Boy, was I wrong!

Around 10 years ago, I was talking to a balloon and stent manufacturer's representative, who was raving about some new device that was due for release to the market. Back then, the sky seemed the limit to cardiac device manufacturers, who were falling over themselves scrambling to design and market the next new device.

The angioplasty market then had ballooned (no pun intended) from nothing to a multi-billion dollar industry. Stents were just getting underway but clearly had potential for being at least as large.

But this was a time when preventive therapies were also beginning to get quite powerful. We had just gotten started doing CT heart scans and were excited about the possibilities, statin drugs were gaining evidence through clinical trials, and the power of many nutritional supplements was finally achieving validation. We were even learning the error of our prior low-fat ways.

So I broadly pronounced to the enthusiastic product representative, "In 10 years, balloons, angioplasty, and stents will occupy this little corner of cardiac care because prevention will have become so powerful. We won't talk about heart procedures. We'll talk about coronary plaque regression!"

I even advised the representative that he should consider a career change in anticipation of the coming wave of preventive strategies.

Was I ever wrong. Despite the power of heart disease prevention--which is indeed true--cardiac device and procedure technology has boomed, both in popularity as well as in revenue success. Device manufacturing and sales are hugely successful. Implanting devices into people is a hugely profitable enterprise.

Since my ill-timed comments to the salesman, Boston Scientific, a major manufacturer of stents and other cardiac devices, reported revenues of $6.2 billiondollars in 2005, a 12% increase over the prior year. Medtronic reported 2005 revenues of $11.3 billion, growing at 15% per year. Clearly, cardiac procedures are still quite popular--and profitable.

My timing was off, but not for long. The huge crest of change in preventive therapies is upon us. That's the premise behind the Track Your Plaque concept: heart disease prevention can't be found in a hospital, is not supported by cardiac device manufacturers, and is not being advocated by most cardiologists or primary care physicians. Yet the tools are getting better and better every day.

Those of you who succeed in halting or reducing your heart scan score are extremely unlikely to add to Boston Scientific's or Medtronic's revenues. Help me spread the word.

Don't forget how dangerous heart disease can be

Sometimes it's easy to get smug when coronary plaque is a reversible process.

When you see people day in, day out, week in, week out, drop their heart scan scores, reversing what could be a dangerous disease, you can sometimes lose sight of just how dangerous coronary disease can be.

Whether I like it or not, I maintain a reasonably active role in hospitals out of necessity. I do need their services occasionally for people with advanced heart disease when I meet them (when regression is not the initial conversation for safety reasons), or valve disease is diagnosed, or someone shows up with congenital or heart muscle diseases. In other words, although we focus on coronary issues, there's more to heart disease than just coronary disease.

This unfortunate case just served to remind me how powerful coronary disease can be. Elizabeth, an active 67-year old, finally came to the hospital after suffering 6 months of chest pain and increasing breathlessness. She hated hospitals and hadn't seen a doctor in 30 years since she was successfully treated for cancer.

In those 30 years, she'd been quite active with family and a small business. But she also smoked 2 packs of cigarettes most of those years.

After she was admitted to the hospital, it became clear that Elizabeth had experienced one, if not several, heart attacks along the way. The entire front 2/3 of her heart was non-functional. If that wasn't bad enough, two of her heart valves were severely diseased and dysfunctional: Her aortic valve barely opened (aortic valve "stenosis", or stiffness) and the mitral valve leaked severely (mitral valve "insufficiency", or leakiness). All of this was confirmed with conventional testing in the hospital, including a heart catheterization.

Elizabeth ended up in emergency surgery--very unusual, by the way, for valve surgery of the sort she had--but died in the first few hours after her procedure. Her heart had simply been too damaged from her heart attacks, and the extraordinary stress of surgery that included two valves was too much. She died on the ventilator.

Coronary disease is a very serious matter. When I see cases like Elizabeth, it boosts my commitment to tell everyone that heart disease--when identified early enough--is a controllable, preventable, even reversible process. For poor Elizabeth, she was much too far down the path of severe, irreversible disease that control or reversal was simply not an option. She was in imminent danger of dying even upon arrival.

It's exciting yet sometimes frightening to know what you have in your hands: The means to control this monster called coronary disease. Use it wisely. But don't lose sight of what it can do it you permit it to grow, fester, and explode.

How many ways can you disguise sugar?

I came across this shockingly silly report on AOL, who obtained their info courtesy Health Magazine:

The Best New Healthy Foods for Busy People
from Health


The foods on their list:

Kettle Brand Bakes Hickory Honey BBQ--the healthy claim is based on the lack of trans-fatty acids and low-fat.










Post Healthy Classics Raisin Bran Cereal Bars, Cranberry--Likewise, low-fat, sweet, and addictive means healthy to these people.




Amy’s Mediterranean Pizza With Cornmeal Crust --Please!!



Horizon Organic Colby Cheese Sticks --Because it's made by cattle without use of growth hormone or antibiotics, they declare this healthy. I guess we can ignore the saturated fat content and high total fat content.

100% Whole Grain Chips Ahoy! Cookies --You mean we can add the bran back to wheat products and make it healthy?!


This kind of mass-market marketing trickery leaves me incredulous. Don't believe it for a moment. This is typical of the food industry: Take one aspect of nutrition that is truly healthy, such as high-fiber, or low-fat, or organic. Then add undesirable, unhealthy ingredients. The current fad is to add lots of sugar and or sugar-equivalents (usually flour and other wheat products). Because there's one healthy ingredient, they'll call the end-product healthy, too.

If you want to see what health looks like if you indulge in "healthy" products like this, just look up and down the grocery aisles at your neighborhood grocery store. You're likely to see the results: Gross obesity, diabetes, and arthritis.

You won't, of course, see the huge acceleration of growth in coronary plaque, but it's there, ticking away.

To remind us what ideal body weight is: Watch an old movie!

Jack was skeptical. At 273 lbs, 5 ft 11 inches, he felt that he was "just right".

"I feel fine. I don't see why you think I should lose weight," he declared. "In fact, when I lost 25 lbs a couple of years ago, everyone said I was too skinny!"

I showed Jack why: He had an HDL of 35 mg/dl, small LDL (over 90% of all LDL particles), an elevated blood sugar of 123 mg/dl (diabetes is officially 126 mg/dl or greater), high blood pressure, and increased inflammation (C-reactive protein). These were all manifestations that his body weight was too much for it to handle.




So I told Jack that we've all forgotten what ideal weight should look like. Our perception of "normal" has been so utterly and dramatically distorted by the appearance of our friends, family, co-workers, and other people around us that we've all lost a sense of what a desirable weight for health should be.




So I suggested to Jack that, if he wanted to rememember what ideal weight is and what people are supposed to look like, just watch old movies.

Old movies, like the 1942 production of Casablanca, or the 1952 production of Singin' in the Rain, show the body build that was prevalent in those days. Look at Humphrey Bogart or Gene Kelly--men with average builds, weighing 140-160 lbs--that's how humans were meant to look.

A report this morning on the Today Show showed the "after" photos of several people following bariatric (weight reduction) surgery. The "after" pictures, from the perspective of ideal weight and ideal health, remain hugely overweight.

We need to readjust our perceptions of weight. The average woman in the U.S. now weighs 172 lbs(!!!). Don't confuse average with desirable.

Diabetes is a choice you make

Tim had heart disease identified as a young man. He had his first heart attack followed by a quadruple bypass surgery at age 38. Recurrent anginal chest pain and another small heart attack led to several stents over three procedures in the first four years after bypass.

Tim finally came to us, interested in improving his prevention program. You name it, he had it: small LDL, low HDL (28 mg/dl), lipoprotein(a), etc. The problem was that Tim was also clearly pre-diabetic. At 5 ft 10 inches, he weighed 272 lbs--easily 80 or more pounds overweight.

Tim was willing to make the medication and nutritional supplement changes to gain control over his seeminglly relentless disease. He even turned up his exercise program and lost 28 lbs in the beginning. But as time passed and no symptoms recurred, he became lax.

Tim regained all the weight he'd lost and some more. Now Tim was diabetic.

"I don't get it. I eat good foods that shouldn't raise my insulin. I almost never eat sweets."

I stressed to Tim that diabetes and pre-diabetes, while provoked acutely by sugar-equivalent foods (wheat products, breads, breakfast cereals, crackers, etc.), is caused chronically by excess weight. If Tim wants to regain control over his heart disease, he needed to lost the weight.

Unlike, say, leukemia, an unfortunate disease that has little to do with lifestyle choices, diabetes is a choice you make over 90% of the time. In other words, if you become diabetic (adult variety, not children's variety) as an adult, that's because you've chosen to follow that path. You've neglected physical activity, or indulged in too many calories or poor food choices, or simply allowed weight to balloon out of control.

But diabetes is also a path most people can choose not to take. And it is a painfully common choice: Nearly two-thirds of the adults in my office have patterns of pre-diabetes or diabetes when I first meet them.

Let me stress this: For the vast majority of adults, diabetes is a choice, not an inevitability.

I'll call the doctor when I feel bad!

Max just had his heart scan. He sat down with the x-ray technologist at the work console while she pointed out the white areas in his coronary arteries that represented plaque.

"It looks like you're going to have a fairly high score," the technologist commented. "The final report will be available after one of our cardiologists reviews your images."

Max shrugged. "Well, I don't feel anything. I'm always running around with work, with my kids, stuff like that. That's better than any stress test. I guess I'll worry about it if it starts to bother me."


You'd be surprised how common this view remains: If it's not bothering you, then just forget about it. It's easy to do, since you have no symptoms, nothing to impair your physical activities. But what are the potential consequences of ignoring your heart scan? Here's a few:

--Prevention and plaque reversal efforts are most effective the earlier you start. From a heart scan score viewpoint, the lower your starting score, the easier it is to gain control over it. More people will succeed in reducing their score when the starting score is lower.

--The role of prevention of heart disease instantly crystallizes when you know your score. Your LDL cholesterol of 142 mg/dl or HDL of 41 mg/dl no longer seem like just numbers of borderline signficance. Instead, they become useful tools to gain control over plaque. They cast your numbers in a new and clear light.

--Knowing your heart scan score today gives you a basis for comparison in future. Your score of, say 250, today, can be 220 in one year. Without your preventive efforts, it will be 30% higher: 325. That's a big difference!

--Sudden death or heart attack--can occur in up to 35-40% of people with hidden heart disease--without warning.

Don't even bother getting a heart scan if you're going to ignore it. I've said it before and I'll say it again: A heart scan is the most important health test you can get--but only if you do something about it.

Coenzyme Q10 and statin drugs

Although drug manufacturers claim that muscle side effects from statin drugs occurs in only around 2% or people or less, my experience is very different.

I see muscle weakness and achiness develop in the majority of people taking Lipitor, Crestor, Zocor, Vytorin, etc. I'd estimate that nearly 90% of people get these feelings sooner or later.

Thankfully, the majority of the time these feelings are annoyances and do not lead to any impairment. Full-blown muscle destruction is truly rare--I've seen it once in over 10 years and thousands of patients.

The higher the dose of statin drug and the longer you take it, the more likely you're going to have muscle aches.

I experienced a strange phemomenon myself today. I worked outdoors for about 4 hours, pulling weeds, digging in the dirt, spreading topsoil. (I have an area of overgrowth in the front yard.) Admittedly, I worked pretty hard and it was a warm, humid day.

I was sore, as you'd expect at age 49. But, much more than that, I was exhausted--my muscles ached and I had barely enough strength to get up the stairs.

Hoping for some relief, I took an extra dose of coenzyme Q10. I usually take 50-100 mg per day. Today, when I felt this overwhelming muscle fatigue, I took an additional 200 mg. Within 10 minutes, I felt a surge of energy. It was, in fact, a perceptible, quite dramatic feeling.

I am thoroughly convinced, through my own experiences on Lipitor (I have a high LDL particle number despite a healthy lifestyle, among other abnormalities), and the experiences of many other people, that coenzyme Q10 can be an extremely useful tool to minimize the muscle aches and weakness of the statin drugs.

If you do indeed need to take one of these agents, coenzyme Q10 is worth knowing about. Supplementing coenzyme Q10 has, for me, been a real lifesaver. For many people, LDL reduction is a crucial part of their heart scan score control program. In my experience, many of them would not be able to take the drug without eozyme Q10.

Blast your LDL with oat bran and almonds

Nearly all of us can use an extra boost in reducing LDL cholesterol. We have a large number of people, in fact, who have reduced LDL into the Track Your Plaque range of 60 mg/dl or less without the use of statin cholesterol-reducing drugs.




Oat bran is among my favorite ways to reduce LDL. Three tablespoons per day is a really effective method to drop your LDL around 20 points. There's twice the beta glucan (soluble, or "viscous", fiber)in oat bran, as compared to the more popular oatmeal. Add oat bran to anything you can think of: yogurt, cottage cheese, vegetarian chili, oatmeal, top desserts with it, etc. Some people struggle to find oat bran in the grocery store. Most health food stores that sell bulk products will have oat bran, usually less than a $1 per pound. Many grocery stores will also have an oat bran hot cereal along with the Cream of Wheat and oatmeal. That's okay, provided the only ingredient is oat bran--no added sugars, etc.





Another dynamite method to reduce LDL 10-20 points is adding raw almonds to your daily food choices. One or two handfuls per day works great. We find it at Sam's Club for around $12.99 for a 3 lb. bag. The plentiful fibers and monounsaturates in almonds keep you full and satisified, take the edge off your sweet tooth, and even blunt the blood sugar rise caused by other foods.

Both these foods are also great ways to combat the metabolic syndrome. Since both fiber-rich oat bran and almonds slow the release of sugars into the blood, blood insulin level is also reduced. This results in a happy cascade of less small LDL, increased HDL, and a reduction in inflammation.

All these wonderful effects contribute to inching you closer to success: dropping your heart scan score.

Pre-diabetes with normal blood sugar

We pay special attention to pre-diabetes, in all its varied manifestations, in the Track Your Plaque program. This is because these factors are potent instigators of coronary plaque growth.

Early in the Track Your Plaque program we ignored these measures. After all, this is a program for heart disease risk reduction, not for mangement of diabetes. But we saw explosive rates of plaque growth when pre-diabetic factors were not controlled--even when cholesterol and related factors were under excellent control.

It became increasingly clear that factors associated with pre-diabetes needed to be managed, as well. This includes small LDL, increased blood sugar, high blood pressure, increased inflammation (as CRP).

Many people, however, have normal blood sugars (100 mg/dl or less) with a high blood insulin level (>10 microunits/ml). (This blood test is available in most laboratories.) This means that they have early resistance to insulin. The pancreas, the source of insulin, responds to the body's unresponsiveness to insulin by increasing insulin production.

Increased blood insulin with normal blood sugar will drive production of higher triglycerides, a drop in HDL, creation of small LDL, and inflammation--and coronary plaque growth, as evidenced by increasing CT heart scan score.

Blood insulin levels can be very effectively dropped by weight loss; exercise; reduction of processed carbohydrates like breads, pretzels, and breakfast cereals; and increased raw nuts and oat products; and vitamin D replacement to normal levels. Drug manufacturers are desperately trying to make this a mandate for drug treatment (Actos, Avandia), but are encountering resistance, since most people without overt diabetes don't want to take diabetic medication (rightly so!).

You and your doctor should consider insulin as a factor to track, especially if you have small LDL, low HSL, or high triglycerides, or any of the other manifestations listed above.

Sometimes small LDL is the only abnormality

Janet is a 58-year old schoolteacher. At 5 ft 3 inches and 104 lbs, she had barely an ounce of fat on her size-2 body. For years, Janet's primary care physician complimented her on her cholesterol numbers: LDL cholesterol values ranging from 100 to 130 mg/dl; HDL cholesterol of 50-53 mg/dl.

Yet she had coronary disease. Her heart scan score: 195.

Lipoprotein analysis uncovered a single cause: small LDL. 95% of all of Janet's LDL particles were in the small category. What was surprising was that this pattern occurred despite her slender build. Weight is a powerful influence on the small LDL pattern and the majority of people with it are overweight to some degree. But not Janet.

How did she get small LDL if she was already at or below her ideal weight? Genetics. Among the genetic patterns that can account for this pattern is a defect of an enzyme called cholesteryl-ester transfer protein, or CETP. This is the exact step, by the way, that is blocked by torcetrapib, the new agent slated for release sometime in future (The manufacturer, Pfizer, is apparently going to sell this agent only packaged in the same tablet as Lipitor. This has triggered an enormous amount of criticism against the company and they are, as a result discussing marketing torcetrapib separately.)

Also note that Janet had a severe excess of small LDL despite an HDL in the "favorable" range. (See my earlier conversation on this issue, The Myth of Small LDL at http://drprevention.blogspot.com/2006/06/myth-of-small-ldl.html.)

With Janet, weight loss to reduce small LDL was not an option. So we advised her to take fish oil, 4000 mg per day; niacin, 1000 mg per day; vitamin D, 2000 units per day; use abundant oat bran and raw almonds, both of which suppress small LDL. This regimen has--surprisingly--only partially suppressed her small LDL pattern by a repeat lipoprotein analysis we just performed. We're hoping this may do it, i.e., stop progression or reduce her heart scan score.

The lesson: Small LDL is a very potent pattern that can be responsible for heart disease, even if it occurs in isolation. And, contrary to conventional thinking, small LDL can occur as an independent abnormality, even when HDL is at favorable levels.
Saturated fat and large LDL

Saturated fat and large LDL

Here's a half-truth I often encounter in low-carb discussions:

Saturated fat increases large LDL particles


For those of you unfamiliar with the argument, I advocate a low-carbohydrate approach, specifically elimination of all wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, to reduce expression of the small LDL pattern (not to mention reduction of triglycerides, relief from acid reflux and irritable bowel, weight loss, various rashes, diabetes, etc). Small LDL particles have become the most common cause for heart disease in the U.S., exploding on the scene ever since agencies like the USDA and American Heart Association have been advising the public to increase consumption of "healthy whole grains."

This has led some to make the pronouncement that saturated fat increases large LDL, thereby representing a benign effect.

Is this true?

It is true, but only partly. Let me explain.

There are two general categories of factors causing small LDL particles: lifestyle (overweight, excess carbohydrates) and genetics (e.g., variants of the gene coding for cholesteryl-ester transfer protein, or CETP).

If small LDL is purely driven by excess carbohydrates, then adding saturated fat will reduce small LDL and increase large LDL.

If, on the other hand, your small LDL is genetically programmed, then saturated fat will increase small LDL. In other words, saturated fat tends to increase the dominant or genetically-determined form of LDL. If your dominant genetically-determined form is small, then saturated fat increases small LDL particles.

So to say that saturated fat increases large LDL is an oversimplification, one that can have dire consequences in the wrong situation.

Comments (44) -

  • Anonymous

    2/16/2010 10:02:36 PM |

    Is there an inexpensive way of finding out which form you have?

  • Anonymous

    2/16/2010 11:02:49 PM |

    is there any truth to the idea that if your trig/HDL ratio is under 2.0 that your LDL type is predominantly large/buoyant?

  • Laura

    2/16/2010 11:37:17 PM |

    Is there a way to determine whether small LDL production is carb- or genetics-caused?

  • Anonymous

    2/16/2010 11:43:41 PM |

    Is this the same for poly/mono unsaturated fatty acids?

  • Anonymous

    2/16/2010 11:46:43 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Does the form of saturated fat have any impact on this in the case of genetic predisposition to small LDL formation? For example, does it matter if the fatty acids are lauric acid and stearic acid versus something like palmitic acid?

    Rick Braden

  • Daniel

    2/16/2010 11:50:11 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
    That's very interesting!!  Any chance you could provide the reference?
    Thanks, Dan

  • jtkeith

    2/17/2010 12:26:14 AM |

    This naturally leads to the question about understanding our personal genetic coding.  Without that coding information it seems difficult make an informed decision about the consequences of lowering carbohydrate and increasing fat (and saturated fat) until the consequences are upon you!

  • David

    2/17/2010 12:38:19 AM |

    This definitely needs a follow-up post. I've not seen this distinction until now. If true, Dr. Davis, does it not present a difficult dilemma for those who have both genetic sdLDL and Lp(a)? If saturated fat needs to be restricted for genetically high sdLDL, would this not leave the Lp(a) (which responds best to saturated fat intake) unopposed? What is your proposal to address this?

  • Ellen

    2/17/2010 1:09:25 AM |

    Interesting post, Dr. Davis. How would one find out if they are genetically predisposed to react to saturated fat intake with an increase in small LDL?

  • Harold

    2/17/2010 1:38:12 AM |

    Do you have some specific references for LDLa and saturated fat? Is it essentially congenital hypercholesterolemia that reacts with the sat fat?

  • steve

    2/17/2010 1:49:56 AM |

    this is a long overview discussion. thank you!  What would dietary recommendation be for someone if small LDL is genetic in origin?  Also, wouldn't this pattern possibly require statins to get LDL particle count as low as possible since it is unlikely that diet will do the job?  In my case, i need Lipitor and Zetia; otherwise my particle count mostly small remains high despite Vit D, normal weight,no wheat cornstarch or sugar.  Great post!

  • Anonymous

    2/17/2010 1:50:56 AM |

    Doc -

    Good post but -

    Hard to understand post without the background basis on which the statement is made.

    Is your statement based on clinical observations? Or is it based on opinion only?

  • switters

    2/17/2010 4:44:09 AM |

    Yes, references supporting your premise in this article would be very welcome.

  • Paul

    2/17/2010 9:46:22 AM |

    This post concerns me because as a low carber I find it difficult to maintain a low carb diet without saturated fat sources. Perhaps this is driving the concern and questions from others also.

  • Rabbi HIrsch Meisels

    2/17/2010 2:14:23 PM |

    Count me in those who are waiting to see data where this is coming from.
    Thanks for all your blogs posts.

  • zach

    2/17/2010 3:26:16 PM |

    Yes, I hope this isn't a hit and run post. Many learned people, such as Peter at hyperlipid would probably disagree. Do you have any references?

  • Alfredo E.

    2/17/2010 3:48:38 PM |

    So what do we do if we should not eat but a few carbos and up to certain amount of protein?

    The rest have to be saturated fats, isn't it?

    Please, some more practical information before we all run over the cliff.

  • Anonymous

    2/17/2010 5:48:11 PM |

    Harold, I am also interested in the familial hypercholesterolemia question.  After a quick search, I found this http://www.jlr.org/cgi/reprint/23/8/1196.pdf with a quote: "LDL has been
    found to be cholesterol-enriched and triglyceride-poor
    (5, 6), and in one study, the peak flotation rate of FH LDL
    has been found to be higher than in normals (6),
    implying decreased density, increased size, or both.
    However, these results are difficult to assess, since there
    is considerable heterogeneity of LDL in normal subjects,
    although size, flotation rate, and composition"

    So, FH people may be predisposed to large, fluffy LDL.  However, I do not know whether FHs handle saturated fats better than normals, and this is an important question.  

    -Aaron

  • Anonymous

    2/17/2010 5:54:55 PM |

    A question on triglycerides...if high TGs are a trigger for small, dense LDL and should be minimized, are there any ways to reduce area-under-the-curve TGs after a meal (other than the usual low carb, omega-3, etc. recommendations).  Are large, infrequent meals better than small, frequent meals?  Does fiber change the shape of the post-meal TG curve?

    Also, does fasting TG tell the whole story?  Could one have, say, <50 mg/dL fasting TG but have elevated TG throughout the day as a result of large, high-fat meals?  

    -Aaron

  • Anonymous

    2/17/2010 7:04:29 PM |

    Thank you Dr. Davis!  Finally a voice of sanity in this whole sat fat hoopla.

    I for one, although not neurotic about it, do not favor saturated fats and will eat a good non-hydrogenated margarine (like Smart Balance) over butter any day.

    Please keep up this sane blog and give us the WHOLE enchilada, not just what some want to hear.

  • Dr. William Davis

    2/17/2010 7:47:07 PM |

    Search PubMed or Google Scholar and you will find NO data on this issue. To my knowledge, there are none that distinguish genetically -driven small LDL vs. lifestyle-induced.

    This is based on having tested lipoproteins in thousands of people over the past 10+ years.

    Prototypical "genetic small LDL" person: 5 ft 10 inch, 140 lb male who eats low-carb. In other words this person is at ideal weight and does not eat foods that trigger small LDL--yet has 90% small LDL by NMR (e.g., 1200 nmol/L, LDL particle number 1550 nmol/L). Should this person overindulge in saturated fat, small LDL will go up.

  • Scott Miller

    2/17/2010 8:46:27 PM |

    Dr. Davis, how do you know it is saturated fats that are the cause? For example, most low-carbers also have elevated intake of inflammatory polyunsaturated fatty acids, which I would be much more likely to blame.  But, in either case, it seems there are too many uncontrolled variables involved (as far as food intake) to pin any of them to the wall.

    It's very difficult for me to believe saturated fat is the cause, while other possibilities exist.

  • Anonymous

    2/17/2010 9:08:19 PM |

    For everyone worrying about this, just get yourself a VAP or NMR test.  If you have LP(a) or sdLDL, that will show it.  You don't need genetic testing.

  • Anonymous

    2/17/2010 10:27:45 PM |

    What's are the trig and HDL numbers for the prototypical "genetic small LDL" person?

  • Anonymous

    2/17/2010 11:09:09 PM |

    Thanks Dr. Davis for another insightful post from your clinical experience, giving the kind of information that helps elucidate why saturated fat works for some and not for others - and the kind of information you can't get anywhere else.  Ignore the pro saturated fat/anti-polyunsaturated fat zealots, who can't be persuaded by any evidence or logic.

  • Anonymous

    2/17/2010 11:10:11 PM |

    "What's are the trig and HDL numbers for the prototypical "genetic small LDL" person?"

    I'd like to second that - can one have high HDL and low trigs and still have a small LDL pattern?

  • Kurt G. Harris MD

    2/18/2010 12:56:55 AM |

    Hello Dr. Davis

    You said:

    "Should this person overindulge in saturated fat, small LDL will go up."

    Just to be clear, are you saying you have observed low carb subjects (how low?) that have added saturated fat to their diets and then on subsequent testing you have seen sdLDL rise in absolute and percentage terms?

    If they were truly LC, were they already high sat fat at the time of the NMR or were they high PUFA (South Beach?)

    May I ask how many such cases you have seen?

    You should definitely publish this, or if you don't think it is publishable maybe you could give us all the data in a blog post.

    Thanks, this is very interesting.

  • Dr. William Davis

    2/18/2010 1:52:52 AM |

    In people with presumptive genetically-determined small LDL, HDL can be 70 mg/dl or greater, triglycerides 45 mg/dl or less, yet small LDL persists, usually at 600 nmol/L (NMR).

    I have approximately 100 patients like this. They tend to be very thin with BMI's of 23 or so, yet small LDL persists.

  • Stephen

    2/18/2010 3:11:53 AM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,

    This post really intrigues me. I am a first year medical student (24 yo) with familial hypercholesterolemia. I am on a low carb paleo diet, taking omega 3, vit D and just recently added magnesium to the mix as well. I went off Lipitor two months ago just an experiment to go along with this new eating plan, and received blood work only a few days ago. Numbers about 450 on total and 285 for LDL. My CT scan already showed plaque buildup in the coronary arteries, aorta, and one valve. While I am not looking for medical advice per se (since I know you prefer not to give it over your blog) I was just curious as to how your track the plaque plan and recommendations are effected with this type of genetic disorder. My cardiologist says if I dont go on drugs immediately I'll have a cardiac event at 40 years of age. I could use some advice and direction to persue. Is it impossible to avoid genetics, and the use of drugs are unavoidable? Thanks. Really appreciate it.

  • Anonymous

    2/18/2010 3:15:38 AM |

    How do you know how much small LDL you have?

  • Bonnie

    2/18/2010 3:53:00 AM |

    ""I'd like to second that - can one have high HDL and low trigs and still have a small LDL pattern?""

    Well - just speaking for myself, I have high HDL and low trigs, and always had a mix of small/large (A/B) pattern LDL.  When I stopped eating wheat, my LDL all became large.  

    I also have high Lp(a), which was uneffected by my eliminating wheat.

    You can drive yourself crazy figuring out what's OK to eat and what's not.  I don't worry about it anymore.  I rarely eat wheat because I've seen results from Not eating it, try not to overdo the sugar and fruit, get plenty of veggies and protein.  

    I get my VAP test once or twice a year to make sure everything is where it should be, more or less.

    I'm just not going to worry about it beyond that.  

    Bonnie

  • LeenaS

    2/18/2010 4:12:28 AM |

    Dr. Harris:

    Are these customers of yours lean lowcarbers eating plenty of LA or very, very much protein in their diet? If not, then what do they eat?

    With regards,
    LeenaS

  • Mike

    2/18/2010 4:26:28 AM |

    Interesting, and concerning, since I fit that description:

    Chol: 6.35mmol/L
    HDL: 1.88
    LDL: 4.2
    Triglycerides: 0.66
    Chol/HDL ratio: 3.4
    American Values:  TG 58.47 LDL 162.54 HDL 72.75
    Triglyceride/HDL ratio: 0.8
    Hieght: 6'0
    Wieght: 165lbs
    BF 8%

    I've had other opinions on these numbers; should I be pursuing more accurate particle numbers?  I go out of my way to consume large amounts of red meat, coconut oil, butter, and eggs.  I'm fitter and healthier (subjectively) than I ever have been at 36 than I was in my 20's.  I find it disconcerting than I could potentially be doing something detrimental.

  • Kurt G. Harris MD

    2/18/2010 4:43:49 AM |

    Hi Dr. Davis

    In the original post you said:

    "saturated fat will increase small LDL.  In other words, saturated fat tends to increase the dominant or genetically-determined form of LDL."

    So, if I follow this correctly, you are saying that these 100 patients all had increases in their sdLDL after documented increases in saturated fat in their diets? In other words you had two data points for each subject, correct?

    If the subjects did not all have documented increases in sLDL then by "persist", do you mean their sdLDL went down with LC eating (like 800 to 600, say) or do you just mean that they had a single high value and it was only measured once, but it was high?

    If it is the latter, I could see how it's fair to say that some LC eaters have a higher sdLDL than we might predict (for whatever reason) but it seems like a non sequiter to conclude that the sdLDL would be made higher with more sat fat consumption.

    I just want to make sure I get this straight so I understand it correctly.

  • Paul

    2/18/2010 6:19:52 AM |

    Thin. Nice. I'm less concerned. lol

  • Anonymous

    2/18/2010 1:22:06 PM |

    Does this group of people also have elevated blood sugar, as might be predicted by another of your blog postings?

    http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/to-track-small-ldl-track-blood-sugar.html

  • David

    2/19/2010 3:10:43 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    I concur with Dr. Harris in that more details would be nice to better understand exactly what you're saying.

    Are other variables accounted for? Were many, most, or all of these patients on statin drugs, which could have prevented a shift in particle size if triglycerides were low and insulin sensitivity was high?

    Again, if there is such a phenomenon going on, is the "genetic sdLDL" clearly atherogenic in the same way that "environmental sdLDL" seems to be?

    If so, I ask again, what is the solution for someone who is afflicted by both Lp(a) and genetic sdLDL? The "profile" for genetic sdLDL is similar to the profile for those with Lp(a), and there is probably a lot of crossover. Saturated fat lowers Lp(a), but (presumably) raises genetic sdLDL. This is a fierce dilemma! Would not the better choice be to choose the diet that opposes the more vicious of the two, which is Lp(a)? What is the priority?

    Has a high SFA diet only increased sdLDL per NMR, or has it also clearly been shown to increase CAC scores? In other words, does it clearly progress the disease itself?

    David

  • pmpctek

    3/7/2010 5:50:15 PM |

    Saturated fats not linked to heart disease: Meta-analysis - American Society for Clinical Nutrition (January 13, 2010). doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.27725 © 2010

    It would really be interesting to know what the primary sources of saturated fat are for these "100 patients".  There may be a single (widely available) common source of sat fat that these specific patients are consuming, do we even know that?  I agree, by what has been revealed, that there are too many variables to know conclusively that saturated fat is the cause of their persistently elevated small LDL.

    Mark me down as someone who is not convinced that CLA, n3 rich organic, free range, and wild animal sources of fat could possibly in any way be detrimental to anyone.

  • Anonymous

    4/19/2010 1:45:33 PM |

    When will people stop worrying about cholesterol numbers? They really don't mean anything.

    Until someone explains a plausible mechanism through which lipoproteins directly kill me I will ignore it any suggestion that they do. This is what a good scientist would do.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:44:37 PM |

    If, on the other hand, your small LDL is genetically programmed, then saturated fat will increase small LDL. In other words, saturated fat tends to increase the dominant or genetically-determined form of LDL. If your dominant genetically-determined form is small, then saturated fat increases small LDL particles.

  • Chris Kresser

    11/3/2010 6:55:04 PM |

    buy jeans: I'd love to see clinical evidence supporting that claim.

  • gastric bypass surgery Los Angeles

    2/28/2011 2:33:52 PM |

    Heart diseases are a major matter of concern these days therefore all that can be done to correct the diet and make it benefit good health should be taken to.

Loading