The sun is getting stronger and the days are getting longer, even here in Wisconsin.

Some people are coming to the office with nice tans obtained by sunning themselves for several hours. Others have come back from winter getaways to Florida, Arizona, or the tropics, also sporting nice, dark tans.

Several people, in fact, were so confident that sunning themselves provided sufficient vitamin D that they reduced their usual dose. Some even stopped their vitamin D altogether.

But, when blood levels of 25(OH) vitamin D were checked, they were virtually all low, sometimes as low as <20 ng/ml. Yet all had nice tans.

Why does this happen? Why would people with dark tans remain deficient in vitamin D?

One big factor is age: Anyone over 40 years old is fooling themselves if they think that a tan ensures raising vitamin D levels to a desirable range. Also, the more you tan, the more melanin skin pigment accumulates, and the more vitamin D activation in the skin is blocked.

Weight is another factor: Heavier people need more vitamin D, sometimes three- or four-fold more than slender people.

Why does aging result in inefficient skin activation of vitamin D? It seems that, once we are beyond our reproductively useful years, this ticking clock of aging gets triggered. The older we get, the less activation of vitamin D occurs in our skin, the less of the youth-maintaining, disease-preventing benefits of vitamin D we obtain with sun exposure.

The message: Don't rely on a tan to gauge the adequacy of vitamin D. Maybe that works when you're 16 years old, but not at age 50 or 60. There's only one way to know your vitamin D status: a blood level of 25(OH) vitamin D.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

I admit it: In years past, I spoke for the drug industry.

In retrospect, I now regret it. In fact, I'm downright embarassed by it.

In the 1960s, you’d purchase a new car. If you changed the oil, adhered to the maintenance schedule—and were lucky—you might expect to get 100,000 miles out of your automobile. Only an occasional car made it beyond that odometer hurdle. Even if the engine made it past the 100,000 mile milestone, the automobile body would inevitably start to develop rusting decay at the edges of the fenders, signaling body rot that threatened to open gaping holes of metal.

Then along came Toyota and Honda, whose cars easily reached 100,000 miles and well beyond, reliably and with bodies intact. As this realization sunk into the American consciousness, many asked, “Why can’t American automakers accomplish the same sort of trouble-free longevity?” “Buy American” emerged as a mantra to preserve American jobs and prop up an economy vulnerable to the superior automotive products from Detroit’s competitors.

Of course, American automakers have since responded to the challenge posed by the Japanese auto industry and produced automobiles that essentially matched the reliability and longevity of Japanese cars. But, the great unanswered question remains: For years before the onslaught of Japanese competition, did Detroit quietly plot to maintain a policy of planned obsolescence that ensured Americans would have to scrap the old and buy a new car every few years whenever the odometer tipped over 100,000 miles?

We will never know. At worst, it may represent the behind-closed-doors, back-slapping sort of plotting that, for many years, maximized revenues, ensured shareholder returns, and secured executive paychecks. Or, perhaps it wasn’t some evil conspiracy but just complacency, a profitable position of comfort at that. There’s little incentive for industry insiders to reveal such self-incriminating information.

But the example set by the American auto industry presents an unusual learning opportunity for us, a chance to make some useful comparisons to the heart healthcare industry.

Is the American healthcare industry also guilty of practicing a policy of “planned obsolescence,” just like Detroit? The product that helplessly crumbles is, of course, not your rust-riddled automobile, but you.

When someone sees a primary care physician year after year, yet appears one morning in the emergency room, clutching his or her chest in agony from the closed coronary artery responsible for a life-threatening heart attack—prompting the flurry of activity that results in $100,000 in hospital procedures . . .

Perhaps “planned obsolescence” is not the perfect phrase to describe the situation, but the principle still applies: A failure to inform the patient that such an outcome was possible—no, probable—makes you wonder whether such an outcome was predictable and thereby preventable in the first place.

What should we do when planned obsolescence leads us down a path engineered by someone who has something, often substantial, to gain? Even if it's just complacency, or adhering to a beaten, ineffective status quo (can you say "low-fat diet?), it all points in the same direction.

You have a choice: Refuse to buy a 1962 Impala of health care, otherwise known as conventional heart disease management.

Melatonin is fascinating stuff.

In addition to its use as a sleep aid, melatonin exerts possible effects on cardiovascular parameters, including anti-oxidative action on LDL, reduction in sympathetic (adrenaline-driven) tone, and reduction in blood pressure.

Several studies document the blood pressure-reducing effect of melatonin:

Daily nighttime melatonin reduces blood pressure in male patients with essential hypertension.

Melatonin reduces night blood pressure in patients with nocturnal hypertension.

Prolonged melatonin administration decreases nocturnal blood pressure in women.

Blood pressure-lowering effect of melatonin in type 1 diabetes.

But blood pressure may be increased when melatonin is added to nifedipine, a calcium channel blocker:

Cardiovascular effects of melatonin in hypertensive patients well controlled by nifedipine: a 24-hour study.

Effects on BP tend to be modest, on the order of 5-8 mmHg reduction in systolic, half that in diastolic.

But don't pooh-pooh such small reductions, however, as small reductions exert mani-fold larger reductions in cardiovascular events like heart attack and stroke. NIH-sponsored NHANES data (see JNC VII), for example, document a doubling of risk for each increment of BP of 20/10. The Camelot Study demonstrated a reduction in cardiovascular events from 23% in placebo subjects to 16.7% in subjects taking amlodipine (Norvasc) with a 5 mm reduction in systolic pressure, 2 mmHg drop in diastolic pressure. Small changes, big benefits.

Many people take melatonin at bedtime and are disappointed with the effects. However, a much better way is to take melatonin several hours before bedtime, e.g., take at 7 pm to fall asleep at 10 pm. Don't think of melatonin as a sleeping pill; think of it as a sleep hormone, something that simply prepares your body for sleep by slowing heart rate, reducing body temperature, and reducing blood pressure. (You may need to modify the interval between taking melatonin and sleep, since individual responsiveness varies quite a bit.)

I also favor the sustained-release preparations, e.g., 5 mg sustained-release. Immediate-release, while it exerts a more rapid onset of sleep, allows you to wake up prematurely, The sustained-release preparations last longer and allow longer sleep.

The dose varies with age, with 1 mg effective in people younger than 40 years, higher doses of 3, 5, even 10 or 12 mg in older people. Sustained-release preparations also should be taken in slightly higher doses.

The only side-effect I've seen with melatonin is vivid, colorful dreams. Perhaps that's a plus!

Thinking about the programs for health care reform proposed by the three Presidential candidates highlights a distinct peculiarity of American style health care.

American health care is shaped to an unprecedented degree by five forces:

1) The drug industry

2) The health insurance industry

3) Hospitals

4) Fear of litigation

5) The uniquely American attitude of refusing compromise in access to health care services or products, regardless of the cost (for those who can afford health insurance)

All five of these unique forces have created this thing (monster?) we call health care. Remove or modify any one of these forces, and the health care landscape would look dramatically different.

The drug industry has recently been on the receiving end of plenty of negative press. This warms my bones. Decades of heavy-handed lobbying, sleazy marketing to physicians (all too willing to be wined and dined), and behind-the-scenes manipulation of clinical data are coming back to bite them. Sadly, the drug industry is so powerful that this bit of fuss is not likely to substantially change their ways.

I am thrilled that all three Presidential candidates agree that reimportation of drugs from outside the U.S. is a good idea. While the shrug of the shoulders federal and state attitude towards importation of drugs from Canada has not resulted in cost savings sufficient to impact on overall costs, it surely will lead to savings when practiced on a broad basis by pharmacies, distributors, and other bulk buyers of pharmaceuticals.

Senator Obama, in particular, has used strong language in his criticism of the health insurance industry, tough talk that is needed in an age in which insurance executives bring home salaries in the hundreds of millions of dollars and stock prices are climbing due to substantial profit gains within the industry, going against the grain of increasingly costly premiums. However, the Clinton experiment of federalizing health care during Bill Clinton's term that caused all the big boys to band together (most notably health insurance companies and drug industry) has tempered enthusiasm for attacking the insurance industry head-on. In both Democrats' health care reform proposals, the option of private insurance is preserved, as it is in the McCain proposal.

How about hospitals? Hospitals, though on a smaller scale than the nationwide reach of the drug and insurance industries, aim to maintain health service delivery in hospitals. For instance, the high-tech bypass service in the hospital gets plenty of local media coverage, as does the newest DaVinci robotic surgery, bariatric surgery, and other revenue-rich services. Many hospitals have forgotten that their mission is delivery of health, of which revenue creation and profiting from disease should only be part.

How big is fear of litigation? Estimates vary, but several have quoted numbers in the neighborhood of 20 to 30% of overall health care costs. At the street level from what I see, I'd say at least that much. Fear of litigation is rampant, often unrestrained, and sometimes leads to the craziest, illogical sequence of testing. Chest pain, for instance, no matter how trivial, will typically trigger around $5000 worth of testing (nuclear stress test, echocardiogram, laboratory work, etc.) Emergency room visit for a minor injury? CT scan of head, chest, abdomen. A formula to minimize this aspect of fear in health care delivery would generate enormous savings.

The last issue, the uncompromising nature of Americans in health--always wanting the latest new drug, new procedure, "best" surgeon--often simply causes the health care consumer to fall victim to marketing. If a hospital advertises the newest procedure, people want it regardless of whether it represents genuine improvement over the older procedure. The newest sleeping pill, antidepressant, antihypertensive, etc. replaces the old yet equivalent product, but at considerably greater cost.

I am optimistic that, regardless of which candidate gains the White House, that some reform is on the way. I do fear, however, that progress will be small and incremental, since major change of the sort that would slash hundreds of billions of dollars in costs would rouse the powers-that-be (drug industry, health insurers, etc.) to once again combine forces and combat the disruption of their franchise.

Until you and I see real change and cost savings coming through either legislation or free market advances, we need to continue to make full use of the self-empowering health information that we gain through venues like the web.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

No doubt, our little informal poll asking readers whether they have lipoprotein(a), is skewed towards people inclined to respond because they have this genetic trait.

Nonetheless, the response is telling. Of 82 respondents:

--40 (48%) said they did have Lp(a)

--16 (19%) said that they did not have Lp(a)

--26 (31%) said that they did not know whether or not they had Lp(a)

Though admittedly an informal analysis, I'd draw several conclusions from this simple "experiment".

One, while the proportion of people responding that they have Lp(a) may not be accurate, it is a prevalent genetic risk factor that, according to formal studies, is present in 17% of people with coronary or vascular disease, 11% of the broader population. This number may be even higher if the newer particle number assays (measurements) are used (with results expressed in nmol/L), since an occasional person with a "normal" Lp(a) in mg/dl (weight-based) will prove to have increased Lp(a) by nmol/L (particle number-based). (The reason for this phenomenon is not clear. It may be consequent to variation in apo(a) size, with larger apo(a) varieties of Lp(a) occasionally escaping detection .) As our little poll shows, plenty of people have Lp(a).

Two, readers of this blog tend to be highly motivated, sophisticated, and knowledgeable about health and heart disease. Yet a substantial portion--31%--did not know whether they have this crucial risk factor. That shouldn't be. The unnecessary difficulty of getting this simple blood test performed has been driven home to me repeatedly when I identify this factor in someone and then suggest that their grown children and parents, each of whom have a 50% chance of having Lp(a), be tested. It's not uncommon for a 35-year old son, for instance, to say that his doctor refused, claiming it is an unproven risk marker, or to simply say that he/she doesn't know what it is.

No doubt, just knowing whether you have Lp(a) or not is not the end of the story. Reducing Lp(a) and its associated co-factors is no easy matter. With several hundred patients in my practice with Lp(a), it occupies much of my time and energy. Sometimes it leads to enormous successes , but it can also pose a real challenge.

There should no longer be any doubt that Lp(a) is associated with significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease. This has been demonstrated conclusively across dozens of studies. Risk from Lp(a) is over and above that posed by other risk factors; it also amplifies the risk posed by other factors, e.g., small LDL, inflammatory phenemena, homocysteine, total LDL, low HDL.

In the world of Lp(a), our two most desperate needs for the future are:

1) Better education of physicians and the public, and

2) More effective treatment options.

Thus, our reasons to form The Lipoprotein(a) Research Foundation. Steps to gain tax-exempt status are being pursued as we speak.

I can't help but wonder whether, like vitamin D, a solution is right beneath our noses. An investment in research to fund the trials to better explore both basic science as well as practical treatment options might yield an answer more readily than we think. Wouldn't that be great?

Just a muse.

Endogenous substances are those that are already contained within our bodies. They are part of basic human equipment.

Exogenous substances are those that come from outside of our bodies. This includes various substances in foods, drugs (most, though not all), and pesticides.

I often mull over all of the tools we use in the Track Your Plaque program to achieve control over this thing called coronary plaque. It struck me that just about all the supplements we use that seem to provide outsized benefits are all endogenous substances themselves:

--Omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil
--Vitamin D
--l-arginine
--Niacin (vitamin B3)

Many of the other substances, though not directly relevant to our plaque-control efforts, but are among the most effective nutritional supplements, also supplement endogenous levels: calcium pyruvate, creatine, acetylcarnitine, DHEA, testosterone, progesterone, growth hormone, pregnenolone, phenylalanine, tyrosine, melatonin, etc.

Curiously, most drugs are not meant to directly supplement endogenous levels, but are designed either to enhance or block an enzyme (e.g., acetylcholinesterase inhibitors that block breakdown of acetylcholine; HMG CoA reductase inhibitors to block cholesterol synthesis; angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors to reduce blood pressure), to exert toxic effects on an organism (antibiotics, antivirals), or to exert an entirely unique effect that does not ordinarily occur in the human body (some anti-cancer drugs, for instance). (This is an admitted, vast over-simplification.)

That's not to say that any endogenous substance is desirable or safe when supplemented. Cortisol, thyroid hormone, and estrogens are three examples of endogenous substances that have downsides when administered at slightly more than physiologic concentrations.

Nonetheless, it makes me wonder if the world of endogenous substance supplementation has not been fully explored. Are there other endogenous substances that are as potent and wonderful, for instance, as vitamin D but not yet fully appreciated? I'm sure there are.

Reprinted here is the unfailingly informative Vitamin D Newsletter from Dr. John Cannell. Although there's little here specifically about heart disease, there's so much great information about vitamin D that I thought most would still appreciate it.

The Vitamin D Newsletter

May, 2008

Yesterday's Washington Post article, Too-Good-To-Be-True Nutrient?, sums up the April 9th vitamin D symposium at UCSD in San Diego, which was nothing short of spectacular. Carole Baggerly outdid herself organizing it and explaining how she got involved. Make no mistake; Carole is both serious and energetic. She told about her efforts to introduce resolutions at upcoming meetings of various professional groups. Then she introduced the volunteers from the San Diego Black Nurses Association who made sure the conference went off without a hitch. Then Carole introduced the four speakers. The slides of each speaker are available at Grassroots Health.

Before I tell you the highlights of the conference, I'd like to tell you about another conference, this one in Germany, this May 17th and 18th. It is the Third International Symposium on Vitamin D Analogs in Cancer Prevention and Therapy. Readers know how I feel about giving analogs to vitamin D deficient patients instead of vitamin D but speakers include Michael Holick, Reinhold Veith, Bill Grant, Tai Chen, Heidi Cross, David Feldman, and Roger Bouillon, all of whom know the importance of the nutrient. Most of this conference is for scientists, not lay people. However, Michael Holick is the first speaker and if you have not heard his latest talk about vitamin D, it might be worth a trip to Germany.

The first San Diego speaker was Dr. William Grant. Since leaving NASA to begin a full-time career as a vitamin D researcher, Bill has published dozens of studies and has another dozen in the works. Using ecological studies (from Greek oikos, house + German -logie, study or studying your own house) of UVB irradiance and cancer, Bill reported that 15 cancers (colon, esophageal, gallbladder, gastric, pancreatic, rectal, small intestinal, bladder, kidney, prostate, breast, endometrial, ovarian, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) are associated with lower UVB light. He concluded that 257,000 cancer deaths in 2007 in the USA were accounted for by inadequate vitamin D levels. Of course the problem with ecological studies is that it easy to be vitamin D deficient in Miami, all you have to do is listen to your doctor's advice and stay out of the sun. Recently, a group from the Arizona Cancer Center found almost 80% of Arizonians had levels below 30 ng/ml. So much for sunny spots.

Jacobs ET, et al. Vitamin D insufficiency in southern Arizona. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):608-13.

The next speaker was Professor Cedric Garland. I found myself wondering how he did it. I became convinced that vitamin D prevents cancer five years ago. Cedric and his brother Frank and his colleague Ed Gorham knew it 30 years ago! I know what it is like to tell someone that vitamin D prevents cancer and see them think, "Here we go again, another miracle vitamin." I know what it is like to try and explain and watch people die unnecessarily. But I've only had that experience for five years. Cedric has dealt with that frustration for thirty years. Almost thirty years ago, Cedric and Frank Garland published evidence that vitamin D prevents cancer. In fact, it was Cedric's first publication. Thankfully, the paper was recently recognized as being so important that it was republished in 2006 by the International Journal of Epidemiology. You can read the entire paper for free by clicking on the second link below and then clicking on "free final text", courtesy of Oxford Journals.

Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol. 1980 Sep;9(3):227-31.

Garland CF, Garland FC. Do sunlight and vitamin D reduce the likelihood of colon cancer? Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Apr;35(2):217-20.

Cedric began by showing the incidence of type-1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis by latitude. I had no idea that the latitudinal data was so strong for type 1 diabetes in children. This disease is almost nonexistent around the equator. Type-1 diabetes is but one of the three modern childhood epidemics caused by the sunlight-hating dermatologists, the other two, I think, are autism and asthma. Next he showed latitude and 25(OH)D levels, which reminded me to be suspicious of high levels, unless they use accurate methods of detecting 25(OH)D. Some methods used, even in this country, are over detecting vitamin D and telling patients their levels are above 50 ng/ml when they are, in reality, much lower. Cedric's data showed Thailand had mean levels of 70 ng/ml, which I doubt and suspect were due to inaccurate 25(OH)D tests. He then reviewed evidence of the 25(OH)D levels needed to prevent numerous cancers. The safest levels are somewhere above 50 ng/ml. Cedric spent most of his time presenting an entirely new theory of carcinogenesis, one dependent on vitamin D maintaining cellular junctions. I suspect this paper will also be reprinted in 20 years. The only disagreement I have is with his recommendation for cancer patients to start at fairly low doses. For reasons I recently explained, the risk benefit analysis indicates cancer patients should take 5,000 to 10,000 IU per day and they may have no time to lose. Why worry about the phantom of vitamin D toxicity if you may be dying of cancer? Just have your calcium checked along with frequent 25(OH)D levels. Get your levels up to 70-90 ng/ml if you have cancer.

Does vitamin D treat cancer?

The next speaker was Professor Bruce Hollis. He reviewed basic physiology of vitamin D and emphasized that the entire system is designed to deal with an excess not with an insufficiency of vitamin D. Numerous mechanisms are available in your body to prevent vitamin D toxicity but few are available to deal with insufficiency. Then he briefly mentioned one of the most important discoveries about vitamin D in the last few years, one where Professor Neil Binkley of the University of Wisconsin was senior author. (In the last four years, Professor Binkley has become a prolific vitamin D expert and I hope Carol Baggerly is able to get him to speak at some of the upcoming conferences she hopes to sponsor.) As I have pointed out before, Hollis and Binkley's crucial discovery was that the body doesn't start storing the parent compound, cholecalciferol, until 25(OH)D levels reach about 50 ng/ml. They showed, using basic steroid pharmacology, that 50 ng/ml should be considered the lower limit of adequate 25(OH)D levels.

Hollis BW, Wagner CL, Drezner MK, Binkley NC. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-4.

Bruce kept the audience enthralled with a review of all the disease states that indicate 25(OH)D levels need to be much higher than they are now, that is, the multiple biomarkers that suggest the lower limit of 25(OH)D levels should be above 40 ng/ml and closer to 50 ng/ml. Then Professor Hollis spoke of his ongoing study in pregnant women and how he got approval to use 4,000 IU of vitamin D per day back in 2003, quite an accomplishment. He also reviewed another one of his research projects, one that answered an age old question, why is breast milk a poor source of vitamin D? How were prehistoric infants supposed to get their vitamin D, by lying out in the sun where saber tooth tigers would eat them? No, they were hidden in caves and had to have another source or the human race would have died out long ago because rickets destroys a woman's and infant's chance to live through childbirth due to rachitic deformations of the mother's pelvis. Carol Wagner and Bruce Hollis, together with their colleagues, answered that age old question, human breast milk is a poor vitamin D source because virtually all modern mothers are vitamin D deficient. That is, when pregnant women keep their levels where we think prehistoric human levels were, about 50 ng/ml, breast milk becomes a rich source of vitamin D. First Carol and Bruce gave 2,000 IU per day, then 4,000 IU per day and finally 6400 IU of D3 per day to lactating women. Only at 6400 of D3/day did the women maintain both their own 25(OH)D levels and the levels of their breast feeding babies above 50 ng/ml. On 6400 IU/day, the vitamin D activity of the breast milk went from about 80 to 800 IU/L. Quite a discovery, and another reason for all of us to keep our levels above 50 ng/ml.

Wagner CL, Hulsey TC, Fanning D, Ebeling M, Hollis BW. High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation in a cohort of breastfeeding mothers and their infants: a 6-month follow-up pilot study. Breastfeed Med. 2006 Summer;1(2):59-70.

Professor Robert Heaney went last, discussing 74 slides. So much of what we know about vitamin D today is due to Robert's unceasing dedication to vitamin D, the most recent example being his and Joanne Lappe's randomized controlled trial showing that increasing baseline levels from 29 to 38 ng/ml reduced the risk of getting cancer by around 70%. He again pointed out that the body does not begin to consistently store much vitamin D until your levels get to around 50 ng/ml. He also went through multiple biomarkers of vitamin D. That is, what level or intakes do you have to have to reduce the incidence of multiple diseases? He covered calcium absorption, osteoporosis, risk of falling, muscle function, death and disability of the aged, TB, influenza, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and gum disease. How can one vitamin be involved in so many diseases? Simple said Dr. Heaney, "vitamin D is the key that unlocks the DNA library." He then reviewed toxicity and concluded there is no evidence that it occurs at levels below 200 ng/ml or with intakes (total) below 30,000 IU per day. Of course, we have no reason to think anyone needs 30,000 IU per day or levels of 200 ng/ml, which would be irresponsible. But someone with a serious cancer should consider getting their level up to 70-90 ng/ml and that may take 10,000 IU per day or even more in some people. As a rule of thumb, 1,000 IU will raise 25(OH)D levels by about 10 ng/ml.

Then Professor Heaney addressed a public health question. How much would we have to give all Americans to get 98% of people above 32 ng/ml without causing toxicity in anybody? The answer: 2,000 IU per day. Of course 32 ng/ml is not adequate but it would be a great first step. Furthermore, of the people left out, a high percentage would be African Americans. In fact, Dr. Talwar recently reported that 40% of African American women fail to achieve a level of 30 ng/ml even after taking 2,000 IU/day for a year.

Talwar SA, Aloia JF, Pollack S, Yeh JK. Dose response to vitamin D supplementation among postmenopausal African American women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Dec;86(6):1657-62.

He also discussed his recent study giving healthy adults 100,000 IU as a single dose. If you start with a baseline level of 28 ng/ml and take 100,000 IU as a single dose, mean levels will remain above 32 ng/ml for two months. If you rely on such stoss doses, but you start with a lower level, or want your levels above 50 ng/ml, how often do you need to take 100,000 IU? We don't know the answer to the last question but we know that Grey et al gave 50,000 IU per week for four weeks then 50,000 per month for a year to 21 patients with hyperparathyroidism. Blood levels rose from a mean of 11 ng/ml at baseline to 30 ng/ml at one year and levels did not continue to rise after six months. Remember, that means half the patients had levels lower than 30 ng/ml at the end of the year. Also remember that the metabolic clearance (how quickly you use it up) might be higher in certain disease states.

Grey A, et al. Vitamin D repletion in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism and coexistent vitamin D insufficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Apr;90(4):2122-6.

That last point, metabolic clearance, is only one of a number of reasons that patients vary in their response to vitamin D. Remember, a surprising number of patients will tell their physician they are taking vitamin D when they are not, some will be taking preparations that have less in it than the label says, some will not absorb it, and some people weigh more than others. As Dr. Heaney points out, even if you know patients took 100,000 IU, great variably exists in individual response. At the end of two months some will have shown a minimal response and other much more. This is a field where little is known. Do different disease states use up vitamin D quickly? The answer is probably yes. Furthermore, variability also exists in how one metabolizes and catabolizes (breaks down) vitamin D. Also, what is the interactive effect of drugs that use the same liver enzymes for catabolism? We just don't know and that is why vitamin D blood testing is crucial. Remember, the only test to have is a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D. Do not let anyone get a 1,25-dihydroxy-vitamin D; it will not tell you if you are vitamin D deficient and is usually only indicated in evaluating high blood calcium.

As far as 25(OH)D levels go, many of you have written complaining about the high cost of a 25(OH)D levels at some labs. I've got some good news. For the next month, Life Extension Foundation is having a sale on their 25(OH)D blood tests, only $32.25, including the fee for drawing the blood. (No, we don't get funding from Life Extension, I wish we did.) Life Extension uses LabCorp, which, in turn, uses an accurate method to determine 25(OH)D levels, the DiaSorin Laiason method. The only problem is that DiaSorin, LabCorp, and Life Extension all say that 30 ng/ml is acceptable. It is not. Take enough vitamin D or get enough UVB radiation to get your levels above 50 ng/ml. To order the test, call Life Extension at 800 208-3444. Unfortunately, this offer is not available in New York, New Jersey or Rhode Island.

Also, Dr. James Dowd has written a fine book about vitamin D, The Vitamin D Cure. Get this, he is board certified in internal medicine, adult rheumatology, and pediatric rheumatology, an associate professor at Michigan State University, and runs his own Arthritis Institute and the Michigan Arthritis Research Center. He gives a formula for how much vitamin D you need but stresses the importance of testing to know for sure. He uses the formula of 2000 IU for every 100 pounds of body weight, which is as accurate an estimation as one can make without knowing baseline levels. Of course it depends on so many things, as Dr. Dowd points out, such as percentage body fat, latitude, skin type, sun exposure and age. He gives case after case examples of how vitamin D not just prevents disease, but seems to have a treatment effect. He also stresses three other things I've written about before, acid base balance, magnesium and potassium. If you can't get eat enough fruits and green leafy vegetables to obtain your potassium and magnesium and to get rid of low-grade chronic metabolic acidosis, then you should consider magnesium supplements and potassium bicarbonate supplements.

With these four experts and with this month's vitamin D news articles about breast cancer, brain function, artery blockage in the legs, soft skulls in babies, peripheral neuropathy in diabetics, childhood type-1 diabetes, colon cancer, and stress fractures and with the increasing number of scientists around the world jumping on the vitamin D express, why doesn't the government do something? What will it take? Like Carole says it will take a grassroots effort.

The first thing to do is tell your family and friends about vitamin D. Tell your doctor. Get your family's 25(OH)D tested, including your children. Once people begin to see it works, they will get their family and friends to take it. They will feel better and then the word will spread. All the government can do is make vitamin D illegal or limit the amount in each pill. The first is unlikely but not the second. With 5,000 IU capsules widely available, many people give no thought to taking one a day. But if the government limits the sale of anything over 400 IU and people had to take 12 of the 400 IU tablets, instead of one of the 5,000 IU, they might balk at so many pills. Before our officials in Washington take such a step, let's hope they read the Washington Post.

John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. This newsletter is not copyrighted. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. We are a nonprofit tax-exempt educational organization and depend on your donations.

The Vitamin D Council
9100 San Gregorio road
Atascadero, CA 93422

Judging by the conversations here, in the Track Your Plaque Forums, and elsewhere, it's clear that many people are searching for the perfect diet.

Should we reconsider the role of saturated fat? Are there fractions of fatty acids in saturated fat that are more or less harmful? How about the role of fats on cancer risk? How about the role of proteins like casein on cancer risk? Are there flavonoid sources, or combinations of flavonoids, that yield outsized health benefits? Is there a ceiling for omega-3 fatty acid supplementation? Is there a role for linolenic acid sources in cardiovascular disease prevention? And on and on.

All important issues, to be sure, ones that we've all zig-zagged through over the past 30 years.

I also see patients every day, however, who are not interested in micro-managing their diet. Their goals are less ambitious: lose 20 lbs, feel good, raise HDL, reduce triglycerides and small LDL, all while meeting all the other responsibilities in their lives, like children, spouses, maintaining a household and jobs.

So, if your interest is not to consider whether we should distinguish myristic acid sources from palmitic, or if epigallocatechin is better when combined with quercetin, then the biggest bang from your nutritional buck can come from one single strategy:

Eliminate wheat flour products

Secondarily, avoiding corn starch products and "goodies" (candy, fruit juices, fruit drinks, cookies, potato chips, etc.--you know what they are) is important, as well.

It means weighing your diet more heavily in favor of vegetables and fruits; lean meats; healthy oils; and raw nuts and seeds, all in unlimited quantities. Dairy products should be limited, however, because of sugar effects.

Of course, this advice clearly contradicts the pronouncements of the USDA Food Pyramid (6-8 servings of grains per day), the American Heart Association, and the diabetes-causing American Diabetes Association diabetic diets.

But, follow this approach, a diet strategy that appears too simple to be effective, and the majority of people lose dramatic amounts of weight, raise HDL, reduce triglycerides, reduce small LDL, reduce C-reactive protein and other inflammatory measures, reduce blood pressure, and raise self-esteem.

It's also a lot easier than it sounds (after habits are broken) because the appetite stimulating effect of wheat is removed. Many, if not most, people also experience increased energy, including elimination of the afternoon "slump," improved sleep, less mood swings, less intestinal problems.

It may not be perfect, but if your interest is to get the most with a modest amount of effort, it works like a charm for the majority of people.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

You're going to hate this.

Dr. Romero-Corral and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic presented an analysis of the National Institutes of Health-funded National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-3) at the recent American College of Cardiology meetings. (Science Daily also has some coverage on this report.)

Their analysis identified 2127 adults from the NHANES database who had normal body-mass indexes (BMI) between 18.5 and 24.9 units), average age 41 years old. When broken down by percent body fat (measured with bioimpedance, meaning a small electrical current is passed through the body, much like what the store-bought Tanita devices do), with normal-weight obesity defined as >20% body fat in males, >30% body fat in females, 55% of participants met criteria for designation as normal-weight obesity.

Compared to people with similar BMI's but who fell below these body fat percentage cut-offs, the normal-weight obese men had increased ratios of Apo B to Apo A1; were much more likely to have increased blood sugars or be diabetic; have higher C-reactive protein (CRP); were several-fold more likely to meet other criteria for diagnosis of metabolic syndrome; had lower HDL cholesterols; and had higher blood pressure. Women with normal-weight obesity were four-fold more likely to have coronary disease.

While preliminary, this suggests that a substantial number of people with apparently favorable body weights and BMIs are, in actuality, overweight when judged by metabolic parameters. This then probably leads to increased risk for heart disease. We can then fairly readily extrapolate the argument that a reduction in weight to even lower BMIs likely reduces or corrects these patterns.

This argument is similar to that proposed by several others, arguing that BMI is a flawed measure, since it does not incorporate muscle mass or skeletal factors ("big- or small-boned"). Instead, they have argued that waist circumference is preferable.

The normal-weight obesity syndrome was originally identified by Dr. Antonio de Lorenzo and colleagues at the University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy, and reported in Normal weight obese (NWO) women: an evaluation of a candidate new syndrome. Their studies of women with this "syndrome" have suggested that heightened measures of inflammation are present despite apparently normal body weight and BMIs. One such report, Normal-weight obese syndrome: early inflammation?, is available in full-text.

Is there a lesson to be learned for the Track Your Plaque program? I believe there is. I believe it means that, if you have any weight-sensitive parameter, such as low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, high CRP, high blood sugar, high blood pressure, etc., then further weight loss might be considered, even if BMI is around 25. Obviously, there is a rational limit to how far you can push this concept. (Anorexia is not good for you either.)

I find this a useful concept. It provides yet another potential strategy to pursue when the above patterns are encountered. Perhaps it's also a way to cap reliance on niacin, whose effects closely mimic that of weight loss.

Now that's a lot more preferable to more and more statin drug, isn't it?

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Readers of the Heart Scan Blog know that, while I recognize that statins are useful in a small segment of the population with genetically-determined disorders, they are wildly overused, misused, and abused. In my view, the majority of people taking statins have no business doing so and could, in fact, obtain superior results by following some of the strategies advocated in these pages.

Nonetheless, the 30-year long statin experience has taught us some important lessons. Statin drugs have enjoyed more "research" than any other class of drugs ever conceived. They have received more media attention and embraced by more physicians than any other class of drugs. Combine these social phenomena and I believe that several lessons can be learned:

Small LDL particles are triggered by consumption of carbohydrates. Eat more "healthy whole grains," for instance, and small LDL particles skyrocket.

Increased hemoglobin A1c, HbA1c, a reflection of the last 60-90 days' blood sugars, is likewise a reflection of carbohydrate consumption. The greater the carbohydrate consumption and/or carbohydrate intolerance, the greater the HbA1c. Most regard a HbA1c of 6.5% or greater diabetes; values of 5.7-6.4% pre-diabetes. However, note that any value of 5.0% or more signifies that the process of glycation is occurring at a faster than normal rate. Recall that endogenous glycation, i.e., glucose modification of proteins, ensues whenever blood sugars increase over the normal range of 90 mg/dl (equivalent to HbA1c of 4.7-5.0%). Glycation is the fundamental process that leads to cataracts, arthritis, and atherosclerosis.

Put the two together--increased quantity of small LDL particles along with HbA1c of 5.0% or higher--and you have a powerful formula for heart disease and coronary plaque growth. This is because small LDL particles are not just smaller; they also have a unique conformation that exposes a (lysine residue-bearing) portion of the apoprotein B molecule contained within that makes small LDL particles uniquely glycation-prone. Compared to large LDL particles, small LDL particles are 8-fold more prone to glycation.

So glycated small LDL particles are present when HbA1c is increased above 5.0%. Small, glycated LDL particles are poorly recognized by the liver receptor that ordinarily picks up and disposes LDL particles, unlike large LDL particles, meaning small LDL particles "live" much longer in the bloodstream, providing more opportunityt to do its evil handiwork. Curiously, small LDL particles are avidly taken up by inflammatory white blood cells that can live in the walls of arteries, where they are oxidized--"glycoxidized"--and add to coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

The key is therefore to tackle both small LDL particles and HbA1c.

Small LDL particles are triggered by carbohydrates in the diet: Eat carbohydrates, small LDL particles go up. Cut carbohydrates, small LDL particles go down.

A typical scenario would be someone starts with, say, 2000 nmol/L small LDL (by NMR) because they've been drinking the national Kool Aid of eating more "healthy whole grains" and consuming somewhere around 200 grams carbohydrates per day, including the destructive amylopectin A of wheat. This person slashes wheat followed by limiting other carbohydrates and takes in, say, 40-50 grams per day. Small LDL: 200 nmol/L.

In other words, reducing carbohydrate exposure slashes the expression of small LDL particles, since carbohydrate deprivation disables the liver process of de novo lipogenesis that forms triglycerides. Abnormal or exaggerated postprandial (after-eating) lipoproteins that are packed with triglycerides are also reduced. Because triglycerides provide the first lipoprotein "domino" that cascades into the formation of small LDL particles, carbohydrate reduction results in marked reduction in small LDL particle formation.

So let's say you are doing great and you've slashed carbohydrates. Small LDL particles are now down to zero--no small LDL whatsoever. What LDL particles you have are the more benign large variety, say, 1200 nmol/L (LDL particle number), all large, none small. You are due for some more blood work on Thursday. On Tuesday, however, you have four crackers because, what the heck, you've been doing great, you've lost 43 pounds, and have been enjoying dramatic correction of your lipoprotein abnormalities.

Your next lipoprotein panel: LDL particle number 1800 nmol/L, small LDL 700 nmo/L--substantially worse, with a major uptick in small LDL.

That's how sensitive small LDL particles can be to carbohydrate intake. And the small LDL particles can last for up to several days, since small LDL particles are not just smaller in size, they also differ in conformation, making them unrecognizable by the normal liver receptor. The small LDL particles triggered by the 4 crackers therefore linger, outlasting the normal-conformation large LDL particles that are readily cleared by the liver.

This phenomenon is responsible for great confusion when following lipoprotein panels, since a 98% perfect diet can yield dismaying results just from a minor indulgence. But, buried in this simple observation is the notion that small LDL particles are also extremely unforgiving, being triggered by the smallest carbohydrate indulgence, lasting longer and wreaking their atherosclerotic plaque havoc.

Elimination of wheat is a wonderfully effective way to lose weight. Because saying goodbye to wheat means removing the gliadin protein of wheat, the protein degraded to brain-active exorphins that stimulate appetite, calorie consumption is reduced, on average, 400 calories per day. It also means eliminating this source of high blood sugar and high blood insulin and the 90-minutes cycles of highs and lows that cause a cyclic need to eat more at the inevitable low. It means that the high blood sugar and insulin phenomena that trigger accumulation of visceral fat are now turned off. It may possibly also mean that wheat lectins no longer block the leptin receptor, undoing leptin resistance and allowing weight loss to proceed. And weight loss usually results effortlessly and rapidly.

But not always. Why? Why are there people who, even after eliminating this appetite-stimulating, insulin-triggering, leptin-blocking food, still cannot lose weight? Or stall after an initial few pounds?

There are a list of reasons, but here are the biggies:

1) Too many carbohydrates--What if I eliminate wheat but replace those calories with gluten-free breads, muffins, and cookies? Then I've switched one glucose-insulin triggering food for another. This is among the reasons I condemn gluten-free foods made with rice starch, cornstarch, tapioca starch, and potato starch. Or perhaps there's too many potatoes, rices, and oats in your diet. While not as harmful as wheat, they still provoke phenomena that cause weight loss to stall. So cutting carbohydrates may become necessary, e.g., no more than 12-14 grams per meal.

2) Fructose--Fructose has become ubiquitous and has even assumed some healthy-appearing forms. "Organic agave nectar" is, by far, the worst, followed by maple syrup, honey, high-fructose corn syrup, sucrose,and fruit--yes, in that order. They are all sources of fructose that causes insulin resistance, visceral fat accumulation or persistency, prolongation of clearing postprandial (after-meal) lipoproteins that antagonize insulin, and glycation. Lose the fructose sources--as much of it as possible. (Fruit should be eaten in very small portions.) Watch for stealth sources like low-fat salad dressings--you shouldn't be limiting your fat anyway!

3) Thyroid dysfunction--A real biggie. Number one cause to consider for thyroid dysfunction: iodine deficiency. Yes, it's coming back in all its glory, just like the early 20th century before iodized salt made it to market shelves. Now, people are cutting back on iodized salt. Guess what's coming back? Iodine deficiency and even goiters. Yes, goiters, the disfiguring growths on the neck that you thought you'd only see in National Geographic pictures of malnourished native Africans. Number two: Exposure to factors that block the thyroid. This may include wheat, but certainly includes perchlorate residues (synthetic fertilizer residues) on produce, pesticides, herbicides, polyfluorooctanoic acid residues from non-stick cookware, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (flame retardants), and on and on. If you are iodine-deficient, it can even include goitrogenic iodine-blocking foods like broccoli, cauliflower, and soy. Thyroid status therefore needs to be assessed.

4) Cortisol--Not so much excess cortisol as disruptions of circadian rhythm. Cortisol should surge in the morning, part of the process to arouse you from sleep, then decline to lower levels in the evening to allow normal recuperative sleep. But this natural circadian cycling is lost in many people represented, for instance, as a flip-flopping of the pattern with low levels in the morning (with morning fatigue) and high levels at bedtime (with insomnia), which can result in stalled weight loss or weight gain. Cortisol status therefore needs to be assessed, best accomplished with salivary cortisol assessment.

5) Leptin resistance--People who are overweight develop an inappropriate resistance to the hormone, leptin, which can present difficulty in losing weight. This can be a substantial issue and is not always easy to overcome. It might mean assessing leptin levels or it might mean taking some steps to overcome leptin resistance.

Okay, that's a lot. Next: More on how to know when thyroid dysfunction is to blame.

Consumers of wheat take in, on average, 400 calories more per day. Conversely, people who eliminate wheat consume, on average, 400 calories less per day.

400 calories per day multiplied by 365 days per day equals 146,000 additional calories over the course of one year. 146,000 calories over a year equals 41.7 pounds gained per year. Over a decade, that's 417 pounds. Of course, few people actually gain this much weight over 10 years.

But this is the battle most people who follow conventional advice to "cut your fat and eat more healthy whole grains" are fighting, the constant struggle to subdue the appetite-increasing effects of the gliadin protein of wheat, pushing your appetite buttons to consume more . . . and more, and more, fighting to minimize the impact.

So, if you eat "healthy whole grains" and gain "only" 10 pounds this year, that's an incredible success, since it means that you have avoided gaining the additional 31.7 pounds that could have accumulated. It might mean having to skip meals despite your cravings, or exercising longer and harder, or sticking your finger down your throat.

400 additional calories per day times 365 days per year times 300,000,000 people in the U.S. alone . . . that's a lot of dough. Is this entire scenario an accident?

Or, of course, you could avoid the entire situation and kiss wheat goodbye . . . and lose 20, 30, or 130 pounds this year.

A biting commentary on just who is writing treatment guidelines for diabetes and cardiovascular disease was published in the British Medical Journal, summarized in theHeart.org's HeartWire here.

"About half the experts serving on the committees that wrote national clinical guidelines for diabetes and hyperlipidemia over the past decade had potential financial conflicts of interest (COI), and about 4% had conflicts that were not disclosed.

"Five of the guidelines did not include a declaration of the panel members' conflicts of interest, but 138 of the 288 panel members (48%) reported conflicts of interest at the time of the publication of the guideline. Eight reported more than one conflict. Of those who declared conflicts, 93% reported receiving honoraria, speaker's fees, and/or other kinds of payments or stock ownership from drug manufacturers with an interest in diabetes or hyperlipidemia, and 7% reported receiving only research funding. Six panelists who declared conflicts were chairs of their committee.

"Of the 73 panelists who had a chance to declare a conflict of interest but declared none, eight had undeclared COI that the researchers identified by searching other sources. Among the 77 panel members who did not have an opportunity to publicly declare COI in the guidelines documents, four were found to have COI."

The closing quote by Dr. Edwin Gale of the UK is priceless:
"Legislation will not change the situation, for the smart money is always one step ahead. What is needed is a change of culture in which serving two masters becomes as socially unacceptable as smoking a cigarette. Until then, the drug industry will continue to model its behavior on that of its consumers, and we will continue to get the drug industry we deserve."

It's like having Kellogg's tell us what to each for breakfast, or Toyota telling us what car to drive. The sway of the drug industry is huge. Even to this day, I observe colleagues kowtow to the sexy sales rep hawking her wares. But that's the least of it. Far worse, even the "experts" who we had trusted to have objectively reviewed the evidence to help the practitioner on Main Street appears to be little more than a hired lackey for Big Pharma, hoping for that extra few hundred thousand dollars.

"Many Canadians plan warm buns, stuffing and pie for their Thanksgiving meals tonight. But I'll speak with a cardiologist who thinks we have no reason to be thankful for any food that contains wheat. William Davis says our daily bread is making us fat and sick."

That's the introduction to my recent interview and debate on CBC, the Canadian public radio system, aired on the Canadian Thanksgiving. Arguing the other side was Dr. Susan Whiting, an academic nutritionist. (I use the word "arguing" loosely, since she hardly argued the issues, certainly hadn't read the book, but was content to echo the conventional line that whole grains are healthy and cutting out a food group is unhealthy.)

I do have to give credit to the Canadian media, including the CBC, who have been hosting some rough-and-tumble discussions about the entire wheat question despite Canada being a world exporter of wheat. I recently participated in another debate with a PhD nutrition expert from Montreal who, in response to my assertion that the genetically-altered high-yield, semi-dwarf strains have changed the basic composition of wheat, argued that the creation of the 2-foot tall semi-dwarf strain was a convenience created so that farmers could see above their fields--no kidding. I stifled my laugh. (The semi-dwarf variants were actually created to compensate for the heavy seed head that develops with vigorous nitrate fertilization that buckles 4 1/2-foot tall wheat stalk, making harvesting and threshing impossible, a process farmers call "lodging." The 2-foot tall semi-dwarf thick, stocky stalk is strong enough to resist lodging.)

In short, debating the nutrition "experts" on this question has been tantamount to arguing with a school age child on the finer points of quantum physics. There has not yet been any real objection raised on the basic arguments against modern genetically-altered wheat. Modern semi-dwarf wheat is, and remains, an incredibly bad creation of the genetics laboratories of the 1970s. It has no business on the shelves of your grocery store nor on the cupboards in your home.

This is among my favorite recipes from the Wheat Belly book. I reproduce it here for those of you who read the Kindle or audio version and therefore didn't get the recipes.

I made this most recently this past weekend. It was gone very quickly, as even the 13-year old gobbled it up.

(I reduced the sour cream in this version from 8 to 6 oz to reduce cooking time. Also, note that anyone trying to avoid dairy can substitute more coconut milk, i.e., the thicker variety, in equivalent quantities.)

Makes 8-10 servings

Ingredients:
Cake:
2 cups carrots, finely grated
1 cup chopped pecans
1 cup coconut flour
1 tablespoon ground flaxseed
2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
1 teaspoon allspice
1 teaspoon nutmeg
1 teaspoon baking powder
2 tablespoons freshly grated orange peel
Sweetener equivalent to ½ cup sugar (e.g., 4 tablespoons Truvia)
½ teaspoon sea salt
4 eggs
1/2 cup butter or coconut oil, melted
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
½ cup coconut milk
6 ounces sour cream

Icing:
8 ounces cream cheese or Neufchâtel cheese, softened
1 teaspoon lemon juice
1 tablespoon Truvía or 1/8 teaspoon stevia extract powder or ¼ cup Splenda

Preheat oven to 325° degrees F. Grate carrots and set aside.

Combine coconut flour, flaxseed, cinnamon, nutmeg, baking powder, orange peel, sweetener, and salt in large bowl and mix by hand.

Put eggs, butter or coconut oil, vanilla coconut milk, and sour cream in mixing bowl; mix by hand. Pour liquid mixture into dry pecan/coconut flour mixture and blend with power mixer until thoroughly mixed. Stir carrots and pecans in by hand with spoon. Pour mixture into greased 9- or 10-inch square cake pan.

Bake for 60 minutes or until toothpick withdraws dry. Allow to cool 30 minutes.

Place Neufchâtel cheese in bowl. Add lemon juice and sweetener and mix thoroughly. Spread on cake.

How is it that a blueberry muffin or onion bagel can trigger weight gain? Why do people who exercise, soccer Moms, and other everyday people who cut their fat and eat more "healthy whole grains" get fatter and fatter? And why weight gain specifically in the abdomen, the deep visceral fat that I call a "wheat belly"?

There are several fairly straightforward ways that wheat in all its varied forms--whole wheat bread, white bread, multigrain bread, sprouted bread, sourdough bread, pasta, noodles, bagels, ciabatta, pizza, etc. etc.--lead to substantial weight gain:

High glucose and high insulin--This effect is not unique to wheat, but shared with other high-glycemic index foods (yes: whole wheat has a very high-glycemic index) like cornstarch and rice starch (yes, the stuff used to make gluten-free foods). The high-glycemic index means high blood glucose triggers high blood insulin. This occurs in 90- to 120-minute cycles. The high insulin that inevitably accompanies high blood sugar, over time and occurring repeatedly, induces insulin resistance in the tissues of the body. Insulin resistance causes fat accumulation, specifically in abdominal visceral fat, as well as diabetes and pre-diabetes. The more visceral fat you accumulate, the worse insulin resistance becomes; thus the vicious cycle ensues.

Cycles of satiety and hunger--The 90- to 120-minute glucose/insulin cycle is concluded with a precipitous drop in blood sugar. This is the foggy, irritable, hungry hypoglycemia that occurs 2 hours after your breakfast cereal or English muffin. The hypoglyemia is remedied with another dose of carbohydrate, starting the cycle over again . . . and again, and again, and again.

Gliadin proteins--The gliadin proteins unique to wheat, now increased in quantity and altered in amino acid structure from their non-genetically-altered predecessors, act as appetite stimulants. This is because gliadins are degraded to exorphins, morphine-like polypeptides that enter the brain. Exorphins can be blocked by opiate-blocking drugs like naltrexone. A drug company has filed an application with the FDA for a weight loss indication for naltrexone based on their clinical studies demonstrating 22 pounds weight loss after 6 months treatment. Overweight people given an opiate blocker reduce calorie intake 400 calories per day. But why? There's only one food that yields substantial quantities of opiate-like compounds in the bloodstream and brain: wheat gliadin.

Leptin resistance--Though the data are preliminary, the lectin in wheat, wheat germ agglutinin, has the potential to block the leptin receptor. Leptin resistance is increasingly looking like a fundamental reason why people struggle to lose weight. This might explain why eliminating, say, 500 calories of wheat consumption per day yields 3500 calories of weight loss.

And, as in many things wheat, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Despite all we know about this re-engineered thing called wheat, eliminating it yields health benefits, including weight loss, that seem to be larger than what you'd predict with knowledge of all its nasty little individual pieces.

This is an example of what seems to be developing over at Amazon.com, posted as a "book review":

The author has no credentials, no credibility, just a small cult of terribly misinformed followers. Don't be fooled by the high volume screech against wheat and grains. Allegations of "secret ingredients in wheat" to make you eat more, or comparisons to cigerettes. Seriously?! For over 8000 years wheat has sustained and grown human kind, oh and it tastes good when mixed with a little water and yeast. Every nutritionist and serious medical professional will tell you that bread is the most economical and safe source of essential nutrients. In fact, bread is handed out in natural disasters because it sustains life without food safety issues or requiring refrigeration. And now, suddenly it will kill you. Comical! This book is such a bone headed, misinformed way to just scare people into not eating.

As for secret ingredients, humm, apparently the author is ignorant of the food laws that regulate everything that goes into food and on food labels. Unlike some enforcement agencies, the FDA has some serious teeth behind its enforcement. As for frankenwheat, again seriously?! Wheat, due to its ubiquitous presence in the world is treated as sacrosant from any GMO research or development.

If you need real, science based information on healthy eating, check out [...] and leave this book and its cult in the compound.

If you recognize the wording and tone, you will readily recognize the footprints of the Wheat Lobby here. "Terribly misinformed followers"? . . . Hmmm. "Food laws"? I didn't realize that eating more "healthy whole grains" was a . . . law?

Make no mistake: There are people and organizations who have a heavy stake in your continued consumption of the equivalent of 300 loaves of bread per year. There are people and organizations (read: pharmaceutical industry) who have a big stake on the "payoff" of your continued consumption of "healthy whole grains."

This is not a book review; this is part of a concerted, organized campaign to discredit a message that needs to be heard.

Anybody from the media listening?

Just to keep my finger on the pulse of what is being said in the world of heart disease by the media, I subscribe to many publications.

Conversations abound about cholesterol, low-fat diets, now low-carb diets, not smoking, inflammation, etc. No doubt, these all have some importance in the conversation.

But the great majority of discussions fail to identify the one truly crucial factor to identify and track: coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

A tan does not equal vitamin D

Confessions of a former drug company patsy

Planned obsolence

Melatonin for high blood pressure?

The forces that shape heatlh care

Lipoprotein(a): Surprising Poll Results

Are endogenous nutritional supplements better?

Vitamin D Newsletter reprinted

Biggest bang for your nutritional buck

Can skinny be fat?

Lessons from the 20-year statin experience

Small LDL particles and increased HbA1c--An evil duo

Unforgiving small LDL particles

I eliminated wheat . . . and I didn't lose weight!

Do the math: 41.7 pounds per year

We got the drug industry we deserve

Wheat "debate" on CBC

Carrot Cake

Why wheat makes you fat

Just who is "Real Facts 2000"?

It's all about plaque

Add comment

Related posts

Add comment