Fish oil in the news



Hooray for the New York Times. They ran an article pointing out the miserable and inexcusable failure of American physicians to use fish oil after heart attack.

“It is clearly recommended in international guidelines,” said Dr. Massimo Santini, the hospital’s chief of cardiology, who added that it would be considered tantamount to malpractice in Italy to omit the drug.

...in the United States, heart attack victims are not generally given omega-3 fatty acids, even as they are routinely offered more expensive and invasive treatments, like pills to lower cholesterol or implantable defibrillators. Prescription fish oil, sold under the brand name Omacor, is not even approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in heart patients."

The article focuses on the use of fish oil only after heart attack and doesn't tackle the larger issue of how fish oil is crucial for coronary disease in general. Of course, the article doesn't address the extraordinary effects of fish oil on lipoproteins, particularly triglyceride-containing varieties like VLDL and the postprandial (after-eating) intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL).

It also talks about prescription fish oil and just glosses over fish oil as a nutritional supplement. I know of few reasons to use the prescription form. More than 90% of the time, nutritional sources of fish oil do the trick. (That is, fish oil capsule supplements, not just eating fish which doesn't provide enough for coronary plaque reduction or control.)

Occasionally, I'll meet someone who has a severe hypertriglyceridemia (very high triglycerides), or is a Apo E 2/2 homozygote (very rare). These special instances may, indeed, do better using prescription fish oil, since it is more concentrated--one prescription capsule providing the same omega-3 fatty acid content as three conventional capsules (1000 mg fish oil, 300 mg EPA+DHA).


But for most of us, the standard fish oil supplement you buy at the health food store or department store does just fine. If you read about the impurity of fish oil supplements (likely prompted by the manufacturer of Omacor, prescription fish oil), refer to the studies by Consumer Reports and Consumer Labs, both of which found no mercury or pesticide residues in dozens of fish oil preparations tested.

Look on the bright side. The conversation is growing. Fish oil, whether prescription or my favorite, Sam's Club Members' Mark brand, is a fabulously effective supplement with benefits that, in nearly all cases, exceeds the benefits of drugs.

Fish oil is an absolute requirement for your Track Your Plaque program and for you to hope to achieve control or reduction of your heart scan score.

Nutritional approaches to homocysteine reduction


For an in-depth discussion of nutritional approaches to homocysteine reduction, see my new article, Nutritional Therapies for Managing Homocysteine , in the most recent issue of Life Extension magazine. You'll find it at:

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/oct2006_report_homocysteine_01.htm

The report contains a detailed discussion of how to use foods to control homocysteine levels. Though I'm not a homocysteine-crazed fanatic like Life Extension publisher, William Falloon, I still there's some interesting aspects of homocysteine metabolism that need to be explored. I also think there's some genuine benefit to reducing homocystine, preferably with foods, secondarily with supplements.

Also see our recent update on homocysteine on the www.cureality.com website at:
http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_01-006homocysteine.asp

In the update, we tried to make sense of what the new studies on homocysteine treatment, NORVIT and HOPE-2, tell us in light of all the other studies on homocysteine that preceded them.

The American Heart Association diet guarantees you get heart disease!

Perhaps I stated that too strongly.

But the fact remains: the diet advocated by the American Heart Association is awful. The foods endorsed by their approach have no place on a list of healthy foods. Yes, you will find vegetables and fruits, etc.. But you will also find that the 2006 American Heart Association Diet and Lifestyle Recommendations dance around the issue of what foods to avoid. There's no explicit mention of how, for instance, common foods like Shredded Wheat cereal, ketchup, low-fat salad dressings, etc, among thousands of others, should be avoided.

No matter how you time your meals, mix them, combine proteins, fats, and carbohydrates, etc., you simply cannot squeeze health out of products like breakfast cereals, instant mashed potatoes, dried soup mixes, wheat crackers, etc. Yet these are the sorts of foods that are implicitly allowable in the Heart Association's diet program.

You can obtain a little insight into the motivations behind the diet design by looking at the Heart Association's Annual Report list of major supporters:

--ACH Food Companies--maker of Mazola margarine and corn oil. A contributor of between $500,000 and $999,000 to the Heart Association.

--ConAgra Foods--You know them as Chef BoyArdee, Peter Pan peanut butter, Kid Cuisine (pizza, macaroni and cheese). ConAgra contributed between $500,000 and $999,000 to the Heart Association.

--Archer Daniels Midland--Huge worldwide supplier of wheat flours, high-fructose corn syrup, and basic ingredients for manufacture of soft drinks, candies, and baked foods. ADM contributed between $1-4.9 million dollars to the American Heart Association.

Of course, the Heart Association provides many hugely positive services like funding research. But, on many official statements, you need to read between the lines. The Heart Association is funded by industry: medical device makers, drug makers, food manufacturers. Yes, some is contributed in the interest of health. But you can be sure that lots of money is also contributed in the hope of protecting specific commercial interests. Many of those decisions are made behind closed doors or on the golf course.

Be skeptical. Just because the Heart Association diet is a Casper Milquetoast version of a health program, it does not mean that you have to subscribe to their watered-down, politically correct, and downright useless nutrition recommendations.

I'm just right!

Ben is an energetic 45-year old entrepreneur. He started his own security alarm company and has, with tremendous hard work and long hours, built it into a successful local business. Despite his long hours, he found time to coach his son's football team and help with raising his 3 kids.

Ben's life took a detour when he had urgent bypass surgery at age 39. Just three years later, the chest pains and fatigue he'd experienced before bypass returned. Another heart catheterization revealed that all of his bypass grafts except one had closed. Three stents were implanted to salvage his original coronary arteries.

That's when I met Ben. Shockingly (perhaps I should know by now!), Ben was taking Lipitor and had been advised to follow a low-fat diet. That was the full extent of his heart disease prevention program. The burning question that I wanted answered was "Why did a 39-year old man have heart disease?".

Our analysis uncovered a smorgasbord of hidden patterns. You name it, Ben had it: postprandial (after-eating) patterns like IDL, low HDL, and, most notably, small LDL and lipoprotein(a). That's why Ben had heart disease as a 39-year old man--plain and simple.

We proceeded to correct all of his patterns. But the one aspect of his program that he struggled with: weight. At 5 ft 9 inches, Ben started at 285 lbs before bypass. He did manage to get to 270 after his surgery. I told him that, if he was going to get full control of his small LDL pattern, he needed to get to <210 lbs, perhaps even lower. Without substantial weight loss, he would never seize full control over coronary plaque.

Ben was satisfied that we had identified the hidden causes of his heart disease. But he remained skeptical that that magnitude of weight loss was necessary. Built like a football player, he looked stocky but not outright fat. He got down to 240 lbs but then he decided that he looked too skinny and just went right back up to 250-260 in weight.

At a weight of 250, this puts Ben's BMI (body mass index) at around 37, way over the cut-off of 30 for obesity. Now, the BMI can be misleading in people with larger frames and more muscle. But Ben undeniably had a generous abdomen, encasing the visceral fat that drives small LDL.

Unfortunately, Ben remained skeptical until I put three more stents into his right coronary artery last evening.

Small LDL is a powerful activator of lipoprotein(a). In other words, there's something peculiarly evil about the combination of small LDL and lipoprotein(a) that brings out the worst in both. You can't correct just one or the other. You've got to correct both. Don't learn this lesson the hard way.

I think (hope) that Ben is on track to get to around 200 lbs.

Prevention: Bad news in bits and pieces

Jan clearly did not want to talk about her heart scan. Her score of 502 came as a shock to her. After all, she'd survived breast cancer just a year earlier, having been through dozens of radiation treatments, chemotherapy, not the mention the emotional upheaval.

Now I was telling Jan that she had a very high heart scan score with a heart attack risk of 5% per year. Then we got to her lipoprotein patterns: Jan had several striking abnormalities, including a misleading LDL cholesterol that underestimated her true LDL by nearly 100% (LDL particle number), small LDL, and the dreaded lipoprotein(a).

"I can't handle this! Why did I get the stupid scan in the first place?!"

Giving her a chance to collect her emotions, I discussed how, even though this business can be frightening, it's far--FAR--better than the alternative: heart attack at 3 am, rush to the hospital, stents, bypass surgery, etc. Or, death for the >30% of people who don't make it to the hospital in time.

That's why I often tell people that prevention of disease is bad news in bits and pieces. But it's a lot more manageable this way. Coronary plaque is a controllable process. You don't have much control in the midst of a heart attack.

A second chance

Stewart had a CT heart scan in 2004. Score: 475.

As always in the Track Your Plaque program, Stewart had his lipoproteins assessed. Among his patterns were LDL 157 mg/dl, severe small LDL, and the (post-prandial, or after-eating) IDL. Stewart was also "pre-diabetic" with a blood sugar of 123 mg/dl. Blood pressure was also a major issue. Although initially concerned, life and distractions got in the way, and Stewart's attentions drifted away.

Two years of a lackadaisical effort and Stewart's heart scan score was 600, a 26% increase. Not as bad as it could have been doing nothing (i.e., 30% per year), but still far from great. But, even with the increase in score, we still really didn't get Stewart's attention. He went about his business with a very lax dietary program, overindulging in breads, crackers, goodies, hot dogs, etc., and following a virtually non-existent exercise program except for playing golf once or twice a week.

Unfortunately, Stewart started having pains in his chest with very minimal efforts like climbing a single flight of stairs. His stress test proved abnormal. Stewart then received a stent in his left anterior descending coronary and another in his circumflex. His right coronary artery had a 40-50% blockage, close to requiring a stent.

I stressed to Stewart that this had been preventable. Should motivation remain unchanged, the next step would be bypass surgery.

I think I finally succeeded in getting Stewart's attention. He found the prospect of a bypass operation a lot more concrete than the idea of progression or regression of coronary plaque. So Stewart is being given a second chance. Unfortunately, we will no longer be able to track Stewart's plaque very effectively, since two of three arteries now contain stents, and only the right coronary remains scorable.

I hope Stewart succeeds. But I sure wish he had done this earlier. He had realistic hopes of never requiring stents or bypass surgery.

Learn from Stewart's mistakes. Attention to your program requires vigilance. You can't ignore the causes of your coronary plaque for any length of time without it catching up to you. But seize your first and best chance.

Are you a skinny fat person?

AT 186 lbs. and 5 feet 10 inches, Doug did not regard himself as overweight. Sure, he had a little extra "love handles", a small bulge in the belly and a waist of 34 inches. But he was by no means fat, particularly compared to most of his friends, neighbors, and co-workers, many of whom were 50-100 lbs heavier.

But examine Doug's lipoprotein patterns and, if you didn't know what he looked like, you'd guess that he's at least 50 lbs or more overweight. His prominent patterns included low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, the after-eating IDL, and borderline high blood sugar of 116 mg/dl. His blood pressure usually ranged around 138/82.

In other words, Doug is among the 5-10% of people who have most of the features of the so-called "metabolic syndrome", but don't look the part. They usually (though not always) have a modest excess of visceral abdominal fat. While some people have to be 100 lbs overweight before they express these patterns, someone like Doug could do it with minimal excess weight, sometimes as little as 5-10 lbs.

Several specific genetic patterns can account for this exagerrated sensitivity to weight, but the solutions remain much the same. Heightened sensitivity to processed carbohydrates, particularly those containing wheat, is commonly present. A sharp reduction in processed carbohydrates like breads, breakfast cereals, and pretzels yields a huge benefit. Reduction in weight, of course, can also yield marked improvement in these patterns. This means that Doug should consider achieving his truly ideal weight of <175 lbs and become a truly skinny skinny person. Though his patterns might not be fully corrected, he will see substantial improvement across the board.

These patterns are also potent triggers for coronary plaque growth. Correction of low HDL, small LDL, etc. is crucial if you are to seize hold of your heart scan score.

Heart disease "reversal" gives health a bad name

Put the search phrase "reverse heart disease" into your internet search engine, and you'll uncover an astonishing range of sites, all making extravagant promises.

The treatment programs offered range from the bizarre (colonic irrigation, magnetism, etc.), to centers using conventional approaches like statin drugs and low-fat diets, to sites that make lofty predictions with few unique tools (slash the fat and heart disease dissolves).

95% or more of the sites you turn up are clearly pandering to the unknowing, the unsophisticated, the hopeless, or other helpless niche groups. Homeopathic preparations, chelation, magnical combinations of herbals, you name it, you'll find it attached to claims for heart disease reversal.

I've seen people use many of these treatments. Is there any effect on the rate of increase of the heart scan score? Do they impact on the 30% per year expected rate of increase? Absolutely not.

Unfortunately, this gives anyone practicing truly effective methods to reverse coronary plaque a bad name. Just associating with this suspect group of "practitioners" can make us look bad--guilt by association.

Whenever someone claims to have the secret of heart disease reversal, I ask "Can you prove it?" Show me some evidence. It doesn't necessarily have to be $30 million drug company sponsored study, but some evidence of effectiveness should be available. The only thing we should take on faith is our religion, not our health care.

Our growing number of people who have, indeed, reversed their heart scan scores--reversed heart disease--to me is persuasive evidence of the value of the Track Your Plaque approach. Not foolproof, not 100%, but the best damned approach I'm aware of, by a long shot.

Trans fats to be banned

Sometimes good may come from legislation.

The City of New York is contemplating a ban on trans-fat use by restaurants, bakeries, and other food establishments in preparation of their foods. (Trans-fats are also known as hydrogenated fats.)

At this point, I believe it's unclear, should this pass, what the response will be. If food preparers turn to butter, that's not much better. (Don't get fooled by the non-sensical argument of which is better, butter or margarine--they're both terrible.) Subtracting hydrogenated fats will no doubt cause major disruption of food preparation habits. It may even increase the cost of food slightly.



I believe that the true positive effect of this situation, however, will be the tremendously heightened awareness it will raise in the public, both in New York and elsewhere, on just how bad and pervasive trans-fats are. It may increase awareness that foods like donuts and pastries are not just about excessive quantities of sugars, but also trans-fat content.

If you're already a Track Your Plaque follower, you already know that the easiest way to dodge trans-fats in your diet is to minimize your use of processed foods--the cellophane-wrapped, pulverized, dried, just-add-water, microwavable and ready-to-eat foods that line supermarket shelves. Trans-fats are purely man-made. You won't find them--not a stitch--in green peppers, lettuce, olive oil, almonds. . .unprocessed foods. Watch for an in-depth report on trans-fats on the Track Your Plaque website in which we will detail the scientific evidence behind this movement, how to recognize when foods contain trans-fats, etc.

Back to basics!

Harold is energetic and highly motivated. His heart scan score of 997 really threw him for a loop: his view of himself as a healthy, slender, 58-year old clearly needed revision.

So Harold set himself on a quest to find new ways to help him deal with his heart disease risk. He enrolled in the Track Your Plaque program. Unfortunately, he skimmed through the information but didn't really put much of it to use.

Instead, he wanted the "secret" information that other people didn't know about, "insider" information that couldn't be found in magazines, wasn't know by doctors.

He'd read that hawthorne was useful for opening coronary arteries, so he bought hawthorne at the health food store. He read that coenzyme Q10 was a little know way to strengthen the heart, so he added that. A Chinese doctor in town was advertising chelation therapy that "dissolved plaque". He subscribed to a once-a-week intravenous infusion at the doctor's holistic clinic of Eastern medicine. He'd heard that testosterone opened up arteries, so he purchased a preparation of chrysin, horny goat weed, yohimbine, and saw palmetto. He was suspicious of many conventional medicines, but he didn't want to ignore his LDL cholesterol of 172 mg/dl. So he added guggulipid and a combination cholesterol-reducing product that contained about 10 ingredients.

Harold pursued his quest, often adding new agents that came with promising stories. One year later, Harold eagerly got another heart scan, certain that his extraordinary efforts were sure to yield a dramatic drop in his heart scan score. The score: 1372, a 37% increase.

Harold was therefore several thousand dollars poorer and several steps closer to taking the plunge, allowing a potentially fatal disease to cut his life short.

The message: There's no need to re-invent the wheel. There are no top-secret ways to reverse atherosclerotic plaque.


Don't neglect the basics. You can't do calculus until you learn how to add, subtract, and divide. From a heart scan score reducing perspective, achieving 60-60-60 in basic lipids, normalizing blood pressure and blood sugar, identifying any hidden lipoprotein patterns like small LDL and Lp(a), losing weight to your ideal weight, taking fish oil, normalizing vitamin D blood levels to 50-70 ng/ml--these are the necessary prerequisites to achieve control over your coronary plaque and stop the increase in your heart scan score.

You don't need to waste your time with the rants of some supplement-hawker eager to sell you the next cure for heart disease. I'm often amazed at the number of people who do so yet have never even taken care of someone with heart disease. Would you allow someone to try and repair your car if they've never actually laid their hands on an engine before? Then why would you entrust such a person with your health?

The Track Your Plaque approach is not fool-proof, but it's the best there is by a long shot.
Buy local, get a goiter

Buy local, get a goiter

The notion of buying food locally--"buy local"--i.e., food produced in your area, state, or region, is catching on.

And for good reason: Not only do you support your local economy, buying locally saves energy, since food doesn't have to be transported from South America or other faraway locations.

But what about those of us in the Midwest, particularly around the Great Lakes basin, i.e., the region previously known as the "goiter belt"? In the early 20th century, up to a third of the residents of this region had enlarged thyroid glands, or goiters, due to iodine deficiency. Lack of iodine causes the thyroid to enlarge, or "hypertrophy," in an effort to more efficiently extract any available iodine in the blood.

Well, there's been a resurgence of iodine deficiency nationwide with 11.3% of the population severely deficient, representing a four-fold increase since the 1970s.

Why an iodine deficiency? Because more people are avoiding iodized salt, the principal source of iodine for Americans since the FDA introduced its voluntary program for iodization of table salt back in 1924. Approximately 90% of the patients I ask now declare that they use very little iodized table salt. While a few take multimineral or multivitamin supplements that contain iodine, the majority do not. The globalization of the food supply--eat global--however, has softened the blow, since we eat tomatoes from Mexico, blueberries from Argentina, lettuce from the Salinas Valley of California.

Now, we have the growing trend to eat local. In the Midwest, it means that the vegetables, fruits, and meats grown locally will also be iodine depleted, since the soil is also iodine-poor, being so far from the sea.

Ironically, two healthy trends--avoiding salt and eating local--will be accounting for a surge in unsightly neck bulges in the Midwest, as well as an increase in thyroid disease.

The lesson: Avoid salt, eat local, but mind your iodine.

Comments (19) -

  • mike V

    4/3/2009 6:56:00 PM |

    Dr Davis:

    PREVENTION v PREVENTION!
    A curious thing but I wonder if you mid-westerners really need to be giving up iodized salt at all if you are taking care of your potassium and magnesium?
    When you get time, please let us know your patient findings on mineral status.
    "Lite" salt contains a % of potassium which may be  iodized. Of course one's ability to take potassium maybe compromised by some medications.

    Mike V

    *************************
    UK ARTICLE
    Is salt REALLY so bad for your blood pressure?
    By Jerome Burne
    30th March 2009

    It's been demonised for years. But suddenly experts are asking whether we're missing the bigger picture about salt...

    We're all eating too much salt and it's going to give us high blood pressure - that's the message we've heard for years, but now new research suggests salt is being wrongly demonised.
    A recent study suggests that by concentrating on the effects of salt we could be missing the bigger picture. That's because salt doesn't affect blood pressure on its own; it does so with another mineral we get in our diet - potassium.
    Blood pressure is constantly being raised and lowered - salt is involved in raising pressure by tightening arteries, while potassium is part of the relaxation system. So making sure you have enough potassium is vital.
    Salty snack: Research has found that eating more salt does not necessarily raise the risk of heart disease
    This was highlighted in the study from Loyola University in Chicago. Researchers measured the amount of salt in the urine, an accurate way of measuring how much had been consumed, and found no significant difference in the risk of heart disease whether patients had been eating a lot or a little. What did reduce the risk, however, was the ratio of salt to its balancing mineral potassium.
    The new study 'is a quantum leap in the quality of the data', says lead author Dr Paul Whelton, an epidemiologist and president of the university's health division. That's because it followed nearly 3,000 patients for between ten and 15 years.
    Whelton now believes many of us need to significantly increase our potassium intake to help our arteries.
    'To lower blood pressure and dampen the effects of salt, adults should consume 4.7grams of potassium per day,' he says.
    The British recommended daily dose of potassium is only 3.5g. Foods high in potassium include potatoes, sweet potatoes, yoghurt, tuna, lima beans and bananas.
    'To lower blood pressure and dampen the effects of salt, adults should consume 4.7grams of potassium per day'
    _______________________________________

    As for salt, Dr Whelton and colleagues from America's Institute of Medicine say we should stick to less than 6g (a teaspoon) a day, which is the same as the existing UK guidelines.
    But his study is not the only one to raise questions about conventional approaches to this problem.
    A review of the evidence published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) seven years ago found that while cutting back on salt might help those taking medication for high blood pressure, the research showed no clear benefits for everyone doing it.

    Even more extraordinarily, in 2005, researchers at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York published the results of a 13-year study that had followed 7,000 men and women - this showed that people who consumed less than 6g of salt a day actually had a ********'raised' risk of heart disease.*********

    The author of that study, Dr Hillel Cohen, says this was only an observation, and more work is needed to establish why this trend was found. 'But it does suggest a set limit of salt for everyone doesn't work,' he adds.

    Effective or not, cutting back on salt makes up only a small part of the regime recommended for anyone with raised blood pressure, which is also known as hypertension.
    The first step is usually a version of the Dash (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet that recommends fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy foods, and which has been shown to be effective in bringing blood pressure down. But this can be hard to follow if you've been eating less healthily for years.
      Eating a healthy amount of potassium in your diet can offset the impact salt has on raising blood pressure
    Dr Peter Berkin is a GP in Milton Keynes who favours treating chronic disorders with diet where possible.
    'Doctors always recommend weight loss and improving your diet but they rarely have the time or facilities to help patients to make and stick with the changes,' he says.
    The result is that after six weeks or so, most patients are prescribed drugs to lower their blood pressure.
    An estimated ten million people in the UK have high blood pressure, and in England alone millions of prescriptions are written for drugs to treat them every year. But are drugs the best way to treat the problem?

    What patients are often not told is the numbers of people who have to be treated with a drug in order for just one person to benefit.
    In the case of elderly patients with mild hypertension, of every 76 patients who take the drug, one will avoid a stroke, according to Michael Oliver, professor emeritus of cardiology at the University of Edinburgh, writing in the BMJ.
    Professor Oliver was also concerned about the side-effects of these drugs that benefit so few. 'Reduction of mild hypertension can lead to vertigo, particularly in elderly people,' he wrote.

    The drugs have a range of other effects. Diuretics, which make you go to the loo more often, reducing the volume of water in the blood and in turn lowering blood pressure, can cause gout.

    Calcium channel blockers, which relax the arteries, can bring on headaches, while ACE inhibitors, which work by stopping the blood vessels from narrowing, often cause a nasty cough.

    More seriously, several of these drugs are now linked, ironically, with a raised risk of heart disease.
    One study of 1,860 men followed over 17 years found that ^^^^^^those treated with diuretics were 23 per cent more likely to have a heart attack********* than those who weren't.
    Another widely used class of drug is the beta-blocker. These work by blocking a natural substance that causes the arteries to narrow and the heart to beat faster, enabling the arteries to widen again.
    However, using these actually raises heart problems, according to a review by doctors at St Luke's Roosevelt Hospital in New York. They found that patients given beta-blockers had more heart attacks and more strokes.
    'A study found that people who consumed less than 6g of salt a day had a *****raised risk of heart disease'******
    _______________________________________

    The reason could be that most of the studies involved a widely used beta-blocker, atenolol. Worryingly, even though the problems with atenolol have been known for years, 14 million prescriptions for it were written in England and Wales in 2007.

    'Atenolol should not be given to anybody,' says Dr John Cockcroft of the Wales Heart Institute in Cardiff. 'Nobody disagrees atenolol is guilty, yet we are still using it.'
    Drugs certainly bring dangerously high blood pressure down, and for those with high blood pressure they are a lifesaver. But do people with only slightly elevated blood pressure really need them? Research shows that 167 patients need to take the drugs for a single person to benefit.
    A number of GPs believe that more could be done to help people simply with diet and lifestyle.

    'Around 33 per cent of people aged 25 to 55 have borderline hypertension,' says Dr Adam Carey, a nutrition expert who runs a corporate health programme helping employees to get fit, as well as advising the Welsh rugby union team on nutrition.

    'We can get that down to 9 per cent without using drugs, but by giving them a structured programme of diet and exercise.
    'The key is to cut out refined carbohydrates such as white flour and sugar. These foods push up your blood sugar level, and the body stores the extra sugar as fat.
      
    Foods high in potassium include potatoes, sweet potatoes, yoghurt, tuna, lima beans and bananas
    'Eating carbohydrates that haven't been refined, such as brown rice and wholegrains, smoothes out the sudden spikes and troughs of blood sugar that come with sweets and pastries.'

    The American study showed, raising your potassium is important. But there is another pair of minerals involved in controlling blood pressure in the same way as the sodium in salt and potassium do - calcium and magnesium.

    While calcium tightens the blood vessels, magnesium relaxes them. The recommended daily allowance for magnesium is 300 to 400mg and it is found, together with potassium, in green leafy vegetables, nuts and seeds. One of the effects of diuretics can be to flush magnesium and potassium out of the body.

    Relaxation techniques such as meditation can help, too. Anxiety pushes up your blood pressure by raising levels of hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol.

  • P

    4/3/2009 7:28:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis, can you suggest a good omega-3 capsule? I know you have previously mentioned that one can use any omega-3 we get at Costco. I used Naturemade (or Nature's own, I do not remember the name right now) omega-3 capsules. HOWEVER, they have started smelling fishy these last few days! Obviously the oil in them has gone rancid! The capsules are not supposed to expire till 2011, so its really bothering me that they turned bad so soon. I store them in my pantry which is cool and dark, so the capsules were not exposed to harsh sunlight.

  • Anonymous

    4/3/2009 7:56:00 PM |

    Dr.Davis

    This is very informative.
    What is the best base level of Iodine daily to promote thyroid health?

    Thanks for you great blog!

    Aaron

  • David

    4/3/2009 8:10:00 PM |

    So iodine aside, I'm curious as to your take about the whole salt issue. Taubes touches on it in Good Calories, Bad Calories, and essentially looks to insulin --not salt-- as the villain in blood pressure problems. NHANES III seems to help things along in that direction as well: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18465175

    I would grant that high salt intake might be a problem for a certain percentage of sensitive individuals, but I kind of doubt that percentage is all that high. I also wonder if sodium sensitivity in some people has more to do with other factors, such as magnesium deficiency (since magnesium regulates sodium) than with sodium actually being malicious in and of itself. *shrugs*

    Some say that the chemically processed, straight sodium chloride is what causes the problems, and that a good full-spectrum sea salt is the way to go, as it contains all the original trace minerals to balance things out. I use Redmond RealSalt (I love the taste). I've known three people now who have gotten on the RealSalt (in large quantities) only to have their blood pressure go down. With no other changes. I don't really understand it, but it's interesting, and helps to further my skepticism about the supposedly universal salt/BP connection.

  • Sabio

    4/4/2009 2:55:00 AM |

    Loved this entry (a fellow paleo) -- thank you for your blog. I added my own libertarian take on it.

  • xenolith_pm

    4/4/2009 3:38:00 AM |

    Eat two Egglands Best eggs a day and you'll get your daily allowance of iodine.

    Or, just a pinch of dry sea kelp in your tea will do the same.

    Or, just a single daily serving of seafood (any of the wild finfishes, roe [fish eggs], crustaceans, or mollusks) should do the trick too.

    Unfortunately, sea salt (unless it's been purposely iodized) has only a small, insignificant trace amount of iodine.

  • Braesikalla

    4/4/2009 8:52:00 AM |

    Iodine seems to upregulate the sensitivity of steroid receptors. There is anecdotal evidence that in the case of diabetes the amount of injected insulin (which is a steroid hormone) has to be drastically reduced to avoid severe side effects like hypoglycaemia ( http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/diabetes-iodine.html ).
    Since vitamin d is actually a steroid hormone, too, could it be that the recommended range of sufficiency (60-80 ng/dl) has to be adjusted for someone who is on iodine supplementation and therefore likely has increased steroid receptor sensitivity?
    Any thoughts?

  • Dr. William Davis

    4/4/2009 12:42:00 PM |

    Mike V--

    Admittedly, "avoid salt" is a generalization.

    There are genetic types who gain little by minimizing salt. Then there are people at the other end of the spectrum who gain visibly and dramatically with salt restriction, e.g., drops in systolic BP 30+ mmHg, weight (water) reductions of many lbs, even changes in blood electrolytes.

    Salt is one of those things that is handled in dramatically different ways among different humans.

  • Kismet

    4/5/2009 11:18:00 AM |

    David, I believe there's also increased stomach cancer risk with salt...

  • Anna

    4/5/2009 8:25:00 PM |

    It's easy to avoid salt imbalances if one avoids processed foods, as processed foods contain lots of sodium, very little potassium and magnesium.

    Eating real foods one prepares at home may be salted with sea salt with little worry of taking in too much salt.  I tend to think that the association of disease with salt is a marker for malnutrition and poor nutrition from a crappy SAD diet, too high in carbs, too low in protein and natural fats, and deficient in multiple micronutrients.  

    Taubes wrote a great article in Science a few years back on the soft (political) science behind the salt restriction advice.  That's eventually what moved him to investigate the fat/cholesterol hypothesis, because the most influential salt restriction theorist was such a "bad" scientist and bragged so much about his influence that Taubes' skepticism went on high alert.

  • David

    4/5/2009 10:29:00 PM |

    Kismet,

    I won't argue that point, but I would question it, just because I think more information would be helpful. A lot of the studies on salt and stomach cancer that I've seen are observational in nature. Observational studies are useful as far as they go, but they're not good at proving causality. In other words, perhaps it's true that people who get stomach cancer eat a lot of salt. But is the salt actually causing the cancer? People who eat a lot of salt also eat a lot of nitrates-- in fact the two often go together. So which is it that causes the cancer? Salt or nitrates? We can't tell from the observational studies, because there are still too many variables to narrow down the relationship.

    Maybe lots of salt does cause stomach cancer. I honestly don't know what to think. But I do think that caution is needed when evaluating observational studies for the purpose of establishing causality, especially when they are so often contradictory (see another study on salt and stomach cancer here that shows an opposite conclusion from the mainstream: http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/1/7/607.pdf)

    David

  • freecicero

    4/7/2009 12:37:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis:

    What do you think of the ideas of those who advocate drastically increasing iodine intake to Japanese levels?

    Examples:

    http://www.optimox.com/pics/Iodine/opt_Research_I.shtml

    Radio inteviews Dr. Stan, Dr. Blaylock, Dr. Flechas:

    http://curezone.com/ig/f.asp?f=1723

  • Anonymous

    4/8/2009 4:56:00 PM |

    Lack of iodized salt may not be as big an issue as lack of iodine in store bought baked goods. We absorb only 10% of the iodine in salt but 90% of the iodine in baked goods. Bakeries used to condition doughs with iodine but now use bromine which competes with iodine. We are now under-Iodiniated and over-Brominated.

  • Anonymous

    4/8/2009 4:58:00 PM |

    Braesikalla, insulin is not a steriod hormone, it is a peptide.

  • Trinkwasser

    4/12/2009 2:13:00 PM |

    I've seen localised clusters of goiters in Europe but hadn't realised you had such a large zone of iodine depletion.

    Here (UK) we have localised areas of other mineral shortages, animal farmers have to put out salt licks or add magnesium, manganese etc. to the feed, and some arable and vegetable farmers need to mineralise their soil. There are large areas deficient in selenium (and I believe in some parts of China it is at near toxic levels) your local farmer may be someone to ask about your local conditions.

    They told me to eat less salt and my BP kept going up, plus I started getting leg cramps. I ate less carbs and it came back down, they didn't tell me that one! I believe the population of salt sensitive hypertensives is quite low, yet they tell the rest of us to avoid it as well.

    Strangely when I was chomping sodium bicarbonate (acid reflux) I started getting leg cramps again, that time adding magnesium sorted them (and my electrolytes came back spot on) the interrelationship can be complex.

  • Dane Miller

    4/16/2009 2:27:00 PM |

    Who avoids salt?  That seems ridiculous.  Especially if you exercise, you need even more salt.

  • fierce4nations

    5/24/2009 3:50:01 AM |

    High salt levels can build up in your body and chlorine (chloride from the sodium chloride aka table salt) can displace the nessesary iodine in your body especially from thyroid. This can cause health problems including goiters. Iodine can be relaced by consuming it in small amounts. One very effective way is by adding small amounts of Lugol's solution of iodine in your drinking water. A couple of drops per liter is enough. Pure iodine itself will not dissolve in water therefore you must have some type of iodine solution in order to properly intake it.
    You can easily make your own Lugol's Iodine. Here is the formula: (adjust it to your desired amount by multiplying or dividing the factors)
    10 grams of potassium iodide
    5 grams of pure iodine (crystals, prills, or flakes)
    85 mL of distilled water or drinkable (spring) water
    Mix the potassium iodide with the water first then add and stir the iodine until all is dissolves. This usually takes some time but can be speed up by heating the water a little.
    You can purchase iodine and potassium iodide at www.ushalogen.com

  • Dana Seilhan

    9/27/2010 3:02:43 AM |

    It might be better to think of the buy-local movement in terms of, "It's silly to buy foods from elsewhere that we're perfectly capable of growing here," while still importing foods that contain nutrients that are deficient locally.  That's the whole point of trade, after all:  acquiring things you wouldn't have otherwise.

    Expecting foods grown in the ground to provide us with iodine when we've got perfectly good seafood in the oceans that give us the same thing is kind of silly.  Rather on the order of using tofu or seitan as meat substitutes when there are perfectly good cows and chickens running around out there.

    An alternative, too, is to completely avoid goitrogenic foods if you live far from the sea.  It's believed that this is why cruciferous vegetables taste bitter to some people but not others:  the genes responsible seem to have evolved in people who lived far inland.  They needed to maximize thyroid function, so a mutation that allowed them to detect foods that were most likely to mess with thyroid function came in very handy.  No reason we can't make conscious choices in that direction now--it's not like we can't live without any of the foods in question.

    Dealing with environmental pollution and avoiding chemical stressors is important too, as you know.  But every little bit that we ourselves can control right now, counts for something.

  • how to stop sweating

    2/22/2011 12:17:09 AM |

    Glorious post from skilled additionally it's going to probably be an exquisite know-methods to us and thank you numerous for posting this priceless info with us all.

Loading