" dose of omega-3s, not just a "preventive" doseTime is a factor, also: The longer you take omega-3s, the higher your blood levels go. You can accelerate the replacement of non-omega-3s with higher doses of omega-3s. But too much is not good either. Some participants in Track Your Plaque, for instance, have experimented with very high doses of EPA + DHA in the 9000-10,000 per day range and witnessed dramatic increases in LDL. Much of the uncertainty about dosing will also be cleared up as we get more experience with the Omega-3 RBC Index, i.e, the proportion of fatty acids in red blood cells that are omega-3s. We are currently aiming for an Omega-3 Index of 10%, given the heart attack reductions observed at this level.
How old are you? 17. October 2009 William Davis (21) George walks into my office. I ask him his age. "I'm 21 years old," he declares. Yet I look at George. He's got gray thinning hair, his posture is slumped forward rather than erect, the flesh on his upper arms hangs loosely, he's got wrinkles on his hands and face, brown spots on the back of his hands and arms. He looks more like 70 years old to me. "I don't think you're 21 years old. I think you're 70.""Prove it," he says.Okay. What now? Minus any formal identification like a driver's license, how do I prove that George is really 70-something and not 20-something? Not an easy thing, when you think about it. If George were a tree, I'd cut him down and count his rings. Is there such a phenomenon in humans? This is actually a fascinating area of research, looking for reliable biomarkers of aging. Among the most quantitative markers of aging is telomere length. Telomeres were once dismissed as nonsense sequences in DNA. However, more recent thought among geneticists is that telomeres shorten with aging and provide the body's cells a timeline of aging. This way, George's cells act like they are 70, not 13, and don't start producing gobs of growth hormone and testosterone in preparation for puberty. What can slow or stall the shortening of telomere length? There are two I'm aware of:1) Caloric deprivation--i.e., taking in fewer calories. This was among the theories explored by Dr. Roy Walford during his Biosphere2 experience, based on his work in mice that showed that caloric deprivation nearly doubled lifespan. 2) Vitamin D--Richards et al (2007) found that, the higher the vitamin D, the longer the telomere length. The highest vitamin D levels conferred a 5-year effective difference in telomere length. So, if I could look inside George's cells and count his telomeres, I could judge with confidence whether he was 21 or 70. Or, he could take vitamin D sufficient to increase blood levels to a healthy range and be more like 65.
No high blood pressure 14. October 2009 William Davis (20) Primitive cultures that were, until recently, unexposed to the modern world, reveal some important insights into blood pressure. The Yanomamo of South American, the Xingu Indians of Brazil, rural Kenyans, and the natives of Papua, New Guinea have average blood pressures of 103/63 mmHg. Even more incredibly, while 90% of modern Americans will develop high blood pressure as they age, the members of these primitive cultures do not develop age-related hypertension. What's the secret? Perhaps the full "secret" of their remarkably low blood pressure has not been fully unraveled, but several observations have emerged:--They are not exposed to modern processed foods like pretzels, crackers, and breakfast cereals. --Low-carbohydrate foods. Carbohydrates are largely the product of the food industry, convenience foods bought in stores. No such thing in the jungle. --Living outdoors, having to forage and hunt, walk to your destination, not drive or wait in line for food. --Outdoor lives, wearing little more than a few strands of clothing, exposes you to plentiful vitamin D activation from sunlight exposure.--Consuming wild game, rich in omega-3 fatty acids, enhances endothelial health and reduces blood pressure. --Wild plants, roots, and berries, as well as wild game, along the coast, are richer in iodine. The studies examining the habits of the Yanomamo and other primitive cultures focused principally on sodium intake. Indeed, the very low sodium intake of primitive cultures was associated with lower blood pressure--up to 6 mmHg reduction. But there's clearly more to learn than "cut your salt."
Name that food 13. October 2009 William Davis (30) What common food can:• Cause destructive intestinal damage that, if unrecognized, can lead to disability and death? • Increase blood sugar higher and faster than table sugar?• Trigger an autoimmune inflammatory condition in the thyroid (Hashimoto’s thyroiditis)? • Create intestinal bloating, cramps, and alternating diarrhea and constipation, often labeled irritable bowel syndrome? • Trigger schizophrenia in susceptible individuals? • Cause behavioral outbursts in children with autism?• Cause various inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis, dermatitis herpetiformis, systemic lupus, pancreatic destruction, and increase measures of inflammation like c-reactive protein?• Cause unexplained anemia, mood swings, fatigue, fibromyalgia, eczema, and osteoporosis?The food is wheat. Yes, the ubiquitous grain we are urged to eat more and more of by the USDA (8-11 servings per day, according to the USDA food pyramid), American Heart Association, American Dietetic Association, and the American Diabetes Association. Wheat is among the most destructive ingredients in the modern diet, worse than sugar, worse than high-fructose corn syrup, worse than any fat. What other common food can result in such an extensive list of diseases, even death?Celiac disease alone, a severe intestinal inflammatory condition from wheat gluten, affects an estimated 3 million Americans (Celiac Disease Foundation). The medical literature is filled with case reports of deaths from this disease, often after many years of struggle with incapacitating intestinal dysfunction and the sufferer's last days plagued by encephalopathy (brain inflammation). What happens when you remove wheat from the diet? The majority of people quickly shed 20-30 lbs in the first few weeks, selectively lost from the abdomen (what I call “wheat belly”); blood sugar plummets; triglycerides drop up to several hundred milligrams, HDL increases, LDL drops (yes, wheat elimination is a means of achieving marked reduction in LDL cholesterol, especially the small, heart disease-causing variety); c-reactive protein plummets. In addition to this, intestinal complaints improve or disappear, rashes improve, inflammatory conditions like rheumatoid arthritis improve, diabetes can improve or be cured, and behavioral disorders and mood improve.Along with the ill-fated low-fat dietary advice of the last 40 years, the advice to eat plenty of "healthy whole grains" is responsible for untold disease and suffering. Yes, if you start with a fast food and junk diet and replace some of the calories with whole grains, you will be better off. (That was the logic--the Nutritional Syllogism--of the studies that established the benefits of whole grains over processed, "white" grains.) But eliminate wheat grains and health takes a huge leap forward. And, no, there is no such thing as wheat deficiency--B vitamins, insoluble fiber, some protein--can easily be replaced by other foods.
Heart Defects Simplified 12. October 2009 William Davis (0) For as long as I've known him, echocardiography technologist, Ken Heiden, has had a deep fascination with congenital heart disease. Ken has just written a wonderful book on congenital heart disease called Heart Defects Simplified. While this is a bit off-topic for the Heart Scan Blog, I know that there is a serious lack of helpful information for people with congenital heart disease and parents of children with congenital heart defects. So I asked Ken to tell us something about his book. WD: I've reviewed your book and have been thoroughly impressed with the clarity and detail with which you handle a complicated topic. You somehow manage to make it easy to grasp, far more than any other resource I've used in past. Do you feel that your book serves a previously unmet need? KH: This book serves an unmet need in that it presents the complex subject of congenital heart defects in a simplified manner. Most books on this subject are anywhere from 300-1700 pages in length and tend to be written for doctors. Further, most of these books have very few diagrams, and they rely upon their explanations to describe these defects. Heart Defects Simplified is 104 pages in length, describes the most common defects, including surgical repairs, in a two-page format with full-color diagrams on the left and complete descriptions on the right of each chapter. The book is particularly written for sonographers, nurses and parents, but it is valuable for anyone interested in this subject. It is particularly useful in clinical situations because it is convenient to lay out at your side with a coil-bound format and durable pages. Further, there are appendixes which include "Surgical Procedures in Alphabetical Order," "Prevalence of Congenital Heart Disease," "Scanning Protocols for Echocardiographers," "Imaging Tips," a glossary and a worksheet for echocardiographers. WD: I know that many people with loved ones who have congenital heart defects, particularly parents of children with such conditions, are often kept in the dark about the details of the condition. Is your book suitable for the non-technical reader, such as parents? KH: This book is an excellent resource for parents. It is written in language that is understandable by parents as well as technologists and nurses. The full-color diagrams provide invaluable insight into this very complex world. Most importantly, this book attempts to make the subject of congenital heart defects accessible to anyone who wishes to comprehend this subject. WD: I understand that people with congenital heart defects and parents are active participants in online discussion groups. Will your book serve as a resource for people who participate in these groups? KH: This book is not only a resource for sonographers and parents, but the book is accompanied by a blog (HeartDefectsforEveryone.blogspot.com) that attempts to address many of the concerns commonly encountered with congenital heart defects. This blog is a work in progress, but I hope to provide a forum for parents, healthcare personnel, and others to share their questions and concerns about congenital heart disease.
My experience with the omega-3 index 8. October 2009 William Davis (23) I just got back my own results from the Gene Smart laboratory reporting my omega-3 index and omega-6:omega-3 ratio. My results:Omega-3 index: 8.2%Omega-6:omega-3 index: 3.2 to 1Not too bad, but not as good as I'd expected. Hmmm. Although the omega-3 index of 8.2% puts me in the lower risk category for sudden cardiac death, I was hoping for a level of 10% or slightly greater, the level that I believe is more likely to be related to plaque inactivation or reversal. I obtained this level of omega-3 averaging an intake of EPA and DHA of about 2500 mg per day. I was somewhat disappointed by the omega-6:omega-3 index. Although it's clearly better than the American average range of 20:1, it is short of the ideal of 2:1 or even 1:1. Since I purposely avoid omega-6-rich sources like corn oil, vegetable oils, sunflower or safflower oils, I wonder if I've overdone the nuts. The two ways to improve the omega-6:omega-3 ratio are to 1) decrease omega-6, or 2) increase omega-3. I'm going to do both. So I thought I was doing pretty well. But there's clearly room for improvement.Remember: If just reduction of cardiovascular risk is your interest, then a lackadaisical attitude towards these issues might work. But if your interest is elimination of risk and reversal of atherosclerotic plaque, then it pays to go the extra mile. In this case, knowing your omega-3 index and omega-6:omega-3 ratio might tighten up your program.
The Omega-3 Index: The higher, the better? 6. October 2009 William Davis (26) So you take a few fish oil capsules every day and eat fish once or twice a week. What is the blood and tissue level of omega-3 fatty acids generated by your habits? A number of variables enter into the equation. For instance, if you take fish oil capsules, what is the concentration of omega-3 fatty acids? How well are they absorbed? After absorption, how effectively are omega-3 fatty acids incorporated into cell membranes?Even if you take fish oil supplements, it is hard to know just how much you’ve increased blood levels. It is now possible to measure the amount of omega-3 fatty acids in your bloodstream, a value called the omega-3 index. Too little and you might still be at high risk for cardiovascular events. The Omega-3 index and sudden cardiac deathTwo large studies have demonstrated that higher omega-3 blood (the level in red blood cells, or RBCs) levels were associated with reduced likelihood of sudden cardiac death. The risk for sudden cardiac death was 10-fold higher for the lowest omega-3 RBC levels compared to the highest.Harris WS 2008; adapted from Siscovick DS et al 1995 and Albert CM et al 2002(The omega-3 Index was derived from whole blood omega-3 levels, which correlate with RBC omega-3 levels, and are thus “estimated.”)What’s the average omega-3 RBC level for Americans? Most Americans have omega-3 RBC levels in the 2.5-4.0% range, consistent with the tallest bars at the left and associated with greatest risk for sudden cardiac death. People with heart disease can have levels less than 1%. Some authorities propose that this new measure be called the omega-3 index. Subsequent studies have shown that the omega-3 index has greater power to discriminate who will have a heart attack or die from sudden cardiac death better than any other common laboratory measure of coronary risk, including LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, total cholesterol to HDL ratio, homocysteine, and c-reactive protein.Just as hemoglobin A1c offers a 3-month look into blood glucose levels, the omega-3 index reflects your long-term omega-3 intake. The quantity of RBC omega-3s also closely parallels the quantity of omega-3s in heart tissues.What is an ideal omega-3 index?The above studies relating RBC omega-3 levels and sudden cardiac death suggest that a level of 6.3-7.3% is associated with far fewer fatal events?but events are not eliminated at this level. Is there even greater benefit with levels higher than 6.3-7.3%?A recent analysis of females from the Harvard School of Public Health suggested that RBC omega-3 levels as high as 8.99% were still associated with non-fatal heart attack (myocardial infarction), compared to 9.36% in those without heart attacks. This suggests that even higher levels are necessary to prevent non-fatal events. Should we target 10%? 12%? Maybe higher? Any higher and we are toeing the level achieved by the Inuits, the “Eskimoes” of Greenland, northern Canada and Alaska who have been observed to have a low rate of heart disease.What’s your omega-3 index?The appreciation of the importance of omega-3 fatty acids marks one of the greatest health revelations of the last 50 years. We can now measure it.The ability to measure the proportion of omega-3 fatty acids in red blood cells may provide yet another means for all of us to further reduce risk for cardiovascular events.If you are interested in knowing your omega-3 index, we are now making the fingerstick test kits available by going here.