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
Heart Scan Blog readers take impressive doses of omega-3s

Heart Scan Blog readers take impressive doses of omega-3s

24. October 2009 William Davis (28)
Here are the results from the latest Heart Scan Blog poll:

What is your dose of omega-3 fatty acids, EPA + DHA, from fish oil? (Add up the total content of EPA + DHA per capsules; multiply times number of capsules.)

The 479 respondents answered:

Less than 1000 mg per day
65 (13%)

1000-1999 mg per day
145 (30%)

2000-2999 mg per day
98 (20%)

3000-3999 mg per day
79 (16%)

4000-4999 mg per day
33 (6%)

5000-5999 mg per day
14 (2%)

6000 mg per day or more
45 (9%)


The poll did not discriminate between who has heart disease, who does not; who is taking omega-3 fatty acids for high triglycerides or for reduction of lipoprotein(a) (which requires high doses), or other indications. So variation is to be expected.

We can say that nearly all respondents are likely receiving sufficient omega-3s to impact cardiovascular risk, since the benefits begin just by consuming fish twice per month. I am especially impressed at the proportion of respondents (53%) who take at least 2000 mg per day of EPA + DHA. It's clear that people are really embracing the notion that omega-3 fatty acids pack a real wallop of health benefits.

Because different people in different situations and lipid/lipoprotein patterns have different omega-3 needs, there is really no "right" or "wrong" dose of omega-3 fatty acids.

However, there are several factors that enter into knowing your ideal omega-3 intake:

--Higher triglycerides require higher doses
--Lipoprotein(a) can respond to higher doses
--Having coronary or carotid plaque means you desire a "therapeutic" dose of omega-3s, not just a "preventive" dose

Time is a factor, also: The longer you take omega-3s, the higher your blood levels go. You can accelerate the replacement of non-omega-3s with higher doses of omega-3s.

But too much is not good either. Some participants in Track Your Plaque, for instance, have experimented with very high doses of EPA + DHA in the 9000-10,000 per day range and witnessed dramatic increases in LDL.

Much of the uncertainty about dosing will also be cleared up as we get more experience with the Omega-3 RBC Index, i.e, the proportion of fatty acids in red blood cells that are omega-3s. We are currently aiming for an Omega-3 Index of 10%, given the heart attack reductions observed at this level.
Tags :

Comments (28) -

  • Mike

    10/24/2009 3:52:01 PM |

    "But too much is not good either. Some participants in Track Your Plaque, for instance, have experimented with very high doses of EPA + DHA in the 9000-10,000 per day range and witnessed dramatic increases in LDL."

    So what?

    Wolf, Sears, and Poliquin recommend a high fish oil dose of 0.5g-1.9g EPA/DHA per 10lbs BW; this generally equates to 9-10g range.  All three have had amazing success with sedentary, chronically ill individuals and elite level athletes.

    I believe you yourself have stated in the past that fish oil causes a shift from VLDL and IDL to large particle LDL---a benign, if not beneficial action.

    So is the raising of LDL in high dose fish oil even a concern?  Some clarification on this would be appreciated.

  • Dr. B G

    10/24/2009 4:44:35 PM |

    Gosh... what an ODD response to fish oil! *wink* Do you actually believe it?  The reports would be contrary to the literature.  At least fish oil would have a strong role in stabilizing plaque and prevents soft ruptures in growing plaque (just like the Tokelau and Masai, high carb H-G societies)!

    Nowhere in the literature that I can find reports omega-3 increases dense LDL. Perhaps there is a TYP program-omega3 interaction? Or perhaps this only occurs in those who take high-dose statins and fail to convert to Pattern A (due to the overstatination phenomenon, as reported by researchers where TG <  150)) and complain annually about their EBCT plaque progression 10-25%??  I have tried to admonish the statin overuse but apparently that doen't go over well with this individuals as you are aware. Oh well.

    I have noticed that in the summers people's HDLs drift down.  Have you Dr. Davis in your practice?  I suspect a strong fruit-effect on splaying out dense LDL. Thoughts?

    IMHO many on the TYP members consume WAY way way too much grains, orange juice, oat bran, oatmeal, FRUITY SHAKES (e.g. JJ) and consume several servings of fruit all day (e.g Jeg). Do you think this may play any part of complaints related to higher dense LDL?  My first thoughts are ALWAYS... diet.  

    Your observastions are always UNIQUE!!  Thank you putting the highlights on the omega-3 index and the role of n-6 to n-3 on inflammation, the root cause of CAD!  You are certainly the biggest quantum EVOLVER.

    http://drbganimalpharm.blogspot.com/search/label/Evolver

  • Dr. B G

    10/24/2009 4:44:35 PM |

    Gosh... what an ODD response to fish oil! *wink* Do you actually believe it?  The reports would be contrary to the literature.  At least fish oil would have a strong role in stabilizing plaque and prevents soft ruptures in growing plaque (just like the Tokelau and Masai, high carb H-G societies)!

    Nowhere in the literature that I can find reports omega-3 increases dense LDL. Perhaps there is a TYP program-omega3 interaction? Or perhaps this only occurs in those who take high-dose statins and fail to convert to Pattern A (due to the overstatination phenomenon, as reported by researchers where TG <  150)) and complain annually about their EBCT plaque progression 10-25%??  I have tried to admonish the statin overuse but apparently that doen't go over well with this individuals as you are aware. Oh well.

    I have noticed that in the summers people's HDLs drift down.  Have you Dr. Davis in your practice?  I suspect a strong fruit-effect on splaying out dense LDL. Thoughts?

    IMHO many on the TYP members consume WAY way way too much grains, orange juice, oat bran, oatmeal, FRUITY SHAKES (e.g. JJ) and consume several servings of fruit all day (e.g Jeg). Do you think this may play any part of complaints related to higher dense LDL?  My first thoughts are ALWAYS... diet.  

    Your observastions are always UNIQUE!!  Thank you putting the highlights on the omega-3 index and the role of n-6 to n-3 on inflammation, the root cause of CAD!  You are certainly the biggest quantum EVOLVER.

    http://drbganimalpharm.blogspot.com/search/label/Evolver

  • TrueDharma

    10/24/2009 5:50:45 PM |

    My EFA results showed an Omega3 index of 11.7% and a Omega 6:3 ratio of 2.3/1. I supplement with 1600mg EPA and 800mg DHA daily. I follow a low carb (high fat) I can't afford to eat "grass fed", but I do avoid processed foods whenever possible and my dietary fats are from coconut oil, lard, beef tallow, butter, olive oil and small amounts sesame oil. The Omega 3 Index test was a bit pricey, but...it did give me some comfort that I am on the right track.

  • Jae

    10/24/2009 5:53:26 PM |

    For those who witnessed an increase in LDL, what was the profile of small, dense VLDL vs large, fluffy VLDL reflected in the increase?

    Also, first-time commenter. Thank you for a great, informative blog.

  • Adam Wilk

    10/24/2009 8:59:52 PM |

    "But too much is not good either. Some participants in Track Your Plaque, for instance, have experimented with very high doses of EPA + DHA in the 9000-10,000 per day range and witnessed dramatic increases in LDL."

    I'm hoping (and wondering if...) that while those diligent enough to take that high a dose of omega-3's may have higher measured LDL levels, they indeed have much larger, fluffier particles now than when they began the megadosing.  That would be something marvelous to hear.
    Good stuff here, as usual!
    -Adam

  • Steven Horvitz, D.O.

    10/24/2009 9:35:20 PM |

    If one's LDL's raise dramatically on omega-3's, without the corresponding increase in hdl, or decrease in trigs, is it better to lower the omega 3's?

    Ex:

    pre-omega
    tc 240
    hdl 45
    ldl 165
    tg 70

    during 2000mg omega-3's
    tc 320
    hdl 58
    ldl 240
    tg 90

    Also, the pattern size of the ldl's are type a with a low carb, no grain diet.

  • homertobias

    10/24/2009 11:29:56 PM |

    I'd very much like to know what subfraction of LDL was elevated in the TYP followers on 9,000 plus omega 3's a day.  My experience is that large fluffy LDL increases but not small dense.

  • Kevin

    10/25/2009 8:36:26 AM |

    What about lipid peroxidation on high dose of fish oil?

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/25/2009 2:52:27 PM |

    The form of LDL that increases depends.

    It seems to depend on the genetic basis for small LDL. In other words, if the triggers of small LDL have been removed along with other efforts aimed at reducing small LDL like niacin, and there is no genetic basis for small LDL, then large LDL increases.

    If small LDL is genetically programmed (a lot more common than many think), then small LDL can increase explosively.  

    Having performed many thousands of lipoprotein panels, the latter situation in which small LDL increases is worrisome.

    I am unsure of the implications of the first situation. Sure, we can extrapolate and speculate that it might not be related to increased risk. But I am not willing to gamble someone's health and life on pure speculation with no human data.

  • homertobias

    10/25/2009 5:07:57 PM |

    The only references to an increase in LDLC with fish oil supplementation is from WS Harris who authors 95% of the omega 3 index studies including a 2008 review which concludes that the omega 3 index is superior to omega 3/omega 6 ratio.  When 95% of literature comes from one man who promotes a pricey lab test I can't help but wonder if he gets part of the profits. I have no data to say he does though.

    He has two 1997 publications,one showing that Omnacor given at 4 g epa/dha a day raised ldlc by 10%. 1997 was the predawn era of advanced lipids.  In his second publication individuals with severe hypertriglyceridemia (baseline fasting levels on statins of 500 to 2000) did have a 32% rise in LDLC.  
    Harris has ties to Big Pharma (the maker of Lovasa/Omnacor) and to Monsanto.
    Data that I can easily access ascide from Harris shows effecacy of fish oil supplementation up to 4 grams of epa/dha a day.  5 grams a day for plaque stabilization/ antiinflammatory effect.  9 or 10 grams a day only in obese heart failure patients.  
    My bottom line:  if your baseline tg's are 500-2000, watch out for your ldlp on high dose fish oil.  If you are an obese heart failure patient, lose weight.

  • William Trumbower

    10/25/2009 5:31:50 PM |

    I believe that when people use theraputic levels of fish oil (more than 3gm EPA=DHA)  they should follow their omega profile and lipoprotein analysis closely.  It is possible to push the eicosanoid synthesis pathways toward the arachadonic acid side depending on your diet.   Once you know your optimal dose, then you can adjust it up in certain circumstances.  I attended a football tailgate and found some of the mixed nuts were cooked in soy oil, so I took an extra dose of fishoil when I got home to compensate.

  • Mike

    10/25/2009 5:40:54 PM |

    Thanks for your thoughts on this.  Regarding LDL particle size, how dependable would TG/HDL ratio be?  Sears indicates a ratio less than 2 indicates large benign LDL.  In my own experience over the past few years, as I've increased my fish oil intake (along with a Paleo diet) my HDL has gone up, my LDL has gone up, and my TGs have decreased.

  • Boris

    10/26/2009 1:30:58 AM |

    I have increased my intake of omega-3 since I answered the poll. My problem was that I couldn't take it all at once. Too much fish oil gave me a super upset stomach. Granted, it was the impure Nature Made brand sold at Walmart (34% pure). Now that I am using Omapure, I take one capsule with every meal and then one before bed time. It 6x more expensive than the Nature Made junk but I'm not getting sick from it.

    Does it matter that I break up my intake over the course of the day rather than swallow four capsules all at once?

  • Anonymous

    10/26/2009 1:49:07 AM |

    great information here, thanks all.

    To follow on Dr.BG's note on statin overuse :  there is an interesting presentation of baylor college's lipidsonline.org with discussion of guidelines for statin dosage.  The presenter notes how very little value is obtained from subsequent doubling of a statin dose and the risks for side effects.

    http://www.lipidsonline.org/slides/slide01.cfm?tk=82

    Dr. D.  Thank you for the caution on fish oil. I take 1650mgs EPA/DHA twice per day.  Might be a good idea to cut out a dose if I eat salmon or other oily fish.

    Would love to see more info on MK4/Mk7 K2 and MCFAs like coconut oil.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/26/2009 1:58:12 AM |

    Hi, Mike--

    While the Triglyceride/HDL ratio can serve as a useful measure of small LDL in a population, it performs poorly when applied to specific individuals. This is because small LDl, while influenced by the situation creating low HDL and high triglycerides, can also behave independently.

    Small LDL is, in my view, best measured specifically.

  • Ross

    10/26/2009 5:52:24 AM |

    It's pretty straightforward to end up in the middle of the pack on that poll.  But don't take gels or you'll be there all day.  One tablespoon of Carlson's Finest has 4800mg O-3's with 2400mg EPA and 1500mg DHA.  One swallow just as I'm sitting down to breakfast makes for a great start to every day.

  • Anonymous

    10/26/2009 1:54:50 PM |

    I was told than an ApoE 4 Patient should not be on therapeutic doses of fish oil (for reasons which you have stated- raising LDL).

  • homertobias

    10/26/2009 2:46:23 PM |

    Dr Davis:

    I would like to know which WS Harris 2008 you referenced and the reference for the females in the Harvard School of Public Health please.
    I also would like to know if there was a correlation between baseline tg levels and those who experienced a more marked elevation of sd LDL on fish oil.

  • homertobias

    10/26/2009 4:14:20 PM |

    I guess that this is my day to ask you questions.
    When you read a MDCT, do you also measure pericardial fat?
    What do you think of Dr. Ding's new MESA findings re pericardial fat.  Thanks in advance.

  • Alan S David

    10/26/2009 6:16:55 PM |

    I take 6000 units daily or more, but I also consume a few tablespoons of ground flax seed daily as well.
    AND still eat fish a few times a week, especially oil rich sardines.

  • jegesq

    10/26/2009 9:28:03 PM |

    Homertobias:

    Lots of interesting work being done on pericardial adipose tissue (PAT) and using CT imaging done in conjunction with CAC scoring to more precisely determine the relationship between PAT and the development of CAD and calcified plaques, i.e., in order to more precisely "score" the level of PAT and to determine association and/or causality with calcific lesions.

    Dr. Lerber at University Hospital in Munich, Germany has observed that PAT accumulation precedes the development of calcified plaques, that increased volume of PAT are associated with reduced levels of  adiponectin and higher CRP.   So the idea is that with more precise measurements and concomittant imaging of both PAT and CAC, we might be able to better detect the presence of disease in an earlier stage.   There is also some push among those doing such research to link PAT thickness assessment with administering routine echo stress testing but this hasn't gained much traction yet other than in a small circle of folks.   The hope though is that PAT can also be used as another surrogate marker for diagnosing preclinical atherosclerosis.

    But as of now, I don't think anyone who does a routine CAC scan, whether with MDCT or EBT is doing any form of assessment of PAT, at least not until there is more data on the reliability of using this as a clinical marker of disease.

    Personally, I think there's a lot of interesting info that can come from this, and the idea of deposition of fat into muscle tissue and necrosis of that tissue, inflammation and the relation to levels of saturated fats consumed from dietary sources is an area that is just begging to be better researched.

    Oh, and by the way, don't believe everything you read here from BG about what foods I consume, how much statin I take, or much else when it comes to me.  In fact, I'd prefer that she simply not make references to me in her writings wherever they appear.  This will obviate the need for me to continue to correct her misstatements about me, my lipids, and drug and supplement usage, as well as the fact that she continues to misrepresent that I have not achieved plaque stability and/or demonstrated regression through serial MDCT CAC scoring over a period of three years despite very low dose use of rosuvastatin.

  • jegesq

    10/27/2009 12:16:24 AM |

    A correction....  My serial scan scores show that I have achieved stability and optimally regression of coronary calcium.   My point is that Dr. BG continues to claim that those taking rosuvastatin at doses of ~10mg daily cannot possibly achieve regression on EBT/MCDT scanning, and that just isn't so.

    I happen to be one of those whom I believe Dr. Davis was referring to with "too much of a good thing" with reference to EPA/DHA dosing.  My dose was upped from ~1-2 grams per day (of EPA/DHA) to ~10 grams based on recommendations from Dr. BG.  This occurred in or around December 2008 and continued until very recently. Based on five consecutive, quarterly NMR's and VAP's, my sdLDL-P remained at >85% of LDL-P, and my trigs went from ~40 to ~75, and, more significantly, my overall LDL-P rose from ~1000 to ~1300.   No other significant impacts were noted, other than CRP dropping to 0.7, which I attribute not to the n-3's, but instead to continued use of rosuvastatin together with combined high dosing of both boswellia and 5-Loxin and large doses of aspirin (taken specifically as an anti-inflammatory due to nerve and muscle pain from a herniated cervical disc in the month immediately prior to the last VAP testing).

    The point though is that in some, excess fish oil can convert to higher trigs and higher LDL, and will not improve the concentration or ratios of sdLDL-P/LDL-P.

    Yes, n=1, but I'm the n, so that's really most important to me, not what Wolf, Sears or anyone else has to say about this.  After all, what we're after is personalized medicine, not epidemiological observations that may be valid in large population studies but which may have no relevance to a particular individual.

  • homertobias

    10/27/2009 4:05:13 PM |

    Hi JEG,
    Thanks for the references.  I am truly upset that you andBG seem to be having a cybertiff.  She has a big heart, alot of enthusiasm, alot of intelligence and makes me laugh. You are a sincere intellectual, very bright, searching for truth in medicine and are doing a good job of it.  I can learn from both of you and want to continue to do so.
    As to omega 3 and dosage.  I can't seem to find any solid benefit to doses over 4g to maybe 5g per day. This seems to max out tg lowering, ldl improvement in particle size, minimal increase in hdl, bp lowering, improvement in tnf alpha, interleukin 6.  Reports on irs effect on HSCRP are conflicting.  One interesting report, Thies F, in Lancet 2003 took 188 patients scheduled for carotid endarterectomy and treated them with either DHA/EPA, sunflower oil, or placebo for an average duration of 42 days prior to surgery.  There was a significant difference in thickness of the fibrous cap over the plaque,the degree of monocyte  infiltration of the fibrous cap, percent DHA etc.  This directly addresses plaque stability.  I love it.

  • Dr. B G

    10/30/2009 5:06:04 AM |

    Homertobias,

    That is a great plaque stablization article -- will have to ck out!



    Jeq,

    I must be correct again as indicated by the length and duration of the post!

    Let me get this straight -- the lipoproteins were less than desirable for both you and JJ/Jim for the past 2008 to 2009 (you reported increased sdLDL?), yet both of you posted regression recently on BOTH of your EBCT/MDCT results....  

    Gosh... I wonder if the high dose fish oil had anything to do with it?

    EPA DHA get infiltrated directly locally into calcified plaque and has immense immeasurable benefits for regression BEYOND lipoproteins.  I think you have seen some them, personally IMHO.

    -G

  • Dr. B G

    10/30/2009 5:06:04 AM |

    Homertobias,

    That is a great plaque stablization article -- will have to ck out!



    Jeq,

    I must be correct again as indicated by the length and duration of the post!

    Let me get this straight -- the lipoproteins were less than desirable for both you and JJ/Jim for the past 2008 to 2009 (you reported increased sdLDL?), yet both of you posted regression recently on BOTH of your EBCT/MDCT results....  

    Gosh... I wonder if the high dose fish oil had anything to do with it?

    EPA DHA get infiltrated directly locally into calcified plaque and has immense immeasurable benefits for regression BEYOND lipoproteins.  I think you have seen some them, personally IMHO.

    -G

  • Dr. B G

    10/30/2009 5:14:21 AM |

    By the way, congratulations to you two gentleman, JJ and Jeg, for achieving regression with Pattern B! I have looked for regression in Pattern B forum posters, but turned up none. You two are the FIRST at TYP that I can find...

    Do you think omega-3 had any role in your success since that appears to be the common link as well as major supplement change you guys identified?

    I wonder what the omega-6:3 ratio is now off the fish oil?

  • Dr. B G

    10/30/2009 5:14:21 AM |

    By the way, congratulations to you two gentleman, JJ and Jeg, for achieving regression with Pattern B! I have looked for regression in Pattern B forum posters, but turned up none. You two are the FIRST at TYP that I can find...

    Do you think omega-3 had any role in your success since that appears to be the common link as well as major supplement change you guys identified?

    I wonder what the omega-6:3 ratio is now off the fish oil?

Add comment

Loading