What's that in your mouth?

7. January 2010 William Davis (17)



Fat = triglycerides

In other words, eat fat, whether it's saturated, hydrogenated, polyunsaturated, or monounsaturated, and blood levels of triglycerides will go up over the next 6 hours. This remains true if there are carbohydrates in the meal, or if there are NO carbohydrates in the meal. It also remains true if you chronically consume fats.

While fats are the primary determinant of postprandial (after-eating) triglycerides, carbohydrates are the primary determinant of fasting triglycerides.

So, if your triglycerides are high on a fasting cholesterol (lipid) panel, it's most likely because you overconsume carbohydrates.


Thanks to cartoonist Eli Stein, who has generously allowed me to reprint his artwork on these pages. Mr. Stein has published his work in dozens of magazines and newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, Barron's, and Good Housekeeping. More of his work can be found at Eli Stein Cartoons.

De Novo Lipo-what?

5. January 2010 William Davis (16)
Humans have limited capacity to store carbohydrates. Beyond the glucose and glycogen in our blood and tissues, we have relatively little carbohydrate to draw from in time of energy need. That's why long-distance runners and triathletes have to carry sugar sources to keep blood sugar from plummeting.

Fat, of course, is different. We have virtually unlimited capacity to store energy as fat.

Because we have limited carbohydrate storage capacity, what can the body do with the excessive quantities of carbohydrates that Americans ingest? What becomes of a bagel for breakfast, wheat crackers for snacks, a whole wheat sandwich for lunch, pretzels, and whole wheat pasta that many people eat every day, not to mention the chips, soft drinks, and juices?

Excess carbohydrates are diverted to an interesting metabolic pathway called de novo lipogenesis (DNL). This refers to the liver's ability to make triglycerides from excessive carbohydrates in the diet. Triglycerides are packaged for release into the blood as VLDL. VLDL, in turn, interacts with other lipoproteins, creating small LDL particles, reduced HDL and smaller, less protective HDL. High VLDL will be measured on a standard cholesterol panel as higher triglycerides.

A University of California (Berkeley, San Francisco) group has done much of the work describing DNL.

A diet weighed towards carbohydrates, especially if 50% or greater calories are carbohydrate, is sufficient to provoke plenty of DNL, even in slender people. DNL is a big part of the reason why low-fat (and, thereby, high-carbohydrate) diets result in higher triglycerides. DNL really gets turned on many-fold if the carbohydrates are "simple," rather than "complex."

Overweight people, however, can demonstrate five-fold greater DNL even with lesser quantities of carbohydrate intake (e.g., 40% fat, 46% carbohydrate, 14% protein):





From Schwarz et al 2003. Mean (± SEM) fractional de novo lipogenesis in lean normoinsulinemic (NI), obese NI, and obese hyperinsulinemic (HI) subjects after 5 d of consuming a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet and in different lean NI and obese HI subjects after 5 d of consuming a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet. Values with different superscript letters are significantly different.


Excessive carbohydrates, a la standard low-fat diets, are good for nobody. The concept of de novo lipogenesis fills in a theoretical hole that now explains why people who eat carbohydrates have higher triglycerides, VLDL, and, eventually, insulin resistance and diabetes.

Gretchen's postprandial diet experiment II

3. January 2010 William Davis (37)
I previously posted Gretchen's postprandial diet experiment, in which she consumed a low-fat diet for a day, followed by a low-carbohydrate diet for a day. Grethen monitored blood glucose and triglycerides with fingerstick checks. (Blood glucose can be checked on any widely available glucose monitor; triglycerides can be monitored with the Cardiochek device.)

Let's now discuss what happened.

On the low-carb, high-fat day, there was an initial surge in triglycerides to 250 mg/dl late morning, followed by a secondary peak several hours following dinner. Because fat is mostly triglycerides, Gretchen's high-fat (sausage, bacon, butter, whole-fat yogurt) breakfast provided a large quantity of triglycerides that needed to be absorbed. This generally occurs over approximately 6 hours, varying depending on body weight, how accustomed you are to fat, activity level during the day, the kind of fat in the meal. The high content of saturated fat in Gretchen's high-fat breakfast likely caused the somewhat slower drop in triglycerides over approximately 7 1/2 hours.

As Gretchen herself had noted, triglycerides the following day were lower, a typical low-carb response. Blood sugar throughout showed only minor variation, with only small postprandial increases.

Thus, Gretchen experienced what we'd expect with a low-carb, high-fat diet: an initial high surge in triglycerides, followed by a decline in fasting levels, while blood sugar shows a normal contour.







Now, the more confusing low-fat experience:



Blood glucose makes a striking peak at 200 mg/dl after the low-fat breakfast of pasta and rice, in contrast to the low-carb breakfast. Triglycerides behaved very differently from the low-carb experiment: While there was no initial postprandial surge, there was a late surge developing 6-24 hours later. The late surge continued into the next day, with fasting levels the following morning (210 mg/dl) exceeding the starting triglyceride level (60 mg/dl).

The one potentially confusing aspect of all this is Gretchen's late rise in triglycerides on the low-fat diet. This phenomenon is due to something called de novo lipogenesis, or the liver's conversion of carbohydrates to triglycerides that occurs when an excessive carbohydrate load comes through diet. Because the human body cannot store anything beyond a minor quantity of carbohydrates (as glucose and glycogen), carbohydrates are converted to fats.

Another factor causing the late triglyceride increase is insulin resistance, given the high blood sugar response. When insulin resistance is present, the activity of the enzyme, lipoprotein lipase, is reduced. Less lipoprotein lipase activity allows slower VLDL degradation, allowing VLDL (and thereby triglycerides contained in VLDL) to "stack up" in the blood. Thus, the higher triglycerides late after eating and into the next morning.

One issue to be aware of: Acute responses can differ from chronic responses. In other words, had Gretchen had the luxury (and time and money) to conduct the experiment over, say, 4 weeks, rather than a single day, there would be somewhat different responses. The best data on this come from Dr. Jeff Volek of the University of Connecticut, in which 4 weeks of low-carbohydrate eating modify fasting and postprandial responses over time.

Several conclusions can be made from Gretchen's experience:

1) Low-carb, high-fat acutely generates extravagant postprandial triglyceride responses.
2) Low-fat causes a late triglyceride surge and higher fasting triglycerides.
3) Low-fat leads to high blood sugars and, by implication, diabetes.


Both the low-carb and the low-fat responses are undesirable, both leading to increased risk for heart disease. Which is worse? I believe that low-fat is more destructive, since it leads over time to both high triglycerides and diabetes, while low-carb/high-fat only leads to postprandial triglyceride surges, at least acutely.

How to best balance the responses to reduce risk for heart disease? That's a discussion for future.


Again, my thanks to Gretchen and the substantial amount of effort that went into generating these numbers. More of Gretchens' own writing can be found on her blogs:
http://wildlyfluctuating.blogspot.com
http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/5068

A wheat-free 2010

2. January 2010 William Davis (22)
A Heart Scan Blog reader sent this fascinating description of his wheat-free adventure.

Whenever I discuss this notion of going wheat-free and the incredible health effects that develop, I invariably receive comments or emails saying something like "I eat wheat and feel fine. That can't be true." The problem is that not everybody needs to go wheat-free. 20-30% of people can include wheat in their diet and suffer little more than weight gain, some not at all.

But stories like Michael's (below) are commonplace in my experience. I've had many patients who, at first, refused to believe that wheat exposure might be the underlying cause for health struggles. But they finally give it a try and find that rashes, arthritis, acid reflux, irritable bowel symptoms, mood swings, anger, etc. are miraculously improved or gone.

Anyway, hear what Michael has to tell us:


Dr. Davis,

I want to thank you. I was browsing the web a while back and happened to stumble upon your blog post about wheat belly. The first thing that caught my attention was that I thought you had somehow gotten a photograph of me. The young man you posted an image of looked exactly like me. So I read what you had to say. After reading, I thought "Four weeks isn’t so bad. I think I can handle this."

It has now been nine weeks and all I can say is that I am completely amazed. Let me say first that twice in the past twenty years I have been tested for allergies. The first time I was tested I showed a slight reaction to Timothy Grass, but not enough to cause me any problems. The second testing I did not show a reaction to anything. So, I have always assumed that my chronic sinus problem were due to sensitivities to environmental pollutions. Now I am not so sure. I would like to list for you everything that has happened to me since I eliminated wheat from my diet.

1. I have lost a total of 12 pounds in the last 9 weeks.
2. I have lost 1 ¼ inches of belly fat
3. I have lost a tremendous amount of fat from my neck.
4. My entire life I have had problems with oily hair. I could wash my hair and three hours later I looked as if I hadn’t washed in a week. Now my hair stays clean and soft for two to three days without shampoo.
5. My hair was always flat and stringy. Now it has lots of body.
6. I used to have thick layers of dry skin on my scalp. It would come loose in chunks as large as a fingernail. That dry scalp is gone.
7. I used to have dry flaky skin that seemed to secrete oil. That no longer happens. My skin is now soft and smooth.
8. I have lived with bad acne for at least 35 years. Now it is hard to find a pimple on my body.
9. I have always had to fight dehydration. That is no longer a problem.
10. I used to drink two large cups of coffee every morning just to be able to function. I now have enough energy that I have eliminated caffeine from my diet.
11. I sleep more soundly than ever before and my dreams are clear and vivid.
12. My thought processes are more active and clear than they have ever been.
13. My chronic sinus issue is now a thing of the past.
14. I used to have problems with getting the “shakes” if I had gone more than a couple of hours without eating. It was as if I was suffering from low blood sugar. I would even be afraid that I would pass out. Now all I feel is hunger. I can go all day without eating and never feel in danger of losing consciousness.


Today is Thursday. This past Monday my wife and I were eating out and I ordered a burger without a bun. What I didn’t realize was that the burger would arrive covered in onion rings. I knocked the mountain of onion rings onto the plate but there were still a couple that were embedded in the cheese. I decided, what the hell, a couple of onion rings shouldn’t make that much of a difference. I will not make that mistake again anytime soon. Within 30 minutes I felt like there was a steel spike going through my left eye socket. I don’t remember ever being in that much pain. My sinuses were exploding. This morning, as I write this, I still feel the vestiges of that pain. Just enough that I know it is there. But after two and a half days, I am at least able to function again.

I owe you a debt of gratitude. You may have just saved my life. In the very least you have given me the means to improve my life in ways that I never thought possible.

Thank you so much,
Michael B.


Now, if wheat exposure can do that in Michael, what damage can it do in other people?

Personally, I previously experienced many of the same symptoms that Michael suffered, all gone with wheat elimination.

My advice: If you have any inkling that you might have a wheat sensitivity, make a New Year's resolution to stay wheat-free for 4 weeks and see whether you can feel any difference. Not everybody will, but many will be telling us about the dramatic health turnarounds they experienced.

Lipoprotein lipase and you

30. December 2009 William Davis (0)
Lipoprotein lipase can make the difference between having heart disease and not having it. Having sky-high triglycerides or normal triglycerides. It can mean dinner hanging around for over 12 hours in the bloodstream, rather than the usual 4-6 hours.

If you take niacin, you must exercise

30. December 2009 William Davis (23)
We use a lot of niacin in the Track Your Plaque program.

Niacin:

--Increases HDL and shifts HDL towards the large, protective fraction

--Reduces small LDL--In fact, niacin is the best treatment we have to reduce small LDL after wheat elimination and carbohydrate reduction.

--Reduces fasting and postprandial (after-eating) triglycerides

--Reduces heart attack risk by 20-28%--even as a sole agent.


But . . . niacin also triggers higher blood sugar because it partially blocks the effects of insulin (insulin "resistance").

While the net effect of niacin remains positive, the provocation of insulin resistance is not such a good thing. Can it be minimized or eliminated?

Yes, through exercise. Here's one interesting observation in obese (BMI 34.0), sedentary men given placebo, exercise, niacin (1500 mg Niaspan, once per day), or niacin + exercise:





From Plaisance et al 2008.

Blood was drawn following a high-fat meal challenge. (Yes, a high-fat challenge, not a carbohydrate challenge. In this study, there were only 17 grams carbohydrates in the test meal, but 100 grams fat. More on this in future.) Exercise consisted of walking for 50 minutes at a moderate pace one hour prior to the meal challenge.

You can see from the graph that exercise partially corrected the increased insulin level provoked by niacin.

Judging from this and other studies, exercise can help minimize the insulin-blocking effects of niacin. It doesn't take much, just moderate exercise for at least 30 minutes.

Adequate sleep can also help, since sleep deprivation is a potent trigger for insulin resistance, only worsened in the presence of niacin. Vitamin D supplementation to achieve desirable blood levels (which I define as 60-70 ng/ml) is also an effective means to minimize this effect.

To track small LDL, track blood sugar

24. December 2009 William Davis (28)
Here's a trick I learned after years of fussing over people's small LDL.

To gain better control over small LDL, follow blood sugars (blood glucose).

When you think about it, all the foods that trigger increases in blood sugar also trigger small LDL. Carbohydrates, in general, are the most potent triggers of small LDL. The most offensive among the carbohydrates: foods made with wheat. After wheat, there's foods made with cornstarch, sucrose (table sugar), and the broad categories of "other" carbohydrates, such as oats, barley, quinoa, sorghum, bulghur, etc.

Assessing small LDL requires a full lipoprotein assessment in which small LDL particles are measured (NMR, VAP, GGE). Not the easiest thing to do in the comfort of your kitchen.

However, you can easily and now cheaply check your blood sugar. Because blood sugar parallels small LDL, checking blood sugar can provide insight into how you respond to various foods and know whether glucose/small LDL have been triggered.

Here's how I suggest patients to do it:

1) Purchase an inexpensive blood glucose monitor at a discounter like Walmart or Walgreen's. You can buy them now for about $10. They're even sometimes free with promotional offers. You will also need to purchase lancets and test strips.

2) With a meal in question, check a blood sugar just prior to the meal, then again 60 minutes after finishing the meal. Say, for example, your pre-meal blood sugar is 102 mg/dl. You eat your meal, check it 60 minutes after finishing. Ideally, the postprandial (after-meal) blood sugar is no more than 102 mg/dl, i.e., no higher than pre-meal.

Perhaps you're skeptical that oatmeal in skim milk with walnuts and raisins will do any damage. So you perform this routine with your breakfast. Blood sugar beforehand: 100 mg/dl. Blood sugar 1 hour post: 163 mg/dl--Uh oh, not good for you. And small LDL will be triggered.

This approach is not perfect. It will not, for example, identify "stealth" triggers of blood sugar and small LDL like pasta, for the same reasons that pasta has a misleadingly low glycemic index: sugars are released slowly and not fully evident with the one-hour blood sugar.

Nonetheless, for most foods and meals, tracking your one-hour postprandial blood sugar can provide important insight into your individual susceptibility to sugar and small LDL-triggering effects.

C-reactive protein: Fiction from the drug industry?

21. December 2009 William Davis (0)
C-reactive protein (CRP) is the liver product of inflammatory responses anywhere in the body. If there's an inflamed left knee, CRP will be increased. If viral bronchitis is making you cough, then CRP will be increased.

The argument put forward by the drug industry is that, because CRP indicates underlying inflammation, very low-grade levels that can be measured in the absence of overt inflammation like the sore knee or bronchitis is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular events. There are now many studies that conclusively demonstrate that, the higher the CRP, the greater the cardiovascular risk.

Naturally, any marker of risk is followed by the inevitable study: Do statin drugs reduce the excess cardiovascular risk of excessive CRP?

And, yes, indeed they do. My statin-crazed colleagues rave about the so-called "pleiotropic," or non-lipid, effects of statins. CRP reduction and the reduction of risk associated with CRP result with statin treatment.

But is life really statin vs. placebo, as most statin trials are constructed? Are there strategies that can outdo statins like Crestor for reduction of CRP?

Watch your fish oil labels

17. December 2009 William Davis (36)
A quick quiz:

How much omega-3 fatty acids, EPA + DHA, are in each capsule of fish oil with the composition shown on the label below:





If you said 1340 mg (894 mg + 446 mg), sorry, but you're wrong. There are 670 mg EPA + DHA per capsule.

Did you notice that the composition, or "Supplement Facts," lists the contents of two capsules? Rather than the usual one capsule contents, this product label lists two capsules.

I don't know why some manufacturers or distributors do this. However, I have seen many people tripped up by this kind of labeling, taking half the omega-3 fatty acids they thought they were taking. This can be important when you are trying to obtain a specific dose of EPA + DHA to reduce triglycerides, reduce Lp(a), control abnormal heart rhythms, reduce bipolar mood swings, or other important effects.

I liken this to pulling up to a gas station where the sign says gasoline for $1.25. Wow! Can't beat that! You then find out that it's really $1.25 for a half-gallon, or $2.50 a gallon.

In truth, the labeling is accurate; it's just very easy to not notice the two capsule composition.

Why do I need a prescription for Olava?

16. December 2009 William Davis (0)
Imagine this:





What is OLAVA?

Olava is prescription olive oil. It is the purest, highest concentration of olive oil available.




Why Do I Need a Prescription for OLAVA?

Studies show that olive oil contains essential fatty acids, "good" fats that:



--Contain natural compounds your body needs for good health but can't produce on its own.

--Has antioxidants that may provide protection from heart disease.



So, it is common for people to ask why they need a prescription for OLAVA if it is made from a natural ingredient--olive oil. It's time to get the facts about OLAVA. Learn why OLAVA is different from olive oil you can buy at a store.



OLAVA Is an FDA-Approved Medication

OLAVA is the only FDA-approved medicine made from olive oil that's proven, along with diet, to reduce risk for heart disease


The FDA enforces standards to make sure that prescription medications like OLAVA are safe, effective, and quality controlled.


The way OLAVA is manufactured is reviewed and approved by the FDA.


OLAVA uses a 10-step purification process that helps remove lead and other environmental toxins that can be present in olive oil.


Each 1-gram capsule of OLAVA contains 1000 mg of pure olive oil.


The FDA-approved dose of OLAVA is 4 capsules per day. It could take up to 2 tablespoons per day of regular olive oil to provide the same amount of active ingredients proven to lower heart disease risk.




What Else You Should Know About Olive Oil

Regular olive oil has not been approved by the FDA to treat any specific disease like heart disease.



Olive oil doesn't have specific dosing information; it has a food label.



Olive oil does not go through an FDA-approved manufacturing process.





Talk to Your Doctor About OLAVA

If you have very heart disease, you may need a prescription medicine, along with diet, to treat your condition. Talk to your doctor about OLAVA. Print a trial offer to use on your first prescription of OLAVA.

Does high cholesterol cause heart disease?

Does high cholesterol cause heart disease?

3. October 2008 William Davis (15)
How often does someone develop coronary heart disease from high cholesterol alone?

Believe drug industry propaganda and you'd think that everyone does. Physicians have bought into this concept also, driving the $27 billion annual sales in statin cholesterol drugs.

In my experience, I can count the number of people who develop coronary disease from high cholesterol alone on one hand. It happens--but rarely.

That's not to say that cholesterol is not an issue. That rant populates many of the kook websites and conversations on the internet that argue that high cholesterol is a surrogate for some other health issue, or that it is part of a medical conspiracy.

The problem with conventional measurement of cholesterol is that it ignores the particle size issue: whether particles are large or small. Small LDL are flagrant causes of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Large LDL is a rather meager cause. Simple cholesterol measurement also ignores the presence of other factors that lead to heart disease, like lipoprotein(a) and vitamin D deficiency.

Conventional total and LDL cholesterol do not distinguish between large and small particles, nor reveal the presence of other hidden patterns. An LDL cholesterol of 150 mg/dl, for instance, may contain 100% large LDL--a relatively good situation that by itself is unlikely to cause heart disease, or it might contain 100% small LDL--a very bad situation that is likely to cause heart disease. Just knowing that LDL is 150 mg/dl tells you almost nothing. In 2008, most people have some mixture of the two, particularly with the proliferation of "healthy whole grains" in the American diet, foods that trigger formation of small LDL.

The imprecision and uncertainty of conventional total and LDL cholesterol has provided ammunition for some to discount the entire cholesterol concept. And they are right to a degree: cholesterol by itself is indeed a lousy predictor of heart disease. But small LDL is a very reliable predictor of potential for heart disease. Dismissing the entire concept because the standard measurement stinks is not right, either.

It is therefore an unfortunate oversimplification to say that high cholesterol causes heart disease or that it doesn't. It can--but not always, depending on size and other factors. In my view, it is therefore irreponsible to treat total or LDL cholesterol without knowledge of particle size. I've seen this play out many times: Someone with an LDL cholesterol of 150 mg/dl but all large still gets prescribed a statin drug by his/her doctor. Or someone with an LDL of 100 mg/dl--generally "favorable" by most standards--is not treated but it is all small and the person is truly at high risk. (Also, knowledge that all LDL particles are small does not mean that statins are the preferred agent. In my view, they are not.)
Tags :

Comments (15) -

  • Anonymous

    10/3/2008 4:41:00 AM |

    I've had no success lowering my very high LDL(350), can't tolerate statins..supposedly have combination of large and small LDL, 20-40% blockages per cardiac cath.My HDL (80), Trig.(70)are good, but still concerned since already show athrosclerosis. I'm 55, 100 lbs., and have had high LDL since a teen. Any suggestions? Thanks!

  • Anonymous

    10/3/2008 5:25:00 PM |

    Isn't inflammation the root cause of atherosclerosis ? Isn't cholesterol's role in heart disease only that it happens to be used as the material, with which the body repairs the lesions caused by inflammation ?

  • Steve

    10/3/2008 6:16:00 PM |

    excellent post. 1. if statins not preferred way to go for small LDL, what is- Niacin and elimination of grains? 2. How is it possible that a VAP test showed large Pattern A(by small margin)and two years later NMR shows nearly 100% small dense Pattern B?  Is one test better than the other? 3. Do genetics overwhelmingly determine pattern size?  I have eliminated all grains,sugars, starchy veggies to see if i can get my LDL to be large and fluffy.  Thank you.

  • Anne

    10/4/2008 5:17:00 PM |

    I am an example of someone with "normal" cholesterol and CAD. I was only 54 years old when my LAD blocked. I went on to bypass as I reblocked after each stent.

    In the past few years I have been looking into many of the other factors may have contributed to my  health problems and trying to optimize my health. Yes, coromary heart disease is so much more than elevated cholesterol.

  • Stan (Heretic)

    10/4/2008 5:37:00 PM |

    No it doesn't!

  • Peter

    10/5/2008 2:41:00 PM |

    Hi Dr Davis,

    Excellent post. The value of total cholesterol is irrelevant. While there is a VERY slightly higher cholesterol level in heart attack patients, the overlap with the normal population is such as to make total cholesterol level meaningless. Once it's meaningless and you can then look back to the initial work of Ancel Keys, who appears to have been the primary architect of the lipid hypothesis, and you can see it is based on this now clearly meaningless measurement.

    The very slight increase in TC in cardiac patients is explicable by the fact that glycation of the apoA particle inhibits its attachment to the LDL receptor. I would expect this to produce a slight rise in TC. You then have to pose the question as to which does most damage: persisting apoA containing particles due to glycation of their surface protein, or glycation of all of the body proteins by the same hyperglycaemia that affected the apo A protein. Using HbA1c as a marker of hyperglycaemia there is a reasonable correlation with CVD even within "normal" HbA1c levels in the EPIC study. Whole grains = hyperglycaemia. Hyperglycaemia = apoptosis of vascular endothelium. What more do you need for vascular damage?

    So, as the lipid hypothesis is based on TC and should have been stillborn or drowned at birth, where does particle size come in? We have the situation of good (HDL) cholesterol and bad (LDL) cholesterol to explain why TC is useless. Then we get good LDL (large fluffy) and bad LDL (small dense) to explain why total LDL (by calculation) is utterly useless too. We even now have good and bad HDL. Never mind good (small) VLDL and bad (large) VLDL to explain why some triglycerides are better/worse than others.

    Ultimately small dense LDL, large VLDL and HDL3 are strong markers of the metabolic syndrome. Hyperinsulinaemia and insulin resistance are the cornerstones of metabolic syndrome according to Reaven, who largely popularised the concept. The lipid changes are easily viewed as a consequence, not a cause, of metabolic syndrome. It is undoubtedly believable that sdLDL is stickier/more oxidisable than other lipoproteins, but that becomes unimportant if it's not there in the first place, ie no metabolic syndrome. This would, simply, explain why reducing wheat products works to reduce sdLDL, unless they are replaced by equally insulinogenic "wheat free" comparable junk foods based on non wheat sugar sources. If it turned out that purple spotted LDL, induced by eating blackberries, was stickier than sdLDL we would no doubt have a drive to eliminate blackberries or (more likely) develop a drug to remove the purple spots.

    Following your blog gives me the distinct impression that one day you really could become a cholesterol skeptic. Stranger things have happened.

    Peter

  • JayCee Botha

    10/6/2008 9:37:00 PM |

    Anonymous and Steve - I stronly believe in a propper low carb (note that I say LOW carb, and not NO Carb) way of eating. I would really like to suggest some awesome reading material. It is from dr. James E Carslon who wrote the book "Genocide. How your doctors dietary ignorance will kill you!!!". In the book he explains amongst other things the actual benefits of dietary cholesterol and how a low-carb way of eating will increase the ldl-particle sizes and bring down the triglycerides and dangerous VLDL.

    From a recent personal answer I got from him, he explained to me the benefits of adding dietary cholesterol from a biochemical point of view. I hope this helps in understanding that a correct dietary change can help.

    Here is what he said :

    OK, so what are the benefits of adding cholesterol to the diet? It's not only fascinating, it'll blow your mind. When we eat cholesterol containing foods, the cholesterol in the food we consume actually binds to an enzyme called HMG CoA reductase and inhibits its function. This enzyme is what's known as the rate limiting enzyme in cholesterol biosynthesis. This means that once this enzyme does what it's supposed to do, cholesterol will be made no matter what. By inhibiting the enzyme's function, choilesterol cannot be made. So eating cholesterol actually inhibts its own production.
    But wait, it gets even better.

    The cholesterol in the foods we eat is what's referred to as fat soluble, or lipophilic (or fat loving). Since cholesterol is lipophilic, it diffuses through not only the outer cell membrane, but the cell's=2 0nucleus membrane and attaches the the DNA. Guess where it attaches to on the DNA? It attaches to the sites on DNA WHERE HMG Co A IS MADE!!!!! That's right, so not only does the cholesterol in the food we eat attache and inhibit the function of the enzyme already present to make cholesterol; the cholesterol in the foods we eat also prevents the production of the enzymes needed to make itself. In biochemical speak, this is known as negative biofeedback.

    Eat more cholesterol, make less cholesterol. By the way, the only thing I've seen in eighteen years considerably raise the good cholesterol known as the HDL, is the consumption of more cholesterol. So EAT MORE CHOLESTEROL IT"S GOOD FOR YOU!

  • moblogs

    10/7/2008 12:11:00 PM |

    Inflammation is essentially the cause of heart disease isn't it?
    I'm not medically trained, but I assume small particle LDL is a signifier of crammed, broken up large particles - perhaps a long time accumulation of what was once sent to the skin hoping to be converted to D by UVB but didn't(there is a study that says British gardeners have lower cholesterol in the Summer which seems very interesting).
    The fact that statins work (albeit with alarming side effects), and that according to a Spanish study, that atorvastatin raises vitamin D some degree shows the problem isn't really cholesterol. That is erroneous cholesterol readings are the 'symptom' of either vitamin D deficiency or associated things that domino on to the ability for the heart to succomb to heart disease. As a rule I still think the general cholesterol hypothesis is a farce, not just because of the way the products are marketed but because it's only looking at one station on the tube system. 'High cholesterol causing heart disease' might be better termed as 'low vitamin D causes heart disease' because that's perhaps the root, or at least one root.

  • Steve L.

    11/14/2008 5:43:00 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    First let me say a big thank you for your blog.  I follow your's, Jimmy Moore's and the Drs. Eades' blogs closely.  As a result of reading your book and blot, I just had my first heart scan at age 50, and was vert happy to hear zero calcium score.

    I do low carb nutrition (~50g/day), so my triglycerides were very low (28).  I've read that all LDL will be large with triglycerides that low (below 70).  Can you confirm that?  Would I be wasting my money on blood work to determine particle size?  HDL is 62, LDL 136.

    Steve L.

  • Wenchypoo

    4/9/2009 1:14:00 PM |

    Simple cholesterol measurement also ignores the presence of other factors that lead to heart disease, like lipoprotein(a) and vitamin D deficiency.

    Conventional total and LDL cholesterol do not distinguish between large and small particles, nor reveal the presence of other hidden patterns. An LDL cholesterol of 150 mg/dl, for instance, may contain 100% large LDL--a relatively good situation that by itself is unlikely to cause heart disease, or it might contain 100% small LDL--a very bad situation that is likely to cause heart disease. Just knowing that LDL is 150 mg/dl tells you almost nothing. In 2008, most people have some mixture of the two, particularly with the proliferation of "healthy whole grains" in the American diet, foods that trigger formation of small LDL.

    I'm looking for heart disease info that isn't related to cholesterol OR grain intake, because my cat has it--cats are obligate carnivores, and therefore do not take in grains unless fed commercially-prepared foods.  Mine do not--I make their food from scratch, using a UC Davis vet-designed diet recipe.  Cholesterol levels aren't a concern either, although I now know to have the SIZE of cells examined, as well as vitamin D levels checked.  As for anti-inflammatories, fish oil is part of the diet recipe.

    I'm going back to the vet for more blood work (now that I have more clues).

  • TedHutchinson

    10/1/2010 8:48:09 AM |

    Statins Do Not Decrease Small, Dense Low-Density Lipoprotein
    Free full text at link.
    In an observational study, we examined the effect of statins on low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) subfractions.
    Using density-gradient ultracentrifugation, we measured small, dense LDL density in 612 patients (mean age, 61.7 ± 12.6 yr), some with and some without coronary artery disease, who were placed in a statin-treated group (n=172) or a control group (n=440) and subdivided on the basis of coronary artery disease status.
    Total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and the LDL cholesterol/apolipoprotein B ratio were significantly lower in the statin group. However, the proportion of small, dense LDL was higher in the statin group (42.9% ± 9.5% vs 41.3% ± 8.5%; P=0.046) and the proportion of large, buoyant LDL was lower (23.6% ± 7.5% vs 25.4% ± 7.9%; P=0.011). In the statin group, persons without coronary artery disease had higher proportions of small, dense LDL, and persons with coronary artery disease tended to have higher proportions of small, dense LDL.
    Our study suggests that statin therapy—whether or not recipients have coronary artery disease—does not decrease the proportion of small, dense LDL among total LDL particles, but in fact increases it, while predictably reducing total LDL cholesterol, absolute amounts of small, dense LDL, and absolute amounts of large, buoyant LDL. If and when our observation proves to be reproducible in subsequent large-scale studies, it should provide new insights into small, dense LDL and its actual role in atherogenesis or the progression of atherosclerosis.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:19:10 PM |

    The imprecision and uncertainty of conventional total and LDL cholesterol has provided ammunition for some to discount the entire cholesterol concept. And they are right to a degree: cholesterol by itself is indeed a lousy predictor of heart disease. But small LDL is a very reliable predictor of potential for heart disease. Dismissing the entire concept because the standard measurement stinks is not right, either.

  • Mary

    1/25/2011 8:42:22 PM |

    For years I suffered from high cholesterol and was almost permanently on statin medication. I come for a family with a strong history of heart disease and I personally believe that high cholesterol can cause heart disease. Thankfully I now have my cholesterol under control but it has been hard work, and I done it the natural way, as I suffered from the side effects statins cause.

    How To Lower Cholesterol Without Medication

  • Anonymous

    3/12/2011 8:55:30 AM |

    About eighty percent of our cholesterol is produced by the liver and the rest depends on our diet. Foods such as red meat and butter are rich in cholesterol where as those from plant origin have very little or no cholesterol at all. The control of cholesterol in our body is done by the liver. I think,more can be found out from:
    http://www.heart-consult.com/articles/how-cholesterol-affects-heart

  • doug

    5/9/2011 8:52:46 PM |

    exactly!!!!!

Add comment

Loading