Wheat-free pumpkin bread

25. December 2010 William Davis (5)
Try this recipe for a wheat-free, gluten-free yet healthy "bread." Unlike many gluten-free foods that send blood sugar skyward, this will not.

Ingredients:
2 cups ground almond meal (Buy it from Trader Joe's--70% cheaper than other grocery stores.)
1/2 cup ground flaxseed
1/2 cup sour cream (full-fat, of course)
15 oz canned pumpkin (Trader Joe's is bisphenol A-free)
2 medium to large eggs
1/2 cup chopped walnuts or pecans
4 tablespoons butter, melted
2 teaspoons baking powder
2 teaspoons cinnamon
1 teaspoon nutmeg or allspice
Dash of salt
Choice of non-nutritive sweetener (I used 3 teaspoons Trader Joe's stevia extract powder, the one mixed with lactose. Two tablespoons of Truvia, 1/2 teaspoon of the more concentrated stevia extract, or 1/2 cup Splenda are other choices. You can taste the mixed batter to gauge sweetness if in doubt.)

Preheat oven to 350 degrees F. Grease baking pan (e.g., 10 x 6 inch). The pan should be big enough so that the mix will not be more than 2 inches deep, else it will require much longer to bake. (If you have only smaller pans, you will need to cook longer while the pan is covered with aluminum foil.)

Mix all ingredients thoroughly in large bowl. Pour mix into greased baking pan.

Cover with aluminum foil and bake for 30 minutes. Remove foil and bake for additional 30 minutes or until inserted toothpick or knife comes out dry.

Serve with cream cheese or as is.

(I'd have some pictures, but the kids and I ate it up before I thought to take any photographs.)

Vitamin D: Deficiency vs optimum level

19. December 2010 William Davis (20)
Dr. James Dowd of the Vitamin D Cure posted his insightful comments regarding the Institute of Medicine's inane evaluation of vitamin D.

Dr. Dowd hits a bullseye with this remark:

The IOM is focusing on deficiency when it should be focusing on optimal health values for vitamin D. The scientific community continues to argue about the lower limit of normal when we now have definitive pathologic data showing that an optimal vitamin D level is at or above 30 ng/mL. Moreover, if no credible toxicity has been reported for vitamin D levels below 200 ng/mL, why are we obsessing over whether our vitamin D level should be 20 ng/mL or 30 ng/mL?

Yes, indeed. Have no doubts: Vitamin D deficiency is among the greatest public health problems of our age; correction of vitamin D (using the human form of vitamin D, i.e., D3 or cholecalciferol, not the invertebrate or plant form, D2 or ergocalciferol) is among the most powerful health solutions.

I have seen everything from relief from winter "blues," to reversal of arthritis, to stopping the progression of aortic valve disease, to partial reversal of dementia by achieving 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels of 50 ng/ml or greater. (I aim for 60-70 ng/ml.)

The IOM's definition of vitamin D adequacy rests on what level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D reverses hyperparathyroidism (high PTH levels) and rickets. Surely there is more to health than that.

Dr. Dowd and vocal vitamin D advocate, Dr. John Cannell, continue to champion the vitamin D cause that, like many health issues, conradicts the "wisdom" of official organizations like the IOM.

Large LDL counts, too

15. December 2010 William Davis (0)
Chad is a 43-year old father of five kids.

Earlier this year, he developed chest pain that got worse and worse. He ended up with a total of five stents in all three coronary arteries. After a devastating experience with Lipitor that resulted from a ruptured tendon, he came to me for an option.

Chad's lipoproteins:

Slow Burn works

14. December 2010 William Davis (55)
I have been impressed with the results I've been obtaining with Fred Hahn's Slow Burn strength training technique.

Because I have limited time to hang around the gym, any technique that provides outsized results in a limited amount of time, I have to admit, appeals to me. In past, I'd be lucky to squeeze in one or two strength training sessions per week, devoting the rest of the time to biking outdoors, biking on a sedentary bike (while playing XBox), jogging, or doing strenuous yard work like digging trenches and planting shrubs.

Over the years, I've gradually lost muscle, since the strength training effort suffered with my time limitations.

So Fred's time-efficient Slow Burn idea struck a chord. Having now done it with some regularity, usually 1-2 times per week since mid-September, I have gradually added back visible muscle. My Slow Burn workouts, involving 8-10 different movements, seem to have restored the muscle I've lost, with a very modest time effort.

It took a little getting used to. After Fred showed me how to do the movements--slow motion movement in both the "positive" and "negative" directions, with smooth, non-jerking transitions, one set per muscle group, each taken to muscle exhaustion--it left me unusually tired and sore the next day. This surprised me, given the limited time involved. Breathing is also very important; the usual exhale-during-the-positive, inhale-during-the-negative pattern is replaced by breathing freely during the entire set. I didn't get this at first and ended up with headaches that got worse with each set. Breathing freely relieved me from the effect.

I have strength trained since I was around 15 years old. Back in the early 1970s, I had about 2000 lbs of barbells and dumbbells in my garage in New Jersey, while also driving back and forth to the Morristown, NJ, YMCA to train with friends. The Slow Burn movements forced me to break habits established over nearly 40 years of conventional strength training.

I've also played around with mixing conventional movements with Slow Burn movements to keep it fresh. This also seems to work.

If you're interested in giving it a try, here's an animation that demonstrates what Slow Burn movements look like. Fred has also produced an excellent 3-DVD set of videos that more fully describe the practice.

Do your part to save on healthcare costs

13. December 2010 William Davis (37)
While many of the factors that drive the relentless increase in health care costs are beyond individual control, you are still able to exert personal influence over costs. Just as in political elections, your one vote alone may not count; it's the collective effort of many people who share similar opinions that results in real change.

I just got the new monthly premium for my high-deductible health insurance: Up $300 per month, putting my family's total premium over $2000 per month---for four healthy people. (My son fractured his wrist playing high school hockey earlier this year; that may explain at least some of the increase.)

I'm going to shop around for a better deal. However, shopping is likely to only stall the process. It will not address the systemic problems with healthcare that continue to drive premiums up and up and up.

So what can you do to help keep costs down? Here are a few thoughts:

Never accept a prescription for fish oil, i.e., Lovaza. Just buy far less costly over-the-counter fish oil. I treat complex hyperlipidemias, including familial hypertriglyceridemia, ever day. I NEVER use prescription fish oil. A typical 4 capsule per day Lovaza prescription adds around $280 to $520 per month to overall health costs (though your direct out-of-pocket costs may be less, since you shove the costs onto others in your plan).

Never accept a prescription for vitamin D. Prescription vitamin D is the mushroom or invertebrate form anyway. Just buy the human (cholecalciferol, D3) form from your health food store or "big box" store. They yield consistent increases in 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels, superior to the prescription form. And they're wonderfully inexpensive.

Eliminate wheat from your diet. If there is a dietary strategy that yields unexpected and outsized benefits across a wide spectrum of health, it's elimination of this thing we're sold called "wheat," you know, the genetically-transformed, high-yield dwarf mutant that now represents 99% of all wheat sold. Blood sugar drops, pre-diabetics become non-prediabetics, diabetics reduce need for medication or become non-diabetic, cholesterol values plummet, arthritis improves, acid reflux and irritable bowel symptoms improve or disappear, just to mention a few. Wheat elimination alone, I believe, would result in incalculable savings in both healthcare costs and lives saved.

Be sure to obtain iodine. In the fuss to cut salt use, everyone forgot about iodine. Lack of iodine leads to thyroid disease, usually hypothyroidism, that, in turn, causes cholesterol values to increase, weight to increase, and heart disease risk to double, triple, or quadruple. Iodine supplementation is easy and wonderfully inexpensive.

Over time, I hope that all of us can help develop the effort to self-direct more and more of our own health. Our Track Your Plaque program has shown me that, not only can people take the initiative to direct aspects of their own health, they can do it better than 99% of doctors.  

I'm sure there are many, many other ways to help reduce costs. Any suggestions?

Fish oil: What's the difference?

10. December 2010 William Davis (27)
Ultra-purified, pharmaceutical grade, molecularly distilled. Over-the-counter vs. prescription. Gelcap, liquid, emulsion.

There's a mind-boggling variety of choices in fish oil today. A visit to any health food store, or any "big box" store for that matter, will yield at least several, if not dozens, of choices, all with varying and often extravagant claims of purity and potency.

So what's the real story?

Given the analyses conducted over the years, along with my experience with dozens of different preparations, I believe that several conclusions can be reached about fish oil:

Fish oil is free of contamination with mercury, dioxin, PCBs, or furans. To my knowledge, only one fish oil preparation has been found to have a slight excess of PCBs. (This is different from cod liver oil that has been found by one source to have a slight excess of PCBs.)

Oxidative breakdown products differ among the various brands. Consumer Lab (http://www.consumerlab.org/), for instance, has found that several widely available brands of fish oil contained excessive oxidative breakdown products (TOTOX). You can perform you own simple test of oxidative breakdown products: Sniff it. Your fish oil should pass the "sniff test." High quality fish oil should smell non-fishy to lightly fishy. Rancid fish oil with excessive quantities of oxidative breakdown products will smell nasty fishy.

FDA approval does not necessarily mean greater potency, purity, or effectiveness. It just means that somebody assembled the hundreds of millions of dollars to obtain FDA approval, followed by lots of marketing savvy to squash the competition.

This means that there are a number of excellent fish oil products available. My favorites are the liquid fish oils from Pharmax, Nordic Naturals, and Barleans. Capsules from Carlson, PharmaNutrients, and Fisol have also performed consistently. The "big box" capsules from Sam's Club and Costco have also performed well and are wonderfully affordable.

Wheat-free pie crust

9. December 2010 William Davis (17)
I've been working on wheat-free yet healthy recipes these past two months.

You can buy wheat-free, gluten-free foods at the store, of course. But the majority of these products are unhealthy because cornstarch, rice starch, potato starch, or tapioca starch are commonly used in place of wheat. Recall that these are among the few foods that increase blood glucose higher than even wheat.

Here's a simple recipe for wheat-free pie crust that works best for cheesecake, pumpkin pie, and cream pies, but not for berry or other fruit pies like apple.

You will need:
?
1½ cups ground pecans
6 tablespoons melted butter?or melted coconut oil
1 teaspoon vanilla extract?
2 teaspoons cinnamon
1 medium egg
2 tablespoons Truvia™ or ½ teaspoon stevia extract or ½ cup Splenda®

Mix all ingredients thoroughly in bowl. Pour mixture into pie pan and press onto bottom and sides.

Fill pie crust with desired filling. You can fill it with your favorite cheesecake recipe (e.g., Neufchatel or cream cheese, sour cream, eggs, vanilla, and stevia; add pumpkin for pumpkin cheesecake) and bake, usually at 350 degrees F for one hour. 

Yes, the butter provokes insulin and artificial sweeteners can trigger appetite. But, for the holidays, a slice or two of pie made with this crust will not increase blood sugar nor trigger the uncontrolled impulse eating that wheat crust will trigger.

Have a cookie

9. December 2010 William Davis (0)
Here's a great insight dating all the way back to 1966 from one of the early explorations in lipoproteins from the National Institutes of Health lab of Levy, Lees, and Fredrickson:

The nature of pre-beta (very low density) lipoproteins

The subject is a 19 year old female (among the total of 11 in the this small, diet-controlled study) who was first fed a low-carbohydrate (50 grams per day), low-cholesterol diet; followed by a high-carbohydrate (500 grams per day), low-fat (5 grams per day) diet.






To B or not to B

5. December 2010 William Davis (11)
Apoprotein B (apo B) is the principle protein that resides in LDL particles along with other proteins, phospholipids, triglycerides, and, of course, cholesterol.

There's a curious thing about apo B. Just like one child per family in China or one television per household in 1950s America, there is only one apo B for every LDL particle.

So measuring apo B, in effect, provides a virtual count of LDL particles. (Actually, VLDL particles, the first lipoprotein to emerge from the liver, also have one apo B per particle but LDL particles far outnumber VLDL particles.) While apo B structure can show limited structural variation from individual to individual, the effect on measured apo B is negligible.

One apo B per LDL particle . . . no more, no less. What about the other components of LDL particles?

The other components of LDL particles are a different story. Cholesterol and triglycerides in LDL particles vary substantially. Diet has profound effects on cholesterol and triglyceride content of LDL particles. A diet rich in carbohydrates, for instance, increases triglycerides in LDL particles while reducing cholesterol. This means that measuring cholesterol in the LDL fraction will be misleading, since cholesterol will be falsely low. LDL cholesterol is therefore a flawed means to assess the behavior and composition of LDL particles. In particular, when LDL particles become enriched in triglycerides, they go through a process that transforms them into small LDL particles, the variety most likely to cause atherosclerosis.

In other words, when the worst situation of all--an abnormal abundance of small LDL particles develops--it is usually not signalled by high LDL cholesterol.

Because apo B is not sensitive to the composition of LDL particles--high cholesterol, low cholesterol, high triglycerides, etc.--it is a superior method to characterize LDL particles. While apo B doesn't tell you whether LDL particles are big, small, or in between, it provides a count of particles that is far more helpful than measuring this deeply flawed thing called "LDL cholesterol."

(Even better: Count LDL particles and measure LDL size, since size gives us insight into sensitivity to oxidation, glycation, adhesiveness, ability to trigger inflammatory pathways via monocyte chemoattractant protein, various interleukins, tunor necrosis factor and others. This is why cholesterol panels should go the way of tie dye shirts and 8-track tapes: They are hopelessly, miserably, and irretrievably inaccurate. Cholesterol panels should be replaced by either apoprotein B or lipoprotein measures.)
A little bit of fish oil

A little bit of fish oil

5. November 2006 William Davis (12)

The British National Health Service (NHS) has announced that, in light of the substantial data documenting that omega-3 fatty acid intake from fish reduces likelihood of cardiovascular events by around 40%, that Brits discharged from hospital following a heart attack should be "prescribed" 1000 mg of prescription fish oil per day.

Hardly a revolutionary concept. Part of the timidity of the British NHS seems to relate to the potential cost to the government, since apparently much of the cost will be borne by the government-subsidized health system.

But prescription fish oil? Why prescription fish oil? Prescription Omacor, one capsule per day, costs around $70 (U.S.) per month. If I go to Sam's Club the same quantity of omega-3 fatty acids (in three capsules) will cost around $2.50. That's less than 5% of the cost of the prescription form.

Omacor is clearly more concentrated. But is the prescription form better--more effective, more purified, less contaminated, etc.? I have seen no independent verification of this. Of course, manufacturers make all sorts of claims. The only independent, unbiased testing I'm aware of comes from organizations like Consumer Reports and www.consumerlabs.com. Omacor has not been compared to non-prescription fish oil in any of their analyses. Head-to-head comparison of Omacor to nutritional supplement fish oil is unlikely to come from Solvay, the manufacturer of Omacor. Drug companies powerfully resist head-to-head comparisons, fearing it will not play out in their favor. Let the public remain ignorant and hope marketing conquers all.

Why would the NHS only recommend eating fish and prescription fish oil? I don't know, but it smells awfully fishy to me. As soon as an opportunity for profit is built into a treatment, all of a sudden it gains endorsement. Perhaps lobbying by those parties with potential for profit drove the process.

Nonetheless, despite the filthy politics and under-the-table dealings, some good comes out of the NHS's action: broader recognition of the power of fish oil. Perhaps when a British patient or an American patient gets discharged with a prescription for Omacor, the patient will take the initiative and go to the health food store instead and save him (or his insurer) $67.50 per month.

For your coronary plaque control program and control and/or reversal of your heart scan score, we start at 4000 mg per day of standard fish oil, providing 1200 mg per day of omega-3 oils. This amount as a nutritional supplement costs only a few dollars a month. And you have the satisfaction of not only taking a powerful step for your health, but also not enriching the overflowing pockets of drug companies.
Tags :

Comments (12) -

  • Anonymous

    11/6/2006 4:30:00 AM |

    Many of the non distilled forms of Fish oil seem to specify varying amounts of cholesterol contamination , + saturated fat etc.  In the pharmaceutical or distilled types most of the fat content is accounted for by the omega-3 content while in most over the counter types you will find varying amounts of additional fat and cholesterol specified. (Nature Made for example has the following:
    Per 2 Softgels: Calories 25 (Calories From Fat 20); Total Fat 2.5 g (Saturated Fat 1 g; Polyunsaturated Fat 1 g; Monounsaturated Fat 0.5 g); Cholesterol 25 mg; Protein 2 g; Fish Oil Concentrate 2400 mg (Omega-3 [EPA] Eicosapentaenoic Acid 360 mg; Omega-3 [DHA] Docosahexaenoic Acid 240 mg); Gelatin (Non-Bovine); Glycerin; Water; Tocopherol.

  • Bix

    11/6/2006 11:35:00 AM |

    Will insurers cover Omacor?  I don't know...

    If so, I know a number of people who would go get a script today.  The out-of-pocket costs for supplements just aren't in some people's budgets.  But I agree with you, it's a shame the system is designed to support such blatant profit for so few people.

  • Anonymous

    6/16/2007 4:10:00 PM |

    Omacor is a prescription drug and it is covered by my insurance. I pay $90 for a three-month supply, that is four capsules a day for a total of 360 capsule. It is also covered by my flexible spending account, so that saves me about 30% tax. I effectively pay about $63 for three months. So the cost per capsule is about 17.5 cents.

  • Dr. Davis

    6/16/2007 5:50:00 PM |

    Don't kid yourself:

    You may pay $63 for a prescription out of pocket, but you and society pay a far larger price of $240 per month through increased health insurance costs. All of us ultimately bear the higher price. In this instance, all the excess profits go into Omacor's pockets, thanks to the brainwashing of the public and physicians.

  • Anonymous

    11/22/2007 4:03:00 AM |

    Its amazing that Physicians, who lead their life using medicines and treatment protocols which are based on clinical research, discourage the use of the only truely clinically proven, regulated, prescription Omega 3 acid available.  The benefits of this product extend far past its triglyceride lowering effects, which makes it a product that should be considered for positive health as well as disease treatment.  The clinical studies are horrifically expensive, a natural based product is unpatentable, therefore making whomever is willing to put millions of dollars into making sure the clinical background is well tested, take a large risk. Copycat, unproven, dietary supplements (by the way which are monitored by the same people who monitor kit kats and gatoraid)make unsubstantiated claims. Shouldn't the developers and companies of this pharmaceutical product be  repaid, profit, and also be supported enough to continue the clinical research and development of such products.  If only the worlds medications were made up of more natural based solutions I believe we would be much more satisfied and less at risk of side effects from strictly chemically "isolated" molecules.  Omacor (which is now Lovaza) provides a glimpse of what practitioners have been looking for, a natural based prescription medication, effective, clinically proven to lower triglycerides similarly to other available therapies (with less expected drug to drug interactions or adverse events) and controlled so it is easier to recommend and use by health care professionals.  What is the sociatal cost of frequent LFT's, myopathy, rhabdo, Drug to Drug interactions from 145 fenofibrate?  Not the POOLED representation of Adverse events in the PI, that my good Doctor is trickery.  The 48mg might be more innocuous, but the 145mg is still risky and even recently had many other interactions and warnings added.  That is still considered a good drug, effective, possibly safer than the alternative of no treatment, but it does say to mind the "risk benefit ratio" which is thrown to hell when products like Omacor (Lovaza) come to market proven to work without expected side effects.  You might want to rethink how you see the companies and industries that develop the future of medicine.  No one is perfect, nor totally disclosed, however this product is certainly a step in the right direction and should be supported, not stiffled.

  • Dr. Davis

    11/22/2007 2:26:00 PM |

    Anonymous--

    I think you may have missed the point of the post.

    I was not bashing Omacor/Lovaza because it is fish oil. I have been using fish oil for years with excellent results, preparations that work wonderfully and cost around $3 per month.

    Now, there's a fish oil that costs $130+ per month? Purer? I would like to see side-by-side comparisons; I have seen no such thing. There are over-the-counter, highly purified preparations available without prescription and for less than a tenth of the cost of Omacor/Lovaza.

    I agree that fish oil in some form should precede the use of fibrates like Tricor. I rarely use Tricor, even though much of my cardiology practice has evolved into a lipid consulting practice.

  • Biomed007

    11/24/2007 3:53:00 PM |

    I guess my point is specifically, if you support $3 fish oils and their use, will those companies obediently go out and do the clinical studies that you need to feel secure to treat your patients?  Business and price per product does not come cheap.  The studies done, the missed compounds, the intergration into a patented item, the production, and the standards and guidelines all factor into the price of a product.  I just believe it to not only be unfair to recommend that patients use other than the proven product (unless there is no alternative) but also bad business sense.  If there is not loyalty or ethical appreciation to the developers and testers of these pharmaceutical products, who will then develop medicine?  I believe it would be futile to compare regular fish oil to Lovaza, just as it would be futile to compare most other drugs head to head.  The difference between relative/ actual and clinical vs. theraputic significance is very hard to show.  However, the dosing (4per day vs 8 t0 15 of reg fish oil), the purity (excursions from storage parameters render the compound less or ineffective = lack of controled standards)the purity (many manufactures are continuously being warned from FDA about the consistancy of product) and the lack of attributable cause data linking other less pure concentrations to actual clinical outcomes are all reasons that a seasoned medical professional like yourself should support the use of Lovaza instead of Fish oil capsules whenever possible.  I do know there are studies in europe about dosing regimin vs. clinical lipid results.  I would expect that at 8-15 fish pills per day the outcome results would be similar, however more variation and much more fat and omega 6's per pill.  Compliance would be less than optimal, outcome would be less than optimal, and with any alternative prescription that provides confidence in all variable and clinical aspects, this should be commended and supported whenever possible rather than talking about "brainwashing the public and physicians."  I wish someone would figure out that for every product that is developed, tested, and brought to market there are 20 other products that are in some stage of development and fail to be approved.  If EACH drug that comes to market costs approx $1.2 billion dollars (Tufts CSDD 2006), how much do you think is lost with the other 10-20 drugs that fail to gain approval?  Somewhere between 100 and 500 million PER FAILED DRUG!  Multiply that times the 10-20 that failed and you have approximately  6,000,000,000 (6 billion dollars).  With that said, it takes a lot more than just actual production cost to reimburse for past, present, and future research and development, business expenses, and of course profits to keep the company developing key breakthrough products.  All I am saying is that I understand and commend you for using an agressive alternative therapy addition in your patients to increase their health and hopefully life.  I do however believe that there is a blame game in medicine created or exacerbated by insurance companies that leads to finger pointing about medical necessity and cost.  People look towards trimming expenses in all places, however if drugs like Lovaza (not just fish oils) are not appreciatively embraced by practitioners and supported/ recommended whenever possible, there will be no more drugs or better yet, alternative large scale studies done on this kind of unpatentable compound because physicians assume similarities and switch to a compound like Dietary supplements.  Sorry, Ill step down from my soap box now, however this is definitely a sore spot for me.

  • Dr. Davis

    11/24/2007 4:18:00 PM |

    Do you work for a pharmaceutical manufacturer?

    Is it the same sort of economics that allows the founder/CEO of Kos Pharmaceuticals to cash out for $2.3 billion in personal payout, followed by the company raising the price of Niaspan?

    The answer, in my view, is not to gouge the public with extravagant drug prices, but to support non-profit-seeking research.

  • Anne

    2/5/2009 4:47:00 PM |

    Dear Dr Davis,

    I had to comment on this old blog as I am in the UK. Up until yesterday I was buying omega-3 fish oil from my health food shop, an amount to give me 2250 mg per day, that is 1125 mg EPA and  750 mg DHA, and it was costing me in the region of £25 per month. I have a bicuspid aortic valve with moderate stenosis and talking about omega-3 fish oils with my cardiologist he suggested that I be prescribed Omacor instead. The Omacor is courtesy of the NHS and is therefore free for me ! I'm very happy to have got it Smile

    I would love to have some studies, though, which show the positive effect of omega-3s on coronary calcification.

    Anne

  • Anonymous

    3/12/2009 8:11:00 PM |

    Anne said, "...my cardiologist...suggested that I be prescribed Omacor...The Omacor is courtesy of the NHS and is therefore free for me ! I'm very happy to have got it Smile".
    I left hospital a month ago with a prescription list that included Omacor but when I visited my NHS GP for a repeat prescription I was told that I could buy this item for myself, over-the-counter. :-(

  • futurepharmer

    10/13/2009 4:37:26 PM |

    "If I go to Sam's Club the same quantity of omega-3 fatty acids (in three capsules) will cost around $2.50. That's less than 5% of the cost of the prescription form."

    Lovaza capsules contain >80% purified EPA and DHA (465 mg and 375 mg, respectively), which are purified from fish oil.  The other oils are fish oils, and could possibly be omega-3s.  You must take at 2-4 for triglyceride lowering (at least one for CV risk reduction in AVD patients).  

    I don't know about any specific manufacturers OTC, but I do know that typical products contain 120mg DHA and 180mg EPA per GRAM of capsule. This means that only 30% have been confirmed to be the beneficial oils.  What else is in there?  This is why Lovaza does not have a fishy aftertaste, but OTC ones do.  Also, look how many you would have to take to equal the DHA and EPA in Lovaza.  It is not ANY fish oil, but specifically DHA and EPA that is necessary for CV benefit.

    Alpha linoleic acid MUST BE ACTIVATED to give CV benefits, and humans only activate 10% of alpha linoleic acid, so products claiming to have a ton of omega 3s using this compound are giving their values of omega-3s via a technicality (alpha linoleic acid is "technically" an omega-3).  

    This is not to mention the whole issue of herbal/supplement companies basically able to put anything in a capsule as long as it isn't harmful, REGARDLESS of what they say it is.  The FDA just doesn't care to watch these companies much.  

    Therefore, if I had the money, I would go Lovaza, but I am a cheap @$$ and would rather go with a USP Verified OTC product and take my chances Smile

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:16:42 PM |

    Why would the NHS only recommend eating fish and prescription fish oil? I don't know, but it smells awfully fishy to me. As soon as an opportunity for profit is built into a treatment, all of a sudden it gains endorsement. Perhaps lobbying by those parties with potential for profit drove the process.

Add comment

Loading