"hunger-gatherers"?

The original article said hunter-gatherers.

However, I like hunger-gatherers better.

Hunger is certainly quite a motivator to go seek food.

I don't know why they blamed the meat either as Ancient Egyptians  wouldn't have been eating indoor raised grain fed high omega 6 low omega 3 meats.  

It seems Beer, together with bread, oil and vegetables, was an important part of the wages workers received from their employers. The standard daily ration during pharaonic times was two jars containing somewhat more than two litres each.

When you have eaten three loaves of bread and swallowed two jugs of beer, and the body has not yet had enough, fight against it. But if another is satiated, do not stand, take care not to approach the table.

As a person who can't figure it out, the mummy scans are interesting.

It's not clear to me if saturated fat or grains and sugar are largely to blame for heart disease, or something else.

It made an impression on me that Jimmy Moore (low carb blogger who eats mostly meat) and Dean Ornish (who eats mostly grains and vegetables) both scored zero on their heartscans.  They both avoid flour and sugar, that might be a point of agreement and a possible explanation.  I wish I was privy to the nutritional studies that come out a hundred years from now: long-term studies of different diets.

On what ground are they basing their assumption that meat is the culprit?

It is just blatant and annoying!

Dr. Davis, I love the way your mind works.  Which only proves once again, that the advent of agriculture produced diseases of the metabolic syndrome, even in ancient Egypt.  Wheat, Beer, and date consumption indeed.  If the ancient Egyptians avoided all starch, grains, legumes, and sweet fruit in excess, particularly high fructose types, it is quite apparent that they would have been healthier and lived longer, even in those ancient times.  We should all take heed, and throw out the so called and wrong "healthy diet", the diet that advcates eating low fat and high carbohydrates. This is the dogma that for the last 60 years pervades all medical decisions.  For the sake of our good health we must,MUST all switch to the very healthy low carbohydrate and high saturated fat diet that our ancient genes crave.  If this is not true, how did we all get here?

Yep, the always ASSUME it's the meat or fat.  It just couldn't be all those "healthy whole grains."  

It seems to me that the Egyptian diet was a nutritionist's dream.

Thanks for blogging on this fascinating topic, doc.

Unfortunately, the media reports seem to emphasize meat consumption as if that was the conclusion of the researchers.

I'm betting they don't actually go that far in the JAMA article.

Ooops!

Yes, hunter-gatherers, not hunger-gatherers.

I have been reading about the wealthy ancient Egyptian diet. It is interesting that they used many types of vegetable oils. Many were high in omega 6. They often fried foods. The rich ate meat, bread and some dairy products. They used Honey(fructose) as a sweetner. So I ask the qestion. Was their diet much different than the modern diet?

I understand the McTut burger, although quite unhealthy, was all the rage.
This could explain it.

I love how the LA Times summed things up in their article about this study.

"Both groups, however, share some risk factors. The high-status Egyptians ate a diet high in meat from cattle, ducks and geese, all fatty.

And because mechanical refrigeration was not available, salt -- another contributing factor in heart disease -- was widely used for food preservation."

Sigh...

It occurs to me that the atherosclerosis could have been at least partially due to a vitamin D deficiency resulting from eating grain, which depletes the body of vitamin D.  

Dr. Davis, are you familiar with the theory that Europeans lost their skin pigment in part as an adaptation to eating grain?

If this was the dawn of grain-eating, it could also have been the dawn of selecting for lighter (not to say white, necessarily) skin pigments in grain-eating peoples.  (I think the same vitamin D depletion may hold true for eating dairy, so if they ate this, too, even more so.)  

I wonder if this was also the dawn of largely indoor living for some members of the population - like the wealthy and their servants - and if this could have contributed to a vitamin D deficiency.

but here we are again; Peter points out that there was no difference in calcium score between the veggie and meat diets, yet those of the paleo-diet religion will summarily dismiss this and continue to believe a meat diet is the healthy true diet for humans.  What was the life expectancy of Paleolithic man.... under 20 years maybe?  It wasn't until the diversification of diet that life span increased.... but maybe that is irrelevant if your point is to justify one's own choices

Hi, Helen--

No, I wasn't aware of that particular theory. I am aware of the notion that northern Europeans lost dark pigmentation as they settled in sun-poor regions. I was not aware that grain had added to it.

@Anonymous who claims that food diversity was the chief cause of the increase in life expectancy. First, ancient hunter-gatherers had a life expectancy of around 35 years. This dropped to under 20 years AFTER the advent of agriculture. Ask ANY anthropologist who can tell at a glance whether the bones they've found are pre or post agriculture (pre are strong, straight and healthy with no dental decay. Post are small, brittle, and diseased with plenty of dental decay.)

As to food diversity. It is estimated that hunter-gatherers had hundreds of different food choices ranging from animals great to small, insects, and hundreds of indigenous plants/nuts/seeds/fruits. Early agriculturists primarily ate the grains that could be cultivated locally, and their food choices dropped perilously.

As for mummies, only Egyptian royalty were mummified and ancient Egyptian royalty were known for their high-carb food depravity, where meals included plenty of honey, grains, starches, and beer. The feasts were frequent and included ritual bulimia so that the eating could continue indefinitely. That these people had heart disease should be no surprise to anyone.

As a final note, life expectancy is much less about living long, and more about infant mortality. Infant mortality did not go down significantly until the advent of modern medicine and birthing techniques in the 19th and 20th centuries (at least for western societies.)

@Allen - There's no evidence that ancient Egyptian royalty engaged in ritual vomiting during feasts. Perhaps it may have happened right at the end of the last dynasties when Rome's influence was strong, as purging during a Roman feast was not uncommon. BTW, feasting Romans would just vomit right at the table and a slave would clean it up. A vomitorium is not for vomiting, it's a kind of passageway.

Talking about an 'Ancient Egyptian diet' is a little silly anyway. Which kingdom/era? We're talking over thousands of years here with influences from many cultures and changing weather and environmental conditions. Modern analysis of residue in beer jars over various times shows that the ancient Egyptian beer was actually almost opaque and had a relatively high protein content, interestingly.

Do you happen to know if there's anything to adult stem cells & heart disease? My take so far has been that they do not work in a stem cell way (bona fide regeneration) and any benefits can be attributed to local secretion of growth factors or other molecules.

Absolutely incredible!  Good for them!

In Nov 2007 my lab tests showed blood calcium too high. Further tests showed parathyroid hormone too high. I had ultra sound and various scans ordered by the endo. In June 2008 I had one parathyroid gland removed. During this time my Vit D was 25 and 27. The endo was not concerned because "it was winter". I talked my PCP into OKing 1000 iu of Vit D but she said she had never seen the supplement increase the Vit D levels in any of her patients. No advice re D2 vs D3 or tablets vs get caps. Following your advice I am taking 1000 iu D3 gel caps. After some months I increased it to 2000 iu. Of course, I am wondering if the low Vit D might have had some bad affect on the parathyroid. Also I would like to know how much Vit D3 I should be taking but don't have a doc who seems knowledgeable. Any suggestions?

BettyB

Bettyb,

Doctor Davis doesn't often have time to answer questions posted at his blog. If you really want to know about how much vitamin D to take and how to get tested, you can learn more at the Vitamin D Council:

www.vitamindcouncil.org

Congratulations on your magnificent article "Halt on Salt Sparks Iodine Deficiency" for
October's Life Extension Magazine.  It should be required reading for all Doctors.  
Iodine is looking like the last piece of the puzzle for me reaching 60/60/60 without statins.  Thanks
for fighting the hard fight.

Matt W.

I have heard that excitement is a risk for heart patients. But this funny Cartoon says it excitment can kill anybody. See this cartoon

Thought I'd share this article from the UK about Vitamin D. I remain shocked some in the medical profession (or should that be industry) still do not understand the importance of D3 for children, and of course adults.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/3350394/Why-vitamin-D-is-so-vital.html

I was very interested to read this post because I too have a congenital heart defect (not nearly as bad as this boy) which has led to aortic valve stenosis and I've been keen to know how much vitamin D might help with this since 2007 when I first started following Dr Davis' blog.

I live in the UK and I'm lucky that I have both a good cardiologist and good endocrinologist. My endocrinologist is keen for me to supplement with vitamin D3, both for my heart and for osteoporosis, which I also have, and I get regular 25(OH)D tests. I take 2,000 IU of D3 gelcaps per day and my level of 25(OH)D varies between 125 nmol/L (50 ng/dl) and 250 nmol/L (100 ng/dl), once rising as high as 384 nmol/L (154 ng/dl) so it's lucky a close eye is kept on these levels so my dosage of D3 can be adjusted. Lab error was thought, but every time the 25(OH)D has risen too high my alkaline phosphatase levels (bone specific) have also risen above normal, and every time the 25(OH)D is lower they are in the normal range.

My cardiologist is also supportive of the D3 as well as supportive of me using omega-3 fish oil and he prescribes it for me since it works out cheaper on prescription here in the UK than it does from a health food store.

The pressure gradient across my heart is increasing gradually and I will need an aortic valve replacement at some point...but who knows, things might have got worse faster without the D and the fish oils.

Anne

Bettyb,
I started on 1000iu of vitmain D3 then upped it to 2000, 5000 and 10000iu per day. At this dose my vitamin D results had achieved the magic 50 level. It is now six months since being on 10000iu and I am feeling fine. No side effects that I am aware of.

It's no wonder there is nutritional ignorance among MDs worldwide as they have only 1-2 nutrition classes during their training.  

We need to empower those who do have the training and education by expanding their resources and accessibility to patients.  Nutrition needs to be recognized as a vital part of healthcare, needs required post-graduate training for specialization in various disease states, and needs to be covered by insurance.

I agree that ignorance about nutrition is mainstream, however the problem seems to run deeper than this.

Taking supplements of any kind is thought to be unnatural and a compromise of some kind. Only nutrients from fresh food (preferably organic, local produce) are considered valid by the progressive class here in the UK. Supplements are pills and therefore are evil 'chemicals' and products of greedy pharmaceutical companies.
One or two vitamins/nutrients no doubt *are* poorly absorbed when isolated in pill form. This argument is used to condemn all supplements. Repeated headlines appear in the MSM which intimate that taking vitamins is actually harmful.

I'm trying to explain the feelings that cause many otherwise thoughtful people not to supplement. If it sounds vague and illogical that's because it is.

For example, in the cases of at least four of the most helpful supplements (vitamin d3, iodine, magnesium, vitamin k2), for most people it simply isn't feasible to obtain optimum amounts *without* supplementation.

Yet fashionable orthodoxy tends to prevent them from supplementating.

The importance of Omega-3 fatty acids is more widely accepted. If you examine it carefully, mainstream advice recommends averaging 2-3g per day without supplementation. It's very hard to take this seriously.

The weight of mackerel and oily fish you would have to eat is staggering.

It's a kind of doublethink.

Hi, Kismet--

This post wasn't meant to endorse nor critizie stem cell therapy for heart disease, something I have no experience nor strong opinions about.

Here's a paper on it:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19274033

Betty--

You really need to find a helpful healthcare provider who can coach you through the vitamin D and calcium issues. This is something you shouldn't do without assistance when calcium issues are involved.  

However, we have seen many cases of "secondary" hyperparathyroidism improve with vitamin D supplementation. Dosing is by blood levels, particularly important in your situation.

Michaela,
I read a post today that you should be interested in.  It is relative to ejection fraction and how blueberries increased EF by 82%.  You will find it at "nephropal.blogspot.com".  Dr. T is a nephrologist who is the author of the blog.  He is one of those brave hearts like Dr. Davis who is interested in helping people.

Safe Remedy for Heart Patients:Tashi Cardio Pro Capsules developed by face doctor is really a great help for most of the heart patients.

How cool to be able to give that to someone, to change their life with an email.

wew. it's not a good story..

Hi, Tom--

This is why we need to stage a "revolt" in the form of self-directed health, putting many strategies, including access to nutritional supplements, out of conventional healthcare and in the hands of everybody. This includes access to lab services, even diagnostic testing.

Off-topic, Dr. Davis, but this will be your new favorite photograph:

http://www.frigginrandom.com/images/beer-belly-master/

Lifting of Calcium Scan Ignorance?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930102536.htm

The ScienceDaily Press Release article is below.  You probably already knew this, but, just in case.

Calcium Scans May Be Effective Screening Tool For Heart Disease

ScienceDaily (Oct. 1, 2009) — A simple, non-invasive test appears to be an effective screening tool for identifying patients with silent heart disease who are at risk for a heart attack or sudden death. Coronary artery calcium scans can be done without triggering excessive additional testing and costs, according to the multi-center EISNER (Early Identification of Subclinical Atherosclerosis by Noninvasive Imaging Research) study, led by investigators at the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute.

The findings appear in the September 30 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Coronary artery calcium scans that detect plaque in the coronary arteries have been shown to be more effective than standard cholesterol and blood pressure measurements in identifying patients who are most vulnerable to heart disease. Currently, these scans are not covered by private insurance carriers, in part because of concerns that detection of low levels of cardiovascular disease will result in unnecessary and expensive further testing, including exercise imaging and invasive cardiac catheterization procedures. "Over half of patients who suffer heart attacks have no warning that they have heart disease until the heart attack occurs. If we knew the patients were at risk, current treatments could prevent the majority of these unnecessary events. We had to address the concerns about unnecessary testing and costs related to this potentially lifesaving procedure," said Daniel S. Berman, M.D., the study's principal investigator and chief of Cardiac Imaging at Cedars-Sinai's S. Mark Taper Foundation Imaging Center in Los Angeles.

In the EISNER study, supported by The Eisner Foundation, researchers performed coronary calcium scans on 1,361 volunteers at intermediate risk for coronary artery disease, and followed them over a four-year period, from May 2001 to June 2005. The objective was to determine the relationship between coronary artery calcium scores and subsequent cardiac events and to evaluate the performance of additional cardiac diagnostic testing. Coronary artery calcium scores of 0 indicate no plaque, 1-9 minimal, 10-99 mild, 100-399 moderate, 400-999 extensive, and 1,000 or more very extensive plaque.

SNIP
Recent evidence has demonstrated that screening with coronary artery calcium is a better prognosticator of risk than the Framingham Risk Score—the traditional way of assessing risk based on blood testing and blood pressure--in middle aged and elderly patients. Yet controversy surrounds expansion of cardiac screening to include coronary calcium scanning imaging because of concerns that the extra costs may not outweigh the benefits. The findings of the EISNER study, the researchers note, is the first direct evidence that coronary artery calcium scanning could be an acceptable cost-effective screening test for coronary artery disease, since it is able to identify high risk subgroups in need of aggressive medical treatment, and patients who undergo additional testing constitute only a small fraction of the screened population.