Watch your weight plummet:Be a super vegetarian

14. January 2007 William Davis (0)

Here's a neat trick for losing weight: Become a strict vegetarian for 3 days.

Before you yawn or say "Yecchhhh!", let me elaborate.

Pick some time period. It doesn't have to be 3 days. It could be 2 days, or 5 days, or two weeks. But, for the period you choose, eat only vegetables. No meat, cereals, breads, milk, cookies, etc.

Vegetables alone could get monotonous, so make them interesting. Possibilities include:

--Hummus--add a little bit of olive-oil, chopped garlic, paprika, red pepper.

--Tabouleh--I get mine from Trader Joe's and it's delicious.

--Salsa--Low in calories, rich in lycopene and other flavonoids, with no nutritional downside. Also, pico de gallo--chopped tomatoes, onions, jalapeno chiles, cilantro, cucumbers.

--Mustards--hot, yellow, brown, spicy, gourmet, horseradish, etc.

--Cocktail sauce--i.e., ketchup and horseradish. Use the low-carb ketchup made without high fructose corn syrup.

--Tapenades--e.g., olive tapenade made with chopped olives, capers, and olive oil.
--Pesto-made with basil, garlic, and olive oil.

--Spices and herbs--basil, arugula, peppers, mustard powder, garlic, cilantro, ginger, etc.

--Vinegars--wine, Balsamic, rice, apple cider.

--Infused olive oils--infused with garlic is especially delicious,e.g., added to hummus.

--Bean dips--white bean dip, roasted bean dip, etc.

With the varieties of ways to jazz up your vegetables, you couldn't possibly be bored.

For example, for breakfast on day 1, eat sliced cucumbers and green peppers dipped in garlic-infused olive oil hummus and a handful of almonds. For a snack, some walnuts, sunflower seeds, sliced zucchini dipped in salsa. For lunch, a salad with an olive oil and balsamic vinegar dressing. For dinner, tablouleh, a cucumber and tomato salad, celery sticks dipped in pico de gallo.

All vegetables can be eaten without restricting portion size, since calorie content of vegetables are so low compared to other calorie-dense foods. (See The Heart Scan Blog from a few days back, "One bit or many mouthfuls?" at http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/one-bite-or-many-mouthfuls.html.)

This approach works nearly as well as fasting. A half-pound per day weight loss or more is common and painless. You'll also feel great living on low glycemic index foods.

(Photos courtesy Wikipedia.)

Dr. Agatston to the rescue

12. January 2007 William Davis (0)

Dr. Arthur Agatston, author of wildly successful South Beach Diet, has just released a new book titled The South Beach Heart Program. Dr. Agatston has started on a media speaking circuit to promote his book and concepts.

A reporter from Time, who interviewed Dr. Agatston, commented:

". . .not enough doctors prescribe niacin for their heart patients, even though the medicine is a proven treatment for raising 'good' cholesterol. Physicians are reluctant, Agatston suggests, because niacin requires diligent follow-up to watch for side effects, taking time that most primary-care practices cannot afford. On the other hand, he says, too many doctors are performing heart operations that represent a financial windfall for hospitals. Bottom line: there isn't as much money to be made in prevention as in treatment."

Amen.

Dr. Agatston echoes many of the concepts that the Track Your Plaque program advocates. His notoriety is going to help disseminate the idea that 1) CT heart scans are the #1 method to identify hidden atherosclerotic coronary plaque, 2) taking control of your heart scan score is the best way to seize hold of your future, and 3) the present-day popularity of heart procedures like stents and bypass is intolerable, inexcusable, and needs to be reined back.

Agatston also brings great credibility and fairness to the conversation and his comments will gain tremendous attention in the press and with the public.

When is a vitamin not a vitamin?

12. January 2007 William Davis (0)

When it's a hormone.

That's the stand that several researchers in vitamin D have taken and I think they're right. Dr. John Cannell has made a fuss over this in his www.vitamindcouncil.com website.

Structurally, vitamin D is most closely related to testosterone, estrogen, and cortisol. You wouldn't call testosterone vitamin T, would you?

Vitamins are also meant to be obtained from food. Yes, vitamin D is in milk but only because humans are required to put it there to prevent childhood rickets. Otherwise, the only substantial food source of vitamin D is in oily fish like salmon and then only a modest quantity.

Vitamin D is cholecalciferol, a hormone. Deficiencies of hormones can have catastrophic consequences. Imagine that every winter your thyroid gland shuts down and produced no thyroid hormone. You'd get very ill, gain 30 lbs, lose your hair, feel awful.

That's what happens when you're sun deprived and thereby deficient in cholecalciferol--you're deficient in a hormone. And it happens to most of us every year for many months.

I continue to witness spectacular effects by bringing 25-OH-vitamin D3 blood levels to 50 ng/ml with supplementation, including an apparent surge in success dropping heart scan scores.

An epidemic of heart disease reversal

10. January 2007 William Davis (3)

Heart disease reversal is nothing new in my office. However, I have to admit that it's not something that generally happens each and every day.

As our approach is refined, we are witnessing an unprecedented frequency of plaque reversal. Since Monday (today is Tuesday), I've seen four people who have regressed their coronary plaque and dropped their heart scan score.

Pat was the most recent addition to this list. At age 53, I was honestly surprised at the ease of dropping her heart scan score from 128 to 42 in the space of a year. I was surprised because among her lipoprotein patterns was the dreaded combination of lipoprotein(a) and small LDL, probably the most aggressive risk for heart disease I know of and also among the most difficult to gain control over. She also suffered a deep personal tragedy in her family, an emotional convulsion that can sometimes wipe out any hope of plaque reversal.

I'm hopeful that this virtual epidemic of heart disease reversal continues. And I hope that you participate in it.

Second heart scan and heart attack risk

9. January 2007 William Davis (0)

At first, Joe felt disappointed, defeated, and frightened. After his heart scan, a radiologist at the center told him that his score of 264 was moderately high. He told Joe that he was at moderate risk for heart attack and that a nuclear stress test was going to be required.

This left Joe feeling confused. After all he'd had a heart scan 18 months earlier and his score was 278, 5% higher.

I reassured Joe that the radiologist had not been aware that Joe had a prior heart scan. The radiologist didn't know that Joe's heart scan score had actually been reduced.

In fact, Joe's risk for heart attack was not moderate--it is now very low, since his score was 5% lower. While growing plaque is active plaque, shrinking plaque is inactive plaque and thereby at far less risk for heart attack.

I wrote about this phemonenon in a previous Blog: When is a heart scan score of 400 better than 200? at http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html. When you've had more than one scan, the risk for heart attack suggested by the score takes a back seat to the rate of change of your score. In other words, even though Joe's score of 264 represented a moderate risk (of approximately 3% per year, roughly 30% over 10 years), this no longer held true, since it actually represented a 5% decrease over a previous score.

Joe's risk for heart attack is probably close to zero. ALWAYS view your second (or any subsequent) heart scan score in the context of your previous score, not in isolation.

Track Your Plaque newsletter subscribers: We will detail more of Joe's story in the coming January 2007 newsletter. If you'd like to read or subscribe to the newsletter, go to http://www.cureality.com/f_scanshow.asp.

Heart scan curiosities #5

8. January 2007 William Davis (1)

Despite the controversy over drug-coated stents, I maintain that the best stent is no stent at all.

Yes, there are indeed times when such things are necessary, but not with the frequency that they are implanted nowadays.

Another reason why stents are an undesirable phenemenon is that they muck up your heart scan. Take a look:

The long white object in the center is a stent in the left anterior descending artery of this 60 year old man. Just beyond the stent (at about 1 o'clock from the stent) is a plaque that could be scored. However, you can see that, with the presence of the stent, the bulk of this artery is no longer "scorable". If this man wishes to "track his plaque", he will have to be content with tracking only the circumflex and right coronary arteries, the other two arteries without stents.

The stainless steel or similar metallic materials of current stents simply prevent us from seeing through them for plaque scoring purposes. It's best if you can simply avoid getting one for this and other reasons.

Track Your Plaque Members: Watch for the upcoming editorial by our Heart Hawk on drug-eluting stents.

One bite or many mouthfuls

6. January 2007 William Davis (0)

A reader brought this beautiful series of food photos to my attention:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm

It's simply a graphic display of what 200 calories of various foods look like. You'll note that vegetables and fruits permit large servings to yield 200 calories. Processed foods, on the other hand, require very little to tally up the same calorie load. In particularly, look how little in the way of wheat products are required to match that amount.

Heart scan curiosities #4

5. January 2007 William Davis (2)

Here's an interesting example of a 63-year old man with a heart scan score of 112. However, his aortic valve was also severely calcified (loaded with calcium). In other words, the normally flexible and mobile "leaflets" of the aortic valve were coated with calcium and other tissues that interfere with its free motion. The aortic valve is the starburst white in the center of the heart.

This is what the aortic valve should look like on a CT heart scan--you shouldn't see it at all.

The first man with the calcified valve will unfortunately require a new prosthetic aortic valve sometime in his future. This is usually determined with the help of an ultrasound, or echocardiogram, a better test for assessment of the aortic valve (though useless for detection of coronary plaque).

It's my suspicion that chronic and longstanding deficiency of vitamin D is among the factors that contribute to the abnormal deposition of calcium on the aortic valve. We desperately need more data on this. Nonetheless, perhaps this adds yet another reason to 1)get a CT heart scan, and 2) bring your vitamin D blood level to normal. (We aim for 50 ng/ml year round.)

Fish oil and the perverse logic of hospitals

4. January 2007 William Davis (6)

Hospitals are now starting to carry prescription fish oil, known as Omacor, on their formularies. It's used by some thoracic surgeons after bypass surgery, since fish oil has been shown to reduce the likelihood of atrial fibrillation (a common rhythm after heart surgery).

Why now? The data confirming the benefits of fish oil on atrial fibrillation has been available for several years.

It's now available in hospitals because it's FDA-approved. In other words, when fish oil was just a supplement, it was not available in most hospitals. Whenever I've tried to get fish oil for my patients while in hospital, you'd think I was trying to smuggle Osama Bin Laden into the place. The resistance was incredible.

Now that FDA-approved Omacor is available, costing $130 dollars per month for two capsules, $195 for the three capsule per day dose for after surgery, all of a sudden it becomes available. Why would this irrational state of affairs occur in hospitals?

Several reasons, most of which revolve around the great suspicion my colleagues have towards nutritional supplements. In addition, there's the litigation risk: If something has been approved by the FDA, their stamp of endorsement provides some layer of legal protection.

However, I regard those as pretty weak reasons. I am, indeed, grateful that fish oil is gaining a wider audience. But I think it's absurd that it requires a prescription to get it in many hospitals. Imagine, as the drug companies would love, vitamin C became a prescription agent. Instead of $3, it would cost far more. Does that make it better, safer, more effective?

Of course, no drug sales representative is promoting the nutritional supplement fish oil to physicians nor to hospitals. I now see people adding the extraordinary expense of prescription fish oil to their presription bills.

In my view, it's unnecessary, irrational, and driven more by politics and greed than actual need. Take a look at the website for Omacor (www.omacorrx.com). Among the claims:

"OMACOR is the only omega-3 that, along with diet, has been proven and approved to dramatically reduce very high triglycerides..."

This is a bald lie. Dozens of studies have used nutritional supplement fish oil and shown spectacular triglyceride-reducing effects.

Their argument against fish oil supplements:

"Dietary supplements are not FDA-approved for the treatment of any specific disease or medical condition. Get the Facts: nonprescription, dietary supplement omega-3 is not a substitute for prescription OMACOR."

Does that make any sense to you? Should you buy a GM car because only GM makes genuine GM cars? This is the silly logic being offered by these people to justify their ridiculous pricing.

How about: "The unique manufacturing process for OMACOR helps to eliminate worries about mercury and other pollution from the environment."

Funny...mercury in fish tends to be sequestered in the meat, not the oil. Independent reports by both Consumer Reports and Consumer Lab found no mercury, nor PCB's, in nutritional supplement fish oil. But just suggesting a difference without proving it may be enough to scare some people.

Just because something is used by a hospital does not make it better. The adoption of fish oil is hospitals is a good thing. Too bad it has to add to already bloated health care costs to enrich some drug manufacturer.

Repent for past sins

2. January 2007 William Davis (0)

If the food temptations of the holidays got the best of you, and you're now 5, 10, 15 lbs or more over your pre-holiday weight (our record is 18lbs!), then it's time for serious action.

One easy method to regain the control you may have lost is to pick some period, say, 3 days. During those three days, eat nothing but vegetables--no breads, meats, dairy products, certainly no cookies, cakes, pasta, etc., not even fruit. Follow this routine and weight drops rapidly. Vegetables are wonderful but sometimes boring, so use healthy condiments to spice them up: mustards (hot, brown, yellow, horseradish); healthy salad dressings, which are olive or canola oil-based; salsas, a fabulous garnish with no nutritional downside whatsoever; pesto; tapenades; horseradish added to other condiments or even by itself (wasabi).

Of course, fasting in one of its several variations is another rapid method to regain control. My favorite is to use soy milk in a modified fast, usually 4-6 glasses of a low-fat, low-sugar soy milk per day, along with plenty of water. (Please refer to the precautions detailed in the recent Track Your Plaque Special Report, Fasting: Fast Track to Control Plaque , particularly if you fast 5 days or longer or take blood pressure or diabetic medication.)

Of course, yo-yoing your weight--up during the holidays, down after their conclusion--is not good for you. It does raise the likelihood of diabetes, not to mention cultivate the patterns that contribute to coronary plaque growth, especially small LDL. But if temptation got out of control and you need to regain lost ground, these two strategies work fabulously well for most people.

If you've gained, say, 10 lbs during the holidays, but simply resume your usual habits, chances are you won't lose the weight. Year after year, this can add up to an enormous weight gain. The time to act is now. It's easier to lose the 10 lbs of weight you gained recently, rather than the 50 lbs you've stacked up over the past 5 years.

All posts by william-davis

Does high cholesterol cause heart disease?

3. October 2008 William Davis (15)

How often does someone develop coronary heart disease from high cholesterol alone?

Believe drug industry propaganda and you'd think that everyone does. Physicians have bought into this concept also, driving the $27 billion annual sales in statin cholesterol drugs.

In my experience, I can count the number of people who develop coronary disease from high cholesterol alone on one hand. It happens--but rarely.

That's not to say that cholesterol is not an issue. That rant populates many of the kook websites and conversations on the internet that argue that high cholesterol is a surrogate for some other health issue, or that it is part of a medical conspiracy.

The problem with conventional measurement of cholesterol is that it ignores the particle size issue: whether particles are large or small. Small LDL are flagrant causes of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Large LDL is a rather meager cause. Simple cholesterol measurement also ignores the presence of other factors that lead to heart disease, like lipoprotein(a) and vitamin D deficiency.

Conventional total and LDL cholesterol do not distinguish between large and small particles, nor reveal the presence of other hidden patterns. An LDL cholesterol of 150 mg/dl, for instance, may contain 100% large LDL--a relatively good situation that by itself is unlikely to cause heart disease, or it might contain 100% small LDL--a very bad situation that is likely to cause heart disease. Just knowing that LDL is 150 mg/dl tells you almost nothing. In 2008, most people have some mixture of the two, particularly with the proliferation of "healthy whole grains" in the American diet, foods that trigger formation of small LDL.

The imprecision and uncertainty of conventional total and LDL cholesterol has provided ammunition for some to discount the entire cholesterol concept. And they are right to a degree: cholesterol by itself is indeed a lousy predictor of heart disease. But small LDL is a very reliable predictor of potential for heart disease. Dismissing the entire concept because the standard measurement stinks is not right, either.

It is therefore an unfortunate oversimplification to say that high cholesterol causes heart disease or that it doesn't. It can--but not always, depending on size and other factors. In my view, it is therefore irreponsible to treat total or LDL cholesterol without knowledge of particle size. I've seen this play out many times: Someone with an LDL cholesterol of 150 mg/dl but all large still gets prescribed a statin drug by his/her doctor. Or someone with an LDL of 100 mg/dl--generally "favorable" by most standards--is not treated but it is all small and the person is truly at high risk. (Also, knowledge that all LDL particles are small does not mean that statins are the preferred agent. In my view, they are not.)

Are humans meant to be omnivores?

28. September 2008 William Davis (24)

Are humans meant to be omnivores?

Does the ideal human diet include animal products like meat, fish, cheese, eggs, and dairy products?

Or should the ideal diet be devoid of all animal products?a vegetarian diet?

Though the argument is distorted by modern food processing methods (e.g., factory farming, long-term administration of antibiotics), convenience foods, and pseudo-foods crafted by food manufacturers, there are, obviously, proponents of both extremes.

The Atkins’ diet, for instance, advocates unrestricted intake of animal products, regardless of production methods or curing (sausage and bacon). At the opposite extreme are diets like Ornish (Dr. Dean Ornish’s Program for Reversal of Heart Disease) and the experiences of Dr. Colin Campbell, articulated in his studies and book, The China Study, in which he lambasts animal products, including dairy, as triggers for cancer and heart disease.

So which end of the spectrum is correct? Or ideal?

For the sake of argument, let's put aside philosophical questions (like not wanting eat animal products because of aversion to killing any living being) or ethical concerns (inhumane treatment of farm animals, cruel slaughtering practices, etc.). Does the inclusion of animal products provide advantage? Disadvantage?

The traditional argument against animal products has been saturated fat. If we accept that we’ve demoted the saturated fat question to a place far down the list of importance (though this is yet another argument to discuss another time), several questions emerge:

• If humans were meant to be vegetarian, why do omega-3 fatty acids (mostly from wild game and fish) yield such substantial health benefits, including dramatic reduction in sudden death from heart disease?

• Why would vitamin K2 (from meats and milk, as well as fermented foods like natto and cheese), obtainable in only the tiniest amounts on a vegetarian diet, provide such significant benefits on bone and cardiovascular health?

• Why would vitamin B12 (from meats) be necessary to maintain a normal blood count, prevent anemia, keep homocysteine at bay, and lead to profound neurologic dysfunction when deficient?

Omega-3 fatty acids and vitamins K2 and B12 cannot be obtained in satisfactory quantities from a pure vegetarian diet. The consequences of deficiency are not measured in decades, but in a few years. The conclusion is unavoidable: Evolutionarily, humans are meant to consume at least some foods from animal sources.

That's not to say that we should gorge ourselves on animal products. Gout (excessive uric acid) and kidney stones are among the unhealthy consequences of excessive quantities of meats in our diets.

It pains me to say this, since I’ve always favored a vegetarian lifestyle, mostly because of philosophical concerns, as well as worries about the safety of our factory farm-raised livestock and rampant inhumane practices.

But, stepping back and objectively examining what nutritional approach appears to stack the odds in favor of optimal health, I believe that only one conclusion is possible: Humans are meant to be omnivorous, meant to consume some quantity of animal products in addition to vegetables, fruits, nuts, and other non-animal products.

The question is how much?

Are you wheat-free?

24. September 2008 William Davis (25)

According to the recent Heart Scan Blog poll, Are you wheat-free?, the 173 respondents said:

Yes, I am free of wheat products.
87 (50%)

No, I include wheat products in my diet.
73 (42%)

I'm not sure.
1 (0%)

I think you're nuts.
12 (6%)

That's kind of what I expected.

There are people who have eliminated wheat and experienced nothing except a feeling of deprivation. These people are in the minority. Though the poll was not set up to reflect this (i.e., asked who tried it and experienced no perceptible benefit), in my experience, this applies to about 20% of people. Little happens with elimination of wheat beyond modest weight loss. Those are the people who generally think I'm nuts.

Or, these people may have been brainwashed by "official" agencies like the USDA, the American Diabetes Association, and American Heart Association and the constant marketing of (high markup) grain products like Cheerios and Shredded Wheat . Some people are really uncomfortable going against the "grain" of popular public opinion.

Then there are the people who try to eliminate wheat and fail. They can't deal with the overwhelming fatigue, mental fog, and moodiness that comes with withdrawal from wheat, the phenomenon of converting from a sugar-burning metabolism to a fat-burning metabolism. Although wheat withdrawal usually runs its course in 2-5 days, some people find it intolerable. (That would be another fun poll to run: Have you experienced wheat-withdrawal?) Occasionally, the withdrawal is replaced by endless cravings, a phenomenon that applies to only about 10% of people. These are the true "wheat addicts." These are the people who eliminate wheat, lose 40 lbs, then regain it when they have one cracker and the floodgates of impulse control crumble.

Then there are the majority, 50% in the poll, though more like 70% in my face-to-face experience. Why is my experience skewed? Well, the people I deal with every day come because of coronary disease in some form (abnormal heart scan score, for instance) or because of lipid or lipoprotein abnormalities. So my experienced is skewed towards people who are likely to have something abnormal, such as high triglycerides or small LDL particles, both of which are created by including wheat in the diet.

This last group also shows unexpected effects of wheat elimination: substantial weight loss, dramatic reductions in blood sugar and triglycerides, increase in HDL, reductions in small LDL, reduction in c-reactive protein and other inflammatory measures. Appetite shrinks considerably. Not uncommonly, improved well-being, reduction in bowel complaints like cramping or "irritable bowel syndrome" is experienced, some rashes clear, occasionally arthritis will improve. See below for some of the testimonials to this experience.

When I first set out to advise people to eliminate wheat, I did it because I reasoned that it would be a quick and simple way to get people to reduce blood sugars and help correct the ubiquitous metabolic syndrome that afflicts nearly 50 million Americans now. And it did indeed accomplish that simple goal. But I did not expect all the other benefits to develop, the dramatic weight loss, improved well-being, reduction in hunger, etc.

I view wheat elimination as an easy-to-remember, digestible way to obtain enormous health benefits in a coronary plaque-control program, one that works for most--but not all--people. And I relate this experience not to sell you something, but to simply relate what I see as the truth, a way that is contrary to conventional advice yet works enormously well.

Unsolicited testimonials of people who have successfully been wheat-free:

Barbara W said:

It's true! We've done it. My husband and I stopped eating all grains and sugar in February. At this point, we really don't miss them any more. It was a huge change, but it's worth the effort. I've lost over 20 pounds (10 to go)and my husband has lost 45 pounds (20 to go). On top of it, our body shapes have changed drastically. It is really amazing. I've got my waist back (and a whole wardrobe of clothes) - I'm thrilled.

I'm also very happy to be eating foods that I always loved like eggs, avocados, and meats - without feeling guilty that they're not good for me.

With the extremely hot weather this week in our area, we thought we'd "treat" ourselves to small ice cream cones. To our surprise, it wasn't that much of a treat. Didn't even taste as good as we'd anticipated. I know I would have been much more satisfied with a snack of smoked salmon with fresh dill, capers, chopped onion and drizzled with lemon juice.

Aside from weight changes, we both feel so much better in general - feel much more alert and move around with much greater flexibility, sleep well, never have any indigestion. We're really enjoying this. It's like feeling younger.

It's not a diet for us. This will be the way we eat from now on. Actually, we think our food has become more interesting and varied since giving up all the "white stuff". I guess we felt compelled to get a little more creative.

Eating out (or at other peoples' places) has probably been the hardest part of this adjustment. But now we're getting pretty comfortable saying what we won't eat. I'm starting to enjoy the reactions it produces.

Weight loss, increased energy, less abdominal bloating, better sleep--I've seen it many times, as well.

Dotslady said:

I was a victim of the '80s lowfat diet craze - doc told me I was obese, gave me the Standard American Diet and said to watch my fat (I'm not a big meat eater, didn't like mayo ... couldn't figure out where my fat was coming from! maybe the fries - I will admit I liked fries). I looked to the USDA food pyramid and to increase my fiber for the constipation I was experiencing. Bread with 3 grams of fiber wasn't good enough; I turned to Kashi cereals for 11 years. My constipation turned to steattorrhea and a celiac disease diagnosis! *No gut pains!* My PCP sent me to the gastroenterologist for a colonscopy because my ferritin was a 5 (20 is low range). Good thing I googled around and asked him to do an endoscopy or I'd be a zombie by now.

My symptoms were depression & anxiety, eczema, GERD, hypothyroidism, mild dizziness, tripping, Alzheimer's-like memory problems, insomnia, heart palpitations, fibromyalgia, worsening eyesight, mild cardiomyopathy, to name a few.

After six months gluten-free, I asked my gastroenterologist about feeling full early ... he said he didn't know what I was talking about! *shrug*

But *I* knew -- it was the gluten/starches! My satiety level has totally changed, and for the first time in my life I feel NORMAL!

Feeling satisfied with less is a prominent effect in my experience, too. You need to eat less, you're driven to snack less, less likely to give in to those evil little bedtime or middle-of-the-night impulses that make you feel ashamed and guilty.

An anonymous (female) commenter said:

My life changed when I cut not only all wheat, but all grains from my diet.

For the first time in my life, I was no longer hungry -no hunger pangs between meals; no overwhelming desire to snack. Now I eat at mealtimes without even thinking about food in between.

I've dropped 70 pounds, effortlessly, come off high blood pressure meds and control my blood sugar without medication.

I don't know whether it was just the elimination of grain, especially wheat, or whether it was a combination of grain elimnation along with a number of other changes, but I do know that mere reduction of grain consumption still left me hungry. It wasn't until I elimnated it that the overwhelming redution in appetite kicked in.

As a former wheat-addicted vegetarian, who thought she was eating healthily according to all the expert advice out there at the time, I can only shake my head at how mistaken I was.

Stan said:

It's worth it and you won't look back!

Many things will improve, not just weight reduction: you will think clearer, your reflexes will improve, your breathing rate will go down, your blood pressure will normalize. You will never or rarely have a fever or viral infections like cold or flu. You will become more resistant to cold temperature and you will rarely feel tired, ever!

Ortcloud said:

Whenever I go out to breakfast I look around and I am in shock at what people eat for breakfast. Big stack of pancakes, fruit, fruit juice syrup, just like you said. This is not breakfast, this is dessert ! It has the same sugar and nutrition as a birthday cake, would anyone think cake is ok for breakfast ? No, but that is exactly the equivalent of what they are eating. Somehow we have been duped to think this is ok. For me, I typically eat an omelette when I go out, low carb and no sugar. I dont eat wheat but invariably it comes with the meal and I try to tell the waitress no thanks, they are stunned. They try to push some other type of wheat or sugar product on me instead, finally I have to tell them I dont eat wheat and they are doubly stunned. They cant comprehend it. We have a long way to go in terms of re-education.

Yes. Don't be surprised at the incomprehension, the rolled eyes, even the anger that can sometimes result. Imagine that told you that the food you've come to rely on and love is killing you!

Anne said:

I was overweight by only about 15lbs and I was having pitting edema in my legs and shortness of breath. My cardiologist and I were discussing the possible need of an angiogram. I was three years out from heart bypass surgery.

Before we could schedule the procedure, I tested positive for gluten sensitivity through www.enterolab.com. I eliminated not only wheat but also barley and rye and oats(very contaminated with wheat) from my diet. Within a few weeks my edema was gone, my energy was up and I was no longer short of breath. I lost about 10 lbs. The main reason I gave up gluten was to see if I could stop the progression of my peripheral neuropathy. Getting off wheat and other gluten grains has given me back my life. I have been gluten free for 4 years and feel younger than I have in many years.

There are many gluten free processed foods, but I have found I feel my best when I stick with whole foods.

Ann has a different reason (gluten enteropathy, or celiac disease) for wanting to be wheat-free. But I've seen similar improvements that go beyond just relief of the symptoms attributable to the inflammatory intestinal effects of gluten elimination.

Wccaguy said:

I have relatively successfully cut carbs and grains from my diet thus far.

Because I've got some weight to lose, I have tried to keep the carb count low and I've lost 15 pounds since then.

I have also been very surprised at the significant reduction in my appetite. I've read about the experience of others with regard to appetite reduction and couldn't really imagine that it could happen for me too. But it has.

A few weeks ago, I attended a party catered by one of my favorite italian restaurants and got myself offtrack for two days. Then it took me a couple of days to get back on track because my appetite returned.

Check out Jimmy Moore's website for lots of ideas about variations of foods to try. The latest thing I picked up from Jimmy is the good old-fashioned hard boiled egg. Two or three eggs with some spicy hot sauce for breakfast and a handful of almonds mid-morning plus a couple glasses of water and I'm good for the morning no problem.

I find myself thinking about lunch not because I'm really hungry but out of habit.

The cool thing too now is that the more I do this, the more I'm just not tempted much to do anything but this diet.

No more canned foods

21. September 2008 William Davis (12)

If you haven't already caught the news, it's time to eliminate canned foods and exposure to plastics that contain the chemical, bisphenol A (BPA). A worrisome and unexpected association with heart disease and diabetes has been found.

This issue has been debated for some years ever since scientists at the NIH detected BPA in the blood samples of 93-95% of Americans, with consumer protection advocates calling for more research or even the outright banning of BPA , while industry representatives have argued that the data fail to conclusively prove adverse health effects.

Well, the argument has been tilted heavily in favor of increased consumer protection with the publication of a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dr. Iain Lang and associates at the University of Exeter, UK, and the University of Iowa. Their study, released Sept. 17, 2008, Association of urinary bisphenol A concentration with medical disorders and laboratory abnormalities in adults, persuasively demonstrated a 40% increased incidence of coronary heart disease, heart attack, and diabetes with increasing exposure to BPA (as judged by urine levels) among the nearly 1500 adults aged 18-74 years. People with coronary heart disease had double the blood level of BPA compared to those without.

In addition, higher urine levels of BPA were associated with abnormalities of two liver tests, GGT and alkaline phosphatase.

Interestingly, although much of the debate over adverse health effects of BPA have centered around concern over cancer and reproductive risks, an association with cancer did not hold. (No analysis for reproductive issues was conducted in these adults, since most of the concern is for children exposed through polycarbonate baby bottle use. Some BPA critics have raised questions like low birth weight developing from exposure.) No relationship to thyroid disease was identified, also.

The editorial accompanying the study added some sharp commentary:

"Subsequent to an unexpected observation in 1997, numerous laboratory animal studies have identified low-dose drug-like effects of BPA at levels less than the dose used by the US Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to estimate the current human acceptable daily intake dose (ADI) deemed safe for humans. These studies have shown adverse effects of BPA on the brain, reproductive system, and--most relevant to the findings of Lang et al--metabolic processes, including alterations in insulin homeostasis and liver enzymes. . . For example, when adults rats were fed a 0.2 microgram/kg per day dose of BPA for 1 month (a dose 250 times lower than the current ADI), BPA significantly decreased the activities of antioxidant enzymes and increased lipid peroxidation, thereby increasing oxidative stress. When adult mice were administered a 10 microgram/kg dose of BPA once a day for 2 days ( a dose 5 times lower than the ADI), BPA stimulated pancreatic beta cells to release insulin."

This study, piled on top of the worrisome literature that precede it, are enough for me: No more tin cans (which are lined with BPA), no more hard plastics labeled with recycling code #7 or #3, no more polycarbonate water bottles (the hard ones, often brightly colored). Microwaveable-safe may also mean human-unsafe, as highlighted by this damning assurance from the Tupperware people that BPA is not a health hazard.

The National Toxicology Program also issued these advice in response to the Lang study to reduce BPA exposure (reported by the Washington Post) :

· Don't microwave polycarbonate plastic food containers. Polycarbonate may break down from overuse at high temperatures and release BPA. (Manufacturers are not required to disclose whether an item contains BPA, but polycarbonate containers that do usually have a No. 7 on the bottom.)

· Reduce use of canned foods, especially acidic foods such as tomatoes that can accelerate leaching of BPA from plastic can linings. Opt for soups, vegetables and other items packaged in cardboard "brick" cartons, made of safer layers of aluminum and polyethylene plastic (labeled No. 2).

· Switch to glass, porcelain or stainless-steel containers, particularly for hot food or liquids.

· Use baby bottles that are BPA-free; in the past year, most major manufacturers have developed bottles made without BPA.

Add Boston Globe to the list of heart scan blunders

17. September 2008 William Davis (15)

Yet another piece of mass media misinformation hit the airwaves today. This time it's not from the New York Times or the LA Times, both of which have previously mangled the issues surrounding heart scans. This time it's from the Boston Globe.

In an article titled What is a calcium scan for heart disease, and who should undergo the test?, the report states:

". . . calcium scans may not be a good idea, or prove terribly useful, for most people. For one thing, the scans expose a patient to significant radiation - equivalent to roughly 50 chest X-rays" said Dr. Warren Manning, chief of noninvasive cardiac imaging at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center."

As many before him, Dr. Manning is confusing two tests: CT coronary angiography and CT heart scanning. Perhaps we can't blame him: This technology has had its weakest following in the northeast, for reasons not entirely clear to me. (In fact, Track Your Plaque followers have had the greatest struggle obtaining heart scans in that part of the country.) Nonetheless, you'd think he'd have his simple facts straight before talking to the press. Unfortunately, hospital public relations departments will usually just grab whoever they can willing to talk to the press--regardless of their expertise or lack of.

The story goes on to say:

. . ." it's not clear what to do with the results from a calcium scan. If you have diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or a family history of heart disease, you already know - or should know - that you are at increased risk of heart problems and should lower these risk factors. So, a calcium scan provides little additional information," Manning said.

"Moreover, even a high score doesn't necessarily mean that the calcified plaque in your arteries is obstructing blood flow, said Dr. Adolph Hutter, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital."

"The vast majority of people with high calcium tests don't have obstructions and they do fine long-term. So you'd have to test lots and lots of people to prevent one heart attack or sudden death," said Manning.

And if you get a low calcium score, a sign of little or no calcification of plaques, that's not very useful, either, because it could be wrong, or it could be right but lull you into believing you do not have to exercise and watch your diet, cholesterol, and blood pressure levels. "You can still be at risk even if your calcium test is negative," Hutter said.

It is truly shocking how little many (not all, thank goodness) of my colleagues really know about 1) heart scans, 2) coronary disease prevention, and 3) prevention in general. These same "experts" likely advocate high-dose statin drugs and low-fat diets for people at risk. They likely refer patients to the American Heart Association for diet advice and themselves obtain a lot of information from the pharmaceutical industry. The notion of identification, tracking, and purposeful reversal of coronary plaque is entirely foreign to this bunch.

"The vast majority of people with high calcium tests don't have obstructions and they do fine long-term. So you'd have to test lots and lots of people to prevent one heart attack or sudden death." Well, take a look at a graph from a database of 25,000 people undergoing heart scans then observed for several years afterwards:

You can see quite clearly from the curves that heart scan scores very clearly predict your future (if no preventive action is taken). The higher the score, the greater the likelihood of heart attack and death. How much clearer can it get?

The most recent addition to this literature is the PREDICT study which concluded:

Hazard ratios relative to CACS [coronary artery calcium scores] in the range 0-10 Agatston units (AU) were: CACS 11-100 AU, 5.4 (P = 0.02); 101-400 AU 10.5 (P = 0.001); 401-1000 AU, 11.9 (P = 0.001), and >1000 AU, 19.8 (P < 0.001).

In other words, a heart scan score of >1000 is associated with a 20-fold increased risk of cardiovascular events (without preventive efforts). That kind of predictive power and quantitative confidence simply cannot be squeezed out of blood pressure and cholesterol values.

How about the 2008 University of California-Irvine study from the New England Journal of Medicine (do the northeast docs even pay attention to something that is published in their own neighborhood?) that reported:

There were 162 coronary events, of which 89 were major events (myocardial infarction or death from coronary heart disease). In comparison with participants with no coronary calcium, the adjusted risk of a coronary event was increased by a factor of 7.73 among participants with coronary calcium scores between 101 and 300 and by a factor of 9.67 among participants with scores above 300 (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Among the four racial and ethnic groups, a doubling of the calcium score increased the risk of a major coronary event by 15 to 35% and the risk of any coronary event by 18 to 39%.

How about the Prospective Army Coronary Calcium (PACC) project (men average age 43 years):

"In these men, coronary calcium was associated with an 11.8-fold increased risk for incident coronary heart disease (CHD) (p = 0.002) in a Cox model controlling for the Framingham risk score. Among those with coronary artery calcification, the risk of coronary events increased incrementally across tertiles of coronary calcium severity (hazard ratio 4.3 per tertile)."

Calcium score provided additional information even after factoring in the Framingham risk score.

That's just a sample of the studies. There are a number more.

Add to these conversations the fact that, unlike reducing blood pressure or LDL cholesterol, the heart scan score is a quantification of the disease itself. It can also be tracked over time to gauge the success or failure of prevention efforts. To believe that blood pressure reduction or LDL cholesterol reduction is sufficient to eliminate risk is something only a fool would believe.

Contary to the above statements, the data are clear:

--The higher the heart scan score, the greater the risk. This has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt in at least a dozen published studies. In fact, heart scan scores outshine lipid/cholesterol values several-fold.

--A person with a zero score has a nearly zero risk for cardiovascular events over a 5-year timeline.

--Heart scans are the only quantitative test available of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. This means that they can be repeated to gauge progression or regression. Cholesterol does not do that. Stress tests do not do that.

--Heart scans are not the same as CT coronary angiography.

--The lack of "need" for a procedure does not equate to the absence of disease.

The power of heart scans is that they can uncover evidence for coronary atherosclerotic plaque 10 years before a cardiac disaster strikes. Witness Tim Russert's heart scan score of 210 in 1998 at age 48. 10 years later, you know what happened.

Beware the camipaign of misinformation and ignorance that continues that is hell-bent on maintaining the procedural status quo or locking us into a "drugs for all" mentality.

What's worse than sugar?

16. September 2008 William Davis (11)

There are a number of ways to view the blood sugar-raising or insulin-provoking effect of foods.

One way is glycemic index (GI), simply a measure of how high blood sugar is raised by a standard quantity of a food compared to table sugar. Another is glycemic load (GL), a combination (multiplied) of glycemic index and carbohydrate content per serving.

Table sugar has a GI of 65, a GL of 65.

Obviously, table sugar is not good for you. The content of white table sugar in the American diet has exploded over the last 100 years, totaling over 150 lb per year for the average person. (Humans are not meant to consume any.)

What is the GI of Rice Krispies cereal, organic or not? GI = 82-- higher than table sugar. GL is 72, also higher than table sugar.

How about Corn Flakes? GI 81, GL 70--also both higher than sugar.

How about those rice cakes that many dieters will use to quell hunger? GI 78, GL 64.

How about Shredded Wheat cereal? GI 75, GL 62.

All of the above foods with GI's and GL's that match or exceed that of table sugar are made of wheat and cornstarch. Some, like Shredded Wheat cereal and rice cakes, don't even have any added sugar.

Stay clear of these foods if you have low HDL, high triglycerides, high blood sugar, or small LDL. Or, for that matter, if you are human.

Keep the eloquent words of New York University nutritionist, Marion Nestle, author of the book, Food Politics, in mind:

“Food companies—just like companies that sell cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, or any other commodity—routinely place the needs of stock holders over considerations of public health. Food companies will make and market any product that sells, regardless of its nutritional value or its effect on health. In this regard, food companies hardly differ from cigarette companies. They lobby Congress to eliminate regulations perceived as unfavorable; they press federal regulatory agencies not to enforce such regulations; and when they don’t like regulatory decisions, they file lawsuits. Like cigarette companies, food companies co-opt food and nutrition experts by supporting professional organizations and research, and they expand sales by marketing directly to children, members of minority groups, and people in develop countries—whether or not the products are likely to improve people’s diets.” ??

Are sterols the new trans fat?

13. September 2008 William Davis (16)

By now, I'm sure you're well-acquainted with the hydrogenated, trans fat issue.

Hydrogenation of polyunsaturated oils was a popular practice (and still is) since the 1960s, as food manufacturers sought a substitute for saturated fat. Bubbling high-pressure hydrogen through oils like cottonseed, soybean, and corn generates trans fatty acids. These man-made fatty acids, while safe in initial safety testing, proved to be among the biggest nutritional mistakes of the 20th century.

Trans fatty acids have been associated with increased LDL cholesterol, reduction in HDL, oxidative reactions, abnormal rigidity when incorporated into cell membranes, and cancer. Trans fats still dominate many processed foods like chips, cookies, non-dairy creamers, food mixes, and thousands of others. They're also found prominently in fast foods.

Fast forward to today, and most Americans have become aware of the dangers of trans fats and many try to avoid them.

But I worry there is yet another substance that has worked its way into the American processed food cornucopia that has some potential for repeating the trans fat debacle: sterol esters.

Sterols are naturally-occurring oils found in vegetables, nuts, and numerous other foods in small quantities. Most of us take in 200-400 milligrams per day just by eating plant-sourced foods.

Curiously, the chemical structure of sterols are very similar to human cholesterol (differing at one carbon atom). Sterols, by not fully understood means, block the intestinal absorption of cholesterol. Thus, sterol esters, as well as the similar stanol esters, have been used to reduce blood levels of total and LDL cholesterol.

So far, so good.

The initial commercial products, released in the late 1990s, were Take Control (sterol) and Benecol (stanol), both of which were marketed to reduce cholesterol when 2-3 tbsp are used daily, providing 3400 – 5100 mg of sterol or stanol esters, about 10- to 20-fold more than we normally obtain from foods. Several clinical trials have conclusively confirmed that these products reduce cholesterol levels.

They do indeed perform as advertised. Add either product to your daily diet and LDL cholesterol is reduced by about 10-15%. In fact, in the original Track Your Plaque book, these products were advocated as a supplemental means of reducing LDL when other methods fell short.

In 2008, there are now hundreds of products that have additional quantities of sterol esters in them, such as orange juice, mayonnaise, yogurt, breakfast cereals, even nutritional supplements. Most of these products proudly bear claims like "heart healthy." Stanol esters have not enjoyed the same widespread application. (I believe there may be patent issues or other considerations. However, it's the sterols that are the principal topic here, not stanols.)

Now, here's where it gets a bit tricky. There is a rare (1 per million) disease called sitosterolemia, a genetic disorder that permits the afflicted to absorb more than the usual quantity of sterols from the intestine. While you and I obtain some amount of sterols from plant-based foods, absorption is poor, and we absorb <10% of sterols ingested. However, people with sitosterolemia absorb sterols far more efficiently, resulting in high blood levels of sterols that result in coronary disease and aortic valve disease, with heart attacks occurring as young as late teens or 20s. Treatment to block sterol absorption are used to treat these people.

There are also a larger number, though still uncommon (1/500) of people who have only one of the two genes that young people with sitosterolemia have. These people may have an intermediate capacity for sterol absorption.

Okay, so what does this have to do with you? Well, if you and I now take in 10-20 times greater amounts of sterol esters, do our blood levels of sterols increase?

Several studies now suggest that, yes, sterol blood levels increase with sterol ingestion. One study from Finland, the STRIP Study, showed that children who had double usual sterol intake increased blood levels by around 50%.

Similarly, a Johns Hopkins study in adults with only one of the genes ("heterozygotes") for sitosterolemia increased sterol blood levels by between 54-116% by ingesting 2200 mg of sterols added per day, despite reduction of LDL cholesterol levels.

Even people with neither gene for sitosterol hyperabsorption can increase their blood levels of sterols. But the crucial question: Do the blood levels of sterols that occur in unaffected people or in heterozygotes increase the risk of coronary heart disease? The answer is not known.

Despite the several clinical trials performed with sterol esters, all of them have examined LDL and total cholesterol reduction as endpoints, not cardiovascular events. It is conceivable that, while sterol esters reduce cholesterol, risk for heart disease is increased due to higher blood levels of sterols.

The question is not settled. For now, it is just a suspicion. But that's enough for me to steer clear of processed foods supplemented with these uncertain sterol esters. My previous recommendations for sterol ester products will be removed with the next edition of Track Your Plaque. Until we have solid evidence that there are no adverse cardiovascular effects of sterol esters, in my view they should not be part of anyone's heart-disease prevention program.

(The same argument does not seem to apply to stanol esters, such as that contained in butter-substitute Benecol, since stanol esters are not absorbed at all and remain confined to the intestine.)

The Diabetes Gold Rush

11. September 2008 William Davis (9)

Lou came into the office. Clearly, his program had gone sour.

Lou had initially obtained wonderful control over his heart scan score of 1114, having reversed modestly in his first three years of effort through correction of his multiple causes (including low HDL, severe small LDL, Lp(a), and a diabetic tendency).

But Lou now came into the office red-faced and sporting a big bulging abdomen. Blood sugar? Now in the overtly diabetic range. Lou said that his primary care doctor had suggested that he start on three new medications (glucophage, injectable Byetta, and Actos) to control his blood sugar. His doctor also told him to increase his intake of fibers by eating more "healthy" breakfast cereals like Cheerios.

Lou had apparently done just that (added "healthy" fiber-rich foods) even before his doctor had suggested it. (Lou failed to remember the several conversations we'd had about healthy eating.) Unfortunately, Lou also failed to connect his increased intake of "healthy fiber-rich foods" and his growing abdominal girth (his "wheat belly").

Here's the dirty little secret: Much of the world wants you to be diabetic. It is the health gold rush of this century. "Go West, young man!"

All posts by william-davis

Heart scan book

20. April 2009 William Davis (0)

There are only two books on heart scans available.

One, of course, is Track Your Plaque.

The other is the basic book on heart scans, What Does My Heart Scan Show?

Lost in the navigation column to the left on this blog is the link to get the electronic version of the book. In case you didn't know, we make this available for free.

If you're interested, just go here. This book can provide many basic answers to the questions that often arise regarding heart scans, such as the expected rate of increase in score, how your score compares to other people, when should a stress test be considered. Many heart scan centers use this book for educational purposes to help patients understand the importance of their heart scan scores.

(The sign-up for the book requires that an e-mail address be entered.)

The hard copy of What Does My Heart Scan Show? is available from Amazon, also, for $12.99.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

18. April 2009 William Davis (8)

In the last Heart Scan Blog post, I discussed the question of whether statin drugs provide incremental benefit when excellent lipid values are already achieved without drugs.

But I admit that I was guilty of oversimplification.

One peculiar phenomenon is that, when plaque-causing small LDL particles are reduced or eliminated and leave relatively benign large LDL particles in their place, conventional calculated LDL overestimates true LDL.

In other words, eliminate wheat from your diet, lose 25 lbs. Small LDL is reduced as a result, leaving large LDL. Now the LDL cholesterol from your doctor's office overestimates the true value.

Anne raised this issue in her comment on the discussion:

I eliminated wheat - and all grains - from my diet nearly three years ago (I eat low carb Paleo). My fish oils give me a total of 1680 mg EPA and DHA per day, and my vitamin D levels since last year have varied between 50 ng/ml and 80 ng/ml. However, my lipid profile is not like either John's or Sam's:

LDL cholesterol 154 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 93 mg/dl
Triglycerides 36 mg/dl
Total cholesterol 255 mg/dl

My cardiologist and endocrinologist are happy with my profile because they say the ratios are good, no one is asking me to take a statin. My calcium score is 0.

However, if we were to measure LDL, not just calculate it from the miserably inaccurate Friedewald equation, we would likely discover that her true LDL is far lower, certainly <100 mg/dl. (My preferred method is the bull's eye accurate NMR LDL particle number; alternatives include apoprotein B, the main apoprotein on LDL.)

So Anne, don't despair. You are yet another victim of the misleading inaccuracy of standard LDL cholesterol determination, a number that I believe should no longer be used at all, but eliminated. Unfortunately, it would further confuse your poor primary care doctor or cardiologist, who--still believe in the sanctity of LDL cholesterol.

By the way, the so-called "ratios" (i.e., total cholesterol to HDL and the like) are absurd notions of risk. Take weak statistical predictors, manipulate them, and try to squeeze better predictive value out of them. This is no better than suggesting that, since you've installed new brakes on your car, you no longer are at risk for a car accident. It may reduce risk, but there are too many other variables that have nothing to do with your new brakes. Likewise cholesterol ratios.

Aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet

17. April 2009 William Davis (0)

Despite all the hoopla heart disease receives in the media, I continue to marvel at how many people I meet who still think that aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet constitute an effective heart attack prevention program.

It doesn't. No more than washing your hands prevents all human infections. It helps, but it is a sad substitute for a real prevention program.

Of course, aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet is the same recipe followed by the unfortunate Tim Russert and his doctors. You know how that turned out. Mr. Russert's experience is far from unique.

What is so magical about aspirin, Lipitor and a low-fat diet?

There is a simple rationale behind this approach. Aspirin doesn't reduce atherosclerotic plaque growth, but it inhibits the propagation of a blood clot on top of a coronary plaque that has "ruptured," thereby reducing likelihood of heart attack (which occurs when the clot fills the artery). So aspirin only provides benefit if and when a plaque ruptures.

Lipitor and other statin drugs reduce LDL cholesterol, promote a modest relaxation of constricted plaque-filled arteries (normalization of endothelial dysfunction), and exerts other effects, such as inflammation suppression.

A low-fat diet is intended to reduce saturated fat that triggers LDL cholesterol formation and to encourage intake of whole grains that reduce cardiovascular events and LDL cholesterol.

If that is the extent of your heart disease prevention program, you will have a heart attack, bypass surgery, or stent--period. It may not be tomorrow or next Friday, or even next month. Aspirin, Lipitor, and a low-fat diet may delay your heart attack or procedure for a few years, but it will not stop it.

Some flaws in the aspirin, Lipitor, low-fat program:

--Aspirin can only exert so much blood clot-blocking effect. It can be overwhelmed by many other factors, such as increased blood viscosity, increased fibrinogen (a blood clotting protein that also triggers plaque), and plaque inflammation.
--Lipitor reduces LDL, but does not discriminate between the relatively harmless large LDL and the truly plaque-triggering small LDL--it reduces all LDL, but small LDL can still persist, even at extravagant levels since neither aspirin nor Lipitor specifically reduces small LDL, while a low-fat diet increases small LDL.
--Low-fat diet--A diet reduced in fat and loaded with plenty of "healthy whole grains" will trigger increased small LDL (an enormous effect), c-reactive protein, high blood sugar, resistance to insulin, high blood pressure, and an expanding abdomen ("wheat belly").

Aspirin, Lipitor and a low-fat diet do not address:

--Vitamin D deficiency
--Omega-3 fatty acid deficiency and the eicosanoid path to inflammation
--High triglycerides
--Small LDL particles
--Distortions of HDL "architecture"
--Lipoprotein(a)--the worst coronary risk factor nobody's heard of
--Thyroid status

In other words, the simple-minded, though hugely financially successful, conventional model of heart disease prevention is woefully inadequate.

Don't fall for it.

Statin drugs for everybody?

17. April 2009 William Davis (10)

Who is better off?

John takes Crestor, 40 mg per day:

LDL cholesterol 60 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 60 mg/dl
Triglycerides 60 mg/dl
Total cholesterol 132 mg/dl

Or Sam:

LDL cholesterol 60 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol 60 mg/dl
Triglycerides 60 mg/dl
Total cholesterol 132 mg/dl

who obtained these values through vitamin D normalization (to increase HDL); wheat elimination (to reduce triglycerides and LDL); and omega-3 fatty acids (to reduce triglycerides).

Believe the drug industry (motto: If some statin is good, more statin is better!), then John is clearly better off: He has obtained all the "benefits" of statin drugs. They refer to the "pleiotropic" effects of statin drugs, the presumed benefits that extend outside of cholesterol reduction. The most recent example are the JUPITER data that demonstrated 55% reduction in cardiovascular events in people with increased c-reactive protein (CRP). Media reports now unashamedly gush at the benefits of Crestor to reduce inflammation.

However, on Sam's program, elimination of wheat and vitamin D both exert anti-inflammatory effects on CRP, typically yielding drops of 70-90%--consistently, rapidly, and durably.

So which approach is really better?

In my experience, there is no comparison: Sam is far better off. While John will reduce his cardiovascular risk with a statin drug, he fails to obtain all the other benefits of Sam's broader, more natural program. John will not enjoy the same cancer protection, osteoporosis and arthritis protection, relief from depression and winter "blues," and increased mental and physical performance that Sam will.

If our goal is dramatic correction of cholesterol patterns and reduction of cardiovascular risk, for many, many people statin drugs are simply not necessary.

No BS weight loss

13. April 2009 William Davis (18)

If there's something out there on the market for weight loss, we've tried it. By we, I mean myself along with many people and patients around me willing to try various new strategies.

Maybe you say: "Well that's not a clinical trial. How can we know that there aren't small effects?"

Who cares about small effects? If a weight loss strategy causes you to lose 1.2 lbs over 3 months--who cares? Sure, it may count towards a slight measure of health in a 230 lb 5 ft 3 inch woman. But it is insufficient to engage that person's interest and keep them on track. That little result, in fact, will discourage interest in weight loss and cause someone to return to previous behaviors.

What I'm talking about is BIG weight loss--20 lbs the first month, 40 lbs over 4 months, 50-60 lbs over 6 months.

Right now, there are only three things that I know of that yield such enormous effects:

1) Elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars

2) Thyroid normalization (I don't mean following what the laboratory says is "normal")

3) Intermittent fasting

Combine all three in various ways and the results are accelerated even more.

Self-directed health is ALREADY here

12. April 2009 William Davis (12)

It can't happen.

People are too stupid/ignorant/lazy or simply don't care.

It is irresponsible. People will misuse, abuse, misdiagnose, fail to recognize all manner of medical conditions.

It's all true. Most of the medical establishment believes it. And it is self-fulfulling: If you believe it, it will happen.

But it's not true for everybody. If readers of this blog, for instance, were to view the conversations we have in our Track Your Plaque Forum, you would immediately recognize that we have a following that is more sophisticated and knowledgeable about coronary heart disease than 90% of cardiologists. That is really something. Perhaps they can't put in a stent or defibrillator, but they understand an enormous amount about this disease we are all trying to control and reverse, sufficient to seize control over much of their own healthcare for this process and related conditons.

Anyway, self-directed health is already here. And it's happening on an incredible scale.

Witness:

--Nutritional supplements--Now a $21 billion (annual revenues) phenomenon, booming sales of nutritional supplements are a powerful testimonial to the enthuasiasm of the public for self-directed health treatments. Sure, there are plenty of junk supplements out there, but there are also many spectacularly effective products. Information, not marketing, will help tell the difference. Over the long-run, the truth will win out.

The 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act has allowed the definition of “nutritional supplement” to be stretched to the limit. "Nutritional supplements" includes obviously non-nutritional (though still potentially interesting) products like the hormones pregnenolone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), and melatonin to be sold on the same shelf as vitamin C. There are also amino acids, polysaccharides, minerals and trace minerals, herbal preparations, flavonoids, carotenoids, antioxidants, phytonutrients.

In fact, I believe that the nutritional supplement pipeline is likely to yield far more exciting and effective products than the drug research pipeline! And you will have access to all of it--without your doctor's involvement.

--Self-ordered laboratory testing--In