200 point drop in heart scan score

Some of the math-savvy will have noticed that we often report drops in CT heart scan scores on a percentage basis. Unfortunately, it this were a competition (which, of course, it is not), this would be unfair.

A score of 50, for instance, that drops "only" 25 points would represent a 50% drop in score.

But someone with a score of 1050 who drops his or her score the same quantity, or 25, will have dropped their score less than 5%.

In other words, the magnitude of your starting score determines how large a percentage drop you achieve, even when the absolute, or real, quantity of plaque reversal is the same as someone who begins with a lower score.

I qualify this discussion in this vein because of Grady's story. Grady, a soon-to-retire attorney, started with a heart scan score of 1151. On the Track Your Plaque program, he saw his score drop nearly 200 points--200 points!

But, if we gauged Grady's success just on a percentage basis, he dropped his score only a measly 17% or so. (Imagine the headlines if this program were sponsored by a drug manufacturer. The Track Your Plaque program proudly has nothing to do with the drug industry.)

Of course, the Track Your Plaque program is not a competition. It is an effort to help everyone possible, the more the better. Even if Grady failed to set a new Track Your Plaque record gauged on a percentage basis, he will have achieved an extraordinary advantage in health: the virtual elimination of the dangers of heart disease.

With this drop in score, Grady's risk for heart attack plummets from a spine-chilling 25% per year to nearly zero. (I know of NO other program that can claim such a track record.)

Grady's full story will be reported in the August, 2007 Track Your Plaque newsletter. To subscribe or to just view when it is posted, go to www.cureality.com website, click on the upper right hand corner What Does My Heart Scan Show? graphic, which then takes you to the page to view the newsletter. Or, Track Your Plaque Members can just go to the Library and click on newsletter archives.

How tough is the Track Your Plaque 60-60-60 target?

One of the basic requirements that stack the odds in your favor of stopping or dropping your CT heart scan score is to achieve basic lipid targets of 60-60-60.

In other words, we generally see best results when LDL is reduced to 60 mg/dl, HDL raised to 60 mg/dl, triglycerides reduced to 60 mg/dl. Now, these are not absolute requirements. Someone can have a spectacular drop in heart scan score even with an HDL of 56, LDL of 71. But the "Rule of 60" provides a useful target that is easy to remember, packs real power, and is clearly beyond that achieved with conventional approaches.

People often ask, "Just how tough is it to get to these targets?"

It's really not that tough. Interestingly, whenever I tell my cardiologist or primary care colleagues that I advocate these 60-60-60 targets, they declare that it's tough, perhaps impossible, except for the most highly motivated.

I agree that it requires motivation. A cigarette-smoking, TV-addicted, 70-lb overweight, chip- and pretzel-eating couch potato is not going to achieve them.

On the other hand, you don't have to be a marathon running vegetarian to do it, either.

Most people, in fact, engaged in the Track Your Plaque program achieve the 60-60-60 targets---or exceed them. It's not uncommon, for instance, for HDL to skyrocket to 80 or 90 mg/dl with many of our strategies. (Of course, if your starting HDL is 20 or 25 mg/dl, 80 or 90 is not possible with current technology.)

But it certainly does require more than the "Take Lipitor and stick to your low-fat diet" approach that is the mantra repeated in the vast majority of medical offices across the U.S. For instance, reducing LDL to 60 mg/dl when starting at 170 mg/dl will require addition of oat bran and other soluble or viscous fibers; raw almonds and walnuts; perhaps the use of Benecol butter substitute; reduction or elimination of wheat products if small LDL comprises a substantial proportion of LDL particles. Reducing triglycerides requires the generous use of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil. Attention to vitamin D must be a part of the effort.

So, yes, it is not as simple as the conventional approach. But the results are far superior in reducing or eliminating heart attack and in dropping your heart scan score.

But it can be done. We do it every day.

Vitamin D2 belongs in the garbage

It happened yet again.

Mel came to the office. CT heart scan score: 799--quite high, enough to pose a real threat very soon. Thus, no time to lose in instituting an effective prevention program.

We do the usual--identify the six causes of coronary plaque; begin fish oil, show him how to correct his plaque causes. You've heard it before.

Vitamin D blood level in March: 17 ng/ml--severe deficiency.

Vitamin D replacement needs to be a part of his coronary plaque control program. So I suggested 6000 units per day of an oil-based preparation of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol). Conveniently, there is a Vitamin Shoppe outlet across the street from my office. I just point and tell people to go across the street.

Mel did just that. However, he also informed his primary care physician about his vitamin D deficiency. His primary physician promptly told him he needed to take a prescription form of vitamin D and not to bother with just a supplement.

So Mel stopped his vitamin D capsules and started taking vitamin D prescription "medication." Mel figured, naturally, that if it requires a prescription, it must be better. Unfortunately, Mel and his doctor failed to pass the change in strategy onto us.

So, four months later, Mel got repeat vitamin D blood level: 19 ng/ml.

I've seen this too many times. The prescription form of vitamin D is nonsense. There's hardly any effect on blood levels of vitamin D3 at all. The body's conversion of this non-human form of D is extremely inefficient and therefore virtually useless. While it raises the blood level of vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) and thereby total D (D3 + D2), there is negligible effect on the real human and active form, D3.

How and why this preparation got through the FDA process to obtain approval as a drug is beyond me, though I am not a defender of FDA practices and politics.

This notion that "if it's a prescription, it must be better" is a fiction perpetuated by the drug industry. The same principle gets tossed around with fish oil, hormones like estrogens and testosterone, and others. Often, the principal difference between prescription and non-prescription is patent protection. Patent protection provides profit protection. Selling a product without patent protection can be risky business. It's certainly less profitable.

As always, getting at the truth is sometimes the most difficult job of all. Prescription vitamin D belongs in the garbage. Vitamin D capsules (gelcaps) do the job and do it well, over and over, with reliable, consistent and substantial rises in blood levels of 25-OH-vitamin D3. I take 6000 units per day (3 2000 unit capsules) that cost me $5.99 for a bottle of 120 capsules, or about $4.50 a month.

And nobody--nobody--pays me to say this. I say it because I believe it's true.

Angioplasty vs. Track Your Plaque

What does angioplasty have over the Track Your Plaque program?

Well, first of all, the Track Your Plaque program has a lot to boast about. What other approach can claim to have reduced heart disease 30, 40, 51, and now 63%? That's as close to a cure that's ever--EVER--been achieved. Statin drug manufacturers can talk about an occasional 1, 2, or 5% reversal. We're talking 10 times more.

The Track Your Plaque program also uses as little prescription medication as necessary. Fish oil, vitamin D, coenzyme Q10, niacin--some of the frequent tools used for plaque reversal in our program. Yes, we do use prescription medications, but only when there is truly a benefit and nutritional strategies have failed to achieve the goals we're seeking. We do not endorse shotgun prescription approaches conceived of by some marketing department at a pharmaceutical company.

So what possible advantage can coronary angioplasty have? Why don't more people embrace a program like Track Your Plaque that has already proven itself enormously effective?

Because angioplasty is easy. There's little worrying ahead of time. Just wait for the symptoms or other problem to appear, go to the hospital and get your procedure. You can live the free and easy life beforehand--no exercise, no diet efforts, no nutritional supplements. Just be sure to go to the hospital when suspicious symptoms strike. (Of course, you gamble that you survive the appearance of symptoms, a process 30-50% of people fail to survive.)

That means you can eat all you want, drink all you want, save the money you otherwise might have thrown away on supplements, pocket the monthly costs of an exercise club membership, etc. Go to the hospital when you experience the sensation of an anvil on your chest or of suffocation, let the emergency room do their thing, meet your cardiologist, go to the catheterization laboratory, get two or three stents, go home the next day!

Why bother with a prevention program, especially one that requires involvement, learning, and effort like Track Your Plaque?

Because it's your way to stack the odds enormously in your favor of 1) surviving the appearance of symptoms, 2) avoiding the prospect of heart procedures, which are not as clean and easy as they often seem, 3) have a longer lasting durability than a stent which could buy you a couple of years before your next procedure or heart catastrophe, and 4) it's the right thing to do for the sake of the huge societal cost of heart disease.

Many of you have the equivalent of a cure for heart disease at your fingertips. Unless you have a soft spot in your heart for hospitals, cardiologists, or the pharmaceutical or medical device industry, there isn't a choice.

Plaque is like money

In case anyone missed this in the June, 2007 Track Your Plaque Newsletter, I'm again posting how we calculate the annual rate of score increase, should it occur.

For instance, say your score in January, 2005, is 100. In November, 2006, you undergo another scan and the score is 140. Obviously, your score has increased an undesirable 40%. But what is the annual rate of score increase, the amount of increase per year?

In this example, the annual rate of score increase is 19%--not anywhere near as bad as the 40% that can scare the heck out of you.

Obviously, the best rate of heart scan score increase is a negative number, i.e., a drop in score from, say 100, to 60. You might even eliminate the need for this calculation altogether if you drop your score.

Nonetheless, whenever there is a score increase over an uneven period of time, a fraction of year(s), this is the method we use to annualize the calculation. The equation we use is a modified form of the annual compound interest equation using continuous compounding, since that’s how coronary atherosclerotic plaque grows--just like money. The difference is, of course, is that while you might want more money, you certainly don't want more plaque.

You will need a calculator for this calculation, one with an exponential “y to the power x” function. For ease, calculate "1/t first, then use it as the “x” exponent on your yx function and "(score 2 / score 1)" as the "y".


Annual rate of plaque growth (APG) = ( score 2 / score 1 ) 1/t - 1

Multiply the result by 100 to yield a percent.


Score 1” is your 1st heart scan score, “score 2” is your 2nd (or any subsequent heart scan score); “t” is the amount of time between the two scans expressed in years in decimal form. Time between scans should be expressed in years or fractions of years. To obtain the time interval in fractions of years, simply divide the number of months between scans by 12 (e.g., 18 months / 12 = 1.5 years ; 22 months / 12 = 1.83 years).

It’s not as tricky as it looks. For example, if your first heart scan score is 300 and your next scan 16 months later (or 16/12 = 1.33 years) is 372, then:

Annual rate of plaque growth (APG) = ( 372 / 300 ) 1/1.33 - 1 = 0.175

Multiply 0.175 x 100 = 17.5% annual rate of plaque growth


Some scan centers will do the calculation for you as part of a repeat scan. However, the equation can be used if you're left on your own, or if you go to a different scan center. If this is too much effort, perhaps it's just another reason to add to the list of reasons to drop your heart scan score!

Triglycerides: What is normal?

In The Track Your Plaque program, we advocate decreasing triglycerides to 60 mg/dl or less.

That's the level of triglycerides that minimize the presence of triglyceride-containing undesirable lipoproteins causing plaque, such as small LDL, VLDL, and the after-eating persistence of IDL (intermediate-density lipoprotein, a bad player). (The enzyme, cholesteryl-ester transfer protein, or CETP, is responsible for exchanging one triglyceride molecule for one cholesterol molecule between HDL and other lipoprotein particles. Thus, an excess of triglyceride availability permits CETP to operate unrestrained, creating more undesirable lipoproteins. This was the basis for Pfizer's now defunct CETP inhibitor, torcetrapib.)

Of course, this triglyceride target is far below that of the conventional guidelines. The Adult Treatment Panel-III of the National Cholesterol Education Panel suggests a triglyceride level of 150 mg/dl is okay.

In my view, a level of 150 mg/dl is highly abnormal, permitting the persistence of multiple lipoprotein particles and virtually guarantees plaque growth. In short, triglycerides of 150 are awful.

Curious thing: Successful participants in our program, i.e., people who achieve desirable weight, reduce processed carbohydrate junk foods and saturated fat sources, and aim for the 60-60-60 targets for conventional lipids, commonly end up with triglyceride levels of 25-50 mg/dl.

We have seen many people drop their heart scan scores just by achieving a triglyceride level of 60 mg/dl or less. So achieving a lower level below 60 is not necessarily a requirement for coronary plaque regression.

But it makes me wonder if a triglycere level of 30s or 40s is the level for perfect health. These are levels ordinarily regarded as impossibly low. When colleagues see the numbers we readily and routinely achieve, they declare that the numbers are spurious, temporary, or just flukes. "No way you can do that all the time!"

This level also seems to, in virtually all cases, eliminate the triglyceride-containing undesirable lipoproteins small LDL, IDL, etc., and allow full conversion of HDL into the healthy, large fraction.

Should we move the Track Your Plaque triglyceride target to below 45 mg/dl or even lower? I don't think so, but it makes me wonder.

The processed food battlefield

If you have any remaining doubts that the processed food industry is a cutthroat, go-for-the-jugular, organized effort to extract every possible penny from your pocket, even at the expense of health, take a gander at a quote from Marion Nestle's wonderful book, Food Politics.

In Nestle's description on how food conglomerate, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), conspired to fix prices on some basic agricultural compounds, she quotes an ADM executive captured on videotape and presented in court:

"We have a saying at this company . . . our competitors are our friends and our customers are our enemies."

In other words, ADM's competitors help establish what prices should be charged for basic foodstuffs, while its customers are the ones to do battle with.

Food is a necessary commodity. You and I only need so much of it. So how does a 40 billion dollar food manufacturer extract greater and greater profits and grow their market? Motivate people to eat more. It's that simple.

Eat less? Are you kidding? Eat spinach, green peppers, beets, and other low-margin products? Get real.

Why not take 8 cents worth of wheat flour, add some sugar, food coloring, and some other enticing flavorings like high fructose corn syrup? Put it all in a cleverly illustrated package, maybe even develop an entire story line about the product, complete with clever slogans and songs and . . . ouila! You now have a food that sells for many, many times its intrinsic value.

How to make the health nuts happy? Easy: Add some fiber. Now it's healthy! And it's now part of a "balanced diet".

What if it's full of corn starch, wheat flour, and sugar of the sort that make HDL cholesterols plummet, fan the flames of small LDL, increase inflammatory measures like C-reactive protein, push people closer and closer to diabetes, and make them fat? Then be sure it's low in saturated fat! It might even qualify as "Heart Healthy" by the American Heart Association!

Processed foods have no role in the Track Your Plaque program. If you want to see your CT heart scan score skyrocket, go to your grocery store and stray into the aisles outside of the produce aisle.

But stick to the produce aisle and watch your wallet grow, your health improve, your appetite shrink, all while food processor profits plummet.

Heart Scan debate

A few years back when the book form of Track Your Plaque was first released, I did a bunch of radio and interviews to raise awareness of the book and of CT heart scanning in general.

I'd forgotten about this interview I did for National Public Radio (NPR), in which I debate Dr. Graboys from Harvard. Though I've had this debate countless other times, usually on a less formal basis, I didn't know what to expect at the start of the interview. After all, I knew of Dr. Graboys' reputation as a respected Harvard cardiologist. So I was expecting that at least he would argue that, being relatively new at the time, CT heart scanning was largely unproven in large clinical trials. (This was not entirely true then, however, as at least 1000 trials had already been performed, many of them involving thousands of participants. However, despite that much validation, the concept of CT heart scanning had still not entered the consciousness of most practicing physicians. After all, heart scanning is not part of the "crash and repair" equation that most have invested their career in.)

Heart Hawk re-discovered the debate, still on the NPR website. So here it is. When I re-listened to the debate, I was surprised at how little Dr. Graboys had to offer. He argues that examining left ventricular function should suffice as an important measure of mortality. In other words, if you have experienced a drop in the strength of heart muscle, that can be used to stratify your risk of death.

I tried to convey to the audience (NOT convince Dr. Graboys to believe, as most of my colleagues are stubbornly adherent to their way of thinking until someone tosses a big carrot in front of them) that CT heart scanning provides a means to detect coronary atherosclerosis years, even decades, before questions of mortality (death) became necessary. Heart scanning identifies disease in its early stages so that a program of prevention can be followed and tracked.

Dr. Graboys expressed concern that heart scanning devices could be mis-used to increase hospital procedures. He's absolutely right here. By that same line of thinking, say your crooked auto mechanic on the corner scams most of his customers by doing unnecessary car repairs. Does this mean that we should ban all auto mechanics from repairing cars? I hope not. I believe it does mean that we should all be educated on distinguishing scams from an honest businessman.

Same with heart scans. The key is not to ban heart scanning. We should try to educate the public and physicians to prevent these sorts of scams and decisions based on ignorance from occurring.

Nonetheless, make your own judgments.


CLICK HERE to listen (this is a .ram file so you will need the free RealPlayer to play)

Break the addiction

"But, doc, I can't lose my cereal! Pretzels--you've got to be kidding me! I eat 'em every night! I can't do it. I'll be hungry all the time!"

This is a discussion I have every day. The usual suspect: A 50-some year old with HDL in the 30s or 40s, small LDL, borderline high blood sugar approaching the pre-diabetic cut-off, highish blood pressure, excess tummy. They usually struggle with energy, feelings of sleepiness, use lots of caffeine to stay alert even in the middle of the day after a sufficient night's sleep.

Not as obvious as the tremulous, pinopint-pupil drug addict, but I recognize it nonetheless: The processed food addict.

Breaking this addiction can be as difficult for some people as breaking a smoking addiction. Instead of nicotine cravings, they get insatiable hunger. Just 3 or 4 hours without their processed food "fix," and they are ravenous to satiate their impulse. Most give in and go right back to the vicious cycle.

But break the cycle--eliminate processed foods like breakfast cereals, whole wheat crackers, pretzels, cookies, granola bars, fruit drinks, low-fat salad dressings, bran muffins . . .70+% of the foods in your supermarket---and you will make an interesting discovery:

You no longer crave these foods.

Just think about it: The addictive properties of processed foods are a food manufacturer's dream. What other product besides cigarettes has an addictive quality that ensures you come back for more... and more and more.

It it just too creepy that much of the processed food industry is, in reality, owned by the tobacco industry (Altria, previously known as Phillip Morris) and RJ Reynolds. Perhaps that is the modus operandi of these corporations: Identify products that have an edge, foods or other products that possess an addictive quality. This is not true of cucumbers, for instance. What a lousy investment a cucumber grower would make!

Be smarter than Phillip Morris. Outsmart the people looking to empty your pocket and corrupt your health. Break the addiction.

Hang around the produce aisle of your grocery and use the farmer's market or your local equivalent. Look for locally grown foods. Try to keep your food as unprocessed as possible.

You will be impressed with the results.

Are we done here?

Les' doctor consulted me because his CT heart scan score had increased 40% from 893 to 1259 over 18 months.

Judging by his appearance, Les was a 59-year old guy trapped somewhere in the 1980s. The only reason he'd undergone two heart scans was from the prompting of his wife, who was quite savvy.

Among the steps we took was to have Les undergo a stress test. I explained to Les and his wife that stress tests are effective tests of coronary blood flow, but not of plaque. Therefore, there was somewhere around a 25-35% likelihood of an abnormality that suggested poor flow in one or more portions of the heart.

Les passed his stress test easily. A bricklayer, Les was accustomed to heavy physical effort. "Are we done here, doc?" Les asked. Les' wife raised her eyebrows but, to her credit, kept quiet. She'd obviously been here before.

I explained to Les that having normal coronary blood flow was just one aspect of the issue.

"But I don't need a stent, right? I don't need a bypass. I already take Vytorin. So I need a cheeseburger once in a while. So what! Who doesn't? What else is there?"

I continued. "Les, with a normal stress test, there's no denying you still have lots of plaque in your heart's arteries. The risk to you is that one of these plaques will 'rupture,' sort of like a little volcano erupting. Of course, it's not lava that flies out, but the internal contents of plaque. When that happens and the contents of plaque get exposed to blood flowing by, a blood clot forms. That's a heart attack.

"With a 40% increase in your score over 18 months, you are, in fact, at substantial risk for such a plaque rupture. Unless you're fond of hospitals and the thought of heart procedures, then we need to address that part of the issue."

So it went. Step by step, with the quiet, strong support of Les' wife, we uncovered 7 additional causes of his heart disease. It wasn't the easiest process for us, but we did manage to educate Les on the simple steps he needed to take to 1) correct the causes of his coronary plaque, 2) how to use foods and stop fanning the flames of his plaque, and 3) how to live with this nasty specter hanging over him.

Now, if we could only transform Les into an optimist . . .
Wheat Belly Revisited

Wheat Belly Revisited

Do you have a wheat belly?

When I first coined this phrase back in July, 2007, I had witnessed the phenomenal health effects of wheat elimination in several hundred patients.

In the nearly two years that have passed since my original post, I have witnessed hundreds more people who have done the same: eliminate pretzels, crackers, breads of all sorts, bagels, pasta, muffins, waffles, pancakes, etc.

If anything, I am convinced now more than ever that wheat is among the most destructive foods in the human diet. At least 70% of people who eliminate wheat from their diet obtain at least one, if not several, substantial health benefits.

Now, if I were trying to sell you something, say, an alternative to wheat, then you should be skeptical. If I tell you that drug or nutritional supplement X is great and you should take it, only to follow it with a sales pitch, you should be skeptical.

What am I selling? Nothing. I gain nothing by telling everyone to avoid wheat. In fact, I wish it wasn't true. Wheat foods taste good. Wheat flour makes great comfort foods. In years past, I spent many hours sitting at the bagel shop reviewing papers over a cup of coffee and a bagel. No longer.

So here, back by popular demand, the original Wheat Belly post:



Wheat Belly

You've heard of "beer bellies," the protuberant, sagging abdomen of someone who drinks excessive quantities of beer.

How about "wheat belly"?

That's the same protuberant, sagging abdomen that develops when you overindulge in processed wheat products like pretzels, crackers, breads, waffles, pancakes, breakfast cereals and pasta.



(By the way, this image, borrowed from the wonderful people at Wikipedia, is that of a teenager, who supplied a photo of himself.)

It represents the excessive visceral fat that laces the intestines and triggers a drop in HDL, rise in triglycerides, inflames small LDL particles, C-reactive protein, raises blood sugar, raises blood pressure, creates poor insulin responsiveness, etc.

How common is it? Just look around you and you'll quickly recognize it in dozens or hundreds of people in the next few minutes. It's everywhere.

Wheat bellies are created and propagated by the sea of mis-information that is delivered to your door every day by food manufacturers. It's the same campaign of mis-information that caused the wife of a patient of mine who was in the hospital (one of my rare hospitalizations) to balk in disbelief when I told her that her husband's 18 lb weight gain over the past 6 months was due to the Shredded Wheat Cereal for breakfast, turkey sandwiches for lunch, and whole wheat pasta for dinner.

"But that's what they told us to eat after Dan left the hospital after his last stent!"

Dan, at 260 lbs with a typical wheat belly, had small LDL, low HDL, high triglycerides, etc.

I hold the food companies responsible for this state of affairs, selling foods that are clearly causing enormous weight gain nationwide. Unfortunately, the idiocy that emits from Nabisco, Kraft, and Post (AKA Philip Morris); General Mills; Kelloggs; and their kind is aided and abetted by organizations like the American Heart Association, with the AHA stamp of approval on Cocoa Puffs, Cookie Crisp Cereal, and Berry Kix; and the American Diabetes Association, whose number one corporate sponsor is Cadbury Schweppes, the biggest soft drink and candy manufacturer in the world.

As I've said many times before, if you don't believe it, try this experiment: Eliminate all forms of wheat for a 4 week period--no breakfast cereals, no breads of any sort, no pasta, no crackers, no pretzels, etc. Instead, increase your vegetables, healthy oils, lean proteins (raw nuts, seeds, lean red meats, chicken, fish, turkey, eggs, Egg Beaters, low-fat yogurt and cottage cheese), fruits. Of course, avoid fruit drinks, candy, and other garbage foods, even if they're wheat-free.

Most people will report that a cloud has been lifted from their brains. Thinking is clearer, you have more energy, you don't poop out in the afternoon, you sleep more deeply, some rashes disappear. You will also notice that hunger ratchets down substantially. Most people lose the insatiable hunger pangs that occur 2-3 hours after a wheat-containing meal. Instead, hunger is a soft signal that gently prods you that it's time to consider eating again.

You will also make considerable gains towards gaining control over your risk for heart disease and your heart scan score, a crucial step in the Track Your Plaque program.

Comments (24) -

  • Anonymous

    3/23/2009 10:25:00 PM |

    I've lost most of my wheat belly by eating as you suggest. But it seems like there is a last little bit that won't go away, plus I have "wheat breasts". Is there a reason these things don't go away quickly (especially the breasts), and is there something else I can do?

  • Ellen

    3/23/2009 11:08:00 PM |

    Everything sounds right on! except for the low-fat recommendations.  A body needs fat!

  • Anonymous

    3/24/2009 2:35:00 AM |

    ok, but what is the mechanism?

    Please explain why wheat is a problem food.  I am not looking for clinical trials, just a plausible theory that I can align with or not.

    Although I don't impose the burden of data on you, here are a few references with ample data showing remarkable statistical evidence for benefits to vegetarianism:-

    http://www.vegsoc.org/info/health2.html

    http://www.vegetarian-nutrition.info/updates/vegetarian_diets_health_benefits.php

    As a Dr I am sure you would feel bad not presenting a balanced view.

  • Kiwi

    3/24/2009 3:06:00 AM |

    Yes. Think I'd avoid the manufactured oils too and go for more animal fats. Just as nature intended.

  • Anonymous

    3/24/2009 7:27:00 AM |

    It is so true, I have experienced it my self, I never used to eat sweets an cereals, but bread and pasta, have been my main diet, not any more!I used to think I had such a healthy diet as I never ate sweets and refind stuff!!

    "Most people will report that a cloud has been lifted from their brains. Thinking is clearer, you have more energy, you don't poop out in the afternoon, you sleep more deeply, some rashes disappear. You will also notice that hunger ratchets down substantially. Most people lose the insatiable hunger pangs that occur 2-3 hours after a wheat-containing meal. Instead, hunger is a soft signal that gently prods you that it's time to consider eating again."

    The above quote describes me so well, after eliminating wheat from my life!

    Is Rye as bad as wheat?

  • Kipper

    3/24/2009 11:59:00 AM |

    I appreciate your point here, but...

    I've been strictly wheat-free since the start of the year (I've slipped up a bit when I've forgotten to pack my own soy sauce for a sushi outing, and there's probably been some "stealth wheat" in infrequent restaurant meals...otherwise nada). I have some sort of wheat-related enteropathy that provides a strong incentive to be strict. I do eat some non-wheat grain products, but not every day. My sugar intake is also not perfect, but it's still much improved over any point in 2008.

    So I should be looking pretty good about now, right? Well, no. My weight seems to have stabilized down about 5-7lb below my previous stable weight, but any changes from that baseline have been strictly upward (mostly water retention after weight lifting). My waist measurement is unchanged. If there's any legitimate loss (beyond water weight due to the lower carb diet) it hasn't come off there. I'm quite overweight, so this is really a tiny drop in the bucket.

    This near-total lack of improvement has been achieved with a schedule of 4+ hours of intense exercise most weeks.

    So, anyway. Not asking for help, just commenting that the picture is not necessarily as rosy as you depict.

  • bee

    3/24/2009 1:35:00 PM |

    brown rice, corn, quinoa, amaranth, whole barley, millet - there are a whole range of whole grain alternatives to wheat. wheat just seems to be more addictive that other grains.

    thanks for another great post.

  • Missbossy

    3/24/2009 2:15:00 PM |

    Sorry it I've missed this in your other posts... but besides wheat, are there, in your opinion, any safe cereals? I've been almost completely grain/cereal free for a year but am thinking about adding oatmeal to my diet. In your experience, how well do your patients tolerate this? Thanks.

  • D

    3/24/2009 4:27:00 PM |

    I agree with what you say about wheat. I feel much better when I omit it from my diet.

    However, I do have a question. Previous generations ate wheat without having the dire health consequences we have now. Was this due to
    1. not eating nearly as much wheat as people do today? or
    2. not eating transfats and/or tons of sugar, along with the wheat? or
    3. performing hard, physical labor, something most of us don't do?
    Or, perhaps a combination of those things, plus other factors I haven't even considered.

    Before great grandpa went out to plow the fields, he probably had a breakfast of some kind of meat and/or eggs, biscuits, perhaps gravy, and then he worked really hard for hours. The kids walked to school, maybe several miles, and lunch might have been bread and butter and milk. And when they had recess, they played hard. That generation didn't have obesity and rampant heart disease. If we lived the same way our grandparents and great grandparents lived, might we be able to eat wheat products (not the super-refined junk, but what they had available), without the major health consequences?

  • Martin Levac

    3/24/2009 4:57:00 PM |

    Healthy oils and lean proteins? That idea is derived from the Mediterranean idea which is derived from the observations of Ancel Keys, the father of the lipid hypothesis. It's pure speculation.

    It's rather contradictory. The lipid hypothesis says carbohydrate is good. Thus, we should eat wheat. Yet here you are telling us wheat is actually bad for us. Tell us to eat healthy oils, i.e. vegetable oils like olive oil and canola oil. But then tell us to eat lean meats, implying there's something bad about animal fat, i.e. saturated fat, and something good about vegetable oils, i.e. polyunsaturated fat omega 3/6/9 (without noting that vegetable oils contain many times the amount of omega 6 contained in animal fat). Ancel Keys' lipid hypothesis is based on those assumptions too.

    To cut wheat, yes. But to cut animal fat, where's the justification?

  • Kipper

    3/25/2009 3:32:00 AM |

    @D: I do think exercise offsets a lot of metabolic derangement. It's part of how hockey players (the young serious ones, not slow moving middle-aged folks like me) can get away with eating shockingly poor diets.

    Incidentally, my parents tell me my grandpa had very similar symptoms to mine, before I was old enough to be aware of it myself. I have some sort of intolerance or allergy, though.

  • Kiwi

    3/25/2009 10:38:00 AM |

    reply to D:
    One of the problems with modern bread is the speed it's produced at.
    Starting in the early 1960's bread production was industrialised using "bread improvers". A loaf can now be turned out in just a couple of hours, whereas back in the past it was a long process. Earlier in the nineteenth century and before, bread had to 'prove' using naturally occurring wild yeasts. The time factor is important because of the somewhat indigestible properties of grain. Phytic acid and enzymes in the grain need to be neutralised with a long exposure to yeasts. This can be achieved also by soaking grains overnight or longer.
    Traditional societies prepare their grains this way to make them digestible and to get the full nutritional benefit.
    See 'Weston Price Foundation' for information for grain prep.

  • keith

    3/25/2009 4:12:00 PM |

    My experience supports giving wheat up completely, not just cutting down. My chronic joint pain went away--maybe an autoimmune-related phenomenon. Will be interested to see if it affects my serum C-reactive protein.

  • Shreela

    4/10/2009 11:40:00 AM |

    "You will also notice that hunger ratchets down substantially. Most people lose the insatiable hunger pangs that occur 2-3 hours after a wheat-containing meal. Instead, hunger is a soft signal that gently prods you that it's time to consider eating again."

    My mother, and paternal grandmother were both diagnosed with hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), and were instructed to eat many small meals per day to avoid symptoms of hypoglycemia.

    I started having the same symptoms during junior high, so my mother taught me to eat many small meals to avoid my shakes, headaches, and light-headedness that happened after 3-4 hours without food (except when I ate really large meals occasionally, then I could last longer without food).

    I start following Dr. Davis' blog, and he was blogging about the benefits of fasting from some studies. I commented that I didn't think I could fast because of the hypoglycemia, and he replied to stick it out, and stop the wheat. Coincidentally, I had a borderline H1C at that time.

    But instead of sticking it out, I forced myself to not eat until my hypoglycemic signs started, then I ate veggies, meat, or fruit, with a few nuts here and there. I'd eat as little as possible, then wait until the next episode of hypoglycemic symptoms. Oh, I did continue eating rice or potatoes, but smaller servings, and quit sugar during that time.

    I started noticing I could go a little longer between meals without hypoglycemic symptoms after about 4 days, and I think it was about 7-10 days off wheat and sugar (but still eating a little rice or potatoes) when I went 16 hours without food, and no hypoglycemic symptoms.

    My follow-up HA1C was in the normal range after stretching out my meals, and stopping wheat and sugar.

  • Anonymous

    6/3/2009 7:49:17 AM |

    Does wheat reduction works as well (i.e. eating a slice of bread or 30 grams of pasta or breading your meat instead of eating two big bowls of pasta, a loaf of bread, a slice of pizza, several biscuits and pastries daily) or total removal of wheat from the diet is absolutely required?

  • crowdancer

    7/24/2009 4:10:10 PM |

    I believe that wheat and refined carbs are responsible for the 'muffin-tops' and 'wheat bellies' so many folks are carrying around now.
    I work with people who have gluten addiction all the time and when they eat a Whole foods diet free of gluten, dairy, soy, and sugar the weight falls off them quick. And onlike most other diets the weight falls off the belly first, which is an awesome motivator. Also, there aren't the constant cravings of the low fat diet. My dad went on the gluten, dairy, soy and sugar free diet plan and his blood sugar and blood pressure went from borderline diabetic/high blood pressure to optimal ranges in a few weeks. He is off all medications now and full of energy at 66 years old.

  • buy jeans

    11/2/2010 8:48:53 PM |

    Now, if I were trying to sell you something, say, an alternative to wheat, then you should be skeptical. If I tell you that drug or nutritional supplement X is great and you should take it, only to follow it with a sales pitch, you should be skeptical.

  • Sarah

    5/7/2011 2:53:21 PM |

    I have been low carb for 5 years and cut out wheat from my diet completely. No pasta, no breads of any kind, no breading on my meat, no waffles/pancakes/donuts/etc or any grains at all. I also cut out potatoes and corn.

    I dropped down from 190 to 135, a normal weight for my height, and I have kept it off for 4 years. I completely believe that the grains we eat now are so far removed from what they used to be  (due to refining processes, selective breeding to be more tasty, etc) that they have become a slow acting poison.

    Thank you for this blog!

  • David

    8/29/2011 3:01:03 PM |

    I wish there was a law that would prevent quackery such as this from being published and promoted.  "This food is evil".  "That food is evil".  Aside from junk food that is high in fat and/or sugar, specific foods or food groups are not the problem unless you have an allergy.

  • Donna H.

    8/29/2011 11:34:49 PM |

    David says:
    "I wish there was a law that would prevent quackery such as this from being published and promoted. “This food is evil”. “That food is evil”. Aside from junk food that is high in fat and/or sugar, specific foods or food groups are not the problem unless you have an allergy."

    And I wish there was a law that would prevent the 'ignorant gene' from being passed down from parents to children...

    Thank you Dr. Davis for bringing this to light.  It would seem plausible that genetically modified grains have contributed significantly to our modern illnesses...most notably, inflammation, diabetes and the dramatic rise in the incidence of celiac disease.  As grains have been "pushed" into our daily diets since the 1970's (think low fat, whole grain nonsense), T-2 diabetes has increased exponentially!  And while there is no 'one-size-fits-all' DIET, if the USDA Food Pyramid (the definitive guide on how to eat healthy!) was so great with its ongoing drumbeat of  "EAT MORE GRAINS!", then wouldn't we have LESS diabetes...LESS obesity...and wouldn't we all be slim and healthy?  I guess this is the reason why the standard American diet has the acronym: SAD...

  • Dr. William Davis

    8/30/2011 6:34:36 PM |

    Hi, Donna--

    Well said!

    The status quo has gotten us into a heap of misery, health-wise. I am not willing to accept it!

  • AnnieBee

    9/13/2011 12:49:21 AM |

    FYI:  There is no longer a USDA food pyramid with an emphasis on grains on the bottom of the pyramid.
    It was replaced by "ChooseMyPlate" in August 2011.  It's not perfect.  One fourth of the plate is for grains.  But I am happy to see that half of the plate is for vegetables and fruits.
    http://www.choosemyplate.gov/

  • Ron E

    9/18/2011 9:20:59 PM |

    Are oats and oat and oat bran also bad for you?

  • Dr. William Davis

    9/20/2011 12:42:23 PM |

    We took all oat products out of the diet a while back, due to its extravagant blood sugar-increasing effect.

Loading