Apo E4 and sterols: Lethal combination?

11. February 2011 William Davis (24)
Phytosterols, or just "sterols" to its friends and neighbors, are a group of cholesterol-like compounds that are abundant in the plant world. Lately, however, sterols have proliferated in the processed food supply, thanks to the observation that sterols reduce LDL cholesterol when ingested by humans.

This must mean that sterols are good for you.

Uh oh. Wait a minute: There is a rare disease called sitosterolemia in which there is unimpeded intestinal absorption of all sterols ingested through diet. They must have really low LDL cholesterols! Nope. They develop coronary disease--heart attacks, angina, etc.--in their late teens and 20s. In other words, if sterols gain access to your bloodstream, they are bad. Very bad.

Conventional thinking is that only a modest quantity of dietary sterols gain access to the bloodstream. But there are two potentially fatal flaws in this overly simplistic line of thinking:

1) What happens when you load up your diet with "heart healthy" sterols, such as those in "heart healthy" margarines, mayonnaise, and yogurt, effectively increasing sterol intake 10-fold?

2) What happens in people with the genetic pattern, apo E4, that is carried by 25% of the general population that permits much greater intestinal absorption of sterols?

My prediction: Despite the fact that sterols reduce LDL, they may, in certain genetically-susceptible people, such as those with apo E4, increase risk for heart disease: heart unhealthy.

Here are two studies that suggest that greater sterol absorption in people without sitosterolemia are at higher risk for heart disease:

Alterations in cholesterol absorption/synthesis markers characterize Framingham offspring study participants with CHD

Plasma sitosterol elevations are associated with an increased incidence of coronary events in men: results of a nested case-control analysis of the Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study

Glucomania

8. February 2011 William Davis (52)
As I suggested in a previous Heart Scan Blog post, a glucose meter is your best tool to:

1) Lose weight
2) Cure diabetes
3) Reduce or eliminate small LDL particles
4) Achieve anti-aging or age-slowing effects

But it means getting hold of a glucose meter and applying it in a very different way.

Diabetics typically check fasting morning glucose and again several times during the day to assess medication effects. But you and I can measure blood glucose to assess the immediate effects of food choices--two very different approaches.

The concept is simple: Check a blood glucose just prior to a food or meal of interest, then one hour after finishing.

Let's take two hypothetical breakfasts. First, oatmeal, a so-called "low-glycemic index" food. Slow-cooked, stone ground oatmeal with skim milk, a handful of walnuts, just a few blueberries.

Blood glucose just prior: 95 mg/dl
Blood glucose one hour after finish: 175 mg/dl

I made those numbers up, but this is a fairly typical response for many adults. (This is why "low-glycemic index" is an absurd notion.) This kind of response causes 1) glycation, the adverse effects of glucose modification of proteins that leads to cataracts, kidney disease, cartilage damage and arthritis, atherosclerosis, skin wrinkles, etc., 2) high insulin response that cascades into fat deposition, especially visceral fat ("wheat belly"), and 3) glucotoxicity, i.e., direct damage to the pancreas that can, over years, lead to diabetes.

Next day, let's try a breakfast of 3-egg omelet made with green peppers, sundried tomatoes, and olive oil.

Blood glucose just prior: 95 mg/dl
Blood glucose one hour after finish: 93 mg/dl

This is a meal of virtually zero-glycemic index. This kind of response triggers none of the effects experienced following the oatmeal. Repeated over time and you fail to trigger glycation, you stop provoking insulin, and visceral fat mobilizes rather than accumulates: you lose weight, particularly around the middle.

We therefore aim to keep the one-hour blood glucose 100 mg/dl or less. If you start with a high fasting blood glucose of, say, 118 mg/dl, then we aim to keep the one-hour after-eating blood glucose no higher than the pre-meal.

It works. Plain and simple.

This makes the primary care docs crazy: "How dare you check your blood sugar! You're not diabetic." In truth, blood glucose meters are relatively simple devices to use. The test strips and lancets will cost a few bucks. (The meters themselves are either low-cost or free, just like Gillette sometimes sends you a beautiful new razor for free but expects you to buy the blades). These are direct-to-consumer products. While a prescription written by your doctor for a glucose meter and supplies helps insurance cover the costs, you can easily get these devices without a prescription. Some stores, like Target, keep their devices out on the shelves with the shampoo and bath soap.

Warning: Anyone taking diabetes drugs will have to consult with their doctors about the safety of such an approach. Because this approach can actually cure diabetes in some people, if you are taking some diabetes drugs, especially glyburide, glipidize, and glimepiride, you can experience dangerously low blood sugars, just as any non-diabetic taking these drugs would.

Diarrhea, runny noses, and rage: Poll results

6. February 2011 William Davis (19)
Here are the results of the week-long poll asking the question:

Have you experienced a wheat re-exposure syndrome?
Yes, undesirable gastrointestinal effects 223 (41%)
Yes, asthma or sinus problems 51 (9%)

Yes, joint pains and/or swelling 85 (15%)

Yes, emotional or other nervous system effects 59 (10%)
No, nothing, nada  107 (19%)

No. Wheat is sacred and you're all nuts  13 (2%)


There are several interesting observations to make from this informal poll. First, as I have observed, the most common wheat re-exposure syndrome is gastrointestinal, usually involving cramps, diarrhea, and lame explanations to your dinner partner.

Second most common: joint pains and/or swelling.

Third: asthma or sinus congestion.

The incidence of emotional or nervous system effects surprised me a bit. I didn't expect 10% of people to share this effect. This is an effect I also experience personally, along with the gastrointestinal consequences.

To be sure, this is a skewed poll, since many people likely come to this blog in the first place because of such issues. But I was nonetheless impressed with the relatively modest proportion of people who did not share such a re-exposure syndrome: only 19%.

Beyond the interesting numbers provided by readers, a good many also provided some fascinating and graphic comments. Here's a sample:




Sassy said:

Reflux -- starts a day later and goes for up to a week. And Bloat:2-5 inches on my waistline in a day, lasting up to three. Miserable. And why, having experienced this once, have I done it often enough to verify the connection with certainty? I am working on that one.
Anonymous said:
Wheat increased hunger with even with only a small amount. Crackers in soup was enough to set it off.

Also, when I was trying to get off wheat, I noticed that 2 eggs and 2 bacon and I could go 5 hours before hunger, or 2 eggs and 2 bacon and toast was good for three hours before hunger. That was the final step to giving up wheat. Now three years and 59 Kg [130 lbs!] loss later, there is no doubt in my mind that wheat is evil, and I do not regard it as suitable for human food. I speculate that it increases ghrelin or cortisol.

Anna said:
For me, in the two years since I began eating Gluten-Free (Low Carb for 6 years), the few times I've had re-exposure to wheat, I've experienced fast onset and intense abdominal pain (known exposure during the daytime) and heartburn, indigestion, intense nausea, and disrupted sleep (exposures during evening meal not discovered until the next day).

My husband wants to think he's fine with wheat (though I know that he has at least one gene that predisposes to celiac), but IMO, he isn't. He eats no wheat at home because that's the default, and he's OK with that. But if he goes out to dinner at a restaurant that serves "good" artisan bread, he will indulge in a few bites (he does restrict his carb intake, so it's still a limited amount). More often than not, he will sleep fitfully on those nights, snore more, and wake in the night with indigestion. He wants to bury his head in the sand and will only acknowledge the discomfort being due to eating too many carbs, not the wheat itself. I notice he sleeps fine if he eats a small amount of potato or rice. Go figure.

Our 12 yo son has been eating GF for two years also. About 6 months into GF, he unknowingly ate wheat a number of times (licorice candy laces at a friend's house), which resulted in outbreaks of canker sores in his mouth each time. He also exhibits mood and behavior changes when he eats wheat, which is what prompted me to test him for gluten intolerance in the first place.

Mark said:
If I go for 3-4 days without wheat, grains or sugar and then go out and binge on a pizza and ice cream or something like that I become explosive within 20 minutes to an hour. It's like a wheat and sugar rage.(I'm not saying this is an excuse for rage, I'm saying it has happened to me and I believe partly do to re-exposure) It seems the combination of the wheat plus sugar can be the worst.

I get red rashes around my neck sometimes right away and sometimes up to a day or later and sometimes get bad diarrhea. 
I think it can be almost dangerous to cut things like gluten and sugar suddenly out of the diet without being very serious about keeping them out. I have found it very hard to cut out wheat without binging on it later after 4 or 5 days. I don't believe that my symptoms are just psychological either.
I was also diagnosed with ADHD as a young kid and then rediagnosed with adult ADHD by 3 different doctors. I also have bouts of mania at times too. I am considering trying to go completely gluten/refined carbohydrate free to see if it helps with the symptoms and gives me some relief.

I have never been tested for celiac or gluten intolerance but I would like to be. I think it would help explain to my girlfriend, family and friends why I can't go out and eat pizza or have a beer or ice cream. Right now they all think I'm a hypochondriac. At times I have experienced an intense fatigue the next day like I can't wake up and also sharp pains in my body and headaches.
Anonymous said:
I ditched wheat a year ago after my wife was diagnosed celiac. I immediately experienced a number of health improvements (blood lipids, sleep, allergies, etc.).

Fast forward: We all suffered some inadvertent wheat exposure yesterday via some chocolate covered Brazil nuts (of all things). This accidental A-B-A experimental design resulted in the following:

1. My celiac wife experienced what she calls "the flip" within an hour of exposure (i.e., intense GI distress).
2. My five-year old son went to bed with some wicked reflux.
3. I woke up with some twinges in my lower back and an ache in my football-weary left shoulder. I was also complaining to my wife about fuzzy-headedness that refused to respond to caffeine or hydration. I could only describe it as "carb flu"...

And then I read your post!

Anne said:
Depression, agitation and brain fog if I get glutened. Some times this comes with abdominal pain and a rash on my back - I think it is dose dependent. Cross contamination with wheat is a big issue when eating out. Needless to say, I eat out infrequently and then try to stick with the restaurants that are the most aware of gluten issues.
Terrence said:
Several weeks ago, I started Robb Wolf's 30 day challenge.

The first two weeks were brutal - calling it a withdrawal flu was a massive understatement. So, I thought I would try some wheat and see what happened (could not be worse, I thought). Well, it was.

I still felt extremely crappy, but I was now MASSIVELY GASSY - AMAZINGLY GASSY, for about 48 hours - flatulence on wheels, in spades. I did not go out at all in those 48 hours - when the gas came on, it went out, LONG, and QUICKLY and LOUDLY.

I am easing back into wheat and grain free. I am gluten free today and tomorrow (Sunday and Monday). I expect to try a small amount of wheat on Thursday, then maybe a little more the following Thursday.

Donald said:
I have limited wheat consumption severely over the last 8 months. I have lost 120 pounds, no longer have bouts of illness, asthma, depression, or low energy. I also take vitamin D and other supplements that have helped (many are from your blog recommendations).

Last week I ate a small piece of cake and dessert pizza. Shortly thereafter I started sneezing, had a scratchy throat, and runny nose. I called off sick the next day for fear of being contagious. My symptoms subsided quickly and I am now attributing them to the processed flour eaten at my work luncheon. I think it was an allergic reaction since I recall having much more severe symptoms fairly regularly in my wheat eating days. Those were attributed to an "allergy" of unknown origin back then.

John said:
I suffered from Ankylosing Spondylitis, Iritis, Plantar Fasciits, etc for a number of years. I restricted carbs, especially wheat and I've been symptom free for the past two years now.
Lori said:
I found wheat to be one of the worst things for giving me gas bloating and acid reflux, and I'd had sinus and nasal congestion my whole life. When I ate that cookie, it just re-introduced old problems. I can occasionally eat a gluten-free, grainy goody at my party place without any side effects. I also have a little sprouted rice protein powder every day.

Another odd thing about wheat: it was hard for me to stop eating it once I started. I could go through a whole box of cookies in one sitting, even though I wasn't a binge eater. But I can have a couple of gluten-free cookies and stop.

Paul said:
Except for one slip up this recently past holiday season, I've been sugar-grain-starch free since July 2008. Mental fog was the most noticable re-exposure symptom I had.

My mom has had the worst acid-reflux for 40-plus years. It had become so bad that she was on three medications just to deal with the symptoms. After much training and coaxing, I finally got across to her  how to totally get off wheat. Not at all to my surprise, after being wheat free for a few weeks, she lost weight and her acid reflux was GONE!

But she had been addicted to wheat for so long, she relapsed, and the reflux fire soon returned. Wheat must be akin to heroin with some people. Even though they know it's very bad for them, they can't help themselves.

Onschedule said:
Re-exposure often leads to diarrhea for me, or such a heavy feeling of tiredness that all I can do is lay down and pass out. A local pizzeria makes a darn good pie, but since I started practicing wheat-avoidance, I can't keep my eyes open after eating there. I can't say for sure that it's the wheat causing it, but definitely something in the crust. Diarrhea, on the other hand, is definitely triggered by the wheat for me.

My mom complained of gastric reflux for years, but never filled the prescriptions that her doctors would give her. I suggested wheat-avoidance- gastric reflux disappeared within 3 days and hasn't returned (has been 6 months now). I've already commented elsewhere on this blog about how much weight and bloating she has lost...

Steve said:
Interesting that I should sit down, turn on my computer and find your poll. Having gone several weeks, maybe months, avoiding gluten, I took my daughter and her boyfriend out to eat because my wife has been working late at the office lately. Although I was thinking I would just eat my steak and chicken, I succumbed to the temptation of eating about a dozen greasy, breaded shrimp that my daughter and her boyfriend ordered. It's 1:39am and I still do not feel sleepy. My left nostril is completely blocked, my stomach feels bloated, really, really full and I've been burping. In your poll I checked sinus problems but could have chose gastrointestinal or nervous problems just as well. 
A few weeks ago my daughter brought home a pizza and, once again, despite my knowing that I shouldn't, I ate a couple of pieces. I was sick for two days. The pain in what I think was my transverse colon was so bad I thought I might have to go to ther emergency room. Before I ate the pizza I had never gone grain-free that long before. I did this after reading Robb Wolf's book. 
I AM CONVINCED. No more wheat for me! Please, Lord, give me strength.
LV said:
What don't I experience! I typically avoid wheat (and gluten for that matter) as I'm pretty sure it makes me sick, but when I slip (or someone else slips me some) I end up with massive amounts of joint swelling and tenderness, diarhea, cramping, gas, bloating and brain fog. I'm absolutely miserable. Just that alone is enough to keep me off gluten. I have RA, so if I have repeated exposures I'll have a flare which SUCKS!

The perfect Frankengrain

4. February 2011 William Davis (25)
Pretend I'm a mad food scientist. I'd like to create a food that:

1) Wreaks gastrointestinal havoc and cause intractable diarrhea, cramps, and anemia.
2) Kills some people who consume it after a long, painful course of illness.
3) Damages the brain and nervous system such that some people wet their pants, lose balance, and lose the ability to feel their feet and legs.
4) Brings out the mania of bipolar illness.
5) Amplifies auditory hallucinations in people with paranoid schizophrenia.
6) Makes people diabetic by increasing blood sugars.
7) Worsens arthritis, such as osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.
8) Triggers addictive eating behavior.
9) Punishes you with a withdrawal process if you try to remove it from your diet.

I will develop a strain that is exceptionally hardy and tolerates diverse conditions so that it can grow in just about any climate. It should also be an exceptionally high yield crop, so that I can sell it cheaply to the masses.

Now, if my evil scheme goes as planned, I will then persuade the USDA that not only is my food harmless, but it is good for health. If they really take the bait, they might even endorse it, create a diet program around it.

Dag nabit! Such a plan has already been implemented. Another evil food scientist already beat me to the punch. The food is called wheat.

Diabetes: A study in aging

3. February 2011 William Davis (0)
Diabetics experience long-term health difficulties, including atherosclerosis/heart attacks, peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, cataracts, kidney disease, neuropathies, male erectile dysfunction, osteoarthritis, and colorectal cancer. They also die, on average, 10 years earlier than non-diabetics.

In effect, diabetics compress their lives into a shorter period of time. They experience all the "complications" of aging at a younger age. People without diabetes, of course, can develop atherosclerosis, cataracts, kidney disease, etc., but they tend to do so later in life compared to diabetics.

One index of the rate of aging (but not chronologic age itself) is hemoglobin A1c, or HbA1c, a "moving average" of glycated hemoglobin, i.e., glucose-modified hemoglobin. Blood glucose glycates hemoglobin linearly and irreversibly; measuring HbA1c thereby provides an index of the last 60 or so days average blood glucose.

To put HbA1c values into perspective:

Average HbA1c of hunter-gatherers: 4.5%
Average HbA1c for Americans: 5.6%
American Diabetes Association definition of diabetes: 6.5% or greater
American Diabetes Association definition of adequate control of diabetes: 7.0% or less

Why do diabetics age faster? There are likely several reasons. One important reason is glycation, as indexed by HbA1c. Glycated proteins in the lens of the eye causes cataracts. Glycated proteins in cartilage leads to arthritis. Glycated LDL particles (apo B) leads to atherosclerosis. Glycated nerve cells causes neuropathy. And so on.

If glycation underlies many of the phenomena of aging, then we might surmise that:

1) The less you glycate, the slower you age.
2) The more you glycate, the faster you age.

Therefore, the higher the HbA1c, the faster you are aging.

What foods increase HbA1c? Carbohydrates. That bowl of slow-cooked, stone ground oatmeal? A one-hour after-eating blood sugar of 170 mg/dl is common. Your doctor says that's okay because it's below 200 mg/dl and you don't "need" medication yet.

Fish oil: The natural triglyceride form is better

2. February 2011 William Davis (43)
If you have a choice, the triglyceride form of fish oil is preferable. The triglyceride form, i.e., 3 omega-3 fatty acids on a glycerol "backbone," is the form found in the body of fish that protects them from cold temperatures (i.e., they remain liquid at low ambient temperatures).

Most fish oils on the market are the ethyl ester form. This means that the omega-3 fatty acids have been removed from the glycerol backbone; the fatty acids are then reacted with ethanol to form the ethyl ester.

If the form is not specified on your fish oil bottle, it is likely ethyl ester, since the triglyceride form is more costly to process and most manufacturers therefore boast about it. Also, prescription Lovaza--nearly 20 times more costly than the most expensive fish oil triglyceride liquid on a milligram for milligram basis--is the ethyl ester form. That's not even factoring in reduced absorption of ethyl esters compared to triglyceride forms. Remember: FDA approval is not necessarily a stamp of superiority. It just means somebody had the money and ambition to pursue FDA approval. Period.

Taking any kind of fish oil, provided it is not overly oxidized (and thereby yields a smelly fish odor), is better than taking none at all. All fish oil will reduce triglycerides, accelerate clearance of postprandial (after-eating) lipoprotein byproducts of a meal (via activation of lipoprotein lipase), enhance endothelial responsiveness, reduce small LDL particles, and provide a physical stabilizing effect on atherosclerotic plaque.

But if you desire enhanced absorption and potentially lower dose to achieve equivalent RBC omega-3 levels, then triglyceride forms are better.

Here are cut-and-pasted abstracts of two of the studies comparing forms of fish oil.

Bioavailability of marine n-3 fatty acid formulations.

Dyerberg J, Madsen P, Moller JM et al. 
Department of Human Nutrition, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Abstract

The use of marine n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFA) as supplements has prompted the development of concentrated formulations to overcome compliance problems. The present study compares three concentrated preparations - ethyl esters, free fatty acids and re-esterified triglycerides - with placebo oil in a double-blinded design, and with fish body oil and cod liver oil in single-blinded arms. Seventy-two volunteers were given approximately 3.3g of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) daily for 2 weeks. Increases in absolute amounts of EPA and DHA in fasting serum triglycerides, cholesterol esters and phospholipids were examined. Bioavailability of EPA+DHA from re-esterified triglycerides was superior (124%) compared with natural fish oil, whereas the bioavailability from ethyl esters was inferior (73%). Free fatty acid bioavailability (91%) did not differ significantly from natural triglycerides. The stereochemistry of fatty acid in acylglycerols did not influence the bioavailability of EPA and DHA.
(Full text of the Dyerberg et al study made available at the Nordic Naturals website here.)



Eur J Clin Nutr 2010 Nov 10. 

Enhanced increase of omega-3 index in response to long-term n-3 fatty acid supplementation from triacylglycerides versus ethyl esters.

Neubronner J, Schuchardt JP, Kressel G et al. 
Institute of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Am Kleinen Felde 30, Hannover, Germany.

Abstract

There is a debate currently about whether different chemical forms of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are absorbed in an identical way. The objective of this study was to investigate the response of the omega-3 index, the percentage of EPA+DHA in red blood cell membranes, to supplementation with two different omega-3 fatty acid (n-3 FA) formulations in humans. The study was conducted as a double-blinded placebo-controlled trial. A total of 150 volunteers was randomly assigned to one of the three groups: (1) fish oil concentrate with EPA+DHA (1.01?g+0.67?g) given as reesterified triacylglycerides (rTAG group); (2) corn oil (placebo group) or (3) fish oil concentrate with EPA+DHA (1.01?g+0.67?g) given as ethyl ester (EE group). Volunteers consumed four gelatine-coated soft capsules daily over a period of six months. The omega-3 index was determined at baseline (t(0)) after three months (t(3)) and at the end of the intervention period (t(6)). The omega-3 index increased significantly in both groups treated with n-3 FAs from baseline to t(3) and t(6) (P < 0.001). The omega-3 index increased to a greater extent in the rTAG group than in the EE group (t(3): 186 versus 161% (P < 0.001); t(6): 197 versus 171% (P < 0.01)). Conclusion: A six-month supplementation of identical doses of EPA+DHA led to a faster and higher increase in the omega-3 index when consumed as triacylglycerides than when consumed as ethyl esters.

Diarrhea, asthma, arthritis--What is your wheat re-exposure syndrome?

30. January 2011 William Davis (52)
Have you experienced a wheat re-exposure syndrome?

As I recently discussed, gastrointestinal distress--cramps, gas, diarrhea--is the most common "syndrome" that results from re-exposure to wheat after a period of elimination.

Others experience asthma, sinus congestion and infections, mental "fogginess" and difficulty concentrating, or joint pains and/or overt swelling.

Still others say there is no such thing.

Let's take a poll and find out what readers say.

Marathoners, triathletes, and heart disease

30. January 2011 William Davis (0)
Curious thing: People with lipoprotein(a) gravitate towards elite levels of exercise.

I tell my lipoprotein(a) patients that, if they want to see a lot of other people with lipoprotein(a), go to a marathon or triathlon.

This effect applies more to males than to females, just as the fascination with numbers seems to be confined to men, too. That's why I've posted in past about the "prototypical" lipoprotein(a) male.

I believe this is a big part, perhaps the only, reason why there seems to be a modest increased risk for cardiovascular events despite high exercise levels in marathoners. It has nothing to do with the exercise itself; it has to do with the kind of people who choose to exercise at this level.

The best fish oil

29. January 2011 William Davis (30)
The best fish oils available are the liquid forms. Contrary to many people's expectations, the best liquid fish oils have no fishy odor or taste.

I use a lot of liquid fish oils because of the higher doses we use in the Track Your Plaque program, as well as our strategy of high-dose fish oil to reduce lipoprotein(a). Women, in particular, don't like taking the oodles of capsules required to achieve the higher doses we need. So the ladies really like the liquid forms.

The best liquid fish oils are non-fishy, highly-concentrated, and come in the better absorbed triglyceride form. Many capsules, including prescription Lovaza, are the less well-absorbed ethyl ester form. Several studies, such as this one, have now demonstrated that the naturally-occurring triglyceride form yields higher blood (RBC) levels of omega-3 fatty acids, likely due to more efficient digestion via pancreatic lipase.

While there are many good forms of fish oil and only a few bad, these are the best of the best:

Pharmax
The Pharmax Finest Pure Fish Oil with Essential Oil of Orange contains 1800 mg EPA + DHA per teaspoon. This is the preparation I've been taking.

Nordic Naturals
The Nordic Naturals lemon-flavored ProOmega Liquid contains 2752 mg EPA + DHA per teaspoon, the most concentrated of any fish oil I've seen.

(This list is not exclusive. These are just two brands I've used extensively with good results.)

These highly-concentrated, triglyceride forms are more expensive, due to their concentrated nature. 1 teaspoon Pharmax fish oil, for example, provides an equivalent quantity of omega-3 fatty acids as 6 standard fish oil capsules on a milligram for milligram basis, but more like 8 to 9 capsules when absorption efficiency is factored in. The triglyceride form is also more laborious to manufacture. On our Track Your Plaque Marketplace, our Pharmax 500 ml runs $58.95 list. (500 ml provides 100 teaspoons or 600-capsule equivalent.)

Note that, minus the protection of the capsule, liquid fish oils will oxidize if not refrigerated. So be sure to keep your liquid fish oil in the fridge.
Life Extension article on vitamin D

Life Extension article on vitamin D

14. September 2007 William Davis (5)

For anyone looking for a discussion about the emerging role of vitamin D as a cause for coronary disease, see my recent article, Vitamin D’s Crucial Role in Cardiovascular Protection, in Life Extension Magazine, now posted online at:

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2007/sep2007_report_vitamind_01.htm.




Vitamin D has assumed an absolutely critical role in the Track Your Plaque program for coronary plaque reversal and dropping CT heart scan scores. Since adding vitamin D and aiming for blood levels of 50-60 ng/ml, our success rate has skyrocketed. In fact, I wonder just how well our two most recent record holders--51% and 63% drops in heart scan scores--would have fared without it. (They probably would have dropped, but no where near as much.)

Also, a full-length booklet that contains just about everything you want to know about vitamin D (or at least a right-this-moment summary of what is known about it) will be available to Track Your Plaque Members for free before the end of the year.

If you haven't done so already, DO THE D!!
Tags :

Comments (5) -

  • wccaguy

    9/14/2007 5:24:00 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    I continue to be amazed at how much value you are providing all the time to those of us deeply concerned about heart disease.

    Whether it's at this blog, at LEF.org, at your TrackYourPlaque.com site, or in your Track Your Plaque book, your contribution is pretty astounding.

    I only found your work in the last 2-3 weeks and already it has made a deep impression on me and I'm getting clearer about what I need to do to combat heart disease in myself and in family members.

    Thanks for all you're doing!

  • Dr. Davis

    9/14/2007 12:14:00 PM |

    Wow!

    Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad it's helping you. It is wonderful to hear back about the impact the program is having.

  • Bix

    9/15/2007 9:45:00 AM |

    Excellent article!  I especially liked the tie-in to poor kidney function.

  • Rich

    9/17/2007 1:14:00 AM |

    Dr. Davis: In your excellent LEF article, I found your reference to a fascinating statement about statins and vitamin D by Dr. David Grimes of the UK. For those interested, here is the Lancet source article (reprinting for educational purposes):

    The Lancet 2006; 368:83-86
    DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68971-X

    Are statins analogues of vitamin D?
    David S Grimes MD, Blackburn Royal Infirmary, Blackburn, Lancashire BB6 8HE, UK

    Summary

    There are many reasons why the dietary-heart-cholesterol hypothesis should be questioned, and why statins might be acting in some other way to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. Here, I propose that rather than being cholesterol-lowering drugs per se, statins act as vitamin D analogues, and explain why. This proposition is based on published observations that the unexpected and unexplained clinical benefits produced by statins have also been shown to be properties of vitamin D. It seems likely that statins activate vitamin D receptors.
    Back to top

    During the late 19th century, conventional wisdom held that masturbation was the cause of epilepsy, a more plausible explanation than the previous notion that epilepsy was the result of possession by the devil, and illness in general the result of divine interference. Since bromide was thought to reduce sexual desire, it became the logical treatment. Although reasonably successful, bromide worked for reasons that are different from the theory on which it was based. Can the same be said of statins for heart disease?

    The emergence of coronary heart disease (CHD) in the 20th century required an explanation. Some had noted that cholesterol accumulated in the walls of the arteries, and a process of accretion was hence described as the major mechanism. Cholesterol was assumed to originate from diet, and the diet-cholesterol-heart hypothesis was established. The logical treatment was to reduce dietary and serum cholesterol concentrations.

    Many inconsistencies in this hypothesis have emerged and been disregarded. In the London banking and transport study,1 for example, men with the highest dietary cholesterol intake had the lowest incidence of CHD. Furthermore, the results of the Framingham study2 showed that raised concentrations of serum cholesterol were predictive of CHD only in men younger than age 55 years. Findings of studies from Honolulu3 and Paris4 suggest a protective effect of high serum cholesterol concentrations, and the Leningrad paradox5 indicates that those exposed to famine subsequently have a high incidence of CHD, the opposite of what is expected. In Europe, populations that consume a large amount of dietary fat and cholesterol have a low incidence of CHD (the French paradox),6 and the lowest incidence of CHD is seen in European nations with the lowest consumption of wine and the most socioeconomic deprivation (the Albanian paradox).7

    Initial treatments to reduce serum cholesterol were not effective. When introduced, however, statins did greatly reduce serum cholesterol concentrations by interfering with its synthesis; the beneficial effects of statins in CHD have been assumed to be the result of cholesterol-lowering, an assumption that I believe is a serious mistake.

    Statins and the heart

    The first statin trial was the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S),8 and its findings indicated a significant clinical benefit from simvastatin. The results of the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS)9 also showed clinical benefit from statins (pravastatin) and of a greater magnitude than expected; the mortality reduction was about 35%, whereas the reduction in cholesterol concentrations predicted a mortality reduction of only 25%. WOSCOPS9 showed no association between cholesterol-lowering and clinical benefit,10 indicating that cholesterol-lowering was not the mechanism by which pravastatin reduced coronary events.

    In WOSCOPS, statins lowered serum cholesterol concentrations, but also raised concentrations of HDL cholesterol and lowered those of serum triglyceride, indicating that inhibition of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase was not the only metabolic action. The clinical experiment of cholesterol-lowering was thus intrinsically flawed, and what must be understood is that 4S and WOSCOPS were trials of statin therapy and not trials of cholesterol-lowering.

    Unexpected benefits of statins

    It is noteworthy that the participants treated with pravastatin in WOSCOPS had a reduced incidence of diabetes compared with controls.11 Additionally, when pravastatin was given to recipients of heart transplants in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of CHD, a reduction in the rate of rejection and an increase in overall survival was noted, irrespective of CHD status.12 The same pattern was seen in recipients of kidney transplants.13 Clinical benefits of statins have also been noted in a placebo-controlled trial14 of atorvastatin for rheumatoid arthritis. Furthermore, simvastatin has been used successfully to treat patients with multiple sclerosis.15 As with CHD, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and transplant rejection, the benefit noted with respect to multiple sclerosis is independent of any effect on serum cholesterol.
    Statins also have an effect on bone, and women who take statins have a greater bone density than those who do not.16 Moreover, the findings of the 10-year follow-up study of participants in 4S17 indicate a significantly reduced risk of cancer, particularly colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer, in those who received simvastatin. Results of a population study from Israel18 also show a greatly reduced risk of colorectal cancer in those taking statins.

    In 1974,19 a group of illustrious diet-cholesterol-heart researchers studied the association between cholesterol and cancer. They noted that high serum cholesterol concentrations conferred protection against colon cancer. The effects of statins mentioned above hence present a major paradox: how can a drug that lowers serum cholesterol concentrations reduce the risk of colon cancer when high serum cholesterol concentrations are, in fact, protective?

    A drug can act as a poison by blocking normal metabolic processes, but to produce a beneficial effect (other than antibacterial) we should assume that it is switching on or enhancing a normal metabolic process. I therefore suggest that statins mimic many of the actions of vitamin D and can be considered analogues of vitamin D.

    Sunlight and vitamin D

    Heart disease

    In Europe, there is a higher rate of mortality from CHD in the northern than in the southern countries, with the lowest rates noted along the Mediterranean coast.20 This pattern suggests that susceptibility to CHD is affected by duration of exposure to sunlight. This notion is supported by findings from the USA21,22 that the higher the altitude of residence, and hence the greater the sunlight intensity, the lower the risk of heart disease.

    Furthermore, the only dietary change that consistently protects against CHD is an increase in consumption of oily fish and fish oil, which contain large amounts of vitamin D.23 In the Netherlands, mortality from CHD was more than 50% lower in men who consumed at least 30 g of fish per day than in those who did not eat fish.24 A similar result was reported in women from a 16-year follow-up study in the USA.25

    Multiple sclerosis

    Multiple sclerosis also shows a latitude gradient in Europe, with the world's highest incidence reported in Scotland.26 The risk of developing the disease is reduced by a third by regular supplementation with vitamin D.27

    Cancer

    The risk of breast cancer and colon cancer is high in northwest Europe and much lower in the Mediterranean countries.28 And, in the UK, people die more readily from cancer in the north than in the south of the country. After being diagnosed, 34% of men with cancer and resident in Oxfordshire survive for 5 years compared with 26% of those who live in the northwest and Yorkshire. Men with stomach cancer who live in London survive on average twice as long as those who live in the northwest of England; the same applies to bladder cancer.29 Patients with colon cancer also have a greater chance of survival if they live in the south of England rather than in the north.30 The benefits of sunshine and vitamin D would explain these associations.
    Results of a study31 done in 1941 in the USA and Canada showed that the cancer death rates among residents of the most northern cities were two and a half times those of the most southern cities. An extensive study32 of more than 5000 locations in the USA has shown that incidence rates of cancer are lowest where ultraviolet light exposure is greatest. Bladder, breast, colon, kidney, oesophageal, ovarian, prostate, rectal, stomach, and uterine cancers, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma are associated with low exposure to ultraviolet light.32

    In the USA, cancer of the prostate has an increasing incidence with distance from the equator, suggesting a protective effect of sunshine. The incidence is highest in the eastern states and lowest in the west.33 This is exactly the same as with CHD, and is probably the result of a high altitude being protective because of greater ultraviolet light exposure. The association between prostate cancer and insufficient access to ultraviolet light has also been noted in the UK,34 with men exposed to low levels of ultraviolet light developing cancer at a younger age than those exposed to high levels (median age 67•7 years vs 72•1 years).

    In a study35 of 456 people with early-stage lung cancer who had undergone surgery, those diagnosed and operated on in the summer, spring, or autumn had a significantly higher 5-year survival rate than those diagnosed and operated on in the winter. The survival rate was 29% in those who took no vitamin D supplements and had treatment in the winter compared with 72% in those who took vitamin D supplements and were treated in the summer.35


    Diabetes

    The international distribution of diabetes in children is very similar to that of CHD, with incidence increasing with distance from the equator,36 again suggesting a protective effect of sunlight and vitamin D. Furthermore, children of women who do, compared with those who do not, take cod liver oil during pregnancy have a reduced incidence of type 1 diabetes.37 The findings of a retrospective study,38 undertaken in Finland and involving 10 821 children born in 1966, indicate that the incidence of diabetes in adulthood is almost ten times higher in those who do not, compared with those who do, take vitamin D supplements in childhood. The benefit of vitamin D supplementation during infancy has been further strengthened by the findings of a large study undertaken in Norway.39

    Rhematoid arthritis

    Kröger and colleagues40 noted that 16% of 143 women with rheumatoid arthritis, compared with the general population, had very low concentrations of serum calcidiol. During the winter, 73% had levels of calcitriol below the seasonally adjusted normal range and the lowest levels were in patients with very active disease. In another study,41 of 19 patients with rheumatoid arthritis given vitamin D supplements, nine reported a complete remission of symptoms, and eight a satisfactory response. Inflammatory markers also improved: the mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate fell by 43% and the mean concentrations of C-reactive protein by 52%. This study is a small one but although far from conclusive the results conform to a pattern that should not be ignored.


    Testing of my hypothesis

    In view of the above, there is a striking similarity between the benefits of vitamin D and the benefits of statin therapy. I believe that the unexpected and unexplained beneficial effects of statin therapy might be mediated by activation of vitamin D receptors by this group of drugs. This hypothesis is, in theory, easy to test.
    A prospective study should be undertaken in cancer treatment and prevention, with a factorial design, so that patients receive statins, vitamin D, a combination of statins and vitamin D, or placebo. A similar outcome in the three treatment groups would lend support to the suggestion of statins acting via vitamin D receptors. If vitamin D and statins are activating the same receptors, then if both are given in sub-maximum doses, the two together would have a greater effect than each individually. Intervention studies should also be undertaken to look at the relapse rates of established illnesses, including CHD, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis, comparing statins and vitamin D.

    The difficulty in doing these studies is that we know only the minimum dose of vitamin D necessary to prevent and heal rickets: we do not know the dose necessary to increase to a maximum the other effects, especially those that enhance immune competence. The same applies to statins: their effect on serum cholesterol concentrations is easy to measure, but we do not know what to measure as a biochemical surrogate for the other effects, again probably those enhancing immune competence. As such, a range of treatment doses of vitamin D and statins need to be investigated. Additionally, clinical trials of established treatments—eg, statins for CHD—are difficult to design because of the ethics of not giving an established medication (a statin), but in place a trial medication (vitamin D). Comparisons with vitamin D supplements could be undertaken, but only once the optimum dose of vitamin D has been established.

    Colonic mucosa and colonic cancer cells contain vitamin D receptors,42 strengthening my suggestion that vitamin D is biologically active in these tissues. Furthermore, vitamin D has an inhibitory effect on colonic carcinoma cell lines.43 Do statins have a similar effect? In-vitro experiments are one way that the effects of statins on vitamin D receptors could be investigated directly.

    Conclusion

    Anomalous results, such as the unexpected benefits of statins detailed here, lead to the advancement of science. Such an opportunity for research should not be overlooked. Statins should be looked at objectively and the diet-cholesterol-heart hypothesis on which the treatment was based disregarded. Statins have been described as wonder drugs because of their unexpected benefits; my hypothesis gives an opportunity for new thinking. The explanation of statins as analogues of vitamin D, if correct, would be reassuring to the millions of people who take them every day. Finally, sunlight and vitamin D might at last be recognised for their widespread health benefits.

    Conflict of interest statement
    I declare that I have no conflict of interest.


    References

    1. Morris JN, Marr JW, Clayton DG. Diet and heart: a postscript. BMJ 1977; 2: 1307-1314.
    2. Kannel WB, Castelli WP, Gordon T. Cholesterol in the prediction of atherosclerotic disease: new perspectives based on the Framingham study. Ann Intern Med 1979; 90: 85-91. MEDLINE
    3. Schatz IJ, Masaki K, Yano K, Chen R, Rodriguez BL, Curb JD. Cholesterol and all-cause mortality in elderly people from the Honolulu Heart Program: a cohort study. Lancet 2001; 358: 351-355. Abstract | Full Text | PDF (82 KB) | MEDLINE | CrossRef
    4. Forette B, Tortrat D, Wolmark Y. Cholesterol as risk factor for mortality in elderly women. Lancet 1989; 333: 868-870. CrossRef
    5. Sparén P, Vågerö D, Shestov DB, et al. Long term mortality after severe starvation during the siege of Leningrad: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2004; 328: 11-14. CrossRef
    6. Renaud S, De Lorgeril M. Wine, alcohol, platelets, and the French paradox for coronary heart disease. Lancet 1992; 339: 1523-1526. MEDLINE | CrossRef
    7. Gjonça A, Bobak M. Albanian paradox, another example of protective effect of Mediterranean lifestyle?. Lancet 1997; 350: 1815-1817. Abstract | Full Text | PDF (68 KB) | MEDLINE | CrossRef
    8. Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomised controlled trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 1994; 344: 1383-1389. MEDLINE
    9. Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, et alfor the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Group. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolaemia. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 1301-1307. MEDLINE | CrossRef
    10. Packard CJfor West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Group. Influence of pravastatin and plasma lipids on clinical events in the west of Scotland coronary prevention study (WOSCOPS). Circulation 1998; 97: 1440-1445. MEDLINE
    11. Freeman DJ, Norrie J, Sattar N, et al. Pravastatin and the development of diabetes mellitus; evidence for a protective treatment effect in the west of Scotland coronary prevention study. Circulation 2001; 103: 357-362.
    12. Kobashigawa JA, Katznelson S, Laks H, et al. Effect of pravastatin on outcomes after cardiac transplantation. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 621-627. MEDLINE | CrossRef
    13. Katznelson S, Wilkinson AH, Kobashigawa JA, et al. The effect of pravastatin on acute rejection after kidney transplantation: a pilot study. Transplantation 1996; 61: 1469-1474. MEDLINE
    14. McCarey DW, McInnes IB, Madhok R, et al. Trial of atorvastatin in rheumatoid arthritis (TARA): double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 363: 2015-2021. Abstract | Full Text | PDF (101 KB) | CrossRef
    15. Vollmer T, Key L, Durkalski V, et al. Oral simvastatin treatment in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Lancet 2004; 363: 1607-1608. Abstract | Full Text | PDF (59 KB) | CrossRef
    16. Edwards CJ, Hart DJ, Spector TD. Oral statins and increased bone-mineral density in postmenopausal women. Lancet 2000; 355: 2218-2219. Abstract | Full Text | PDF (59 KB) | MEDLINE | CrossRef
    17. Strandberg TE, Pyörälä K, Cook TJ, et alfor the 4S group. Mortality and incidence of cancer during 10-year follow-up of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study. Lancet 2004; 364: 771-777. Abstract | Full Text | PDF (101 KB) | CrossRef
    18. Poytner JN, Gruber SB, Higgins PDR, et al. Statins and risk of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 2184-2192. CrossRef
    19. Rose G, Blackburn H, Keys A, et al. Colon cancer and cholesterol. Lancet 1974; 1: 181-183. MEDLINE | CrossRef
    20. Grimes DS, Hindle E, Dyer T. Sunlight, cholesterol and coronary heart disease. Q J Med 1996; 89: 579-589.
    21. Mortimer EA, Monson RR, MacMahon B. Reduction in mortality from coronary heart disease in men residing at high altitude. N Engl J Med 1977; 296: 581-585. MEDLINE
    22. Voors AW, Johnson WD. Altitude and arteriosclerotic heart disease mortality of white residents of 99 of the 100 largest cities in the United States. J Chronic Dis 1979; 32: 157-162. MEDLINE | CrossRef
    23. Burr ML, Fehily AM, Gilbert JF, et al. Effects of changes in fat, fish, and fibre intakes on death and myocardial reinfarction: diet and reinfarction trial (DART). Lancet 1989; 3342: 757-761.
    24. Kromhout D, Bosschieter EB, Coulander C de L. The inverse relation between fish consumption and 20-year mortality from coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 1985; 312: 1205-1209. MEDLINE
    25. Hu FB, Bronner L, Willett WC, et al. Fish and omega-e fatty acid intake and risk of coronary heart disease in women. JAMA 2002; 287: 1815-1821. MEDLINE | CrossRef
    26. Kurtzke JF. A reassessment of the distribution of multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurologica Scand 1975; 51: 137-157.
    27. Munger KL, Zhang SM, O'Reilly E, et al. Vitamin D intake and incidence of multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2004; 62: 60-65.
    28. Parkin DM, Whelan SL, Ferlay J, Teppo L, Thomas DB. Cancer in five continents VIII. International Association of Cancer Registries (IACR). Scientific publication number 155. Lyon: IACR, 2002:.
    29. Silman AJ, Evans SJW. Regional differences in survival from cancer. Community Med 1991; 3: 291-297. MEDLINE
    30. Coleman MP, Babb P, Damiecki P, et al. Cancer survival trends in England and Wales, 1971–1995: deprivation and NHS region. London: Stationery Office, 1999:.
    31. Apperly FL. The relationship of solar radiation to cancer mortality in North America. Cancer Res 1941; 1: 191-195.
    32. Grant WB. An estimate of premature cancer mortality in the US due to inadequate doses of solar ultraviolet-B radiation. Cancer 2002; 94: 1867-1875. MEDLINE | CrossRef
    33. Hanchette CL, Schwartz GG. Geographical patterns of prostate cancer mortality: evidence for a protective effect of ultraviolet radiation. Cancer 1992; 70: 2861-2869. MEDLINE | CrossRef
    34. Luscombe CJ, Fryer AA, French ME, et al. Exposure to ultraviolet radiation: association with susceptibility and age at presentation with prostate cancer. Lancet 2001; 358: 641-642. Abstract | Full Text | PDF (61 KB) | MEDLINE | CrossRef
    35. Zhou W, Suk R, Liu G, et al. Vitamin D predicts overall survival in early stage non-small cell lung cancer patients. American Association for Cancer Research April 16–20, 2005, abstract LB-231.
    36. Matthews DR, Spivey RS, Kennedy I. Coffee consumption as trigger for diabetes in childhood. BMJ 1990; 300: 1012. MEDLINE
    37. Stene LC, Ulriksen J, Magnus P, Joner G. Use of cod liver oil during pregnancy associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes in the offspring. Diabetologia 2000; 43: 1093-1098. MEDLINE | CrossRef
    38. Hyppönen E, Läärä E, Reunanen A, Järvelin M-R, Virtanen SM. Intake of vitamin D and risk of type 1 diabetes: a birth-cohort study. Lancet 2001; 358: 1500-1503. Abstract | Full Text | PDF (77 KB) | MEDLINE | CrossRef
    39. Stene LC, Joner Gfor the Norwegian Childhood Diabetes Study Group. Use of cod liver oil during the first year of life is associated with lower risk of childhood-onset type 1 diabetes: a large population-based case-control trial. Am J Clin Nutr 2003; 78: 1128-1134. MEDLINE
    40. Kröger H, Penttila IM, Alhava EM. Low serum vitamin D metabolites in women with rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol 1993; 22: 172-177. MEDLINE
    41. Andjelovic Z, Vojinovic J, Pejnovic N, et al. Disease modifying and immunomodulatory effects of high dose 1α (OH) D3 in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1999; 17: 452-456.
    42. Kane KF, Langman MJS, Williams GR. Vitamin D3 and retinoid X receptor mRNAs are expressed in human colorectal mucosa and neoplasms. Gut 1994; 35 (suppl): S2.
    43. Thomas MG, Tebbutt S, Williamson RCN. Vitamin D and its metabolites inhibit cell proliferation in human rectal mucosa and a colon cancer cell line. Gut 1992; 33: 1660-1663. MEDLINE
    Back to top

    Affiliations

    a. Blackburn Royal Infirmary, Blackburn, Lancashire BB6 8HE, UK

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 10:05:56 PM |

    Also, a full-length booklet that contains just about everything you want to know about vitamin D (or at least a right-this-moment summary of what is known about it) will be available to Track Your Plaque Members for free before the end of the year.

Add comment

Loading