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.
Warning: Your pharmacist may be hazardous to your health

Warning: Your pharmacist may be hazardous to your health

Pharmacists can be very helpful resources when it comes to questions about prescription drugs.

The operant word here is drugs.

What they are most definitely not expert on are nutritional supplements. In fact, a day doesn't pass by without having to dispell one falsehood or another conveyed to a patient about a nutritional supplement by a pharmacist.

Among the more common falsehoods told to patients by pharmacists:

"You have to take Niaspan. Sloniacin doesn't work."

Patent nonsense. A few years back, I was the largest prescriber of Niaspan in Wisconsin. Although I am embarassed to admit it, I also spoke for the company, educating fellow physicians on the value of niacin for correction of lipid disorders.

Then I shifted to Sloniacin due to cost--it costs 1/20th the cost of prescription Niaspan. I examined the pharmacokinetic data (pattern of release in the body), the published literature (e.g., the famous HATS Trial), and have used Sloniacin over 1000 times in patients. In my experience, there is no difference: no difference in efficacy, no difference in safety, no difference in side-effects. There is a BIG difference in price.

Unfortunately, most pharmacists get their information on niacin from the Niaspan representative.


"You shouldn't be taking vitamin D supplements. I have prescription vitamin D here."

What the pharmacist means is that you should replace your vitamin D3, or cholecalciferol--the form recognized as vitamin D by the human body--with the plant form of vitamin D, vitamin D2 or ergocalciferol.

Since when is a plant form of a hormone (vitamin D is a potent hormone, not a vitamin; it was misnamed) better than the human form?

I've previously talked about this issue in a blog post called Vitamin D for the pharmaceutically challenged.

The notion that D2 is somehow superior to the real thing, D3, is absurd. I use D3 only in my practice and have checked blood levels thousands of times. As long as the D3 comes as a gelcap, drops, or powder in a capsule, it works great, yielding predictable and substantial increases in blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D. If it comes as prescription D2 (or over-the-counter D2), I have seen many failures: no increase in blood levels of vitamin D or meager increases.

Prescription status is no guarantee of effectiveness.


"Why do you need iodine? You already get enough from food."

The NHANES data over the last 25 years argue otherwise: Iodine deficiency is growing, particularly as people are avoiding iodized salt and the iodine content of processed foods is diminishing. The explosion in goiters in my office also suggest this is no longer a settled issue.

On the positive side, it is exceptionally easy to remedy with an inexpensive iodine supplement. That is, until the pharmacist intervenes and injects his bit of nutritional mis-information.


I'm not bashing pharmacists. In fact, Track Your Plaque's own Dr. BG has a pharmacy background, and she is an absolute genius with nutritonal supplements. But she is a rare exception to the rule: Most pharmacists know virtually nothing about nutritional supplements. You might as well ask your hairdresser.

Comments (24) -

  • Jenny

    6/11/2009 10:55:25 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Excuse me if I missed it, but what dose would you suggest supplementing iodine at?

    I've been taking a kelp pill with 150 mc since reading your blog posts about it. I seem to feel perkier, but that might be placebo effect, or spring.

  • Anonymous

    6/12/2009 2:47:45 AM |

    Actually your hairdresser might know a lot more than your pharmacist.Hairdressers do have to study nutrition you know!.

  • Helena

    6/12/2009 2:50:41 AM |

    You are saying what I have been saying for years! I am so glad I found your blog! I take at least 5000 IU of Vitamin D3 every day.
    More often I meet Doctors and other people whitin the prescription drug industry that questions my motive on taking natural nutrition, and all I do is shake my head and wonder why they are allowed to call themselves doctors. I thought that the most important thing was "First do no harm"...

  • Anna

    6/12/2009 3:06:43 AM |

    I would add that the vitamin & supp store clerk's advice needs to be taken with a grain of salt, too, at least until you have learned which clerks to trust.  

    At the local stores where I buy my supplements, there are some clerks whose judgement I trust quite a bit when choosing a new supplement or brand, because they have given sound, credible advice in the past, and I know from discussions they have a sound understanding of human nutrition and physiology.  

    But there are a few clerks I know to avoid like the plague, because they have too often "dispensed" patently untrue, biased, and  uninformed nutrition and biochemistry advice.   One of them (the one with the huge divots in his cheeks from protein deficiencies) tried to sell me "whole food plant-sourced" Vitamin D, with the argument that whole food sources are always superior (I already knew to take the fish liver D3, not the D2 from rradiated yeast or plant sterols).

    I'm glad you keep reminding everyone about choosing the right form of Vitamin D - D3.

  • Anonymous

    6/12/2009 4:03:45 AM |

    "Most pharmacists know virtually nothing about nutritional supplements".... got that right.  I asked about vitamin k2 supplements and why there was a 120mcu restriction in canada.  The pharmacist said he knew only about Vitamin K as injections used for babies....

  • Peter

    6/12/2009 10:38:11 AM |

    I don't think you should bash hairdressers as ignorant about nutrition.  Mine has lost around 60 pounds eating low carb and looks great.  I'd take anything he says about nutrition seriously.

  • Kismet

    6/12/2009 11:22:06 AM |

    Personally, I've yet to meet a good pharmacist in Austria. Most of them are even worse than our mediocre doctors; it's really a shame...

    I think I know what you're up to with the sleeping poll! ;.)
    Is it?

    JAMA. 2008 Dec 24;300(24):2859-66.
    Short sleep duration and incident coronary artery calcification.
    King CR, Knutson KL, Rathouz PJ, Sidney S, Liu K, Lauderdale DS.

    I'd love to see the study results discussed.

  • Mark K. Sprengel

    6/12/2009 12:11:19 PM |

    Interesting, my fiance's father was recently give Niaspan by his doctor and at a pretty high dose. He had a severe reactions, jitters, heart sped up etc. and quit taking it. The Dr. said that couldn't have been caused by the Niaspan but the pharmacist said it was as he had the same reaction when he was on it.

  • Anonymous

    6/12/2009 3:15:08 PM |

    Great Post, Thanks.

    I am a bit curious though as to the difference between Niaspan and Sloniacin. From what I've been told, and correct me if I've been given false information, is that Naispan has a substantially quicker release time than Slonaicin, therefore being easier on the liver, especially at higher doses?

    Thanks,
    Kent

  • H

    6/12/2009 5:48:27 PM |

    I have a pretty specific question about the Vitamin D issue....

    I have a Vit D deficiency -- first noticed by the endocrinologist that I see for hypothyroidism. She prescribed a supplement over one year ago; and I get it tested every few months. So far, I still have a deficiency - I don't know the exact numbers, but I got the impression it hasn't moved much at all. I usually take a gelcap weekly for about six weeks after the blood test, and then drop back to taking it monthly (per her instructions).

    After reading the post you referred to above, I looked into it a bit more and confirmed that she has me on D2 (50k units, I think). So I asked her about this, told her about what I'd read on your website and others, and whether it would be better to switch to D3. She was emphatic that it would not...partly (or entirely?? I can't remember if she had other reasons too) because I already take SO MANY medications that finding a schedule that works for taking them where they all work effectively is already a huge challenge. (Some have to be taken alone, like Synthroid, etc. And I'm on warfarin, which just makes *everything* difficult.)

    She insists that she can get Vit D stabilized "eventually" with D2, and that sometimes it just takes awhile. She is an endocrinologist with -- as far as I can tell -- a good reputation locally; so she SHOULD know what she's talking about. But I just don't know; and the ongoing deficiency concerns me a little bit.

    What is your opinion? Should I be looking for another endocrinologist? Thanks in advance for any thoughts or guidance.

  • Dr. William Davis

    6/12/2009 7:32:26 PM |

    Hi, Jenny--

    After an exhaustive search, I have come to the conclusion that nobody knows the ideal dose of iodine for human health.

    However, 500 mcg per day has been working well for us.

  • Dr. William Davis

    6/12/2009 7:34:04 PM |

    H--

    Your doctor's attitude is, sadly, representative of the knuckleheaded bias of my colleagues: Prescription = good, non-prescription = bad.

    Yet there is no rational reason for this distinction when it comes to D2 vs. D3. D3 = human; D2 = non-human. Which are you?

  • Anonymous

    6/12/2009 7:49:57 PM |

    Kent,

    I believe they BOTH release over a 6-8 hour period of time. If Niaspan was released faster, my guess is that it would cause more flushing and that less people would be able to tolerate it.

    I myself take Endur-acin which is also released over a 6-8 hour period of time.

  • kris

    6/12/2009 8:50:41 PM |

    i usually order mine from IHERB. the reason being is that the feed backs from the users helps to make a collective decision. the feed backs are exclusive to the actual purchasers through email invitations. still better to study my self along with the feed backs. good price, fast shipping, best customer service and large collection.
    As to the iodine Dose, Dr davis, you are absolutely right about the iodine dose that no body knows. we have 5 people in our family. our doses are from lugol's 20mg a day to 650mcg from kelp to one person can only take 150mcg every second day. mostly it is the rapid heart beat and light pain behind the neck is the indication of over dose for me. when i first started taking iodine i have taken up to 50MG a day and it was lugol's. i felt great. but soon after few days i  had to reduce my doze. now i am taking kelp tablets with 650 mcg iodine in it. i am taking these with L-tyrosine 500mg along with vitamins B's. i feel that kelp contains bromine, therefore it helps to balance if it is over dose. i also do not take any vitamins or iodine etc. 2 days in a week, so that the body can not get lazy on this extra supply of vitamins. Iodine also helps to cleanup the body from mercury, bromine, fluoride etc. so it may develop little rash or other signs like too much sweating. i also felt that Norwegian kelp feels better than any other kelp for some reason.
    the other thing that i noticed that when starting iodine or thyroid hormones, one may notice loose gum and pain around the hard working side teeth. because iodine and thyroid hormones get rid of extra water from the body. bones become smaller and stronger. to get rid of the temporary discomfort to the teeth and gum, we have used turmeric powder as a mouth wash successfully. leave it in the mouth for a minute or so and it will help big time.

  • Jessica

    6/12/2009 11:25:02 PM |

    H-

    "So far, I still have a deficiency - I don't know the exact numbers, but I got the impression it hasn't moved much at all."

    Not at all surprising. D2 is only 1/3 as effective as D3. Taking 50,000 IU of D2 is equivalent to roughly 2,000 IU of D3.

    I started with a Vit D 25(OH) level of 26 ng/mL and it took nearly 9 months of 10,000 IU/daily of D3 to get an optimal level (70-90 ng/mL).

    If you have any of the NUMEROUS medical conditions that need Vitamin D, then you likely will require more D than the average person...if you're carrying extra weight you'll likely need more than the average person...if you're dark skinned, you'll likely need more than the average person...if you live north of Atlanta, GA, you'll likely require more D than the average person...

    With all of these factors, its not at all surprising that you haven't yet achieved a good Vit D level since you've only been taking D2.

    Taking D2 instead of D3 is like giving a thirty man in a desert a thimble of water to quench his thirst. He's getting water, right? But, it's not enough to do any good, so whats the point?

    Take D3 and take enough to get a good blood level.

  • Becki

    6/12/2009 11:51:17 PM |

    D3 is best in power or gelcap form?  Does that mean I'm wasting my money on the tablets I purchased?

  • Anonymous

    6/13/2009 12:59:06 AM |

    Hey Kent,

    My primary care physician sent me to a cardiologist at Ottawa heart institute.  I had already started using the "Now" brand Niacin after reading a study from Baylor's lipids online.  I asked about Niaspan as I assumed it was a pharmaceutical grade and more accurately controlled.
    The Cardiologist's comment was that the blood work indicated what I was taking was just fine but she had no issues providing a prescription for Niaspan.  My insurance at the time covered the cost.  I changed jobs, the new insurance company would not. I take 2grms at bedtime.  I sometimes get a flush and tingling, which I did with Niaspan too; but who the hell cares, my tg numbers speak to the value of this minor inconvenience
    Trevor
    Sups= Niacin/K2/D3/fish oil

  • gkwellness

    6/13/2009 8:07:48 AM |

    About 9 weeks back, my 25-Hydroxy Vitamin D levels were found to be dangerously low at 12.2 ng/ml! My situation led me to research, begin a self-directed treatment and create a blog www.gkwellness.wordpress.com to benefit others. I have taken a re-test of Vitamin D and expect the new results soon. Considering that my 6th week supplementation went up to 604,000 IU, it would be most interesting to know my new levels which I shall promptly post on my blog.

  • Helena

    6/13/2009 11:30:44 PM |

    Becky,

    "D3 is best in power or gelcap form? Does that mean I'm wasting my money on the tablets I purchased?"

    To answer you I would say that liquid is always the best. The body can absorb up to 98% when taken by liquid, but it can be as low as 20% when taking by pill. With powder you should always wait until it is compleatley dissolved (20 minutes) or you will loose some vital IU's.

    However I would not throw away your pills, but take them until you have no more. Until then I would look for a better alternative.

    I take my Vitamin D3 by liquid and I love it.

    Good luck!

  • Trinkwasser

    6/17/2009 1:26:50 PM |

    IME pharmacists have a competence range at least as great as doctors

    "If you needed a glucometer one would have been prescribed for you"

    "Sounds like you may be diabetic, I'll sell you a meter and you can take the test results to your doctor"

    two different pharmacists. I've found much the same with respect to knowledge both of drugs and other supplements. A good one can be an excellent source of useful information, if you can find one.

  • AustralianPharma

    12/15/2009 3:10:49 AM |

    I'd like to second a previous comment to put into perspective that a range of expertise exists across all members of a particular field, whether that be pharmacy or medicine. I've had plenty of disturbing queries from doctors to my pharmacy, one that comes to mind is from a doctor (over fifty years of age) that needed to know the name of any antibiotic that comes in a cream. You would think that over the course of a career, and access to printed and electronic resources within their practice, they could figure it out on their own. However, does that mean most GPs are woefully out of touch and lacking the continuing education necessary to practice or let along know where to find drug info without resorting to the phonebook for the nearest pharmacy? Of course not, branding an entire profession due to personal bad experiences is the same as saying a treatment is fantastic and bound to work because of hearsay evidence, or that it worked for your friend's friend.

    Most doctors I deal with are knowledgeable and I am glad to assist with queries, most pharmacists I find the same. If you are asking a 'shop clerk' for help, that is different from asking a pharmacist. It is like asking the receptionist at your  GP's clinic to check your rash and makes a diagnosis.

    AustralianPharma
    http://askapharmacist.com.au

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 8:25:46 PM |

    CT coronary angiograms yield around $1800-$4000 per test. CT heart scans yield somewhere around $200. Though the scan center support staff might not care too much about the money themselves, their administrators likely make the cost distinctions clear to them.

  • pammi

    11/9/2010 9:28:21 AM |

    Heart  disease is one of the most  dangerous disease which takes thousands of life every years all over the world. If we know its symptoms and Treatment for heart disease. We can prevent is to large extent.

  • rhett daniels,m.sc.

    5/2/2011 10:23:31 AM |

    hello -

    there IS a difference between Slo-Niacin and Niapsan.  It has to do with the difference btw Ph-dependent release and non Ph-dependent release.  the Niaspan product has a bile containing element that achieves optimum absorption at targeted GI areas.

    also, there are two forms of pharmaceutical grade D2/D3:  brand names drisdol and rocaltral.

    any Non-Rx you get on the shelf is not regulated.  take at your own risk.

Loading