Why an RDA for vitamin D? 24. January 2009 William Davis (10) The Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) of the Institute of Medicine is charged with setting the values for the Recommended Daily Allowances of various essential nutrients. However, when it comes to vitamin D, the FNB decided that "evidence is insufficient to develop an RDA and [an Adequate Intake, AI] is set at a level assumed to ensure nutritional adequacy."The National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements lists the AI's for various groups of people:14-18 years Male 200 IUFemale 200 IU 19-50 years Male 200 IUFemale 200 IU 51-70 years Male 400 IUFemale 400 IU 71+ years Male 600 IUFemale 600 IU A reconsideration is apparently being planned in near-future that will (hopefully) incorporate the newest clinical data on vitamin D. My question: Who cares what the FNB decides? Let me explain. I monitor blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D to assess the 1) starting level of vitamin D without supplementation, and 2) levels while on supplementation, preferably every 6 months (during sunny weather, during cold weather). I have done for the past 3 years in over 1000 people. The requirement for vitamin D dose in adults, in my experience, ranges from as low as 1000 units per day to as high as 20,000 units per day, rarely more. The vast majority of women require 5000 units per day, males 6000 units per day to maintain a blood level in the desirable range. (I aim for 60-70 ng/ml.) A graph of the distribution of vitamin D needs in my area (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) is a bell curve, a curve more heavily weighted towards the upper vitamin D dose range. Need for vitamin D to achieve the same blood level is influenced by age, sex, body size, race, presence or absence of a gallbladder, as well as other factors. But needs vary, even among similar people. For instance, a 50-year old woman weighing 140 lbs might need 4000 units per day to achieve a blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D of 65 ng/ml. Another 50-year old woman weighing 140 lbs might need 8000 units to achieve the same level, and 4000 units might increase her level to only 38 ng/ml. Two similar women, very different vitamin D needs. The differences can be striking. Being a hormone--not a vitamin, as it was incorrectly labeled--vitamin D needs to be tightly regulated. We should have neither too little nor too much. I would liken it to thyroid hormones, which need to be tightly regulated for ideal health. Now the FNB, in light of new data, wants to set new AI's, or even RDA's, for vitamin D for the U.S. This is an impossible--impossible--task. There is no way a broad policy can be crafted that serves everyone. It is impossible to state that all men or women, categorized by age, require X units vitamin D. This is pure folly and it is misleading. The only rational answer for the FNB to provide is to declare that:It is not possible to establish the precise need for vitamin D in a specific individual because of the multiplicity of factors, only some of which are known, that determine vitamin D needs. Individual need can only be determined by assessing the blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D prior to initiation of replacement and periodically following replacement to assess the adequacy of replacement dose. Continuing reassessment is recommended (e.g., every 6-12 months), as needs change with weight, lifestyle, and age. Sure, it adds around $100-150 per year per person for lab testing to assess vitamin D levels. But the health gains made--reduced fractures, reduced incidence of diabetes, reduced colon, breast, and prostate cancer, less depression, reduced heart attack and heart procedures--will more than compensate.
Bargains for Armour Thyroid 23. January 2009 William Davis (10) We use Armour thyroid almost exclusively. I take it myself. I am thoroughly convinced that, for at least 70% of people requiring thyroid replacement, the added T3 component makes a world of difference compared to isolated T4: More energy, greater alertness, better mental clarity, better weight loss, larger effects on lipoprotein(a). However, there are substantial price disparities in different pharmacies. For instance, in Milwaukee, a one month supply of 1 grain (60 mg) tablets costs:Walgreen's: $36.00Walmart: $9.54That's a considerable price difference of nearly 400%. It therefore always pays to do a little bit of shopping.
Heart scan mis-information on WebMD 22. January 2009 William Davis (3) If you want information on how prescription drugs fit into your life, then go to WebMD. But, if you are looking for information that cuts through the bullcrap, is untainted by the heavy-handed tactics of the drug industry, or doesn't support the "a heart catheterization for everyone" mentality, then don't go there. A Heart Scan Blog reader turned up this gem on the WebMD site:Should I have a coronary calcium scan to check for heart disease?In their report, they list some reasons why a heart scan should not be obtained: Most of the time, a physical exam and other tests can give your doctor enough information about your risk for heart disease.You've got to be kidding me. What tests are they talking about? EKG? An EKG is a crude test that tells us virtually nothing about the coronary arteries or risk for heart attack. It is helpful for heart rhythm disorders and other abnormalities, but virtually useless for coronary disease unless a heart attack is underway or has already occurred. Cholesterol? What level of cholesterol tells you whether you have heart disease? Tim Russert, for instance, had the same cholesterol values 5 years before his death as on the day of his death. How would cholesterol have told his doctor that heart disease was present? Does an LDL cholesterol of 180 mg/dl tell you that someone has heart disease, while a value of 130 mg/dl does not?Stress test? You mean like the normal stress test Bill Clinton had 3 months before his near-fatal collapse? Stress tests are a gauge of coronary flow, not of coronary atherosclerosis. Huge amounts of coronary plaque can be present while a stress test--flow--remains normal.No, a physical exam does not uncover hidden heart disease. The annual physical is, in fact, a miserable failure for detection of hidden heart disease. You already know that your risk for heart disease is low or high. The test works best in people who are at medium risk but have no symptoms. This bit of fiction comes from a compromise statement in the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association "consensus" document detailing the role of heart scans in heart disease detection. Because conventional thinkers don't like the idea of very early detection in seemingly "low risk" people, nor do they like the idea of diabetics and smokers getting a heart scan because it's "obvious" that they are already at high risk, the middle ground was taken: Scan only people at "intermediate risk." What the heck is "intermediate risk"? Are you intermediate risk? In real life, using standard criteria (e.g., Framingham scoring) to decide who is low-, intermediate-, or high-risk fails to identify over 1/3 of people with heart disease, while subjecting many without heart disease (plaque) to needless treatment (meaning statins, since that's the only real preventive treatment on most doc's armamentarium).Another fact: Heart scans are quantitative, not just normal or abnormal. Your heart scan score could be 5, it could be 150, it could be 500, or 5000---it makes a world of difference. The risk of someone with a score of 5000 is at very different risk than someone with a score of 5. It also provides much greater precision in determining a specific individual's risk. The test could give a high score even if your arteries aren't blocked. This might lead to extra tests that you don't need.This is true--if you doctor has no idea what he's doing. This is like saying that you should never take your car to the repair shop because all mechanics are crooks. If you have an unscrupulous cardiologist who tells you that your heart scan score of 25 means you are a "walking time bomb" and heart catheterization is necessary to determine whether you "need" a stent . . . well, this is no different than the shady mechanic who advises you that your car's engine needs to be rebuilt for $3000, when all you really needed was a few new spark plugs. Coronary plaque is coronary plaque, and all coronary plaque has potential for rupture (heart attack)--even if it doesn't block flow. This is true at a score of 10, or 100, or 1000--all plaque is potentially rupture-prone, though the more plaque you have, the greater the likelihood. Not all blocked arteries have calcium. So you could get a low calcium score and still be at risk. They're missing the point: ANY calcium score carries risk, so a low score should not be interpreted as having no risk. But, just because a procedure like stenting or bypass surgery is not necessary to restore flow, it does not mean that risk for plaque rupture is not present--it is. Any heart scan score should be taken seriously, meaning sufficient reason to engage in a program of heart disease prevention. Although not perfect, coronary calcium scoring remains the easiest, most accessible, and least expensive means for identifying and quantifying coronary atherosclerosis--whether or not WebMD and drug industry money endorse them.
Heart disease prevention for the helpless, ignorant, or non-compliant 19. January 2009 William Davis (9) The media outlets are gushing with the "research"/marketing spinoff of the JUPITER trial, an analysis conducted by Dr. Erica Spatz of Yale University, that suggests that statin use should be expanded to many millions more Americans. USA Today: Study: 11M more should get statinsMedPage: JUPITER Findings Could Boost Statin Use by 20%Health Day: Millions More Americans Might Be Placed on StatinsWebMD: More May Benefit From Cholesterol Drugs: Study Shows More Would Qualify for Statin Treatment if Levels of C-Reactive Protein Are ConsideredYou may recall that the JUPITER trial (discussed previously in a Heart Scan Blog post) studied the cardiovascular event risk in people with "normal" LDL cholesterols (calculated, of course, not measured) of 130 mg/dl or less, along with increased c-reactive protein, a crude inflammatory measure, of 2.0 mg/dl or greater. A 54% (relative) reduction in cardiovascular events occured in the group taking Crestor 20 mg per day.What I see is a confluence of events that have brought us to the "statin drugs are necessary for everybody" mentality: --The low-fat diet advice of the last 40 years has increased non-fat or low-fat foods that increase LDL, since removing fat from the diet provokes small LDL particle production and increases the inflammatory measure, c-reactive protein (CRP). --The proliferation of "healthy whole grains" in the diet have also caused an enormous boom in small LDL particles, which is interpreted to the uninformed as "high cholesterol." It has also provoked CRP substantially. --The advice to reduce salt intake has brought a broad re-emergence of iodine deficiency. When thyroid hormone production flags due to lack of iodine, LDL cholesterol (both large and small) increase. --Our lives, which are increasingly conducted indoors, have worsened the already substantial vitamin D deficiency. While deficiency of vitamin D primarily reduces HDL cholesterol and increases triglycerides, it can also cause an increase in small LDL and a large increase in CRP. In other words, a collection of events have converged to provide the appearance of high LDL cholesterol and high CRP. This creates the appearance of a "need" for statin drugs. The JUPITER trial now exploits both the LDL-reducing and CRP-decreasing effects of statins.I view the foisting of Crestor via the JUPITER argument on the public as taking full advantage of the helpless situation many Americans find themselves in: Reduce fat intake, eat more healthy whole grains and . . . cholesterol and CRP skyrocket! "You need Crestor! See, I told you it was genetic," says the doctor after attending the nice AstraZeneca-sponsored drug dinner. The notion of using a drug like Crestor to suppress inflammatory patterns is absurd. There are far better, easier, cheaper ways to achieve this goal, along with dramatic reduction in cardiovascular risk. But, to the ignorant, the helpless, or non-compliant with real change in diet and lifestyle, then Crestor does serve a purpose. I can only hope that the excessive pushing of statin drugs on the public will sooner or later trigger a revolt.
Dangerous mis-information on vitamin D 16. January 2009 William Davis (12) Please be aware of the ignorant propagating information they have no business talking about. This is one such example, a newsletter from pop exercise guru, Denise Austin. Although I'm sure she means well, I have a problem with people who have little to no experience acting as experts, often simply repeating something they heard or read somewhere else. This has become particular problem with the internet, in which bad information can get repeated thousands of times, gaining a veil of "truth" through its repetition. I don't mean to In search of wheat: Emmer Toggle navigation Home Blog Home Archive Join Now Log in In search of wheat: Emmer 23. June 2010 William Davis (13) While einkorn is a 14-chromosome ancient wheat (containing the so-called "A" genome), emmer is a 28-chromosome wheat (containing the "A" and "B" genomes, the "B" likely contributed by goat grass 9000 years ago). Both einkorn and emmer originally grew wild in the Fertile Crescent, allowing Neolithic Natufians to harvest the wild grasses with stone sickles and grind the seeds into porridge.Having tested einkorn with only a modest rise in blood sugar but without the gastrointestinal or neurological effects I experienced with conventional whole wheat bread, I next tested bread made with emmer grain. The emmer grain was ground just like the other two grains, cardiac dietitian Margaret Pfeiffer doing all the work of grinding and baking. Margaret added nothing but water, yeast, and a little salt. The emmer rose a little more than einkorn, but not to the degree of conventional whole wheat. I tested my blood sugar beforehand: 89 mg/dl. I then ate 4 oz of the emmer bread. It tasted very similar to conventional whole wheat, but not as nutty as einkorn. Also not as heavy as einkorn, only slightly heavier than conventional whole wheat. One hour later, blood sugar: 147 mg/dl. I felt slightly queasy for about 2-3 hours, but that was the end of it. No abdominal cramps, no sleep disturbance or crazy dreams, no nausea, no change in ability to concentrate. I asked four other wheat-sensitive people to try the emmer bread. Likewise, nobody reacted negatively (though nobody tested blood sugar). So it seems to me, based on this small, unscientific experience, that ancient einkorn (A) and emmer (AB) wheat seem to act like carbohydrates, similar to, say, rice or quinoa, but lack many of the other adverse effects induced by conventional wheat. Modern wheat , Triticum aestivum, contains variations on the "A," "B," and "D" genomes, the "D" contributed by hybridization with Triticum tauschii at about the same time that emmer wheat hybridization occurred. It is likely that proteins coded by the "D" genome are the source of most of the problems with wheat products: immune, neurologic, gastrointestinal destruction, airway inflammation (asthma), increase in appetite, etc. This is consistent with observations made in studies that attempt to pinpoint the gliadin proteins that trigger celiac, the area in which much of this research originates. If I ever would like an indulgence of cookies or cupcakes, I think that I will order some more einkorn grain from Eli Rogosa. Related posts In search of wheat: Emmer While einkorn is a 14-chromosome ancient wheat (containing the so-called "A" genome), emmer is a 28-... Lipoprotein(a) Research Foundation There is no longer any doubt that lipoprotein(a) is a major causal factor in heart disease: Meta-ana... In search of wheat: Another einkorn experience Lisa is a trained dietitian. Unlike many of her colleagues, she has "seen the light" and realized th... Comments (13) - Stephan 6/23/2010 5:24:11 PM | Thanks for subjecting yourself to these experiments! Very interesting. I have a friend who reacts poorly to wheat but tolerates spelt. Anonymous 6/23/2010 5:35:44 PM | Wheat is eaten everywhere in the world. I'd hope GM crop scientists design a variety which can solve this problem. k 6/24/2010 2:40:27 AM | If I am not mistaken, corn is also the result of the domestication of wild grasses existing some 8,000 years ago. Fooling with mother nature put us on a collision course with consequences. Anne 6/25/2010 2:25:31 AM | My concern is that the body could be reacting without symptoms. Could these ancient grains cause inflammation even though there is no obvious reaction? I have lived 7 years without gluten and have no desire to add it back to my diet. Before I eliminated gluten I was very ill. It is not worth the risk to me. Anonymous 6/25/2010 4:11:10 AM | Dr. Davis,In your experience, in terms of small LDL and the like, what's better: a high peak of 150 that's brought down relatively quickly or a lower peak, but extended over a longer duration?Thanks,David Dr. William Davis 6/25/2010 3:25:38 PM | Anne--Please don't interpret these casual observations to mean that we should eat einkorn. My goal with this little experience is to gain an understanding of where along the way of wheat's 10,000+ year human consumption history did things go wrong. It seems to me that humans could have gotten away with eating einkorn much more freely, with fewer health problems than with modern wheat. I still would like to know where the extreme adverse effects were acquired, however. I suspect this occured in the 1960s and 1970s with the hybridization experiments conducted in Mexico. more on that later. Dr. William Davis 6/25/2010 3:26:15 PM | Anon--No data. I suspect that the high peak is worse, but that is based on no formal data. Anonymous 6/26/2010 9:48:57 AM | FODMAPs comprise a monosaccharide (fructose), a disaccharide (lactose), oligosaccharides (fructans and galactans), and polyols.In one study, as obese people lose weight, the balance between the Firmicutes and the Bacteroidetes changes - the latter increasing in abundance as an overweight person gets slimmer. Fructans, found in wheat, are fermented by bacteria in the large intestine into short chain fatty acids.Besides human metabolism, the digestion of wheat is also affected by how it is metabolized by the particular intestinal flora inhabiting a person.Sources:Evidence-based dietary management of functional gastrointestinal symptoms: The FODMAP approachAn obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvestFood tables: fructoseFructose in the diet appears to be even more dangerous in the presence of trans-fats.Source:High Levels of Fructose, Trans Fats Lead to Significant Liver Disease, Says Study"The investigators found that mice fed the normal calorie chow diet remained lean and did not have fatty liver disease. Mice fed high calorie diets (trans-fat alone or a combination of trans-fat and high fructose) became obese and had fatty liver disease."Interestingly, it was only the group fed the combination of trans-fat and high fructose which developed the advanced fatty liver disease which had fibrosis," says Dr. Kohli. "This same group also had increased oxidative stress in the liver, increased inflammatory cells, and increased levels of plasma oxidative stress markers."" Tom Moertel 6/26/2010 7:47:08 PM | Your experience with einkorn and emmer is interesting. They do not seem to cause you the problems that wheat does, and that evidence supports the theory that they are less harmful than wheat. But the same evidence makes another theory equally plausible: that foods such as wheat harm you through pathways that form only through repeated exposure. Under this theory, einkorn and emmer could be just as harmful as wheat but, being novel to your diet, haven't had enough time for their pathways to form.It would be interesting, then, to learn what happens if you were to incorporate einkorn or emmer into your diet more regularly. carrmh37 6/27/2010 1:48:06 AM | This abstract would seem to support your view that it may be a modern phenomenon.Journal of Medicinal FoodEffects of Short-Term Consumption of Bread Obtained by an Old Italian Grain Variety on Lipid, Inflammatory, and Hemorheological Variables: An Intervention Studyhttp://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jmf.2009.0092Michael Anya 9/9/2010 11:45:05 AM | Naturopath David Getoff recently did a podcast on this subject, it is worth listening to: http://naturopath4you.com/mp3s/Gluten%202010%20Final.MP3 lindaharper 9/11/2010 8:47:02 PM | Just wondering if you have experimented with fermenting the wheat or sprouting wheat and then drying it to make bread. I've read that making bread through this method helps celiac problems and wondered if there is a connection since soaking and/or sprouting neutralizes the phytic acid and supposedly aids in digestion and keeps blood sugars from rising as much. Janet Creamer 11/30/2012 3:07:09 AM | Wondering if there is a difference in European wheat types verses American. I have illness, vomiting and nausea when I consume wheat here in the US. But when I tried it in France, Germany and Switzerland, I did not have any problems. I thought it might be the way US wheat is processed, but it might be the wheat type, as well. Thank you, Janet Creamer Add comment Comment Preview Name * E-mail * Comment * Preview Notify me when new comments are added The captcha text was not valid. Please try again.
In search of wheat: Emmer 23. June 2010 William Davis (13) While einkorn is a 14-chromosome ancient wheat (containing the so-called "A" genome), emmer is a 28-chromosome wheat (containing the "A" and "B" genomes, the "B" likely contributed by goat grass 9000 years ago). Both einkorn and emmer originally grew wild in the Fertile Crescent, allowing Neolithic Natufians to harvest the wild grasses with stone sickles and grind the seeds into porridge.Having tested einkorn with only a modest rise in blood sugar but without the gastrointestinal or neurological effects I experienced with conventional whole wheat bread, I next tested bread made with emmer grain. The emmer grain was ground just like the other two grains, cardiac dietitian Margaret Pfeiffer doing all the work of grinding and baking. Margaret added nothing but water, yeast, and a little salt. The emmer rose a little more than einkorn, but not to the degree of conventional whole wheat. I tested my blood sugar beforehand: 89 mg/dl. I then ate 4 oz of the emmer bread. It tasted very similar to conventional whole wheat, but not as nutty as einkorn. Also not as heavy as einkorn, only slightly heavier than conventional whole wheat. One hour later, blood sugar: 147 mg/dl. I felt slightly queasy for about 2-3 hours, but that was the end of it. No abdominal cramps, no sleep disturbance or crazy dreams, no nausea, no change in ability to concentrate. I asked four other wheat-sensitive people to try the emmer bread. Likewise, nobody reacted negatively (though nobody tested blood sugar). So it seems to me, based on this small, unscientific experience, that ancient einkorn (A) and emmer (AB) wheat seem to act like carbohydrates, similar to, say, rice or quinoa, but lack many of the other adverse effects induced by conventional wheat. Modern wheat , Triticum aestivum, contains variations on the "A," "B," and "D" genomes, the "D" contributed by hybridization with Triticum tauschii at about the same time that emmer wheat hybridization occurred. It is likely that proteins coded by the "D" genome are the source of most of the problems with wheat products: immune, neurologic, gastrointestinal destruction, airway inflammation (asthma), increase in appetite, etc. This is consistent with observations made in studies that attempt to pinpoint the gliadin proteins that trigger celiac, the area in which much of this research originates. If I ever would like an indulgence of cookies or cupcakes, I think that I will order some more einkorn grain from Eli Rogosa.