Dr. Michael Eades on the Paleolithic diet

18. February 2009 William Davis (16)
Dr. Michael Eades has posted an absolutely spectacular commentary on the Paleolithic diet concept:

Rapid health improvements with a Paleolithic diet

The post was prompted by publication of a study that tried to recreate a Paleolithic-like diet experience over a brief study period:

Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet.

Dr. Eades discussion is wonderfully insightful and comprehensive and there's little to say to improve on his discussion.

I'd make one small point: From what I see in my experience, the improvements in lipid patterns seen in the brief period of this study are very likely to have been primarily due to the removal of wheat. Followers of this blog know that wheat elimination is among the most powerful cholesterol-reducing strategies available.

What vitamin D form?

15. February 2009 William Davis (36)
In response to questions regarding why don't vitamin D tablets work, here are my observations.

When I first started correcting vitamin D levels around 3 1/2 years ago, people would begin with starting 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood levels of around 20 ng/ml.

Taking, say, 6000 units vitamin D as tablets over 3 months yielded blood levels of 24-30 ng/ml. Taking 6000 units in an oil-based form, and blood levels would commonly be 60-70 ng/ml.

In other words, tablets are very poorly absorbed. I also saw very erratic absorption with tablets, with tremendous variation in blood levels.

I witnessed this effect many times. I finally began telling patients to avoid the tablets altogether. It's simply not worth it. Taking dose X of tablets, you cannot predict what the blood level of vitamin D will be.

Now, you can sometimes make the tablets get absorbed by either taking with a teaspoon of oil (e.g., olive, flaxseed) or taking with an oil-rich meal. However, I am uncertain just how consistent the absorption is under these circumstances, not having done this enough times to know.

Oil-filled gelcaps are no more expensive than tablets (or perhaps a dollar more). Health food store employees and pharmacists don't know this. I have had many patients come to the office claiming they changed to tablets because that's all their health food store or pharmacy carried and the person behind the counter assured them it was the same. Blood level of vitamin D to confirm: right back down to the starting level or near it--little or no absorption.

The only way to know whether a preparation is absorbed is to check a blood level. But, in my experience, having checked vitamin D blood levels thousands of times, gelcaps never fail; tablets fail over 80% of the time.

Vitamin D for the pharmaceutically challenged

14. February 2009 William Davis (20)
Most Heart Scan Blog readers already know:

Your doctor has been brainwashed by the pharmaceutical industry.

Your doctor more than likely has spent the better part of his or her career in the Guantanamo Bay of healthcare, water-boarded by seductive sales representatives, enticed with promises of fame and riches, threatened with ostracism from the clubby internal halls of healthcare if--gasp!--he or she didn't subscribe to the "rule" that only drugs are good, anything else is bad.

The same FDA-approval-is-necessary-to-be-good brand of nonsense is gaining popularity among my colleagues who, having caught some mention (on the Today Show, Oprah, or similar source of medical information), hope to join the vitamin D hoopla.

People will proudly declare that they are taking a high dose of vitamin D: 50,000 units once per week.

No. They are taking a barely useful form: D2, ergocalciferol.

Studies examining the reliability of the D2 form differ:

There's the Heaney study suggesting that D2 is less effective than D3:
Vitamin D2 is much less effective than vitamin D3 in humans

Then there's the Holick study showing they are equivalent:
Vitamin D2 is as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining circulating concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

My experience is more in line with the Heaney study: Little or no real effect with D2.

One particularly illustrative case I witnessed was a woman who was mistakenly prescribed D2 at 50,000 units per day. She told me that she'd been taking it for a year. I fully expected to see clear-cut signs of toxicity (e.g., high blood calcium levels). Curiously, she showed no signs of toxicity. Nor did she show any vitamin D at all in her blood: 25-hydroxy D level of zero--literally zero.

I've witnessed similar phenomena several times: plenty of vitamin D2 . . . very little vitamin D in the blood.

All in all, I suppose that D2 is better than No-D at all. But you are far better off joining the ranks of the pharmaceutically challenged and go with the stuff that really works: D3.

D3, or cholecalciferol, yields confident increases in blood levels. It is inexpensive, safe, and an exact copy of the human form of vitamin D. (Of course, gelcap or drops only, NEVER tablets.)

There is absolute NO reason to take vitamin D2, the form that sometimes works, sometimes doesn't, the facsimile plant form issued by the drug industry.

Why don't stents prevent heart attack?

12. February 2009 William Davis (11)


No study has ever documented that stents prevent future heart attack. But, in day-to-day practice, stents are frequently implanted for just this reason.

A little clarification. Stents do prevent heart attack--if the heart attack is already underway, either as an "acute myocardial infarction" or "unstable angina."

In other words, a plaque in a coronary artery can rupture just like a little volcano. Rather than spewing lava, the underlying plaque contents--fibrous tissue, inflammatory cells, cholesterol crystals, fatty material, debris--are exposed to flowing blood and trigger spasm of the artery and blood clot formation. A ruptured plaque is typically found in people who go to the emergency room with severe chest pain or have difficulty breathing.

A heart catheterization is performed, a severe (e.g., 90-100%--completely closed) is found. A stent in this situation is of clear-cut benefit.

What is not clearly beneficial is someone with no symptoms, symptoms only with physical activity that has been present for at least several months, or someone with a high heart scan score and no symptoms. In these circumstances, stent implantation does not reduce risk for future heart attack.

Why?



Take a look at this angiogram of a right coronary artery. You can seen plaque all along the artery (represented by areas that appear pinched off. There are at least 4 visible.)

Putting one 15 millimeter stent in the artery will only affect the area of artery stented. (Stents vary in length, but typically are 12-18 millimeters in length.) The right coronary artery is about 10 times or more this length. There are also two other arteries of similar length. A stent at one location will do nothing to affect the potential for rupture in any of the other plaque-laden areas.

Say a stent is implanted in the "worst" blockage in this right coronary artery, the plaque located at around 9 o'clock. What about all the other plaques? They can still rupture.

Why not put in many stents, say, 4 or 5, and stent all the visible plaques?

Two reasons: 1) Plaque you can't even see on an angiogram can still rupture, and 2) it is very costly (easily $30,000 at the very least), 3) incurs greater procedural risk, and 4) messes up the artery for future procedures, since a steel-lined artery that develops more disease in future will be more difficult to re-implant stents, bypass, or perform other procedural manipulations.

The point: Putting in stents does not reduce potential for plaque rupture in the entire artery.

What can prevent plaque rupture? That's the whole point of following an effective prevention program: prevent plaque rupture.

(Of course, this discussion cannot encompass the wide variety of potential situations that may cause your doctor to individualize your approach. Nonetheless, when advised to have an elective heart procedure, a healthy dose of skepticism and is clearly a good practice.)

Top image courtesy National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Low thyroid: What to do?

8. February 2009 William Davis (25)
I've gotten a number of requests for solutions on how to solve the low thyroid issue if either 1) your doctor refuses to discuss the issue or denies it is present, or 2) there are government mandates against thyroid correction unless certain (outdated) targets are met.

Oh, boy.

While I'm not encouraging anyone to break the laws or regulations of their country (and it's impossible to generalize, with readers of this blog originating from over 30 countries), here are some simple steps to consider that might help you in your quest to correct hypothyroidism:

--Measure your body temperature--First thing in the morning either while lying in bed or go to the bathroom and measure your oral temp. Record it and, if it is consistently lower than 97.0 degrees (Fahrenheit), show it to your doctor. This may help persuade him/her.(You can still be hypothyroid with higher temperatures, but if low temperatures are present, it is simply more persuasive evidence in favor of treatment).

--Supplement with iodine 150 mcg per day to be sure you are not iodine deficient. This is becoming more common in the U.S. as people avoid iodized salt. It is quite common outside the U.S. An easy, inexpensive preparation is kelp tablets.

--Show your doctor a recent crucial study: The HUNT Study that suggests that cardiovascular mortality begins to increase at a TSH of only 1.5 or greater, not the 5.5 mIU usually used by laboratories and doctors.

--Ask people around you whether they are aware of a health practitioner who might be willing to work with you, or at least have an open mind (sadly, an uncommon commodity).

Also, see thyroid advocate and prolific author, Mary Shomon's advice on how to find a doctor willing to work with you. Yes, they are out there, but you may have to ask a lot of friends and acquaintances, or meet and fire a lot of docs. It shouldn't be this way, but it is. It will change through public pressure and education, but not by next week.

Another helpful discussion from Mary Shomon: The TSH Normal Range: Why is there still controversy? You will read that even the endocrinologists (a peculiarly contentious group) seethingly debate what constitutes normal vs. low thyroid function.

Also, you might remind a resistant health practitioner that guidelines are guidelines--they are not laws that restrain anyone. They are simply meant to represent broad population guidelines that do not take your personal health situation into consideration.

Which statin drug is best?

8. February 2009 William Davis (7)
I re-post a Heart Scan Blog post from one year ago, answering the question: Which statin drug is best?

I still get this question from patients in the office and online, nearly always prompted by a TV commercial. So let me re-express my thoughts from a year ago, which have not changed on this issue.


The statin drugs can indeed play a role in a program of coronary plaque control and regression.

However, thanks to the overwhelming marketing (and lobbying and legislative) clout of the drug manufacturing industry, they play an undeserved, oversized role. I get reminded of this whenever I'm pressed to answer the question: "Which statin drug is best?"

In trying to answer this question, we encounter several difficulties:

1) The data nearly all use statins drugs by themselves, as so-called monotherapy. Other than the standard diet--you know, the American Heart Association diet, the one that causes heart disease--it is a statin drug alone that has been studied in the dozens of major trials "validating" statin drug use. The repeated failure of statin drugs to eliminate heart disease and associated events like heart attack keeps being answered by the "lower is better" argument, i.e., if 70% of heart attacks destined to occur still take place, then reduce LDL even further. This is an absurd argument that inevitably encounters a wall of limited effects.

2) The great bulk of clinical data examining both the incidence of cardiovascular events as well as plaque progression or regression have all been sponsored by the drug's manufacturer. It has been well-documnted that, when a drug manufacturer sponsors a trial, the outcome is highly likely to be in favor of that drug. Imagine Ford sponsors a $30 million study to prove that their cars are more reliable and safer. What is the likelihood that the outcome will be in favor of the competition? Very unlikely. Such is human nature.

If we were to accept the clinical trial data at face value and ignore the above issues, then I would come to the conclusion that we should be using Crestor at a dose of 40 mg per day, since that was the regimen used in the ASTEROID Trial that achieved modest reversal of coronary atherosclerotic plaque by intravascular ultrasound.

But I do not advocate such an ASTEROID-like approach for several reasons:

1) In my experience, nobody can tolerate 40 mg of Crestor for more than few weeks, a few months at most. Show me someone who can survive and tolerate Crestor 40 mg per day and I'll show you somebody who survived a 40 foot fall off his roof--sure, it happens, but it's a fluke.

2) The notion that only one drug is necessary to regress this disease is, in my view, absurd. It ignores issues like hypertension, metabolic syndrome, inflammatory phenomena, lipoprotein(a), post-prandial (after-eating) phenomena, LDL particle size, triglycerides, etc. You mean that Crestor 40 mg per day, or other high-intensity statin monotherapy should be enough to overcome all of these patterns and provide maximal potential for coronary plaque reversal? No way.

3) Plaque reversal can occur without a statin agent. While statin drugs may provide some advantage in the reduction of LDL, much of the benefit ends there. All of the other dozens of causes of coronary atherosclerotic plaque need to be addressed.

So which statin is best? This question is evidence of the brainwashing that has seized the public and my colleagues. The question is not which statin is best. The question should be: What steps do I take to maximize my chances of reversing coronary atherosclerotic plaque?

The answer may or may not involve a statin drug, regardless of the subtle differences among them.

Dr. Nancy Sniderman, heart scans on Today Show

5. February 2009 William Davis (6)
While shaving this morning, I caught the report by NBC medical expert, Dr. Nancy Sniderman, about her coronary plaque and CT coronary angiogram.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy




Those of you in the Track Your Plaque program or who follow The Heart Scan Blog know that we should tell Dr. Sniderman and her doctor that:

She has done virtually nothing that will stop an increasing heart scan score! In fact, Dr. Sniderman is now following the "prevention program" that is eerily reminiscent of Tim Russert's program! We all know how that turned out.

It is pure folly to believe that a combination of Lipitor, exercise, and a "healthy diet" (usually meaning a low-fat diet--yes, the diet that promotes heart disease) will stop the otherwise relentless increase in heart scan score.

Dr. Sniderman, please consider:

1) Having the real causes of your coronary plaque identified. (It is highly unlikely to be just LDL cholesterol, though the drug industry is thrilled that you believe this.)

2) Ask yourself (or, if your doctor knew what she was doing, ask her): Why do I have heart disease? LDL cholesterol is insufficient reason--virtually nobody I know has high LDL cholesterol as the sole cause. LDL cholesterol is, at most, one reason among many others, but is insufficient as a sole cause.

3) What is your vitamin D status? Crucial!

4) What is your thyroid status?

5) Fish oil--a must!

6) Do you have lipoprotein(a)? Small LDL?

Just addressing the items on the above checklist would put you on a far more confident path to stop your heart scan score from increasing.

If you were to repeat your heart scan score, my prediction: Your score will be higher by 18-24% per year.

My personal experience with low thyroid

3. February 2009 William Davis (31)
Something happened to me around October-November of last year.

I usually feel great. Ordinarily, my struggles are sleeping and relaxing. As with most people, I have too many projects on my schedule, though I find my activities stimulating and fascinating.

I blasted through a very demanding November, trying to meet the needs of a book publisher. This involved sleeping only a few hours a night for several days on end, all after a full day of office practice and hospital duties.

But it was getting tougher. My concentration was becoming more fragmented. Getting things done was proving an elusive goal. Exercise became a real chore.

Although I usually force myself to go to sleep, I was starting to fall asleep before my usual bedtime, and I was sleeping longer than usual.

It's been a tough winter in Wisconsin. Let's face it: It's Wisconsin. But it's been tough even for this region, with weeks of temperatures consistently below 10 degrees. Even so, I was having a heck of a time keeping warm. Extra shirts, socks, soaking my hands in hot water--none of it worked and I was freezing.

So I had my thyroid values checked:

Free T3: 2.6 pg/ml (Ref 2.3-4.2)
Free T4: 1.20 ng/dl (Ref 0.89-1.76)
TSH: 1.528 uUI/ml (Ref 0.350-5.500)

Normal by virtually all standards. I measured my first morning oral temperature: 96.1, 96.3, 95.9. Hmmmm.

My experience coincided with the Track Your Plaque and Heart Scan Blog conversations about low thyroid being enormously underappreciated, with the newest data on thyroid disease suggesting that a TSH for ideal health is probably 1.5 mIU or less. (More about that: Is normal TSH too high? and Thyroid perspective update .

Could this simply be a case of medical student-oma in which every beginning medical student believes he has every disease he learns about?

Despite the apparently "normal" thyroid blood tests, I took the leap and started taking Armour thyroid, beginning at 1/2 grain (30 mg), increasing to 1 grain (60 mg) after the first week.

Within 10 days, I experienced:

--Dramatic restoration of the ability to concentrate
--A boost in mood. (In fact, the last few blog posts before I replaced thyroid reflect my deepening crabbiness.)
--Large increase in energy, now restored to old levels
--Need for less sleep
--I'm warm again! (It's still <20 degrees, but I get easily stay warm while indoors.)

I am absolutely, positively convinced of the power of thyroid. I am further convinced from the clinical data, patient experiences, and now my own personal experience, that low levels of hypothyroidism are being dramatically underappreciated and underdiagnosed.

I shudder to think of what my life would have been like 6 months or a year from now without correction of thyroid hormone.

Now, the tough question: Why the heck is this happening to so many people?

Speaking availability

3. February 2009 William Davis (5)
Just a quick announcement:

If you would like to hear more about the concepts articulated in The Heart Scan Blog or in the Track Your Plaque program, I am available to speak to your group.

Among the possible topics:

Return to the Wild: Natural Nutritional Supplements That Supercharge Health
Why this apparent "need" for fish oil and other heart-healthy supplements? I discuss why some nutritional supplements make perfect sense when we are viewed in the context of primitive humans living modern lives, while other supplements do little.


Shrink Your Tummy . . .or, Why Your Dietitian is Fat!
Weight loss doesn't have to involve calorie counting, deprivation, or hunger pangs. But the conventional "rules" for weight loss and health have to be broken.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Extraordinary Heart Health
Heart health is something that you can seize control over, something identifiable, correctable, and . . . reversible. Much of this can be achieved with little or no medication, nor procedures. I detail all the enormously empowering lessons learned through the Track Your Plaque program.


I can also present in-depth yet entertaining discussions on the power of vitamin D, natural cholesterol control, screening for heart disease, and similar topics covered in the blog.

To learn more, just e-mail us at contact@trackyourplaque, or call my office at 414-456-1123.

Learn how to eat from Survivorman

31. January 2009 William Davis (22)

Look no farther than Discovery Channel to learn how humans were meant to eat.

The Survivorman show documents the (self-filmed) 7-day adventures of Les Stroud, who is dropped into various remote corners of the world to survive on little but ingenuity and will to live. Starting without food or water, the Survivorman scrapes and scrambles in the wilderness for essentials to survive in habitats as far ranging as the Ecuadorian rainforest to sub-arctic Labrador.

What does Survivorman have to do with your nutrition habits?

Everything. The lessons we can learn by watching this TV show are plenty.

Survivorman plays out the life we are supposed to be living: slaughtering wild game with simple handmade tools and his bare hands, identifying plants and berries that are safe to eat, trapping fish, scavenging the kill of other predators. He's even resorted to eating bugs and caterpillars, particularly following several days of unsuccessful hunting and scavenging.

What is notable from the Survivorman experience is what is absent: In the steppe, desert, tundra, or jungle, you will not find bread, fruit drinks, or Cheerios. You won't find farm-fattened, corn-fed livestock with meat marbled with fat.

Imagine the result of such an experience for us, drawn out over 6 months. Even an obese, diabetic, gluttonous, XXX dress size 350-lb woman would return a lean 105 lbs, size 0, non-diabetic, fully able to run miles in the wild tracking game.

Survivorman's quiet desperation of living in the wild, preoccupied with worries over where his next meal might be found, is a stark contrast to the bloated, shelves stacked floor-to-ceiling supermarkets, and our modern society's all-you-can-eat several times per day lifestyle.

Am I advocating selling the car and house and chucking modern society for the "safety" of the jungles of Borneo?

No, of course not. I am advocating taking a lesson from the clever experiment conducted by Mr. Stroud, a return-to-the-wild experience that should teach us something about how perverse our modern nutritional lives have become.
Blast small LDL to oblivion

Blast small LDL to oblivion

4. April 2009 William Davis (21)
Here's a graphic demonstration of the power of wheat elimination to reduce small LDL particles, now the number one cause for heart disease in the U.S.

Lee had suffered a stroke due to an atherosclerotic plaque in a brain artery. She also had plenty of coronary plaque with a heart scan score of 322.

Lee began with an LDL particle number (the "gold standard" for measuring LDL, far superior to conventional calculated LDL) of 2234 nmol/L. This is exceptionally high, the equivalent of an LDL cholesterol of 223 mg/dl (drop the last digit). Of this 2234 nmol/L, 90% were abnormally small, with 1998 nmol/L of small LDL particles.

Lee eliminated wheat products from her diet, as well as cutting out sugars and cornstarch. Six months later, her results:

LDL particle number: 1082 nmol/L--a 52% reduction from the starting value and equivalent to an LDL of 108 mg/dl. Small LDL: zero--yes, zero.

In other words, 100% of Lee's LDL particles had shifted to the more benign large LDL simply with elimination of these foods---NO statin drug. (In addition to wheat elimination, she was also taking vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids at our recommended doses.)

While not everybody responds quite so vigorously due to genetic variation, nor does everyone try as hard as Lee did to eliminate the foods that trigger small LDL, her case provides a great illustration of the power of this strategy.
Tags :

Comments (21) -

  • Steve K

    4/5/2009 3:33:00 PM |

    while i believe in this strategy with improvement in my own situation,probably due to genetics i have not experience any change in particle size although there has been a reduction in small particles from 1805 to 1305according to NMR with size at 18.7  Since trigs were only 20 and HDL was 54 up from 41 VitD only 38. Working to raise it.  Taking Lipitor at Doc request due to strong family history.  Only male in family not to have a coronary event. Would like not to take statin,but not sure there is an alternative. Any thoughts?

  • Anonymous

    4/6/2009 12:31:00 AM |

    I normally ead very little wheat anyway, but you've piqued my curiousity

    you wrote this:
    >>> eliminate the foods that trigger small LDL

    the interesting word here is "trigger"  - does it mean that only a small amount of wheat will cause lots of small LDL particles - that is, wheat changes the way you create LDL, and so a small amount of wheat turns a lot of LDL into small particles?


    OR

    is there a dose dependent response?  A small amount of wheat leads to low levels of small LDL particles, and more wheat leads to higher levels, and lots of wheat creates high levels.

    Sam in Toronto

  • pooti

    4/6/2009 12:50:00 AM |

    Steve, how many carbs per day are you eating and what is your percentage and type of fat you are eating? Are you eating any PUFAs? Do you consume much fructose (i.e. honey, agave nectar, fructans from sorbitol, xylitol and any poly-ol)? Do you eat pre-packaged or pre-prepared foods? How much and what are your protein sources each day?

    Just wondering because I don't know that Dr. Davis is always able to answer personal questions?

    Also, what form of Vitamin D are you taking and how much of it? How long supplementing?

  • bolderbob

    4/6/2009 3:46:00 AM |

    Given my travel etc, I have been able to reduce but not totally eliminate wheat from my diet.  Dr. Davis, I think I have eliminated about 70% of wheat.  Does that help?  Also, is whole grain wheat OK or is it all wheat?    Thanks!!!

  • toddhargrove

    4/6/2009 6:37:00 AM |

    Very impressive.  What is your opinion about the likely mechanism for the LDL improvement related to wheat?  Less carbs?  Removal of possible immune response to gluten?  Removal of gluten intolerance?  All of the above?  Which factor is most important in your mind?  Are there others?  Thanks.

  • Steve K

    4/6/2009 7:13:00 PM |

    Pooti: In response to your inquiry.

    i eat no sugar except in greek yougurt(2%) or in fruit which is limited to an apple or some berries. Rest of diet is fish beef, turkey,chicken, eggs(sometimes whites only,sometimes the whole egg)  No grains except tsp of metamuciel(psylium). Only use olive oil for salad, and eat no fried food at all.  i take fish oil.  Kinda think it is genetics but open to advise.

  • wccaguy

    4/6/2009 10:51:00 PM |

    pooti wrote:

    >>> Just wondering because I don't know that Dr. Davis is always able to answer personal questions?

    Dr. Davis always answers personal questions at the Track Your Plaque forum.  But given his patient load and responsibilities for the Track Your Plaque program, he is not able to answer questions often here at the Heart Scan Blog.

  • Scott09

    4/7/2009 7:03:00 PM |

    Doc
    How do you know it was the wheat that did it? What about the sugar or starch. Don't you have to isolate your variables?

  • xenolith_pm

    4/7/2009 8:02:00 PM |

    Steve K,

    You may be extraordinarily insulin sensitive to grains and sugars.

    Are you using the drink or wafer forms of Metamucil?

    Just one tablespoon of the original drink form of Metamucil has 9 grams of sugar (sucrose).

    The "sugar free" drink versions of Metamucil will still give you a good dose of aspartame and maltodextrin.  Small amounts of chronic doses may result in unfavorable insulin resistance/response with some people.

    The wafer form of Metamucil is even worse.  Each serving contains 6 grams of sugar, corn starch, fructose, and wheat.

    Try to get a brand that only contains psyllium husk, like Konsyl.  Each serving has only 0.5 grams of available complex carbohydrates. It can be found at Walmart.

    Yes, Greek yogurt has less lactose (milk sugar) than regular yogurt.  But, even a modest eight ounce serving of plain Greek yogurt can contain as much as 9 grams of lactose.  And if you are consuming chronic amounts, it very well may be affecting your insulin.

    IMHO, investing in a glucose meter for home monitoring is not a bad idea for anyone who think they may be genetically sensitive to carbohydrates.

  • Steve K

    4/8/2009 2:00:00 AM |

    xenolith_pm :


    i am thin and fasting glucose last measured was 79 which i am told is lower end of normal.  Were i super sensitive this and trigs(20) would i suspect be higher.  Thanks for input from all.

  • Trinkwasser

    4/8/2009 6:59:00 PM |

    I'm jealous! Dropping the carbs decimated my trigs (literally) and doubled HDL. Initially my LDL *increased* but adding more sat fats seems to have reduced this back again. I wish I could get a proper test for the particle size, I have to guestimate from the trigs/HDL ratio.

    Maybe I should eliminate the small amount of wheat I still eat, see if there's a threshold effect.

  • Anonymous

    4/9/2009 8:41:00 AM |

    I am posting this here because I cannot, at this time, afford to join the forum so would appreciate anyone who could answer me.  I have avoided wheat for years because of its disastrous gastric effects but reading Mary Enig and Sally Fallon's Nourishing Traditions have been thinking about trying some sprouted wheat bread (Sunnyvale Organic).  Any opinions on this as the phytic acid is neutralised and the vits and mins are more bioavailable?

    Susie

  • Anonymous

    4/9/2009 11:35:00 AM |

    I have asked for a proposed mechanism several times.  I do not dispute the reported results, it just helps if a mechanism is proposed so people can understand why wheat or any other food impacts the particle size of LDL.

    Trevor

  • Kiwi

    4/9/2009 10:45:00 PM |

    This study found that wheat was a problem compared to oats but they were unable to reach a conclusion as to why.

    http://www.39kf.com/cooperate/qk/American-Society-for-Nutrition/027602/2008-12-28-550490.shtml


    "The reason for these unfavorable lipoprotein changes in the wheat group is not readily apparent; however, the mechanism by which these alterations are produced does not occur with increased oat consumption."

    The only grain I eat now is oats prepared using the Weston Price method.

  • Anonymous

    4/10/2009 3:17:00 PM |

    I think its hard to answer in detail allot of questions that come here, which is why we started the board as there were several of us just like you with all these questions.

    It was our idea for a small fee, not Dr D idea to make money, he makes nada off this and gives gives gives!

    ....and there had to be a small fee otherwise we would need advertisers like drug companies and we wanted it to remain free of that brain washing.

    The board is about $20 a few times a year and it has saved my life.

    Cheap investment.I think I am worth that.

    There is so much information there you would know that these blog posts are 110% backed up with good medical documentation.

    Or maybe go back to the beginning of this blog and read it all in detail and allot of your questions will be answered.

    I used to hang onto this blog for info as found it the most effective and so personal. Then we started the board and I can go there and read and educate myself from Dr D and hundreds of well educated folks like you and me who want to live longer and know traditional medicine is not helping us as much as it could with reversing our plague.

    Now I hardly ever come here as all the info is at my finger tips.

    Dr D makes no money from the board, it is to pay for band widths, web seminars etc.

    It is created by volunteers from this group and if approx.$5 a month isn't affordable let me know and I will help you find a way to raise some funds to take good care of yourself.

    I believe its our right to good health care info and thats what Dr D provides here and on the board.

    I am serious, don't let the small fee make you die younger.

  • Anonymous

    4/10/2009 5:43:00 PM |

    Anonymous,

    Sprouting the grains may eliminate the gastric issues you've experienced with wheat. However, those gastric issues may have been an indication of gluten intolerance and gastric issues may not be the only symptom, just the most obvious or visible one.

    Before adding wheat back to your diet in a large way, please research non-celiac gluten sensitivity and gluten intolerance on the web and at the public library.

    http://www.glutensensitivity.net/ and http://jccglutenfree.googlepages.com/ are good places to start.

    If you have questions re: gluten intolerance, there are several forums discussing this topic such as glutenfreeandbeyond.org/forum
    or forums.glutenfree.com

  • Anonymous

    4/11/2009 4:32:00 PM |

    Thanks for that, I was just asking as the wheat issues raised in the blog and the main site probably refer to modern wheat refining and baking processes whereas sprouted grain bread is made to an ancient recipe and contains no dairy or yeast.  I will certainly check out all options before deciding.  Thanks again.

    Susie

  • Trinkwasser

    4/12/2009 2:21:00 PM |

    Some diabetics can eat Ezekiel or similar sprouted grain breads, or breads made with wheat gluten and non-wheat flours, and I can handle other grains (in sufficiently small quantities) without the BG and presumably insulin spikes specific to wheat, but that's only one of the possible issues.

  • Anonymous

    4/16/2009 9:54:00 PM |

    hey thanks.  I don't have an issue with the fee, just and issue with putting my creditcarddetails into an unsecure webpage.  I wrote the TYP and pointed out they should use https.... when it is fixed, I will join. Even this blog is https

  • particle size reduction

    4/3/2010 3:17:59 PM |

    I think that the problem you are suffering through is insulin sensitivity. Well i am still researching on this topic but till now the point which has been cleared is this one only.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 7:00:57 PM |

    In other words, 100% of Lee's LDL particles had shifted to the more benign large LDL simply with elimination of these foods---NO statin drug. (In addition to wheat elimination, she was also taking vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids at our recommended doses.)

Add comment

Loading