Blast triglycerides

15. May 2009 William Davis (0)
The conventional answers to high triglycerides levels are generally: low-fat diet, a fibrate drug (Tricor, Lopid), a statin drug, and--most recently--prescription fish oil.

This is the regimen to take if you want the drug industry to get even richer and more powerful than they already are. After all, what CEO of a pharmaceutical company can stand to have his salary and benefits slashed to below $200 million this year? It's outrageous!

If you really want to blast the heck out of your triglycerides and achieve numbers like 50 mg/dl, then the regimen to consider consists of:

--Elimination of sugars, wheat, and cornstarch
--Fish oil--Sam's Club would do fine at $8 for 350 capsules, or the high-potency at $14.99 for 180 capsules (at 680 mg EPA +DHA, nearly the same potency as prescription Lovaza at 842 mg)
--Vitamin D supplementation sufficient to achieve normal blood levels (60-70 ng/ml)

Those three strategies alone can reduce triglycerides far more than any drug combination. In fact, it is rare for someone with triglycerides as high as 900 mg/dl to not reduce them to the <100 mg/dl range.

Cheerios: Prescription required?

13. May 2009 William Davis (15)
Followers of The Heart Scan Blog know my feelings about Cheerios:


Can you say "sugar"?

Cheerios and heart health


There's an interesting tussle going on between the makers of Cheerios, General Mills, and the FDA.

The FDA says that the Cheerios' package claims of:

• "you can Lower Your Cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks"
• "Did you know that in just 6 weeks Cheerios can reduce bad cholesterol by an average of 4 percent? Cheerios is ... clinically proven to lower cholesterol. A clinical study showed that eating two 1 1/2 cup servings daily of Cheerios cereal reduced bad cholesterol when eaten as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol."

constitute a medical claim, i.e., trying to promote Cheerios as a drug.

I'm glad that the FDA has come down on General Mills. But I find this entire episode laughable: The debate is over the purported health benefits of what I would regard as pure junk food, no better in my view than claiming that a cupcake has health benefits, or a carton of ice cream.

In my experience, Cheerios does not 1) reduce risk for heart disease, nor 2) reduce cholesterol.

It does, however, cause blood sugar to skyrocket and increase the small type of LDL--you know, the type that causes heart disease.

"Placebos are frequently of value"

12. May 2009 William Davis (1)
The treatment of angina pectoris, generally speaking, is unsatisfactory.

Any procedure that relieves mental tension is valuable. Since patients suffer particularly during the winter, I encourage winter vacations in a southern climate.

I insist that obese patients lose weight, and have found small doses of benzedrine, 10 to 20 mg. daily, helpful in curbing the appetite.

I generally forbid smoking. This is a particularly disturbing task for many patients to carry out. In such cases, I suggest that 3 or 4 cigarettes be smoked daily, knowing full well that regardless of what I say or recommend, the patients is going to continue to smoke.

Innumerable drugs, most of which are of questionable value, have been used to prevent attacks of angina pectoris. In fact, placebos are frequently of value.

Testosterone--The male sex hormone has been effective in my experience. Whether it acts as a vasodilator or merely by promoting a sense of well-being is not known.

Alcohol--Alcohol (whiskey, brandy, rum) has been used for many years in the treatment of angina pectoris. I have prescribed it in moderate quantity--an ounce several times a day--and while I have not made alcoholics of any of my patients, I also have not cured any of them with it. Preparations, such as creme de menthe, are of value in relieving "gas" of which so many patients complain.


From Heart Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Emanuel Goldberger, MD
1951

Iodine is not salt

12. May 2009 William Davis (3)
I've noticed a point of confusion recently, something I hadn't noticed in my patients before: Because of the public health advice from the FDA, American Heart Association, and Surgeon General's office to reduce sodium/salt intake, people have thought this meant reducing iodine, too.

I believe that people have drawn an equation in their minds:


Sodium = iodine


Of course, they are two entirely unrelated things.

Recall that the only reason iodine is added to many (not all) salt products is because it was a public health solution to solve the substantial nationwide iodine deficiency prevalent during the 20th century. But it was a solution conceived in 1924, when the FDA thought this was the best way to get iodine into Americans. And it worked.

Unfortunately, sodium does indeed present adverse effects in some people. As a result, "get your iodine from salt" has evolved into "reduce your sodium intake." Everyone forgot about the iodine: They forgot about the large disfiguring goiters, the poor school performance in iodine-deficient schoolchildren, the mentally-impaired offspring of iodine-deficient mothers.

So don't confuse sodium with iodine. You may need less of the former, but more of the latter.

For more on this, see "Help keep your family goiter free."

"You can't reduce coronary plaque"

10. May 2009 William Davis (9)
"I told my cardiologst that I stumbled on a program called 'Track Your Plaque' that claims to be able to help reduce your coronary calcium score.

"My cardiologist said, 'That's impossible. You cannot reduce coronary plaque. I've never seen anyone reduce a heart scan score."

Who's right here?

The commenter is right; the cardiologist is wrong.

I would predict that the cardiologist is among the conventionally-thinking, "statins drugs are the only solution" group who follows his patients over the years to determine when a procedure is finally "needed." In fact, I know many of these cardiologists personally. The primary care physicians are completely in the dark, usually expressing an attitude of helplessness and submitting to the "wisdom" of their cardiology consultants.

Quantify and work to reduce the atherosclerotic plaque? No way! That's work, requires thinking, some sophisticated testing (like lipoprotein testing), even some new ideas like vitamin D. "They didn't teach that to me in medical school (back in 1980)!"

Welcome to the new age.

Atherosclerotic plaque is 1) measurable, 2) trackable, and 3) can be reduced.

We do it all the time. (Amy still holds our record: 63% reduction in plaque/heart scan score.)

Though I pooh-pooh the value of statin drug studies, there's even data from the conventional statin world documenting coronary plaque reversal. The ASTEROID Trial of rosuvastatin (Crestor), 40 mg per day for one year, demonstrated 7% reduction of atherosclerotic plaque using intracoronary ultrasound.

I have NEVER seen a heart attack or appearance of heart symptoms (angina, unstable angina) in a person who has reversed coronary plaque (unless, of course, they pitched the whole effort and returned to bad habits--that has happened). Stick to the program and coronary risk, for all practical purposes, been eliminated.

A heart scan score is not a death sentence. It is simply a tool to empower your prevention program, a measuring stick to gauge plaque progression, stabilization, or regression. Don't accept anything less.

Lethal lipids

8. May 2009 William Davis (15)
There's a specific combination of lipids/lipoproteins that confers especially high risk for heart disease. That combination is:

Low HDL--generally less than 50 mg/dl

Small LDL--especially if 50% or more of total LDL

Lipoprotein(a)--an aggressive risk factor by itself


This combination is a virtual guarantee for heart disease, often at a young age. It's not clear whether each risk factor exerts its own brand of undesirable effect, or whether the combined presence of each cause some adverse interaction.

For instance, lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), by itself is the most aggressive risk factor known (that nobody's heard about--there's no blockbuster revenue-generating drug for it). Each Lp(a) molecule is a combination of an LDL cholesterol molecule with a specific genetically-determined protein, apoprotein(a). If the LDL component of Lp(a) is small, then the combination of Lp(a) with small LDL is somehow much worse, kind of like the two neighborhood kids who are naughty on their own, but really bad when they're together.

Interestingly, the evil trio responds as a whole to many of the same corrective treatments:

Niacin--increases HDL, reduces small LDL, and reduces Lp(a)

Elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars--Best for reducing small LDL; less potent for Lp(a) reduction.

High-fat intake--Like niacin, effective for all three.

High-dose fish oil--Higher doses of EPA + DHA north of 3000 mg per day also can positively affect all three, especially Lp(a).


If you have this combination, it ought to be taken very seriously. Don't let anybody tell you that it is uncorrectable--just because there may be no big revenue-generating drug to treat it on TV does not mean that there aren't effective treatments for it. In fact, some of our biggest successes in reducing heart scan scores have had this precise combination.

"Get regressive"

6. May 2009 William Davis (0)
This caught my eye:



Niaspan, prescription niacin, now sold by Abbott Laboratories, is now promoting its advantages in regressing coronary plaque:



In patients with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) and hypercholesetgerolemia, Niaspan (niacin), in combination with a bile acid-binding resin, is indicated to slow progression or promote regression of atherosclerotic disease.



And the new slogan: "Get regressive."



Interestingly, the new marketing campaign is based on relatively old data. They base this new claim on 3 studies:



1) Cholesterol-Lowering Atherosclerosis Study (CLAS)--a 1987

CRP House of Cards

4. May 2009 William Davis (15)
Lew has coronary plaque with a heart scan score of 393. At age 53, that's in the 90th percentile (higher score than 90% of men in his age group).

On our search for causes of his coronary plaque, we identify low HDL of 41 mg/dl, high triglycerides of 202 mg/dl, small LDL (83% of total), calculated LDL of 133 mg/dl, and severe vitamin D deficiency with a starting blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D of 19 ng/ml.

His c-reactive protein: 4.1 mg/dl--above the cut-off of 2.0 mg/dl that the pharmaceutical industry is targeting as a mandate for statin therapy, particularly given the JUPITER data.

Lew instead eliminates wheat and other small LDL-provoking foods and, as a result, loses 28 lbs in 3 months; adds omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil; supplements vitamin D sufficient to increase his blood level to 70 ng/ml.

Along with dramatic correction of his starting abnormalities, his c-reactive protein: 0.4 mg/dl--no statin drug.

In my view, increased CRP is nothing more than a surrogate for the inflammatory phenomena that arise from high-carbohydrate diets, overweight, and small LDL. Correct those and CRP drops off a cliff. In fact, it is exceptionally rare for CRP to not drop to very low levels following this formula.

I believe that CRP is one more item on the list of reasons--the house of cards--the pharmaceutical industry is building to persuade us to take more and more statin drugs. LDL not low enough? Take more statin. Diabetic with low cholesterol? Take a statin. Inflammation? Take a statin.

Enough already.

At-home blood tests

2. May 2009 William Davis (6)
Our at-home blood tests are proving a hit.

So far, vitamin D is the number one most popular test, no surprise.

Second--to my surprise--is DHEA. I would have predicted it would have been thyroid testing.

Our male and female hormone panels are also proving popular.

I've personally been using the thyroid and vitamin D testing to monitor my levels. I increased my Armour thyroid based on a low free T3 value, while my vitamin D was perfect at 77 ng/ml on 8000 units vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) per day.

The process of performing the blood spots is straightforward. The finger pricks are virtually painless using the automatic spring-loaded finger stick devices:





The number of blots to make depends on how many tests you'd like. Just a vitamin D test requires 2 blots. If 6 or more tests are ordered at a time, then all 12 blots should be made. (Two spring-loaded lancets are provided in each kit.)





If you are interested in any of our at-home blood tests, go here.

Our own Heart Hawk has posted an editorial on about blood spot testing on Health Central:

Simple, affordable home blood testing is a real game-changer in the arena of informed, self-directed healthcare. For the first time broad access to home blood testing, on a scale similar to that enjoyed by persons who routinely test their blood sugar, is available to virtually everyone and it removes doctors as the gatekeepers of these tests. Even private insurance companies and Medicare are beginning to understand the potential for improving healthcare and decreasing costs and are slowly beginning to expand coverage of home blood testing much as they do for diabetics or persons taking anti-coagulants.

"Help keep your family goiter free"

1. May 2009 William Davis (10)
People ask, "If I need iodine, should I go back to iodized salt?"

First of all, how did this notion of iodized salt originate?

In 1924, J. Edgar Hoover was appointed head of the FBI, Marlon Brando and Doris Day were born, and Calvin Coolidge was elected President of the United States. Half of American households had a car, while 1 in 4 Americans were illiterate.



In the 1920s, cities were a fraction of their current size and a third of the U.S. population, or 36 million people, lived in small rural communities.

Goiters were also wildly prevalent in 1924. Up to a third of the population in some areas of the country, particularly the Midwest, suffered from goiters, thyroid glands that enlarged due to lack of iodine.

Goiters were not only unsightly, but sometimes grotesque, causing a visible bulge in the front of the neck. Occasionally, they would grow so big that it compressed adjacent structures, like the trachea, and would have to be surgically removed. Goiters were commonly associated with thyroid dysfunction, especially low thyoid or hypothyroidism, that resulted in low IQ's in schoolchildren, debilitation in adults. Women of childbearing age delivered retarded children.

So iodine deficiency in early 20th century America was a big problem. How to solve this enormous public health problem in a large nation without television, few radios, no internet, with a largely rural and often illiterate population?

Thus was iodized salt born, a simple, technologically available solution that could be implemented on a large scale nationwide at low cost. The FDA chose this route in 1924, figuring that it was the best way to ensure that most Americans could obtain sufficient iodine through liberal use of iodized salt. Public health officials urged Americans to use salt. Morton's salt label proudly bore the slogan "Help keep your family goiter free!"

It worked. Goiters largely became a thing of the past.

How about today? The American Heart Association recommends limiting salt, recently announcing that they would like to limit intake to 1500 mg per day. The American Medical Association has been lobbying the FDA to set lower salt limit guidelines. The FDA has been clamping down on food manufacturers to reduce the quantity of salt in processed foods.

Why limit salt? The concern is that there are segments of the population (not all) that are salt sensitive, particularly African Americans, people with certain genetic forms of high blood pressure, conditions that cause water retention, and any degree of heart or kidney failure. Salt in these peoplem, in fact, can be disastrous.
So adding iodine to salt was the solution to epidemic goiter. And it worked.

But salt is not a perfect solution, just one that served its purpose back in 1924. What we need is a 21st century solution.
You will find that in the various iodine supplements at your health food store. My favorite is kelp--inexpensive, available, and a form that mimics the way Japanese people obtain iodine (though by eating seaweed, rather than with tablets).


Image of kelp courtesy Wikipedia
Is pomegranate juice healthy?

Is pomegranate juice healthy?

19. July 2009 William Davis (20)

Pomegranate juice, 8 oz:

Sugars, total 31.50 g

Sucrose 0.00 g

Glucose (dextrose) 15.64 g

Fructose 15.86 g




In your quest to increase the flavonoids in your diet, do you overexpose yourself to fructose?

Remember: Fructose increases LDL cholesterol, apoprotein B, small LDL, triglycerides, and substantially increases deposition of visceral fat (fructose belly?). How about a slice of whole grain bread with that glass of pomegranate juice? The Heart Association says it's all low-fat!


(Coming on the Track Your Plaque website: A full in-depth Special Report on fructose in all its glorious forms and whether this is truly an issue for your health. Fructose tables and the scientific data to establish a safe "threshold" value will be included.)

Image courtesy Wikipedia
Tags :

Comments (20) -

  • Anonymous

    7/19/2009 1:45:42 PM |

    all should keep in mind that 4 grams of sugar is equal to one teaspoon.  31 grams is 7 teaspoons plus; not exactly what one would think in what is promoted to be a healthful product!

  • John

    7/19/2009 2:15:04 PM |

    Like most juices, pomegranate juice just has too much sugar.  There is a reason why a juice glass is very small!

    I don't buy pomgrante juice anymore, and when I did I would water it down.  100% is very expensive too.

    Another thing about pomegranate juice, people might be surprised to find that many of them are not 100% pomegranate, but a blend of several juices.

  • Andrew

    7/19/2009 3:59:34 PM |

    At what point do the positive health benefits of pomegranate outweigh the bad parts of fructose?

  • Tom

    7/19/2009 4:20:58 PM |

    Thanks for your great blog! Your information on wheat and sugar is a must read for anyone serious about their health. I like your blog so much, I added a link to it at my blog at http://eatingandfasting.blogspot.com/

  • Anonymous

    7/19/2009 6:07:12 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Are you implying that there is no difference between a glass of Kool-ade and a glass of fresh Orange Juice?

    IMO, the problem is not fructose. The problem is highly refined sugar sources that are isolated from their highly complex natural matrix of fiber, vitamins, minerals, flavanoids, antioxidants, enzymes, amino acids--all which act in synergy together.

    That's why PJ reduced atherosclerosis by 35% compared to control group, lowered BP by 20%, increased antioxidant status, and did not raise blood sugar.

    (FYI, I happen to have heterozygous FH and drink daily one full glass of PJ along with one full glass of concord grape juice, and 97% of my LDL particle size remains large, my blood sugar is perfect, and my apo B is not too high. I do avoid refined sugars and carbs, however.)

    So please, Dr. Davis, don't compare an apple with a candy bar.

  • AJ

    7/20/2009 4:52:14 AM |

    Guava juice used to be my particular poison - literally speaking. But it's just not worth the hit to my metabolism. It's been awhile since I last drank any fruit juice and it will be never before I drink it again.

    It's an uphill battle to get people to realise the dangers of fructose, particularly when food manufacturers are allowed to put "No sugar added" on the label. Have them put the grammes of sugars the whole bottle contains on the front of the container in large bright type. It won't stop everyone, but it may help a few people make healthier choices.

  • JC

    7/20/2009 10:55:48 AM |

    Pomegranate juice more than triples PSA doubling time.Is that significant?

  • Peter

    7/20/2009 1:56:43 PM |

    I like to dilute the pomegranate juice with vodka.  That way I only use a couple of ounces of juice at a time, minimizing the fructose but still getting some flavanoids.  Of course once the long term study on this regimen comes out I may have to revise my view.

  • Dr. William Davis

    7/21/2009 3:28:52 AM |

    It's the same flawed logic of "healthy whole grains": If it contains something good (B vitamins, fiber), then it must be good. And it must be even better when consumed in greater quantities.

    Just because it contains one or two desirable ingredients doesn't mean that the entire "package" is desirable,

  • niner

    7/21/2009 5:00:09 AM |

    There's always pomegranate extracts.  You can get the polyphenols in a pill without all the sugar.  I'd be interested in what Dr. D thinks about this form of "sugar-free pomegranate".

  • JC

    7/21/2009 11:19:40 AM |

    Dr Davis,What about the research on pomegranate juice and PSA doubling time?

    Can you also comment on the reported benefits of cranberry juice in preventing urinary infection?

    Thanks,JC

  • Jonathan Byron

    7/21/2009 3:12:18 PM |

    You are absolutely right that fruit can contain large amounts of fruit sugar, and that large amounts of fructose can have serious consequences. The idea that fruit juice must be good (in any quantity) is not supported by the evidence.

    But fruits are more than sugar and moderate amounts of fruits and fructose are not inherently bad - the question is what is reasonable. For those of us with fatty liver, certain patterns of dyslipidemia, or a GI fructose intolerance, the ideal amount is very low. For those who don't fall into that category, the ideal amount of fruit is somewhat greater (but probably less than most people assume).

  • Anna

    7/22/2009 10:22:04 PM |

    I can't remember the last time I saw someone outside my household drink juice from a small juice glass.  Most people I see drinking juice are consuming quantities of juice that practically rival a 7-Eleven Big Gulp.

    Many days I squeeze a half orange to make a couple ounces of OJ to mix with cod liver oil to make the CLO palatable for my young son.  

    To fill a 4 oz juice glass (with about 3-3.5 oz juice), it takes 1-2 oranges, which means that larger glasses of OJ contain the sugar of a whole lot of oranges!  Who would ever eat that many whole oranges in one sitting?

    Also, I know from using a glucose meter that OJ sugar is nearly instantly into my blood stream (and that isn't even measuring the affect of the fructose portion of sugars.  The glucose spikes an insulin response and later a nasty feeling low BG.  So I approach fruit juices with extreme caution and limitations on both quantity and frequency.  I eat whole lower sugar fruits in extreme moderation (avoiding higher sugar tropical fruits).  I focus more on non-starchy veggies rather than fruit, anyway, because veggies are high in the nutrients I want without the excess sugar that fruit has.        

    Not long ago I was in waiting in line at a Starbucks to order an Americano (lack of local coffee shops at that particular suburban area) and right next to me a dad was reading aloud to his young daughter the number of grams of sugar from her “fresh-squeezed 100% fruit juice” bottle label. He noted incredulously there were 30-something grams of sugars per serving and there were 2.5 servings per bottle. He said  â€œwow, that’s a lot of sugar in that bottle”. I thought to myself, wow, here’s a dad who is “getting it”, so I said to him, “there’s 4 grams of sugar to a teaspoon, so that’s at least 7-9 teaspoons of sugar per serving, very nearly the sugar content in soda.”

    His response was, “but it’s fruit sugar, and she doesn’t eat enough fruits and vegetables, so I guess that’s ok.” Sigh. I let it go, and ordered my Americano (unsweetened).

    I've had many interesting conversations with a glycobiologist colleague of my husband's.  He has confirmed I'd be wise to keep all sources of fructose intake to a minimum, as well as being especially wary of concentrated sources of fructose.    I'm sure he follows his own advice; he's looks at least 15 years younger than his 60 years - lack of AGEing, I guess.

  • trinkwasser

    7/29/2009 6:04:30 PM |

    Tell this stuff to a dietician and they won't believe you "but it's low fat!"

    My BG meter tells me fruit juice is an exceedingly toxic substance, and most of my once favourite fruits aren't much better.

    Fortunately it permits me to eat a few berries, but I'd rather get my bioflavinoids etc. from vegetables.

    IMO there's a balancing point between the beneficial and non-beneficial properties of many foods, we probably evolved to deal with small acute doses of toxins but fall apart with chronic exposure to high levels of the same stuff, and all the bioflavinoids and vitamins don't outweigh the damage.

    I just stuffed some strawberries in my face following my lamb chops and runner beans, but only a few, and I washed them down with a fine Bordeaux, that'll about achieve a balance.

  • Barrry

    2/22/2010 12:58:33 PM |

    i have been using Pomegranate juice for 3 years every day after i had 2 stents placed. i also had type 2 diabetes. It has worked very well for me and has not effected my A1c in the least. My cardilogical nuclear studies have been perfect. i am a believer my opinion this stuff can save your life.

  • EMR

    2/24/2010 1:33:43 PM |

    ink it should be avoided by sugar patients.It contains almost a spoon of sugar...though with wheat bread the whole effect of the meal is balanced.

  • Anonymous

    3/8/2010 3:03:37 PM |

    http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Research/Pomegranate-juice-shows-possible-diabetes-benefits

    Quit being sugar paranoid.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 3:09:20 PM |

    Remember: Fructose increases LDL cholesterol, apoprotein B, small LDL, triglycerides, and substantially increases deposition of visceral fat (fructose belly?). How about a slice of whole grain bread with that glass of pomegranate juice? The Heart Association says it's all low-fat!

Add comment

Loading