Is it mainstream or alternative?

A question I get about once a week: "Is your program a kind of alternative medicine?"

Our program for control and reversal of coronary plaque using CT heart scans applies an eclectic panel of tools to achieve its goals. We use high-tech methods like lipoprotein analysis and CT heart scans; nutritional supplements like fish oil, vitamin D, and l-arginine; diet strategies and "functional foods" (using foods as a therapeutic tool); and conventional medication.

I don't consider this approach "alternative" in the sense that it uses unmeasurable or spiritual strategies. But I don't consider it mainstream, either, since current mainstream practice of heart disease prevention is far less rigorous with far less satisfactory results.

I think I can sum up the Track Your Plaque approach by saying that we use tools that work. Our measure of success is whether or not your heart scan score is stopped or reduced--that's hard to fudge. You can call it what you will, but I call it the best program for heart disease prevention I know of, alternative or mainstream.

Want to see someone turn diabetic?

If you want to witness the transformation of someone into a pre-diabetic or diabetic, put them on a low fat diet.

Dr. Dean Ornish's program, detailed in his books, Dr. Dean Ornish's Program for Reversal of Heart Disease and Eat More, Weigh Less , are woefully outdated in 2006. Yet the low fat notion continues to show up in the consciousness of people I talk to about heart disease reversal.

"I'm already on a low fat diet. Do you think my heart scan score has reversed?"

Highly unlikely. What Dr. Ornish (as a non-cardiologist, by the way) failed to recognize is that what he did manage to reverse in a small number of people is something called "endothelial dysfunction", but he did not reverse or shrink coronary plaque.

Given the limitations of technology when the Ornish concept got its start, it appeared as if reversal was obtained. In reality, all his approach accomplished was a relaxation in tone of abnormally constricted arteries, thus giving the appearance of reversal. Increased artery tone, or endothelial dysfunction, is extremely common when atherosclerotic plaque is present.

Any cardiologist will tell you that there are many ways to reverse endothelial dysfunction: exercise, weight loss, cholesterol drugs, drugs for high blood pressure, fish oil, hormonal therapy, vitamin C, l-arginine, etc. There is nothing special about a low fat diet.

In fact, Track Your Plaque followers will recognize that a low fat diet is, in fact, potentially harmful, particularly when low HDL or small LDL is part of your pattern.

Let's bury the outdated ideas of the Ornish low fat diet once and for all. It doesn't work. All it may do is confuse you and set you back from your real coronary plaque reversal program.

Inulin: A fiber for weight loss

Here's an interesting product that seems to be gaining some popularity for weight loss: Inulin.

Not to be confused with "insulin", with which it is completely unrelated, inulin is a naturally-occurring plant fiber. It's found in broccoli, asparagus, celery, etc. Like beta-glucan from oats or pectin, inulin is a so-called soluble fiber, a fiber that assumes a gel-like consistency when exposed to water.

Inulin has the effect of increasing satiety, or the sensation of fullness. This cuts your craving for foods. I've tried it recently and I prefer it over glucomannan, another soluble fiber for satiety.

The people at Stonyfield Farms have been adding inulin to their yogurts from some time. The nutritionist at the company tells me that there's 2-3 grams of inulin per 6 ounce container of their yogurt.

You can also find inulin as a supplement that you can add to foods, available from some health food stores and online supplement companies. I came across a neat product called Fiber Choice that's now being distributed widely throughout the U.S. I tried their Weight Management version. It was a delicous strawberry taste. The label says take two chewable tablets twice a day, but I found that two tablets three times a day somewhat better. It's best taken around 30-60 minutes prior to each meal and it causes you to be fuller with less food. One caution: It'll cause loads of gas, especially in the beginning. For that reason, you might try starting with a smaller dose, or start on the weekends when you have the option of some privacy!

More info on the Fiber Choice product can be found at their website, http://www.fiberchoice.com.

Disclaimer: I have no relationship with the manufacturer of this product. I'm simply passing on some thoughts on my experience with this interesting possibility for weight loss.

Will you recognize the truth when you see it?

Do you ever wonder that, if the truth were given to you, that you'd recognize it as such? Or would you dismiss it as just another bunch of nonsense?

After all, you and I live in the Information Age. It means that we have access to mountains of information like never before in human history. But it also means that the truth is often drowned out by an avalanche of mis-truths, sales pitches and marketing, and just plain nonsense.

This struck me the other day when I was talking to a patient.

64 years old with a high heart scan score placing her at significant risk, she looked confused. I'd just described the multitude of causes of coronary plaque that we'd uncovered. The heart scan alone had been a shocker.

"I don't understand. My doctor told me that I had nothing to worry about. I've known him for years and he knows me really well. He did a stress test. That was fine. I don't get all this other stuff you're telling me--lipoprotein whatever..."

Despite my efforts to help her gain an understanding of our intensive approach, she just became increasingly more frustrated. "I just don't think I can do this."

That's the last I've heard from her. As far as I know, she's returned to the comfort of her family doctor who has reassured her over the years. And perhaps there's some good in that. But I do fear for the day when, unexpectedly, she suffers some catastrophe that we told her was coming sooner or later unless real preventive efforts were started.

You could say that she failed to recognize the truth when it was given to her-- boldly, unadorned, and with far greater scientific certainty than the casual reassurances she was accustomed to. But, unfortunately, that's all that some people want.

Don't neglect the basics in your heart disease reversal program

Carl loved new ideas and novel approaches. You could tell by the sheer number of nutritional supplements he took. His list had grown to 18 different supplements over the past two years.

Carl came to me for coronary plaque regression. Lipoprotein analysis did uncover several previously unsuspected abnormalties, most notably small LDL particles and lipoprotein(a). In addition, Carl's LDL cholesterol ranged between 111 mg-156 mg and he was clearly hypertensive, with systolic blood pressures consistently around 150-160. (Recall that people with Lp(a) are more prone to hypertension.)

Carl was more than willing to have his lipoprotein(a) reduced. We did so with niacin and testosterone and the level dropped to near zero. Likewise, we corrected his small LDL pattern with niacin, fish oil, and a reduction in processed carbohydrates.

But Carl really resisted doing much about his LDL cholesterol and high blood pressure. I got the sense that these "boring" issues simply didn't interest him. After all, LDL cholesterol and blood pressure were the stuff of TV commercials and the popular conversation propagated by drug companies.

Carl's follow-up heart scan, however, finally persuaded him: a 24% increase in one year, likely due to the neglect of the basic issues.

I liken Carl's case to being like the teenager with a new car who polishes the paint to a bright finish, puts new wheels and tires on it, spruces up the interior with various doodads--but then fails to change the oil. Sometimes it's the most basic issues that can diminish your success.

Issues like LDL cholesterol and high blood pressure aren't the most glamorous, but they do count in your coronary plaque control program.

Is your doctor a hospital employee?

There's a disturbing trend that's growing--silently but rapidly.

In Milwaukee, three hospital systems compete for the local health care dollar. To gain more control over revenues and the routing of patients, the hospitals are aggressively hiring physicians to work for them. I've witnessed many of my cardiology colleagues, primary care doctors, and a substantial number of procedural specialists enticed by the offers made by hospital employers.

This phenomenon is not unique to Milwaukee but is being used in many, perhaps most, major cities in the U.S.

This means that physicians are employees of the hospital. That way, employee-physicians are obliged to use only the hospital system that employs them. In the old days, your doctor could use any hospital he/she desired, depending on the quality, location, facilities, etc. Now, many physician-employees are given no choice but to use the hospital that pays their salary.

That by itself is not necessarily bad. But combine salary with incentives for bringing in patients for hospitalization and procedures--that the rub. In other words, physician-employees are incentivized to generate more revenue for the system, just as employees in many other industries.

If you're a salesman for an insurance company, your job is to bring in more business. If you're a worker on an auto production line, you're expected to meet certain quotas. These same principles are now being applied to many physicians.

How does this affect you? Well, if your physician--especially procedure-driven specialists like cardiologists, general surgeons, orthopedists, etc.--is a hospital employee, BEWARE! Do you really need that procedure, or is your doctor suggesting you have a procedure because it will add to his track record?

Prevention? In this model of health care, why bother? It certainly doesn't pay for a hospital to keep you well. Then why should your physician-employee?

Be careful who you're dealing with. If your physician is a hospital-employee, don't bet on getting preventive care. It's more likely you're that just a future source of revenue when it's time for your bypass operation, hip replacement, carotid endarterectomy, etc.

What more powerful argument is there for increased self-empowerment and information for health care consumers?

Take a walking vacation

If you're planning a vacation, why not consider a walking vacation?

The concept is really taking off. All you need is a pair of comfortable shoes and an interesting locale. More and more services are popping up to help you plan fun and interesting destinations and itineraries. One such catalog can be found at http://walking.about.com/od/tours/a/walkingvacation_3.htm

Lengthier walks may require some advance planning and toting some supplies. Don't forget the water!

From a health viewpoint, a walking vacation sure beats the heck out of a cruise that packs on 12 pounds of extra weight from the 24-hour a day buffet. If you're in the midst of a weight loss effort, several hours of walking through interesting locales and scenery can make it effortless.

There's loads of neat places to visit from a walker's perspective. One interesting website is www.waterfallwalks.com that lists trails that provide spectacular views of waterfalls.

Another variation on this theme is biking vacations. My wife and I are trying to set the time aside for a biking tour of wineries in the French countryside. That's our kind of multi-tasking!

"Expanded indications for implantable defibrillators"

So reads the headline on a magazine I received recently (along with thousands of my colleagues) from a major hospital system.

It goes on to say: "In January 2005, indications for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) were substantially broadened [emphasis ours] to include most patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less. This change translates into a 2- to 3-fold increase in the number of Medicare beneficiariries eligible for ICDs."

Ka-ching!!! Hear the money piling up in the bank?

The device manufacturers are constantly churning data and lobbying for reimbursement to expand the use of their devices to more and more people. Defibrillators in particularly are generally a $25,000 to $50,000 opportunity for the device manufacturer alone, not counting the costs incurred at the hospital for implantation.

Beware. As reimbursement for stents and other procedures diminishes, expect a sudden "demand" for more and more people to get implantable defibrillators. Better yet, stay away from the whole issue by preventing your heart attack.

Get a heart scan--but then don't delay taking action!

I just came from one of the local hospitals after having performed a heart catheterization on a patient I met earlier this week.

Jack had gotten a heart scan a year ago with a score of 246, placing him in the 76th percentile. The "event" rate with this percentile rank is around 3% per year--not very high but enough to pose risk over a long period.

Jack chose to ignore his score. After all, the pressures of work at the University, maintaining his home and yard, etc. consumed all his energies. He came to my office--now one year after his scan--and told me about the chest pressure he was getting. Initially, his chest pains occurred with extended walking. In the past week, however, Jack was experiencing chest pressure with just walking 30 feet.

This pattern of increasing symptoms is called "accelerated angina", meaning that Jack was rapidly heading towards a heart attack. So I advised a heart catheterization in near future.

Jack's catheterization showed extensive plaque including a 50% blockage in the mainstem artery and 90% in the artery to the front of the heart (left anterior descending artery). Jack is going to have a bypass operation tomorrow.

What if Jack hadn't ignored his heart scan from a year ago? Well, I'd be very confident in saying that he would not be undergoing bypass surgery tomorrow.

The lesson: Don't dilly-dally on taking action to keep your plaque from growing. While it's not an emergency, it can easily become one if you choose to ignore your scan.

Feel that nudge in your back?

You feel that nudge in your back? That's your local hospitals competing for your bypass surgery business.

Just this morning while watching a morning news show, I saw three advertisements for hospital bypass surgery programs. One ad featured a man in his 50s telling his story:"The cardiologist determined immediately that I needed a triple bypass operation. My family and I are very grateful to _____ hospital!"

In what other field is failure celebrated so prominently? When I see these ads, I hear "My doctors failed to provide early detection and then prevent what became a life-threatening condition, even though heart disease is a chronic process that requires decades to develop." What if our man said instead,"I had a heart scan and my score was high. So I was shown why I had so much plaque. They then showed me how to control and even reduce the amount of plaque I had. I'm living safely and symptom-free without need for surgery or procedures."

Of course, the hospital is out $60,000-100,000 for the surgery. How else could they afford ad campaigns costing several million dollars a year? See these advertisements for what they are: Marketing generated by profit-seeking businesses competing for your dollars--lots of them.
Do you work for the pharmaceutical industry?

Do you work for the pharmaceutical industry?

In response to my post, Lovaza Rip-off, I received this angry comment:


Very high triglycerides, as you all know, is a very serious and life-threatening condition. Therefore, it is very important that any medication you take for treatment must be FDA proven and scientifically backed. This is true for a few reasons. First, there have been zero studies done to show the effects of Costco brand fish oil pills on patients with high triglycerides. So, you cannot assume, simply because the pills you are taking "claim" to have a certain amount of Omega 3 in the them, that they actually do (supplement labeling is self-submitted by the company, and not regulated by any external or 3rd party agency).

Secondly, the other components in fish oil, and maybe in Costco brand (no one knows because it isn't on the label) can actually inhibit the bioavailablity of Omega 3, most notably, Omega 6. And, nowhere on the Costco label does it tell you how much Omega 6 is in it. We also cannot underestimate the importance of purity with these compounds: a top selling brand of fish oil found stores like CVS was recently recalled because it was found to have large amounts of fire retardant in it! These supplements are NOT regulated by the FDA.

Thirdly, be careful when you compare costs. The cost of hospitalization due to acute pancreatitis (a risk of very high triglycerides) far outweighs the cost of taking Lovaza for even several years. If you have a real disease, you need a real drug. And, until Costco does a prospective long-term clinical trial to show that it lowers triglycerides, it should not be used in place of Lovaza.

Finally, I am a living example of how taking a high-potency supplement form of Omega 3 barely lowered my triglycerides, yet within 2 weeks of being on Lovaza there was a significant difference. I am now at my goal. So, before you knock a company, that, in my opinion, has saved my life, please do your research and do not mislead people into thinking that an Omega 3 is an Omega 3 is an Omega 3. If your insurance covers the most potent, the most pure, and the ONLY proven Omega 3 pill on the market, you should be thankful.



The comment was posted anonymously, so I don't know who it came from. But I can tell who I think it is: Someone who works for the drug industry.

This is a common phenomenon: Large corporations are fearful of the comments that are generated on internet conversations and other media. On the internet, there are actually people whose job it is to do "damage control." I suspect this came from one of them.

Why bother? Surely there are better things to do? Well, that's easy. There are billions of dollars at stake. Lovaza, in particular, is sold on the perception that it is somehow superior. If word gets out that maybe you can achieve the same results at a fraction of the cost . . .

Perhaps the "commenter" should also question whether omega-3 fatty acids can come from eating fish.

As part of my cardiology practice, I provide consultation on complex hyperlipidemias, or unusual lipid abnormalities. I have many patients with something called familial hypertriglyceridemia, a genetic condition that permits triglyceride levels of 500, 1000, even many thousands of mg/dl, levels that, as the anonymous commenter points out, can be dangerous.

I virtually never prescribe Lovaza for these people. In their treatment program, I use simple fish oil supplements, such as that from Costco, Sam's Club, or other retailers. I have not witnessed a single failure in treating these people and reducing triglycerides. People with lesser triglyceride abnormalities likewise respond very nicely to inexpensive fish oil that we can buy at the health food store. (I do rely on useful services like Consumer Reports and www.consumerlab.com to reassure us that no pesticide residues, mercury, or other contaminants are in the brands we use.) Excellent, high-quality fish oil supplements are sold by Carlson, Life Extension, Barlean's, even the Members' Mark brand from Sam's Club.

So, the notion that only prescription fish oil is capable of reducing triglycerides is, in a word, nonsense.

Take that back to your CEO.

Comments (30) -

  • Jenny

    3/24/2009 7:18:00 PM |

    The drug industry seems to have put a full time anonymous troll at work  replying to posts my blog.

    They always appeal to authority, along the lines of "How dare you say .... I'm a medical professional and what you are saying is dangerous...." They don't seem to get the part about how no one is going to believe their authority since they're posting anonymously.

    I occasionally post one of their screeds as my forum regulars enjoy bashing them. But my blog policy is that I don't make anonymous posts public if they are without merit.

  • Anonymous

    3/24/2009 8:26:00 PM |

    I wonder if that person continues to eat the foods that raised his triglycerides in the first place while taking the drug.  I suppose he considers himself smart and ahead of the game? Hah!!! Mother nature always wins!

  • Dr. William Davis

    3/24/2009 9:46:00 PM |

    Hi, Jenny--

    Good for you to stand up to them.

    I agree: They're very clever about crafting their comments to make you feel small. I find it funny. Here we are, David vs. Goliath, and they resort to deception, subterfuge, and smear to make their points.

    Anonymous (above): Excellent point! I failed to mention how effective diet is for high triglycerides.

  • Michael

    3/25/2009 12:57:00 AM |

    The argument that the vitamin industry is self-regulated and answers to nobody is genuine.  Look what happened to the financial industry with self regulated derivative products!  Given a choice between lab-tested Lovaza and an off-the-shelf fish oil that has no oversight for their claims ... I'll have to go with the Lovaza.  My triglycerides were 800+ ... now they are 300.  My physician said, with triglycerides that high, I can't take the chance of getting a dud bottle of vitamins.

  • Michael

    3/25/2009 1:03:00 AM |

    Re:  "I wonder if that person continues to eat the foods that raised his triglycerides in the first place while taking the drug."

    So you've set up a hypothetical situation and trash the person on the basis of your assumption/wondering?  And that makes you smarter than ... who?

  • Andrew

    3/25/2009 3:27:00 AM |

    lol OUCH, Dr. Davis.

    I think the CEO's Mama is going to feel that one.

    Excellent reply.  Although, I do think that one positive thing that can be taken away from what the "anonymous" person wrote is that it is very true that supplements are not regulated.  It is extremely important that everyone researches where their supplements come from and if they do meet some kind of quality control standards.

  • Anonymous

    3/25/2009 3:29:00 AM |

    I was thinking the same thing, what is he eating that nothing less than a prescription(?) drug has any effect?

    Regarding purity...  What?  Like no one else has ever had any recalls?

    What about all of the drugs that garnered FDA approval and were then recalled due to long term effects that did not show up in trials?

  • Anonymous

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

    I agree that person was probably affiliated with Big Pharma in some way.

    In early 2006, my triglycerides were 432mg/dl with no supplements. After taking four Life Extension Super Omega-3 capsules (which yields 2.4 grams of EPA/DHA) once daily and absolutely NO changes in my diet or added exercise, my triglycerides dropped to 157mg/dl when I retested a little over 3 months later, so I know their fish  oil works at reducing triglycerides. Life Extension brand costs me about 63 cents per day at that dosage and it has a 5 star rating from the International Fish Oil Standards. Here is a snip it from their website:

    "The International Fish Oil Standards (IFOS) is an international program concerned with the quality of omega 3 products, as it relates to the international standards for purity and concentration established by the World Health Organization and the Council for Responsible Nutrition."

    http://www.lef.org/Vitamins-Supplements/Health-Nutrition-Awards/Fish-Oil-Supplements.htm

    http://www.nutrasource.ca/ifos_new/index.asp?section=ifosfaq

    I also like the fact the Life Extension fish oil has sesame lignans & olive fruit extract in it as well.

  • Anonymous

    3/25/2009 1:56:00 PM |

    Supplements are not FDA regulated?  It kinda ruins your point when you make a completely false comment like this.

    Here are two FDA websites that describe exactly how they indeed do regulate the supplement industry:

    http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/supplmnt.html

    http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/dscgmps6.html

    Oh, to be a complete buffoon....

  • JPB

    3/25/2009 2:42:00 PM |

    I have noticed that any time I leave a comment that challenges any part of the current dogma that inevitably someone claiming to be a doctor steps up to tell me that I don't know what I am talking about....

  • Anonymous

    3/25/2009 2:53:00 PM |

    I eat tons of saturated fat and sometimes I take my fish oil but my trigs are 104  because I dont't eat any sugar or starch. Why take drugs when you can control the entire spectrum of cholesterol values and other health issues with diet?

    People you dont' need to take any drugs. You've been brainwashed big time.

  • mtflight

    3/25/2009 7:49:00 PM |

    OOps Dr. Davis, I accidentally published my last comment before proofing it and messed up a link. here it is as it was intended (post this one instead of the other one please).

    I can think of one instance where fish oil won't reduce triglycerides / VLDL:  in the presence of antioxidants.

    I know it sounds strange, but the mechanism by which VLDL/triglyceride reduction takes place depends on peroxidation products of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids.  

    It was noticed that when people take antioxidants with their fish oil, for instance vitamin E, the plasma TG/VLDL reductions did not take place.  I experienced this first hand... and I was baffled why the fish oil was "not working" at reducing my triglycerides.

    In a nutshell, the liver determines the presence of peroxidized [hopefully glycated as well] polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), is not ideal for release into circulation, so through a process dubbed PERPP, the VLDL particle that never was is aborted and is instead kept inside the liver.

    The article is called "Hold The Antioxidants and Improve Plasma Lipids?" by Ronald L. Krauss, M.D. Ph.D. can be read at
    PubMed or
    The Journal of Clinical Investigation

    Peter genially deconstructs the described process in detail at AGE RAGE and ALE: VLDL degradation and Fish Oil

    So probably the best way to reduce triglycerides is to cut out the wheat/starch/sugar/honey/fructose.

    I still take fish oil (with antioxidants) but I eat low-carb so my triglycerides are below 100.

    R.L. Krauss is one of the researchers responsible for recognizing that small dense LDL  are the atherogenic LDL.  yet as an advisor to the AHA, well... not much progress there, unfortunately.

    Thanks for your blog Dr. Davis!

    Alex

  • moblogs

    3/25/2009 11:17:00 PM |

    ...And if they don't work for the industry, they probably should and collect their commission! Smile

    It just shows desperation. You can paste posters and ads everywhere but when it comes down to it, you can never beat word of mouth which will always help you achieve minimal cost and max. benefit. And word of mouth just expanded with the net.

    People like to help each other. Industries don't.

  • Shreela

    3/26/2009 2:14:00 AM |

    Dr. Davis: Did you and Jenny compare IP addresses between your emailer and her commenters by any chance?

    I searched for the following keyword combinations:

    fish oil recall
    cvs fish oil fire retardant
    cvs fish oil recall
    cvs omega fire retardant recall
    cvs fish oil PBDE recall
    cvs fish oil PCB recall

    I would hope that news of the nation's number 1 chain pharmacy having a very popular supplement recalled because of toxic contamination would be heavily represented in search results. But NO!

    Except that last keyword combo's first result did have "lab tested for contaminants", and surprise, CVS's fish oil caps passed (and they sourced Consumer Lab, so extra cred for their article):
    http://www.supplementgenius.com/2008/08/09/50-fish-oil-supplements-get-lab-tested/

    One of the emailer's other claims intrigued me, so I searched these keyword combos:

    omega 6 inhibits bioavailablity of omega 3
    omega 6 decrease bioavailablity of omega 3

    I haven't found much on omega 6 affecting bioavailability of omega 3 yet, but I did find a 97 study about "inadequate intake of vitamin E results in a decreased absorption of omega-3" at least.

  • Andrew

    3/26/2009 8:04:00 AM |

    "Here are two FDA websites that describe exactly how they indeed do regulate the supplement industry:

    http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/supplmnt.html

    http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/dscgmps6.html"

    Sadly, that's not really regulation.  

    From the FDA website:
    "Generally, manufacturers do not need to register their products with FDA nor get FDA approval before producing or selling dietary supplements.* Manufacturers must make sure that product label information is truthful and not misleading."

    It's the classic case of police oversight (actively looking for violators) vs. fire-alarm oversight (only responding when an alert has been raised).  So while it's true that regulation exists, it's not where it needs to be.

    If you have time, check out the documentary "Bigger, Faster, Stronger."  They show how absurdly easy it is to produce, promote and sell supplements that are complete and total garbage.

  • Trinkwasser

    3/26/2009 7:08:00 PM |

    Who needs fish oil supplements when you can eat the whole fish???

    In all seriousness there may be quality control issues with supplements, but I *decimated* my trigs simply by not eating excess carbs. I can't think of a way that something you don't eat could be adulterated

  • Dr. William Davis

    3/26/2009 9:43:00 PM |

    Hi, Shreela--

    Sorry, but it didn't even occur to me. We'll have to do that next time (and I'm sure there will be a next time).

  • Dr. William Davis

    3/26/2009 9:44:00 PM |

    Remember: We take fish oil to accomplish more than reduce triglycerides.

    It also reduces cardiovascular events, accelerates clearance of post-prandial abnormal particles, and modifies plaque composition.

  • Nameless

    3/27/2009 6:45:00 AM |

    My cardiologist tried to prescribe me Lovaza over the fish oil I normally take, using the argument that OTC brands may have mercury in them. I of course declined her offer, and tried to tell her that OTC brands are rather unlikely to have mercury.

    But it got me interested in the differences, if any, between Lovaza and OTC fish oil. I originally contacted GlaxoSmithKline, which was a waste of time, no response. So I went right to the source, Pronovo, the company that actually makes Lovaza for Glaxo. I had two questions, why are transfats listed as being in the product, and what about oxidation, which is the real potential problem with fish oils, not mercury contamination.

    Response from Pronovo for the transfats question:
    However I can assure you that Lovaza has never contained partially hydrogeneated oil. This is simply a mistake. I agree, it is not good marketing - and we are working on it.

    -- Okay, weird answer, but I guess it's believable... kinda. I still don't see why they wouldn't have fixed it by now though. It's sort of like marketing Lipitor -- now with extra trans-fats!

    And regarding oxidation, which i consider the main issue with fish oils, they say that Lovaza is stable at room temperature, even after its opened. They went on to say they don't recommend refrigerating it, as the shelf life may not have been determined in refrigerator conditions.

    Huh? To the best of my knowledge, after fish oil has been opened it's always been considered safest to refrigerate it, to limit potential oxidation. If a liquid is used, it's even more important. And the higher the percentage of omega 3s, the greater the potential for oxidation. So why wouldn't it be suggested to refrigerate Lovaza?

    The only reason I can come up with relates to the last thing they said to me:

    Anyway, you can store Lovaza toghether with other medications. I gues this may be considered a
    good thing when it comes to patient compliance.

    ---

    And then I thought about how pharmacists store medications. Or say, mail order places, which ship 3 month supplies, where they will ship using their own bottles -- meaning they had to use open Lovaza bottles. So this basically means patients will be getting fish oil that has been sitting around for god knows how long, open, and non-refrigerated... and then finally shipped in the Medco (or whatever mail order) bottles, to be used for the next 3 months. And this whole time the fish oil has been exposed to air with no refrigeration.

    So how is Lovaza better than OTC fish oil again? At least I can count on OTC fish oil being sealed and not exposed to air when I buy it.

  • Dr. William Davis

    3/27/2009 1:04:00 PM |

    Hi, Nameless--

    The pharmacist opening the bottle of Lovaza hadn't occurred to me. Excellent point.

    Yet another reason to avoid using this overpriced product.

  • mtflight

    3/27/2009 4:10:00 PM |

    We're missing this:

    the peroxidation is what allows the liver to abort the production of VLDL/triglycerides and through the subsequent delipidation cascade the other particles that would result. See my post above!

    The plaque composition and reduction of cardiovascular events "probably" due to it affecting the omega balances (6:3) and therefore the eicosanoid production.

    I take generic, enteric-coated fish oil. The one I buy has some tocopherols (to prevent peroxidation).

  • Anonymous

    3/27/2009 6:18:00 PM |

    The anon poster made a grave mistake fish oil is not a "drug" it is a food!

  • Nameless

    3/27/2009 6:47:00 PM |

    The only advantage to Lovaza I can see, assuming the patient gets sealed bottles of the stuff, is the reduction in pills daily. And I guess that'd be good for those with stomach issues where they can't tolerate too many pills a day. Although even there we are only talking about like 1 or 2 less capsules daily.

    What would be interesting are studies comparing high dose capsules vs low dose in patients, and see if there is any difference in outcomes. I am curious if Dr. Davis has noticed any difference between patients on fish oil with higher omega 3 content (ex: 600mg/capsule vs 300mg/capsule). In theory, the additional non-EPA/DHA fats in the capsule of lower strength fish oils could have some negative effects. But without studies, who knows?

    Same with the forms of fish oil, which tend to be ignored. Are ethyl esters as effective as triglyceride forms? The current studies are mixed... some show no difference, some show the triglyceride  form of Omega 3s absorbing a lot better.

    For Lovaza to back up any of their claims, they need to do a head-to-head study with a good OTC fish oil, say like Carlson's or Nordic Naturals. But we know that'll never happen. Generic Lovaza may hit the market by years end too, depending on what the courts rule, which will be weird. Companies like the ones I mentioned above, or Meg-3, could cash in by licensing with a drug maker and just reselling their OTC fish oil as a new 'drug'. Which would completely obliterate any notion that Lovaza is different than OTC fish oils too.

  • Anne

    3/28/2009 12:40:00 PM |

    I am prescribed Lovaza, though it's called Omacor here in the UK. I used to buy my fish oils from the health food store and it was costing me around £25 ($36) per month - obviously fish oils are much dearer in the UK - so I asked my cardiologist to prescribe me Omacor and he did. My prescriptions are free of charge under the National Health Service so I'm now getting my fish oils for free.

    I was very puzzled that the manufacturers say not to store Omacor in the refrigerator and on pressing them, saying that in the summer I could not be sure that the temperature in my house would stay under 25 C they conceded that I could store the Omacor in the fridge: "If you feel that a temperature rise may affect your Omacor, then it is possible to store the product in the fridge."  !

    Anne

  • Trinkwasser

    3/30/2009 3:10:00 PM |

    Has anyone found differences between brands (or between the same brand at different times, they may come from different sources) in their palatabily?

    I tend to feel bloated and get fishy belches with the capsules I've tried (not Costco or Lovasa but various OTC and mail order types) which doesn't happen with the whole fish, except for elderly mackerel or stale kippers. You don't know how old the capsules might be or how they've been stored.

    My theory is, by reducing the carbs and Omega 6s a lower dose of Omega 3s will probably work. I'll let you know if I'm right or not after I'm dead (grins)

  • Bill

    3/31/2009 5:21:00 PM |

    Michael said: "The argument that the vitamin industry is self-regulated and answers to nobody is genuine."

    Comment: Some easily identifiable companies self-regulation is far superior than the FDA's regulation of drug companies Michael considering the FDA's record on such matters. If one were to take the time to look for reliable providers of high-quality supplements they would be far ahead of the game and have zero the risk of the myriad of side effects caused by pharmaceutical drugs which are often times rehashed toxic byproducts of the manufacturing process put in pill form instead of being paid for to dispose of.

    Michael said:" Look what happened to the financial industry with self regulated derivative products!"

    Comment: Relevance?

    Michael said: "Given a choice between lab-tested Lovaza and an off-the-shelf fish oil that has no oversight for their claims ... I'll have to go with the Lovaza.

    Comment: Have at it Michael and take with it the dozens of risks for side effects that go with it vs. the safety of the fish oil supplements.

    Michael said: "My triglycerides were 800+ ... now they are 300. My physician said, with triglycerides that high, I can't take the chance of getting a dud bottle of vitamins."

    Comment: Just what you would expect from a doctor who is PROGRAMMED to view vitamins or other nutritional supplements as worthless from YEARS of programming efforts by Big Pharma and virtually no classes on Orthomolecular medicine which has been widely studied for decades upon decades with great results and few risks at even high levels of dosing to deal with serious nutritional deficiencies (aka-"chemical" imbalances).

    Chalk another one up to the propoganda machine Michael - you seem to have bought in hook line and sinker or maybe you're just a paid propogandist?

    In health and in truth,
    Bill

  • cAPSLOCK

    4/5/2009 7:45:00 PM |

    Anne... I must pick at a nit.  Yu said:

    My prescriptions are free of charge under the National Health Service so I'm now getting my fish oils for free.

    They are far from free.  I understand you do not seem to have to pay for them, but we are all paying, even on this side of the sea, for the "free percriptions" folks receive.

  • Anne

    4/7/2009 7:44:00 AM |

    Hi Capslock,

    The money I am charged in my taxes goes towards the cost of the National Health Service so from that point of view my prescriptions are not free, but I am paying my taxes regardless of whether I buy the fish oils from the health food store or get them at no cost on prescription. Since the fish oils are *extremely* expensive from the health food store and since I pay my  taxes this seems the best deal to me.

    Anne

  • Anne

    4/9/2009 7:04:00 AM |

    Hi Capslock, a PS to my previous message - I'm thinking you must be thinking that the UK system is similar to the American one and that only low income people don't pay prescription charges ? No, everyone under 18 and over 60 gets their prescriptions free, and anyone who has one of certain chronic conditions gets them free too, doesn't matter what your income is or even if you're a millionaire !

    If I did pay for my prescriptions then the maximum charge for anyone is £7.20 per prescription, no matter the price of the medicine, no matter the income of the patient....and £7.20 for a prescription of Omacor fish oils is still much cheaper than buying fish oils from the health food store !

    Anne

  • Fda Regulatory Affairs

    4/17/2009 11:40:00 AM |

    Thanks for this informative post

Loading