What's up with garlic?

13. March 2007 William Davis (0)

Fanatic Cook has posted an excellent summary on the recent negative attention cast on garlic preparations, at least for LDL cholesterol reduction.

Go to http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com to view.

I think Fanatic Cook is right--despite the lack of LDL reducing effects, it doesn't necessarily mean no benefit whatsoever. Anti-coagulation and anti-inflammatory effects, in particular, are well proven.

I do think, however, that it argues more in favor of sticking to whole cloves, rather than supplements. The benefits are also likely small. I would view garlic as a soft advantage for your plaque control program. You can do fine without it. You might do slightly better with it.
Tags :

Add comment

Loading
Dr. Ornish: Get with the program!

Dr. Ornish: Get with the program!

30. June 2006 William Davis (2)

In the era up until the 1980s, most Americans indulged in excessive quantities of saturated fats: fried chickem, spare ribs, French fries, gravy, bacon, Crisco, butter, etc.

Along came people like Nathan Pritikin and Dr. Dean Ornish, both of whom were vocal advocates of a low-fat nutritional approach. In their programs, fat composed no more than 10% of calories. This represented a dramatic improvement--at the time.


In 2006, a low-fat diet is a perversion of health. It means over-reliance on breads, breakfast cereals, pasta, crackers, cookies, pretzels, etc., the foods that pack supermarket shelves and that now constitute 70-80% of most Americans' diet.

Dr. Ornish still carries great name recognition. As a result, his outdated concepts still gain media attention. The June, 2006 issue of Reader's Digest, in their RDHealth column, carried an interview with Dr. Ornish in which he reiterates his fat-phobia.

However, on this occasion he takes a different tack. This time he rails against the "dangers" of fish oil and omega-3 fatty acids. "I've recently learned that omega-3s are a double-edged sword...In some cases, omega-3s could be fatal."

He goes on to say that, while he believes that fish oil may prevent heart attacks, it has fatal effect if you already have heart disease.

Does this make sense to you?

He's basing his views on a single, obscure study published in 2003 conducted in rural England that showed an increase in death and heart attack on fish oil. Most authorities have not taken these findings seriously, since they are wildly contrary to all other observations and because the study had some design flaws.

Despite the fact that this isolated study runs counter to all other, better-conducted studies seems not to matter to Dr. Ornish.

Clinging to the low-fat concept is like hoping 8-track tapes will make a comeback. It's not going to happen. We enjoyed the benefits while they lasted, appropriate for the era. But now, they're woefully outdated.

The overwhelming evidence is that fish oil provides tremendous benefits with little or no downside. In the Track Your Plaque program, fish oil remains a crucial supplement to gain control over your coronary plaque and stop or reduce your heart scan score. Ignore the doomsday preachings of Dr. Ornish.

(Watch for an article I wrote updating the benefits of fish oil for Life Extension magazine.)
Tags :

Comments (2) -

  • Anonymous

    1/15/2008 9:49:00 PM |

    Fish oil is the snake oil of the 21st century.  Dr. Ornish has it right on that score, and adding the empty calories of any "fat," including fish oil is counterproductive.  There is nothing to be gained health wise from excess fat, which is the primary source of most chronic diseases.  Try your 30% fat calorie diet on a professional athlete and watch his endurance decline.  The nutritional recomendations of the Olympic committee is MAX 10% calories from fat.  Get OFF the program!

  • Dr. Davis

    1/15/2008 10:39:00 PM |

    I strongly disagree. We use fish oil to correct triglycerides, among other patterns. Triglycerides are raised substantially by an Ornish-like program. In other words, they exert opposite effects.

Add comment

Loading
When pessimism wins

When pessimism wins

15. June 2007 William Davis (3)
When I first met Hank, I immediately sensed it: anger, hostility, fear. His heart scan score of 685 just made it worse.


He didn't want to be there talking to me. His wife was giving him a hard time. Work was a constant source of irritation. The receptionist at the front desk screwed up his paperwork. Our office charges were too much.


In short, Hank was a pessimist. A bad one.


All the nutrition information out there is bunk. Only he knew how he should eat right. It's stupid to take a lot of fish oil. "You want me to grow gills?"


Among the parameters we use in the Track Your Plaque program is blood pressure during exercise, which provides a surrogate measure of blood pressure during emotional stress, anxiety, etc. "No, I don't need that. I already exercise." No amount of justification could change his mind. "A guy at work had a stress test. They said everything was fine, then Bang! He drops dead. What good is that?"


Hank did go along with a few pieces of advice.


A repeat heart scan 12 months after the first: 870, a 27% per year rate of increase. That's about what would happen if Hank had done nothing, had taken no action to try and stop or reduce his heart scan score.


I don't know if Hank will ever succeed in dropping his score. In fact, I suspect that he will fail, meaning that plaque will grow and he will eventually, perhaps in a year, two or three, require several stents, heart bypass, or have a heart attack. In other words, Hank's pessimism is a self-fulfilling phenomenon: If he believes he will fail, he will. If he believes the world is a rotten place, it is.


Is it possible to "cure" someone like Hank of his deeply-rooted pessimistic attitudes? I don't know of any easy solutions for someone with attitudes as deeply-ingrained as Hank's. (See my prior post, "Cure for pessimism?" at http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html.)

I believe it does help to make someone aware of their attitudes and that it does indeed exert ill health-effects--if they will believe it. But this is a very tough nut to crack.
Tags :

Comments (3) -

  • DietKing2

    6/15/2007 1:49:00 PM |

    Attitude--it's half the battle, isn't it? Great post.

  • Mike

    6/15/2007 4:14:00 PM |

    He seems to be in denial. I'm sure that he is not following your guidelines, so no improvement in his health will occur.

  • JT

    6/16/2007 3:22:00 PM |

    When I read about Hank I thought "he could be related!"  Many relatives on my mom’s side of the family are similar to him.  They naturally find faults with situations, other people, and are world class deniers.  They are pretty miserable to be around, to me, for any length of time.  

    My family is a real contrast in that my father’s side of the family is the opposite from moms.  They are eternal optimists.  They tend to see positives in most things.  

    When it was learned that I had a high calcium score on my heart scan, responses received were as expected.   Relatives on mom’s side called to say - "doctors don't know what they are doing", "eat what you want", "those test scores don't mean anything." etc.  Fathers side of the family has been supportive - with my father going so far as to join me on the TYP diet and supplements.  He didn't have to but he wanted to know what it is like to take fish oil, the niacin flush, and to eat like a cave man.    

    Almost everyone who is older on mom’s side of the family, died of heart disease, has heart disease or experienced a stroke.  I want to say to them, why not try something different - like the ideas presented in the TYP book?  What has been tried in the past did not work so well, why not be open to new ideas?  But I know what ever I say will go in one ear and out the other.  They know they know and can not be persuaded other wise.  Being grizzled pessimists is in their blood, I believe.  

    I'm glad that I take after my father’s personality.

Add comment

Loading
Are you a tree?

Are you a tree?

5. March 2009 William Davis (6)
I assume you answered no. Then why would you consider taking the plant form of vitamin D (ergocalciferol)? That's the prescription form of vitamin D, often dispensed as 50,000 unit tablets.

There's nothing wrong with plants. Some of my favorite foods are plants, full of nutritional value.

Then why shouldn't vitamin D2 from plants be every bit as good as the human form of vitamin D?

I believe the issue boils down to taking hormones from non-human sources. (Remember: Vitamin D is a hormone, a very powerful one at that.) Plants can be wonderful sources of flavonoids, fibers, protein, fats, vitamins, minerals, and other healthy components. But hormones?

There are other examples of non-human hormones being given to humans with undesirable or unpredictable effects:

--Xenoestrogens, phytoestrogens, and non-human mammalian estrogens--While non-human estrogens may partially mimic human estrogens, they can also block estrogen effects, or exert altogether novel effects. Non-human mammalian estrogens like Premarin can exert very peculiar (side-)effects, despite their role as prescription estrogen supplementation in humans.

--Progestins--The synthetic versions of human progesterone, like their non-human estrogen counterparts, exert weird effects that are a world apart from real progesterone.

--Sterols--Similar in structure to human cholesterol (while not a hormone, a building block for hormones), sterols have been used to reduce intestinal cholesterol absorption. However, if sterols are absorbed into the blood, they can enormously accelerate growth of atherosclerotic plaque.

--Anabolic steroids--These modifications of the testosterone molecule build muscle, but also cause liver cancer, kidney failure, violent behavior, suicide and homicidal behavior. That's not normal.

Outside of a pharmacologic effect (e.g., prednisone in place of human cortisol), there is no reason to take a non-human hormone in place of a human hormone. For that same reason, there is NO reason to take plant vitamin D2 (prescription or over-the-counter) in place of human vitamin D3.

If the non-human hormone is identical to the human form, then there is no difficulty. The best example of this are thyroid hormones from pigs. That's what Armour Thyroid is, a thyroid hormone replacement that works wonderfully well.

You will notice that virtually all of the examples of non-human hormones substituted for human hormones share one common motivation: profit. Synthetic or modified versions are more readily patent-protectable, unlike their natural counterparts which are not.

Vitamin D2 is an anemic facsimile of the real human hormone, vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol). Stay away from it.
Tags :

Comments (6) -

  • Anonymous

    3/5/2009 5:00:00 AM |

    Dr Davis,

    I am not a doctor by profession but an engineer. I am really frustrated in trying to get to the bottom of things in the medical field. It is quite vexing when I cant decide if something is a safe practice or not. Would you please help me (and perhaps many other) understand how I can take oil-based Vitamin D without worrying about Vitamin A levels as well? Should I worry about taking Cod Liver Oil based preparations with questionable manufacturing practices which seems to include filtering to remove the Vitamin D and then adding synthetic form at the end?

    If you could get into some details, it would be very helpful.

    Regards,

  • StephenB

    3/5/2009 3:41:00 PM |

    Anonymous, you could take fish oil instead of cod liver oil for the omega-3 and take vitamin D as D3 in softgel form.

    Vitamin A can be supplemented by providing its precursors like alpha-carotene, astaxanthin, beta-carotene, cryptoxanthin, lutein, lycopene, and zeaxanthin. Supplying precursors will let your body decide how much vitamin A to make out of it. Supplying preformed retinol bypasses the body's control systems.

    Cannell et al recommended an D:A ratio of about 6:1 in IU terms ("Cod Liver Oil, Vitamin A Toxicity, Frequent Respiratory Infections, and the Vitamin D Deficiency Epidemic", a commentary piece in Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology 117(11):864-870, on page 866, third paragraph).

    Maybe it's best to avoid retinol and make sure you get enough A precursors.

    StephenB

  • Jenny

    3/5/2009 5:29:00 PM |

    The yam based forms of Estrogen have a much better safety profile than the others on the market. In fact,the worst reaction I've ever had to a hormone was to a supposedly "bioidentical" estrogens from a compounding pharmacy.

    The problem with anabolic steroids apply to bioidentical testosterone supplements too. Too much testosterone is bad for your body.

  • Grandma S.

    3/5/2009 6:13:00 PM |

    Does this mean that Benecol is not good to use in lowering cholesterol?

  • Anonymous

    3/6/2009 3:15:00 AM |

    The bit that I find most disturbing in this post is the bit on sterols. Many authorities advise us to use phytosterols or stanols to lower cholesterol. I did find one article on PubMed a while ago (but can't refind it now) suggesting that, since the structure of phytosterols is similar to cholesterol, using them to replace cholesterol shouldn't just be assumed to be a safe thing to do. Do you have any more data or links on this issue?

  • mike V

    3/17/2009 3:58:00 PM |

    I came across this post by Dr Michael Holick whom I respect, and naturally all readers here respect your findings from the front line in Milwaukee. There appear to be some differences in interpretation.
    *********
    Vitamin D2 vs. D3
    Vitamindhealth.org
    Posted by mfholick on November 27, 2008 under Vitamin D |  
    **********
    Vitamin D2 and Vitamin D3 Are They Equally Potent?

    During the past several years, there have been two studies Trang et al, (Am J Clin Nutr 68:854-858, 1998); and Armas et al, (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89:5387-91; 2004) that have raised questions about whether vitamin D2, which is found in some supplements, used in some fortified foods and is the pharmaceutical form of vitamin D that doctors prescribe for their patients, is as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining a person’s vitamin D status, i.e., blood level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.  Trang et al 1998 gave healthy adults 4,000 IU of vitamin D2 or 4,000 IU of vitamin D3 in alcohol for two weeks.   A comparison of the blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D after two weeks revealed that there was approximately a 50% difference in the group receiving vitamin D3 (being approximately 50% higher) than the vitamin D2 group.  This implied that vitamin D3 was more effective than vitamin D2 in maintaining circulating blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.  Armas et al 2004 gave a single 50,000 IU dose of either vitamin D2 or 50,000 IU dose of vitamin D3 to healthy volunteers during the summer and observed that the group who received vitamin D2 had a more rapid drop in their circulating blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.  They also observed that the group that received vitamin D2 had a more rapid drop in their blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 compared to the placebo group suggesting that vitamin D2 was not only less effective than vitamin D3 in maintaining circulating levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, but also that vitamin D2 increased the destruction of vitamin D3.

    Based on these observations, physicians, health care professionals and patients have made an effort to find vitamin D supplements that contain vitamin D3.  However, in the United States, only vitamin D2 is available as a pharmaceutical preparation, and, thus, patients who are vitamin D deficient and treated by their physicians receive vitamin D2.  I treat vitamin D deficiency with 50,000 IU of vitamin D2 once a week for eight weeks.  To prevent vitamin D deficiency from recurring, I then put the patient on 50,000 IU of vitamin D2 every two weeks forever.  From my experience of over 100 patients on this regime for up to six years, their blood levels are sustained above 30 ng/ml which is considered to be the vitamin D sufficient range.  On average, the blood level was between 40-50 ng/ml.  Furthermore, an evaluation of their blood calcium, a measure of whether ingesting vitamin D2 at these levels, had caused any toxicity did not change.  Therefore, this regime was effective in maintaining my patients’ vitamin D status without causing any untoward toxicity.

    To determine whether vitamin D2 was as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining circulating blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, a study was conducted whereby healthy adults received either 1,000 IU of vitamin D2 or 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 in a capsule once a day in the winter for 11 weeks.  In addition, one group received a placebo capsule and one group received a capsule that contained 500 IU of vitamin D2 and 500 IU of vitamin D3 daily for 11 weeks.  Blood levels of both 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 were determined by state of the art method using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectroscopy.  Holick et al, (Vitamin D2 is as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining circulating concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, J Clin Endocrinol Metab  93:677-681, 2008;) reported that the blood levels of 25-hydroxvitamin D rose to the same degree in the healthy adults who took either 1,000 IU of vitamin D2 a day or 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 a day for 11 weeks.  The group that received vitamin D2 also had their blood level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 measured.  There was no significant drop in the blood level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3.  To determine whether the mixture of vitamin D2 with vitamin D3 would alter the blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, the adults who received 500 units of vitamin D2 with 500 units of vitamin D3 also raised their total blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 in an almost an identical manner as the adults who received 1,000 IU of vitamin D2 or 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 a day for 11 weeks.  The authors concluded that ingesting 1,000 IU of vitamin D2 or 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 a day during the winter (at a time when sun exposure had no influence on blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D) that both vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 were equally effective in maintaining the blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.  Furthermore, vitamin D2 did not have a negative influence on serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3.  Adults who took 500 units of vitamin D2 with 500 units of vitamin D3 had similar increases in their blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D suggesting that vitamin D2 taken with vitamin D3 does not have any negative influence on the metabolism of vitamin D3.  

    The authors reviewed in their Conclusion several studies that had previously reported that vitamin D2 was as biologically effective as vitamin D3 in both pregnant women and in healthy adults.  This study confirms these observations and adds to the body of scientific literature demonstrating that at least when healthy adults take 1,000 IU of vitamin D2, they can be assured that it is as effective as taking 1,000 IU of vitamin D3
    ************

    Although this a little academic, since I have been perfectly happy with D3 for years, a resolution would be iteresting.
    Any chance of an update, or a Holick interview here?
    MikeV

Add comment

Loading
Go the distance!

Go the distance!

8. May 2006 William Davis (0)
How long should it take to stop or reverse coronary plaque growth? How long will it require to stop your heart scan score of, say, 350, from increasing at the expected rate of 30% per year, slow it down (we say "decelerate") to less than 30%, or stop it altogether? Or, actually reduce your score?

It can vary widely. Several simple patterns do seem to emerge, however. Our experience is that lower scores, particularly less than 100 at the start, are easier to gain control over. Scores of 50 or less, in fact, commonly can return to zero.

Higher scores, particularly those >1000, are more difficult to slow or reduce, though we've done it many times. You'll generally have to try harder and it may take longer. It's not uncommon to not stop plaque growth with a starting score this high until your 2nd or 3rd year of effort.

Sometimes it may take even longer. An occasional person requires four or five years to gain control. And there are, unfortunately, some people who never really gain complete control. They slow plaque growth compared to what it would have been with conventional efforts, but never completely halt growth. Why? Sometimes it's a matter of less than full commitment. Other times, we just don't know. Thankfully, these especially difficult cases are few and the majority enjoy substantial slowing or reversal.

Since, in some people, success may take time, you've got to stick it out. Have you ever gotten lost in a strange city only to find out later that the place you were looking for was right around the corner? It can be the same way with stopping coronary plaque growth. If you start with a score of 1000 and, after two years of effort, you've only slowed growth to 11% per year and then give up in frustration, you may have missed the opportunity to have stopped growth entirely in your third year.

All we can do is tip the scales heavily in your favor. We provide you with the best tools known. You've got to provide the commitment, the consistent effort of taking your supplements or medication, making the lifestyle changes, choosing the right foods and avoiding the wrong ones. But you've got to go the distance and not give up too easily.
Tags :

Add comment

Loading