Restaurant eating: A fructose landmine

There is no remaining question that fructose is among the worst possible things humans can consume.

Followers of the Heart Scan Blog already know this, from conversations like The LDL-Fructose Disconnect, Where do you find fructose?, and Goodbye, fructose.

But fructose, usually as either high-fructose corn syrup (44%, 55%, occasionally higher percentage fructose) or sucrose (50% fructose), is ubiquitous. I've seen it in the most improbable places, including cole slaw, mustard, and dill pickles.

It's reasonably straightforward to avoid or minimize fructose exposure while eating at home, provided you check labels and focus on foods that don't require labels (like green peppers, salmon, and olive oil, i.e., unprocessed foods). But when you choose to eat at a restaurant, then all hell can break loose and fructose exposure can explode.

So what are some common and unsuspected fructose sources when eating at a restaurant?

Salad dressings--Dressings in all stripes and flavors are now made with high-fructose corn syrup and/or sucrose. This is especially true of low-fat, non-fat, or "lite" dressings, meaning oils have been replaced by high-fructose corn syrup. It can also be true of traditional non-low-fat dressings, too, since high-fructose corn syrup is just plain cheap.

Olive oil and vinegar are still your safest bets. I will often use salsa as a dressing, which works well.

Sauces and gravies--Not only can sauces be thickened with cornstarch, many pre-mixed sauces are also made with high-fructose corn syrup or sweetened with sucrose. Barbecue sauce is a particular landmine, since it is now a rare barbecue sauce not made with high-fructose corn syrup as the first or second ingredient. Sauces for dipping are nearly always high-fructose corn syrup-based.

Ketchup--Yup. Good old ketchup even is now made with high-fructose corn syrup. In fact, you should be suspicious of any condiment.

Highball, Bloody Mary, Margarita, Daiquiri, beer--Even the before-dinner or dinner drink can have plenty of fructose, particularly if a mix is used to make it. While Blood Marys seem the most benign of all, adorned with celery, pickle, and olive, just take a look at the ingredient label on the mix used: high-fructose corn syrup.

Fructose is a stealth poison: It doesn't immediately increase blood sugar; it doesn't trigger any perceptible effect like increased energy or sleepiness. But it is responsible for an incredible amount of the health struggles in the U.S., from obesity, to diabetes, to hyperlipidemias and heart disease, to arthritis, to cataracts.

A glycation rock and a hard place

Advanced Glycation End-products, or AGEs, the stuff of aging that mucks up brains, kidneys, and arteries, develop via two different routes: endogenous (from within the body) and exogenous (from outside the body).

Endogenous AGEs develop via glycation. Glycation of proteins in the body occurs when there are glucose excursions above normal. For instance, a blood glucose of 150 mg/dl after your bowl of stone-ground oatmeal causes glycation of proteins left and right, from the proteins in the lens of your eyes (cataracts), to the proteins in your kidneys (proteinuria and kidney dysfunction), to skin cells (wrinkles), to cartilage (brittle cartilage followed by arthritis), to LDL particles, especially small LDL particles (atherosclerosis).

At what blood sugar level does glycation occur? It occurs even at "normal" glucose levels below 100 mg/dl (with measurable long-term cardiovascular effects as low as 83 mg/dl). In other words, some level of glycation proceeds even at blood glucose levels regarded as normal.

There's nothing we can do about the low-level of glycation that occurs at low blood sugar levels of, say, 90 mg/dl or less. However, we can indeed do a lot to not allow glycation to proceed more rapidly, as it inevitably will at blood sugar levels higher than 90 mg/dl.

How do you keep blood sugars below 90 mg/dl to prevent excessive glycation? Avoid or minimize the foods that cause such rises in blood sugar: carbohydrates.

What food increases blood sugar higher than nearly all other known foods? Wheat.

Is einkorn the answer?

People ask: "What if I would like a piece of bread or other baked product just once in a while? What is safe?"

Eli Rogosa, Director of The Heritage Wheat Conservancy, believes that a return to the wheat of our ancestors in the Fertile Crescent, circa 10,000 years ago, is the answer.

Former science teacher, now organic farmer, farm researcher, and advocate of sustainable agriculture, Eli has been reviving "heritage" crops farmed under organic conditions, some of her research USDA-funded.

In particular, Eli has been cultivating original 14-chromosome ("diploid") einkorn wheat. Although einkorn contains gluten (in lesser quantities despite the higher total protein content), the group of proteins that trigger the immune abnormalities of celiac disease and other immune phenomena, Eli tells me that she has witnessed many people with a variety of wheat intolerances, including celiac disease, tolerate foods made with einkorn wheat. (The variety of glutens in einkorn differ from the glutens of the dwarf mutant that now dominate supermarket shelves.)

Eli travels to Israel every year, returning with "heritage" seeds for wheat and other crops. She formerly worked in the Israel GenBank as Director of the Ancient Wheat Program. She has written a brochure that describes her einkorn wheat.

Eli sent me 2 lb of her einkorn grain that nutritionist, Margaret Pfeiffer, and I ground into bread. Our experience is detailed here. My subsequent blood sugar misadventure, comparing einkorn bread to conventional organic whole wheat bread is detailed here, followed by the odd neurologic effects I experienced here.

Anyone else wishing to try this little ancient wheat experiment with einkorn can also obtain either the unground grain or ground flour through Eli's website, www.growseed.org. Most recently, einkorn pasta is being retailed under the Jovial brand at Whole Foods Market.

If anyone else makes bread or any other food with Eli's einkorn wheat, please let me know:

1) Your blood sugar response (before and 1 hour after consumption)
2) Whether you experienced any evidence of wheat intolerance similar to what you experienced with conventional wheat, e.g., rash, acid reflux, gas and cramping, moodiness, asthma, etc.

But remember: Wheat effects or no, einkorn is still a grain. My belief is that humans do best with little or no grain. The einkorn experience is an effort to identify reasonable compromises so that you and I can have a piece of birthday cake once a year without getting sick.

Genetic incompatibility

Peter has lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), a genetic pattern shared by 11% of Americans.

It means that Peter inherited a gene that codes for a protein, called apoprotein(a), that attaches to LDL particles, forming the combined particle Lp(a). It also means that his overall pattern responds well to a high-fat, high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet: The small LDL particles that accompany Lp(a) over 90% of the time are reduced, Lp(a) itself is modestly reduced, other abnormalities like high triglycerides (that facilitate Lp(a)'s adverse effects) are corrected. Small LDL particles are, by the way, part of the genetic "package" of Lp(a) in most carriers.

Peter also has another gene for Apo E4, another genetically-determined pattern shared by 19% of Americans. (Another 2% of Americans have two "doses" of Apo E4, i.e., they are homozygotes for E4.) This means that the Apo E protein, normally responsible for liver uptake and disposal of lipoproteins (especially VLDL), is defective. In people with Apo E4, the higher the fat intake, the more LDL particles accumulate. (The explanation for this effect is not entirely clear, but it may represent excessive defective Apo E-enriched VLDL that competes with LDL for liver uptake.) People with Apo E4 therefore drop LDL (and LDL particle number and apoprotein B) with reductions in fat intake.

This is a genetic rock-and-a-hard-place, or what I call a genetic incompatibility. If Peter increases fat and reduces carbohydrates to reduce Lp(a)/small LDL, then LDL measures like LDL particle number, apoprotein B, and LDL cholesterol will increase. Paradoxically, sometimes small LDL particles will even increase in some genetically predisposed people.

If Peter decreases fat and increases carbohydrates, LDL particle number, apoprotein B, and LDL cholesterol will decrease, but the proportion of small LDL will increase and Lp(a) may increase.

Thankfully, such "genetic incompatibilities" are uncommon. In my large practice, for instance, I have about 5 such people.

The message: If you witness paradoxic responses that don't make sense or follow the usual pattern, e.g., reductions in LDL particle number, apoprotein B, and small LDL with reductions in their dietary triggers (i.e., carbohydrates, especially wheat), then consider a competing genetic trait such as Apo E4.

The folly of an RDA for vitamin D

Tom is a 50-year old, 198-lb white male. At the start, his 25-hydroxy vitamin D level was 28.8 ng/ml in July. Tom supplements vitamin D, 2000 units per day, in gelcap form. Six months later in January (winter), Tom's 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 67.4 ng/ml.

Jerry is another 50-year old white male with similar build and weight. Jerry's starting summer 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 26.4 ng/ml. Jerry takes 12,000 units vitamin D per day, also in gelcap form. In winter, six months later, Jerry's 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 63.2 ng/ml.

Two men, similar builds, similar body weight, both Caucasian, similar starting levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D. Yet they have markedly different needs for vitamin D dose to achieve a similar level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D. Why?

It's unlikely to be due to variation in vitamin D supplement preparations, since I monitor vitamin D levels at least every 6 months and, even with changes in preparations, dose needs remain fairly constant.

The differences in this situation are likely genetically-determined. To my knowledge, however, the precise means by which genetic variation accounts for it has not been worked out.

This highlights the folly of specifying a one-size-fits-all Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for vitamin D. The variation in need can be incredible. While needs are partly determined by body size and proportion body fat (the bigger you are, the more you need), I've also seen 105 lb women require 14,000 units and 320-lb men require 1000 units to achieve the same level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D.

An RDA for everyone? Ridiculous. Vitamin D is an individual issue that must be addressed on a person-by-person basis.

Heart scan: Standard of care?

If coronary disease is easy to detect by measuring coronary calcium, shouldn't this represent the standard of care?

In other words, if you've been seeing your doctor and he/she has been monitoring cholesterol levels and, inevitably, talks about statin drugs, then you have a heart attack, unstable angina, or die--yet never knew you had heart disease--isn't this negligence?

Coronary calcium, and thereby coronary atherosclerotic plaque, are markers for the disease itself. Unlike cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc., that represent risk factors for coronary atherosclerotic plaque, coronary calcium is a measure of total plaque: "soft" elements like lipid collections, necrotic tissue, fibrous tissue, as well as "hard" elements like calcium. Because calcium occupies 20% of total atherosclerotic plaque volume, it can be used as an indirect "dipstick" for total plaque.

So why isn't an unexpected heart attack, hospitalization for unstable heart symptions, emergency bypass, etc., not regarded as potential malpractice? These are not benign events, but potentially life-threatening.

The costs of doing drug business?

Here's a telling situation.

Liz had been on prescription niacin, Niaspan, 1500 mg per day (3 x 500 mg tablets) for several years to treat her severe small LDL pattern and familial hypertriglyceridemia (triglycerides 500-1000 mg/dl). Because her health insurance had been paying for the "drug," she insisted on taking the prescription form.

A change in insurance, however, meant that the Niaspan was no longer covered. Her pharmacy wanted to charge $227 per month.

Liz came to the office in tears, worried that she was going to have to choke up $227 per month. I reminded her that, as I had told her several years ago, she could easily replace the Niaspan with over-the-counter Sloniacin or Enduracin. Both release niacin over approximately 6 hours, just like Niaspan.

Here are the prices I've seen with Sloniacin, 100 tablets of 500 mg:

Walgreens: $15.99
Walmart: $12.99
Costco: $8.99

So the most expensive source, Walgreens, would cost Liz just under $15.99 per month to take 1500 mg per day.

$15.99 versus $227.00 per month for preparations that are highly similar. Hmmmmmm.

I wonder what the $211.01 extra per month goes towards? Admittedly, Abbott Labs, the current company selling Niaspan (after Abbott acquired Kos), has invested in a few clinical trials, such as ARBITER-HALTS6. But does supporting research justify this much difference, a difference that amounts to $2532 over a year? If just 100,000 patients are prescribed Niaspan at this dose (a typical dose), this generates $253 million.

Is the cost of developing and marketing a supplement-turned-drug that great? Is this justifiable? Is it any wonder that our health insurance premiums continue to balloon?

I use Sloniacin and Enduracin almost exclusively.

Measurement

A crucial component of self-empowerment in healthcare is to be able to measure various health parameters. More and more measurement tools are entering the direct-to-consumer arena.

Quantification of various phenomena is important in managing many aspects of health. Imagine a carpenter trying to build a house without the use of a tape measure, level, or other measuring tools. In health, as in building a house, measurement, adjustment, and correction are critical.

Among the most helpful health measurement tools:

Blood glucose meters--Blood glucose meters aren't just for diabetics. They are among the most powerful weight loss tools available.

Blood pressure cuffs--There's no better way to assess blood pressure than to assess it under all the varied conditions of life: When you're tired, when you're excited, when you're upset, when you're happy, hungry, stomach full, morning, night. This is a lot better than the one isolated measure in the doctor's office.

Digital thermometers--Your first a.m. oral temperature is a great way to assess thyroid status. We aim to maintain first a.m. oral temperature around 97.3 degrees F, the normal human temperature upon arising that reflects normal thyroid function. (No, Dr. Broda Barnes fans, axillary temperatures should NOT be used due to flagrant variation from right armpit to left armpit, modifying effects of clothing and ambient temperature, etc. Oral temperature tracks internal, "core," temperature fluctuations reliably, including circadian variation, far better than axillary temperatures.)

Fingerstick blood tests--An incredible number of blood tests are now available just by performing a simple fingerstick in your kitchen or bathroom. You can get 25-hydroxy vitamin D, lipids, thyroid measures (TSH, free T3, free T4), hormones (DHEA, testosterone, estrogens). And the list is growing rapidly. Salivary tests are also growing in number for many of the same measures.

A variation on fingerstick blood tests are devices like CardioChek that allow you to do a fingerstick, but also run the test on your own device at home. (The CardioChek device tests total cholesterol, triglycerides, and HDL.)

Urine pH--You can dipstick your own urine to assess the relative acidity or alkalinity of your lifestyle. Acid pH (7 or below) suggests that diet is weighed too heavily in favor of animal products and grains. An alkaline pH (above 7) suggests plentiful vegetables and fruits, not counteracted by animal products and grains.

There are many more, including the ZEO device to monitor sleep quality, RESPeRATE for reduction of blood pressure, HeartMath to manage stress and augment the parasympathatic (relaxation) response. We've come a long way compared to the health monitoring devices of just 25-30 years ago.

Anyway, that's a partial list. Given the rapid advances in technology that allow such home tests, I anticipate a much longer list in the coming few years.

For some perspective on how far these devices have come, here's a great graphic of an early sphygmomanometer, or blood pressure gauge.


Courtesy Wellcome Library, London

I lost 37 lbs with a fingerstick

Jack needed to lose weight.

At 5 ft 7 inches, he weighed in at 273 lbs, putting his BMI at a sobering 42.8. (A BMI of 30 or above is classified as "obese.") In addition to lipoprotein(a), Jack had an extravagant quantity of small LDL (the evil "partner" of lipoprotein(a)), high triglycerides, and blood sugars in the diabetic range. With a heart scan score of 1670, Jack had little room for compromises.

Try as he might, Jack could simply not stick to the diet I urged him to follow. Three days, for instance, of avoiding wheat was promptly interrupted by his wife's tempting him with a nice BLT sandwich. This triggered his appetite, with diet spiraling downward in short order.

So I taught Jack how to check his blood sugars using a fingerstick device, what I call the most important weight loss tool available. I asked Jack to check his pre-meal blood glucose and his one-hour after-meal blood glucose and not allow the after-meal blood glucose to rise any higher than the pre-meal. For example, if blood glucose pre-meal was 115 mg/dl, after-meal blood glucose should be no higher than 115 mg/dl.

If any food or combination of foods increase blood glucose more than the pre-meal value, then eliminate the culprit food or reduce the portion size. For example, if dinner consists of baked salmon, asparagus, and mashed potatoes, and pre-meal blood glucose is 115 mg/dl, post-meal 155 mg/dl, reduce or eliminate the mashed potatoes. If slow-cooked, stone ground oatmeal causes blood glucose to increase from 115 mg/dl to 185 mg/dl (a typical response to oatmeal), then eliminate it.

Having immediate feedback on the effects of various foods finally did it for Jack: It identified foods that were triggering excessive blood sugar rises (and thereby insulin) and foods that did not.

What Jack did not do is limit or restrict calories. In fact, I asked him to eat portion sizes that left him comfortable. There was no need to reduce calories, push the plate away, etc. Just don't allow blood sugars to rise.

Six months later, Jack came back 37 lbs lighter. And he got there without calorie-counting, without regulating portion sizes, without hunger.

The two kinds of small LDL

You won't find this in any publication nor description (at least ones that I've come across) about the ubiquitous small LDL particles. It's an observation I've made having obtained thousands of advanced lipoprotein panels of the sort that break lipoproteins down by size. I've discussed this issue previously here. But small LDL is so ubiquitous, not addressed by conventional strategies like statin drugs or fat restriction (it is made worse, in fact, by reducing fat in the diet), that it is worth keeping at the top of everyone's consciousness.

(Because most of the lipoprotein analyses performed in my office are done via NMR, I will discuss in terms relevant to NMR. This does not necessarily mean that similar observations cannot be made with centrifugation, i.e, VAP from Atherotech, or gel electropheresis from Berkeley, Boston Heart Lab, Spectracell, and others).

There are two basic varieties of small LDL particles:

1) Genetically-programmed--e.g., via cholesteryl-ester transfer protein (CETP) activity
2) Acquired--via carbohydrate consumption


It means that people with acquired small LDL from carbohydrate consumption can reduce small LDL to zero with reduction of carbohydrates, especially the most small LDL-provoking foods of all: wheat, cornstarch, and sucrose.

It also means that people who have small LDL for genetically-determined reasons can only minimize, not eliminate, small LDL. By NMR, we struggle to keep small LDL in the 300-600 nmol/L range when genetically-determined. (People typically start with 1400-3000 nmol/L small LDL particles prior to diet changes and other efforts.) We can only presumptively identify genetically-determined small LDL when all the appropriate efforts have been made, including reduction in weight to ideal, yet small LDL persists.

Here is where we need better tools: when you've done everything possible, yet small LDL persists.

While we break LDL particles (NOT LDL cholesterol, the crude and misleading way of viewing atherosclerosis causation) down by size, it's really about all the undesirable characteristics that accompany small size:

--Distortion of Apo B conformation--i.e., the primary protein that directs LDL particle fate is distorted, making it less likely to be cleared by the liver but more likely to be taken up by inflammatory (macrophages) in the artery wall, creating plaque. It means that small LDL particles linger for a longer time than larger particles.

--Small LDLs are more oxidation-prone. Oxidized LDL are more avidly taken up by inflammatory macrophages.

--Small LDLs are more glycation-prone.

--Small LDLs are more adherent to structural tissues, e.g., glycosaminoglycans, that reside in the artery wall.

You and I cannot measure such phenomena, so we resort to distinguishing LDL particles by size.

The drug industry believes it may have a solution to small LDL in the form of CETP-inhibiting drugs, like anacetrapib. In the way of nutritional solutions beyond carbohydrate reduction, weight loss/exercise, niacin, vitamin D normalization, and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, there are exciting but very preliminary data surrounding the possibility that anthocyanins may inhibit CETP activity. Having toyed with this concept for the past 6 months, I remain uncertain how meaningful the effect truly is, but it is harmless, since we obtain anthocyanins from foods colored purple or purplish, such as blackberries, blueberries, cherries, red leaf lettuce, red cabbage, etc.

I welcome any unique observations on this issue.
Track Your Plaque challenges

Track Your Plaque challenges

Of all the various factors we correct in the Track Your Plaque program in the name of achieving reversal of coronary plaque, there are two factors that are proving to be our greatest challenges:

1) Genetic small LDL

2) Lipoprotein(a)

More and more people are enjoying at least marked slowing, if not zero change or reduction, in heart scan scores following the Track Your Plaque program. We achieve this by correcting a number of factors. Some factors, like vitamin D deficiency, are easily corrected to perfection--supplement sufficient vitamin D to achieve a blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D of 60-70 ng/ml. Correcting standard lipid values--LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides--child's play, even to our strict targets of 60-60-60.

However, what I call "genetic small LDL" and a subset of lipoprotein(a) are proving to be the most resistant of all.

Let's first consider genetic small LDL. Small LDL is generally the pattern of the carbohydrate-ingesting, overweight person. It has exploded in severity over the past decade due to overconsumption of carbohydrates due to the ridiculous low-fat notion. Reduce or eliminate carbohydrates, especially wheat, which permits weight loss, and small LDL drops like a stone. But there is a unique subset of people who express the small LDL pattern who start at or near ideal weight. Take Chad, for instance. At 6' 2" and 152 lbs and BMI of 19.6, there's no way excess weight could be triggering his small LDL. Yet he starts with 100% small LDL particles. All efforts to reduce small LDL, such as wheat, cornstarch, and sugar elimination; niacin; vitamin D normalization; thyroid normalization; and several supplements that yield variable effects, such as phosphatidylcholine, all leave Chad with more than 90% small LDL.

Lipoprotein(a) is a bit different. Over the past 5 years, our choices in ways to reduce Lp(a) expression have improved dramatically. Beyond niacin, we now have high-dose EPA + DHA, thyroid normalization that includes use of T3, and hormonal manipulation. In the Track Your Plaque experience, approximately 70% of people with Lp(a) respond with a reduction in Lp(a). (In fact, the 4 out of the 5 record holders for reduction of heart scan scores have Lp(a) that was successfully treated.) But about 30% of people with Lp(a) prove resistant to all these treatments--they begin with a Lp(a) of, say, 260 nmol/L and, despite niacin, high-dose EPA + DHA, and various hormones, stay at 260 nmol/L. It can be frustrating and frightening.

So these are the two true problem areas for the Track Your Plaque program, genetic small LDL and a subset of Lp(a).

We are actively searching for better options for these two problem areas. Given the collective exploration and wisdom that develops from such collaborative efforts as the Track Your Plaque Forum, I am optimistic that we will have better answers for these two stumbling blocks to plaque reversal in the future.

Comments (31) -

  • Nigel Kinbrum BSc(Hons)Eng

    12/1/2009 5:19:32 PM |

    As LDL-c is produced by the liver (I don't know where Lp(a) is produced but I'd hazard a guess that it's the liver), could the secret lie in the liver?

    See Cirrhosis and corn oil.

    Has the effect of beef fat & MCT's on small LDL-c percentage & Lp(a) been investigated?

  • David

    12/1/2009 5:30:54 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Could some of the non-response be be caused by underlying food sensitivities (other than wheat), without acute allergic reactions, that contribute to underlying chronic inflammation?  I.e., a gluten like effect but specific to another food in their diet.

    -David

  • bender645

    12/1/2009 6:02:29 PM |

    Hello Dr.

    I have read elsewhere (LA Vida Low Carb, Free the Animal, Hyperlipid)that saturated animal fat intake can positively impact LPa and LDL particle size.  Particularly that of pastured-grass fed animals.  

    I am not 100% familiar with your program or dietary recommendations, but it might be worth investigating.

  • Dr. William Davis

    12/1/2009 10:30:38 PM |

    Hi, Nigel--

    To my knowledge, not beef fat specifically but various fatty acid fractions, such as stearic acid, and percent fat intake have been examined; MCTs I believe have not been investigated.

    However, the effects of adding fats to the existing strategies in the Track Your Plaque program tend to be small, since the diet is not fat restricted.

  • Dr. William Davis

    12/1/2009 10:31:34 PM |

    Hi, David--

    Don't know for certain.

    However, these are generally slender, athletic types with no bowel symptoms, arthritis, etc. So I suspect an allergic theme does not tie them together.

  • Anonymous

    12/2/2009 3:06:57 AM |

    Consider an epigenetic effect as a possible cause for the resistant patients' failure to respond.

  • Dr. William Davis

    12/2/2009 3:18:03 AM |

    Anon--

    Please elaborate.

  • Anonymous

    12/2/2009 10:02:48 AM |

    If the idea is to reduce plaque...

    http://www.lef.org/LEFCMS/aspx/PrintVersionMagic.aspx?CmsID=115645

    After one year, the group receiving the drugs, but not pomegranate showed a significant 9% increase in intima-media thickness. In contrast, the group receiving the pomegranate plus drugs showed a reduction in carotid intima-media thickness as follows:

    After three months: 13%

    After six months: 22%

    After nine months: 26%

    After one year: 35%

    Carotid artery blood flow (as measured by end diastolic velocity) improved in the pomegranate plus drugs group as follows:

    After three months: 16%

    After six months: 20%

    After nine months: 31%

    After one year: 44%

  • P

    12/2/2009 3:00:03 PM |

    hmmm, interesting.
    Such epigenetic effects have resulted in reducing diabetic moratality during famine times previously. Should be interesting if someone studied similar gene expression for your Lpa problem.

  • Scott Miller

    12/2/2009 9:56:25 PM |

    Dr. Davis, I think your diligent quest to reverse heart disease needs to embrace two important additions:

    [1] Have your patients seriously reduce inflammation-causing polyunsaturated fats (primarily, any oil with a poly content greater than 10 percent, which means olive oil barely ducks under the bar, but not many other vegetable oils do, including the oft touted as healthy canola oil).

    [2] Have them consume more saturated fat, especially coconut oil. In effect, low HDL is a symptom of saturated fat deficiency. A great source of coconut oil is cold-processed virgin coconut oil (should smell like coconuts), and full-fat coconut milk (an excellent base for sauces, and smoothies mixed with frozen berries and whey protein powder).

    The main key, IMO, is to reduce processed vegetable oils, a highly inflammatory food ingredient that has a half-life in the body of 2-4 years, so the effects of reduction may take a while to notice.

  • Peter

    12/2/2009 11:11:50 PM |

    Dr Davis,
    Since hormones have such a profound effect on lipoproteins, could there be a connection between DHT levels and resistance to treatment here?  I recently read that early baldness is a risk factor for heart disease, and that DHT opposes estrogen much more strongly than testosterone.  Since estrogen is so heart protective, is it possible that this would be another avenue of attack?  If a person had high levels of the 5 alpha reductase enzymes, testosterone normalization as a treatment avenue might be neutralized in these cases (I am assuming that all hormones have been optimized in your resistant patients).
    I was thinking about this recently as I just came across a patent application for the use of finasteride in heart disease.  You had also mentioned the use of tamoxifen in one of your earlier posts, which would obviously relate here as tomaxifin binds estrogen receptors.

  • Anonymous

    12/3/2009 3:50:01 AM |

    It's so funny that Cheerios has targeted your site for its google ads.

    Cheerios® Cereal
    Improve Your Heart's Health With Cheerios® Cereal Today
    www.Cheerios.com

  • Nigel Kinbrum BSc(Hons)Eng

    12/3/2009 4:05:09 AM |

    Dr William Davis said "However, the effects of adding fats to the existing strategies in the Track Your Plaque program tend to be small, since the diet is not fat restricted."

    I was thinking more along the lines of substituting MCTs for omega-6 fats rather than adding fats.

  • Francis

    12/3/2009 5:22:29 AM |

    I may be wrong but there seems to be an emphasis on treating potentially benign lab values in your post.

    What do the heart scan scores show for the patients you mention? Isn't reversing their plaque the ultimate heart-goal of the program? If their plaque is reversing, so what if some lab values aren't perfect?

    The interesting question is what happens to the risk of having a heart attack or a stroke when plaque is under control, but small LDL or Lp(a) are not.

  • András

    12/3/2009 10:59:53 AM |

    Dr Davis,

    What about Pauling's old protocol for Lp(a) that involves Vitamin C and Lysine? Is it good?

  • Dr. William Davis

    12/3/2009 1:45:48 PM |

    Andras--

    I WISH the Pauling/Rath protocol worked.

    We've tried it and I've had a number of patients try it on their own. I have never witnessed any effect whatsoever on Lp(a), though diarrhea is a predictable result (from the high-dose vitamin C).

  • Kent

    12/3/2009 6:48:29 PM |

    In January of 09 I started out with LP(a) of 198 nmol/L. After finding Dr Davis and reading his book, I started applying his principles by bumping my Niacin from 1500mg to 2000mg, fish oil dosage of 7200mg to 9600mg combined EPA and DHA, Coq10, flaxseed, oatbran, little to no wheat diet, etc.

    However, with Dr Davis suggestions, I also followed the Pauling Therapy of 6g of Vitamin C and L-Lysine along with 2g of l-proline daily. In 3 months my LP(a) went from 198nmol/L to 105nmol/L. In 9 months my LP(a) was down to 45nmol/L, A 77% reduction from January! If you look on Dr Mercola's site, he also states that kind of documented results from the Pauling Therapy.

    I give credit to both Dr Davis and Linus Pauling, but most of all my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for answered prayer.

  • Anonymous

    12/3/2009 11:34:16 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    thats interesting. How long did you try?

    As I understood him, he didn't recommend vitamin C and L-Lysin in isolation, but together with a Multivitamin, additional vit A, Bs, D, E, K, amino-acids arginine, carnitine, taurine, magnesium,..

    I myself started Pauling's protocol against a PAD - and within a half year my walking distance doubled from below a km.

    Short before this improvement I also got to experience the 'predictable' result of diarrhea, due to increasing from the usual 6 grams of vit C daily by titrating up to bowel tolerance (which, with 50 grams, proved quite high).

    Beside that, I experienced some other unexpected effects:

    # a rush on my back I had for a year healed right away
    # my seasonal strong hay fever ceased
    # a strong chest pain, for which I've been to hospital for one week 3 years ago without any diagnosis or treatment - particularly painful in physical or mental stressful situation - is gone now too.

    So already these 'minor' side-effects make me very grateful. Not to talk how glad I am about being able to walk faster than a snail again..
    However, in this respect there's still much improvement potential for me.

    Therefore, any clarifications - why it could have failed in your case - would be highly appreciated.

    Kind regards..

  • Dr. William Davis

    12/3/2009 11:53:19 PM |

    Hi, Kent--

    I'm glad it worked for you. Perhaps there are subsets of Lp(a) that respond, as Lp(a) is subject to great individual variation in behavior.

    It's also possible that it's the high-dose fish oil. We've seen such delayed responses to high-doses of EPA + DHA that take over a year to develop.

  • Dr. William Davis

    12/3/2009 11:55:44 PM |

    Hi, Anon--

    The experiences have been scattered, but all involved only C, lysine, and proline, though everyone here takes fish oil and vitamin D. Many also take magnesium. Most tried for about 6 months.

    So it's hardly a systematic study. But any hint of an effect would have been encouraging, but I have yet to see it.

  • David

    12/4/2009 2:24:47 AM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,

    What about exercise-induced hypertension? Do you still find that to be a persistent problem when all other biomarkers are optimal?

    Thanks,
    David

  • David

    12/4/2009 2:27:26 AM |

    Also, is there a way to know one has exercise-induced hypertension? Would one get headaches?

  • Dr. William Davis

    12/4/2009 3:14:39 AM |

    Hi, David--

    Yes and no. Following all the components of the program will reduce blood pressure. However, some people just don't respond as readily and hypertension with exercise and emotional stress persists. A simple stress test remains the best way to assess this.

  • Kent

    12/4/2009 6:20:49 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    I've thought about that concerning the high dose of fish oil. I'm wondering possibly if it's a synergizing effect of all the supplements, including the C, Lysine and Proline.

    I also wanted to mention that I split the doses up throughout the day. I've been informed that Vit C and L-Lysine only stay in the system for a short time, therefore, if you take it only once or twice a day, it's not going to have near the effect as splitting it up. I take 2g of the proline, lysine and C in the morning, then take the remaining amounts of C and Lysine throughout the day every 2 hours or so at 1g each, with my last dose at 5:00pm. I try to take my last dose a couple of hours before taking my Niacin, as I've heard the C can sometimes have a negative effect on the Niacin.

    My brother has high LP(a) as well, without seeing it go down. He was taking pretty much everything I was, with the exception of proline and only 4-5g of fish oil. And he was only taking the lysine and C twice a day. He has altered it to match more of what I'm doing, so we're anxious to see what his next blood test reveal.

    By the way, thanks to applying the principles you laid out in the book and here on your site, my other blood levels have been improved drastically. For that I am extremely greatful!

  • Anonymous

    12/4/2009 11:30:22 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    thanks for your clarification. I appreciate that you remain open to possibly more positive results with Pauling's protocol in the future..


    Hi Kent,

    what is the negative effect of vit C to Niacin you heard of? I'm aren't aware of any, though I too take the biggest part of vit C separate from meals, during which I use the Niacin.

    thanks..

  • StephenB

    12/6/2009 5:11:30 AM |

    For non-responders doing everything correctly but still holding on to lots of small LDL, what's happening to their heart scan scores?

    I was wondering if there were any possibility that small LDL is more associative of heart disease than causative.

  • Kent

    12/7/2009 4:11:09 PM |

    Hi Anon..

    The negative effects I've heard about Vit C to Niacin are spotty. What I've heard is that there is a possibility of any anti-oxident to diminish some possitive effects of Niacin, such as reducing it's HDL raising ability a bit. I don't know anyone personally that has experienced this, I just try not to the two together if possible.

  • Anonymous

    12/8/2009 3:08:01 AM |

    I try to filter out the "faith" based claims and stick with scientifically backed information.  Niacin improved my very low HDL by 30% but complete elimination of the exercise induced angina I had suffered disappeared for me when I subjected myself to high dose K2 for 6 months.  Nothing I have tried (including wheat elimination) enables me to stay off reasonably high dose statins

  • Anonymous

    12/8/2009 11:33:01 AM |

    Thanks for the reply, Kent. Though my HDL did raise about 18% within one year of 1.5 gram Niacin use, at 33 now it's still much too low.

    On your suggestion I'll try to take them more separated, beside raising the dose of Niacin. Which I think is advisable in my case due to Lp(a) anyway (57).

    What is the advised upper limit of the daily dose of Niacin at TYP?

  • Kent

    12/9/2009 6:17:13 PM |

    Anon..

    I really noticed a huge jump in my HDL, when I bumped Niacin from 1.5g to 2g, introduced high intake of fish oil, at least 7200mg to 9600mg, got vitamin D levels up, and alomost eleminated wheat. I went from HDL's of 40's/50's to 86.

    I believe the upper limit of Niacin depends on the type, wheter it be immediate, sustained, or slow release. Perhaps Dr. Davis could address that.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 3:42:21 PM |

    We are actively searching for better options for these two problem areas. Given the collective exploration and wisdom that develops from such collaborative efforts as the Track Your Plaque Forum, I am optimistic that we will have better answers for these two stumbling blocks to plaque reversal in the future.

Loading