Blast small LDL to oblivion

4. April 2009 William Davis (21)
Here's a graphic demonstration of the power of wheat elimination to reduce small LDL particles, now the number one cause for heart disease in the U.S.

Lee had suffered a stroke due to an atherosclerotic plaque in a brain artery. She also had plenty of coronary plaque with a heart scan score of 322.

Lee began with an LDL particle number (the "gold standard" for measuring LDL, far superior to conventional calculated LDL) of 2234 nmol/L. This is exceptionally high, the equivalent of an LDL cholesterol of 223 mg/dl (drop the last digit). Of this 2234 nmol/L, 90% were abnormally small, with 1998 nmol/L of small LDL particles.

Lee eliminated wheat products from her diet, as well as cutting out sugars and cornstarch. Six months later, her results:

LDL particle number: 1082 nmol/L--a 52% reduction from the starting value and equivalent to an LDL of 108 mg/dl. Small LDL: zero--yes, zero.

In other words, 100% of Lee's LDL particles had shifted to the more benign large LDL simply with elimination of these foods---NO statin drug. (In addition to wheat elimination, she was also taking vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids at our recommended doses.)

While not everybody responds quite so vigorously due to genetic variation, nor does everyone try as hard as Lee did to eliminate the foods that trigger small LDL, her case provides a great illustration of the power of this strategy.
Tags :

Comments (21) -

  • Steve K

    4/5/2009 3:33:00 PM |

    while i believe in this strategy with improvement in my own situation,probably due to genetics i have not experience any change in particle size although there has been a reduction in small particles from 1805 to 1305according to NMR with size at 18.7  Since trigs were only 20 and HDL was 54 up from 41 VitD only 38. Working to raise it.  Taking Lipitor at Doc request due to strong family history.  Only male in family not to have a coronary event. Would like not to take statin,but not sure there is an alternative. Any thoughts?

  • Anonymous

    4/6/2009 12:31:00 AM |

    I normally ead very little wheat anyway, but you've piqued my curiousity

    you wrote this:
    >>> eliminate the foods that trigger small LDL

    the interesting word here is "trigger"  - does it mean that only a small amount of wheat will cause lots of small LDL particles - that is, wheat changes the way you create LDL, and so a small amount of wheat turns a lot of LDL into small particles?


    OR

    is there a dose dependent response?  A small amount of wheat leads to low levels of small LDL particles, and more wheat leads to higher levels, and lots of wheat creates high levels.

    Sam in Toronto

  • pooti

    4/6/2009 12:50:00 AM |

    Steve, how many carbs per day are you eating and what is your percentage and type of fat you are eating? Are you eating any PUFAs? Do you consume much fructose (i.e. honey, agave nectar, fructans from sorbitol, xylitol and any poly-ol)? Do you eat pre-packaged or pre-prepared foods? How much and what are your protein sources each day?

    Just wondering because I don't know that Dr. Davis is always able to answer personal questions?

    Also, what form of Vitamin D are you taking and how much of it? How long supplementing?

  • bolderbob

    4/6/2009 3:46:00 AM |

    Given my travel etc, I have been able to reduce but not totally eliminate wheat from my diet.  Dr. Davis, I think I have eliminated about 70% of wheat.  Does that help?  Also, is whole grain wheat OK or is it all wheat?    Thanks!!!

  • toddhargrove

    4/6/2009 6:37:00 AM |

    Very impressive.  What is your opinion about the likely mechanism for the LDL improvement related to wheat?  Less carbs?  Removal of possible immune response to gluten?  Removal of gluten intolerance?  All of the above?  Which factor is most important in your mind?  Are there others?  Thanks.

  • Steve K

    4/6/2009 7:13:00 PM |

    Pooti: In response to your inquiry.

    i eat no sugar except in greek yougurt(2%) or in fruit which is limited to an apple or some berries. Rest of diet is fish beef, turkey,chicken, eggs(sometimes whites only,sometimes the whole egg)  No grains except tsp of metamuciel(psylium). Only use olive oil for salad, and eat no fried food at all.  i take fish oil.  Kinda think it is genetics but open to advise.

  • wccaguy

    4/6/2009 10:51:00 PM |

    pooti wrote:

    >>> Just wondering because I don't know that Dr. Davis is always able to answer personal questions?

    Dr. Davis always answers personal questions at the Track Your Plaque forum.  But given his patient load and responsibilities for the Track Your Plaque program, he is not able to answer questions often here at the Heart Scan Blog.

  • Scott09

    4/7/2009 7:03:00 PM |

    Doc
    How do you know it was the wheat that did it? What about the sugar or starch. Don't you have to isolate your variables?

  • xenolith_pm

    4/7/2009 8:02:00 PM |

    Steve K,

    You may be extraordinarily insulin sensitive to grains and sugars.

    Are you using the drink or wafer forms of Metamucil?

    Just one tablespoon of the original drink form of Metamucil has 9 grams of sugar (sucrose).

    The "sugar free" drink versions of Metamucil will still give you a good dose of aspartame and maltodextrin.  Small amounts of chronic doses may result in unfavorable insulin resistance/response with some people.

    The wafer form of Metamucil is even worse.  Each serving contains 6 grams of sugar, corn starch, fructose, and wheat.

    Try to get a brand that only contains psyllium husk, like Konsyl.  Each serving has only 0.5 grams of available complex carbohydrates. It can be found at Walmart.

    Yes, Greek yogurt has less lactose (milk sugar) than regular yogurt.  But, even a modest eight ounce serving of plain Greek yogurt can contain as much as 9 grams of lactose.  And if you are consuming chronic amounts, it very well may be affecting your insulin.

    IMHO, investing in a glucose meter for home monitoring is not a bad idea for anyone who think they may be genetically sensitive to carbohydrates.

  • Steve K

    4/8/2009 2:00:00 AM |

    xenolith_pm :


    i am thin and fasting glucose last measured was 79 which i am told is lower end of normal.  Were i super sensitive this and trigs(20) would i suspect be higher.  Thanks for input from all.

  • Trinkwasser

    4/8/2009 6:59:00 PM |

    I'm jealous! Dropping the carbs decimated my trigs (literally) and doubled HDL. Initially my LDL *increased* but adding more sat fats seems to have reduced this back again. I wish I could get a proper test for the particle size, I have to guestimate from the trigs/HDL ratio.

    Maybe I should eliminate the small amount of wheat I still eat, see if there's a threshold effect.

  • Anonymous

    4/9/2009 8:41:00 AM |

    I am posting this here because I cannot, at this time, afford to join the forum so would appreciate anyone who could answer me.  I have avoided wheat for years because of its disastrous gastric effects but reading Mary Enig and Sally Fallon's Nourishing Traditions have been thinking about trying some sprouted wheat bread (Sunnyvale Organic).  Any opinions on this as the phytic acid is neutralised and the vits and mins are more bioavailable?

    Susie

  • Anonymous

    4/9/2009 11:35:00 AM |

    I have asked for a proposed mechanism several times.  I do not dispute the reported results, it just helps if a mechanism is proposed so people can understand why wheat or any other food impacts the particle size of LDL.

    Trevor

  • Kiwi

    4/9/2009 10:45:00 PM |

    This study found that wheat was a problem compared to oats but they were unable to reach a conclusion as to why.

    http://www.39kf.com/cooperate/qk/American-Society-for-Nutrition/027602/2008-12-28-550490.shtml


    "The reason for these unfavorable lipoprotein changes in the wheat group is not readily apparent; however, the mechanism by which these alterations are produced does not occur with increased oat consumption."

    The only grain I eat now is oats prepared using the Weston Price method.

  • Anonymous

    4/10/2009 3:17:00 PM |

    I think its hard to answer in detail allot of questions that come here, which is why we started the board as there were several of us just like you with all these questions.

    It was our idea for a small fee, not Dr D idea to make money, he makes nada off this and gives gives gives!

    ....and there had to be a small fee otherwise we would need advertisers like drug companies and we wanted it to remain free of that brain washing.

    The board is about $20 a few times a year and it has saved my life.

    Cheap investment.I think I am worth that.

    There is so much information there you would know that these blog posts are 110% backed up with good medical documentation.

    Or maybe go back to the beginning of this blog and read it all in detail and allot of your questions will be answered.

    I used to hang onto this blog for info as found it the most effective and so personal. Then we started the board and I can go there and read and educate myself from Dr D and hundreds of well educated folks like you and me who want to live longer and know traditional medicine is not helping us as much as it could with reversing our plague.

    Now I hardly ever come here as all the info is at my finger tips.

    Dr D makes no money from the board, it is to pay for band widths, web seminars etc.

    It is created by volunteers from this group and if approx.$5 a month isn't affordable let me know and I will help you find a way to raise some funds to take good care of yourself.

    I believe its our right to good health care info and thats what Dr D provides here and on the board.

    I am serious, don't let the small fee make you die younger.

  • Anonymous

    4/10/2009 5:43:00 PM |

    Anonymous,

    Sprouting the grains may eliminate the gastric issues you've experienced with wheat. However, those gastric issues may have been an indication of gluten intolerance and gastric issues may not be the only symptom, just the most obvious or visible one.

    Before adding wheat back to your diet in a large way, please research non-celiac gluten sensitivity and gluten intolerance on the web and at the public library.

    http://www.glutensensitivity.net/ and http://jccglutenfree.googlepages.com/ are good places to start.

    If you have questions re: gluten intolerance, there are several forums discussing this topic such as glutenfreeandbeyond.org/forum
    or forums.glutenfree.com

  • Anonymous

    4/11/2009 4:32:00 PM |

    Thanks for that, I was just asking as the wheat issues raised in the blog and the main site probably refer to modern wheat refining and baking processes whereas sprouted grain bread is made to an ancient recipe and contains no dairy or yeast.  I will certainly check out all options before deciding.  Thanks again.

    Susie

  • Trinkwasser

    4/12/2009 2:21:00 PM |

    Some diabetics can eat Ezekiel or similar sprouted grain breads, or breads made with wheat gluten and non-wheat flours, and I can handle other grains (in sufficiently small quantities) without the BG and presumably insulin spikes specific to wheat, but that's only one of the possible issues.

  • Anonymous

    4/16/2009 9:54:00 PM |

    hey thanks.  I don't have an issue with the fee, just and issue with putting my creditcarddetails into an unsecure webpage.  I wrote the TYP and pointed out they should use https.... when it is fixed, I will join. Even this blog is https

  • particle size reduction

    4/3/2010 3:17:59 PM |

    I think that the problem you are suffering through is insulin sensitivity. Well i am still researching on this topic but till now the point which has been cleared is this one only.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 7:00:57 PM |

    In other words, 100% of Lee's LDL particles had shifted to the more benign large LDL simply with elimination of these foods---NO statin drug. (In addition to wheat elimination, she was also taking vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids at our recommended doses.)

Add comment

Loading
Chicken Little

Chicken Little

11. August 2007 William Davis (1)
Clinical studies can be designed in a number of ways. The ease and cost of these studies differ dramatically, as does the confidence of the findings.

The most confident way to design a clinical study is to tell neither the participants nor the investigator(s) what treatment is being offered, then to administer treatment or placebo. Neither the people doing the research nor the participants know what they are receiving. Of course, there needs to be some way to find out what was given at the end of the study in order to analyze the outcome.

This is called a “double-blind, placebo-controlled” clinical study. While not perfect since it tends to examine a treatment phenomenon in isolation (e.g., the effects of a single drug in a select group of people), it is the best sort of study design that is most likely to yield confident results, both negative and positive. This sort of design is followed, for instance, for most prescription drugs.

There are pitfalls in such studies, of course, and some have made headlines lately. For instance, beyond tending to examine single conditions in a select group of participants, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study can also fail to uncover rare effects. If a study contains 5000 participants, for instance, but a rare complication develops in 1 person out of 20,000, then it’s unlikely such an ill-effect will be observed until larger numbers of people are exposed to the agent.

Another pitfall (though not so much of study design, but of human greed) is that study outcomes that are not favorable can be suppressed by simply failing to publish the results. This has undoubtedly happened numerous times over the years. For this reason, a registry has been created for all human clinical trials as a means to enforce publication of outcomes, both favorable and unfavorable.

Despite its weaknesses, the double-blind, placebo-controlled study design remains the most confident way to show whether or not some treatment does indeed yield some effect. It is less prone to bias from either the participant or the investigator. Human nature being what it is, we tend to influence results just to suit our particular agenda or interests. An investigator who knows what you are given, drug or placebo, but owns lots of stock in the company, or is hoping for special favors from the pharmaceutical company sponsor, for instance, is likely to perceive events in a light favorable to the outcome of the study.

Now, most studies are not double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. These are notoriously difficult studies to engineer; raise lots of ethical questions (can you not treat a person with an aggressive cancer, for instance, and administer a placebo?); often require substantial numbers of participants (thousands), many of whom may insist on payment for devoting their time, bodies, and perhaps even encountering some risk; and are tremendously expensive, costing many tens of millions of dollars.

For this reason, many other study designs are often followed. They are cheaper, quicker, may not even require the active knowledge or participation of the group being studied. That’s not to say that the participants are being tricked. It may simply be something like trying to determine if there are more heart attacks in people who live in cities compared to rural areas by comparing death rates from heart attack from public records and population demographic data. Or, a nutritional study could be performed by asking people how many eggs they eat each week and then contacting them every month for 5 years to see if they’ve had a heart attack or other heart event. No treatment is introduced, no danger is added to a person’s established habits. Many epidemiologic studies are performed this way.

The problem is that these other sorts of study designs, because they generate less confident results, are not generally regarded as proof of anything. They can only suggest the possibility of an association, an hypothesis. For real proof to occur, a double-blind, placebo-controlled may need to follow. Alternatively, if an association suggested by a study of lesser design might, by reasons of a very powerful effect, be sufficient. But this is rare. Thalidomide and catastrophic birth defects are an example of an association between a drug and fetal limb malformation that was so clear-cut that no further investigation was required to establish a causative association. Of course, no one in their right mind would even suggest a blinded study.

Where am I going with this tedious rambling? Lately, the media has been making a big to-do about several studies, none of which are double-blind, placebo-controlled, but were cross-sectional sorts of observations, the sorts of studies which can only suggest an effect. This happened with Dr. Steve Nissen’s study of Avandia (rosiglitazone) for pre-diabetes and risk for heart attack and the recent study suggesting that cancer incidence is increased when LDL cholesterol is low. Both were observations that suggested such associations.

Now, those of you following the Heart Scan Blog or the www.cureality.com website know that we do not defend drug companies nor their drugs. In fact, we’ve openly and repeatedly criticized the drug industry for many of its practices. Drugs are, in my opinion, miserably overused and abused.

But, as always, I am in the pursuit of truth. Neither of these studies, in my view, justified the sort of media attention they received. They are hypothesis-generating efforts—that’s it. You might argue that the questions raised are so crucial that any incremental risk of a drug is simply not worth it.

Despite the over-reaction to these studies, good will come of the fuss. I do believe that heightened scrutiny of the drug industry will result. Many people will seek to avoid prescription drugs and opt for healthy changes in lifestyle, thus reducing exposure to costs and side-effects.

But beware of the media, acting as our Chicken Little, reporting on studies that prove nothing but only raise questions.
Tags :

Comments (1) -

  • jpatti

    9/11/2007 10:26:00 AM |

    There's another issue with double-blind studies, for things other than drugs or supplements, they're impossible.  

    Your example of the number of eggs in a person's diet is a good example; there's no "placebo" for eggs.  Similarly, if I increase my level of exercise, I notice that - it can't be blinded.  For diet and other lifestyle changes, we will never be able to gain the amount of evidence as for drug trials.

    I think this is why many doctors don't think so much about prescribing these types of things, except for a cursory instruction to "eat better, lose weight and exercise," they're just not as strongly convinced of the benefit of these changes because they can't be proven as strongly.  But... not being able to prove something doesn't mean it's not important to health!  

    As a diabetic, I measure my bg multiple times a day and make changes to my food intake, exercise and medication dosage to hit established bg goals.  While I think tightly-controlling bg is probably the number one thing I can do for my heart health, it can never be proven in a double-blind study.

Add comment

Loading